Title One: Felonies and Circumstances which affect criminal liability Flashcards

Question

Q: On his way home from the office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant death. Is XX liable for ZZ’s death? Explain briefly.

Answer 1

A (Suggested): Yes, XX is liable for ZZ’s death because his acts of pulling a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ’s jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latter’s death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural and logicalconsequence of XX’s felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1036).

Answer 2

Aberratio ictus * In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on someone else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. * Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important because the legal effects are not the same. In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended victim and also giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. To be more specific, let us take for example A and B.AandBareenemies.AssoonasAsawBatthe distance, A shot at B. However, because of poor aim, it was not B who was hit but C. You can readily see that there is only one single act—the act of firing at B. In so far as B is concerned, the crime at least is attempted homicide or attempted murder, as the case may be, if there is any qualifying circumstance. As far as the third party C is concerned, if C were killed, the crime is homicide. If C was only wounded, the crime is only physical injuries. You cannot have attempted or frustrated homicide or murder as far as C is concerned, because as far as he is concerned, there is no intent to kill. As far as that other victim is concerned, only physical injuries— serious or less serious or slight. If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you cannot complex; you will have one prosecution for the attempted homicide or murder, and another prosecution for slight physical injuries for the innocent party. But if the innocent party was seriously injured or less seriously injured, then you have another grave or less grave felony resulting from the same act which gave rise to attempted homicide or murder against B; hence, a complex crime. In other words, aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period. This is the legal effect. The only time when a complex crime may not result in aberratio ictus is when one of the resulting felonies is a light felony. * A:All three instances under paragraph 1, Article 4 are the product of dolo. In aberratio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem, never think of these as the product of culpa. They are always the result of an intended felony, and, hence dolo. You cannot have these situations out of criminal negligence. The crime committed is attempted homicide or attempted murder, not homicide through reckless imprudence.

Answer 3

**Error in personae** * In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. There was really a mistake in identity. * This is very important because Article 49 applies only in a case of error in personae and not in a case of aberratio ictus. * In Article 49, when the crime intended is more serious than the crime actually committed or vice versa, whichever crime carries the lesser penalty, that penalty will be the one imposed. But it will be imposed in the maximum period. For instance, the offender intended to commit homicide, but what was actually committed was parricide because the person killed by mistake was somebody related to him within the degree of relationship in parricide. In such a case, the offender will be charged with parricide, but the penalty that would be imposed will be that of homicide. This is because under Article 49, the penalty for the lesser crime will be the one imposed, whatever crime the offender is prosecuted under. In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended. **Illustrations:** A thought of killing B. He positioned himself at one corner where B usually passes. When a figure resembling B was approaching, A hid and when that figure was near him, he suddenly hit him with a piece of wood on the nape, killing him. But it turned out that it was his own father. The crime committed is parricide, although what was intended was homicide. Article 49, therefore, will apply because out of a mistake in identity, a crime was committed different from that which was intended. In another instance, A thought of killing B. Instead of B, C passed. A thought that he was B, so he hit C on the neck, killing the latter. Just the same the crime intended to be committed is homicide and what was committed is actually homicide, Article 49 does not apply. Here, error in personae is of no effect. How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender? Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in personae is not a mitigating circumstance.

Answer 4

Praeter intentionem In People vs. Gacogo, 53 Phil 524, two persons quarreled. They had fist blows. The other started to run away and Gacogo went after him, struck him with a fist blow at the back of the head. Because the victim was running, he lost balance, fell on the pavement and his head struck the cement pavement. He suffered cerebral hemorrhage. Although Gacogo claimed that he had no intention of killing the victim, his claim is useless. Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not have talk of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that the victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for homicide for the death of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, that is, “that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.” This is the consequence of praeter intentionem. In short, praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. If there is no disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, this circumstance cannot be availed of. It cannot be a case of praeter intentionem because the intention ofa person is determined by the means resorted to by him in committing the crime. Illustrations: A stabbed his friend when they had a drinking spree. While they were drinking, they had some argument about a basketball game and they could not agree, so he stabbed him eleven times. His defense is that he had no intention of killing his friend. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. It was held that the fact 11 wounds were inflicted on A’s friend is hardly compatible with the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. In another instance, the accused was a homosexual. The victim ridiculed or humiliated him while he was going to the restroom. He was so irritated that he just stabbed the victim at the neck with a lady’s comb with a pointed handle, killing the victim. His defense was that he did not intend to kill him. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that of killing him. The contention was rejected, because of the instrument used was pointed. The part of the body wherein it was directed was the neck which is a vital part of the body. In praeter intentionem, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law, intent of the offender is determined on the basis employed by him and the manner in which he committed the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is in his mind; it is disclosed in the manner in which he committed the crime. In still another case, the accused entered the store of a Chinese couple, to commit robbery. They hogtied the Chinaman and his wife. Because the wife was so talkative, one of the offenders got a pan de sal and placed it in her mouth. But because the woman was trying to wiggle from the bondage, the pan de sal slipped through her throat. She died because of suffocation. The offenders were convicted for robbery with homicide because there was a resulting death, although their intention was only to rob. They were given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, “that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.” There was really no intention to bring about the killing, because it was the pan de sal that they put into the mouth. Had it been a piece of rag, it would be different. In that case, the Supreme Court gave the offenders the benefit of praeter intentionem as a mitigating circumstance. The means employed is not capable of producing death if only the woman chewed the pan de sal. A man raped a young girl. The young girl was shouting so the man placed his hand on the mouth and nose of the victim. He found out later that the victim was already dead; she died of suffocation. The offender begged that he had no intention of killing the girl and that his only intention was to prevent her from shouting. The Supreme Court rejected the plea saying that a person who is suffocated may eventually die. Do the offender was prosecuted for the serious crime of rape with homicide and was not given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13. Differentiating this first case with the case of the Chinaman and his wife, it would seem that the difference lies in the means employed by the offender. In praeter inentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the act of the offender. If the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply. For example, if A gave B a karate blow in the throat, there is no praeter intentionem because the blow to the throat can result in death.So also, if A tried to intimidate B by poking a gun at the latter’s back, and B died of cardiac arrest, A will be prosecuted for homicide but will be given the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem. In Ramos-Andan v. People (2006) the court said that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may not be availed of when fraud is employed.

Answer 5

**Par. 2 Impossible Crime** Requisites: 1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property. 2. There was criminal intent. 3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means are employed. 4. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of special law. * Impossible crime occurs when there is: 1. inherent impossibility to commit the crime 2. inadequate means to consummate the crime 3. ineffectual means to consummate the crime * Impossible crime - The crime committed is impossible crime if the offense sought to be committed is factually or legally impossible. Killing a dead person is impossible crime because of legal impossibility. Putting the hand inside an empty pocket with intention to steal a wallet is impossible crime because of factual impossibility (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992). Kidnapping for ransom consummates at the precise moment when the victim was abducted. Receiving ransom payment is not an element of this crime. What is important is that the victim was kidnapped for purpose of ransom. Since the crime is already consummated, there is no basis to say that it is impossible to commit this crime (People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 95322) Moreover, kidnapping is a crime against liberty and not against person or property. Firing a gun at the unoccupied bedroom with intention to kill a victim constitutes impossible crime because it is factually impossible to kill a victim, who was not in the bedroom (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992). But throwing grenade at the unoccupied bedroom, where the victim is supposed to be sleeping, constitutes arson if the bedroom was burned as a consequence IMPOSSIBLE CRIME * PURPOSE OF PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES – is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal (1) Inherent impossibility: The act intended by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. (2) There must be either: (a) Legal impossibility –The intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: (i) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (ii) there is intention to perform the physical act; (iii) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (iv) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.[Intod v. CA] (b) Physical or factual impossibility – Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. (3) In the Philippines, impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense but an act penalized in itself. (4) Since the offender in an impossible crime has already performed the acts for the execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. There is no frustrated impossible crime either, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.

Answer 6

Impossible crime An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. * ANSWERS 1. 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. It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been a crime against chastity. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape, meaning to say, there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under the circumstances of seduction. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony.Under Article 4, paragraph 2, impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. It is therefore important to know what are the crimes against Title VIII, against persons and those against property under Title X. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes. 3. This is not an impossible crime. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. But in a department store, there is plenty to steal, not only the money inside the vault or safe. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. There are other things that he could take. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery, assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen. 4. No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition, the poison would have taken effect. Hence, it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. The crime committed is frustrated parricide. If it were a case of poisoning, an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. Under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have been realized. But if due to the quantity of the vetsin, sugar or soda, the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized, then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. It would be a case of physical injuries, if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage. 5. It is not an impossible crime. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. 6. No. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. If they were new, it would have fired. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender, and therefore, an attempted homicide. But if let us say, when he started squeezing the trigger, he did not realize that the firearm was empty. There was not bullet at all. There is an impossible crime, because under any and all circumstance, an unloaded firearm will never fire. Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?” Then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If the facts really constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest that an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime so far by the act done by him. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the Revised Penal Code. 7. No. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime, it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. In other words, this idea of an impossible crime is one of last resort, just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code. If the question is “Is an impossible crime committed?”, the answer is yes, because on the basis of the facts stated, an impossible crime is committed. But to play safe, add another paragraph: However, the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort.

Answer 7

**MODIFIED CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME** * Intod v. CA (1992): (a) In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. (b) It so happened that the intended victim did not come home that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. (c) Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. (d) CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. (e) As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house. In a way, the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA, et. al., 285 SCRA 52. In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house. Somehow, the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed, considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime, and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. Some asked questions, was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and, thus, unknown to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose, instead of using firearms, the culprits set fire on the intended victim’s house, believing that she was there when in fact she was not, would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime? * Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act, which would have constituted a crime against persons or property, could not and did not constitute another felony. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended, the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit: Article 4. Criminal liability—Criminal liability shall be incurred: By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 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. * Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony, but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property, the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted form the wrongful act done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender”(Article 59), regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property. * There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is, where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a redundancy or duplicity would be perpetrated. In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim; this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. But whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court has spoken, we have to respect its ruling.

Answer 8

**DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT, DISCERNMENT AND MOTIVE** * Intent – is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It establishes the nature and extent of culpability in intentional felonies. * Discernment – is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It is integral to the element of intelligence, NOT intent. * Motive – it is the moving power which impels one to do an act (ex. vengeance). Generally, it is not an essential element of a crime; hence, it need not be proved for purposes of conviction (except in certain cases enumerated below). WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL LIABILITY (1) When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno (1993)]) (2) When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant. (3) When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the crime. (4) When the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt. (5) When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons. (6) When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial. (a) Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the accused, especially where there is doubt as to the identity of the accused. [People v. Hassan (1988)] (b) Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. [People v. Delos Santos] (c) In the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. [People vs. Galano] Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of intent, merely intelligence [People v. Cordova (1993)]. Thus, discernment is necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa.

Answer 9

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME (1) INTERNAL ACTS (2) EXTERNALACTS (a) Preparatory Acts * Acts tending toward the crime. * Ordinarily not punished except when considered by law as independent crimes (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of picklocks) * Proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony are not punishable except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies. * These acts do not yet constitute even the first stage of the acts of execution. * Intent not yet disclosed. * Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get a knife. (b) Acts of Execution * Usually overt acts with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense. * Punishable under the RPC. * Illustration: Ernie stabs Bert * *A commission of the felony is deemed commenced when the following are present:** (1) There are external acts. (2) Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

Answer 10

Indeterminate Offense – It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its

Answer 11

ARTICLE 5. Duty of the Court in Connection with Acts Which Should Be Repressed but Which are Not Covered by the Law, and in Cases of Excessive Penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. * **NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT** When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. Article 5 covers two situations: The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. The proper judgment is acquittal, but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of the crime, the judge should impose the law. The most that he could do is recommend to the Chief Executive to grand executive clemency.

Answer 12

Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a Felony (1) The manner of committing the crime; (2) The elements of the crime; and (3) The nature of the crime itself. These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint whether the crime is still in its attempted, frustrated or consummated stage.

Answer 13

ARTICLE 6. Consummated,, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. — Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. * STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. This does not apply to crimes punished under special laws. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages. The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division.

Answer 14

The Manner of Committing the Crime * Formal Crimes - consummated in one instant, no attempt. (i) Ex. Slander and false testimony (ii) There can be no attempt, because between the thought and the deed, there is no chain of acts that can be severed. Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. For example, in oral defamation, there is no attempted oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation; it is always in the consummated stage. So also, in illegal exaction under Article 213 is a crime committed when a public officer who is authorized to collect taxes, licenses or impose for the government, shall demand an amount bigger than or different from what the law authorizes him to collect. Under sub- paragraph a of Article 213 on illegal exaction, the law uses the word “demanding.” Mere demanding of anamount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime, whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. Payment of the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation of the crime. * **_The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony._** Literally, under the article, if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized, then the crime is already in the frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution—there is something yet to be performed—but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, then you have an attempted felony. You will notice that the felony begins when the offender performs an overt act. Not any act will mark the beginning of a felony, and therefore, if the act so far being done does not begin a felony, criminal liability correspondingly does not begin. In criminal law, there is such a thing as preparatory act. These acts do not give rise to criminal liability. **_Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal by overt act._** (i) Ex. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121) and corruption of minors (Art. 340) * Felony by omission (i) There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because the offender does not execute acts, he omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do. * Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement. (i) In bribery, the manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. (ii) When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an attempt. * Material Crimes – have three stages of execution. Thus, in determining the stage of some crimes, the manner of execution becomes pivotal in determining the end of the subjective phase, i.e. once the offender performs the act in the manner provided for in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS EXECUTION.

Answer 15

1) ATTEMPTED STAGE Elements: (a) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (b) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; (c) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Overt Act – Some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission. Attempted and Frustrated Felonies – The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies in: whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony. (a) Marks the commencement of the subjective phase: (b) Subjective phase - That portion of the acts constituting a crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts including their (act’s) natural course (c) If between those two points, the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is merely an attempt. (d) Desistance – is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law encourages a person to desist from committing a crime. (e) But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted in a felony,(f) The offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about by his act. (g) What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felonies arising from his act. Note: Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. (a) If the felony is already in its frustrated stage, desistance will NOT negate criminal liability. (b) In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word “directly.” (c) The word “directly” emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender, not the felony he has in his mind. (d) There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime, but which are, by themselves, already criminal offenses like in the case of People v. Lamahang (1935) where the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter, he can only be prosecuted for trespass and not robbery. CASE: People v. Campuhan (2000):The mother of the 4- year-old victim caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost raping her daughter. The hymen of the victim was still intact. However, since it was decided in People v. Orita that entry into labia is considered rape even without rupture and full penetration of the hymen, a question arises whether what transpired was attempted or consummated rape. Held: (a) There was only attempted rape. (b) Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis is already rape. (c) Touching should be understood as inherently part of entry of penis penetration and not mere touching, in the ordinary sense, of the pudendum. (d) Requires entry into the labia, even if there be no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for consummated rape. (e) Where entry into the labia has not been established, the crime amounts to an attempted rape. (f) The prosecution did not prove that Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate victim’s vagina because the kneeling position of the accused obstructed the mother’s view of the alleged sexual contact. The testimony of the victim herself claimed that penis grazed but did not penetrate her organ. (g) There was only a shelling of the castle but no bombardment of the drawbridge yet.

Answer 16

FRUSTRATED STAGE Elements: (a) The offender performs all the acts of execution; (b) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (c) But the felony is not produced; (d) By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (1) The end of the subjective phase and the beginning of the objective phase. (2) Objective phase – the result of the acts of execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime. (3) If the subjective and objective phases have been passed there is a consummated felony. * CASE: People v. Listerio (2000): Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they met a group composed of men who blocked their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from behind. Jeonito’s brother, Marlon, was hit on the head. Held: (1) The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell. Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled. (2) A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. (3) In other words, to be an attempted crime, the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform. If he has performed all the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.

Answer 17

A: 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. An overt act is that act which if allowed to continue its natural course would definitely result into a felony. In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word “directly.” This is significant. In the attempted stage, the acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may just be an ingredient of another crime. The word “directly” emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender, no the felony he has in his mind. In criminal law, you are not allowed to speculate, not to imagine what crime is intended, but apply the provisions of the law to the facts given. When a person starts entering the dwelling of another, that act is already trespassing. But the act of entering is an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. You could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when he has already completed all acts performed by him directly leading to robbery. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what he may have planned to commit. In law, the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended to be committed. In US vs. Namaja, the accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store. He was already able to detach two panels. To a layman, the only conclusion that will come to your mind is that this fellow started to enter the store to steal something. He would not be there just to sleep there. But in criminal law, since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter. He can only be prosecuted for trespass. The removal of the paneling is just an attempt to trespass, not an attempt to rob. Although Namaja was prosecuted for attempted robbery, the Supreme Court held it is only attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the wood panel. There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime, but which are, by themselves, already criminal offenses.In abduction, your desire may lead to acts of lasciviousness. In so far the woman being carried is concerned, she may already be the victim of lascivious acts. The crime is not attempted abduction but acts of lasciviousness. You only hold him liable for an attempt, so far as could be reasonably linked to the overt act done by him. Do not go far and imagine what you should do.

Answer 18

A:The act done by him of entering through an opening not intended for the purpose is only qualified trespass. Qualified trespass because he did so by cutting through the screen. There was force applied in order to enter. Other than that, under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code, illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. Thus, he can be prosecuted for two crimes: 1. qualified trespass to dwelling, and 2. illegal possession of picklocks and similar tools; not complex because one is not necessary means to commit the other.

Answer 19

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. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act. What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felonies constituting his act. Illustrations: A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. But B’s wound was not mortal. What A then did was to approach B, and told B, “Now you are dead, I will kill you.” But A took pity and kept the revolver and left. The crime committed is attempted homicide and not physical injuries, because there was an intention to kill. The desistance was with the second shot and would not affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit B. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first. In another instance, A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her but their status were not the same. One evening, after A saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep, he entered the house of B through the window to abuse her. He, however, found out that B was nude so he lost interest and left. Can A be accused of attempted rape? No, because there was desistance, which prevented the crime from being consummated. The attempted stage was erased because the offender desisted after having commenced the commission of the felony. The attempted felony is erased by desistance because the offender spontaneously desisted from pursuing the acts of execution. It does not mean, however, that there is no more felony committed. He may be liable for a consummated felony constituted by his act of trespassing. When A entered the house through thewindow, which is not intended for entrance, it is always presumed to be against the will of the owner. If the offender proceeded to abuse the woman, but the latter screamed, and A went out of the window again, he could not be prosecuted for qualified trespass. Dwelling is taken as an aggravating circumstance so he will be prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated by dwelling. In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria involved: 1. The manner of committing the crime; 2. The elements of the crime; and 3. The nature of the crime itself.

Answer 20

For example, let us take the crime of bribery. Can the crime of frustrated bribery be committed? No. (Incidentally, the common concept of bribery is that it is the act of one who corrupts a public officer. Actually, bribery is the crime of the receiver, not the giver. The crime of the giver is corruption of public official. Bribery is the crime of the public officer who in consideration of an act having to do with his official duties would receive something, or accept any promise or present in consideration thereof.) The confusion arises from the fact that this crime requires two to commit—the giver and the receiver. The law called the crime of the giver as corruption of public official and the receiver as bribery. Giving the idea that these are independent crimes, but actually, they cannot arise without the other. Hence, if only one side of the crime is present, only corruption, you cannot have consummated corruption without the corresponding consummated bribery. There cannot be a consummated bribery without the corresponding consummated corruption. If you have bribery only, it is only possible in the attempted stage. If you have corruption only, it is possible only in the attempted stage. A corruptor gives money to a public officer for the latter not to prosecute him. The public officer received the money but just the same, arrested him. He received the money to have evidence of corruption. Do not think that because the corruptor has already delivered the money, he has already performed all the acts of execution and, therefore, the corruption is already beyond the attempted stage. That thinking does away with the concept of the crime that it requires two to commit. The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an attempt. It is not possible for him to perform all the acts of execution because in the first place, the receiver has no intention of being corrupted. Similarly, when a public officer demands a consideration by official duty, the corruptor turns down the demand, there is no bribery. If the one to whom the demand was made pretended to give, but he had reported the matter to higher authorities, the money was marked and this was delivered to the public officer. If the public officer was arrested, do not think that because the public officer already had the money in his possession, the crime is already frustrated bribery, it is only attempted bribery. This is because the supposed corruptor has no intention to corrupt. In short, there is no meeting of the minds. On the other hand, if there is a meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. This leaves out the frustrated stage because of the manner of committing the crime. But indirect bribery is always consummated. This is because the manner of consummating the crime does not admit of attempt or frustration.You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, when it takes two to commit the crime, there could hardly be a frustrated stage. For instance, the crime of adultery. There is frustrated adultery. Only attempted or consummated. This is because it requires the link of two participants. If that link is there, the crime is consummated; if such link is absent, there is only an attempted adultery. There is no middle ground when the link is there and when the link is absent. There are instances where an intended felony could already result from the acts of execution already done. Because of this, there are felonies where the offender can only be determined to have performed all the acts of execution when the resulting felony is already accomplished. Without the resulting felony, there is no way of determining whether the offender has already performed all the acts of execution or not. It is in such felonies that the frustrated stage does not exist because without the felony being accomplished, there is no way of stating that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution. An example of this is the crime of rape. The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. Once there is penetration already, no matter how slight, the offense is consummated. For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. This was the ruling in the case of People vs. Orita. In rape, it requires the connection of the offender and the offended party. No penetration at all, there is only an attempted stage. Slightest penetration or slightest connection, consummated. You will notice this from the nature of the crime requiring two participants. This is also true in the crime of arson. It does not admit of the frustrated stage. In arson, the moment any particle of the premises intended to be burned is blackened, that is already an indication that the premises have begun to burn. It does not require that the entire premises be burned to consummate arson. Because of that, the frustrated stage of arson has been eased out. The reasoning is that one cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. If it has not begun to burn, that means that the offender has yet to perform all the acts of execution. On the other hand, the moment it begins to burn, the crime is consummated. Actually, the frustrated stage is already standing on the consummated stage except that the outcome did not result. As far as the stage is concerned, the frustrated stage overlaps the consummated stage. Because of this reasoning by the Court of Appeals in People vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court followed the analysis that one cannot say that the offender in the crime of arson has already performed all the acts of execution which would produce the arson as a consequence, unless and until a part of the premises had begun to burn. In US vs. Valdez, the offender had tried to burn the premises by gathering jute sacks laying these inside the room. He lighted these, and as soon as the jute sacks began to burn, he ran away. The occupants of the room put out the fire. The court held that what was committed was frustrated arson. This case was much the way before the decision in the case of People vs. Garcia was handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no frustrated arson. But even then, the analysis in the case of US vs. Valdez is correct. This is because, in determining whether thefelony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, the court does not only consider the definition under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, or the stages of execution of the felony. When the offender has already passed the subjective stage of the felony, it is beyond the attempted stage. It is already on the consummated or frustrated stage depending on whether a felony resulted. If the felony did not result, frustrated. The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. On the subjective phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the subjective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. If the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a consequence, it is consummated. The trouble is that, in the jurisprudence recognizing the objective phase and the subjective phase, the Supreme Court considered not only the acts of the offender, but also his belief. That although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime, Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed. This was applied in the case of US vs. Valdez, where the offender, having already put kerosene on jute sacks, lighted the same, he had no reason not to believe that the fire would spread, so he ran away. That act demonstrated that in his mind, he believed that he has performed all the acts of execution and that it is only a matter of time that the premises will burn. The fact that the occupant of the other room came out and put out the fire is a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The ruling in the case of US vs. Valdez is still correct. But in the case of People vs. Garcia, the situation is different. Here, the offender who put the torch over the house of the offended party, the house being a nipa hut, the torch which was lighted could easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. But the torch burned out. In that case, you cannot say that the offender believed that he had performed all the acts of execution. There was not even a single burn of any instrument or agency of the crime. The analysis made by the Court of Appeals is still correct: that they could not demonstrate a situation where the offender has performed all the acts of execution to bring about the crime of arson and the situation where he has not yet performed all the acts of execution. The weight of authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blackened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. It is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, bas begun to burn. There are also certain crimes that do not admit of the attempted or frustrated stage, like physical injuries. One of the known commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime of physical injuries can be committed in the attempted as well as the frustrated stage. He explained that by going through the definition of an attempted and a frustrated felony under Article 6, if a person was about to give a fist blow to another raises hisarms, but before he could throw a blow, somebody holds that arm, there would be attempted physical injuries. The reason for this is because the offender was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring about physical injuries. On the other hand, he also stated that the crime of physical injuries may be committed in the frustrated stage when the offender was able to throw the blow but somehow, the offended party was able to sidestep away from the blow. He reasoned out that the crime would be frustrated because the offender was able to perform all the acts of execution which would bring about the felony were it not for a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. The explanation is academic. You will notice that under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. Actually, there is no simple crime of physical injuries. You have to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight. If you say physical injuries, you do not know which article to apply. This being so, you could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because you do not know what crime of physical injuries was committed.

Answer 21

The crime committed here is serious physical injuries because of the deformity. When there is deformity, you disregard the healing duration of the wound or the medical treatment required by the wound. In order that in law, a deformity can be said to exist, three factors must concur: The injury should bring about the ugliness; The ugliness must be visible; 3. The ugliness would not disappear through natural healing process. Along this concept of deformity in law, the plastic surgery applied to B is beside the point. In law, what is considered is not the artificial or the scientific treatment but the natural healing of the injury. So the fact that there was plastic surgery applied to B does not relieve the offender from the liability for the physical injuries inflicted. The crime committed is serious physical injuries. It is consummated. In determining whether a felony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, you have to consider the manner of committing the felony, the element of the felony and the nature of the felony itself. There is no real hard and fast rule.

Answer 22

If there is no result, you do not know. Criminal law cannot stand on any speculation or ambiguity; otherwise, the presumption of innocence would be sacrificed. Therefore, the commentator’s opinion cannot stand because you cannot tell what particular physical injuries was attempted or frustrated unless the consequence is there. You cannot classify the physical injuries.

Answer 23

**The Elements of the Crime** (a) Along with the manner of execution, there are crimes wherein the existence of certain elements becomes the factor in determining its consummation. (b) In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. (c) On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. (d) What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. (e) In the crime of abduction, the crucial element is the taking away of the woman with lewd designs. * In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. For the crime of estafa to be consummated, there must bemisappropriation already done, so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. If there is no damage yet, the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted. On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa. If the personal property was received by the offender, this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. If the offender did not receive the personal property, but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s consent, then there is no problem. That cannot be estafa; this is only theft or none at all. In estafa, the offender receives the property; he does not take it. But in receiving the property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well. When you are discussing estafa, do not talk about intent to gain. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of damage. The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. Under American common law, the crime of larceny which is equivalent to out crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. Without that carrying away, the larceny cannot be consummated. In our concept of theft, the offender need not move an inch from where he was. It is not a matter of carrying away. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved, such that he could exercise his own control over the thing. Illustration: I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. A stranger comes inside the room, gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. He can exercise his will over the wallet already, he can drop this on the floor, etc. But as long as the wallet remains on the table, the theft is not yet consummated; there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. If he has started lifting the wallet, it is frustrated. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under, attempted. “Taking” in the concept of theft, simply means exercising control over the thing. If instead of the wallet, the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room, and the wallet is there. While taking the table out of the room, I apprehended him. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet, not the table. The crime is not yet consummated. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concerned, it is the confines of this room that is the container. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room, the taking is not complete.A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. He opened it and found some valuables inside. He took the valuables, put them in his pocket and was arrested. In this case, theft is consummated. But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest, and before he could leave the room, he was apprehended, there is frustrated theft. If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room, as long as the object has not been brought out of that room, or from the perimeter of the compound, the crime is only frustrated. This is the confusion raised in the case of US vs. Dino compared with People vs. Espiritu and People vs. Adio. In US vs. Dino, the accused loaded boxes of rifles on their truck. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor, they were checked at the checkpoint, so they were not able to leave the compound. It was held that what was committed was frustrated theft. In People vs. Espiritu, the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by the military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft. The emphasis, which was erroneously laid in some commentaries, is that, in both cases, the offenders were not liable to pass the checkpoint. But why is it that in one, it is frustrated and in the other, it is consummated? In the case of US vs. Dino, the boxes of rifle were stocked inside the compound of the South Harbor. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned, it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound, the taking is not complete. On the other hand, in the case of People vs. Espiritu, what were taken were hospital linens. These were taken from a warehouse. Hospital linens were taken from the boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it, the control is complete. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control. This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar, the offender, after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is desistance. If the crime is one of theft, the moment he brought it out, it was consummated. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take, the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. As far as the crime committed is concerned, the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft. Illustration: A and B are neighbors. One evening, A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. The crime is consummated theft. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. When the offender succeeded in bringing the coop, it is clear that his will is completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop.Hence, the crime was already consummated, and being consummated, the return of the owner’s property is not desistance anymore. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned. When the receptacle is locked or sealed, and the offender broke the same, in lieu of theft, the crime is robbery with force upon things. However, that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things.

Answer 24

**The Nature of the Crime Itself** (a) In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes involving the taking of human life (parricide, homicide, and murder),it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. (b) Hence, the general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow. * **In crimes involving the taking of human life—parricide, homicide, and murder—in the definition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded.** Under the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow. If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence; it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result. **An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase.** The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage.

Answer 25

**CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE** (1) **Rape** (a) The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. (b) No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution. (c) We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of executionwhen he has effected a penetration. (d) Once there is penetration, no matter how slight it is, the offense is consummated. For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. [People v. Orita] (2) **Arson** ****(a) One cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. (b) The crime of arson is therefore consummated even if only a portion of the wall or any part of the house is burned. The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the damage caused. (People v. Hernandez) **(3) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers** (a) The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. (b) If there is a meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. (c) If there is none, it is only attempted. **(4) Adultery** (a) This requires sexual contact between two participants (b) If that link is present, the crime is consummated. * *5) Physical Injuries** (a) Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. (b) There is no simple crime of physical injuries. There is the need to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight. (c) Thus, one could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because one does not know what degree of physical injury was committed unless it is consummated. (6) **Theft** (a) Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated. (b) Either the thing was taken or not. (c) Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft under the RPC. * **Rule of thumb:** Felonies that do not require any result do not have a frustrated stage.

Answer 26

* **Conspiracy** – exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, RPC). * **Requisites of conspiracy:** (1) Two or more persons come to an agreement. Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons. (2) The agreement pertains to a commission of a felony. (3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. Agreement to effect what has been conceived and determined. **Note**: There must be participation in the criminal resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a person may only make him liable as an accomplice. **General rule**: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable. **Exception:** They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.

Answer 27

ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property. ## Footnote ART. 7: WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated Exception: Even if not consummated, if committed against persons or property Ex: slight physical injuries, theft, alteration of boundary marks, malicious mischief, and intriguing against honor. Note: Only principals and accomplices are liable; accessories are NOT liable even if committed against persons or property.

Answer 28

ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. **CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY** **Two ways for conspiracy to exist:** 1. There is an agreement. 2. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized. Coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement. **Two kinds of conspiracy:** 1. Conspiracy as a crime; and 2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability. **_When conspiracy itself as a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability._** The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition and coup d’ etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit them are punishable.

Answer 29

There is no crime committed. 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. When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co- conspirators become criminally liable. When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is is the agreement. On the other hand, if the co- conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.

Answer 30

This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the co-conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability.

Answer 31

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Ever crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. This was the ruling inPeople vs. Pinto, 204 SCRA 9. Although conspiracy is defined as two or more persons coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it, the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the co- conspirator regarding the commission of the felony. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously, indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective. Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will not consider the same. In People vs. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489, it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or speculations. In Taer vs. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. Do not think that participants are always known to each other.

Answer 32

Illustrations: A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable. A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50,000.00. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on following day. In the evening of that same day, the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. Unfortunately, the police were caught in traffic causing their delay, so that when they reached the place, B had already killed A. In this case, there was no proposal but a conspiracy. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. This is just a preparatory act, and his desistance negates criminal liability. 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. As pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness, the law shall reward him for doing so.” Where there are several persons who participated, like in a killing, and they attacked the victim simultaneously, so much that it cannot be known what participation each one had, all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible. Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal responsibility.

Answer 33

There is collective responsibility here. Without the principle of conspiracy, nobody would be prosecuted; hence, there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim. There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design; thus, acting out a common criminal intent.

Answer 34

The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. In the case of People vs. Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon and offender. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy, all are principals. Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy, a co- conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower. For example, there was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. There, the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. The taxi driver agreed but said, “I will bring you there, and after committing the robbery I will return later.” The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. At most, what he only extended was his cooperation. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice. A, B, and C, under the influence of marijuana, broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. They ransacked the house. A got a colored TV, B saw a camera and took that, and C found a can of salmon and took that. In the crime of robbery with force upon things, the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him. In Siton vs. CA, it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the same quantum of evidence as the felony charged itself although, proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy. It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim; what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring out the victim’s death. (People v. Bulan, 2005)

Answer 35

1. EXPRESSED A(Suggested): There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take his money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, a special complex crime of robbery and homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, both are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of attack prior to the commission of the crime. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. A(Alternative): Only A is liable for robbery with homicide. B spontaneously desisted before all acts of execution were performed. Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable. 2. IMPLIED A: An “implied conspiracy” is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of the crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative of a common criminal objective, they are deemed acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective. The legal effects of implied conspiracy are: 1. Not all those present at the crime scene will be considered conspirators; 2. Only those who participated in the criminal acts during the commission of the crime will be considered co- conspirators;3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.

Answer 36

**Conspiracy to commit** - (a) Treason (Art. 115) (b) Rebellion (Art. 136) (c) Insurrection (Art. 136) (d) Coup d’état, (Art. 136) (e) Sedition (Art. 141) (f) Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, espionage (Art. 186) (g) Illegal association (Art. 147) (h) Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) (i) Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616) (j) Selected acts under the Dangerous Drugs Acts (k) Arson (l) Terrorism (R.A. 9372) **Proposal to commit** – (a) Treason (Art. 115) (b) Coup d’ etat (Art. 136) (c) Rebellion (Art. 136) (d) Inducementnottoanswersummons,appearor be sworn in Congress, etc. (Art. 150) **Rationale**: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.

Answer 37

**CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY**: (a) As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it being sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide to commit it. (b) As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they commit treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held liable for it, and the conspiracy which they had before committing the crime is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a separate offense. **In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.** **General rule**: When the conspiracy is established, all who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his participation is liable equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous. **Exception:** Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other crime which is not part of the conspiracy. **Exception to the Exception**: When the act constitutes a “single indivisible offense.”

Answer 38

* **Proposal to commit a felony** - when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes itsexecution to some other person or persons. [Art. 8, RPC] **Examples:** (1) Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115) and (2) proposal to commit coup d’état, rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136). **Requisites:** (1) That a person has decided to commit a felony; and (2) That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons. **There is no criminal proposal when**: (1) The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony; (2) There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; (3) It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. * Note: It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.

Answer 39

(a) Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or speculations. [People v. Laurio (1991)] (b) Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind as it involves the meeting of the minds and intent of the malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not essential to establish it.[People v. Bello (2004)] (c) To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required. (d) Conspiracy is never presumed; it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. (e) Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship. [People v. Comadre (2004)] (f) While it is mandatory to prove conspiracy by competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show it – it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. [People v. Cenahonon (2007)] (g) Direct proof is not required, as conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It may be established through the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of a felony that all the accused aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another for the attainment of the same objective; and that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. [People v. Talaogan (2008)] (h) **Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy** – Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, their joint purpose, community of interest and in the mode and manner of commission of the offense. [People v. Pangilinan (2003)]

Answer 40

**Distinctions between the liability of a conspirator and that of a member of a band where the crime committed is robbery which is attended by other crimes.** (1) A conspirator is liable only for such other crimes which could be foreseen and which are the natural and logical consequences of the conspiracy. Thus, if the conspiracy is only to rob the victim, rape is not a foreseeable consequence. (People v. Castillo) (2) A member of a band in a robbery cuadrilla, on the other hand, is liable for all assaults, inclusiveof rape and homicide, where he was present when these crimes were being committed but he did not attempt to prevent the same. (Art. 296 (2), RPC). (3) If both conspiracy to rob and cuadrilla are present, both rules may apply, in this manner: (a) If a homicide was committed, the lookout is liable therefore under the conspiracy theory; (b) if a rape was committed and the lookout was present but did not try to prevent it, he will be liable under the cuadrilla rule; and (c) if the lookout was not present when the homicide was committed, he will not be liable for the rape but he will still be liable for the homicide under the conspiracy theory.

Answer 41

**Legal effects of implied conspiracy are:** (a) Not all those present at the crime scene will be considered conspirators; (b) Only those who participated in the criminal acts during the commission of the crime will be considered co-conspirators; (c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator. (d) In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for his own acts. (People v. Bagano) (e) A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. Everyone will be liable for the consequences. (f) One who desisted is not criminally liable. As pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. (g) Do not search for an agreement among participants. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal responsibility. (h) In some exceptional situations, having community of design with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of thehomicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor character. (People v. Nierra)

Answer 42

ARTICLE 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned article. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided. * According to their gravity Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment of penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correctional; and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light? To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. In other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied. If the penalty is a fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Article 9. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Article 26. * In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. After two months, the state loses the right to prosecute unless the running period is suspended. If the offender escapes while in detention after he has been loose, if there was already judgment that was passed, it can be promulgated even if absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. If the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years. If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article 26. It is considered as a correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes.

Answer 43

ARTICLE 10. Offenses Not Subject to the Provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. * General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws. Exceptions: when special law provides otherwise when provision of RPC are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication * Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws: Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime * Note: When the special law adopts the penalties imposed in the RPC i.e. penalties as reclusion perpetua, prision correccional, etc. the provisions of the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stages of execution, degree of participation and attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstance may be applied by necessary implicationArticle 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to Article 10, observe the distinction. In Article 10, there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws.” You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an injustice. If no justice would result, do not give suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to that of the special law. For example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes, because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletorily to avoid an injustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him. In People vs. Rodriguez, it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special law. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code. In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. Hence, two prosecutions can be had: 1. sedition; and 2. illegal possession of firearms. But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a special law. For example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime of theft of large cattle. So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-rustling, is not a special law. It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This was the ruling in People vs. Martinada. The amendments of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act NO. 7659, which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of theRevised Penal Code. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.

Answer 44

**MULTIPLE OFFENDERS:** 1. **RECIDIVSIM** Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to commit crimes A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. [People v. Lagarto (1991)] Requisites: (1) Offender is on trial for an offense (2) He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime (3) Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC (4) Offender is convicted of the new offense Note: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of commission of the crime. [Reyes, The RPC] **2. HABITUALITY (REITERACION)** Basis: same as recidivism Requisites: (1) Accused is on trial for an offense (2) He previously served sentence (a) for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, OR (b) for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense (3) He is convicted of the new offense 3. QUASI-RECIDIVISM * Art. 160, RPC. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. 4. **HABITUAL DELINQUENCY** **Requisites:** (1) Offender had been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification (2) After that conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his release or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said crimes for the second time (3) After his conviction of, or after serving sentence for, the second offense, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his last release or last conviction, he was again convicted of any of said offenses, the third time or oftener. [Art. 62, RPC] Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty: To render more effective social defense and the reformation of habitual delinquents (Reyes, quoting People v. Abuyen)

Answer 45

CONTINUING CRIMES **Continuing crime (continuous or continued)** - A single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Cuello Calon explains the delito continuado in this way: When the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each one of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such delictual acts is called delito continuado. Example: One who on several occasions steals wheat deposited in a granary. Each abstraction constitutes theft, but instead of imposing on the culprit different penalties for each theft committed, he is punished for only one “hurto continuado” for the total sum or value abstracted. **Continuing offense** - A continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.

Answer 46

* Both have a series of acts performed by the offender * Real or Material Plurality- each act performed constitutes a separate crime because each act is generated by a criminal impulse * Continued Crime is the different acts constitute only one crime because all of the acts performed arise from one criminal resolution * CASE:People v. De Leon (1926): a thief who took from a yard of a house two game roosters belonging to two different persons was ruled to have committed only one crime of theft, because there is a unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the offender. The accused was animated by a single criminal impulse.

Answer 47

**A continued crime is not a complex crime.** (a) The offender here does not perform a single act, but a series of acts, and one offense is not a necessary means for continuing the other. (b) Hence, the penalty is not to be imposed in its maximum period.

Answer 48

(a) **A continued crime is different from a transitory crime (moving crime.)** in criminal procedure for purposes of determining venue. (b) When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality, city or province wherein any of the essential ingredients thereof took place. (c) While **Article 48** speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses, those cases involving a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies, were considered by the Supreme Court as a complex crime when it is shown that the act is the product of one single criminal impulse. (d) TIP: If confronted with a problem, the Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse * CASE: People v. Garcia (1980): (a) The accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. (b) Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary, some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. (c) The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. (d) Theactofoneistheactofall. (e) Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. (f) There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. (g) It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons, the Supreme Court considered this as complex. * Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminals should be punished only once, because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse: (a) it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. (b) It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no other provision in the RPC.

Answer 49

Applying the concept of the “continued crime”, the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: (1) People v. Tumlos, (1939): The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time; (2) People v. Jaranilla, (1974): The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time; (3) People v. Sabbun, (1964): The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collected veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such benefits. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse.

Answer 50

**The Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases:** (1) People v. Dichupa, (1961): Two estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts were committed on two different occasions; (2) People v. CIV: Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsity;

Answer 51

In the THEFT cases: The trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine: (a) taking of several things, (b)whether belonging to the same or different owners, (c) at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. * Abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims. Note: The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Art. 10, the RPC shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provides the contrary.

Answer 52

**COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES** **Plurality of Crimes (Concursu de delitos)** (1) Consists of the successive execution (2) by the same individual (3) of different criminal acts (4) for any of which no conviction has yet been declared. **Philosophy behind plural crimes** Through the concept of plural crimes, several crimes are treated as one. The purpose of this is to allow leniency towards the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is imposed in its maximum period. Note: If by complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore.

Answer 53

* PLURALITY OF CRIMES: there is no conviction for any of the crimes committed * RECIDIVISM: there must be conviction by final judgment of the first or prior offense

Answer 54

A Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code.

Answer 55

**Kinds of Plurality of Crimes** (1) **Real or Material Plurality** (a) There are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender. (b) In such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he committed. (2) **Formal or Ideal Plurality** (a) There is but one criminal liability in this kind of plurality. (b) Divided into 3 groups: (i) Complex Crimes - When the offender commits either of the complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of the Code. (ii) Special Complex Crimes - When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed. (iii) Continuing and Continued Crimes - A single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.

Answer 56

COMPLEX CRIMES * Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. * Nature of complex crimes (a) Although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime, in the eyes of the law; and in the conscience of the offender. (b) Even in the case where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is only one. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. * No complex crime when: (1) Two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; (2) Committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others). [Monteverde v. People (2002)]

Answer 57

**TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES** **(1) Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)** A single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. **Requisites:** (a) That only a single act is performed by the offender (b) That the single acts produces: (i) 2 or more grave felonies, or (ii) 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave felonies, or (iii) 2 or more less grave felonies * *(2) Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)** (a) An offense is a necessary means for committing the other. (b) In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must have a single purpose. (c) But: When there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelledby a distinct criminal impulse, hence each will have a separate penalty. **Requisites:** (1) That at least two offenses are committed (2) That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other (3) That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute. **Note: The phrase “necessary means” does not mean “indispensable means”**

Answer 58

* **Single Act**: throwing a hand grenade; a single bullet killing two person * **Several Acts**: Submachine gun (because of the number of bullets released; firing of the revolver twice in succession)

Answer 59

* Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony. * Illustration: * When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed. So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, (i) there is no complex crime at all, (ii) instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information. * Compound crimes under Art. 48 is also applicable to crimes through negligence. Thus, a municipal mayor who accidentally discharged his revolver, killing a girl and injuring a boy was found guilty of complex crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro) * Example of a compound crime: The victim was killed while discharging his duty as barangay captain to protect life and property and enforce law and order in his barrio. The crime is a complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority. When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single criminal impulse.

Answer 60

**No complex crime proper:** (1) Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape. (2) Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense. (3) No complex crime, when one offense is committed to conceal the other. (4) When the offender already had in his possession the funds which he misappropriated, the subsequent falsification of a public or official document involving said offense is a separate offense. (5) No complex crime where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law. (6) There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes (People v. Hernandez; Enrile v. Salazar). (7) In case of continuous crimes. (8) When the other crime is an indispensable element of the other offense.

Answer 61

General rules in complexing crimes: (1) When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime. (2) Thepenaltyforcomplexcrimeisthepenaltyfor the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. (3) When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment and fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed. (4) Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime. (5) Oneinformationshouldbefiledwhenacomplex crime is committed. (6) When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other. (7) Art. 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or moregrave or less grave felonies resulted, but only the first part is applicable, i.e. compound crime. The second part of Art. 48 does not apply, referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.

Answer 62

**When crimes involved cannot be legally complexed:** (1) Malicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury; (2) Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners; (3) Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious physical injuries; (4) Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious physical injuries; and (5) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275) and crimes against minors (Art. 276 to 278) with any other felony.

Title One: Felonies and Circumstances which affect criminal liability Flashcards

(86 cards)