CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Executive Penal Orders or Penal Executive Decrees, if there is a law enacted by Congress delegating to the President such power in times of emergency. So still, it comes from Congress because it is necessary that there must be a law passed or enacted by Congress delegating to the President such power, to issue Penal Executive Orders or Penal Executive Decrees. INTRODUCTION What is criminal law? Criminal Law is a branch of public law that deals with crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their penalties. It is a branch of public law because it deals with the relationship of the individual with the State. Whenever a crime is committed, whenever a violation of the public law is committed, it is more of an offense against the State than the private offended party or the victim. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW 1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and all its amendments. 2. Special Penal Laws enacted by Congress. 3. Executive Penal Orders or Penal Executive Decrees usually issued in times of emergency. TWO RESULTING INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME 1. Social Injury – against the State. It is repaired by the imposition of penalties like imprisonment or fine in case of conviction. 2. Personal Injury – against the private offended party. It is repaired by imposition of civil indemnities and damages in case of conviction. LIMITATIONS IN ENACTING PENAL LAWS1 1. The law must be general in its application. Otherwise, it will be violative of the equal protection clause under the Constitution. Penal laws enacted by Congress must apply to all. 2. It must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law2. An ex post facto law is a law which makes an act criminal although at the time it was committed it was not yet so. 3. It must not partake the nature of a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a bill which punishes the accused without the benefit of due process or without giving him the right to be heard. 4. It must not impose cruel, excessive fines degrading or inhuman punishment3. 5. It must observe substantive ad procedural due process. What is a crime? Acts or omissions committed or omitted in violation of the public law forbidding or compelling it. Crime is an encompassing term which include a felony, offense and an infraction of the law. Felonies are acts or omissions in violation of the Revised Penal Code Offenses are acts or omissions in violation of Special Penal Laws enacted by Congress Infraction of the Law refers to an act or omission which is defined and punished by the Ordinances issued by the Local Sanggunian. Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? (BAR 2014) Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by the 1987 Constitution on the power of Congress to enact retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial to the Note however that, whether in be a felony, an offense or an infraction of the law they are all under the umbrella term, crime. Can the Chief Executive enact penal laws? Yes, while as a rule in Philippine jurisdiction, it is the Congress that has the power to enact penal laws, the President under the Constitution can also issue 1 2 4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; 5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and 6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. 3 1987 Constitution. Article III Sec. 19(1) Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law (Boado, 2013:1) An ex post facto law is one which: 1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; 2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; 3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; 1 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution such is classified as an ex post facto law. It should be noted that when Congress decriminalized the crime of subversion, under R.A. 7637, it obliterated the felony and its effects upon Reporma. Consequently charging him now under the new law for his previous membership in the Communist Party would be constitutionality impermissible. Exception: If there is a Treaty Stipulation between the mother country of the consul and the host country, stating that the said consul shall be immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country, only then will a consul enjoy diplomatic immunity from suit. LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION Those laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1. Generality refers to the persons covered by the penal laws. 2. Territoriality refers to the place where the penal laws may be enforced. 3. Prospectivity refers to the time wherein the penal laws may be applied. Example: Article 6. Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. “A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof”. A. GENERALITY Members of Congress are immune from criminal prosecution for the crimes of slander, libel, in cases of speeches and debates in the course of performing their functions in Congress while it’s on regular or special session. Our penal laws are binding upon all persons who live, reside or sojourn in the Philippine territory whether he is a Filipino Citizen or a foreigner regardless of race, creed, sex, color or any other personal circumstances for as long as he is in the Philippines, he has to comply and abide by the Philippine penal laws. So whatever these members of Congress will state in their privilege speech in any debate while Congress is in its regular or special session, no matter how slanderous the statements are, they cannot be prosecuted. It is an example of law of preferential application. Limitations of the Generality Principle GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Diplomatic Immunity from Suit What if X is an officer at the ADB (Asian Development Bank), he is a foreigner. Y is a Filipino, another officer at ADB. In the course of their argument, X the foreigner, stated slanderous and defamatory remarks against Y, the Filipino co-worker. As a result, Y filed 2 counts of grave oral defamation against X. The case was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (Metc). Upon the filing of the case, the judge of the Metc received an offer of protocol coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). The said offer of protocol states that X as a foreigner working in ADB is among those immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the Philippines based on the ADB agreement with the Philippine government. By reason of this offer of protocol, the Metc judge immediately dismissed the case motu propio without giving notice to the prosecution and so the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari. Is the Metc Judge correct in dismissing the case filed by Y? Sovereigns, heads of States and other diplomatic representatives such as ambassadors and public ministers are immune from the criminal jurisdictions of the country where they are assigned. They are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country where they are assigned. This immunity from suit applies not only to criminal cases but also to civil and administrative case. How about a consul? Does the consul enjoy the same diplomatic immunity being enjoyed by ambassadors and public ministers? It is settled in Public International Law that Consuls, although considered as diplomatic representative are NOT immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country where they are assigned. Therefore, they are subject to the penal laws of the country where they are assigned. Hence, they can be arrested, prosecuted and punished. 2 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In the case of Liang vs People4, SC said that the Metc Judge acted erroneously. SC said that the determination by the DFA that certain individuals are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the Philippines, that certain individuals enjoy diplomatic immunity is only preliminary in nature and is not binding on courts. Exceptions: 1. Article 225 of the RPC provides that Penal laws shall be given retroactive application if it is favourable to the accused provided that the accused is not a habitual criminal. 2. If the penal law itself provides for its own retroactivity (e.g. Under Section 686 of RA 9344— Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act which expressly provides that the provisions of RA 9344 shall apply retroactively to those minors who have already been convicted of or already serving sentence). In order for the Metc judge to have dismissed the case, he should have asked for the presentation of evidence in order to determine under what circumstances did X state the said defamatory remarks. PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING OUR CRIMINAL LAW SYSTEM7. SC said diplomatic immunity from suit is not absolute. It is subject to the exception that it must refer only to acts or statements made in the course of the performance of his official capacity or official duty. 1. CLASSICAL/JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY Man is a moral creature who understands right from wrong and when he commits a wrong, he voluntarily does the same, therefore, he shall be ready for the consequences of his acts. Therefore, the Judge should have accepted evidence to determine if the slanderous statements are stated in the course thereof or in private capacity. a. Basis of criminal liability – human free will. b. Purpose of the penalty – retribution, for the State and/or private offended party must be observed. TERRITORIALITY Our penal laws shall only be enforced within the Philippine territory and within its atmosphere, internal waters and maritime zones. Therefore, our penal laws cannot apply to crimes committed outside the Philippine territory. Exception: Those provided for in Article 2 of the RPC c. PROSPECTIVITY Our penal laws should only apply prospectively. That is from the time of its effectivity and henceforth. As a rule, our penal laws cannot be given retroactive application. Otherwise, it would be violative of the ex post facto laws of the Constitution. It evolves from the maxim ‘an eye for an eye’. Therefore, for every crime committed, there is a corresponding penalty based on the injury inflicted on the victim Imposable penalty – penalty is predetermined for every crime the gravity of which is directly proportionate to the crime committed. With this, homicide is punished with reclusion temporal, whereas, murder with reclusion perpetua. Determination of penalty is done mechanically since the penalty is always in direct proportion to the crime or felony committed by the said offender. So if the offender killed a person, then 1. who is not a habitual criminal5, as this term is defined in rule 55 of Article 62 of this Code, 2. although at the time of the publication of such laws a. a final sentence has been pronounced and b. the convict is serving the same. 6 SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. - Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable law. 7 Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law (Boado, 2013:5) Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity. The DFA’s determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. In receiving exparte the DFA’s advice and in motu proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution, the latter’s right to due process was violated. It should be noted that due process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the prosecution. The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time. At any rate, it has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges. (Liang vs. People, 323 SCRA 692, G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000) 5 ART. 22. Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, 4 3 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 death should also be his penalty. Penalty is commensurate to the degree of injury inflicted to the victim. The Indeterminate Sentence Law, Probation Law, the three-fold rule, and the rules on mitigation of crimes apply this theory. Capital Penalty or Death Penalty is a product of Classical Philosophy d. Emphasis of the law – on the offense. 3. MIXED/ECCLECTIC PHILOSOPHY Combines the good features of both the classical and the positivists theory. Ideally the classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivists’ works on economic and social crimes. Emphasis is on the crime and not on the criminal. It does not give any scant consideration on the human aspect in the commission of the crime. For as long as the crime has been committed, the offender has to be punished. Crimes which are heinous in nature shall be dealt with in the classical manner. Crimes which are social or economic are positivist shall be dealt with in the classical manner in the positivist manner. 2. POSITIVIST/REALISTIC PHILOSOPHY To what Philosophy does RPC adhere? RPC is molded in the classical philosophy because it is merely copied from the Spanish Codigo Penal which in turn was copied from French Penal Code of 1810 which espoused the classical thinking. Our RPC is molded in classical thinking. a. Basis– man is inherently good but because of his environment and upbringing, he becomes socially sick. Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment. All men are born inherently good, they only become evil due to his association with his fellow being, from his social environment. Crimes are social phenomenon which cause a person to do wrong although not of his own volition. b. Purpose of the penalty – corrective or curative to reform the offender, thus, prisons are also called reformatory or correctional institutions. c. NOTE: Although RPC is molded in the classical thinking, the amendments are geared toward the positivist philosophy. (e.g. Probation Law, Indeterminate Sentence Law and RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed) THEORIES, DOCTRINES OR RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW 1. DOCTRINE OF PRO REO Penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the State. The purpose of the penalty is to cure, to rehabilitate the offender, not to punish him. Offender is a socially sick individual who needs to be cure, rehabilitated and not punished. Determination of penalty – on an individual basis after considering his circumstances. 2. LENITY RULE Whenever a penal law or provision of penal law is susceptible of two interpretations, one lenient to the accused which will bring about acquittal and the other one strictly against the accused which will bring about conviction, the lenient interpretation shall prevail. Determination of Penalty is done on a case to case basis/individually. Determination is done after individual has been examined by a group of scientists which does not include a lawyer because they do not want the law to be taken into consideration in the imposition of penalty. The basis of the Doctrine of Pro Reo and Lenity Rule is the constitutional presumption of innocence. All accused are innocent unless proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Jurist system in the US is a product of Positivist Philosophy. d. Emphasis of the law – on the offender not on the offense. 3. EQUIPOSE RULE Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scale of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused. The emphasis is on the criminal not on the crime. There is great regard to human element of the crime. It must be take into consideration why the offender committed the crime The basis of this the constitutional presumption of innocence and in so far as criminal prosecution are 4 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 concerned it is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the accused will rest on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. THE REVISED PENAL CODE ARTICLE 1 This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932 If the evidence are balanced, it means that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it should be an acquittal. RPC took effect on Jan. 1, 1932 but was passed into law on Dec. 8, 1930. 4. UTILITARIAN/PROTECTIVE THEORY8 The basis of penalty and purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual and potential wrongdoer. It behooves upon courts that in imposing penalties it is only upon actual and potential wrongdoers, and even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent is immaterial, judges should only impose penalties to actual and potential wrongdoers. Otherwise, it will foster materialism and opportunitism. The first paragraph provides for the intra-territorial application of the RPC. ARTICLE 2 The RPC shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone. Exception: “As provided in treaties and laws of preferential application”. What does this phrase mean? This phrase means that treaties entered into with other countries, laws of preferential application takes preference over the provisions of the RPC. Whenever the Philippines enters into a treaty with another country and the stipulations in the treaty is not in consonance with the RPC, then the provisions in the said treaty shall prevail over the RPC. The basis of this is the maxim actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means that the act cannot be criminal when the mind is not criminal. What if a person performs an overt act that is so pervert, so criminal so immoral in nature? So he was arrested. But there’s no law punishing such immoral act. What is the jurisdiction of the court? The only jurisdiction of the Court is to dismiss the case because of the maxim nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege which means that there is no crime when there is no law that defines and punishes the act. The second paragraph provides for the extra-territorial application of the RPC. These are instances wherein the RPC can be applied even if the crimes are committed outside Philippine Archipelago. Are there common law crimes in the Philippines? There are no common law crimes in the Philippines. Common law refers to body of principles, usages and use of action which the community considers as condemnable even if there’s no law that punishes it. There are no common law crimes in the Philippines because the Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws are enacted. They do not evolve through time. In common law countries, when an act is immoral, obnoxious and is considered contemptuous through passage of time, it will be considered a criminal act. It behooves upon a court of law that in applying the punishment imposed upon the accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged society, should be directed against the “actual and potential wrongdoers.” In the instant case, there is no doubt that petitioner’s four (4) checks were used to collateralize an accommodation, and not to cover the receipt of an actual “account or credit for value” as this was absent, and therefore petitioner should not be punished for mere issuance of the checks in question. Following the aforecited theory, in petitioner’s stead the “potential wrongdoer,” whose operation could be a menace to society, should not be glorified by convicting the petitioner. (Magno vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 471, G.R. No. 96132 June 26, 1992) 8 5 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 1. SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP Is there any exception? Yes, if the vessel is a Philippine warship or war plane. Wherever it may be located it is always the the Philippines that will have jurisdiction because a Philippine warship or warplane is considered an extension of the Philippine territory. Therefore, whenever they may be, when a crime is committed on board a Philippine warship or warplane, the Philippines will always have jurisdiction and the reason is the 1 st paragraph of Article 2 of the RPC- the intra-territorial application of the RPC because it is regarded as crime committed within the Philippine territory. A ship or an airship is considered a Philippine ship or airship when it is registered in the Philippines under Philippine laws. Even if it is totally owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not registered in the Philippines it cannot be considered a Philippine ship or airship. It is the registration of the vessel or the Philippine aircraft that will make it a Philippine ship or airship. Only upon registration that this aircraft/vessel can fly the country flag of the Philippines. In some books there’s still this so called French Rule and English Rule. Do not anymore consider these. Consider only the territoriality characteristic. The reason is that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas of which Philippine is a signatory there is no more French Rule and English Rule. Only the territoriality characteristic is recognized. Now the law says, when a crime is committed on board a Philippine ship or airship, the extraterritorial application of the RPC will apply. It means even if the crime is committed in another place outside the PH jurisdiction, still, the RPC will apply. So what is this situation? This is a situation where a crime is committed on board a Philippine Vessel (PV) while it is outside the PH territory but NOT in the territory of a foreign country. The PV is on waters of the Philippines and a crime was committed on board. It is necessary that the Philippine ship or airship is outside the PH territory but not inside the territory of another country. If the PV is in territory of another country, then Philippines will have no jurisdiction. The law of that country shall prevail. 2. SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 3. SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING NUMBER The Philippine vessel was on Philippine waters. While the vessel is in the PH waters a crime was committed on board the vessel. What country has jurisdiction over the said crime? The Philippines. The vessel is in Philippine waters. Article 2 first paragraph, intra-territorial application will govern. In these 2 circumstances, if the forging and counterfeiting were done in a foreign country, the offender can be prosecuted before the PH courts. Philippine laws will apply because of the extraterritorial application of the RPC under the second and third paragraph. What if the PV is on the high seas or international waters not owned by any country and a crime was committed on board? What country will have jurisdiction? Still the Philippines because of the extraterritorial application of Article 2 second paragraph. The PV is outside the Philippine Archipelago when the crime was committed but it is not in the territory of another country. Hence, the RPC should still apply. X was arrested in Japan because he was caught in the act of counterfeiting the Philippine peso bill likewise Philippine securities issued by the BSP. Can he be prosecuted before Philippine courts? Does Philippine law apply? Yes. Although the crime has been committed in Japan, he can be held liable before Philippine courts. What if the PV is on the waters of Malaysia and a crime was committed on board? What country will have jurisdiction? Malaysian courts will have jurisdiction because of the territoriality characteristics of criminal law. As a rule penal laws are territorial in nature. What if in the same problem, X introduced the same, the counterfeited bills in the Philippines? Still, in the Philippines because he introduced such in the Philippines. This is necessary in order to maintain and preserve the financial circulation and financial stability of the Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be 6 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 to sign the document but he will not do so without the bribe money. So he is liable for direct bribery. prosecuting him except Philippines because it is only Philippines which will be affected by said counterfeiting. What if the Philippine consul went to a birthday party in a hotel. She met a woman and found her attractive. What the Philippine consul did is that he placed something on the drink of the said woman so that when she drank it she felt dizzy. The Philippine consul then brought her to a room in the hotel and there he raped the said woman. The woman wants to file a case against the said Philippine consul. Does Philippine law apply? Should the said woman file the case before the Philippine courts or before the courts in Japan? Before the Courts of Japan. Because the said consul performed a crime committed not in connection with the exercise of his public function. The said act was performed in his private capacity. He can only be prosecuted in courts of the host country and not the Philippines. It is the laws of Japan that will apply not Philippine laws. 4. WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS This refers to public officers and employees of PH government who are working in another country. Even if they are assigned in a foreign territory since they are public officers of the government, if in the said country they commit a crime in the performance of their official functions they can be prosecuted before Philippine court. The crime committed by the public officers or employees must be in connection with the exercise of their functions. They can be prosecuted in PH courts. But if the crime committed is not in any way connected with the exercise of their functions, they should be prosecuted in the courts where they are assigned. Because although they are public officers or employees of the Philippine government they acted in their private capacity. What if the Philippine consul asked his secretary to work over time because they were finishing something. Then the said consul asked his secretary to give him a cup of coffee. The secretary did what she was asked to. Then the consul asked the secretary to join him. When the said secretary went to the restroom, the said consul placed something in the coffee of the secretary. The secretary felt dizzy and lost consciousness. The consul then raped her inside his own office. The said secretary wants to file a case against the consul. Where shall the secretary file the case? Is the said consul liable under Philippine laws? Yes, because although the crime committed which is rape is not in any way connected with the performance of his official function, since it was committed inside the Philippine embassy, then the Philippine laws will apply. The reason is that Philippine embassy is considered as an extension of the Philippine sovereignty. So even if the crimes committed is not in any way connected with the performance of their functions but the crime is committed inside the Philippine embassy, Philippine laws will still apply. A woman, an OFW went to the Philippine Embassy in Japan. She was asking the head of office of the embassy to sign a document which is needed by her employer. What the head of office did was he invited the said OFW outside and they went to a hotel. Inside the hotel, the said head of office told the said woman that he would sign the document only if she would give herself to the said head of office. So the said head of office made immoral advances to this woman. The woman however rejected and she immediately left. Later, the woman returned to the Philippines. Can she file a case against the said head of office in the Philippine Embassy in Japan? Yes. Because the crime committed by the head office, a public officer, is in connection with his public function. He made solicitation and immoral advances so that he would sign the document needed by the OFW. He is liable for abuses against chastity under Article 245. Our penal laws shall apply to him. 5. SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE What if in the same problem, so the said woman went out with the said head of office. She was asking the head of office of the embassy to sign the document because she already need it. The said head of office said that he will sign if the OFW gives him $500. The woman had no $500 so she just left. Can the woman file a case in Philippine Courts? Will Philippine laws apply? Yes. The crime committed by the head office is in connection with the exercise of his function. His duty is 7 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Crimes Against National Security 1. Art. 114 – Treason; 2. Art. 115 – Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; 3. Art. 116 – Misprision of treason; 4. Art. 117 – Espionage; 5. Art. 118 – Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals; 6. Art. 119 – Violation of neutrality; 7. Art. 120 – Correspondence with hostile country; 8. Art. 121 – Flight to enemy’s country; TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING A FELONY 1. By means of deceit. 2. By means of fault. TWO KINDS OF FELONIES 1. Intentional Felony deliberate intent. – those committed with Elements (CiFI) 1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender 2. Freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the offender 3. Intelligence of the offender Crimes against Law of Nations (Piracy, Qualified piracy, Mutiny and Qualified mutiny) 9. Art 122 – Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters; and 10. Art. 123 – Qualified piracy Is an intentional felony a voluntary act? An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by means of deliberate intent. The offender knowingly, willfully and voluntarily committed the act. If any of these crimes is committed, even if done outside the Philippine archipelago, the offender can be prosecuted before the Philippine courts. 2. Culpable Felony – when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. The Philippines is at war against country X. Pedro was in country X, and he connived with enemies. He performed treasonable acts against the Philippine Government. Can he be prosecuted under the Philippine courts? Do Philippine laws apply against Pedro? Yes. Because treason is a crime against national security. Philippine laws will apply wherever the offender may be. Elements (CnFI) 1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender 2. Freedom of action in doing the act 3. Intelligence on the part of the offender Both intentional and culpable felonies have the same elements except for the element. Is a culpable felony a voluntary act? Yes, it is also a voluntary act although it is committed with negligence not with deliberate intent. ARTICLE 3 Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). 1. There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and 2. there is fault when the wrongful act results from 2.1. imprudence, 2.2. negligence, 2.3. lack of foresight, or 2.4. lack of skill. Under Article 3659, it is provided that in case of culpable felony the imprudence or negligence results from the voluntary but without malice or deliberate intent in doing or failing to do an act from which the injury results. Therefore, even a culpable felony is also a voluntary act. In so far as criminal law is concerned, the voluntariness of an act is the concurrence of the 3 Article 365. xxx Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. 9 Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. 8 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 elements of intentional felony or the concurrence of the 3 elements of culpable felony. TWO KINDS OF CRIMINAL INTENT 1. General Criminal Intent is presumed by law from the mere doing of the criminal act. Therefore, the prosecution does not have the burden to prove it. It is the defense which has the burden of proving lack of criminal intent on the part of the offender. NOTE: Both intentional and culpable felonies are voluntary act. Without voluntariness there can neither be an intentional or culpable felony. COMMON ELEMENTS OF INTENTIONAL AND CULPABLE FELONY Louisian and Marian were fighting with the use of fist. Marian took out an icepick intending to hit the arm of Louisian that has always been boxing. However, instead of hitting the arm, the icepick instead pierced through the heart of Louisian. Marian left. Louisian was brought to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival in the hospital. Marian was prosecuted for homicide. Marian said he has no intention to kill Louisian. Will Marian’s defense lie on his favor? No. Since Louisian died, intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent which is presumed by law. The prosecution need not prove intent to kill because the best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that the victim died. The defense then has the burden of proving that he lacks intent to kill in committing the crime. 1. Freedom of action – when the offender performs the act on his own free will without force, duress, uncontrollable fear. He knowingly and willfully performs the act on his own free will. So, if the offender performs the criminal act but he did so under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear, there is no criminal liability. This is an exempting circumstances under Aricle 12 of the RPC because there is no freedom of action, an element of voluntariness. 2. Intelligence – the capacity of a person to know wrong from right and to appreciate the consequences of one’s act. If the person acted without intelligence, there is no criminal liability. 2. Specific Criminal Intent is never presumed by law. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution just like any other elements in the commission of the crime. If the prosecution failed to prove specific criminal intent, it will either be an acquittal or a conviction but of a different crime, not on the crime charged. So if the criminal act has been committed by an insane, imbecile or a minor 15 years of age or under, the said offender is exempted from criminal liability under Article 12 because he acted without intelligence. There is no criminal liability. There is no intentional nor culpable felony. An important element of intentional felony is criminal intent. Louisian and Marian were engaged in a fight. In the course of the said fight, although both of them were using fist, since Marian was losing, Marian immediately put out an icepick from his pocket and then thereafter hit Lousian. Louisian was hit on the left shoulder. Thereafter, Marian left. Louisian was brought to the hospital and the medical certificate stated that the wound will heal within a period of 3 days. A case of attempted homicide was filed against Marian. Since the case filed was attempted homicide, the prosecution has the burden of proving that there was intent to kill on the part of Marian when he hit Louisian with the use of ice pick inflicting a wound that would heal for a period of 3 days. If the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill then the judge can only convict him of slight physical injuries. Specific criminal intent must be present. Intent to kill must be proven. What is criminal intent? Criminal intent is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result. It is an internal state of the mind. You cannot see intent. How then is criminal intent established or determined? It is determined by the overt act performed by the offender in the commission of the crime or the particular means employed by the offender in the commission of the crime. Examples: 1. The fact that the offender used a bladed weapon, a lethal weapon, in hitting the victim, shows intent to kill even if the victim did not die; or 2. When the accused took the bag of the woman without asking the consent of the woman. It shows intent to gain on the part of the offender. 9 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 FACTORS IN DETERMINING INTENT TO KILL generic aggravating circumstance of treachery. Therefore, B should be acquitted of attempted murder. What if Saturnino was walking on the road when suddenly here comes Lorenzo armed with a lead pipe. He suddenly hit the back of Saturnino with the lead pipe strongly. Saturnino fell on the ground. Lorenzo left. A suffered severe pain and went to the hospital. But after the check-up, the medical certificate states that Saturnino did not sustain any injury. Saturnino then filed a case of attempted murder against Lorenzo because there was treachery. Is Lorenzo liable for attempted murder? What crime if any is committed by Lorenzo? In the case of People vs. Mapalo10, the SC said that intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: 1. Motive; 2. The nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; 3. The nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; 4. The manner the crime was committed; and 5. Words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. (before, during or after the commission of the crime) What if Amante and Bok had a heated altercation because Bok is teasing Amante that the latter is jobless and therefore he is a good for nothing man. The following day, Bok went to the store together with his daughter. The moment Bok entered the store together with his daughter, Amante and his 2 brothers suddenly appeared. Amante and his brothers began boxing and kicking Bok until Bok fell on the ground. While Bok was lying on the ground, Amante and his brother continuously boxed and kicked Bok. One of them even hit the head of Bok with a stone. Then the siren of the police was heard and so they scampered away. Bok was brought to the hospital. The medical certificate showed that Bok suffered injuries all over his body but all these injuries are only superficial in nature which would heal within a period of 7 days. Bok filed a case of attempted murder against the said accused Amante and his 2 brothers. Are they liable? What crime if any is committed by Amante and his 2 brothers? In the case of Rivera vs. People12, the SC said that Amante and his 2 brothers are liable for attempted murder because in inflicting injuries to Bok, there was intent to kill. First, there was no evidence of motive, Lorenzo just hit Saturnino with a lead pipe at the back of his head once. Second, the nature and number of weapon used by the accused in the commission of the crime, Lorenzo used a lead pipe not a bladed or a lethal weapon. Third, the nature, number and location of wounds inflicted or sustained by the victim. Saturnino did not sustain any wound despite the fact that he was hit by the lead pipe. Although he was hit by a lead pipe, no damage resulted. Fourth, manner of committing the crime Lorenzo only hit the back of Saturnino once. Thereafter he left. Lastly, the acts or words uttered by the offender before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime. After hitting Saturnino at the back, Lorenzo immediately left. Again, the SC considered the factors in establishing intent to kill. First, there is evidence of motive. Prior to the mauling incident, there was an altercation between Amante and Bok because Bok had been teasing Amante that he is jobless. Second, the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime, the accused used their fists and legs to box and kick the said victim. Third, the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim, the victim suffered superficial wounds all over his body. 4th, the manner of committing the crime, Amante and his brothers is acted in conspiracy in beating and kicking Bok. They acted simultaneously kicking, beating and one hitting Bok with a stone. Lastly, words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim, Amante and his brother encircled Bok, repeatedly boxed him until he fell on the ground. They left only when they heard the siren of the police. SC said considering these factors, it is evident that there is intent to kill and it is All of these show that there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender. Since the medical certificate states that Saturnino did not sustain injuries although he suffered pain. SC convicted Lorenzo of ill-treatment of another by deed11, a form of slight physical injuries with inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed. (Rivera vs. People, 480 SCRA 188, G.R. No. 166326 January 25, 2006) 10 People vs. Mapalo, 514 SCRA 689, G.R. No. 172608 February 6, 2007 11 ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. - The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished: Xxx (3). By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury. 12 In People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 (2003), the Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, 10 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 evident that Amante and his 2 brothers are liable for attempted murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. the evening. Another witness came and said that he saw the victim with JL and Axel board a jeepney. Another witness said the JL and Axel is playing billiards with the victim. Another witness said that he saw JL and Axel with the victim having a heated argument about 10 meters away from the place where the victim was found dead. In this case no one has seen who killed the victim. There is no direct evidence. What is present is only circumstantial evidence to prove the commission of the crime. Who was the last person seen with the victim before he was killed? What could be the motive behind the killing? Who has the motive to kill the victim? Obviously it is JL and Axel who was seen arguing with the victim. What is motive? Motive is the moving factor which impels a person do an act to achieve the desired result. As a rule, motive is not material in determining the criminal liability. In the following cases, motive is not material: 1. If the offender is clearly identified. 2. Admits to the commission of the crime. 3. If the prosecution has direct evidence or eyewitness to the commission of the crime. 4. If the crime committed is brought about by imprudence or negligence or a culpable felony. 5. Crime committed is in violation of a special penal law. Can motive bring about conviction? Motive, no matter how strong, will never bring about conviction because the law requires an overt act. But motive plus circumstantial evidence, motive plus convincing evidence will bring about conviction. But pure motive alone no matter how strong cannot bring about conviction. Intent becomes material in determining the criminal liability of the offender in the following instances: 1. When the act of the offender would result to variant crimes. How is motive established? Motive is established by testimony of witnesses as to the acts or statements made by the accused, immediately prior to or after the commission of the crime; not during, because there is no direct evidence. ILLUSTRATION: The Judge was exercising in the park at 5:30AM. When Jep went near the Judge and stabbed him repeatedly. The Judge died. The act of Jep would result to variant crimes. It could either be plain murder or the complex crime of direct assault with murder. How would you know which crime is committed? Motive as determinant of criminal liability Motive alone will not bring about criminal liability because the RPC requires that there must be an overt act or an omission. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. Take into consideration the motive. If the killing was done for personal reason or vendetta, then it will be plain murder. But if the motive to kill is because of a past performance of the Judge of his official function, then Jep should be prosecuted for direct assault with murder. 2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful. ILLUSTRATION: The victim was found dead. INTENT MOTIVE Use of particular means to achieve a desired result. Moving power which impels a person to do a specific act to achieve the desired result. It is the reason behind intent. As a rule, immaterial in determining the criminal liability of the offender. A material element in determining criminal liability of the offender. Lorenzo was arrested as a suspect. But there was doubt as to the identity of Lorenzo as the suspect. Motive then becomes material to determine whether it was Lorenzo who killed the victim. 3. When the prosecution has only circumstantial evidence to prove the commission of the crime. Established by overt act of the offender or by the means employed by him in the commission of the crime. ILLUSTRATION: The victim was found dead with 5 stab wounds in a vacant lot. No one saw who killed the victim. But the mother of the victim said that her son was fetched by JL and Axel about 6:30 in 11 Established by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts or statements made by the accused immediately prior to or after the commission of the crime. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 What negates criminal intent? What may be a defense against criminal intent? Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. It is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender must believe that he is performing a lawful act. door, and called out twice, "Who is there?" He received no answer, and fearing that the intruder was a robber, leaped from the bed and again called out: "If you enter the room I will kill you." At that moment he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder, who turned out to be his roommate. Thereupon he called to his employers and rushed back into the room to secure bandages to bind up the wound. Defendant was charged with murder. While there can be no doubt of defendant's exemption from liability if the intruder had really been a robber, the question presented is whether, in this jurisdiction, a person can be held criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of facts, he does an act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would constitute murder if he had known the true state of facts at the time. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felonies. It is an absolutory cause. ELEMENTS OF MISTAKE OF FACT (LIW) 1. That the act done would have been Lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be; 2. That the Intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful; and 3. That the mistake must be Without fault, negligence or carelessness on the part of the accused. Held: That, under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. In other words, if such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent which, under the law, is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged, it destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal; except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions governing negligence, and in cases where, under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal Code, a person voluntarily committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that which he intended to commit. Had the facts been as the accused believed them to be, the act performed would have amounted to a justifying or exempting circumstance in the commission of the crime. The intention of the offender must be legal. It must be ignited solely by a lawful or legitimate intent. In order for an offender to invoke mistake of fact it is necessary that he ascertained the true facts of the case before he performed the said act. If the offender was negligent, if he was careless in ascertaining the true facts of the case, then, he cannot invoke mistake of fact. One cannot invoke mistake of fact and at the same time be negligent in ascertaining the true facts of the circumstance. What if the guard was feeling sleepy when he heard a noise. Upon hearing the said noise, he saw someone jump from the fences inside the premises which he was guarding. The guard called the man to stop and identify himself. But the unidentified man instead of introducing himself fired repeatedly at the security guard. The guard hid himself and returned fire to the man. But the man fired at the lock of the warehouse and entered the said warehouse. The security guard followed the man inside the warehouse which had no lights. When the security guard entered, he has a flashlight and the moment he entered he saw a shadow of a man holding a gun pointed at him and so he turned around and shot the man. It turned out that the man Mistake of fact is only a defense in intentional felony but not in culpable felony. In the case of United States vs. Ah Chong13 Defendant was a cook and the deceased was a house boy, and both were employed in the same place and usually slept in the same room. One night, after the defendant had gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room and placed a chair against the door. After going to bed, he was awakened by someone who was trying to open the door. He called out, “Who is there?” twice but received no answer. He then said, “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” At that moment, he was struck by the chair. Believing he was being attacked, he took a kitchen knife and stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Is he criminally liable? No. There was mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1; self-defense. 13 12 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the life of the police officer in actual or imminent danger because Wendy was merely picking it from the waist. The gun was not yet pointed at the police officer. Therefore it is not yet a situation where his life and limb is in danger. was a worker in the warehouse who did not ask permission to sleep inside. And so the security guard was prosecuted for homicide. He invoked mistake of fact. Is he liable of homicide or will mistake of fact absolve him from criminal liability? Mistake of fact will absolve him from criminal liability. 2nd element, the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful present. This element is present. 1st element, the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be, he is justified in shooting because the said man had already fired at him which placed his life and limb in immediate danger. The first element is present. 3rd element, the mistake must be without fault, negligence or carelessness on the part of the accused is also absent. The mistake committed by the police officer was brought about by his negligence in ascertaining the true facts of the case. He was asking for the license and permit to carry of the said woman, naturally, the woman would produce it. Since he failed to ascertain the true facts of the case, then, mistake of fact cannot absolve him from criminal liability. 2nd element, the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful. That is to save his life from imminent danger. The second element is also present. 3rd element, the mistake must be without fault, negligence or carelessness on the part of the accused. There was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the security guard. The said warehouse was locked and was only opened when the man fired at it. The warehouse had no lights. Who would have anticipated that someone would be sleeping inside the locked warehouse. The third element is also present. Can a crime be committed without criminal intent? Yes, a crime can be committed even in the absence of criminal intent. 1. In case of crimes brought about by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, otherwise known as culpable felony. 2. In case of crimes which are violation of penal laws. Therefore, mistake of fact will absolve the security guard from any criminal liability. ACTS MALA PROHIBITA Acts which are only wrong because there is law that defines and punishes the said act. Without the said law, said act will not be considered a crime. What if the police officer was eating in a nearby canteen, when he was bothered by the noise of Kathleen, Wendy and Dianne. And so the police officer looked at these 3 women who were so noisy. The police officer noticed that one of the women, Wendy, had a gun tucked at his waist. So the police officer went to the back of Wendy and told her, “you have a gun tucked on your waist, I am a police officer. Could you show me your license and permit to carry?” and Wendy said “yes I have a license and permit to carry”. And so Wendy stood up and she tried to pick his wallet from his pocket in order to show the license. As she was doing, so she was turning around to look at the police. The moment she turned around to the police, the police fired at him. The woman died. Prosecuted for homicide, the police officer said he acted under mistake of fact because he thought that what A was picking was not his wallet to show his license, but her gun, and so to save himself he fired first at Wendy. Is the police officer liable for homicide? Or should he be absolved based on mistake of fact? The police officer is liable. There’s no MOF. Example: Possession of firearm. Mere possession is not criminal in nature but possession of firearms without license and without permit to carry is considered criminal and illegal because there is a law, PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 9284 and further amended by R.A. 10591 which prohibits the possession and carrying of firearms without license and permit to carry. ACTS MALA IN SE This are acts which are inherently evil or wrong by their very nature. It is wrong per se, even if there’s no law, it is evil. Examples: 1. Killing a person. 2. Molesting a woman. 3. Taking the thing of another without the consent of the owner. 1st element, the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. Granting for the sake of argument that what Wendy was picking was the gun, still such act does not yet place There need not be a law to say that these acts are wrong, they are by nature wrong. 13 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 MALA IN SE Inherently evil, wrong per se. Criminal liability is based on the intent of the offender. Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense Modifying circumstances such as aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered by the court in imposition of penalty Degree of participation of the offender in the commission of the crime whether as a principal, accomplice or accessory, is considered in the imposition of penalty. The stage of the execution of the crime, whether it be attempted, frustrated or consummated is considered by the court in the imposition of penalty. Are all acts punished by special penal laws considered as mala prohibita? No, not all acts punished by special laws are mala prohibita. There are some special laws which acts are considered as mala in se or malum in se. (e.g. Plunder under R.A. 7080, the act of increasing or decreasing the vote of a candidate punishable under Election Laws) MALA PROHIBITA It is only wrong because there is a law that defines and punishes the act. It is not inherently evil or wrong. Criminal liability is based on the mere doing of the prohibited act. Good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a valid defense Modifying circumstances are NOT considered by the court in imposition of penalties UNLESS otherwise provided by the special law In the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan14, SC said that plunder although punished by a special penal law is a malum in se. It is inherently evil to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth from the State. Hence, since plunder is malum in se, criminal intent matters. In the case of Garcia vs. Court of Appeals15, Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In decreasing the number of votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. It did not favor any candidate. So according to Garcia, he acted in good faith and with no criminal intent. The other side said that it is a special penal law and therefore he should be held criminally liable. Degree of participation of the offender is not considered. All perpetrators of the crime are punished equally unless otherwise provided. The Supreme Court said, the said act, although punish by a special penal law is considered as malum in se. The act of increasing or decreasing a vote of a candidate in the election, although punished by election law, is a malum in se. Criminal intent matters in order to bring about conviction of a crime. Garcia’s defense of good faith would not lie. According to SC, they should have exercised extraordinary diligence in the counting of votes. The only stage of execution considered is the consummated stage. No attempted or frustrated stages except when expressly provided by the law. In the case of Ysidoro vs. People16, the Supreme Court said, the crime of technical malversation, punished under Article 220 of the RPC, was held to be a crime that is malum prohibitum. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose for another public purpose. The prohibited act is not inherently punish unintentional election canvass errors. However, intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another. Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. 14 The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394, G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001) 15 The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent of the law to The fact that the number of votes deducted from the actual votes received by private complainant, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. was not added to any senatorial candidate does not relieve petitioner of liability under Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646. The mere decreasing of the votes received by a candidate in an election is already punishable under the said provision. (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 484 SCRA 617, G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006) 16 Ysidro vs. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012. 14 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 immoral, but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. Therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses element which the other does not, x x x. Phrased elsewise, where two different laws (or articles of the same code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other. NOTE: Even if a special law uses the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, that alone will not make the act or omission a crime mala in se 17. The special law may only intend for the Code to apply as a supplementary. ARTICLE 4 Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. (Proximate Cause Doctrine) 2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Can acts mala in se absorb acts mala prohibita? Can acts mala prohibita absord acts mala in se? In the case of Loney vs. People18, the SC said no. Loney and other official of the Marcopper Mining Corporation were charged with criminal cases for polluting two rivers in Marinduque. Four cases were filed against Loney and other officials; (1) Violation the Water Code of the Philippines. (2) Violation of the National Pollution Control Decree. (3) Violation of the Philippine Mining Act. (4) Violation of Article 365 of the RPC for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE ELEMENTS (IRD) 1. The Intended act is a felonious act 2. The Resulting act is a felony 3. The resulting felony is the Direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offender Loney et. Al. filed a motion to quash the information for the three special penal laws. Their contention was that the 3 other information involving the violation of special law should be quashed because they are already absorbed by Art. 365. Is their contention correct? The Supreme Court said no, acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita. What makes an act malum in se is the presence of intent, deceit or dolo or fault or culpa. Whereas what makes an act malum prohibitum is the presence of a special penal law that defines and punishes the act. Therefore one cannot absorb the other. They shall be prosecuted for all cases separate and distinct of each other. As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony. Under the proximate cause doctrine, for one to be criminally liable, it is necessary that the offender is performing a felonious act and since he is performing a felonious act, he becomes liable for all the resulting crime although different from that which he intended, provided that the resulting felony is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offender. NOTE: As early as the start of the last century, this Court had ruled that a single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for “the same offense.” In People v. Doriquez, we held that two (or more) offenses arising from the same act are not “the same”—x x x if one provision of law requires proof of an additional fact or For one to be criminally liable under the proximate cause doctrine, it is not necessary that the offender should have even touched the body of the victim. It suffices that the felonious act performed by the offender has generated in the mind of the victim a fear for his prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942). What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enacting them. (Loney vs. People, 482 SCRA 194, G.R. No. 152644 February 10, 2006) People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994. On petitioners’ claim that the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC “absorbs” the charges for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942, suffice it to say that a mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala 17 18 15 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 life. And by reason of such fear, the victim performed acts and made risks that injured himself. The accused will become criminally liable. that his life and limb is in danger. And by reason of such fear, the victim performed acts that took risks of himself. It cannot be said that he is the author of the said act but rather the said person who caused or generated the fear on him. The holdupers were performing a felonious act and the felonious act was the proximate cause of the resulting felony, the death of the victim. Were it not for the announcement of the said holdup which generated fear on the mind of X, she should have not jumped on the said window. What is proximate cause? Proximate cause19 has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is necessary that the felonious act and resulting act must not be broken by efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection between the felonious act of the offender and the resulting felony. A,B and C were having a drinking spree. They were very noisy. Because of this X went to A, B, C and requested them to tone down their voices. Thereafter, X left. Such act of X angered A, and so A told B and C that one time he will do something to X. The next day, A,B,C were again having a drinking spree in the same store. Then suddenly X passed by. A called on X and the moment X went near A, A immediately boxed X continuously until X fell on the ground. X found an opportunity to escape and he went home. Later, X was found by his wife lying on the floor salivating. The wife brought X to the hospital. He was pronounced dead on arrival upon reaching the hospital. According to the medical certificate X sustained superficial injuries which would heal within 2 days. It was also stated that the cause of death was myocardial infarction or heart attack brought about by the mauling incident. A was prosecuted for homicide but he contended that he is not liable for such because the medical.certicate showed that he only inflicted superficial injuries. Is A liable for homicide under the proximate cause doctrine? Yes. He is liable for homicide under the proximate cause doctrine as held in the case of Garcia vs People20. Supreme Court said that his act of kicking and mauling the victim is a felonious act which brought about the resulting felony. Were it not for the said mauling incident the victim would not have suffered a heart attack that brought about his death. The SC held the accused liable for homicide under the proximate cause doctrine. If there is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection between the felonious act of the offender and the resulting felony, the offender will not be held liable or the felony but only for the particular act that he committed. What is efficient intervening cause? It is an intervening active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. Therefore, in order that an act is considered an efficient intervening cause, it is necessary that it is totally foreign from the felonious act that is performed by the offender. What if the bus was going towards Quezon province and as the bus was maneuvering in a zigzag road, suddenly, 4 persons stood up and announced a hold up. Two positioned in front of the bus and the other two was positioned at the back. They unleashed their sharp bolos and told the passengers of the bus that it is a hold up and nothing will happen to them if they will only give their valuables. Upon hearing the word hold up, X shivered in fear because he had a former encounter with holdups. He was so afraid that he immediately opened the window of the bus and jumped. As a result, X died. The said holdupers were prosecuted for the death of X. They contended that they are not liable for the death of X. In fact they did not even went near X. Are they liable for the death of X? Yes. The act of announcing a holdup was a felonious act and the said act generated fear in the mind of X. Fear The accused contended that the medical.certificate also shows that the victim in the past has suffered already two heart attacks so he was already suffering from a previous malady. SC said that as early in the case of United States v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310 (1909), they have settled in jurisprudence that even if the victim is suffering from a previous malady, if by reason of the that: x x x where death results as a direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility. (Garcia vs. People, 597 SCRA 381, G.R. No. 171951 August 28, 2009) People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011 In this case, petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence, the fact that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter petitioner’s liability for his death. Ingrained in our jurisprudence is the doctrine laid down in the case of United States v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310 (1909) 19 20 16 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 acts performed by the accused, his death was hastened, still the accused will be held criminally liable under proximate cause doctrine. and on the course of the argument, A suddenly stabbed B with a knife near the chest. Thereafter, A left. B was already on his way home. Suddenly there was rain and there was lightning and thunder. Since B is wounded, he hid first under a roof. While he was waiting under the roof for the rain to stop, the roof and B was suddenly struck by lightning and so B died. A was prosecuted for homicide under proximate cause doctrine. Is he liable? What crime if any has been committed? He is not criminally liable under proximate cause doctrine. The act of stabbing A near the chest is a felonious act, and he hit the victim in his chest, it could have been a fatal wound. However, while B was waiting under the roof, he was struck by lightning and that caused his death. That lightning happens to be an efficient intervening cause that broke the causal connection between the felonious act and the resulting felony. As such, A is not criminally liable for the death of said victim. The lightning is an intervening active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. Lolo Pedro was sleeping in the afternoon in his house. Then he was suddenly awakened by the noise of children. Angry for being awaken, he tried to find out where the noise is coming from. Then he saw at the back of his house 4 young boys at the top of his mango tree harvesting fruits aged 7-8. So, Lolo Pedro told the boys to come down the tree, otherwise, he will be calling the police and let them be arrested. The boys hurriedly went down the tree. One of the young boy jumped down and his knee hit a big stone. He suffered serious physical injuries. Is Lolo Pedro liable for serious physical injuries? What crime if any is committed by Lolo Pedro? He is not liable for serious physical injuries. The act of Lolo Pedro of telling the boys to come down from his tree and to stop stealing the fruits of his tree, otherwise he will call the police is not a felonious act. Therefore it cannot be said that he may be held liable for the resulting felony. A, depending on evidence, can be liable only for frustrated homicide or serious physical injuries. Frustrated homicide if there was intent to kill and serious physical injuries if there was no intent to kill. In the problem it is more of frustrated homicide because when A stabbed B with knife, it showed intent to kill. Under Article 4 paragraph 1 the offender merely becomes criminally liable for the resulting felony if he is performing a felonious act. He was just exercising his right because the boys are stealing the fruits of his tree. What if in the same problem, Lolo Pedro got his shotgun, fired shots in the air and said that if you will not get down, the next shot will be on you. The boys were so afraid that they hurriedly went down. One of them jumped and his knee hit a big stone. He suffered serious physical injuries. Is Lolo Pedro liable for serious physical injuries? What crime if any is committed by Lolo Pedro? He is liable for serious physical injuries. The act of threatening the children that he will shoot them is a felonious act. His act of threatening the children that he will shoot them if they will not go down and stop stealing his fruits was the proximate cause of the resulting felony. Lolo Pedro is liable for serious physical injuries under Art. 4 1st paragraph, proximate cause doctrine. A and B played card games. A lost. A confronted B and told him that he cheated on him. They had an argument A was buying in a store and suddenly B struck the left side of the body of A with a sharpened bamboo stick. Thereafter, B left. A was brought to the hospital and treated as a patient. The wound sustained by A was not a fatal wound, so A was allowed to go home that very same day. 22 days thereafter, A was again brought to the hospital. This time, A was suffering from tetanus poisoning and on the 23rd day, A died. The death certificate showed that the cause of death is tetanus poisoning. In this regard, the heirs of A filed a case of homicide against B under the proximate cause doctrine. They contended that it was the stab wound that caused the death. Is B liable as charged for homicide? What crime if any has been committed? It is settled in the case of Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court21 as well as People vs Villacorta22 that tetanus poisoning based on expert testimony has only an incubation period of 14 days. Therefore, if the stab The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wound inflicted upon him by the accused. (People v. Cardenas, supra). And since we are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim’s death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime. (Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 1, No. L-72964 January 7, 1988) 22 Nevertheless, there is merit in the argument proffered by Villacorta that in the event he is found to have indeed stabbed Cruz, he should only be held liable for slight physical injuries for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. Proximate cause has been 21 17 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 wound inflicted by the accused on the victim had tetanus germs at the time it was inflicted, the victim would have died within a period of 14 days or 2 weeks. But in the given problem, the victim survived until the 22nd day. NOTE: There are only two persons involved: the actual but unintended victim, and the offender. 3. Injurious consequences are greater than that intended (praeter intentionem) –The injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is so grave a wrong than what was intended. 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 acts of the offender. (A, without intent to kill, struck the victim on the back, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head on the pavement.) Therefore, SC said that the wound inflicted by the accused on the victim had no tetanus germs. What brought about tetanus poisoning was the act/s performed by the victim after he sustained the said stab wounds. The tetanus infection/poisoning was the proximate cause of the death of the victim and the stab wound was only the remote cause. The tetanus infection was an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection between the felonious act of stabbing and the resulting felony which is homicide. NOTE: The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional felony or dolo. These situations do not arise out of criminal negligence. In both cases, SC acquitted the accused of the crime charged. In People vs Villacorta, the accused was liable only for slight physical injuries with aggravating circumstance of treachery because the offender adopted the means used, a sharpen bamboo stick, and likewise this rendered the victim totally defenseless. Slight physical injuries because the wound was not serious and he was even allowed to leave, there was no showing that there was intent to kill. The stab wound is only a remote cause in the death of the victim. ABBERATIO ICTUS/MISTAKE IN THE BLOW A situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on someone else. What is the effect of abberatio ictus on the criminal liability of the offender? It will generally give rise to 2 crimes, one is against the intended victim and one against the actual victim. If 2 crimes are grave or less grave felony, it will be a complex crime. But if one happens only to be a light felony, there will be no complex crime but distinct and separate charges. 3 INSTANCES WHERE THE OFFENDER BECOMES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED A went to the house of B mad. B had been spreading rumors against A. A wanted to kill B but the latter was not inside the house. So he boarded his motorcycle looking for B. B happens to be a jeepney driver. Suddenly, A saw B on the other side of the street. A on board his motorcycle, pulled out his pistol and fired a shot intending to kill B. However, because of poor aim, the bullet hit C. C died. B was not hit at all. What crime/s is/are committed by A? Murder with attempted murder 1. Mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus) –A person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim and the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. (A, shot at B, but because of lack of precision, hit C instead). NOTE: There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim, and the actual victim. 2. Mistake in identity (error in personae) –The offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. 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 (A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead). In so far as B is concerned, A is liable for attempted murder because he intended to kill B. He already performed an overt act when he fired the gun with intent to kill against B. There was treachery, the victim was totally defenseless. In so far as C is concerned, the crime committed is murder. defined as “that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.” (People vs. Villacorta, 657 SCRA 270, G.R. No. 186412 September 7, 2011) These are 2 crimes committed which are grave felonies. Since the 2 crimes were brought about by a single act 18 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 coming from the offender, it will give rise to a complex crime of murder with attempted murder. ERROR IN PERSONAE/MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY A situation wherein the offender directed the blow at the person thinking that he is the intended victim, but the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. The actual victim who received the blow was mistaken to be the intended victim. Only the actual victim is at the scene of the crime, the intended victim is not at the scene of the crime. Same problem, A wanted to kill B fired a shot intending to kill B. However, because of poor aim the bullet hit C, the passenger seated next to B. C sustained a fatal wound and he was immediately brought to the hospital. Because of immediate medical intervention, C survived. What crime/s is/are committed by A? Attempted murder with serious physical injuries. What is the effect of error in personae on the criminal liability of the offender? It depends, under Art 4923, in case of error in personae, the law provides: 1. If there is variance between the intended felony and the felony actually committed, the lesser of the two penalties shall be the one imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the intended felony is just the same as the felony actually committed, error in personae with have no effect on the criminal liability of the offender. But if there is variance in the intended and actually committed felony, error in personae will mitigate, extenuate the criminal liability of the offender because the law says that the lesser of the two penalties between the intended and resulting felony shall be the one imposed in its maximum period. In so far as B is concerned, attempted murder. In so far as C, the actual victim is concerned, A is liable for serious physical injuries. Since one is a grave felony, attempted murder, and the other is less grave felony, serious physical injuries, under Art. 48 they shall be complexed because they’re a product of a single act coming from the offender. The crime committed by A is attempted murder with serious physical injuries. Why is it that in so far C is concerned, it is only serious physical injuries and not frustrated murder? Because there was no intent to kill C on the part of the offender. The intent to kill was only to B but because of poor aim the bullet landed on C who was hit with a fatal wound but survived because of immediate medical intervention. There was a fight between A and B. A kicked B. B landed on the ground facing the ground. A believed he defeated B and so A left, but B retaliated. He pulled out a fan knife or a balisong, and thereafter stabbed the person next to him thinking he was A but it turned out to be his father. His father saw what happened to him and his father came to help him but B stabbed him. The father died. What crime was intended to be committed by B? Homicide because he intended to kill A. Same problem, A wanted to kill B fired a shot intending to kill B. However, because of poor aim the bullet hit C, the passenger seated next to B. C sustained a very minor wound. The medical certificate showed that the wound would heal within a period of 3 days. What crime/s is/are committed by A? Attempted murder and slight physical injuries. In so far as B is concerned, the intended victim, attempted murder. In so far as C, the actual victim, the crime is slight physical injuries. So there is one grave felony and the other is only a light felony. You cannot complex them under Art. 48 because only grave or less grave felonies may be complexed, not a light felony. Hence, there will be 2 cases filed against A. Attempted murder and slight physical injuries. What crime was actually committed? Parricide because he stabbed his own father. With what crime shall B be prosecuted? B shall be prosecuted for the crime of parricide because it is the crime he actually committed. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed: 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. 23 19 The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable 3.1. if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, 3.2. if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Let’s say that he is now found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the rime of parricide. If you were the Judge, what penalty will you impose on B? Reclusion temporal in maximum period. PRAETER INTENTIONEM/ INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES ARE GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED A situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his intended victim, the intended victim actually received the blow, but the resulting injury is far greater than that anticipated by the means employed by the offender. When the consequence went beyond the intention, the injurious result is greater than that intended The penalty for homicide, the crime intended to be committed, is reclusion temporal. The penalty for parricide, the actual crime committed, is reclusion perpetua to death. Although he committed parricide, the penalty imposed shall be the lesser penalty in its maximum period which is that of homicide, reclusion temporal in maximum period. This is because if there is variance between the intended felony and the felony actually committed, the lesser of the two penalties shall be the one imposed in its maximum period. NOTE: It is always a mitigating circumstance because of Art. 13. (3) — That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Its effect is to lower the imposable penalty. ELEMENTS (FNd) 1. A Felony had been committed. 2. There must be a Notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony. In the same problem, instead of the father, B stabbed C his best friend. His best friend saw what happened to him and his best friend came to help him but B stabbed him thinking that he was A. C died. What crime was intended to be committed by B? Homicide because he intended to kill A. That is out of the means employed by the offender, no one could have anticipated or foreseen such injurious result. What crime was actually committed by B? The crime committed is homicide because he killed his own best friend. Here, there is no variance between the intended felony and the felony actually committed. Since there is no variance, Art. 49 would not apply. Error in personae will not mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. After losing in a cockfight, the husband went home disappointed. He called on his wife who was watching television to ask if dinner was ready, but the wife said that she did not yet cook. The husband suddenly slapped the wife twice. The wife lost balance and fell on the floor. As she was falling on the floor, her head hit the sharp edge of the table. As a result, blood came out at the head of the wife, and the wife suffered cerebral hemorrhage and thereafter died. What crime should the husband be prosecuted? Parricide. When the husband slapped the wife twice, he was committing a felonious act. Since he is committing a felonious act he is liable for the resulting felony. The act of slapping his wife is the proximate cause of the death of his wife. A decided to kill B. So he tried to conduct surveillance on the itinerary of B, of where he will pass by every day. Based on his surveillance, he knew that every 11:30 in the evening, B would pass by a dark alley. So A decided to kill B on that night. A hid behind a post. At exactly 11:30, a man passed by in the said alley, which resembled B. So A repeatedly stabbed the person thinking it was B. It turned that it was his own father. He killed his own father. What is the crime intended to be committed by A? Murder. He intended to kill B and he employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The husband said he had no intention to kill his wife, he only slapped her twice. Would you give him the benefit of praeter intentionem? Yes, because no one could have anticipated that the mere act of slapping the face of the wife twice would result to her death. A felony was committed, parricide and there was a notable disparity between the means employed by the husband and the resulting felony. What crime is actually committed? Parricide because he actually killed his own father. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death while for parricide it is also reclusion perpetua to death. Here, note that although the crimes differ in title, they have the same penalties. Therefore Art. 49 will not apply. A child arrived home in the morning. During the night, the child failed to go home and so the father was so mad. The father tied the son, 8 year old, in a coconut tree and thereafter began beating the body of the child with a thick piece of wood. Later, the father released the said 20 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 child. On their way home, the child fell on the ground unconscious. There was a crack on the head of the child and thereafter he died. The father was prosecuted for parricide. He contended that he had no intention to kill the child, he only intended to discipline the child. If you were the judge would you convict the father of the crime of parricide? If so, would you give him the benefit of praeter intentionem, so as to mitigate his criminal liability. In the case of People vs. Sales24, the SC held the father liable for parricide. The said act of the father in beating the son with a thick piece of wood was the proximate cause of the death of the said child. Therefore, the father should be liable for the resulting felony under the proximate cause doctrine. acts which would produce and indeed produced the death of the child. There was no notable disparity between the means employed by the father and the resulting felony. Hence, praeter intentionem will not apply. There was error in appreciating the miti-gating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Appellant adopted means to ensure the success of the savage battering of his sons. He tied their wrists to a coconut tree to prevent their escape while they were battered with a stick to inflict as much pain as possible. Noemar suffered injuries in his face, head and legs that immediately caused his death. “The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim.” (Ibid) Appellant attempts to evade criminal culpability by arguing that he merely intended to discipline Noemar and not to kill him. However, the relevant portion of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code states: Art. 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. x x x x In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator. Here, there is no doubt appellant in beating his son Noemar and inflicting upon him physical injuries, committed a felony. As a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child, he expired. Appellant’s criminal liability for the death of his son, Noemar, is thus clear. (Ibid) IMPOSSIBLE CRIME Art. 4 (2) Criminal liability shall be incurred: (2) 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. (Impossible Crime Doctrine) It is one where the act would have amounted to a crime against persons or property but it is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate means It is not really a crime in the legal sense of the word because a crime requires a substantive change in the outside world. Here, the act did not ripen into a crime. It was not accomplished into a crime because of its inherent impossibility. Objectively no crime is committed but subjectively the offender is a criminal, hence, the offender is being punished because of his criminal tendency and dangerousness. The RTC gave the father the benefit of praeter intentionem. Should the father be given the benefit of praeter intentionem? No. According to Supreme Court, praeter intentionem cannot benefit the father. The acts of the father beating the frail body of the child with a thick piece of wood are The imposition of parental discipline on children of tender years must always be with the view of correcting their erroneous behavior. A parent or guardian must exercise restraint and caution in administering the proper punishment. They must not exceed the parameters of their parental duty to discipline their minor children. It is incumbent upon them to remain rational and refrain from being motivated by anger in enforcing the intended punishment. A deviation will undoubtedly result in sadism. Prior to whipping his sons, appellant was already furious with them because they left thefamily dwelling without permission and that was already preceded by three other similar incidents. This was further aggravated by a report that his sons stole a pedicab thereby putting him in disgrace. Moreover, they have no money so much so that he still had to borrow so that his wife could look for the children and bring them home. From these, it is therefore clear that appellant was motivated not by an honest desire to discipline the children for their misdeeds but by an evil intent of venting his anger. This can reasonably be concluded from the injuries of Noemar in his head, face and legs. It was only when Noemar’s body slipped from the coconut tree to which he was tied and lost consciousness that appellant stopped the beating. Had not Noemar lost consciousness, appellant would most likely not have ceased from his sadistic act. His subsequent attempt to seek medical attention for Noemar as an act of repentance was nevertheless too late to save the child’s life. It bears stressing that a decent and responsible parent would never subject a minor child to sadistic punishment in the guise of discipline. (People vs. Sales, 658 SCRA 367, G.R. No. 177218 October 3, 2011) 24 21 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 4. ART. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. 5. ART. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. 6. ART. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public The penalty of IC is only arresto mayor a fine of P200500 depending on the criminality or dangerousness of the offender. ELEMENTS (PE-IV) 1. Act performed would be an offense against Persons or property; 2. Act was done with Evil intent; 3. Accomplishment is inherently Impossible or means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; and 4. Act performed should not constitute a Violation of another provision of RPC. building or edifice devoted to worship. 7. ART. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band. 8. ART. 302. Robbery is an uninhabited place or in a private building. 9. ART. 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. NOTE: Kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against person or property 1st Element: Act performed would be an offense against Persons or property; Crimes Against Persons under Title 8 1. ART. 246. Parricide. 2. ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. exceptional circumstances. ART. 248. Murder. ART. 249. Homicide. ART. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. ART. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in tumultuous affray. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. a ART. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. ART. 254. Discharge of firearms. ART. 255. Infanticide. ART. 256. Intentional abortion. ART. 257. Unintentional abortion. ART. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. ART. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. ART. 261. Challenging to a duel. ART. 262. Mutilation. ART. 263. Serious physical injuries. ART. 264. Administering injurious substances or 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. ART. 329. Other mischiefs. 33. ART. 330. Damage and obstruction to means of beverages. 18. ART. 265. Less serious physical injuries. 19. ART. 266. Slight physical injuries maltreatment. an uninhabited place or private building. ART. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. ART. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. ART. 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands. ART. 308. Who are liable for theft. ART. 310. Qualified theft. ART. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum. ART. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. ART. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. ART. 314. Fraudulent insolvency. ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). ART. 316. Other forms of swindling. ART. 317. Swindling a minor. ART. 318. Other deceits. ART. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property. ART. 320. Destructive arson. ART. 321. Other forms of arson. ART. 323. Arson of property of small value. ART. 324. Crimes involving destruction. ART. 325. Burning one's own property as means to commit arson. ART. 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender. ART. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. ART. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. communication. 34. ART. 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public and monuments or paintings. 2nd Element: Act was done with Evil intent Crimes Against Property under Title 10 It is necessary that the offender be incited with evil intent. 1. ART. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. 2. ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. 3. ART. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, 3rd Element: Accomplishment is inherently Impossible or means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. Inherent impossibility means that under any and all circumstance the act will not develop into a crime. 22 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2 KINDS OF INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility, on the other hand, is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. 1. Legal Impossibility when all intended acts even if completed would not have amounted to a crime. ILLUSTRATIONS: Intod vs. Court of Appeals25 (Ibid) killing a person already dead. 4th Element: Act performed should not constitute a Violation of another provision of RPC. X loss his diamond ring. X is envious of the new diamond ring of B. X knew that B always removes her ring whenever she wash her hands and so when B went to the restroom X followed her. Indeed, B removed her diamond ring and placed it beside the faucet. Then B went inside the cubicle. X came in and took the diamond ring. When X saw the diamond ring, she saw that it was actually her stolen diamond ring. Her initials where engaged on the said diamond ring. What crime is committed by X? X is liable for an impossible crime. The crime would have amounted to theft, a crime against property. The act was done with evil intent. However, the act did not ripen to theft because of inherent impossibility, the said happens to be his own ring. It is a legal impossibility. In theft, it is necessary that the thing taken must belong to another person because theft is done with intent to gain. Otherwise, that person will be liable for that crime and not of impossible crime. Impossible crime is a crime of last resort. You only file an impossible crime if the said act would not result to any other crime punishable under the RPC. A wanted to kill B so he looked for the house of B. A repeatedly fired shots at the room of B, wanting to kill B. However, B was not inside the room because he was in another place. What crime if any is committed by A? In the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals, they were convicted of attempted murder up to the CA. But when the case reached SC, SC said that it is only an impossible crime and what is present is physical impossibility. The act of firing shots in the room of B could have amounted to murder, a crime against person. It was done with evil intent, however, the act was not accomplished because the intended victim was not inside the room. Extraneous circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consummation of the crime. 2. Physical/Factual Impossibility- when an extraneous circumstances unknown to the offender/beyond the control of the offender, prevented the consummation of the crime. X is an employee of ABC Corporation. She was asked to collect a check from a client and thereafter remit the said check to ABC Corp. X did as told. However, instead of remitting the check to the Corp., X deposited the amount to his own account but the check bounced because for insufficient funds. The Corporation found out and filed a case of qualified theft against X. Is X liable for qualified theft? What crime if any is committed by X? In the case of Jacinto vs People26, SC said that she is not liable of qualified theft. She is liable of an impossible crime. ILLUSTRATION: A person placed his hands inside the bag of another intending to get anything but the bag was empty. The person who owned the bag noticed the hand. The person was not able to get anything from the bag. This is an impossible crime. A physical impossibility. The act done would have amounted to theft, it was done with evil intent, but because of extraneous circumstance unknown to the offender, the act did not ripen to a crime. Unknown to the offender, the bag was empty. NOTE: Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter’s wallet and finds the pocket empty. (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52, G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992) 26 As may be gleaned from the aforementioned Articles of the Revised Penal Code, the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was apparently without Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man who 25 23 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 All the elements are present. 1st, the acts perform would have amounted to qualified theft, a crime against property. 2nd, The act was done with evil intent. 3rd, the theft was not accomplished because of inherent impossibility. The check bounced. X was not able to get the face value of the check. There is physical or factual impossibility because an extraneous circumstance unknown to the offender prevented the consummation of the crime. ARTICLE 6 2 PHASES IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME 1. Subjective Phase – portion of the commission of the act wherein the offender commences the commission of the crime after the time that he has still control over his acts. He may or may not proceed in the commission of the crime. He still has control over his acts. What about the fact that X took the check? Will that not amount to qualified theft? SC said no. The mere act of taking the check without getting the face value of the check would not amount to qualified theft because under Art. 308, theft is defined is the taking of a property of another without the consent of another and with intent to gain . Therefore, it is necessary that the thing taken must be of value. The mere act of taking the check without value will not amount to theft because the check without value is a worthless check. Hence, the crime committed is only an impossible crime. X wanted to kill B. When he passed by the house of B, he saw B lying on the bench in the garden of the house. X entered the house without permission and stabbed B. Unknown to X, B had long been dead for 2 hrs. What crime if any is committed by X? The act of X, stabbing B would have amounted to murder because B was totally defenseless. It is a crime against persons. It was done with evil intent. However, the crime was not accomplished because of inherent impossibility. It is legal impossibility. B was already dead when X stabbed him. He did not kill a person n the eyes of criminal law. X is not criminally liable under the eyes of the law. 2. Objective Phase – offender has no more control over his acts. He has already performed all the acts of execution in the commission of the felony. NOTE: If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is consummated felony. 3 STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY 1. Attempted – when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. 2. 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. 3. Consummated – when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. ATTEMPTED STAGE In the attempted stage, the offender is still in the subjective phase of committing the felony. He has still control over his acts, he merely commences the commission of the crime. Shall he proceed? Or shall he stop? How about the 4th element that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of RPC, is the 4th element present? No. When X entered the house of B without permission, he in effect committed trespassing. Therefore, instead of being prosecuted for impossible crime. X should be prosecuted for Trespass to Dwelling. Impossible crime is a crime of last resort. You only file an impossible crime if the said act would not result to any other crime punishable under the RPC. If he proceeds he becomes criminally liable. If he voluntarily desisted he is absolved of criminal liability. Hence, desistance negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, “there is only one operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft—the taking of personal property of another.” Elucidating further, the Court held, thus: x x x Parsing through the statutory definition of theft under Article 308, there is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law— that theft is already “produced” upon the “taking of personal property of another without the latter’s consent.” (Jacinto vs. People, 592 SCRA 426, G.R. No. 162540 July 13, 2009) value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced. The fact that petitioner was later entrapped receiving the P5,000.00 marked money, which she thought was the cash replacement for the dishonored check, is of no moment. The Court held in Valenzuela v. People (525 SCRA 306 [2007]) that under the definition of theft in 24 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ELEMENTS (ODS) 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by Overt acts. 2. That offender Does not perform all acts of execution that would have produced the felony 3. That offender was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own Spontaneous desistance guard and everyone came up to her. A case was filed for attempted rape against the man. Is the man liable as charged? What crime if any is committed by the said man? Unjust vexation. In the case of Baleros Jr. vs. People27, SC said the overt act of pressing a cloth soaked with chemical on the face of a woman is not an overt act directly connected to rape. 1st Element: The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by Overt acts The obvious intent was to make the woman unconscious but once the woman is made unconscious, the man may rape the woman, may touch the private parts of the woman, may injure the woman, or kill the woman. Therefore, he cannot be liable for attempted rape. Different acts, but not necessarily connected to rape. Overt Acts are external acts which if allowed to continue will naturally and logically ripen into a crime. The phrase “directly by overt acts” means that the attempted felony that is punished by law is that directly connected to the overt act performed by the offender although he has a different crime in mind. SC said that when the overt act of a person in relation to his intent or purpose is ambiguous, what we have is an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense which has no juridical standing insofar as RPC is concerned. A wanted to rob the house of B. So he made an opening on the wall of the house of B sufficient for him to enter. However, before he was able to enter, the Brgy. Tanod apprehended him. He was arrested. Is A liable of attempted robbery? What crime if any is committed by A? What if in the same problem. A wanting to rob the house of B secretly and slowly took the jalousies of the window in the house of B. A was about to enter, passing through the window when suddenly the Brgy. Tanod saw him and arrested him. Is A liable of attempted robbery? What crime if any is committed by A? Attempted trespass to dwelling. Accused is liable of unjust vexation. Unjust Vexation refers to any acts which although incapable of producing any injury, unjustifiably annoys, vexes, or irritates an innocent person. The act of pressing a cloth soaked with chemical on the face of a woman definitely annoyed, vexed or irritated the said woman. It is a form of light coercion. 2nd Element: That offender Does not perform all acts of execution that would have produced the felony. In both instances, the accused is not liable for attempted robbery. His real intention is to rob the house of B, however, although that was his intended crime, the overt act performed by him which is that of taking the jalousies of the window and that of making an opening in the wall of the house is overt act not directly connected with robbery. These are overt acts directly connected to trespassing. Hence, A could only be prosecuted for attempted trespass to dwelling but not attempted robbery. 3rd Element: That offender was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own Spontaneous desistance. X was sleeping inside the room being rented by her. When suddenly she was awakened by a man pressing a cloth soaked with chemical on her face. The man was on top of her. X struggled and was able to kick the man, the man jumped out of the window. She called on the What if the father entered the room of the daughter, 8 yrs. old, and he undressed the said girl. Thereafter, he removed his clothes and placed himself on top of the girl. He happened to look on the door and saw his only son peeping. When he saw his son peeping, the father 27 Pounding on the nature of an attempted felony, the Court, speaking thru Justice Claro M. Recto in People vs. Lamahang, stated that "the attempt which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a logical connection to a particular, concrete offense; that which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation." Absent the unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect, as where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain, meaning the nature of the act in relation to its objective is ambiguous, then what obtains is an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense, which is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code. (Baleros, Jr. vs. People, 513 SCRA 321, G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006) In order for attempted stage to arise, it is necessary that the non-consummation of the crime was by reason of some cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance. Desistance negates criminal liability in the attempted stage but not in the frustrated and consummated stages. 25 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 got off the bed and left the room. What crime if any is committed by the father? Attempted rape. act directly connected to parricide having yet been committed, the son is not liable of any crime. In the same problem, the son mixed the poison that he bought on the juice of the father. So, he prepared a juice for the father and then he mixed the poison that he bought and then he gave the glass of juice to the father. The father was about to drink the said glass of juice when suddenly, the glass slipped from his hand and so, it fell on the floor. The father was not able to drink the juice with poison. Is the said son liable of attempted parricide? The son is liable of attempted parricide. The overt act of mixing the poison with the juice of the father and giving it to the father for him to drink it are overt acts directly connected to parricide. However, the son was not able to consummate the crime. The parricide was not consummated by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance; the glass accidentally fell from the hand of the father, hence, the son is liable of attempted parricide. In the case of People vs. Lizada28, the SC said that the acts of undressing the girl and placing himself on top of the said child, are overt acts directly connected with rape. However, he was not able to perform all the acts of rape because when he accidentally looked at the door, he saw the son peeping. That was the reason why the rape was not consummated. Hence, the crime committed is attempted rape. FRUSTRATED STAGE A felony 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. In the frustrated stage, the offender is already in the objective phase of committing the felony. He no longer has control over his acts, he already has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony, but nevertheless, the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of his will. In the same problem, the son mixed the poison with the juice of the father, gave it to the father, the father was about to drink the juice, when suddenly, the son has a change of heart, the son took the glass of juice and threw it in the garden. Is the said son liable of attempted parricide? The son is not liable of attempted parricide. The acts of the son of mixing the poison with the juice of the father and giving it to the father for him to drink it are overt acts directly connected to parricide. However, he was ELEMENTS (AP) 1. The offender performs All the acts of execution which would produce the felony. 2. The felony was not Produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. not able to perform all the acts of execution not because of any cause or accident but because of his own and voluntary spontaneous desistance. Since he voluntarily The son wanted to kill his own father? He was mad at the father, and so, he wanted to kill the father. The son bought poison from the drugstore. He will poison his father. He however, revealed his intent to his friend, and so the friend informed the police and the police and the friend went to the house of the father and son. When they arrived at the house of the father and the son, the son was unwrapping the poison that he bought from the drugstore. The police arrested the son. Is the son liable of attempted parricide? The son is not liable of attempted parricide. The act of buying the poison, although his intention was to poison the father, is not an overt act directly connected to parricide. It is a mere preparatory act. The poison may be used for other purposes, not purely or not merely to kill the father. It being a mere preparatory act, no overt desisted, he incurs no criminal liability. It makes an absolutory cause in the attempted stage. In the same problem, the son mixed poison with the juice of the father thereafter, he gave it to the father. The father drank the juice thereafter, the father showed signs of being poisoned. The son took pity on the father and thereafter administered to him, the antidote. Then he hurriedly brought his father to the hospital. The father survived. The doctor said “were it not for the antidote administered by the son, the father would have died.” Is the son liable of attempted parricide? The son is not liable of attempted parricide. Because when son mixed the poison with the juice, gave the juice Although accused-appellant desisted from performing all the acts of execution however his desistance was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel. Hence, accused-appellant is guilty only of attempted rape. (People vs. Lizada, 396 SCRA 62, G.R. Nos. 143468-71 January 24, 2003) 28 In light of the facts established by the prosecution, we believe that accused-appellant intended to have carnal knowledge of private complainant. The overt acts of accused-appellant proven by the prosecution were not mere preparatory acts. By the series of his overt acts, accused-appellant had commenced the execution of rape which, if not for his spontaneous desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape. 26 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 with poison to the father and the father drank the same, the son has already performed all the acts of execution. It is no longer in the attempted stage because in the attempted stage, the offender merely commences the commission of the felony. But here, the son had already performed all the acts of execution, hence, the son is not liable of attempted parricide. done with intent to kill. The wound sustained was not fatal, it was only on the arm, hence, A is liable only for attempted homicide. In the same problem, A, with intent to kill, stabbed B. The knife pierced through the heart of B. B was brought to the hospital, due to immediate medical intervention, although the wound was fatal, B survived, what crime is committed by A? A is liable for frustrated homicide. In this case, the liability of A is for frustrated homicide because the wound he inflicted on B is a mortal wound, a fatal wound, sufficient to bring about death but that did not supervene because of immediate medical intervention. Is the son liable of frustrated parricide? When the son mixed the poison with the juice and gave it to the father and the father drank the same, the son had already performed all the acts of execution that would bring about the crime of parricide. However, the crime was not consummated not because of a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator, but because of his own will. He is the one who administered the antidote. Therefore, the son is not liable of frustrated parricide because in frustrated parricide, it is necessary that the reason for the non-consummation of the crime was a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator . In this case, the reason for the non-consummation of parricide was a cause brought about the own will of the son administering the antidote, hence, the son is not liable of frustrated parricide. In the first problem given, the wound inflicted by A on B was on the arm. It was a non-fatal wound in the first problem, hence it is attempted homicide. In the second problem, when A stab B it was the heart that was hit, a mortal wound. Despite the mortal wound, B survived because of immediate medical intervention, it is now frustrated homicide. In a number of cases, the latest is of People vs. Labiaga29,the Supreme Court held and ruled that in case of intentional killing, for it to be considered in the frustrated stage, it is necessary that the wound inflicted on the victim is a mortal wound, a fatal wound, sufficient to bring about death because it is only upon the infliction of a fatal wound or a mortal wound that it can be said that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution that will bring about the consummation of the crime but even if the offender has performed all the acts of execution by inflicting a fatal or mortal wound, he survived because of immediate medical intervention, a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator, it is in the frustrated stage. What crime, if any, is committed by the son? The son is liable of Physical Injuries. Depending on how long the father needed medical attendance. If his father needed medical attendance for a period of 1-9 days, the son is liable for slight physical injuries. If his father needed medical attendance for a period of 10-30 days, the son is liable for less serious physical injuries. If his father needed medical attendance for a period of more than 30 days, the son is liable for serious physical injuries. Not attempted parricide and not frustrated parricide. A, with intent to kill, stabbed B. B, evaded the blow so B, was not killed, what crime, if any, is committed by A? A is liable for attempted homicide. A’s act of stabbing B is an overt act directly connected to homicide, however, he was not able to perform all the acts of execution by reason of a cause other than this own spontaneous desistance, that is, B was able to evade the said blow. If the wound inflicted by the accused on the victim is not a mortal wound, not a fatal wound, the crime is only in the attempted stage because the offender has yet to perform another act that will consummate the crime. That non-fatal wound is not sufficient to bring about death hence it cannot be said that the offender has already performed all the acts of execution that is necessary to produce the crime. What if, A, with intent to kill, stabbed B, B was hit on the arm, what crime, if any, is committed by A? A is liable also for attempted homicide. In the act of stabbing B, hitting B on his arm is an overt act directly related to homicide because the problem says it was A with intent to kill, took out his pistol, aimed the pistol at B, and then he pulled the trigger and shot A. However, no matter how hard he pulled the trigger, no In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder. (People vs. Labiaga, 701 SCRA 214, G.R. No. 202867 July 15, 2013) 29 27 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 bullets came out, unknown to him, the gun has no bullets. What crime is committed by A? IMPOSSIBLE CRIME The accomplishment of the crime is not possible. The non-accomplishment of the crime is due to its inherent impossibility. A, with intent to kill, aimed the gun at B and pulled the trigger, however, no bullet came out, the gun jumped. He had then pulled the trigger a second time, still, the gun jumped. What crime, if any, is committed by A? In the first problem, wherein A pulled the trigger and no bullets came out because the gun, unknown to him, was empty, it is not loaded, it has no bullets inside. The crime committed is an impossible crime because under any and all circumstances an unloaded firearm would not fire and kill a person, so the crime committed is an impossible crime. The act performed by him, pulling the trigger with intent to kill is an act that would amount to a crime against persons, homicide. He performed the act with evil intent however, the act wasn’t accomplished because of its inherent impossibility. The gun had no bullets inside, there is physical or factored impossibility. The act does not constitute a violation of any other provision, therefore, the crime committed is an impossible crime. ATTEMPTED FELONY The accomplishment of the crime is possible. The non-accomplishment of the crime was due to some cause or accidents other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance. ATTEMPTED FELONY all the acts of execution were not accomplished. FRUSTRATED FELONY Crime was not consummated by reason of a cause or accident other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance. The offender is still at the subjective phase of committing the crime The non-commission of a crime is by reason or cause of an act independent of the will of the perpetrator. The offender is already at an objective phase of committing the crime. all the acts of execution had already been accomplished. What if A raped B, B filed a case of rape against A, during the trial of the merits of the case, while B was testifying on cross examination, B admitted that she was not sure if it was a full or complete penetration. Because of this testimony, an admission made by B, the victim, that she was not sure a penetration was complete, the judge convicted the accused only of frustrated rape. Is the judge correct? The judge is wrong. There is no such crime as frustrated rape. In the second problem, A, with intent to kill aimed the gun at B, he pulled the trigger but the bullet did not come out, the gun jumped, he tried again, for the second time, still, the gun jumped and so B was not hit, the crime committed is attempted homicide. The reason is A’s act of aiming the gun at B with intent to kill pulling the trigger of the gun are overt acts directly connected to homicide, however, he was not able to perform all the acts of execution that will bring about homicide, because it was purely accidental that the gun jumped. In the cases of People vs. Quińanola30 and People vs. Morante, the Supreme Court said that it is settled in jurisprudence that there is no such thing as frustrated rape. Rape admits only of two stages, attempted and consummated. There is no frustrated rape because under Article 266-A, rape, as it has been defined as, when a man has carnal knowledge with a woman against her will. The law uses the term carnal knowledge, not sexual intercourse, therefore, it suffices Let it be said once again that, as the Revised Penal Code presently so stands, there is no such crime as frustrated rape. In People vs. Orita, the Court has explicitly pronounced. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs. Royeras, G.R. No. L31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, G.R. No. L32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People vs. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559; People vs. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil. 694; United States vs. Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. (People vs. Quiñanola, 306 SCRA 710, G.R. No. 126148 May 5, 1999) 30 28 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 that the penis has touched the lips or labia of the pudendum of a woman’s genital. It is not necessary that there be complete penetration, it is not necessary that there be hymenal laceration, the slightest penetration of the penis of the woman’s genitalia will already consummate the crime of rape. The law does not require sexual intercourse but only carnal knowledge. How then, will it be attempted rape? How then will it be acts of lasciviousness? A. If when the penis touched the outer surface of the woman’s genitalia based on the acts of the man, there was intent to lie, intent to have carnal knowledge with the said woman then the crime committed is attempted rape. B. If the penis touched the outer surface of the woman’s genitalia based on the acts of the man, there was no intent to lie, no intent to have carnal knowledge of the woman, the crime committed is only acts of lasciviousness. In the case of People vs. Christopher Pareja31, the Supreme Court said that it is settled in jurisprudence that the slightest penile penetration consummates the crime of rape. Applying this in the case of People v. Christopher Pareja, the Supreme Court said, the acts of the accused, entering the room of the girl, undressing the girl, undressing himself, touching the private parts of the girl, and trying to insert his penis into the genitalia of the girl, these are acts that prove that the said man has an intent to lie with the said girl. As such, the SC held the accused liable for attempted rape. When is there slightest penile penetration? There is the slightest penile penetration the moment the penis touches the lips or labia of the pudendum of the woman’s genitalia. So, penetration is required, but complete penetration is not required because the slightest penile penetration already consummates the crime of rape. X was sleeping, she was 13 years of age, then suddenly here comes Y, Y went inside the bedroom and undressed X. X tried to stop Y but Y was so strong, X was crying, then Y undressed himself and placed himself on top of X, and covered X with a blanket, however, the cries of X became louder and louder such that Y left the room with the warning not to tell anyone what had been done. A case of rape was filed against Y, Is Y liable of rape? What crime, if any is committed by Y? In the case of People v. Christopher Pareja, both the RTC and the CA, based on the said facts convicted the said accused of the crime of rape but when the case reached the Supreme Court, SC said that the crime committed by Y is not rape but only attempted rape. The SC noticed that based on the evidence presented on the sworn statement of the girl, she said, the penis of the accused naidikit to her genitalia. The same words were used by the girl in her open court testimony. The penis of the accused, naidikit on her genitalia. The SC said that when you say “naidikit,” the penis merely touched the woman’s genitalia. When what the penis has touched is the outer surface of a woman’s genitalia, there was yet no penetration, no slightest penetration, hence it cannot be consummated rape. It can either be attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. So, to summarize, the slightest penile penetration already consummates the crime of rape. When is there slightest penetration? When the penis touches the lips or labia of the pudendum of the woman’s genitalia. When what the penis has merely touched the outer surface of the woman’s genitalia, the crime could either be attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. A. It is attempted rape if there was intent to lie based on the acts of the man. B. It is acts of lasciviousness if there is no intent to lie based on the acts of the said man. Is there such a crime as frustrated theft? There is no such crime as frustrated theft. As held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Valenzuela vs. People32, there’s no such crime as frustrated theft because theft, according to the SC based on Article 308 is defined as a taking with intent to gain of any personal property belonging to another without consent of the owner or without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. however slight, of the victim’s labias. In the absence of testimonial or physical evidence to establish penile penetration, the appellant cannot be convicted of consummated rape. (People vs. Pareja, 680 SCRA 198, G.R. No. 188979 September 5, 2012) 32 There would be all but certain unanimity in the position that “in theft or robbery the crime is consummated after the accused had material possession of the thing with intent to appropriate the same, although his act of making use of the thing was frustrated.” (Valenzuela vs. People, 525 SCRA 306, G.R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007) 31Simply put, “rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ.” Without any showing of such penetration, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape [or] acts of lasciviousness.” As earlier discussed, the prosecution failed to present sufficient and convincing evidence to establish the required penile penetration. AAA’s testimony did not establish that the appellant’s penis touched the labias or slid into her private part. Aside from AAA’s testimony, no other evidence on record, such as a medico-legal report, could confirm whether there indeed had been penetration, 29 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 From its very definition, unlawful taking is the only operative act necessary to consummate the crime of theft. If unlawful taking is complete, theft is consummated. Unlawful taking is deemed complete the moment the offender gains possession of the personal property of another even if he has not yet disposed the said property, even if he has no opportunity to dispose the same. taking is already complete because the man has already gained possession of this property of the said department store. Even if he has not yet left the store premises, unlawful taking is complete because he already gained possession of the personal property of another even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. X was seated on the jeepney. He has a big bag. Suddenly he felt that his bag was becoming heavy and then he felt something inside the bag and so he looked inside the bag and there it was, he found the hand of the passenger seated next to him. The said passenger was not able to take the cellphone inside his bag because he timely discovered the hand of the said passenger. The said passenger was brought to the PNP Station, what crime if any is committed by the said fellow passenger? He is liable for attempted theft. The act of the passenger of putting his hand inside the said bag intending to get something from the said bag is an overt act directly connected to theft. However, he was not able to perform all the acts of execution because it was purely accidental or because of a cause that the said owner was timely able to discover the said hand inside his bag. Hence, it is attempted theft. So, there is no circumstance wherein theft would be in the frustrated stage. In the case of Valenzuela vs. People, the accused took boxes of detergents from the supermarket and loaded the same in the trunk of the car. The security guard however took notice of the said man and suspected him. Indeed it was found out that the said boxes of detergents had no receipt. A case of theft was filed against Valenzuela and his company. Convicted, and he appealed. In his appeal, he did not deny having taken the boxes of detergents but he contended that he should only be liable of frustrated theft not consummated theft because according to him, he had not yet left the premises of the said supermarket. Therefore, it should only be in the frustrated stage. In this 2007 case of Valenzuela v. People, the SC made a landmark ruling that theft has no frustrated stage. There is no such crime as frustrated theft. With the same reasoning given earlier; under Article 308, theft is the unlawful taking of the property of another with intent to gain. The moment the offender has unlawful taking of the personal property of another, theft is already consummated. Unlawful taking is complete the moment the offender gains possession of the personal property of another even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Is there such a crime as attempted impossible crime? There is no such crime as attempted impossible crime because impossible crime, in reality, there is no crime committed because impossible crime is the only crime imposed on an offender whose acts did not perfect into a crime because of its inherent impossibility but because of his criminal tendency, he is being punished for an impossible crime. In impossible crimes, the offender has already performed all the acts of execution; consummated, but even if consummated, the act or the crime did not ripen because of its inherent impossibility. Hence, there cannot be a frustrated stage in an impossible crime. A man entered the department store, then he took 5 Tshirts and he told the sales lady that he is going to fit them. In the fitting room and so he was allowed to go inside the fitting room. The man took of his jacket and thereafter fitted the said T-shirts and below, he wore the said t-shirts. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th t-shirt, he placed them all. He placed them all inside his body and then thereafter, he covered the t-shirts with his jacket. After putting on his 5 t-shirts on his body, he put on his jacket and then he started to leave. However, as he passed by the door of the said store, an electronic device sounded which means that there was something in him that has not yet been paid in the cashier and the five t-shirts on his body were indeed found. What crime is committed by the said man? The man is liable for consummated theft. The moment the man took the same, fitted the same, put on the tshirts on his body and tried to leave, the said unlawful Is there such a crime as frustrated adultery? Is there such a crime as frustrated false testimony? Is there such a crime as frustrated slander? Is there such a crime as frustrated physical injuries? There are no frustrated physical injuries, no frustrated slander, no frustrated false testimony, no frustrated adultery. The reason is that these are all crimes based on consequence, based on result, not based on tendency. These are crimes which are consummated upon the actual performance of the act. They are considered as formal crimes. 30 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Formal crimes are crimes which do not admit stages. Formal crimes are based on consequence, based on result, not based on tendency. Hence, there are no attempted or frustrated stages in formal crimes but only consummated stages. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a commission of a felony and they decide to commit it. If the crime admits stages, attempted, frustrated, consummated, or attempted and consummated, they are called as Material crimes. There is proposal to commit felony when the offender who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person. Crimes which do not admit of a frustrated stage 1. Rape – the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, the slightest penetration to the female organ consummates the felony. 2. Corruption of public officers – mere offer consummates the crime. 3. Physical injury – consummated at the instance the injuries are inflicted. 4. Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual congress. 5. Theft – the essence of the crime is the possession of the thing, once the thing has been taken or in the possession of the person, the crime is consummated. Conspiracy is a bilateral act. It requires agreement involving two or more persons, on the other hand, proposal to commit a felony is only a unilateral act. Only one person who has decided to commit the crime proposes its execution to another person. If that other person whom the proposal is given agreed to the said proposal, we no longer have a proposal to commit a crime, instead, what we have now is a conspiracy to commit a crime. ARTICLE 8 As a rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable acts because they are mere preparatory acts; exception to the rule, when the law specially provides a penalty therefore. CONSUMMATED STAGE A crime is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. So as a rule, the conspiracy to commit a crime is not a punishable act because it is a mere preparatory act; exception to the rule, as provided by article 8 first paragraph, conspiracy to commit a crime shall be punishable only when the law especially provides a penalty therefore. Therefore, there are two concepts of conspiracy; one, conspiracy as a crime by itself and the other one, conspiracy as a means of committing a crime. Instances wherein the stages of a crime will not apply 1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless otherwise provided for; 2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.); 3. Impossible crimes; 4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (e.g., attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of minors); 5. Felonies by omission; and 6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g., betting in sports, corruption of public officers). CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME BY ITSELF When conspiracy is a crime by itself, the mere act of conspiring makes the conspirator criminally liable. They need not perform an overt act to commit the crime. They need not perform an overt act to become criminally liable. For merely conspiring, they are already criminally liable. That is conspiracy as a crime by itself. ARTICLE 7 CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A CRIME The other form of conspiracy, the other concept is conspiracy as a means in the commission of the crime. If conspiracy is only a means in the commission of the crime, before the persons who come out with the crime become criminally liable as conspirator, they must first perform an overt act. Mere agreement will not suffice, an overt act must be performed. Under Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code, we have, as a rule, light felonies can only be penalized in their consummated stage. Exception to the rule, light felonies against persons, light felonies against property, even in the attempted or frustrated stages, the offender already incurs criminal liability. 31 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 A, B and C conspired to commit rebellion against a government. They were arrested. They were charged of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Are they liable as charged? They are liable as charged because conspiracy to commit rebellion is a crime by itself. It is punished under Article 136. Just by the mere act of conspiring, they are already criminally liable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a crime by itself. No overt act need to be performed by them in order that they be held criminally liable. they failed to appear at the scene of the crime or even if they appeared at the scene of the crime, they performed acts to prevent the consummation of the crime, they are not considered as conspirators. A, B and C conspired to commit robbery. After they have come out with the agreement the police arrested them. Are they liable for conspiracy to commit robbery? They are not liable for conspiracy to commit robbery. Their conspiracy, their act of planning to commit robbery is only a preparatory act. The conspiracy here is only a means to commit the crime. It is not a crime by itself, there is no such crime as conspiracy to commit robbery. Hence, the offenders are not yet criminally liable. For them to be liable, it is necessary that they must perform an overt act relating to robbery for at least; they will be liable for attempted robbery. A, B and C agreed and decided to injure X. They found X so rude and boastful and therefore, to humble X, they decided to injure him and so, A, B and C encircled X and all of them simultaneously and repeatedly boxed X and kicked X until X fell on the ground. When they saw that X had already been hurt, A and B left but C saw that when X fell on the ground, his cellphone also fell on the ground and so before leaving, C also took the cellphone of X. What crime or crimes is/are committed by A, B and C? A, B and C are all criminally liable as conspirators for the crime of physical injuries, they agreed to injure X and they actually committed the said act. In case of direct or express conspiracy, as a rule, the conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed upon. They are not liable for any crime which has not been part of the agreement, so they are liable only as a rule for the crime agreed upon. 2 KINDS OF CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A CRIME 1. Direct or Express Conspiracy 2. Implied or Inferred Conspiracy. In addition, C would be liable for theft because when X fell on the ground and his cellphone also fell on the ground, C took the said cellphone. The act of taking was not part of the agreement. The agreement of A, B and C was only to injure X, hence, only C will be held liable for the crime of theft. There is direct or express conspiracy when the offenders planned, meet and agreed to commit a crime. Direct or express conspiracy is a conspiracy based on a preconceived plan or agreement. The conspirators met, they planned, agreed and decide to commit the crime; it is direct or express conspiracy. For the mere act of conspiring, they are already considered as conspirators, but they are not yet liable because they are merely performing a preparatory act. But the moment any one of them performs an overt act relative to the crime agreed upon, all of them will become criminally liable because they are part of the conspiracy. So, as a rule, in case of direct or express conspiracy, the conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed upon. They are not liable for any other crime for any other crime which is not part of agreement. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. The following are the exceptions: 1. When the other crime was committed in the presence of the other conspirators who did not prevent its commission. 2. When the other crime was the necessary consequence of the crime agreed upon. 3. When the resulting crime is a special complex crime or a composite crime or a single indivisible offense. All of them will become criminally liable except: 1. A conspirator who, although part of the agreement, failed to appear at the scene of the crime, his nonappearance shall be construed by law as resistance and 2. A conspirator who although part of the agreement and appeared at the scene of the crime performed acts to prevent others from consummating the crime. In these 3 instances, although the other crime was not part of the agreement, all conspirators will be liable for the said crime. A, B and C decided to injure X, their purpose was to humble X because X was so rude and boastful and so they encircled X and thereafter they pulled him, kicked These 2 persons although they are part of the agreement, although they are part of conspiracy, since 32 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 All of them are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294. Since the resulting felony is a special complex crime, all of them will be criminally liable of the said special complex crime because the said crime cannot be separated. Therefore, even if the crime agreed upon was only robbery, and even if it was only A who stabbed the victim, all of them would be liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide because the homicide occurred by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery. him and boxed him until X fell on the ground. While X was laying on the ground, his wallet fell from his pocket as well as his cellphone. C saw the wallet and the cellphone and so, A and B were about to leave when C told A and B, “wait, there’s the cellphone, there’s the wallet.” So A and B stopped and they saw C taking the said wallet and then A told C “what about the necklace? What about the watch?” and so C also took the watch and the necklace. What crime/s is/are committed by A, B and C? A, B and C are all criminally liable for physical injuries, that is the crime agreed upon, to injure X. In addition, A, B and C would also be criminally liable as conspirators for the crime of theft because when C took the cellphone, the wallet and the necklace, it was done in the presence of A and B who did not perform acts to prevent its commission. So these are the 3 instances wherein the conspirators become criminally liable for the other crime committed although not part of the agreement. Again, these are the exceptions to the rule because the general rule is the conspirators are criminally liable only for the crime agreed upon. Here, although theft was not a crime agreed upon, since its commission was done in the presence of A and B and they did not perform acts to prevent it, but they even encouraged it and prompted to it, they also become conspirators in the crime of theft. In case of direct or express conspiracy, for one to be liable as a conspirator, aside from being part of the agreement, he must appear at the scene of the crime and he must perform acts showing his support in the commission of the crime. However, in case of direct or express conspiracy, since it is a conspiracy based on a preconceived plan, the act performed by one of the conspirator may either be a direct or indirect participation in the commission of the crime. He may not only participate in doing the criminal act, or he may merely be present at the scene of the crime, giving moral support or giving moral ascendancy, that would suffice. Since he was part of the agreement, he is a conspirator. A, B and C decided to injure X so they all boxed and kicked X. X was lying on the ground, A, B and C continuously beat X until C kicked the neck of X, a fatal blow. X was brought to the hospital, X died. What crime/s is/are committed by A, B and C? Since X died, A, B and C would all be held criminally liable for murder. Although the crime agreed upon was only physical injuries, that is to injure X, although the crime agreed upon was only physical injuries, since the death of the said victim, the murder of the victim was the necessary consequence of the said plan to injure the victim, all of them will become criminally liable as conspirators for the crime of murder. In case of implied or inferred conspiracy, it is a conspiracy which is deduced from the mode and manner of committing the crime. Implied or inferred conspiracy, the conspirators acted simultaneously, in a synchronized and coordinated manner, their acts complimenting one another towards a common criminal design, towards a common criminal objective. In implied or inferred conspiracy there is no prior agreement. There is no preconceived plan, it may happen that the conspirators only knew it in that instant, yet, a conspiracy was established instantly, impulsively, at the start of the moment, based on the turn of events, it is a conspiracy that sprung out of the turn of events because the acts of the conspirators show that they have the same criminal intent. A, B and C decided to take the wallet of X. X was withdrawing from the ATM machine, A, B and C were watching X. They saw X place the money inside the wallet. So, when X was already walking on the street A, B and C encircled X. A, B and C told X to give to them the wallet and a knife was pointed at X. So, a knife was pointed at X and A, B and C told X to give to them the wallet but X would not want to give to them the wallet. X put up a fight and so, A stabbed the victim, thereafter B took the wallet and A, B and C scampered away. X died. What crime/s is/are committed by the said accused A, B and C? The conspiracy was to commit robbery. To rob the wallet of the said victim, X but in the course of the said robbery, the said victim was killed by reason or on occasion of the said robbery, the victim was killed, a homicide was committed. Since implied or inferred conspiracy is a conspiracy which is deduced from the mode and manner of committing the crime, for one to be liable as a conspirator, it is necessary that he must actively participate in the commission of the crime. 33 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In case of implied or inferred conspiracy, mere approval to the commission of the crime, mere knowledge of the commission of the crime, mere acquiescence to the commission of the crime will not make a conspirator liable. Absent any active participation in the commission of the crime conspiracy will not exist. If, however, conspiracy is not established, each perpetrators would be liable individually depending on their participation in the commission of the crime. The moment conspiracy is established, you do not ask who inflicted the fatal blow? Who performed a mere minor act? They being conspirators, their liability would be the same and one. The act of one is the act of all. The police officers got a tip that there was a shabu session ongoing in the house of X. So, the police officers went to this said place, upon arrival in the place, they announced their presence. When X learned of the presence of the police officers, at that time, X, Y and Z were indeed engaged in a shabu session. When X heard the police, X suddenly shut the door. When X shut the door, 2 police officers entered inside, the moment the two police officers opened the door and entered inside, Y repeatedly shot at the two police officers who both fell on the floor, lifeless. They were not able to return the shots. The third police officer also opened the door and Y also fired at the two police officers. The third police officer fell on the floor but he’s still alive and so Z ordered X to finish the third police office but before X could finish the third police officer, reinforcement arrived and X, Y and Z were all arrested. X, Y and Z were prosecuted for two counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder as conspirators. Two counts of murder for the death of the two police officers and one count of frustrated murder for the fatal wound inflicted on the third police officer. X contented that he is not liable as a conspirator because his only participation in the commission of the crime was to shut the door. On the other hand, Y also said that he is not liable as conspirator for the crime of murder because his only participation was to order X to finish the 3rd police officer but X wasn’t able to do so. It was only Y according to them who should be held criminally liable because it was only Y who fired at the victim. Are X, Y and Z criminally liable for 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder? As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Carandang, Milan & Chua33, all of them are criminally liable for 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder. A conspiracy existed among X, Y and Z. The SC said “it is settled in jurisprudence in the case of People v. Garchitorena34, to establish conspiracy, direct evidence is not necessary.” Direct proof is not necessary To summarize, Milan’s and Chua’s arguments focus on the lack of direct evidence showing that they conspired with Carandang during the latter’s act of shooting the three victims. However, as we have held in People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464 (1998), conspiracy may also be proven by other means: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of participation of each. (People vs. Milan, 653 SCRA 607, G.R. No. 175926 July 6, 2011) Accused-appellant Garcia also argues that there was no conspiracy, as “there was no evidence whatsoever that he aided the other two accused-appellants or that he participated in their criminal designs.” We are not persuaded. In People v. Maldo, 307 SCRA 436 (1999) we stated: “Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest. Hence, the victim need not be actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one of them is deemed the act of all.” (People vs. Gatchitorena, 597 SCRA 420, G.R. No. 175605 August 28, 2009) A and B were having an argument thereafter, so pissed off, A took out a knife and he tried to stab B however, B evaded the blows. Here comes X, X passing by saw the situation X saw that A was trying to stab B but couldn’t do so because B evaded the blows. So what X did, he went at the back of B held both hands of B at the back, as a result, A was able to stab B repeatedly until B died. Is X a conspirator of A in the crime? X is a conspirator of A. There was no preconceived plan, no prior agreement made between A and X, the conspiracy was established at the spur of the moment. X’s act of placing himself at the back of B, holding the hands of B at the back which allowed A to continuously stab B are direct and positive overt acts that shows that he has the same criminal intent as that of A which is to kill B and so, an implied conspiracy was impulsively, instantly established between A and X. This is an example of an implied or inferred conspiracy. Whatever be the kind of conspiracy, whether it is direct or express conspiracy or implied or inferred conspiracy, the moment conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all. What does it mean? The act of one is the act of all means that the moment conspiracy is established, all perpetrators are punished to the same effect. The moment conspiracy is established, all perpetrators are punished to the same criminal liability imposed by the same penalty regardless of the quantity or quality of participation in the crime. 33 34 34 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 him “Tara na, tayo na, patay na.” Thereafter, both of them left. to establish conspiracy because conspiracy can be established by the acts of the accused immediately, prior to, during and after the commission of the crime. They were later arrested, both Michael Bokingco and Reynante Kol were arrested and they were prosecuted for the crime of murder and for the death of Noli Pasion. Both of them were convicted by the RTC, conviction was affirmed by the CA. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court convicted accused Michael Bokingco for homicide for killing Noli Pasion but acquitted accused Reynante Kol. The Supreme Court said that there was no conspiracy between the two accused. What was present in the evidence is that at the time accused Bokingco was killing the victim at the apartment, another crime was being committed by accused Reynante Kol inside the house. There was no showing that Reynante was part of the killing. There was no showing that Reynante Kol knew about the said killing before he was informed by accused Bokingco as such, conspiracy not being established, the Supreme Court said that their liabilities would be individual in nature. Applying this case, the SC said that the act of X of shutting the door, gave Y the opportunity to wait in anguish for the 2 police officers. Hence, when the 2 police officers entered, Y was able to fire at them without the police officers being able to return their shots. The act of Z on the other hand showed that he has moral ascendancy over the others, as such, from their acts, it can be established that a conspiracy existed in particular, there was a preconceived plan among the 3 of them. Hence, they are all criminally liable. The prosecution said that since Z ordered X to finish the 3rd officer and X followed, Z should be liable as a principal by inducement. The Supreme Court said since they’re all liable as conspirators, all of them are considered as principals by direct participation in the commission of the crime. As I said, in case of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all if it is established but if it is not established, the liabilities of the offenders would depend on the act that they had actually committed in the commission of the crime. Since the crime charged was homicide, only accused Bokingco would be held liable. Accused Reynante Kol would not be held liable because the crime that he committed was attempted robbery and the crime charged was homicide. Hence, there was an acquittal insofar as Reynante Kol is concerned. In the case of People v. Michael Bokingco and Reynante Col35, the Supreme Court said that the offenders are not criminally liable for the crime of homicide. So what happened in this case? The accused went to the apartment, when the said accused went to the apartment, a noise was heard and so the witness went to the said apartment and he looked through the screen of the window. As he was looking at the screen of the window, he saw the said accused, Michael Bokingco hitting something on the ground. Thereafter, it was discovered that the said man was the victim, Noli Pasion. At the time of the said incident, when Michael Bokingco was killing the victim Noli Pasion in the said apartment, his other co-accused, Reynante Col, was inside the house of the victim Noli Pasion and this time, he was asking the wife, Elsa Pasion, to open the vault of the house. He held the hair of the woman and forcibly asked the woman open the vault. However, before the woman was able to open the vault, Michael Bokingco called on Reynante Col and told In conspiracy, if it is not established, the liability of the perpetrators of the crime would be individual in nature. The father waited for X. The father was mad at X and so he waited for X. Upon seeing X, the father boxed and boxed X. The son of the father A, saw the father boxing X and so the son A, joined the father in boxing X. X was now on the ground and both his father and A boxed X. Thereafter, the father and the son A left. At the precise moment the father and A left, here comes B, the other son of the father. B went to X who was about to stand up from the ground and B stabbed twice the stomach of X. X died. The father, son A and son B were all arrested and prosecuted for homicide as conspirators. Is there conspiracy? What crime, if any is/are committed by the father, son A and son B? There was conspiracy insofar as the father and son A are concerned. When the father was hitting and boxing equated to attempted robbery. The fact that Elsa heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had been killed and that they had to leave the place does not prove that they acted in concert towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from the crimes they separately committed. (People v Bokingco and Col, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011) 35 Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act. Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of conspiracy. In the instant case, Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing Pasion, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop. At the most, Col’s actuations can be 35 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the victim, the son saw the same and the son joined the father in hitting and beating the said victim. There was an implied conspiracy at the spur of the moment. Their acts showed by the same intent they have to injure the victim. Hence, there was a conspiracy between the father and the first son A. ARTICLE 11 Justifying circumstances are those circumstances which, if present in the commission of the crime, the offender is said to have acted within the bounds of the law. The offender is said not to have transgressed the law. Hence, there is no crime committed, there is no criminal liability and there is also no civil liability. However, insofar as son B is concerned, there was no conspiracy together with the father. The act of son B was individual in nature. The intent of the father and son A was only to injure the victim but the intent of son B was to kill the victim. No conspiracy was established insofar as son B is concerned. In this case, the liability of the second son B would be individual in nature. The father and the first son A would be liable physical injuries as conspirators while the second son B would be liable for homicide since the liability of son B is different from that of the father and Son A. Justifying Circumstances or the presence of justifying such is both an admission and avoidance. If the accused invoked any of the justifying circumstances under Article 11, he is in effect, admitting the commission of the crime but at the same time, avoiding the criminal liability thereof. So, justifying circumstances show both admission and avoidance. If a person accused of a crime invokes any of the justifying circumstances, he admits the commission of the crime but he avoids responsibility thereof. ARTICLE 9 Therefore, the burden of evidence now is on him, to prove the justifying circumstance that he is invoking. The moment an accused invoked any of the justifying circumstances under Article 11, trial will be inverted, it is the defense that must present first the evidence to prove the elements of the justifying circumstance that the accused is invoking. Otherwise, it would be a conviction. Under Article 9, how are felonies classified according to severity? According to severity felonies are classified into grave, less grave and light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the 1. capital punishment or 2. penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. A was charged with homicide. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The judge asked the counsel, “Counsel, what is your defense?” the counsel said “Selfdefense your honor.” The moment the judge learned that the defense of the said accused would be selfdefense, trial will be inverted. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned Article. In regular trial, it is the prosecution that must first present the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but, if the justifying circumstance is invoked, the judge will require the defense to first present its evidence. The defense has the burden of proving the justifying circumstance that he is invoking. If the defense failed to prove the justifying circumstance that he is invoking, definitely, there is conviction, because in effect, the accused already admitted the commission of the crime. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of 1. arresto menor or 2. a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or 3. both, is provided. CHAPTER TWO Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability There are different circumstances affecting the criminal liability of the offender and these different circumstances affecting the criminal liability of the offender include justifying, exempting, mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 36 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Under Article 11 the following do not incur any criminal liability: victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. TWO KINDS OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION 1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. 2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). This is otherwise known as self-defense. Self-defense does not only include defense of one’s life and limb. Selfdefense also include defense of one’s honor and chastity, it also includes defense of one’s property if coupled by an attack on the person entrusted with the said property. ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE (URL) 1. Unlawful aggression. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot. (Ibid) 1ST ELEMENT: The first element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. The unlawful aggression must come from the victim. In the case of People v. Fontanilla36, the Supreme Court said that unlawful aggression is the primordial element in self-defense because without unlawful aggression, there is nothing to repel; hence, self-defense will not lie. It is necessary that there must be an unlawful aggression coming from the victim. 2nd ELEMENT: The second element of self-defense is reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. What is unlawful aggression? Unlawful Aggression refers to any act done or material attack that places the life and limb of the person defending himself in actual or imminent danger. When you say reasonably necessary, it doesn’t mean perfect equality of weapon, it doesn’t mean that if the unlawful aggressor is using a knife, the person defending himself must also use a knife. It suffices that the means used by the offender, by the accused or the person defending himself; is rationally necessary in order to prevent the unlawful aggression. “Reasonable necessity” means that they used, or the means employed or the weapons by the person defending himself must be rationally necessary in order to repel or to prevent the unlawful aggression being given by the victim. The elements of unlawful aggression as held by the SC in the case of People v. Fontanilla are When the unlawful aggressor makes use only of his fist, the use of a lethal weapon, the use of a gun, the use of a bolo on the part of the person defending himself is not rationally necessary in order to prevent the unlawful aggression, but when the unlawful aggressor is attacking the victim with a bolo, the use of a gun by the person defending himself is reasonably necessary in order to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION (PAU) 1. There must be a Physical or material attack or assault. 2. The attack or assault must be Actual or at least imminent and; 3. The attack or assault must be Unlawful. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is nothing to repel. (People vs. Fontanilla, 664 SCRA 150, G.R. No. 177743 January 25, 2012) 36 37 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 3rd ELEMENT: The third element of self-defense is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. prevent the unlawful aggression. Last element is also present, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of A. A was merely waiting for a ride. No provocation at all was given. If ever A and B had a fight a day after, even if A was the one who provoked the said crime, the said provocation was not imminent to the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Hence, the third element is still present. All of the elements of selfdefense being present, A should be acquitted of the crime charged based on self-defense. “Provocation” refers to any improper act or conduct which excites or incites a person to do a wrongful act. Provocation is said to be sufficient when it is adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the gravity of the act. What the third element of self-defense requires is that there must be no sufficient provocation coming from the person defending himself; lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. A was waiting for a ride when suddenly, here comes B, the person whom he had an altercation a day before and B was fast approaching him, hurriedly, holding a bolo on his hand. The bolo was raised down to the ground and B was fast approaching A. A felt danger and so, when B was about 5 feet away, A pulled out his pistol and shot B. Prosecuted for homicide, A said he acted in self-defense, is there self-defense? There is no self-defense because there is no unlawful aggression. There is no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person defending himself: 1. When no provocation at all is given by the said accused to the aggressor. 2. When although provocation was given, it was not sufficient. 3. When although provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself. 4. When although provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not imminent to the said act of aggression. First element, was there unlawful aggression? There is no unlawful aggression. The act of B of approaching A with a weapon, a bladed weapon, a bolo on his hand, facing down; B on his way, does not yet constitute unlawful aggression. It may be a provocation but it does not yet constitute unlawful aggression, because the mere act of holding a bolo does not place the life and limb of the person defending himself in actual or imminent danger. Since there was no unlawful aggression to speak of on the part of B, therefore, the use of a gun is not necessary to kill the said victim. There is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to repel, the use of the gun is not reasonably necessary, as such, A should be convicted as charged, A should be convicted of the crime of homicide. In all these instances, the third element is present; there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. A was a waiting for a ride in order to go to work when suddenly he saw B, the man whom he had an altercation the other day. He saw B fast approaching him telling him “I will kill you! I will kill you!” and B was running towards A with a bolo raised on his hand in a hacking position. So when he was about 5 feet away from A, A shot B. Prosecuted for homicide, A said he acted in self-defense. He invoked the first justifying circumstance. Is A liable of homicide or should A be acquitted based on self-defense? A should be acquitted of the crime charged based on self-defense. A was watching the television, when A was watching the television; he suddenly heard noise, noise in the garage. And so, he went to the garage, armed with his pistol, a caliber 45. When he was in the garage, he saw X. X had opened the hood of his jeepney and upon opening the hood of his jeepney, he saw that X was about to get the battery of his jeepney and so, what A did was he shot the said victim, that is X. X died. Prosecuted for homicide, A said that he only acted in self-defense, particularly, in defense of his property because he caught the said victim in the act of taking the battery of his jeepney. The elements of self-defense, first, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; there was unlawful aggression on the part of B. The said act of B of running towards A, shouting “I will kill you, I will kill you!” with a bolo raised in a hacking position places the life and limb of A in actual and imminent danger. Second element, reasonable necessity of the means employed; the life and limb of A was in danger, there was this bolo which B was holding in a hacking position, at that precise moment, he has no weapon but the use of his gun. And so, the use of his gun was rationally necessary to 38 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In the case of People v. Ramon Camacho37, the Supreme Court said there is no self-defense on the part of the said accused. The act of the said victim, opening the hood of the car and trying to get the battery, does not constitute actual and imminent danger on the property of the said accused, more so on his life. The SC said, the said act does not constitute unlawful aggression. Since the said act does not constitute unlawful aggression, there was no necessity on the part of the said accused to use a gun, a caliber 45 pistol in firing at the said victim. In this case, self-defense was not considered by the court on the favor of the said accused. The answer is yes. Although the man is not armed, the man is greater than the said woman in his personal circumstances. In order to determine whether the means employed by the accused is reasonably necessary in order to prevent the unlawful aggression, you have to consider the following factors: 1. The nature and number of weapons used by the accused. 2. The height, weight, and other personal circumstances of the accused as against that of the victim. 3. The places and location of the assault. In case of defense of property, for self-defense to lie; it is necessary that it is not only the property that is in danger. It is necessary that there must also be an unlawful aggression; there must be a coupled attack on the person entrusted with the said property. Otherwise, self-defense would not lie. These 3 factors would establish if the means employed by the accused defending himself was reasonably necessary in order to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. The woman was on her way home. As she passed by a dark alley, a man suddenly grabbed the said woman, the said woman was dragged forcibly inside a vacant house and there, at gunpoint, the said woman was undressed by the man and forcibly pinned down on the ground. The man also undressed himself. As the man placed himself on top of the said woman, the woman took a balisong inside her bag and stabbed the man. The man died. Prosecuted for homicide, the woman said she acted in self-defense. Is there self-defense? Was there unlawful aggression on the part of the man? There is self-defense. Considering these factors in the case, first, the nature and number of weapons used. The man was unarmed but although the man was unarmed, he has his fist, by use of fist, by use of his arms, he forcibly dragged the woman and undressed the woman. Second, the personal circumstances, height, weight, size and other personal circumstances of the unlawful aggressor versus the person defending himself, the unlawful aggressor, the man is greater in strength, in height, in size, in personal circumstances against the woman who was been down. Third, the place and location of the assault, it was a dark alley, the woman was brought to a vacant a house. The presence of these circumstances, of these 3 factors would show that the woman’s use of a balisong in order to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression was reasonably or rationally necessary. There was unlawful aggression on the part of the man. The man forcibly dragged the victim inside a vacant building, inside a vacant house, thereafter, the man undressed the woman, undressed himself, placed himself on top of the woman. This shows that there was an actual and imminent danger on the honor, chastity and virtue of the said woman. There was unlawful aggression on the part of the said man. Last element of self-defense, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, there was no provocation at all coming from the woman. The woman was only walking at home, hence, the said woman should be acquitted of the crime charged, should be acquitted of homicide because she acted in selfdefense; that is, in defense of her honor or of her chastity. Second element of self-defense, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression. Was it reasonably necessary for the said woman to stab the man? The man was unarmed, he has no arms at the time, but the woman made use of a balisong in order to stab the said man. Was the use of a balisong rationally necessary in order to prevent the unlawful aggression? A tried to stab B. B evaded the blow then A tried to stab B again. This time, B jumped on A and tried to get the weapon from A. So A and B struggled for the possession of the said knife that A was trying to use in stabbing B. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.29 As we previously explained, accused-appellant failed to present evidence to corroborate his claim that the elements of self-defense, including unlawful aggression, were present in this case.(People vs. Camacho, 359 SCRA 200, G.R. No. 138629 June 20, 2001) 37 39 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 With all his might, B was able to gain possession of the said knife. Upon possession of the said knife, B stabbed A. A died. B is now prosecuted for homicide. He invoked self-defense. Is B liable of homicide or should he be acquitted on the ground of self-defense? B is liable for homicide. Therefore, the first and the second element are both absent. How about the third element, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, the third element is also absent. There was sufficient provocation on the part of the accused brother. The brother was seen by the husband sleeping with the wife on top of the bed, naked, that constituted sufficient provocation. First element, was there unlawful aggression on the part of A? The act of trying to stab B two times constituted unlawful aggression however, when they struggled for the repossession of the bolo and B gained possession of the bolo, B was able to get the bolo from A, whatever inceptive unlawful aggression A had commenced had already seized to exist. Since the unlawful aggression commenced by A had already seized to exist when B was able to get hold of the bolo, there is no reasonable necessity for B to still stab and kill the victim. As such, self-defense would not lie in favor of B. That is the case of People v. Regalario38. All the elements of self-defense were absent; therefore, the brother has to be convicted of the crime of homicide. Self-defense would not lie in his favor. In the case of Toledo vs. People39, the accused and the victim had an argument because during a drinking spree, they had an argument and so the victim tried to hack the said accused. The accused ran towards his house and closed the house. Thereafter, accused took also the bolo hanging on the house. Then, he opened the door of the house and there was the victim and he killed the said victim. The accused is now prosecuted for homicide. Accused invoked self-defense. Thereafter, the accused invoked accident. The accused said that he accidentally killed the said victim by reason of selfdefense. The husband arrived home, upon arrival, he went inside the bedroom, upon opening the bedroom, he saw his own wife on bed together with his own brother. Upon seeing his own wife and his brother, both naked on top of the bed, the said husband pulled out a knife and tried to kill his brother. However, the said brother evaded the blow. They struggled for the possession of the said bolo, of the said knife, the brother was able to gain possession and thereafter, he stabbed the husband. The husband died. Prosecuted for homicide, the brother said he acted in self-defense. Is there self-defense? Unlawful Aggression? There is no self-defense. Supreme Court said, there was no such thing as accidental self-defense. You cannot invoke self-defense and accident at the same time. The reason is that selfdefense, is a direct and positive overt act performed by an offender under the impulse of self-preservation. The offender, the accused, has to kill the victim in order to preserve his own life. So, it is based on self-preservation, it is not done negligently but deliberately. The accused deliberately killed the victim. A direct and positive overt act in order to save his own life, it is based on the impulse of self-preservation. Therefore, since selfdefense is a direct and positive overt act done deliberately to save one’s life, it cannot go along with accident; wherein, there is only negligence. So, Supreme Court said, there is no such thing as accidental selfdefense. The act of the husband of trying to stab his own brother whom he saw sleeping naked together with his wife, that constituted unlawful aggression because he tried to stab the brother. However, when they struggled for the possession of the bolo and the brother gained possession of the bolo, whatever incentive unlawful aggression had been commenced by the husband, it has already seized to exist. Since the unlawful aggression had already seized to exist, there is no more reasonable necessity for the said accused brother to kill and stab the husband. 39 There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal law.Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code necessarily implies a deliberate and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression of another with the use of reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. He is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts. The defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the law. From necessity, and limited by it, proceeds the right of self-defense. The right begins when necessity does, and ends where it ends. (Toledo vs. People, 439 SCRA 94, G.R. No. 158057 September 24, 2004) 38 The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression and the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for the person invoking self-defense to attack his adversary ceases. If he persists in attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Selfdefense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray. (People vs. Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009) 40 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The rule behind self-defense is “stand ground when in the right.” What does it mean? Stand ground when in the right means that when the accused is where he should be, the rule does not require him to retreat when he saw his assailant fast approaching him with a weapon; for if he retreats, he runs the risk of being stabbed on the ground. “Stand ground when in the right” means that even if the provocation was given by the relative being defended, there can still be a valid defense of a relative provided that the relative making the defense is not a party to the said provocation. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that 3.1. the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and 3.2. that the person defending be not induced by 3.2.1. revenge, 3.2.2. resentment, or 3.2.3. other evil motive 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his 2.1. spouse, 2.2. ascendants, 2.3. descendants, or 2.4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of 2.5. his relatives by 2.5.1. affinity in the same degrees, and 2.5.2. those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, i. in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, ii. that the one making defense had no part therein. ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF STRANGERS (URR) 1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3. Person defending be not induced by Revenge, resentment or other evil motive. Person considered as stranger Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in par. 2 of Art. 11. So, this is otherwise known as “Defense of a Stranger.” Again, we have already discussed the first element of unlawful aggression as well as the 2nd element, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES (URP) 1. Unlawful aggression. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. 3. In case the Provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. How about the third element? That the person defending be not induce by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. What does it mean? It means that in order for defense of a stranger to lie in favor of the accused, it is necessary that the said accused, in defending the stranger must be ignited only by a disinterested and lawful objective of helping a total stranger. He must be ignited solely by disinterested and lawful objective of helping a total stranger. He must not be ignited by ill-motive like revenge, resentment and the hatred, etc. NOTE: The law gives a leeway on the third requisite, even if the relative being defended gave the provocation, if the relative making the defense had no part therein, he can successfully invoke the defense of relative. So, these are the elements of the 2nd justifying circumstance which is more popularly known as “Defense of Relative.” A and B were passengers on a jeepney. They’re only two inside the jeepney. So one is seated on the right seat, the other one is seated on the left portion of the jeepney. Then the jeepney was flagged down by X. X seated next to A because he saw A using a nice cellphone. When they passed by a dark portion of the street, X immediately pulled an ice pick, placed it on the left side of the body of A and told A, “this is a hold-up, give me your cellphone, give me your wallet.” A, however, resisted and would not give the cellphone and the wallet. B, who In defense of relative, we have to take note of the relatives which may be defended, even if the person being defended is a relative but he is not among those mentioned in Article 11, 2nd paragraph; then, it cannot be considered as defense of relative but rather it is defense of a stranger. The third element of defense of relative, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein. It’s simply 41 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 at that time was merely looking saw that X was about to stab the left side of the body of A and so what B did, he kicked X outside of the jeepney. X fell out of the jeepney passing through the window. X suffered serious physical injuries. B was prosecuted for serious physical injuries. B invoked defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance. Is B liable of serious physical injuries or should he be acquitted based on defense of a stranger? B should be acquitted based on defense of a stranger. So, this is the 4th justifying circumstance. This 4th justifying circumstance is otherwise or more popularly known as “State of necessity.” The offender, in order to prevent any person, or in order to prevent an evil or injury, he does an act which causes damage to another person. It is a state of necessity and the offender is justified in causing the damage if the three requisites are present. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists, that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it, that there be no practical and less harmful means of preventing it. First element, was there unlawful aggression? There was unlawful aggression. X was at the point of stabbing the left side of the body of A because A refused to give his cellphone that act placed the life and limb of the stranger A in actual and imminent danger. Second element, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. B, at that time was without arm. In order to prevent the unlawful aggression about to be made by X on A, B kicked the said hold upper, the said victim, out of the jeep. It was reasonably necessary because at that time, it was the only means he had to help the said victim, the other passenger A, in order to prevent the unlawful aggression and third, that the person defending, B, be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. The problem does not show that X and B know each other. Therefore, B cannot be said to be ignited by any ill-motive in helping A. B is ignited solely by the disinterested and lawful objective of helping a total stranger. Therefore, B should be acquitted of serious physical injuries because his acts are justifying acts, defense of a stranger. In justifying circumstances, if it is present in the commission of a crime, there is no criminal liability and civil liability. An exception to that is paragraph 4, state of necessity. In case of state of necessity, there is no criminal liability but there is civil liability. Civil liability in state of necessity shall be borne by all persons who have been benefited by the said state of necessity. A was driving his vehicle at about 11:30 in the evening along EDSA or along the highway, he was driving his vehicle. He was driving the vehicle within LTO rules and regulations then suddenly, he saw a big truck in the middle of the said highway without any lights, he was already near the said truck. There was no lights, no early warning device in the middle of the said street. If X would go on driving, he would be hitting the car which would result to his death. If he would turn to the right, he would be hitting the island and this may also cause his death because his car would be damaged and he may have died. If he turned to the left, he would be hitting a person who was begging for alms and so, he turned to the left, hit the said person, the person died. X is now prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He invoked the justifying circumstance of state of necessity as a defense. Is X liable of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or should he be acquitted because he acted based on state of necessity? X should be acquitted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. 4. Any person who, (1) in order to avoid an evil or injury, (2) does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present: First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. ELEMENTS OF STATE OF NECESSITY (EGP) 1. That the Evil sought to be avoided actually exists. 2. That the injury feared be Greater than that done to avoid it. 3. That there be no other Practical and less harmful means of preventing it. First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists. The evil that he sought to avoid, the collision of his car with the truck which was suddenly in front of him in the middle of the street, without any lights, without any early warning device. Second element, that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; the injury that he feared, his death. If his vehicle collided with the said truck, he may die and the third, that there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. NOTE: State of necessity can only be invoked by a person who is not the author of the state of necessity. 42 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 It was a state of necessity, he could no longer hold on the breaks because the truck was already in front of him because there was no early warning device, no anything that would give notice that there was this big truck in the middle of the highway. All the elements are present; therefore, the said accused X should be acquitted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. harmful means of preventing it. It was as a state of emergency. He has only 3 choices to go on and fall on the deep excavation, to swerve to the right or to swerve to the left. Hence, all the 3 elements are present but although all the three elements are present, the taxi driver is criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries. What about the fact that it was only his life that was preserved, what about the life of the said person whom he hit? Isn’t it of such importance too? The Supreme Court said that insofar as a person is concerned, his life is always more important than any other person. Hence, the second element is present, that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. The injury he feared, his own death. It is greater than that of any other life of any other stranger. The reason is that state of necessity can only be invoked by a person who is not the author of the state of necessity. In this problem, the taxi driver himself was the author of the said state of necessity. He was the author of the said state of emergency. He is the one who placed himself in that situation. He disregarded the sign, “Detour, Do not Enter.” Since he is the one who placed himself in that situation, since he is the one who authored the state of emergency, he cannot now invoke the very same state of necessity in order to absolve himself of criminal liability. Therefore, the driver should be held criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries. The taxi driver has to go to Greenhills on board the taxi, was a family of 5, the mother, the father and the three children and they’re going to Greenhills. Since traffic was heavy in EDSA, the taxi driver decided to take the streets of Mandaluyong then the streets of San Juan. As the taxi driver was passing by the streets of San Juan, he entered a shortcut. Before entering the shortcut, he saw a sign, a big sign saying “Detour, Do not Enter.” The taxi driver disregarded the said sign and entered and he increased his speed then suddenly the taxi driver found himself in an emergency situation. If he goes on, the taxi would fall on a deep excavation. If he turned to the right, he would be hitting several construction workers. If he turned to the left, he would be hitting a blank wall. He turned to the right and hit and wounded 5 construction workers. The taxi driver is now prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries. To absolve himself of criminal liability, he invoked the fourth justifying circumstance that is state of necessity. Is the taxi driver liable as charged for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries or should he be acquitted because his act was based on the state of necessity? Although all the three elements of state of necessity are present, the taxi driver is criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries. 5. Any person who acts in the 5.1. fulfillment of a duty or 5.2. in the lawful exercise of a 5.2.1. right or 5.2.2. office. ELEMENTS (PC) 1. Accused acted in the Performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary Consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. Under this 5th justifying circumstance, it is necessary that the resulting injury must be the unavoidable or the necessary consequence of the lawful performance of duty of the said accused. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an 6.1. order issued by a superior 6.2. for some lawful purpose. First element, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exist. The evil that he sought to avoid that is the collision or his car going down the deep excavation which would cause his death and the death of his passengers. Second element, that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid. The injury that he feared, the loss of his life and the life of the passengers it is far greater than the physical injuries sustained or inflicted on the said construction workers. Third element, that there be no other practical and less ELEMENTS (OL) 1. That an Order has been issued by a superior. 2. The said order must be for some Lawful purpose. 3. The Means used by the subordinate to carry out the order must also be lawful. So, in this last justifying circumstance, it is not only necessary that the order issued by the superior must be lawful, it is equally necessary that the means used by 43 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the subordinate to carry out the order must also be lawful. Otherwise, there cannot be a valid justifying circumstance. the means used by Police Officer X was not lawful. Instead of arresting him, he fired at the said man. Even if the criminal ran away, the Police Officer could have chased him first and not necessarily fired repeatedly at the back. The death of the said criminal was not within the order issued by the said superior. Therefore, the sixth justifying circumstance is also not present in this case; Police Officer X should be convicted as charged. A warrant of arrest had been issued by the judge against a person who had been convicted of a crime, a wanted criminal; the police was in possession of the same, particularly, the head of the police. The head of the police formed a team in order to arrest this wanted criminal and so, the chief of the PNP gave the said warrant of arrest to the head of the team Police Officer X and the chief PNP told Police Officer X, by virtue of this warrant of arrest, arrest this person, bring him to this police station so that we could present him to the court. That was the order given by the said chief of police to police officer X and his men. Police Officer X and his men went to look for the said wanted criminal. They got a tip as to the whereabouts. So, they went to the particular province where the said criminal was. Upon reaching the said place, in the particular place designated there, they indeed saw the wanted criminal. Upon seeing the wanted criminal, Police Officer X went to him, showing him the warrant of arrest and showed him that he is under arrest and must be brought to Manila. However, upon reading the said warrant of arrest and upon giving his statement to police officer X, the said wanted criminal hurriedly ran away. Police Officer X took out his pistol and shot the man several times at the back. The man died. Prosecuted for homicide, Police Officer X invoked the following justifying circumstance, first, according to him, he acted in the performance of his duty, that is the fifth justifying circumstance and; Second, according to him, he acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior. Are all justifying circumstances present? So those are the justifying circumstances present in the Revised Penal Code. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME A justifying circumstance which is not present in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code is found under RA 9262. That is the so called “Battered Woman Syndrome” (BWS). BWS refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, it is provided that, “Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists”. The first justifying circumstance that he invoked, that he acted in the due performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. Is it present? The first element that he acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of a right of office is present however, the second element of this justifying circumstance is absent because firing or killing the said man, that is the crime of homicide, is not the unavoidable or necessary consequence of his due performance of his duty. Therefore the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty would not lie in favor of Police Officer X. So, BWS is akin to a justifying circumstance. The offender who has committed a crime but was suffering from BWS does not incur any criminal liability or civil liability. The last paragraph, however of section 26 of RA 9262 provides that before the charge may be considered, the said accused to be suffering from BWS, it is necessary that there must be an expert testimony coming from psychologists and psychiatrists. So the courts, by themselves, cannot determine if the woman was indeed suffering from the so called BWS. There must be expert testimony coming from psychiatrists, coming from psychologists, they are the ones to determine if indeed, the woman was suffering from BWS. So Dong and Donna, husband and wife have been married for years. The woman had always been beaten by Dong, so they’re married for 10 years and during How about the second justifying circumstance that he invoked? That is that he acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior? The order issued by the chief of police to arrest him, bring him to the police station so that the criminal may be presented in court. The order was lawful; however, 44 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). those 10 years of marriage; Dong had been continuously beating the said wife. One day, the said husband arrived home. Upon seeing the wife, he again began beating the said wife. Thereafter, after the said wife fell on the floor, the said husband slept. While the husband was sleeping, the said woman took a knife and thereafter, she went to her sleeping husband and stabbed the husband to death. Thereafter, she placed the husband on the blanket and left, but later, the commission of the crime was discovered and the wife was arrested. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. As a defense, she invoked the so-called “Battered Woman Syndrome.” b. Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain. Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability for killing her husband since she suffered physical and emotional distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite the absence of the requisites of self-defense. If based on the testimony of the expert psychologist and psychiatrist, the said woman was indeed suffering from BWS, the said woman should be acquitted of the crime charged. There can be no criminal liability; likewise, no civil liability shall be incurred by the same woman. Again, BWS is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women who live in battering relationship as a result of cumulative abuse. It is akin to a justifying circumstance; no criminal liability, no civil liability. ARTICLE 12 Exempting Circumstances are those circumstances which, if present or attendant in the commission of a felony would exempt the offender from criminal liability. There is a crime committed but the offender is not criminally liable. The offender is exempted from criminal liability because there is the absence of any of the elements of voluntariness in the commission of the crime. Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide. (BAR 2015) The elements of voluntariness, criminal intent, freedom of action and intelligence; therefore, any of these is absent in the commission of the crime, either criminal intent, or freedom of action, or intelligence; is absent in the commission of the crime, hence, the offender is exempted from criminal liability. If an exempting circumstance is present in the commission of the crime, there is a crime committed but there is no criminal because the offender acted without voluntariness. There’s also no criminal liability again, because the offender acted without voluntariness but there is civil liability as a rule because a crime had indeed been committed. a. May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? Explain. No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is not sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Woman Syndrome”. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman with marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and So in case of justifying, as a rule no crime, no criminal liability, no civil liability except in paragraph 4, state of necessity where there is civil liability. In case of exempting circumstances, there is a crime but there is no criminal, there is no criminal liability but there is civil liability because there is a crime committed. 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a 45 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. insanity on the part of the said accused, the defense counsel presented the father of the accused. The father of the accused stated in open court that his son had been in and out of the mental institution. 2nd, he said that his son was always naked; his son was always naked inside the house, would leave the house naked and would return weeks or month thereafter still naked. The father testified that the son was inside the house, would take the jewelries of his mother and would sell the same at a very low price. Because of this, the father said his son should be acquitted of criminal liability because he was insane. Based on the testimony given by the father. If you were the judge would you convict the accused as charged or would you acquit the said accused on the ground of insanity? Based on the testimony of the father, the accused should be convicted as charge of the crime of murder. TWO EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Imbecility An imbecile person is one who although he is already advanced in age; he has only the mindset of a 2-7 year old child. Therefore, he lacks intelligence, an element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime, hence, it is exempting. Imbecility is exempting under any and all circumstances. There is no lucid interval insofar as imbecility is concerned. 2. Insanity Insanity is the mental aberration of the mind. It is the incapacity of the offender to determine the right from wrong and to appreciate the consequences of his act. The testimony given by the father, instead of showing insanity on the part of his son, what is revealed was that if ever the son had been insane in one time or another, he may have lucid interval. Insanity is not exempting under any or all circumstances because the first paragraph of Art. 12 provides “unless the offender acted during a lucid interval.” So, if the offender who committed the crime invokes insanity, he, in effect, admits the commission of the crime but he is avoiding criminal liability by saying that he was insane, either before or during the commission of the crime. First, the father said that the son had been in and out of the mental institution. It means that the son would be cured because he would be released by the mental institution. 2nd, the father said that although naked to leave the house, the son would return weeks or months after, still naked. This shows that the son had lucid interval because a totally insane person would not know where his house is located and the statement of the father, the son would take the jewelry of the mother and would sell it a lower price. An insane person would not know that jewelry had value. So the insanity that is exempting is the insanity that is existing either immediately before, at the time, or during the commission of the crime. If the insanity occurs after the commission of the crime, it is no longer exempting in nature. Insofar as insanity in concerned, all persons are presumed sane, therefore, the burden of evidence is on the accused, that the said accused, at the time of the commission of the crime or immediately prior to the commission of the crime, was suffering from insanity. Otherwise, if evidence would show that there was lucid interval, he shall be held criminally liable as charged. The testimony of the father proved that if ever the son had been insane once, he acted with lucid intervals. Therefore, the said accused should be convicted as charged. What about the state of somnambulism? What if, a person sleepwalks and whenever he is sleepwalking, he will commit a crime. In the old case of People v. Taneo40, the Supreme Court said being in the state of somnambulism or sleepwalking in the commission of a crime is akin to insanity. The offender would not know the effects or consequences of his act in the commission of the crime because he was sleeping at Accused killed the victim. Accused was prosecuted for the crime of murder because of the brutal matter of killing the victim; accused invoked the defense of insanity. According to the counsel, the accused was insane immediately prior to and at the time of the commission of the crime, therefore, the accused should be acquitted of the crime charged. In order to prove By virtue of the facts stated in the decision, Held: That the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, No. 37673 March 31, 1933) 40 46 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the time of the commission of the crime. Hence, it is akin to insanity. If based on the facts, he acted without discernment, still, he is totally exempted from criminal liability but if based on the facts, he acted with discernment; he becomes criminally liable as charged. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (RA 9344) Under Sec. 6 of RA 9344, it is provided that the said child in conflict with the law; shall already be exempted from criminal liability but not from civil liability. Again, in exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability but there is civil liability because a crime had been committed. The 2nd and 3rd exempting circumstance under article 12 refers to minority and this 2nd and 3rd exempting circumstance under Article 12 had already been amended by RA 9344, the juvenile justice and welfare act. Under Section 641 of RA 9344, if the child in conflict with the law at the time of the commission of the crime is 15 years of age or under, so if the child is 15 years of age or under, at the time of the commission of the crime, he is totally exempted from criminal liability. If, however, a child, in conflict with the law, at the time of the commission of the crime, is over 15 years of age but below 18 years of age, still, he is totally exempted from criminal liability except when he acted with discernment. So, there are 2 ages being referred to in section 6. If the child in conflict with the law, at the time of the commission of the crime is 15 or below, 15 years of age, or under 15, he is totally exempted from criminal liability regardless of discernment. So the moment you saw in the problem, the child is 15 or under, do not anymore determine discernment. Just by the age, he is already totally exempted from criminal liability. No criminal liability. AGE BRACKET 15 years old or below CRIMINAL LIABILITY Exempt Above 15 but below 18, who acted without discernment Above 15 but below 18, who acted with discernment Exempt Not exempt TREATMENT The child shall be subjected to an intervention program. The child shall be subjected to an intervention program. Such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with R.A. 9344. How do you determine the age of the child? Under Sec. 742 of RA 9344, it is provided that minority shall always be viewed in favor of the child. The age of the child shall be determined by taking into consideration his birth certificate, his baptismal certificate or any other relevant or pertinent documents. But, if the child in conflict with the law, at the time of the commission of the crime is over 15 but below 18 years of age, based on the facts of the problem, you have to consider discernment. SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court may file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties. If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the main case shall be suspended. In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law. 41 A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. 42 SEC. 7. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined 47 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 If there are no such documents, the age of the child of shall be determined from the statement coming from the child, from the testimony of other persons or from the physical appearance of the child himself. Absent any other evidence, minority shall always be resolved in favor of the child. Therefore, unless there be any showing that the said child is no longer 18 at the commission of the crime, he enjoys the privileges under RA 9344. with the law is already above 18 years or 18 and above of the time of the publication of judgment, at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt, he should still be given a suspended sentence for as long as he was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. Although under Sec. 38, the said suspended sentence can be applied to a child in conflict with the law even if he is already 18 or above at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt, this provision is tempered by Sec. 4044 of RA 9344, if the child in conflict with the law reaches the age of 18 while under suspended sentence, the judge shall determine whether the said suspended sentence shall be extended or the said child shall be made to serve his sentence. If the said suspended sentence need to be extended, it is necessary that the said child must not be above 21 years of age. Therefore, under Sec. 40 of RA 9344, the suspended sentence may only be applied to a child in conflict with the law if he is 21 or below at the time of the promulgation of judgment or the pronouncement of his guilt. The moment the child in conflict with the law is already beyond 21 years of age, suspended sentence, shall no longer apply to the said child in conflict with the law. What if the child in conflict with the law, who committed the crime was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment and so he was prosecuted in court. After trial of the merits, the judge found the accused minor, 17 years of age guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now, there be a pronouncement as to his guilt; there shall be no pronouncement as to his guilt as provided for in Sec. 38. Under Sec. 3843, what the judge should only pronounce is the civil liability arising from the commission of the crime but there shall be no pronouncement as to the guilt of the said child in conflict with the law instead, the said child shall be placed under suspended sentence without need of application. It is not necessary for the defense counsel, it is not necessary for the said child to apply for a suspended sentence. It is motu propio upon the judge to place the said child under suspended sentence for as long as he was minor at the time of the commission of the crime. There are several cases on these. In the case of Madali vs. People45; 2 brothers, Raymond and Rodel Madali, killed another teenager. Raymond Madali at the time of the killing was only 14 years of age. Rodel Madali was 16 years of age. Insofar as Raymond Madali is concerned, the Supreme Court, he is totally exempted from criminal liability regardless of discernment because at the time he committed the crime, he was below 15 years of age. Section 38 provides that the said child in conflict with the law shall be placed under suspended sentence, even if he was already 18 or above at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt or at the time of the publication of judgment. So even if the child in conflict SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. 44 SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment. If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. 45 Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown to be a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: Retroactive effect of penal laws.—Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344. (Madali vs. People, 595 SCRA 274, G.R. No. 180380 August 4, 2009) 43 48 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Insofar as Rodel Madali is concerned, he was 16, that means, above 15 but below 18 therefore, discernment matters. Based on the evidence presented, Supreme Court said that Rodel Madali, in killing the victim acted with discernment; hence, he was convicted. Second Issue in the case, Considering that the crime committed by the said accused was a heinous crime, that is rape, can he be given retroactive application of a suspended sentence considering that he committed a heinous crime does Sec. 38 of RA 9344 providing for a suspended sentence applies even to child in conflict with the law who has committed a heinous crime? The Supreme Court said yes, according to the SC, such provision of RA 9344 does not distinguish as to the nature of the crime committed by the offender, therefore, taking into consideration the rule in Statutory Construction, that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the court distinguish. Therefore even if the crime committed by the child in conflict with the law is a heinous crime, suspended sentence may still be given to the said child in conflict with the law. The provision on suspended sentence under section 38 or RA 9344 may be applied regardless of the crime committed by the minor. Whether the crime committed by the minor is a heinous crime or the crime committed by the minor is a crime of lesser penalty. There was discernment on the part of Rodel Madali because based on the witness who testified that after the killing, Rodel Madali warned him not to tell the said act to any other person. Such act of warning the witness showed that Rodel Madali knew that he committed unlawful or a criminal act and that if revealed, he would be punished. This means that there was discernment on the part of the said accused. He knows the consequences of his act. As such, since Rodel Madali was 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, acting with discernment, he is convicted of the crime charged. In the case of People v. Sarcia46, Sarcia was prosecuted for the crime of qualified rape and he was convicted of the same but he was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, 17 years of age. So, the penalty imposed on him was reclusion perpetua. On appeal of his case before the Supreme Court, RA 9344 took into effect. So since at the time of the said review of the Supreme Court, this law of RA 9344, there are many issues in this case. The third issue, considering the age of Sarcia, the age of the accused, at the time the Supreme Court promulgated the judgment; can the provision on suspended sentence be applied on him? Be given retroactive application to him? This time, the answer is no, Supreme Court said, although Sec. 38 of RA 9344 provides that the suspended sentence shall be applied to the child in conflict with the law, even if he is already 18 and above at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt, Sec. 40 however, provides that the suspended sentence can be applied to a child in conflict with the law only up to the maximum age of 21. The first issue, can the provisions of RA 9344 be given retroactive application to Sarcia? The Supreme Court said yes, the provisions of RA 9344 shall be given retroactive application to Sarcia. The reason is, Sec. 6847 of RA 9344. Under Sec 68 of RA 9344, persons who are already convicted or are serving sentence but who were minors at the time of the commission of the crime, shall be given retroactive application of the law. At the time the SC promulgated the judgment, Sarcia who was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, was already 31 years old; therefore, the suspended sentence can no longer be applied to him because he was way beyond the maximum limit of 21 years of age. Supreme Court said, if those persons who are already convicted and serving sentence shall be given retroactive application of the law, how much more accused Sarcia when his case was still under review by the Supreme at the time of the effectivity of the law. More so, he shall be given retroactive application of the provisions of RA 9344. These are the issues presented by the court and ruled by the court in the case of People vs. Sarcia. RA 9344 shall be given retroactive application to him. at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable law. Since Republic Act No. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been convicted of a capital offense and another who has been convicted of a lesser offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime. (People vs. Sarcia, 599 SCRA 20, G.R. No. 169641 September 10, 2009) 47 SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. - Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence 46 49 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 So, considering that the suspended sentence can no longer be given retroactive application to him because of his age, what provision then of RA 9344 was given retroactive application? Under Section 5148 of RA 9344 the child in conflict with the law, who has already been sentenced need not serve his sentence in the regular penal institutions together with hardened criminals, instead, he must serve his sentence in agricultural camps and other training facilities established by the bureau of corrections in coordination with DSWD. So even if the accused was already 31 years of age at the time of promulgation of judgment, Section 51 may still be given retroactive application to him. 9165, the penalty is life imprisonment to death regardless of the quantity and purity of the dangerous drugs involved. So, he committed a heinous crime. Considering that the crime that he committed is a heinous crime, can a suspended sentence be applied to him? Again, the answer is yes. Again, Supreme Court, as held in the case of People vs. Sarcia, ruled in this case of People vs. Mantalaba that Sec. 38 of RA 9344 does not distinguish between a heinous crime and a crime of lesser penalty. So, whatever be the crime committed by the child in conflict with the law, he can avail of a suspended sentence. Third issue, considering the age of the said accused Mantalaba at the time the SC promulgated the judgment, can he be given the benefit of a suspended sentence? This time, the answer is no because at the time the SC promulgated the judgment, Mantalaba was already 25 years of age; way beyond the 21 maximum age limit provided for in Sec. 40 of RA 9344. The issues answered and discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Sarcia were also the very same issues discussed and ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Mantalaba. Sarcia was 2009, People v. Mantalaba was 2011. In the case of People vs. Mantalaba49, Mantalaba was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. At the time of the commission of the crime, Mantalaba was 17 years of age. He was convicted by the court; the case was on review by the Supreme Court. While the case of Mantalaba was on review by the Supreme Court, again, RA 9344 took into effect. So, the same issues as the case of People vs. Sarcia; In this case, again, just like the case of People vs. Sarcia, the only benefit to Mantalaba was Sec.51. He need not serve his sentence in the regular penal institution but instead, he may serve his sentence in agricultural camps and training facilities established by the bureau of corrections in coordination with DSWD. First, can the provisions of RA 9344 be given retroactive to Mantalaba? Yes, because of Section 68 of the law. Sec.68 provides the persons who are already convicted or are serving sentence but were minors at the time of the commission of the crime, shall be given retroactive application, how much more Mantalaba, who, at the time of the effectivity of the law, the case was still on review by the Supreme Court. In this case, actually, the SC said that when the case of Mantalaba was before the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction; Mantalaba at that time, was 21 years of age. Supreme Court said, the Court of Appeals could have given him a suspended sentence but since the Court of Appeals failed to do so at the time that case reached the Supreme Court, Mantalaba was already way beyond the 21 maximum age limit, hence, the suspended sentence would no longer apply to him. 2nd issue, the crime committed by Mantalaba is a heinous crime. Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. 49 This Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia, 599 SCRA 20 (2009), that while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. 48 In finding the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, the RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as mandated in Section 98 of the same law. A violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Mantalaba, 654 SCRA 188, G.R. No. 186227 July 20, 2011) 50 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. This leaves the Court with no choice but to pronounce judgement. Perpenian is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Since this Court has ruled that death as utilized in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code shall no longer form part of the equation in the graduation of penalties pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, the penalty imposed by law on accomplices in the commission of consummated kidnapping for ransom is Reclusion Temporal, the penalty one degree lower than what the principals would bear (Reclusion Perpetua). Applying Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should then be adjusted to the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law for accomplices. This Court, therefore, holds that as to Perpenian, the penalty of Prision Mayor, the penalty lower than that prescribed by law (Reclusion Temporal), should be imposed. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty, which is one degree lower than the maximum imposable penalty, shall be within the range of Prision Correccional; and the maximum penalty shall be within the minimum period of Prision Mayor, absent any aggravating circumstance and there being one mitigating circumstance. Hence, the Court imposes the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as maximum”. (Ibid) In the recent case of People v. Gambao, one of the accused who was held criminally liable as an accomplice, was a 17 year old woman at the time of the commission of the crime. So, the crime was kidnapping for ransom and the said woman, was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. The Supreme Court held her liable as an accomplice in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Should she be given a suspended sentence? At the time the Supreme Court promulgated the judgment, convicting the said accused of being an accomplice to the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom, she was already 31 years of age. Hence, SC said the suspended sentence can no longer apply to the said woman. The only benefit under RA 9344 which may be given retroactive application to her according to the Supreme Court, again, was section 51. So, the issue contended here is that she was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime but at the time the Supreme Court promulgated the judgment, she was already 31 years of age. Should Section 51 still apply to her considering that at the time of the promulgation of judgment, she was already 31 years of age. SC said yes. According to the SC, under Sec. 51, these persons who were minors at the time of the commission of the crime should serve their sentence in agricultural camps and training facilities, not in the regular penal institution; even if at the time of the promulgation of judgment, he is no longer a minor for as long as he was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. What if a child in conflict with the law, so he was already 17 years of age. Over 15 but below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime, he acted with discernment. Then the judge convicted him, there is no suspended sentence because he was way beyond 21 years of age at the time of the promulgation of the judge. Can he apply for probation if the penalty imposed on him by the judge is within the probationable penalty of 6 years or below? The answer is yes, under Sec. 4250 of RA 9344, if the child in conflict with the law has been convicted and sentenced and upon his application, the court may place him under probation and this is an amendment to PD 968, the probation law. “Modification should also be made as to the criminal liability of Perpenian. Pursuant to the passing of R.A. No. 9344, a determination of whether she acted with or without discernment is necessary. Considering that Perpenian acted with discernment when she was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, her minority should be appreciated not as an exempting circumstance, but as a privileged mitigating circumstance pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law shall still be applied even if he/she is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Unfortunately, at the present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer benefit from the aforesaid provision, because under Article 40 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension of sentence can be availed of only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the So, if the offender is a child in conflict with the law, if he was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, even if he appealed and in the said appeal, the conviction was affirmed; he can still go back to the lower court and apply for probation. The probation shall be applied to him as provided for under Sec. 42. best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly. 50 SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the 51 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 What are the so called “Status Offenses”? Status Offenses are those which discriminate against children. Status offenses are those offenses which when committed by an adult, aren’t criminal and not punishable but when committed by a minor; are considered as criminal and punishable. (e.g. curfew, disobedience to parents, etc.) The fourth exempting circumstance is otherwise known as “accident.” ELEMENTS (LD-IF) 1. The offender was performing a Lawful act; 2. He was performing a lawful act with Due care; 3. He causes an Injury by mere accident; 4. The said injury was without Fault or intent on the part of the said offender. Can a child be held liable of Status Offenses? Can a child in conflict with the law be held liable of status offenses? RA 9344 said under Section 5751 of RA 9344, the law provides that these acts which when committed by adults are not criminal and not punishable shall not also be considered criminal and punishable if committed by minors. Therefore, Status Offenses are prohibited under Sec. 57 of RA 9344. As I said, in case of exempting circumstances, as a rule, there is no criminal liability but there is civil liability. An exception to that is in paragraph 4, exempting circumstance that is accident; in case of accident, there is both no criminal liability and also no civil liability, there is both no criminal and no civil liability because the offender was performing a lawful act. Hence, it is more akin to a justifying circumstance. What if a girl or a child, a woman, 17 years of age was caught by the police officers in the act of prostitution, can the said child be prosecuted under Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code for Prostitution? The answer is no, it is under Section 58 52 of RA 9344. Under Sec. 58 of RA 9344, persons under 18 years of age cannot be prosecuted for vagrancy and prostitution, mendicancy and sniffing of rugby because these are not in consonance with the United Nations Convention on the Welfare of the Children. Police Officer X was patrolling the area to maintain peace and order in the said barangay. He saw A and B fighting, they were already rolling on the ground as one attacked the other. Police Officer X went near A and B and tried to pacify them, to stop them. Police Officer X blew his whistle to stop them but A and B would not stop and they continued the fight and so, Police Officer X decided to pull out his pistol, raise it in the air and shot. He fired a shot in the air in order to stop A and B from fighting. Indeed, A and B stopped from fighting. However, the bullet fired by the said Police Officer in the air landed and hit a child who was sleeping on the terrace of their house nearby. The bullet hit the head of the child, the child went into coma and thereafter, the child died. The Police Officer was prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He invoked however, accident as an exempting circumstance. He said he is not criminally liable because it was purely accidental. Are all the elements of accident as an exempting circumstance present? Instead, the said child shall undergo counseling and training. Note however, that although under Sec. 58 of RA 9344, if the child under 18 years of age committed the crime of vagrancy cannot be prosecuted, note that vagrancy had already been decriminalized by RA 10158. So, there is now no vagrancy as a crime under Article 202 of the RPC. So insofar as Sec. 58 is concerned, whenever a child is under 18 years of age, he cannot be prosecuted for prostitution, mendicancy and sniffing of rugby because the same is in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Welfare of Children. No child can be prosecuted for these crimes under Sec. 58 of RA 9344. First, was the police officer performing a lawful act? He was performing a lawful act because he was trying to pacify A and B who were continuously fighting. 4. Any person who, 4.1. while performing a lawful act with due care, 4.2. causes an injury 4.2.1. by mere accident 4.2.2. without fault or intention of causing it. Second element, was he performing the lawful act with due care? The second element is absent. The Police Officer although performing a lawful act in trying to pacify A and B from their fight, did not do so with due care. His 51 SEC. 57. Status Offenses. - Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child. 52 SEC. 58. Offenses Not Applicable to Children. - Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code, of mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Provided, That said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program. 52 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Last element, the said injury was without fault or intent on the part of the said police officer. act of firing shots in the air show that he did not perform his lawful act with due care; knowing that it is a community wherein people are living, wherein people are resting, people are there. He should not have fired shots in the air because any stray bullet could hit an innocent person. Since the second element of due care is lacking, the police officer is liable for a culpable felony. The Police Officer is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. All the elements of accident as an exempting circumstance are present since all the elements of accident as an exempting circumstance are present, therefore, the offender police officer should be exempted from criminal liability as well as from civil liability. Again, to reiterate, in case of the exempting circumstance of accident, the offender incurs both no criminal and no civil liability. Police officer brought a suspect to the police station, he placed handcuffs on the said suspect and then brought him inside the police station. He told the suspect to please sit first as he was going to call the investigator. The said suspect has to be investigated. When the arresting Police Officer came back together with the investigator and went near the said suspect, the suspect suddenly stood up and grabbed the pistol on the waist of the arresting police officer and the said suspect pointed the pistol at the Police Officer, but the Police Officer suddenly tried to grab it in order to prevent the suspect from shooting. The Police Officer and the suspect were now struggling for the possession of the service pistol. In the course of the struggle for the possession of the pistol, the Police Officer, with all his might was able to regain possession. However, the moment that it was in his possession, the gun suddenly fired hitting the said suspect. The suspect sustained a fatal wound, was brought to the hospital and survived. The police officer is now prosecuted for frustrated homicide. He invoked accident as an exempting circumstance. Is the police officer liable for frustrated homicide or should the said police officer be acquitted of the crime charged because the said act of shooting was purely accidental, an exempting circumstance? Are all the elements of accident as an exempting circumstance present? 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. ELEMENTS (PIA) 1. There is Physical force; 2. The physical force must be Irresistible and; 3. The physical force must come from Another person. When do you say that the offender acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force? The offender is said to have acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force if by reason of the force employed on him, he becomes an instrument who acted not only without will but also against his will. So totally, he has no freedom of action because of the irresistible force employed on him, because of the irresistible force employed on him, he has no recourse but to commit the said criminal act. He acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. Related to that is paragraph 6 of Article 12. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an 6.1. equal or 6.2. greater injury. First, was the police officer performing a lawful act? He was. He was trying to get back the pistol that was taken from his waist, suddenly grabbed by the said suspect. ELEMENTS (URG) 1. That there exists an Uncontrollable fear; 2. That the uncontrollable fear be Real or at least imminent and; 3. The fear of the injury must be Greater than or at least equal to the act committed. Was he performing the lawful act with due care? Again the answer is yes. There is no way by which he would be able to get the pistol than to struggle for its possession because the pistol had already been pointed to him and it is dangerous while in possession of the said suspect. The first element requires that there must exist an uncontrollable fear. Third, he causes an injury by mere accident; it was purely accidental that at the moment he gained possession, the gun fired. When do you say that the fear be experienced by the offender who committed the crime is uncontrollable? It is uncontrollable when by reason of the threat employed on him which causes the fear; he has been 53 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 reduced to a mere instrument such that he acted not only without will but also against his will. a co-principal, that is, as a principal by indispensable cooperation because without his act of opening the vault, the money would not have been taken. The said bank manager invoked the exempting circumstance under paragraph 6. That he acted based on the impulse of an uncontrollable fear. Is the said bank manager liable as charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of robbery or should he be acquitted because he acted merely based on the impulse of an uncontrollable fear? The bank manager should be acquitted of the crime charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation The second element requires the fear must be real and imminent. It must be present, it must be actually existing; it must not be imagined, it must not be in the future, it must not be speculative. Then we have the last element requires the fear of the injury must be greater than or at least, equal to the act committed. The basis of these two exempting circumstances, we have, having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force or having acted based on the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is lack of freedom of action. The elements of an uncontrollable fear are first, there must exist an uncontrollable fear. The fear on the part of the said bank manager was uncontrollable because the said bank robber has already killed the employee. When the offender committed the wrongful act, there was no freedom of action on his part, an element of voluntariness. There was no freedom of action on his part because of the irresistible force employed on him, because of the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear on him. Second, was the fear real and imminent? The fear was real and imminent. It is actual, it is about to happen. The bank manager saw the robber kill the employee and then the next shot would be on him if he would not follow. If the robber was able to shoot the employee, definitely, he too, would be able to shoot the manager. So, for these exempting circumstances to lie in favor of the accused so as to exempt him from criminal liability, it is necessary that totally, the offender has no freedom of action. Totally, he has no choice. If although there was threat employed on him, if although there was physical force employed on him, he is still has freedom of choice whether to do the act or not to do the act, then, these exempting circumstances will not lie in favor of the accused. It is necessary that totally, he has no freedom of action; that he acted without choice on his part. The third requisite requires that the fear or the injury must be greater than or at least equal to the act committed. The injury that he feared, the loss of his own life, it is far greater than all the money inside the vault of the bank, all the elements of paragraph 6, exempting circumstance having acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear are present, therefore, the bank manager should be acquitted of the crime charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of robbery. The bank robbers entered a bank, the robbers tied each of the employees in the bank and told them to lay on the floor, and then then the robbers picked the manager and told the manager to open the vault but the manager would not open the vault and so, what the said head of the robbers did, he took one of the employees and then he told the said manager if you will not open the vault, this employee would die. The said manager, not believing that indeed the said robber will indeed shoot the said employee, stood firm and did not open the vault and so the head of the robbery shot the said employee who died. Then the head of the robbers pointed the gun at the said manager and told him, if you will not open the vault, the next shot will be on you, afraid, the said bank manager opened the said vault. Thereafter, the bank robbers were able to take away all the money inside the bank. Later, the bank robbers were arrested. The manager was also arrested, they were charged with robbery. The said manager of the bank was charged as In the same problem, the said bank robber told the manager, open the vault, if you will not open the vault, we will go to your house we will rape your wife, kill your wife and then kill all of your children, then we will burn your house to erase the commission of the crime. Upon hearing these, the bank manager became so afraid and so, he opened the vault of the said bank. The bank robbers were able to take away the money. Later the robbers were arrested together with the bank manager. The bank manager was charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of robbery. He invoked the 6th exempting circumstance, he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. Are all the elements of this exempting circumstance present? No, the second element is absent. 54 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 First, was there uncontrollable fear? There was, everything will be taken away from him, wife, children, house, that is sufficient to bring about an uncontrollable fear. First element, was there uncontrollable fear? The fear that the mother would commit suicide is sufficient to bring about uncontrollable fear on the part of the daughter. Second element, was the fear real or at least imminent? The second element is absent. The fear is not real, it is not imminent, it is not about to happen, it is not actual. The threat was that, the bank robbers would go to his house, rape the wife, kill the wife, kill the children, burn the house. Before that could have been done, the said bank manager could have already asked for police assistance. Therefore, the threat, the uncontrollable fear was not real, imminent nor actual. The second element, was the uncontrollable fear real or imminent? The second element is absent. The fact that the mother threatened to commit suicide, that is not actual, that is not real, that is not imminent; it is in the future, speculative and imaginative. Hence, this exempting circumstance would not lie against the accused, drawer of the check. The other defense made by the said accused was that the issuance of the check was done based on a state of necessity. According to her, it was a state of emergency because her mother would not be released without paying the said bills? Are all the elements of state of emergency or state of necessity as a justifying circumstance present? Supreme Court said no. According to the Supreme Court, the first element, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exist. It already does not exist, the first element is not present. The evil that is sought to avoid, the suicide of the mother, again, SC said it is in the future, and not present or actual. The first element being absent, therefore, this justifying circumstance, said the court, would not apply in favor of the said accused. The second element being absent, therefore, the bank manager should be liable as charged and he cannot hide under the exempting circumstance of having acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. In the case of Ty vs. People53, the mother of Ty was hospitalized for months and so the hospitalization bill reached up to millions of pesos. The mother was already cured but she was not allowed to leave the hospital unless the bills had been paid. The mother threatened the daughter that if she would not be released from the hospital, she would commit suicide and so, the daughter did, she issued checks in favor of the bank; several checks that would answer for the millions of pesos of hospital bills, so the mother was released. On the maturity date of the checks, the hospital, or the head of the hospital deposited the said check but all checks issued by Ty bounced due to lack of funds. As a result, cases, violation of BP 22 was filed by the hospital against the drawer of the check, Ty. During the hearing of the case, the contention of Ty was that he cannot be held criminally liable based on first, the justifying circumstance of state of necessity and second, based on the exempting circumstance that he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. Ty said that the issuance of the check was done under the impulse of uncontrollable fear. According to her if she would not issue the check, her mother threatened that she would commit suicide and the life of her mother is very important hence, she should be acquitted as charged. Will this defense lie in her favor? Further, the SC said based on the evidence presented, Ty, as stated in her testimony has many jewelry. Instead of issuing checks that would bounce at the hospital, she should have sold her jewelry in order to pay for the bills of her mother in the said hospital. By issuing the check, she committed the said act and therefore, the SC held her criminally liable as charged. 7. Any person who 7.1. fails to perform an act required by law, 7.2. when prevented by some 7.2.1. lawful or 7.2.2. insuperable cause. In exempting circumstances there is no criminal liability but there is civil liability. Another exception is in this case of paragraph 7, in case of lawful or insuperable cause. Under paragraph 7, the offender or the accused was not able to perform the act required of In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation. (Ty vs. People, 439 SCRA 220, G.R. No. 149275 September 27, 2004) 53 55 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 him by law by reason of lawful or insuperable cause. Since the reason for the non-performance of the act was a lawful one, therefore, he incurs no criminal and no civil liability. 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. In other words, we have incomplete justifying circumstance or incomplete exempting circumstance. ARTICLE 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony would serve to lower the imposable penalty. It will lower the imposable penalty to the minimum period of penalty prescribed by law. A. When all the elements necessary to justify the act are not present, we have incomplete justifying circumstance. B. When all the elements necessary to exempt the offender from criminal liability are not present, then, we have incomplete exempting circumstances. They shall be treated as mitigating circumstance. The presence of a mitigating circumstance will lower the imposable penalty because in the commission of the wrongful act, the offender acted with a diminution in voluntariness. How would you know if an incomplete justification or an incomplete exemption would be treated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance or a privileged mitigating circumstance? There is a diminution in any of the elements in voluntariness. There is a diminution either in criminal intent, freedom of action or intelligence. Hence, it shows the lesser perversity or lesser criminality, lesser dangerousness of the offender. As such, the penalty will be reduced to the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law. 1. If majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt the offender from criminal liability are present in the commission of the crime, it shall be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. 2. If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act is present in the commission of the crime, then it shall be treated as a mere ordinary mitigating circumstance. 3. If there are only two requisites, in the justifying or exempting circumstance, the presence of one requisite is already considered as majority and it shall be treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance. 4. In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a stranger, incomplete defense of a relative, there must always be unlawful aggression in order to amount to a mitigating circumstance. 4.1. If only the element of unlawful aggression is present, it shall be treated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. 4.2. If aside from unlawful aggression, another element is present but not all, it shall be treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance. TWO KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Ordinary mitigating circumstances 2. Privileged mitigating circumstances. Ordinary mitigating circumstances are those which may be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance while a privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance. Ordinary mitigating circumstances, if not offset, will serve to decrease the penalty to the minimum period of the penalty. Whereas, in case of privileged mitigating circumstances, the penalty will be lowered by one or two degrees. These circumstances particularly privileged mitigating circumstance, whenever it is present in the commission of the crime, it shall first be considered by the court before computing the penalty. It is called privileged because it takes preference over all other things. So before the court may consider other circumstances and thereafter compute the penalty, whenever a privileged mitigating circumstance is present, it must first be taken into consideration. A was holding a bolo he was running amok in a subdivision. With the use of bolo, he was hitting all persons who would pass by. The residents of the subdivision sought assistance from the police. The police arrived headed by police officer X. When the police saw A, they called on A to surrender and to lay down his bolo. However, A instead of surrendering, hurriedly advanced menacingly to the police officer in a hacking position with a bolo raised in his hand. So the 56 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 If both elements are present, then Police Officer X is justified. If only one is present, then, it is a privileged mitigating circumstance. police shot him. He fell on the ground, he slumped on the ground. The wound was not fatal. While a was slumped on the ground, the head of the police, Police Officer X, went to him, took his bolo and thereafter fired two shots on the head of A. A died. Prosecuted for homicide, the police officer, Police Officer X invoked two circumstances so as to free him from criminal liability. In the case, the first requisite is present. Police officer X acted in the due performance of his duty. He was there as an answer to the call of the residence for police assistance so he was there to fulfill his duty. He acted in the performance of his duty. The first element is present. First, he invoked the justifying circumstance of selfdefense. According to him, he acted in self-defense. Second, he invoked the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. According to him, he merely acted in the lawful exercise of his duty. Are both justifying circumstances present in the commission of the crime so as to free Police Officer X from criminal liability? Or is there at least incomplete self defense? Is there at least incomplete fulfillment of duty? How about the second element of fulfillment of duty? Is the resulting injury the necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty? The second element is wanting. The firing, the killing of A is not a necessary consequence of the police officer’s fulfillment of his duty. The police officer exceeded his duty. Hence, the second element is wanting. We go first to the defense of self-defense. Is there selfdefense? Is there at least incomplete self-defense? When A advanced menacingly to the police officers, the police officers shot him and A fell on the ground. That act of A of advancing to the police officer with a bolo raised on his head in a hacking position constituted unlawful aggression. When A slumped on the ground, wounded, he can no longer mount any aggression. There is no reason for police officer X to still shoot him on the head twice that caused his death. For having exceeded his duty, Police Officer X cannot be said to have acted in due performance of his duty. However, the moment he slumped on the ground, the police officer, particularly Police Officer X went up to him took his bolo and thereafter shot him twice on the head. At that precise moment that A slumped on the ground, after receiving a gunshot wound, whatever inceptive unlawful aggression have been commenced by him, already ceased to exist. Since the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of the said victim already ceased to exist, there is no more reason for Police Officer X to shoot him. The unlawful aggression had already ceased. However, since of the two elements, the first one is present, then we have an incomplete justification. An incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty which shall be treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance. So it will lower the imposable penalty by at least one degree. Therefore, since the element that is wanting is unlawful aggression, there is both no self-defense nor incomplete self-defense. When the offender who committed the crime is a minor over 15 but under 18 years of age and he acted with discernment. Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance. 2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. How about the second defense laid down by Police Officer X for fulfillment of duty. Is the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty present or is there at least incomplete fulfillment of duty? There are only two requisites for the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. If minority is not exempting, it is always and always a privileged mitigating circumstance. If the minor is 15 years of age or below exempting but if the minor is over 15 but below 18 and he acted without discernment, still exempting. But if the minor is over 15 but below 18 and he acted with discernment, then his minority shall be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. It will always lower the imposable penalty by one degree. First, that the offender acted in the due performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office. Second, that the resulting injury is the necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty or lawful exercise of his right or office. 57 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The second mitigating circumstance under the second paragraph of Article 13 is seniority being over 70 years of age. If the offender who committed the crime is over 70 years of age, the penalty to be imposed on him would be lowered to the minimum period of penalty prescribed by law. Seniority or being over 70 years of age is an ordinary mitigating circumstance. homicide but he should be given the mitigating circumstance under paragraph 3, that the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. It is necessary that there must be a sufficient threat or provocation on the part of the offended party. That sufficient threat or provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the commission of the crime. This is known as praeter intentionem, when the consequence went beyond the intention. That the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. ELEMENTS (TOI) 1. That there be the existence of Threat or the existence of provocation which must be sufficient. 2. The provocation must Originate from the offended party. 3. The provocation must be Immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who had been provoked. ELEMENTS 1. That a Felony had been committed. 2. That there is a Notable disparity in the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony. That is out of the means employed by the offender, no one could have anticipated. No one could have foreseen such resulting felony. The first element requires that there must be a provocation which must be sufficient. A and B were playing basketball. A with his group, B with his group, and the two teams were against each other in the basketball game. The team of A won but an altercation between A and B ensued thereafter. The altercation became heated, they were already shouting with one another. As a result, B left A. While A was still talking, B left. A felt it was so rude on the part of B to have left him while he was still talking. And so, A followed B who was walking hurriedly. When A was already at the back of B, A kicked B. B fell on the cemented wall, the head hitting the wall. B suffered cerebral hemorrhage and thereafter died. A was prosecuted for the crime of homicide. Is A liable of homicide? In case of conviction, would you give him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance under paragraph 3, praeter intentionem, that the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed? A is liable for homicide. His act of kicking B is a felonious act and it is the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Therefore, A is liable for homicide under the proximate cause doctrine. Provocation refers to any improper or unjust act or conduct which excites or incites a person to do a wrongful act. Provocation is said to be sufficient when: 1. It is adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act, and 2. It is proportionate to the gravity of the act. The first element requires that the provocation must be sufficient. The second element requires that the provocation must come from the offended party. If the provocation came from any other person not the offended party, then this mitigating circumstance would not lie in favor of the accused. It is necessary that it is the victim who provoked the offender or the accused. The third element requires that the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person provoked. However, A should be given the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem. There is a notable disparity between the means employed by A kicking the victim and the resulting felony which is homicide, the death of the victim. No one could have anticipated nor foreseen that out of the mere act of kicking one’s back, death would result. Therefore, A should be convicted of The word immediate here does not allow a lapse of time. Right after the giving of the provocation, the person provoked must immediately commit the criminal act in order that this mitigating circumstance may lower his imposable penalty. 58 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Related to 4th paragraph is the 5th mitigating circumstance. the commission of the felony. It suffices that the grave offense be the proximate cause of the commission of the felony but it must not be too long a time for the offender to have recovered his normal equanimity. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony(delito), 5.1. His spouse, 5.2. ascendants, 5.3. descendants, 5.4. legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or 5.5. relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. This is known as “sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation’’. ELEMENTS (AP) 1. That there be an Act both unlawful and sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation on the part of the offender. 2. The commission of the act that produced Passion and obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by the offender, so that the offender would not yet have recovered his normal equanimity. It is a mitigating circumstance known as “immediate vindication of a grave offense’’. ELEMENTS (GV) 1. That there be a Grave offense committed to the offender or to his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity in the same degree. 2. That the felony was committed in immediate Vindication of this grave offense done. In the first element, the said offended party must have committed an unlawful act against the offender. Therefore, since an unlawful act had been committed on the offender which brought about passion and obfuscation on the offender, it is necessary under the first element that the passion and obfuscation on the part of the offender arose from lawful sentiments. The said passion and obfuscation was brought about by lawful sentiments because an unlawful act had been committed against him. In other words, the grave offense done must be the proximate cause of the commission of the felony. The grave offense under the first element need not be a punishable act. It refers to any act, any conduct, which caused a person mental agony and moved him to vindicate himself. In the second element, the word immediate here allows a lapse of time. In the second element, it is necessary that the commission of the crime must be based on sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation, but it is also necessary that there be no lapse of time also. It must be right after the passion and obfuscation, the crime had been committed, sudden impulse. In sufficient provocation the word immediate does not allow a lapse of time, but in case of immediate vindication, the word immediate allows a lapse of time. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court held that the word immediate in paragraph 5 allows a lapse of time because there was an erroneous Spanish translation. Our revised penal code was merely copied from the Spanish Codigo Penal. According to the Supreme Court, in the Spanish Codigo Penal, the word used was “proxima”. Yet when they translated in our Revised Penal Code, the word used was immediate. Therefore, Supreme Court said the word immediate in paragraph 5 allows a lapse of time between the grave offense and There must not be a lapse of time which is long enough for the offender to have recovered to his normal equanimity. These 3 (Paragraph 4, 5 and 6), according to the SC in the case of Romera vs. People54, if all are present in the We must stress that provocation and passion or obfuscation are not two separate mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it is clear that both circumstances arose from the same set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be treated as two separate mitigating circumstances. (Romera vs. People, 434 SCRA 467, G.R. No. 151978 July 14, 2004) Only there will the offender be able to be able to appreciate the benefit of this mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation. 54 59 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Hence, the husband merely acted based on sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation. commission of the crime, or if at least two of them are present in the commission of the crime and they arose from the same facts and circumstances, they shall be treated only as one mitigating circumstance insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned. Both mitigating circumstances are present according to the Supreme Court yet in computing the penalty, Supreme Court said, since these two mitigating circumstances arose from the same facts and circumstances, they shall be considered only as one mitigating circumstance. A and B, husband and wife, were having dinner when suddenly their door was being banged by a person. The person sounded that of their neighbor. The person was calling on the name of the husband asking him to come out. When the wife opened the door, the said neighbor tried to hack the wife, the wife was however able to immediately close the door so the wife was not hit. The neighbor kept hacking the door of the house and so the husband was forced to get out of the house to face the neighbor using the other door. The husband confronted the neighbor. The husband asked the neighbor what was the matter while he was shouting, while he was looking for the husband. But the said neighbor, instead of answering the husband, tried to hack the said husband. The husband evaded the blow and thereafter, he tried to get possession of the bolo and the two, the neighbor and the husband struggled for the possession of the bolo. So if in the bar, a problem was given, and based on the problem the question is, is the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation present? Is the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication present? Is the mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation present? You will answer, yes they are present if based on the facts, they are indeed present. And then the second question is, if you were the judge convicting the accused, how would you consider these mitigating circumstances? The answer is, if you were the judge who will convict the accused, you shall consider these three mitigating circumstances only as one mitigating circumstance because they arose from the same facts and circumstance. In the course thereof, the husband was able to get possession of the bolo. While he was in possession of the bolo, the husband hacked the neighbor. Thereafter, he brought the neighbor to the hospital. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound but he survived after a medical operation. So the husband was prosecuted for the crime of frustrated homicide. Among the mitigating circumstances invoked by the husband were: first, according to him, there was sufficient provocation coming from the offended party. And second, according to him, he acted based on sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation. Are these two mitigating circumstances present in the commission of the crime? The Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Romera said the first mitigating circumstance, sufficient provocation was present. It is present because the act of the neighbor of trying to act the wife, the act of the neighbor of continuously hacking the door of the house are considered as acts which will provoke the offender to commit a crime. Therefore, the commission of the crime was done immediately after the provocation. Sufficient provocation is present as a mitigating circumstance. So remember if the question is are they present, state that they are present if they are so. But if the question is how would you consider them, if all three or any two are present, consider them only as one if they arose from the same facts and circumstance. The husband learned that the wife was having an affair, the husband confronted the wife. The said wife admitted to the husband that she has an affair with another man. Because of this, the husband and the wife got separated. The husband looked for the man. Two weeks thereafter, the husband found the man in the public market. The husband went to the man, shot the man. The man died. Prosecuted for murder, the husband invoked among others two mitigating circumstances. First, according to the said husband, he acted under immediate vindication of a grave offense. Second, according to him, he acted based on sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation. Are both mitigating circumstances present so as to lower the imposable penalty on the husband? Supreme Court said sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation is present. The same act of the neighbor of trying to hack the wife and continuously hacking the door of the house brought about an act that produced passion and obfuscation on the part of the said husband. 60 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Ignas55 said, both mitigating circumstances are absent in the commission of the crime. Supreme Court said two weeks is too long a time for the offender to have recovered his normal equanimity. Therefore, since the killing took place two weeks after the discovery of the husband that the wife was having an affair with this victim, two weeks is already too long a time for the husband to have reflected on the consequences of his act, to recover his normal equanimity. Therefore, this two mitigating circumstances will not mitigate his criminal liability. Rodel and Balweg were both employees in a water district. After a day’s work, they decided to have a drinking spree together with the other fellow employees. While they were having this drinking spree, Rodel started calling Balweg names. Rodel was bullying Balweg. He was stating slanderous remarks against Balweg. And so B confronted A, “Why is it that whenever you are drunk, you would always say slanderous remarks against me?” So Balweg confronted Rodel. They had a heated argument and this heated argument ensued into a fist fight. Rodel and B were now fighting. Balweg was a little man. He was little. He’s a smaller man compared to Rodel. And so, Balweg was losing the fight. When Balweg was losing the fight, he suddenly hit a lucky punch on the face of Rodel. By that one lucky punch by the face of Rodel, Rodel fell on the ground unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he was brought to the hospital. And since then, he had been in and out of the hospital until he died thereafter. B was prosecuted for the crime of homicide under the proximate cause doctrine. Is he liable as charged? In case of conviction, what mitigating circumstances would you consider in his favor? If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? In the case of Urbano vs. People, the Supreme Court said that Balweg is liable as charged for the crime of homicide under the proximate cause doctrine. Balweg’s act of hitting Rodel on the face with what was called as one lucky punch, is considered as a felonious act. And this felonious act inflicted by Balweg on Rodel was the proximate cause of the death of Rodel. The husband learned that a grandfather, their neighbor, tried to molest his wife. Four days thereafter, the said husband went to the said grandfather and hacked the grandfather. Prosecuted for murder, among the mitigating circumstance invoked by the said accused in order to lower the imposable penalty was immediate vindication of a grave offense. Is this mitigating circumstance present so as to lower the imposable penalty? The act of the grandfather trying to molest the wife may be a grave offense. However, the second element is absent. Supreme Court said, four days is too long a time for the offender to have recovered to his normal equanimity. It cannot be said that the said act of the grandfather constituted the grave offense that was the proximate cause of the killing because four days had lapsed from the said act to the act of killing. Since four days had lapsed, Supreme Court said it cannot be said that the commission of the said crime was done in the immediate vindication of a grave offense. What mitigating circumstances would you consider? In this case of Urbano vs. People56, the Supreme Court considered two mitigating circumstances in favor of the Same; Same; Same; Passion and Obfuscation; Requisites; The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive.—We likewise find the alleged mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation inexistent. The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive. In other words, if appellant attacked his victim in proximate vindication of a grave offense, he could no longer claim in the same breath that passion and obfuscation also blinded him. Moreover, for passion and obfuscation to be well founded, the following requisites must concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity. To repeat, the period of two (2) weeks which spanned the discovery of his wife’s extramarital dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to reflect and cool off. (People vs. Ignas, 412 SCRA 311, G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003) 56 When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating circumstance or as an essential element of self-defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of According to the OSG, for the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense to apply, the vindication must be “immediate.” This view is not entirely accurate. The word “immediate” in the English text is not the correct translation of the controlling Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code, which uses the word “proxima.” The Spanish text, on this point, allows a lapse of time between the grave offense and the actual vindication. Thus, in an earlier case involving the infidelity of a wife, the killing of her paramour prompted proximately—though not immediately—by the desire to avenge the wrong done, was considered an extenuating circumstance in favor of the accused. The time elapsed between the offense and the suspected cause for vindication, however, involved only hours and minutes, not days. Hence, we agree with the Solicitor General that the lapse of two (2) weeks between his discovery of his wife’s infidelity and the killing of her supposed paramour could no longer be considered proximate. The passage of a fortnight is more than sufficient time for appellant to have recovered his composure and assuaged the unease in his mind. The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his serenity. Thus, in this case, we hold that the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be considered in appellant’s favor. 55 61 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 accused, Urbano. First, Supreme Court said there was sufficient provocation. It was Rodel who provoked Balweg to confront him. It was Rodel who provoked him to a fight. Rodel called Balweg names, Rodel had been bullying B, Rodel stated slanderous remarks against Balweg. The only act of Balweg was to confront Rodel but this confrontation ensued into a fight. Hence, sufficient provocation was present. The said sufficient provocation originated from the offended party Rodel and it was immediate to the commission of the crime. the said offender, for as long as the police officers had not yet gone out to look for them and thereafter arrest the said offender, the first element is still satisfied. In the second element, person-in-authority, we have the mayor, we have the governor, we have the barangay chairman. Agents of person-in-authority, we have the police officers. In the third element, the surrender is considered voluntary when it is done spontaneously and unconditionally. That is, the offender felt remorse for what he had done or he wanted to save the government that much needed funds and effort which would definitely be incurred by them if they look for him and thereafter arrest or capture him. The other mitigating circumstance considered by the court is paragraph 3 that is praeter intentionem. That the offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The act performed by Balweg, he only hit Rodel with one lucky punch. In fact, Balweg was losing the fight because Balweg was a smaller man until he hit one lucky punch on the face of Rodel. That one lucky punch, no one could have anticipated that out of it, death would result. No one could have foreseen that out of such punch, death would result. Therefore, obviously, there was no intention on the part of the offender to commit so grave a wrong as that committed which was homicide. A warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender, X. The police were armed with a warrant of arrest against X. X learned that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him. He got a tip from a person in the court that a warrant of arrest had already been issued against him and now it is already in possession of the police. The moment X learned that a warrant of arrest had already been issued against him, he immediately went to the police and gave himself up. Is the said surrender voluntary, which shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance? Yes. The said surrender is still voluntary and will mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. Even if a warrant of arrest had already been issued against X, and even if the police officers are already in possession of the same, the police officers, at the time that X gave himself up and surrender to them, had not yet gone out to look for him and to arrest him. Therefore, such surrender is voluntary. It is still spontaneous in nature. It is still done unconditionally to save the government the funds and time that they will incur if they will still look for him and arrest him. Two mitigating circumstances are therefore present in the commission of the crime. One is sufficient provocation and the other one is praeter intentionem. 7. That the offender had 7.1. voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or 7.2. that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER PARAGRAPH 7 1. Voluntary surrender. 2. Voluntary plea of guilt. In the first element, it is necessary that the police officers have not yet gone out to look and arrest the offender. If there is already a warrant of arrest against The surrender made by Senator Enrile, Senator Revilla and Senator Estrada in the crime of plunder. Were they considered as voluntary surrender so as to mitigate their criminal liability? In case of conviction, the said surrender is considered as voluntary and therefore may mitigate their criminal liability in case of conviction. Although the warrants of arrest were already in possession of the police, the police did not look for them. The police did not arrest them. It was these three senators who surrendered voluntarily, exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone; it is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying; the provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful act and should immediately precede the act. In the instant case, Tomelden’s insulting remarks directed at petitioner and uttered immediately before the fist fight constituted sufficient provocation. This is not to mention other irritating statements made by the deceased while they were having beer in Bugallon. Petitioner was the one provoked and challenged to a fist fight. (Urbano vs. People, 576 SCRA 826, G.R. No. 182750 January 20, 2009) ELEMENTS OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (ASV) 1. Offender has not been actually Arrested. 2. That the offender Surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents. 3. That the said surrender is Voluntary. 62 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 who gave themselves up to the police. Hence, the said surrender will be considered as mitigating in nature because it was done spontaneously and unconditionally to save the government the funds that they will incur if they will look for them and capture the said senators. A was charged as a principal in the crime of robbery. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. On plea bargaining, he moved that he be allowed to change his plea to guilty but for the lesser participation as a mere accomplice in the commission of robbery. With the consent of the court, with the consent of the public prosecutor and with the consent of the private complainant, the accused pleaded guilty to that of being a mere accomplice in the commission of robbery. The judge rendered judgment and in the said judgment, in imposing the penalty, the judge did not consider the plea of guilt as voluntary and mitigating. Is the judge correct? Yes. The first element requires that for a voluntary plea of guilt to lie as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused, it is necessary that the confession of guilt must be done unconditionally. In the problem, the plea of guilt was done subject to the condition that he be a mere accomplice to the crime of robbery not as a principal. Since it is subject to a condition, such plea of guilt cannot be considered as voluntary and mitigating so as to lower the imposable penalty of the said accused. But the crime is plunder? Can these voluntary surrender be considered as mitigating circumstance in the crime of plunder in case of conviction? Yes. Because under Section 257 of RA 7080, AntiPlunder Law, the law or the provision expressly provides that in the imposition of penalty for plunder, the mitigating and extenuating circumstances may be considered by the court. Therefore, this surrender which is voluntary in nature may be considered by the court in the imposition of penalty even in the crime of plunder as provided in the section 2 of RA 7080. ELEMENTS OF VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY (SOP) 1. The offender confessed his guilt Spontaneously and unconditionally. 2. The confession of guilt must be made in Open court, that is the court that trying the case. 3. That the confession of guilt must be made before the Presentation of evidence for the prosecution. In the third element, if the plea was done after the prosecution has presented its evidence, because the evidence against him was overwhelming, it is no longer considered as voluntary and mitigating in nature. A was charged with a crime of frustrated homicide. During arraignment, he already pleaded not guilty on frustrated homicide. On plea bargaining, he moved that he be allowed to plead guilty to the lesser crime of Serious Physical Injuries. With the consent of the judge, with the consent of the public prosecutor and with the consent of the complainant, the said accused was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser crime of serious physical injuries. Thereafter, the judge rendered judgment. In imposing the penalty, the judge did not consider his voluntary plea of guilt as a mitigating circumstance. Is the judge correct? Yes. Such plea of guilt is not done spontaneously. For voluntary plea of guilt to be considered as done spontaneously, it must be to the original crime charged. Here, he only plead guilty to a lesser crime. 8. That the offender is (1) deaf and dumb, (2) blind or (3) otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of 8.1. action, 8.2. defense, or 8.3. communication with his fellow beings. This mitigating circumstance refers to “physical defect’’. For this mitigating circumstance to lower the imposable penalty by the accused, it is necessary that the physical defect must have a connection to the crime committed by the offender, such that, by reason of his physical defect, there was a restriction with his action and defense with his fellow being. The physical defect has restricted his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow being. Only then will commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. (As amended by RA 7659) 57 Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires illgotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the 63 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 this physical defect mitigate the criminal liability of the said offender. ELEMENTS (DC) 1. The illness of the offender must Diminish the exercise of the will power of the offender. 2. Such illness of the offender must not totally deprive him of Consciousness of his act. The offender is a blind beggar. He was begging outside the church. Every day he will sit there and beg or he will stand there and beg. Then suddenly one Sunday morning, when the said blind man was begging for alms, here comes X, a person who was mad at the blind man. X struck the head of the blind man with the piece of wood. The blind man fell on the ground. Thereafter, X left. Wanting to retaliate, the blind man immediately took his cane and thereafter stood up and hit the man that was passing by thinking that he was still X, the man who struck him in the head. But what the blind man hit with his cane is an innocent churchgoer. The said innocent churchgoer suffered less serious physical injuries. The blind man was prosecuted for less serious physical injuries. Will his physical defect mitigate his criminal liability? Yes. His physical defect, his blindness restricted his means of action, defense and communication with his fellow beings. Considering that he could not see the person that he hit was another person, not the person who struck him in the head. If the illness of the offender would totally deprive him of the consciousness of his act, it is not merely a mitigating circumstance but already an exempting circumstance. So it is necessary that the illness must only diminish the exercise of the will power but not totally deprive him of consciousness of his act. 10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned. If the offender is 65 years of age and he was ill that can be considered as akin, analogous to being over 70 years of age. Restitution of the money malversed by the public officer may be considered as akin or analogous to voluntary surrender. Examples of analogous circumstances 1. The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender. 2. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity (People v. Macbul, G.R. No. 48976, October 11, 1943), unless he became impoverished because of his own way of living his life, i.e. he had so many vices. 3. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of a person over 70 years of age The offender has no legs. He was born with no legs. What the offender did, although he has no legs, he climbed the tree and thereafter passed to the window of a house. From there, he took some important valuables, (e.g. laptop, cell phones, etc.). Thereafter, he again passed out of the said window, on to the tree and climbed down. The said offender was arrested. He invoked as a mitigating circumstance his physical defect to lower his imposable penalty. He said he has no legs. Will his physical defect mitigate his criminal liability? No. Although born with no legs, the physical defect did not restrict his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow being. Even without legs, he was able to climb the tree and was able to go inside the house and thereafter took the valuables or commit robbery. Therefore, the physical defect is in no way connected with the crime committed because it did not restrict his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow being. (People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A. G.R. No. 301, July 27, 1938). 4. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation. 5. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender. 6. Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense. 7. Wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal possession of firearm after the liberation ( People v. Quemuel, 76 Phil 135), as being similar to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. 8. Testifying for the prosecution without being discharged from the information ( People v. Narvasca, et al., G.R. No. L-28107, March 15, 1977), as being like a plea of guilty. 9. Acting out of embarrassment and fear caused by the victim because of gambling debts of the accused 9. Such illness of the offender as would 9.1. diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender 9.2. without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. This is known as “illness of the offender’’. 64 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 (People v. Ong, et al., G.R. No. L-34497, January 30, 1975), as akin to passion or obfuscation. criminality, greater dangerousness, greater perversity on the part of the offender. 10. Retaliating for having been assaulted during a public dance where the accused was well known and respected (People v. Libria, 95 Phil. 398), as similar to vindication. 11. When the petitioner submits extrajudicial confession through the handwritten letter coupled with her act of surrendering the redeemed pawn tickets and thereafter going to the police station (Frontreras v. People, G.R. No. 190583, December 07, 2015), as an analogous circumstance of voluntary surrender. DIFFERENT KINDS CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATING 1. Generic aggravating circumstances are those circumstances which apply to all kinds of crimes. (e.g. Nighttime & Recidivism) Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance which may be considered in the commission of a crime whether it’s a crime against person, crime against property, crime against public interest, crime against chastity. Whatever be the crime, nighttime may be considered as an aggravating circumstance if present in the commission of the crime. Significance of this paragraph The significance of this paragraph is that even though a particular circumstance does not fall under any of the enumerated circumstances in Art. 13, the court is authorized to consider in favor of the accused “any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those mentioned.” Recidivism also applies to all kinds of crimes. 2. Specific aggravating circumstances are those which apply only to certain or particular crimes. (e.g. Treachery) In Jarillo case, the SC ruled that an abandoned wife who remained and found guilty of Bigamy, is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of “for humanitarian reason” as her marriage with the complainant was later on declared null and void (G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009). Treachery can only be considered as an aggravating circumstance in crimes against persons. You do not consider treachery in crimes against chastity. You do not consider treachery in crimes against public interest, in crimes against public order. It can only be committed in crimes against persons. Hence, it is considered as a Specific Aggravating Circumstance. Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating 1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus; 2. Mistake in the identity (error in personae); 3. Entrapment; 4. Accused is over 18 years of age; and 5. Performance of righteous action. 3. Inherent aggravating circumstances are those which are of necessity considered as ingredient of the crime. Hence, if present in the commission of the crime, they are no longer to be considered so as to increase the imposable penalty because they are considered as absorbed being elements in the commission of the crime (e.g. Dwelling in case of trespass to dwelling, Evident Premeditation in case of robbery) ARTICLE 14 Aggravating Circumstances are those circumstances which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony will serve to increase the imposable penalty. The imposable penalty would be increased but not beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law. Even if present, it will not serve to impose the imposable penalty. 4. Qualifying aggravating circumstances are those circumstances which would change the nature of the crime to bring about a more serious crime with a higher penalty or even without changing the nature of the crime; it would bring about the imposition of a higher penalty. (Ex. Treachery if present in the killing of a person will qualify the penalty into reclusion perpetua to death because the crime will become murder) No matter how many aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the court cannot go beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law. That is the limit. The presence of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a felony would serve to increase the imposable penalty because the presence of an aggravating circumstance would reveal greater 65 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. Therefore, taking advantage of one’s public position being a special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and would require the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. If you will look at Article 248, Murder, all the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 are qualifying aggravating circumstances. These circumstances if present in the commission of the act of killing will change the crime from homicide. It will become murder with a higher penalty from reclusion temporal in homicide, it will become reclusion perpetua to death in the crime of murder. The offender is said to have taken advantage of his public position in the commission of the crime when he use, misuse or abuse his public position to commit the crime or to facilitate the commission of the crime. The offender misuse or took advantage of the ascendancy, the prestige and the influence that his office offers him in order to facilitate the commission of the crime. 5. Special aggravating circumstances are those which provide for the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. Hence, they cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstances (e.g. Taking advantage of one’s public position) So this aggravating circumstance may only be applied if the offender is a public officer. Under Article 62, if the crime was committed by the offender, public officer by taking advantage of his public position, the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed. Likewise, if the crime is committed by any person who belong to a syndicate or organized crime group, such fact of being a member of a syndicate or an organized crime group is a special aggravating circumstance. Article 62 says the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. Every morning this police officer would go to one sidewalk vendor to another and he would get 50 pesos from one sidewalk vendor to another as his toll. The sidewalk vendor would not want to give because it was still early in the morning and they have no buyers yet but afraid of the said police officer who may arrest them, they would always give 50 pesos to this public officer, police officer. One time, one of the said sidewalk vendor A, he got been mad already because of what police officer had been doing so he filed a case of robbery against the said police officer. In the information it was alleged that in the commission of the crime of robbery, the police officer took advantage of his public position as a police officer. Is the said aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position present in the commission of the crime? Yes. This police officer in committing robbery in extorting money from these sidewalk vendors committed the crime with taking advantage with grave abuse of his public position. Were it not for the fact that he was a police officer, the sidewalk vendors would not give him 50 pesos every day, every morning. The police officer took advantage of the influence, the prestige that his office offers him. That he used his public position in order to commit robbery. Therefore, it will be considered as a special aggravating circumstance in accordance with Article 62 of the revised penal code as amended by RA 7659. Justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances are not alleged in the information because they are a matter of defense on the part of the accused which is not to be proven by the prosecution. However, aggravating circumstances needs to be alleged because it is a matter that is need to be proven by the prosecution. If aggravating circumstances is not alleged in the information, it might arise to acquittal or not appreciating the aggravating circumstance. In whatever crime, aggravating circumstance must be alleged and be proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt otherwise, it cannot be considered against the accused and cannot be considered by the court even proven during trial. The reason is you deprive the accused to be informed about the nature of the charge against him. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. ELEMENTS (AF) 1. Abused his public position. 2. The use of the same Facilitated the commission of the crime. A notary public prepared a deed of absolute sale. The deed of absolute sale states that A sold his property to B. In reality however, A did not execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of B. As such, the notary was charged with a crime of falsification under Article 171, taking advantage of his public position. So in the information, it was alleged that in committing the crime of falsification, this notary public offender, a public officer took advantage of his public position. If you were However, if you will look at Article 62, as amended by RA 7659, taking advantage of one’s public position in the commission of a crime is considered as a special aggravating circumstance because Article 62 as amended provides that the maximum period of penalty 66 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the judge convicting the said notary public, would you consider taking advantage of one’s public position? What kind of aggravating circumstance is it? If you were the judge who would convict the said notary public, the said aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of one’s public position will be considered as inherent in the commission of the crime. It is absorbed as an element in the crime of falsification. Therefore, it need not be considered so as to increase the imposable penalty on the said notary public. It is an element of the crime of falsification committed by the public officer under Article 171 Public Authority/Person in Authority is any person directly vested with jurisdiction whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation or board. He has the duty to govern and execute the law. NOTE: A police officer is only an agent of persons in authority not a public authority. In the second element, it is required that the public authority is not the person against whom the crime was committed because if it is the public authority is the very person against whom the crime was committed, then the crime committed is direct assault. And in the crime of direct assault, in contempt of or with insult to public authorities is an inherent element. If the offender is a police officer. The police officer has in his custody a woman prisoner. And the police officer raped the said prisoner. A charge of rape was filed against the police officer. In the said information, it was alleged that the said rape was committed by the said police officer by taking advantage of his public position. In the commission of the crime, if you were the judge, would you consider this aggravating circumstance? What kind of aggravating circumstance shall be considered? Obviously in the commission of the crime of rape, the police officer took advantage of his public position. He abused his position in committing rape on the prisoner under his custody. He used the ascendancy and the influence of his public office in order to facilitate the commission of the crime of rape of the said female prisoner. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of one’s public position shall be considered against him and it shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. If you will look at article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, it is provided that, if rape is committed by any member of the military or the police, by taking advantage of his public position, the crime committed is qualified rape and the penalty is capital punishment, death. Therefore, the taking advantage of one’s public position by the police officer in the commission of the crime of rape will be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. The crime committed is qualified rape. In the third element, it is required that the offender knows him to be a public authority. The reason for this aggravating circumstance is lack of respect to public authority. Therefore, before it can be said that the offender committed the crime in disrespect, in contempt, in insult of public authority, it is necessary that he must first know that the person present is a public authority. Absent such knowledge, it cannot be said that he has the intention to disrespect public authority. In the fourth element, the presence of the public authority has not prevented the offender form committing the crime. It shows lack of respect. This aggravating circumstance is present if the crime is committed in the presence of a public authority, but the crime must not be directed against the public authority himself. X and Y went to the City Hall. X and Y parked their vehicle in one of the spaces in the parking lot. Then suddenly here comes A. A also parked near the vehicle of X and Y. In the course thereof, he was about to hit the vehicle of X and Y. And so, X and Y alighted from their vehicle and confronted A but A reasoned to X and Y that the vehicle was not hit. He was able to maneuver it so as not to hit the vehicle. It was just about to be hit but the vehicle was not even scratched. Still, X and Y were both mad at A. There was a heated argument between X and Y as against A. They were already shouting at each other and the City Mayor heard their shouts. The officer of the City Mayor was only at the second floor of the said building. And so from the window he looked out and when he saw that the persons shouting were X and Y, both his constituents, and A his compadre, the said City Mayor went down the ground floor and he went to X and Y and A. The City Mayor talked to X and Y as 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. ELEMENTS (EN-KP) 1. That the public authority is Engaged in the discharge of his duties. 2. That he is Not the person against whom the crime was committed. 3. That the offender Knows him to be a public authority 4. That his Presence did not prevent the said offender from committing the crime. 67 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 well as to A to lower down their voice and to just forget about everything. He tried to pacify the three. However, instead of being pacified, X got mad at the mayor because X knew that A was the compadre of the Mayor and he believed that the Mayor was siding with A so X who was then so mad pulled out a knife and stabbed A in the presence of the Mayor. A sustained a fatal wound but A survived. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide, in the information, it was alleged that the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities. Is this aggravating circumstance present? Yes. All the requisites are present. circumstance can be considered by the court, there must be evidence showing by the act of the accused that there was an intent to disrespect the rank of the offended party. 2. Disregard of age may be considered by the court either collectively or individually depending on their presence in the commission of the crime. It can only be considered in crimes against persons or crimes against chastity but not in crimes against property. Age refers to the minority or seniority of the victim or the offended party. Before this aggravating circumstance can be considered by the court, there must be evidence showing by the act of the accused that there was an intent to disrespect the age of the offended party. 3. Disregard of sex may be considered by the court either collectively or individually depending on their presence in the commission of the crime. It can only be considered in crimes against persons or crimes against chastity but not in crimes against property. First, the public officer, that is the City Mayor, is engaged in the performance of his duty. He was trying to pacify these persons who were having an argument. So he was trying to maintain peace. Second, he was not against whom the crime was committed. It was A who was stabbed. Third, the offender knew that he was a person in authority. X knew that he was the Mayor. X was a constituent of the Mayor. Fourth, the presence of the Mayor did not prevent, did not deter X from committing the crime, from stabbing A. All the elements are present therefore, in the crime of frustrated homicide, the aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or in insult to public authorities shall be considered against the accused. Sex refers to the female sex. Before this aggravating circumstance can be considered by the court, there must be evidence showing by the act of the accused that there was an intent to disrespect the sex of the offended party. 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his 3.1. rank, 3.2. age, or 3.3. sex, or 3.4. that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. NOTE: Even if the offended party is an old man, even if the offended party is a female, even if the offended party has a high position in the society, if based on the acts of the accused, there was no intent to disrespect the rank, the age, the sex, the aggravating circumstances cannot be considered against the accused. 4. That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party. FOUR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 This 4 aggravating circumstance may be considered by the court either collectively or individually depending on their presence in the commission of the crime. Dwelling refers to any building or structure which is used for rest or comfort. Dwelling includes the enclosures, the staircases, and all the dependencies stood therein. 1. Disregard of rank may be considered by the court either collectively or individually depending on their presence in the commission of the crime. It can only be considered in crimes against persons or crimes against chastity but not in crimes against property. For a dwelling to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it is not necessary that the offended party owns the dwelling. Ownership is immaterial. It suffices that the offended party uses the same place as one for his rest and comfort. It can be a rented room. It can be a room where the offended party is a mere bed spacer. Anything, any room, any place which is used for rest and comfort by the said offended party, that will be considered as his dwelling, his domicile. Rank refers to a high social standing in society. It is necessary that the offender party has a higher social standing, higher status in the society than that of the offended party. Before this aggravating 68 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance if the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party. If the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, there is greater criminality on the part of the offender because he violates the sanctity of the privacy of one’s abode which is enshrined in the Constitution. Under the Constitution, we have e socalled “sanctity of the privacy of one’s abode or one’s domicile”. If the offender committed the crime inside the dwelling of the offended party, he disrespected the privacy of one’s dwelling and for that, it will aggravate his criminal liability. in the evening and she was waiting for her father to arrive. The door was open. While she was waiting for her father to arrive, seated on a sala near the door, here comes the accused. The accused suddenly arrived, forcibly dragged her outside the house and brought her to a nipa hut about 10m away from their house and there the accused raped the said victim. In the commission of the crime of rape, is dwelling an aggravating circumstance? Yes. Even if the crime of rape was not consummated inside the dwelling of the offended party, the moment the accused forcibly abducted and dragged the said woman from their house, the aggression already starts. And such aggression that started inside the dwelling of the said offended party cannot be separated from the commission of the crime of rape. Hence, in the commission of the crime of rape, dwelling shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance so as to increase the imposable penalty. Even if a crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, dwelling shall not be considered as an aggravating circumstance in the following instances: 1. The offended party gave provocation 2. Both the offender and the offended party are living in the same dwelling 3. Dwelling is inherent in the commission of the crime. A candidate for the election has just awaken up from his sleep in the morning. After waking up, he immediately went to the window and thereafter opened the window of the house. The moment the said victim opened the window of the house, he was shot from the outside. The bullet hit his forehead. He died instantly. In the commission of the crime of murder, is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present? Yes. It suffices that the offended party, the victim was inside his house at the time of the commission of the crime. It is not necessary that the offender must have also entered the house in order commit the crime. So even if the offender was from the outside and he was able to device ways and means to perpetuate the crime from the outside, for as long as the victim is inside the dwelling, dwelling shall still be considered as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime. In these three instances, even if the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party, it shall not be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In the first circumstance, if the offended party was the one who provoked the accused, who committed the crime inside his dwelling, one cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance because when he provoked the offender, he loses the right to be respected. Likewise for his dwelling to be respected. As such, dwelling will not be considered as an aggravating circumstance if there is any provocation coming from the offended party or the victim. What if A and B are both bed spacers in a room. They had an altercation. So they are both living and sleeping in the same room. They had an argument. A stabbed B. B died. In the commission of the crime, is dwelling an aggravating circumstance? No. Both A and B are living in the same dwelling. Therefore it cannot be said that when A stabbed B, he disrespected the dwelling of B because both of them are residents of the same dwelling. In the third circumstance, in case of trespass to dwelling, dwelling is inherent in the commission of the crime. So even if the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party, it will no longer be considered as an aggravating circumstance because it is considered as an element in the commission of the crime. 4. That the act be committed with 4.1. abuse of confidence or 4.2. obvious ungratefulness. TWO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 1. Abuse of confidence ELEMENTS (TAF) 1. That the offended party has Trusted the offender. 2. That the offender Abused the confidence reposed on him by committing a crime. 3. That the said abuse of confidence reposed on him Facilitated the commission of the crime. X a woman was at the doorstep of their house. She was seated near the door of their house, she was seated at the sala near the door of their house. It was already 6:00 69 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 It is necessary that the abuse of confidence must facilitate the commission of the crime. It must enhance the commission of the crime. 5. That the crime be committed 5.1. in the palace of the Chief Executive, or 5.2. in his presence, or 5.3. where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or 5.4. in a place dedicated to religious worship. 2. Obvious ungratefulness Ungratefulness means lacking in gratitude. Instead of being grateful, instead of saying thank you, the offender committed the crime against the offended party. FOUR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER PARAGRAPH 5 1. The crime was committed in the palace of the Chief Executive. 2. The crime was committed in the presence of the Chief Executive. 3. The crime was committed in the place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties. 4. The crime was committed in a place dedicated to religious worship. For it to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, the law requires that the ungratefulness must be obvious. It must be evident. It must be apparent. A and B had been living in Manila for already 10 years. They used to live in the province but now they are living in Manila. One night, there was a knock on their door. It was X. When A and B saw X, a neighbor in the province a long time ago, they allowed X to enter the house. X informed A and B that he had been in Manila for already a week because he was looking for a job however, he could not find one. And his money, his resources had already gone. He no longer have the money to pay his rent. And so he was asking for the kindness of A and B to accommodate him inside their house. Since X used to be a neighbor in their province, A and B accommodated X and gave X one of the rooms inside the house for him to use. So X is now staying in one of the rooms inside the house of A and B. One day, the husband, A, was out for work. All the maids were also out. One maid brought the children to school, one maid went to the grocery, one maid doing the laundry. The said wife, B, was the only one inside the house. She was inside the master’s bedroom when suddenly, X entered the master’s bedroom and forcibly had carnal knowledge of the said woman. In the commission of the crime of rape, is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence present? Yes. First, the offended party has trusted the offender. They trusted X to live in their house and gave him one room to stay. Second, the offender abused the said trust and confidence by committing a crime. He abused the trust and confidence by raping the said wife, the woman. And this abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime, were it not for the trust of the offended person reposed on him, were it not for the abuse of the said confidence, he could not have committed the crime of rape against the said wife. Therefore, the crime of rape was committed with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence. If the crime is committed in any of these places, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance because of the disrespect on this place. The accused deliberately sought this place in order to commit the crime. He disrespected the said place. In order for these aggravating circumstances, any of these, to lie against the accused, it is necessary to show that the accused deliberately sought these places in order to commit the crime. Under the third aggravating circumstance in paragraph 5, it is necessary that in the place where the crime was committed, the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties. Not only that, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of the crime, the public authorities are actually engaged in the performance of their duties. If the crime is committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, in the presence of the Chief Executive or in the place of religious worship, these aggravating circumstances will lie against the accused regardless of whether there was any political or any social function ongoing for as long as the offender sought the said place in order to facilitate the commission of the crime. A wanted to kill B. He had long wanted to kill B. So what he did, he conducted a surveillance on the places where he would often go. A learned that every Friday morning, B would always go to this particular church to pray. And so, that Friday morning, A waited for B to come to the church. And once B was inside the church, kneeling, praying, A went at the back of B and stabbed B repeatedly at the back. In the commission of the crime, is the aggravating circumstance that the crime is 70 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Even if the offender sought the cover of darkness or nighttime in order to commit the crime, if at the time of the commission of the crime, the scene of the crime was illuminated by any light, whether it is a light coming from nearby houses, light coming from parked vehicles, lights coming from vehicles passing by, lights coming from the electric post, lights coming from the moon shining brightly, whatever be the light for as long as the said light illuminated the scene of the crime, nighttime is no longer considered as an aggravating circumstance. committed in a place dedicated for religious worship present? Regardless of whether there was a religious ceremony or a religious function ongoing, since the said offender deliberately sought the said place dedicated to religious worship in order to commit the crime, in order to kill the victim, this will aggravate his criminal liability. That the crime was committed in a place dedicated to religious worship would be an aggravating circumstance. 6. That the crime be committed in the 6.1. nighttime, or 6.2. in an uninhabited place, or 6.3. by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. In order to revenge, A waited in ambush for the coming of B. A knew that every night, B would pass by this dark alley. And so A waited in ambush for the coming of B. This dark alley, it has no light whatsoever. The moment B arrived, A appeared. When he was in the act of stabbing B, suddenly a tricycle passed by and parked. The lights coming from the tricycle illuminated the scene of the crime. Is nighttime an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime? No. Although the offender sought the cover of darkness in order to facilitate the commission of the crime, at the time he was committing the crime, the scene was illuminated by a light coming from the parked tricycle. As such, nighttime will no longer be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. THREE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER PARAGRAPH 6 1. Nighttime shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance if the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness for any of the following purposes: 1.1. to facilitate the commission of the crime, or 1.2. to conceal its identity A and B chased X. So there was this rumble between A and B and X left. A and B followed X. X went to the sidewalks of Glorietta. A and B followed X, and thereafter at the doorstep of Glorietta, A and B stabbed X to death. It was 11 o’clock in the evening. In the commission of the crime, is nighttime an aggravating circumstance? No. It need not be stated in the problem whether there is light or not because it is already of knowledge that even at 11 o’clock that portion of Makati in Glorietta is fully lighted. Hence, nighttime cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance even if the crime was committed at nighttime because the place was obviously well lighted. It is necessary that the offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness. He deliberately took advantage of the darkness of the night to afford impunity. The darkness of the night or nighttime has been used by the offender in order to facilitate the commission of the crime when the offender took advantage of the cover of darkness. So that in the commission of the crime, there will be no interference, there will be no restriction. Hence, definitely, the crime will be consummated. The darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime. 2. Uninhabited place Uninhabited place is one which is far from other houses in isolation far from the town. It is one where there are no habitants. On the other hand, the offender is said to have used the darkness of the night or nighttime in order to insure or afford impunity when he sought the cover of darkness so that no one would discover him, no one would recognize him. If no one would recognize him, he will be able to conceal his identity. Hence, he cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished. In order for an uninhabited place to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, this definition will not suffice because for an uninhabited place to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it is not really necessary that in the place where the crime was committed, there were no houses or it is far from town. It is also important that in the place 71 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 where the crime was committed, there was very little, very remote possibility for the victim to receive for some help. A, B, C, D and E, five men all armed with balisong. They stabbed X to death. Arrested, they were all considered as conspirators for the crime of murder. In the information, it was alleged that there conspired to kill the victim, X with a use of a deadly weapon, a knife. And in the information, it was also alleged that the aggravating circumstance of a bond was present in the commission of the crime because these five armed men acted together in killing the victim X. After trial on the merits, the judge convicted the five accused. The judge considered them as conspirators. Likewise, the judge considered and appreciated the aggravating circumstance of these five men acting as a bond. After the decision of the court, appreciating both conspiracy and by a band, the counsel for the accused filed a motion for reconsideration. The counsel for the accused stated that the judge was erroneous when it considered both conspiracy and by a bond. The counsel for the accused argued that conspiracy having been considered by the judge, the court can no longer consider by a band. Is the contention of the counsel correct? No. The contention of the counsel is wrong. ELEMENTS (HF) 1. That in the place where the crime was committed, there was very little or remote possibility for the victim to receive some Help. 2. That the offender deliberately took advantage of the said place to Facilitate the commission of the crime. In the first element, that in the place where the crime was committed, even if the victim cries for help, no one will be able to help him. There was very little, very remote possibility for him to receive help. In the second element, he knew that in the said place, no one will be able to help or assist the said victim. Early morning, three fishermen went to the sea. Fishermen A, Fisherman B and Fisherman C. They boarded their boats in order to go on fishing. Fisherman A was already onboard his boat, fisherman B was still untying the boat. Fisherman A was about 50meters away from fisherman B and C who was still untying their boat. When suddenly, X came out of the water and stabbed fisherman A while on board his boat. Fisherman A died. In the commission of the crime, is the aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place present? Yes. The place where the victim was killed was not actually far from the houses, not actually far from other people. In the place where the victim was killed, there were B and C, they were along the seashore. However, it was considered as an uninhabited place because there was very little, very remote possibility for fisherman A to receive some help from B and C. For A to receive some help from B and C, they have to swim 50m before they can render assistance to the victim. And obviously, the second element is also present because the offender X took advantage of the said place to facilitate the commission of the crime. Hence, the killing was attended by an aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place. Conspiracy is a means to commit the crime. Whereas, by a band is an aggravating circumstance. When conspiracy has been considered by the court, it means all five men will be imposed with the same penalty. They have the same criminal liability. Where by a band was considered by the judge as an aggravating circumstance, it means it should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it would increase the imposable penalty. In this case, both circumstances that of being conspirators and that of being a band shall be considered by the court because conspiracy, only a means of committing the crime cannot be absorbed by a band which is an aggravating circumstance. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a 7.1. conflagration, 7.2. shipwreck, 7.3. earthquake, 7.4. epidemic or 7.5. other 7.5.1. calamity or 7.5.2. misfortune. 3. By a band The crime is said to be committed by a band when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of the crime. Therefore, there must be at least four armed malefactors who shall have acted together in the commission of the crime. All of them must have acted together in the commission of the crime. If the crime is committed on the occassion of these calamities or misfortune, it will show the greater criminality and greater dangerousness on the part of the offender than when he committed any of the crime but not on these occasions. 72 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 So in these instances, the fact that the crime was committed on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune, it will be a qualifying aggravating circumstance. In times of calamities, in times of misfortune, people must have one another. But here, the offender instead of helping one another in these times of calamity, he committed the crime on the occasion of these calamity. It will aggravate his criminal liability. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of 8.1. armed men or 8.2. persons who insure or afford impunity. There was this strong typhoon so the houses were all shaking because of the strong winds. A and his family had already fixed their things. A and his family were on their way to the center which will be used for evacuation purposes. So A and his family, his wife and two children were on their way to the evacuation center during this strong typhoon when suddenly here comes X. X hurriedly chased A and stabbed A at the back. What crime is committed by X? X will be liable for the crime of murder qualified by the crime having been committed on the occasion of this typhoon, on the occasion of this calamity, on the occasion of this misfortune. It is necessary for this circumstance to lie against the accused that the armed men supported the act of perpetrator in the commission of the crime. There is no requisite number of armed men. It can be one, two, three, four, five, for as long as the man is armed and the said man directly or indirectly aided the act of offender in the commission of the crime. So the participation of the armed men may be direct or indirect participation to the commission of the crime. BY A BAND Note that although under paragraph 7, that the crime be committed on the occasion of these calamities or misfortune is a generic aggravating circumstance, if the crime committed is that of killing a person, under article 248, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. There must be at least 4 armed malefactors. All these armed men must have acted together in the commission of the crime. So for having killed the victim on the occasion of this calamity, typhoon, the crime that will be committed by X would be murder because it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance to kill a person in times of calamities and misfortune as provided for in article 248. There was again this strong typhoon, and by reason of this strong typhoon, everybody was trying to get out of their house to go to the evacuation center. The house of A was left open as they were in a hurry to go to the evacuation center. Here comes B. B entered the house of A and took the remaining valuables inside. What crime was committed by B? B would be liable for qualified theft. So the fact that the crime was committed on the occasion of this typhoon, on the occasion of this calamity would qualify the crime of theft as provided for by Article 310. AID OF ARMED MEN There is no requisite number of men. It suffices that the said armed men participated in the commission of the crime by direct or indirect participation in the commission on the crime. The participation is merely to aid in the commission of the crime. 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, 9.1. at the time of his trial for one crime, 9.2. shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime 9.3. embraced in the same title of this Code. ELEMENTS (TP-SS) 1. That the accused is on Trial for one crime 2. That at the time of the said trial, he has been Previously convicted by final judgment of another crime. 3. Both the first crime and the second crime are embraced in the Same title of the code. 4. The offender is also convicted for the Second crime for which he is on trial. So in case of killing, if the crime is committed on the occasion of this calamity or misfortune under article 248, the fact that the killing took place in times of these calamities or misfortune, it will be a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Likewise, in case of theft, under article 310, if the taking of the personal property of another was in times of this calamity typhoon, the crime committed is qualified theft. For recidivism to lie against the accused, there must be at least two conviction. The first conviction for the first crime committed must be conviction by final judgment. 73 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The fact that A had been convicted of the crime of homicide twenty years from the time of his conviction by final judgment of serious physical injuries is immaterial in recidivism. Recidivism is imprescriptible. It doesn’t prescribe. No matter how long a time would lapse between the first crime and the second crime for as long as it is embraced in the same title of the code, the accused is considered as a recidivist. It is in the second conviction that the court shall consider the accused as recidivist. The offender committed a crime of perjury. X perjured himself in a sworn statement. As such, he was charged with perjury and X was convicted by final judgment of perjury. X served out his sentence. After service of his sentence, he is now a free man. Months later, X falsified a deed of absolute sale. It was discovered and so X is now being prosecuted for falsification of a private document by a private individual under Article 172. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification. In imposing the penalty for falsification, can the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance? Yes. The first element is present. He is on trial for crime of falsification of a public document by a private individual under Article 172. The second element is also present. At the time of the said trial, he has already been previously convicted by final judgment of the crime of perjury. Third element, both crimes are embraced in the same title of the code. Perjury is under article 183, Crimes against public interest. Falsification of a public document by a private individual is under article 172, also crimes against public interest. So both crimes are embraced in the same title of the code. Last element, the offender is also convicted of the 2 nd crime. All the elements are present. Hence, the court can consider recidivism in the imposition of penalty for falsification. 10. That the offender has been previously punished 10.1. for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or 10.2. for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. This is otherwise known as Reiteracion or Habituality. ELEMENTS (TPC) 1. The offender is on Trial for one crime 2. At the time of the said trial, the offender had already been Previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which the law attaches a lighter penalty. 3. The offender has been Convicted for this case on which he is on trial. So just like recidivism, reiteracion also requires at least two conviction. One conviction in case of recidivism. However, the two conviction requires that the first conviction must be by final judgment and the second conviction must be for the second crime committed. In case however of reiteracion, a conviction by final judgment will not suffice. In case of reiteracion under paragraph 10, the law requires that the offender had already been previously punished for an offense. A was convicted by final judgment for the crime of serious physical injuries. He served out the sentence. He is now out of prison. Because of his experience inside the prison cell, once outside the prison cell, he lived a good life. However, 20 years thereafter, A engaged in a fight. A killed his opponent. So now, A was being prosecuted for the crime of homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of homicide. In imposing the penalty for homicide, can the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance? Yes. The first element, he is on trial for one crime that is homicide. Second element, at the time of the said trial, he has already been convicted by final judgment of another crime which is serious physical injuries. Third element, both crimes are embraced in the same title of the Code, Title 8 Crimes Against Person. Fourth element, the offender was also convicted of the second crime that is homicide. All the elements are present therefore, he is a recidivist. If you will look at the second element of reiteracion, based on the second element, there are two situations: 1. If the offender has only committed two crimes, it is necessary that the first crime, for which he had already served out the sentence, must carry a higher penalty than that of the first crime or can be equal to than that of the first crime. 2. But if the offender has committed three crimes, the law requires that the first two crimes must carry lighter penalties than that of the third crime. A had been convicted by final judgment of forcible abduction and so A served out the sentence. After the release of A for the crime of forcible abduction after serving his sentence, A committed the crime of homicide. He is now on trial for the crime of homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of homicide. In imposing the penalty for the But what about the fact that the second crime of homicide was committed by A twenty years thereafter. Twenty years from the time of his conviction on the crime of serious physical injuries? 74 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Therefore, this time, the court in imposing the penalty for libel can consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance against the accused A. crime of homicide, can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance? Yes. The first crime forcible abduction for which A had already served sentence carries a penalty equal to the second crime that is homicide. Both are punishable by reclusion temporal. Under Article 342, forcible abduction is punished by reclusion temporal. Under Article 249, homicide is punished by reclusion temporal. HABITUAL DELINQUENT Aside from these two forms of habituality, there are other forms of habituality which are not found on Article 14 aggravating circumstance but that is found under Article 62. Under Article 62, the third form of habituality is known as habitual delinquency. What if A was mad at his neighbor and so A slapped the neighbor. The neighbor got mad and so the neighbor filed a case of slight physical injuries against A. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, convicted A. Penalty for slight physical injury was arresto menor. A served out the sentence. After serving out his sentence for slight physical injuries, A out of prison was still mad at his neighbor B. And so A went to the house of his neighbor B, and he deliberately caused damage on the fence of his neighbor. The neighbor filed a case of malicious mischief against A for having deliberately cause damage on his property. So A is now on trial for malicious mischief. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malicious mischief. The penalty for malicious mischief based on the damaged caused is arresto mayor. In imposing the penalty for malicious mischief, can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance? No. The first crime for which A have already served sentence carries a lighter penalty than that of the second crime, malicious mischief. The penalty for slight physical injury, the crime that he had served sentence is only arresto menor. The penalty for malicious mischief is arresto mayor. Since the first crime for which he had served sentence carries a lighter penalty than that of the second crime, reiteracion cannot be considered against the accused A. Habitual Delinquent if within the period of 10 years from the date of his last release or conviction of any of the crimes of serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, he shall be found be found guilty of any of these crimes a third time or oftener. ELEMENTS (C-10-3) 1. Convicted of either serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification 2. Each conviction must come within 10 years from the date of last release or last conviction of the previous crime. 3. These convictions must be at least 3 and so forth. If recidivism under paragraph 9 of article 14 is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by any mitigating circumstance, if reiteracion under paragraph 10 of article 14, an aggravating circumstance is a mere generic aggravating circumstance, how about habitual delinquency? Habitual delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance because its effect on the criminal liability on the offender is to impose an additional penalty aside from the penalty for the crime committed. The limitation however is that these two penalties, the penalty for the crime that he has committed and the additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent must not exceed 30 years. Let us add further facts. What if judge convicted A for malicious mischief. So reiteracion was not considered as an aggravating circumstance. A served the sentence for malicious mischief. After service of sentence, he is now out of prison. Once out of prison, he stated slanderous remarks against his neighbor and the same were published. So on publication, he accused his neighbor of crime and he stated slanderous remarks at his neighbor. And so the neighbor filed a case of libel against A. A is now on trial for the crime of libel. The judge found A guilty beyond reasonable ground for the crime of libel. In imposing the penalty for libel, can the judge consider reiteracion? Yes. The two crimes for which A had already served sentence, slight physical injuries and malicious mischief carry lighter penalties than that of this new crime, libel. The penalty for libel under article 355 is prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. 75 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 RECIDIVISM The law only requires at least two conviction The crimes are not specified. The law only requires that the crimes must be embraced in the same title of the code. There is no requisite period of time necessary between the first crime and the second crime. It is imprescriptible. Generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by a mitigating circumstance. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY The law requires at least three conviction and each conviction must come within 10 years from the date of last release or last conviction The crimes are specified. Serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification. Each conviction must come within 10 years from the date of last release or last conviction. final judgment of another crime of robbery embraced in the same title of the code. Hence, he is also a recidivist. Considering that in the commission of the crime, there are two forms of habituality present: One, recidivism, the other habitual delinquency. Which of these two shall be considered by the court in the imposition of the penalty? The court may consider both aggravating circumstances because they have different effects on the criminal liability of the offender. The fact that X is a recidivist could mean that the penalty that the judge will impose on the third theft will be in its maximum period. Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by a mitigating circumstance. The fact, on the other hand, that the accused is also a habitual delinquent means that aside from the penalty to be imposed by the judge on X for the crime of theft, an additional penalty should be imposed on him for being a habitual delinquent. Hence, the judge may consider both aggravating circumstance, both forms of habituality; recidivism and habitual delinquency. Extraordinary aggravating circumstance which provides for the imposition of an additional penalty in addition for the crime that he has committed. QUASI-RECIDIVIST The fourth kind of habituality is found under article 160, book two of the RPC. This is quasi-recidivism. X committed the crime of robbery. He was convicted by final judgment. He served out the sentence. Thereafter, he was released. Within a year from his release, he committed the crime of theft. Prosecuted for theft, the judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, convicted. He served out his sentence. After the service of his sentence, he was released and just within 6 months, he again committed another theft. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of this second theft and the judge imposed upon him the penalty, so he serve out his sentence. After service of sentence for this second theft, he was again released. Once released, within a period of 5 years he again committed theft. Now he is on trial for the crime of theft. The judge convicted him, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In imposing the penalty for this third theft, can the judge consider this aggravating circumstance of habitual delinquency? Can the judge consider the aggravating circumstance of recidivism? Is accused X a habitual delinquent? Quasi-recidivist is one who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve his sentence or while serving his sentence. Article 160 provides, the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. Hence, quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. It is a special aggravating circumstance because the law requires that the maximum penalty shall be the one imposed. Hence, it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. For one to be considered as a quasi-recidivist, it is necessary that after committing the first crime, while he is serving his sentence or before serving his sentence, he must commit a second crime which is a felony. So it is necessary that he must first be convicted by final judgment of any crime whether it be a felony or an offense and before beginning to serve that sentence, conviction by final judgment or while serving that sentence, he again committed a second crime. This second crime, article 160 requires that it be a felony for the offender to be considered as a quasi-recidivist. X is a habitual delinquent. Within 10 years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crime of theft, he was found guilty of this crime a third time. Hence, he is a habitual delinquent. The first crime for which he had already been convicted by final judgment or for which he is about to serve or is already serving must be any crime. It can be an offense X is also a recidivist. At the time of his trial for the crime of theft, he has been already previously convicted by 76 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 or a felony. But the second crime must be a felony, one punished under the RPC. 4. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. The law requires, the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. A has been convicted by final judgment of illegal possession of unlicensed firearms. He was serving his sentence by final judgment when suddenly, in a gang war, he killed a fellow inmate. So he was arrested and he was prosecuted for the crime of homicide. The judge found him guilty of the crime of homicide. In imposing the penalty for the crime of homicide, can the judge consider him a quasi-recidivist? Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes. The first crime that he has committed for which he was convicted by final judgment was an offense, illegal possession of unlicensed firearms. While he was serving this sentence, his sentence for this offense, he commits another crime. And that other crime happens to be a felony, homicide. And the judge found him guilty of homicide. Therefore, he is a quasi-recidivist. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a 11.1. price, 11.2. reward, or 11.3. promise. This aggravating circumstance is to be considered both against the principal by inducement (the person who gives the price, reward or promise) and the principal by direct participation (the person who received the price, reward of promise in order to commit the crime). So this aggravating circumstance can be considered both against the giver and against the receiver of the price, reward or promise. However, before this aggravating circumstance can be considered against both the giver and the receiver of the price reward or promise, it is necessary that the crime would not have been committed were it not for the price, reward or promise. Otherwise stated, the price, reward or promise must be the determining factor, the primary reason why the crime was committed. X was convicted by final judgment of homicide. He was serving his sentence by final judgment when he was found by the jail guards in possession of dangerous drugs. So he was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. After trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of RA 9165, illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In imposing the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, can the judge consider the accused as a quasirecidivist? No, the accused is not a quasi-recidivist. The second crime that the accused had committed while he was serving his sentence by final judgment for the first crime, homicide, the second crime that he committed was not a felony but rather an offense, a violation of a special penal law. As such, he cannot be considered as a quasi-recidivist. What is the effect of this four forms of habituality on the criminal liability of the offender? If the crime would nevertheless be committed even without the price, reward or promise, then, even if the principal by direct participation received the price, reward or promise, it will not be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If the price, reward or promise is given to the principal by direct participation in order that he would commit a crime of killing another person, then, the crime committed would be murder. The giving of a price, reward or promise would become a qualifying aggravating circumstance under Art. 248. 1. Recidivism is a mere generic aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance. If not offset, the maximum period of the penalty shall be imposed. 2. Just like recidivism, reiteracion is a mere generic aggravating circumstance. Therefore, reiteracion can be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. If not offset, the penalty will be in the maximum period of penalty prescribed by law. 3. Habitual delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance. It requires for an imposition of an additional penalty on the convict aside from the penalty for the crime that he has committed. 12. That the crime be committed by means of 12.1. inundation, 12.2. fire, 12.3. poison, 12.4. explosion, 12.5. stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, 12.6. derailment of a locomotive, or 12.7. by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. If the crime is committed by any of these means, then it will be considered so as to increase the imposable penalty. But if any of these means has been used in order to commit the crime of killing another, then these 77 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 of theft. It is an inherent aggravating circumstance. In killing, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. circumstance is not merely a generic aggravating circumstance but a qualifying aggravating circumstance. A punched B in front of so many people. B is so humiliated and before leaving he said “mark my words, the next time I see you, I will kill you’’. He bought a gun and put it in his pillow. He cannot sleep always thinking to kill A. Two weeks after, he saw A enter a store, so B immediately went home to get his gun. He followed A in the store and killed him. Evident premeditation is present. A wanted to poison his brother. What A did is that he put a poison on the drink of his own brother. What crime is committed? Murder. The used of poison as a means to commit the crime will qualify the penalty. Under 248, if any of these forms that are mentioned in paragraph 7, inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin, has been used in killing a person, it is considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance, not merely a generic. A killed B. A case for frustrated murder was filed against A. Fiscal presented a witness to prove that there is an evident premeditation. Before the killing, A told the witness that he would kill B and so the witness told B that A is planning to kill him, but B just laughed at it. Is evident premeditation present? No, because mere threat to kill will not bring about evident premeditation. It is very rarely considered by the court because it is very difficult to prove. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. Evident premeditation is the stubborn adherence to a decision to commit a crime. It requires a deliberate planning before the actual execution of the crime. 14. That 14.1. 14.2. 14.3. ELEMENTS (TOL) 1. The Time that the offender has determined to commit the crime 2. Overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination 3. Sufficient Lapse of time between the determination and the actual execution of the crime. (Time for him to reflect on the consequences of his act) craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. Craft refers to cunning or intellectual trickery resorted to by the accused so as to commit the crime Fraud is a deceit manifested by the insidious words or machination resorted to by the said accused so that the offended party would perform an act that will ensure the commission of the crime In the first element, when did he decide to commit the crime? It must be given in evidence. Disguise refers to ways, means, effects and methods which will conceal the identity of the offender in the commission of the crime. In the second element, what act did he perform to show that he clung to his determination to commit the crime? In the third element, it is necessary that the sufficient lapse of time must be given to the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. If despite the sufficient lapse of time, he still proceeded with the commission of the crime, then the third element is present. Any of these three may be appreciated singly or collectively against the offender. X knocked at the door of the house. He knew that the master of the house were already gone for work. When the maid opened the door, X informed the maid that he was a relative of the master of the house in the province and that he came here in Manila upon request of the master of the house. The maid believed and so the maid allowed X to enter. Once inside, X robbed the house. Cunning, intellectual trickery, craft have been used by the offender in the commission of the crime. It is an aggravating circumstance. Evident premeditation if present in the killing of the person would qualify the killing to murder, under article 248. If evident premeditation is used in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, it is an inherent aggravating circumstance. So evident premeditation is no longer to be considered as an aggravating circumstance so as to increase the imposable penalty in the crime of robbery, in the crime X befriended B and thereafter moved B to go with him to an uninhabited place and there, he molested B. 78 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 There was craft, there was cunning, intellectual trickery resorted by the accused so that he would be able to molest the said woman. In the first element, how can this inequality of forces come? Inequality of forces may come when: 1. Offender enjoy numerical superiority over that of the offended party. 2. Offender has a weapon which is out of proportion to the weapon available on the part of the offended party. 3. Personal circumstances of the offender versus the offended party. (e.g. the offender is greater than the offended party in terms of size, weight and height) There is a house where the first floor is a store. X at the middle of the night told the owner that he would like to buy something. However, when the owner came down and goes out, X stabbed him. Is the aggravating circumstance of fraud present? Yes, there is deceit manifested by the insidious words resorted to by X so that the offended party would perform an act that will ensure the commission of the crime. In the second element, the mere fact that the offenders are 5 and the offended party is only 1, it doesn’t immediately give rise that in the commission of the crime, there was abuse of superior strength because the second element requires that the offender took advantage of their superiority in strength to facilitate the commission of the crime. There must be evidence that the offender/offenders took advantage of their superiority in strength to facilitate the commission of the crime. Otherwise, mere numerical superiority, mere superiority in weapon, mere superiority in personal circumstances will not be considered as abuse of superior strength. X wanted to rob the house of his neighbor Y but he doesn’t want to be identified. So what he did, he placed a bonet on his face. Only his eyes can be seen. At exactly one o’clock in the morning, when he knew that his neighbor who happens to be his friend was already fast asleep, X entered the house of his neighbor friend. He opened the vault, took jewelries and money from the vault, but on his way out, his neighbor friend was awakened. His neighbor friend began shouting upon seeing X with a bonet on his face. The neighbor friend was asking for help and so X began talking to his neighbor friend. He told him “do not shout otherwise I will shoot you”. He stated that repeatedly because of that, the neighbor recognized the voice of X. Is the aggravating circumstance of disguise present? Although X placed a disguise on his face because he put a bonet that only his eyes can be seen, because he talked to the neighbor friend, the neighbor friend recognized his voice. Disguise will no longer aggravate the criminal liability of the offender. If despite the disguise employed by the offender, he was still recognized, rule out disguise as an aggravating circumstance. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, i. employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof ii. which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, iii. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 15. That advantage be taken of 15.1. superior strength, or 15.2. means be employed to weaken the defense. ELEMENTS (DD) 1. That the accused Deliberately and consciously adopted the ways, means and methods employed by him in the commission of the crime 2. By reason of the ways, means and methods employed by the offender, the offended party was not able to put up any Defense. This is otherwise known as Abuse of Superior Strength. ELEMENTS (NA) 1. That there is a Notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended party in terms of their height, size, weight and strength and other circumstances. 2. That the offender took Advantage of this superior strength in order to facilitate the commission of the crime. In the first element, he reflected on the means, ways and methods that he will use in order to commit the crime. Why? Because under the second element, he wants the offended party to be totally defenseless. 79 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The essence of treachery is the suddenness and an unexpectedness of the attack to an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who has not given the slightest provocation. It is necessary that the offended party, the victim, must be totally without any defense. Any minor defense coming from the offended party would mean that there is no treachery in the commission of the crime. helplessness of these minors. They will not be able to put up any defense. The victim was found on the street. He was lying on the street full of blood. There are two stab wounds at the back and five stab wounds on the chest in front. Nobody had seen the commission of the crime but a witness saw A running away from the scene of the crime with a bladed weapon. Is there treachery in the commission of the crime? Is the crime murder qualified by treachery? So if the offended party or victim was able to evade the blow, if the offended party was able to run, if the offended party was able to parry the blow, if the offended party was able to hide, there is no treachery in the commission of the crime because all of these show that the offended party was able to put up a defense no matter how minor. X went in the house of Y, the door was open so X entered. When X entered, he saw Y lying on the floor full of blood. X was shocked because he saw W about to stab Y again. X immediately ran. W was arrested. Is the crime committed by W qualified by treachery? In both problems, the crime committed by the accused would only be homicide not murder because there is no treachery. Insofar as treachery is concerned, it can also be present even if the attack is done frontally. A number of cases, the Supreme Court ruled that even if the attack was frontal, if it is shown that the offender adopted deliberate means and the offended party was totally unaware such that he was rendered defenseless even if the attack is frontal, there is still treachery. In the first problem, the victim was already found on the street with stab wounds. No one had seen who committed the crime but the witness only saw the accused running away from the scene of the crime. If the victim in the commission of the crime is a minor, Supreme Court said there is always treachery in the commission of the crime. A 5 year old boy was stabbed. A two months old child was shot, there’s always treachery in the commission of the crime. In the second problem, what the witness saw was that the victim, Y was already lying on the floor full of blood and he saw the accused about to stab again the victim. There is no treachery because the Supreme Court said, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present at the inception of the attack. Minority here does not refer to the age of the victim. It doesn’t mean that for as long as the victim is under 18 years of age, there’s always treachery if he is the victim. Minority here according to the Supreme Court refers to the sense of helplessness of the said victim. Since in these two instances, no one had seen how the attack commenced. What the witnesses saw was that the victims was already lying on the floor full of blood. No one had seen how the attack commenced. Treachery cannot be said to be present because treachery must be present at the inception of the attack. There must be evidence showing that at the inception of the attack, the victim was totally without any defense. So even if the victim is a minor, 17 years old, he was shot, it doesn’t mean immediately that there is treachery. You have to consider the facts. Was he able to put up a defense? Did the offender reflect upon the means to be used by him in the commission of the crime? Because although a minor, there was no showing that he was defenseless. But if he victim of the killing was a child, two years old, five years old, evidently, obviously, there is immediately treachery because of the sense of Exception to the rule is in the case of People vs. Tabarnero58, in the case of People vs. Tabarnero, X arrived in the house of A ,and X saw A being stabbed by 58 In People v. Alvarado, 275 SCRA 727 (1997) the accused and his companions shouted to the victim: “Lumabas ka kalbo, kung matapang ka.” When the victim went out of the house, the accused’s companions held the victim’s hands while the accused stabbed him. Despite the yelling which should have warned the victim of a possible attack, the mere fact that the accused’s companions held the hands of the victim while the accused stabbed him was considered by this Court to constitute alevosia. We, therefore, rule that the killing of Ernesto was attended by treachery. However, even assuming for the sake of argument that treachery should not be appreciated, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength would nevertheless qualify the killing to murder. Despite being alleged in the Information, this circumstance was not considered in the trial court as the same is already absorbed in treachery. The act of the accused in stabbing Ernesto while two persons were holding him clearly shows the deliberate use of excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked. (People vs. Tabarnero, 613 SCRA 492, G.R. No. 168169 February 24, 2010) 80 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 B while A’s hand was being held at the back by C. So what the witness saw was that A was being stabbed by B while the hands of A were being held at the back by C. treachery because there was no time for the offender to have reflected upon the ways, means and methods to be employed by him in the commission of the crime. If the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual, even if the attack was sudden, if the attack was done impulsively or at the spur of the moment, there is no treachery. While C was holding the hands of A at the back, B was repeatedly stabbing A. That was what the victim saw. The witness did not see how the attack commenced. Yet, in this case, the Supreme Court appreciated treachery. Supreme Court said it is not necessary to know if there was treachery at the inception of the attack, it is not necessary that the witness had seen the commencement of the attack because what the witness saw was that the victim was under restraint. There was restraint on the victim at the time when he was attacked. That is sufficient to show that he was totally without any defense. So in the case of People vs. Vilbar, the accused was a little bit drunk. He went on the public market, he urinated on the table where the victim was selling vegetables. Of course, this angered the victim and so the victim confronted the accused. They had a heated argument but sensing that nothing will happen to the said argument, the victim turned his back to the accused. And when he was about to leave, the accused suddenly stabbed the victim. The victim died. The accused was prosecuted for the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Hence, SC said there is treachery in the commission of the crime even if the witness did not see how the attack commenced. Reason: because what the witness saw was that at the time of the attack, there was restraint on the person or the victim. His hands, were being held at the back when he was being repeatedly stabbed. SC said there is no treachery. The meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack made by the accused on the victim preceded by an argument was done impulsively. Even if it was sudden, there is no treachery because the first element was absent, there was no time for the accused to have reflected on the ways, means and methods employed by him in the commission of the crime. A went to the store. He was buying cigarette. Here comes B. B also went to the same store buying the same cigarette. The vendor gave cigarette first to B. This angered A. A got pissed off so he looked sternly at B, B also looked sternly at A. So both of them stared at each other until A took a knife and stabbed B. B died. In the commission of the crime, is treachery present? What crime was committed by A? Is it murder qualified by treachery or is it homicide? In the case of People vs. Vilbar59, the SC held that when the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual, and the attack was done impulsively, even if it was sudden, there is no treachery. Treachery cannot be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack because the first element of treachery requires that the offender must have deliberately adopted the ways, means and methods employed by him. A and B went to a wake. In the said wake, A and B saw the group of X, Y and Z. They stared at each other. Thereafter, both of them left. On the second day of the wake, A and B went there again, X, Y and Z were there. They had an argument and thereafter X, Y and Z left. When A and B went out of the wake on their way home, suddenly, X, Y and Z went in front of A and B. Then X, Y and Z tried to hit A and B. B was able to escape. A was hit with a lead pipe on the head. A however was able to run. He went to the gasoline station and hid. However, X, Y and Z followed him there. Not only that, the barangay tanods in the area helped X, Y and Z in mauling and hitting the victim A. The victim died. Prosecuted for murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, X, Y and Z said that they are not criminally liable for murder as the said aggravating circumstances were not present. Are the aggravating circumstances abuse of superior strength and treachery present? This means, according to the Court, that the offender must have reflected upon the ways, means and methods employed by him in the commission of the crime. If the meeting between the accused and the victim was done at the spur of the moment, impulsively, if it was casual and the attack was done out of impulse, there was no the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In a number of cases, surveyed in People v. Rivera, 295 SCRA 99 (1998) we ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected. (People vs. Vilbar, 664 SCRA 749, G.R. No. 186541 February 1, 2012) The fact that it was accused-appellant who stabbed Guilbert to death on the night of May 5, 2000 was already established beyond reasonable doubt. The next question is what crime for which accusedappellant should be held liable: murder as held by the RTC or homicide as adjudged by the Court of Appeals. We agree with the Court of Appeals that accused-appellant is guilty only of homicide in 59 81 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In this case of People vs. Chito Nazareno60, the SC said there was no treachery but there was abuse of superior strength. There was no treachery because the victim was able to hide. The victim was able to run away. Hence, it was a form of defense. circumstance. Only one qualifying aggravating circumstance is necessary to qualify the killing to murder. If there are others present, those others shall be merely considered as generic aggravating circumstance except when it is absorbed like in the case of treachery and abuse of superior strength. There was however, an abuse of superior strength because when the victim already went into hiding, X, Y and Z together with the barangay tanods continuously hit him. The accused took advantage of their superiority and strength in killing the said victim. Hence, the crime committed was murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, not treachery. In the course of the killing of the victim, the two aggravating circumstances are present which are treachery and abuse of superior strength. Both are proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Treachery will suffice to qualify the killing to murder but the abuse of superior strength shall not be considered as generic aggravating circumstance because treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. If in the commission of the crime of killing, A killed B, in the said killing, there was both an abuse of superior strength and treachery, you only need treachery to qualify the killing to murder. How would you appreciate abuse of superior strength? Abuse of superior strength shall be considered as absorbed in the crime of murder with treachery as the qualifying circumstance. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. Hence, it is not to be considered anymore as an aggravating circumstance. 17. That (1) means be employed or (2) circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. Ignominy is the moral circumstance which adds disgrace to the material injury brought about by the commission of the crime. It is akin to the adding insult to the injury. Ignominy refers to moral pain, moral suffering inflicted on the victim which is not necessary to the commission of the crime. But what if in the act of killing the victim, the following aggravating circumstances are present? We have treachery, in consideration of a price, reward or promise and use of a motor vehicle. All these three circumstances are present in the commission of the crime. All of them were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only one would qualify the killing to murder. Treachery is sufficient to qualify the killing to murder. So there are other two remaining aggravating circumstance. Under article 248, in consideration of a price, reward or promise is also a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Under article 248, murder, if the crime is committed by the use of a motor vehicle, it is also considered as an aggravating circumstance. But treachery is sufficient to qualify the penalty in the crime of murder. In the case of People vs Bumidang61, the accused raped the victim in front of the father of the victim. But not only that, before raping the victim in front of her very own father, the accused examined the genitalia of the victim with the use of a flashlight in front of the victim’s father. The examination of the genetalia of the rape victim is not necessary in the commission of the crime. More so it was committed in the presence of the father of the said victim. Such act added moral pain, moral suffering on the part of the victim. It added disgrace on the part of the victim. So these two aggravating circumstance would be considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance no longer qualifying aggravating The offender raped the victim. During her testimony in court, the victim stated that in raping her, the accused use the dog style position. The entry of the penis was from behind. The lower court did not consider ignominy. When the case reaches the SC, People vs. Saylan62, SC 60 People vs. Nazareno, 684 SCRA 604, G.R. No. 196434 October 24, 2012 61 The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into account if means are employed or circumstances brought abeut which add ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if the crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her moral suffering. It was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of Gloria’s old father. These facts clearly show that BALIWANG deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed, or of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before they raped her. (People vs. Bumidang, 346 SCRA 807, G.R. No. 130630 December 4, 2000) 62 The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior, but also “The same position as dogs do” i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because “The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this ‘position’ is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples 82 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 said ignominy is present in the commission of the crime. It added moral pain, moral suffering on the part of the said victim. crime, is the aggravating circumstance that the window was broken as a means to commit the crime present? What if in the same problem, X saw the cell phones in the window seal. He looked to the window, he noticed that there was nobody inside. And so he broke the window sufficient for him to enter. He entered the house through the window. Once inside, he took the bag and the two cell phones and thereafter he left. In the commission of the crime, is the aggravating circumstance that the window was broken as a means thereof present? In the case of People vs. Fernandez63, the victim of rape was found on the vacant lot. The genitalia of the victim was full of mud. SC said there was ignominy in the crime of rape. Placing mud in the genitalia of a rape victim is not necessary to consummate the crime of rape. It only added moral pain, moral suffering on the part of the victim as it is a cause of disgrace on her part. Hence, ignominy is present in the commission of the crime. In the first problem, the crime committed by the accused is only theft. Since the crime that he has committed is only theft, breaking the window is an aggravating circumstance. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a 19.1. wall, 19.2. roof, 19.3. floor, 19.4. door, or 19.5. window be broken. Why only theft? It is only theft because the offender did not enter. He did not enter his body. He broke the window but he only inserted his hands in order to get the said cell phones. His body did not enter the house. As such, the crime that he committed is only theft and the breaking of the window would only be an aggravating circumstance because it is the means to commit the crime. In the 18th aggravating circumstance, it is necessary that the crime is committed after the unlawful entry. So the offender entered first to an opening not intended for the same in order to commit the crime. In the second problem however, the accused broke the window glass sufficient for him to enter. And indeed he entered. Once inside, he took the bags and the cell phones. This time, the crime committed by the offender is robbery not theft because his entire body entered. Since the crime committed by the offender is robbery, the breaking of the window as a means to commit the crime is inherent in the commission of the crime. It is an element to the commission of the crime under article 299, in case of robbery with the use of force upon things, the breaking of the window as a means to enter is considered as absorbed or an inherent element in the commission of the crime. Under the 19th aggravating circumstance, the breaking of the wall, floor, roof or window is the means to commit the crime. A was passing by a big house. It has a big glass window. When A passed by the big house, he noticed that by the window seal, there were two cell phones lying and the cell phones were being charged. A went back. Upon seeing that there was no person inside the said room, he broke the said glass, entered his hand and took the two cell phones. Thereafter, he left. In the commission of the in the act of copulation.” (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise. (People vs. Saylan, 130 SCRA 159, No. L-36941 June 29, 1984) 63 The trial court is correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of ignominy because of the greater perversity displayed by the offenders. The testimony of the examining physician that he did not find mud on the victim’s private organ, does not necessarily belie the latter’s asseveration that the accused “plastered” (in the words of the lower court) mud on her private part. It is worthwhile mentioning that the victim was examined and treated by Dr. Claudio at 3:55 p.m. or about almost two (2) hours after the rape was committed. Given this circumstance, the absence of mud in the victim’s private part when she was examined by the physician, may be attributed to the possibility that the mud washed or fell off even before the victim left the house for her physical examination. Moreover, Rebecca’s testimony was corroborated by that of Amelita Malong who swore that she saw mud smeared on Rebecca’s private part when she (Amelita) saw Rebecca right after the incident. It is also difficult to conceive why the offended party, young as she was, and with a chaste reputation, would go to the extent of fabricating this portion of her testimony notwithstanding the consequent humiliation on her person and disgrace on her womanhood. We cannot but agree with the trial court’s finding that the offense was aggravated by ignominy. We are of the opinion, however that the word “cruelty” used in the dispositive portion of the judgment, to describe an alternative aggravating circumstance, is unnecessary. The act of “plastering” mud on the victim’s vagina right after she was raped, is adequately and properly described as “ignominy” rather than “cruelty or ignominy.” (People vs. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511, G.R. No. 62116 March 22, 1990) 83 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Therefore, in this case, it will no longer be considered so as to increase the imposable penalty 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. 20. That the crime be committed 20.1. with the aid of persons under 15 years of age or 20.2. by means of 20.2.1. motor vehicles, 20.2.2. airships, or 20.2.3. other similar means Cruelty additional physical pain inflicted on the victim which is not necessary for the commission of the crime. ELEMENTS (AE) 1. The victim must still be Alive at the time that the additional physical pain had been inflicted by the accused on the victim. 2. Upon the infliction of the physical pain, the offender Enjoys and delights in seeing the victim suffer from the additional physical pain inflicted on the said victim. If the crime is committed by the offender with the aid, or help of a minor 15 years of age or under, it shows the greater criminality, greater perversity on the part of the offender. He knew these minors cannot be arrested, cannot be prosecuted. So these use of minors to commit the crime shows greater criminality and it will aggravate his criminal liability. IGNOMINY Moral Pain or Moral Suffering May be inflicted when the victim was either alive or dead. If the offender committed the crime by using motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships or other similar means, that will also be considered as an aggravating circumstance. CRUELTY Additional Physical Pain or physical suffering May only be inflicted when the victim was still alive. The mere fact that the victim has 25 stab wounds, it doesn’t mean that there was already a cruelty in the commission of the crime. You have to determine: Are all these stab wounds inflicted while the victim was still alive? Was the offender enjoying in inflicting the additional physical pain? You have to consider that before cruelty may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. A wanted to kill B he waited to the arrival of B. when he saw B crossing the street, he stepped on the accelerator of his vehicle and pushed it towards b thereby hitting b, b died. What crime is committed? The crime committed is murder qualified by use of motor vehicle thus a qualifying aggravating circumstance. So here the motor vehicle itself was used as the means to commit the crime hence it will qualify the crime in to murder it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. In one case, a rape victim was full of cigarette burns. Her body was tortured with cigarette burns. Supreme Court said cruelty was present in the commission of the crime. Torturing the said rape victim with cigarette burns is not necessary in the commission of the crime of rape. It only added physical pain on the part of the said victim. So in this case, cruelty was appreciated by the court as an aggravating circumstance. A wanted to kill b. he boarded his motor vehicle and went to the house of B around 12 o’clock in the midnight knowing that B was already asleep. Alighted from him motor vehicle, went directly towards the house, opened the window and threw a grenade inside. Thereafter, he again boarded his motor vehicle. The grenade exploded. Hence, the victim died. Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by the use of motor vehicle present? USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE In addition to the aggravating circumstances of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, there are also some aggravating circumstances in special penal laws. No. The use of the motor vehicle was not the means to commit the crime. The motor vehicle was only used in going to the scene of the crime and in escaping the scene of the crime. In order for the use of vehicle to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary that it must be the means to commit the crime. A killed B, he stabbed B and thereafter A chopped the different parts of the body of B; because of the brutal manner of killing B when A was arrested, the police suspected that A was under the influence of dangerous drugs at the time of the commission of the crime. So A before incarcerating him was first brought to the PNP Crime Lab for testing to determine if indeed he was 84 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 under the influence of dangerous drugs at the time of the commission of the crime. After testing, there was a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs on the part of the said accused. What is the effect of such positive finding for use of dangerous drugs on the criminal liability of the offender? threats. What is the effect of the use of the said firearm on his criminal liability which happens to be without license? The use of an unlicensed firearm is considered as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of any crime except in cases of rebellion, and in cases of attempted coup d’etat. Under Section 2564 of RA 9165, the 2002 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, a positive finding for use of dangerous drugs in the commission of the crime shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it will change the nature of the crime to bring about a more serious crime with a higher penalty or even without changing the nature of the crime, it will bring about the imposition of higher penalty. So again, a positive finding for use of dangerous drugs in the commission of the crime shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. USE OF FIREARMS CIRCUMSTANCE AS Under PD 1866, that is Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm has already been amended by RA 9294. But RA 9294 was recently amended by RA 10591 which was approved last year, May 29, 2013. So under RA 10591 Section 2965, it is provided that the use of a loose firearm when inherent in a commission of a crime, whether punished under the Revised Penal Code or other penal laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. So based on this new law, whenever a firearm is used in the commission of a crime it is an aggravating circumstance. And based on jurisprudence, it is a special aggravating circumstance. AGGRAVATING So in the problem that I gave, A shot B with the use of a loose firearm without license, without permit to carry. The crime committed is homicide with the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a loose firearm. A shot B with the use of a firearm, B died. A was arrested. The firearm was also confiscated and so the said accused was charged in court. The accused was charged with the crime of homicide plus illegal possession of unlicensed firearm because it was found out that he has no license and permit to carry the said firearm. Are the charges correct? A assaulted a person in authority in the performance of his official function with the use of a firearm. He used the firearm in the assault. What crime is committed? Direct Assault and the use of the loose firearm shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. A assaulted a person in authority with the use of a firearm? What is the effect of the said use of firearm in the in the assault of the person in authority? Will it constitute a separate and distinct charge? Or will it be a mere aggravating circumstance? A poked the gun at B to threaten him, what crime is committed? The crime committed is other light threats but the use of the loose firearm shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. A pulled a gun at the victim, so he pulled a gun at the victim who was buying at the store without saying anything, he pulled a gun at the head of the victim. The victim was afraid and thereafter A left, what crime is committed by A? A was charged with other light A took the vehicle of B. In taking the vehicle of B, A poked the gun at B. afraid, B gave the vehicle to A. So Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable. 65 Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. 64 If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense. 85 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 A was charged with the crime of carnapping. What is the effect of the fact that he used a firearm in the commission of the crime? The effect of the use of the loose firearm shall be a special aggravating circumstance. Because under Section 29 of RA 10591, whenever a loose firearm is inherent or used in the commission of the crime, whatever be the crime, whether punishable by the RPC or punishable by special penal laws, it will always be an aggravating circumstance. crimes of rebellion, insurreccion and attempted coup d ‘etat, that the use of the loose firearm shall be absorbed, no longer in the crime of sedition. So this is the new law in the use of a loose firearm as provided for under RA 10591, PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 and as further amended by RA 10591. Note that RA 10591 in its repealing clause entirely repealed Section 1 of RA 8294 that amended PD 1866. So the present law is Section 29 of RA 10591. So these are two aggravating circumstances which are not under Article 14 but which are included in the bar syllabus. But the last paragraph of Section 29 provides if the crime is committed by a person without using the loose firearm, the use of the loose firearm shall constitute a distinct and separate offense. CHAPTER FIVE Alternative Circumstances ART. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to (1) the nature and effects of the crime and (2) the other conditions attending its commission. They are the 1. relationship, 2. intoxication and 3. the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the 1. spouse, 2. ascendant, 3. descendant, 4. legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or 5. relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. A stabbed B repeatedly. B died. A was arrested. He was frisked. He was searched. A caliber .45 pistol was found in his possession and it has no license, it has no permit to carry. What crime or crimes is committed by A? Although A was in possession of a loose firearm, he did not use it in the commission of the crime because he killed the victim by stabbing the victim. Therefore, since loose firearm was not used in the commission of the crime, it will constitute a separate and distinct offense. Here, two cases will be filed against the victim— homicide for having killed the victim by stabbing him, and the other one is, violation of RA 10591 for illegal use of loose firearm. Loose firearm, what does this include? Loose firearm of Section 366 of RA 10591 includes an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, a firearm that has been lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, a registered firearm in the possession of one who is not the licensee thereof, and lastly a firearm with revoked license in accordance with rules and regulations. All of these are included in the meaning of a loose firearm. What if the use of loose firearm is in connection, or in furtherance, of incident to the crime of rebellion and insurrection or attempted coup d’etat? Under Section 29, second paragraph, if the use of the loose firearm is in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with rebellion or insurreccion or attempted coup d’etat, it shall be considered as absorbed element in the commission of the crime. The intoxication of the offender 1. shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has 1.1. committed a felony in a state of intoxication, 1.2. if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Alternative circumstances are those circumstances which can either be considered as a mitigating circumstance or an aggravating circumstance depending on the nature and the effect in the nature of Note, under RA 8294, amending PD 1866, if the unlicensed firearm is used even in sedition it is absorbed but under Section 29 of RA 10591, it is in the Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of an individual other than the licensee and those with revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations. 66 86 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the commission of the crime. They are called alternative circumstances because they can be appreciated as either mitigating or aggravating circumstances. circumstance except when the offender would be the parents of the victim. Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide. Relationship is generally an aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity like acts of lasciviousness. But the moment they are considered as aggravating or as mitigating, they are no longer considered as alternative because they are already identified as mitigating or as aggravating. 2. INTOXICATION THREE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES There is intoxication when the offender has taken such amount of liquor as to affect his mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of his act. There are three alternative circumstances under Article 15, and they are relationship, intoxication, degree of education and instruction of the offender. Intoxication is considered as a mitigating circumstance when it is not habitual or when it is not subsequent to a plan to commit a crime. On the other hand, intoxication is an aggravating circumstance if it is done habitually or when it is intentional, subsequent to a plan to commit a crime. 1. RELATIONSHIP Relationship is considered as alternative circumstance if the offender is related to the offended party as spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters and relatives by affinity in the same degree. The offender wanted to take a revenge at B. He could not do it. So what he did, he took liquor. He got intoxicated so he could have the strength, the guts to kill the victim. Is intoxication as an aggravating circumstance present? Intoxication is an aggravating circumstance. It was intentional, subsequent to a plan to commit the crime. Relationship is considered as mitigating circumstance generally in crimes against property. In crimes against property like robbery, usurpation of real property, we also have arson and fraudulent insolvency. In these crimes against property, relationship is considered as mitigating circumstance. Why is it mitigating in crimes against property because in certain crimes against property like theft or estafa or swindling and malicious mischief, relationship is an exempting circumstance under Article 33267 of the Revised Penal Code. 3. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER As a rule, a low degree of education or instruction is mitigating on the part of the offender. It will mitigate his criminal liability. Exception to the rule, if the crime committed by the offender is a crime which is inherently evil or wrong i.e. killing of person, molesting a woman, these are crimes which are inherently evil or wrong. If this is the crime committed by a person who has a low degree of education or instruction, his low degree of education or instruction would not mitigate his criminal liability. Reason, since these are crimes which are inherently evil or wrong they are as wrong to an educated man or an ignorant man or unlettered man. So if in the crimes against property such as theft, estafa or swindling or malicious mischief, relationship is an exempting circumstance or an absolutory cause but in all other crimes against property, relationship will be a mitigating circumstance. In crimes against persons, relationship is mitigating ii the offender is of high degree than that of the offended party and the crimes committed is less physical injuries or slight physical injuries. But if the crime committed is serious physical injuries, relationship is an aggravating If however the offender took advantage of his high degree of education or his high degree of instruction in ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of (1) theft, (2) swindling or (3) malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: 1. 1.1. Spouses, 1.2. ascendants and descendants, or 1.3. relatives by affinity in the same line. 2. 67 3. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime. 87 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 order to commit the crime, such will aggravate his criminal liability. EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES Extenuating circumstances are those circumstances which if present in the commission of a crime would mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. It would lower the imposable penalty. But they are not included in Article 13 mitigating circumstances, but it has the same effect. A perfect example of extenuating circumstance is found in Article 25568, in case of infanticide, killing of a child less than 3 days old. If it is the mother as well as the grandmother of a child less than 3 days old who killed the said child in order to conceal the dishonor of the said mother, such concealment of dishonor shall be an extenuating circumstance. A lawyer was having a drinking spree with his neighbors when he had an argument with one of his neighbors. As a result, he killed the neighbor. The fact that he was a lawyer with a high degree of education or instruction will have no effect on his criminal liability because he did not take advantage of his high degree of education or high degree of instruction in order to commit the crime. But what if the same lawyer falsified a deed in order to deceive someone, prosecuted for estafa, falsification of a public document, his high degree of education, high degree of instruction shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. He took advantage of his high degree of education and instruction in order to facilitate the commission of a crime of falsifying the said deed, in order to deceive another person. Under Article 255, if the mother killed her own child less than 3 days old in order to conceal her dishonor, from the penalty of infanticide, reclusion perpetua to death, it will be lowered only to prision mayor, two degrees lower. Hence, it will extenuate her criminal liability if that killing was done to conceal dishonor. It is akin to privileged mitigating circumstance. The same is true when the offender who killed the child less than 3 days old is the grandparent of the said child of the mother side and the purpose was to conceal the dishonor of mother. It will lower the imposable penalty from reclusion perpetua to death to reclusion temporal, one degree lower. Hence, conceal of dishonor a mitigating circumstance, though an extenuating circumstance. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES So these are the three alternative circumstances under Article 15. Aside from the justifying, exempting, mitigating and aggravating circumstances that we have discussed, we have these so-called absolutory causes and the so-called extenuating circumstances. Absolutory causes are those circumstances which would exempt the offender from criminal liability. It will absolve or exempt the offender from criminal liability but it is not included in Article 12. Hence, they are considered as absolutory causes. TITLE TWO Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies ART. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTORY CAUSES 1. Instigation 2. Mistake of fact 3. Desistance in the attempted stage 4. Accessories in light felonies, attempted and frustrated light felonies. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. All of these would absolve the offender from criminal liability. The persons who are criminally liable are the principals, the accomplices, and the accessories. ART. 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in article 246 and for murder in article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age. 68 2. If the crime penalized in this article be 1. committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of 88 prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In case of light felonies, only the principals and the accomplices are criminally liable. Accessories are not criminally liable of light felonies because the penalty would already be too low that’s why accessories are no longer liable for light felonies. ELEMENTS OF PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION (ID) 1. His inducement must be made directly with the Intent to procure the commission of the crime. 2. Inducement must be the Determining cause why the crime was committed. In case of grave and less grave felonies, the persons who are criminally liable are the principals, the accomplices, and the accessories. Inducement must be the determining cause Even if he is absent at the scene of the crime, if there is evidence to show that he induced the principal by direct participation in such a direct manner so as to ensure the commission of the crime, and the said inducement is the determining cause why the principal by direct participation committed the crime, he can still be held criminally liable as a principal by inducement. In case of light felonies, only the principals and the accomplices may be held criminally liable. ART. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. DIFFERENT FORMS OF INDUCEMENT 1. Giving of a prize, reward, or promise. 2. Exercise of force employed on the principal by direct participation. 3. Exercising moral ascendancy over the said principal by direct participation such that the principal by direct participation would obey. THREE KINDS OF PRINCIPALS A principal by indispensable cooperation must also be present at the scene of the crime because without his cooperation, without his participation, the crime would not have been consummated, the crime would not have been committed. 1. Principal by direct participation – those who take a direct part in the execution of the crime. 2. Principal by inducement or a principal by induction – those who directly force or induce others to commit the crime. 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation – those who cooperates in the commission of the crime by another act without which the crime would not have been committed or consummated. In the case of People vs. Dulay69, accused Dulay together with Speed were charged with the crime of rape. However, Speed remained at large. He was never arrested. If indeed there was Speed because if you will notice, it seems like the Supreme Court did not believe that story. In so far as Dulay is concerned, she was charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation. She was convicted by the trial court affirmed by the Court of Appeals. A principal by direct participation must necessarily be present at the scene of the crime because he is the one who takes a direct part in the commission of the crime; he is the one who directly executes the crime. So without him, no crime would be committed. A principal by inducement or principal by induction may or may not be present at the scene of the crime. Even if he is absent at the scene of the crime if the following requisites are proven by evidence, he can still be held criminally liable as a principal by inducement. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said her liability is not that by a principal by indispensable cooperation. Supreme Court said, her acts from the time she met the victim to the time that she went to the Bulungan Port, to the time that she pushed her to a kubuhan, to the time that she brought her to Speed and allegedly she was raped. All of these, Supreme Court said, do not show that her acts were indispensable to the commission of the crime. Dulay is not a principal by indispensable cooperation. To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished.The act of Dulay in convincing AAA to go with her until DULAY received money from “Speed” who raped AAA, are not indispensable in the crime of rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA and offered the latter’s services in exchange for money and AAA could still have been raped. (People vs. Dulay, G.R. No. 193854, September 24, 2012) 69 89 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Supreme Court said that any other person could have brought the said victim to Speed or even the victim can present herself to Speed and rape would still be committed. So the acts performed by Dulay were not indispensable for Speed to consummate the alleged rape. Hence, Supreme Court said, since her acts were not indispensable in the consummation of the crime of rape, therefore, she cannot be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. With or without her, the rape could still have been committed. Hence, she’s not a principal by indispensable cooperation. ELEMENTS FOR ONE TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCOMPLICE (CPR) 1. There must be a Community of design. 2. Performs acts Previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. 3. There must be a Relation between the acts performed by the principal and those attributed to an accomplice. So the first requisite is there must be a community of design. The principal knows the criminal design because the principal is the author of the criminal design. He is the one who made the decision; he is the author of the criminal design. Supreme Court said that her liability would be that under RA 7610 that is procuring a child prostitute . If you can read between the lines, it seems like the Supreme Court thought that the child was a prostitute, she really presents herself to different men like that. So the thinking of the Supreme Court based on the evidence as the Supreme Court is analyzing, the participation of Dina Dulay was she procured this young prostitute and brought it to a customer. Hence, she was held liable under RA 7610 that is as a procurer of a child prostitute. So she is not a principal by indispensable cooperation. An accomplice knows the criminal designs because after the principal has offered the criminal design, the principal informed the accomplice and the accomplice concurs with the said criminal design. The moment there is concurrence on the part of the accomplice, there is now the first element that is community of design. And after having concurred the second element, the said accomplice performed acts previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. ART. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. And of course, the third requisite requires that these acts performed by the principal must be related to the acts performed by the accomplice. A, B, C decided to rob a bank. So they have come up with the said decision. On their way to the said bank, they realized they have no vehicle to board which will bring them to the bank. And so they flag down a taxi and they secretly talked to the taxi driver and informed him of their criminal design to rob a bank. The taxi driver agreed and so A, B, and C boarded the said taxi and they were brought near the bank. A, B, and C alighted while the taxi driver waited in a nearby place. Then A, B, and C realized that they have no look-out. They needed a look-out because the police might be conducting a patrol so they needed a look-out. They saw a balut vendor. They talked to the balut vendor and told him to serve as look-out promising him 5% of the loot. The taxi driver was promised 10% of the loot. And so the look-out agreed. He stayed near the bank as if selling balut but in reality, he was serving as a look out. A, B, and C entered the said bank and divested the bank its money then all of them again boarded the taxi and later they were arrested. What are the criminal liabilities of A, B, C, the taxi driver and the look out? A, B, and C are all principals. They are principals by direct participation. They have offered the criminal design that is to commit the crime of robbery and they actually executed the commission of the crime. They If the participation of an offender in the commission of the crime is minor and is not indispensable to the commission of the crime with or without his participation the crime would nevertheless be consummated, the said offender is a mere accomplice. Accomplices are those who, without being principals, cooperate in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts. It somehow facilitates the commission of the crime So the participation of an accomplice is by previous or simultaneous acts to that of the principal. The participation of an accomplice is minor in character; with or without it the crime would nevertheless be consummated. But it somehow facilitates the commission of the crime. 90 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 actually executed the robbery. Hence, they are all liable as principals by direct participation. X, Y, and Z kidnapped the victim, the victim was loaded inside the van and thereafter was brought to a resort and she was placed inside the cottage of the said resort. Inside the cottage, she was being guarded by A, B, C and D. So X, Y, Z, A, B, C and D were inside the cottage and the woman was there. Suddenly, here comes W, W entered the cottage. W was a woman 17 years of age and upon seeing A and B, W conversed with A and B. The conversation had nothing to do with the said act of kidnapping. So inside the cottage there was the victim, X, Y, and Z who abducted the victim. A, B, C and D who were guarding the victim and there is this W, the 17 year old woman who arrived and talked with A and B. while they were all there, X, Y and Z summoned the victim asking for ransom. Ransom was arranged and the place where it would be given was also agreed upon. The taxi driver as well as the balut vendor are mere accomplices. With or without the said taxi driver, the crime would nevertheless have been consummated because they could have flagged down another taxi not necessarily that taxi driver. With or without the look out, the crime would nevertheless be consummated because they could have used any other person not necessarily the said balut vendor. Hence, the balut vendor and the taxi driver are mere accomplices. They were not part of the criminal design. Only A, B, and, C planned and decided and authored the crime of robbery. After they have come up with the said decision, they informed the taxi driver. They informed the balut vendor and both of them concurred with the said criminal design. And they performed acts simultaneous to the commission of crime previous and simultaneous to the commission of the crime which are both related to robbery. Hence, the taxi driver and the balut vendor are both accomplices. On the said date of the giving of ransom, there was this entrapment operation and so X, Y and Z were all arrested. The NBI agents also raided the cottage in the said beach resort and the said victim was rescued. A, B, C, and D were all arrested as well as W. All of them- X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D and W were all charged as principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. A, B, C, D, and E they all decided to commit a bank robbery. Based on their agreement, A, B, and C would be the ones to enter the bank to get the money. D who owns a vehicle would serve as their driver, in going there, they will use his car. E would serve as look out. So they all boarded, went there on board the vehicle of D. A, B, C, as well as E alighted from the said car. E to serve as look out. A, B, and C to divest the bank of its money. After the robbery, they all boarded the car. Later, they were arrested. What are the criminal liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E? A, B, C, D, and E are all authors of the criminal design. Hence, they all served as principals. What we have here is a conspiracy among A, B, and C. Therefore, even if the act performed by D is that only of driving the car which brought them to the place. If the act performed by E is that only serving as look out which are both minor in character, since there is conspiracy among them, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the quantity and quality of their participation in the commission of the crime. Hence, they are all considered as principals by direct participation in the commission of the crime. During the trial of the case, in so far as W is concerned, she stated falsities, she lied as to her name, circumstances, address in open court testimony as compared to her sworn statement. When she was asked by the counsel why she lied, she said she didn’t want to be identified with X, Y and Z, A, B, C, and D. That was the reason why she decided to lie. She further stated in her testimony that she just went to the said cottage in the beach resort because she thought there was a swimming party. She said she was not in any way part of the said kidnapping for the merits. After the trial on the merits, the judge convicted all the accused as principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. If you were the Justice of the Appellate Court, would you affirm the conviction? This is the case of People v. Gambao (2013)70. In the said case, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction X, Y and Z, A, B, C and D as principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Supreme Court said A, B, and C abducted and X, Y and Z abducted the victim and A, B, and c guarded. There was conspiracy among all these 70 The defenses raised by Perpenian are not sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. Assuming arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was a swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A rational person would have suspected something was wrong and would have reported such incident to the police. Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and to add to that, she even spent the night at the cottage. It has been held before that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. It should be noted that the accused-appellant’s presence and company were not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. Clemente, et al., 21 SCRA 267 (1967), where it was stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal. (People vs. Gambao, 706 SCRA 508, G.R. No. 172707 October 1, 2013) 91 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 men in the commission of the crime of kidnapping with ransom, a conspiracy having been established considered as principals by direct participation. When is a look out a principal and when is a look out a mere accomplice? A look out is a principal even his participation is minor in character if he is part of the agreement, if he is among the authors of the criminal design. On the other hand, a look out is a mere accomplice if he is not part of the agreement and was only informed of the agreement after the principals have offered. In so far as W was concerned, the Supreme Court convicted her as an accomplice. To the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The Supreme Court said that the acts of the said woman pertains to that of an accomplice. ART. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, (1) having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and (2)without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, (3) take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By 1.1. profiting themselves or 1.2. assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying 2.1. the body of the crime, or 2.2. the effects or 2.3. instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By 3.1. harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or 3.2. whenever the author of the crime is guilty of 3.2.1. treason, 3.2.2. parricide, 3.2.3. murder, or 3.2.4. an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or 3.2.5. is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. All the elements are present. First, there exists a community of design. Although there was no showing that she was part of the agreement, Supreme Court said that when the said woman arrived at the said cottage, she saw that the victim was being guarded. She also said the conversation about the said ransom. Therefore, she was aware of the criminal designs of the principals. Any reasonable man would have gone to the police for the matter but she did not do so. Hence, she concurs with the said criminal design of the principal. Second element, the offender must perform previous or simultaneous acts in an efficacious manner. The presence of the said person W in the cottage showed that she was giving moral support and aid to the commission of the crime. She said that she stayed there overnight. That showed that she was giving moral aid in an efficacious but not indispensable manner. Third element, there is a relation between the acts of the principal and the acts of the accomplice. The acts of the accomplice W are all related to the acts of accused. All the elements for being an accomplice are present hence, Supreme Court said that W is an accomplice in the commission of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. W, however, contended that she was only 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and she did not know what was happening and so she did not act with discernment. Supreme Court said there was discernment. Supreme Court said the fact that W lied in her open court testimony and when asked why she lied, she said that she lied because she did not want to be identified with X, Y and Z, A, B, C and D whom she knew were committing a crime. This means that the said offender W knew that a crime is being committed and if identified them, she too will be punished. That means she has discernment. She knew and she could appreciate the consequences of her acts. As such, the Supreme Court convicted the said girl 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime as an accomplice to the crime of kidnapping for ransom. A principal knows the criminal design because he is the author of the criminal design. An accomplice knows the criminal design because after the principal has authored the criminal design, he informs the accomplice of the criminal design and the accomplice concurs with criminal deign. Accessory has no knowledge of the criminal design An accessory however, has no knowledge of the criminal design of the principal. What the accessory knows is that a crime has been committed, the actual commission of the crime, therefore his knowledge is after the crime has already been consummated and despite knowledge that a crime has been consummated he takes part subsequent to the commission of the said crime. His 92 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 participation therefore is subsequent to the commission of the said crime. crime or crimes is/are committed B? is B liable as an accessory to the commission of the crime of estafa or swindling? Is B liable of any other crime? B is liable as an accessory to the crime of estafa or swindling. The act of A of getting the ring of his friend by means of deceit constituted estafa, and A informed B that the ring was the product of a crime. So B knew that the said ring being a product of a crime, B knew that A has actually committed a crime. B has actual knowledge of the commission of the crime of estafa or swindling because it was revealed to him by A himself, the person who committed the crime. Therefore, the first element of an accessory is present. Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August 1998 while Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's liability? (BAR 2013) Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally liable as an accessory under Art. 19, such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The term “knowledge “under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient. Even if he can be considered as an accessory under Art. 19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under Art. 20, RPC. And despite the fact that B has knowledge of the fact that the ring was a product or estafa or swindling, despite the fact that he has knowledge of the actual commission of the crime of estafa, he assisted him to profit by the effects of the crime because he brought the ring at the amount of P50,000. Therefore, B is liable as accessory to the crime of estafa or swindling. Is B liable as a fence? B is not liable as a fence. Because fencing under PD 1612 applies only if the crime committed is robbery or theft. But here, the crime committed is estafa or swindling. So B is an accessory to the crime of estafa or swindling. THREE ACTS FOR ONE TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY A went to the house of B in the middle of the night and opened the vault and took the jewelries inside the vault. The jewelries inside the vault definitely would cost a million pesos. A placed it inside a plastic bag, thereafter A left. A went to X who has a jewelry store. A poured the jewelries on the table of the store of X. X was bewildered with these many jewelries. Just by looking at it, X knew that the jewelries costs millions of pesos. A told X, “I am selling you these jewelries for P100,000. I know these jewelries costs millions of pesos but I am selling it to you at only a P100,000. Just give me the money right now, I desperately need it.” B realizing that it was a good bargain, immediately gave P100,000 to A. Thereafter A left and B displayed all the jewelries on her jewelry store. Later the police arrived. B, who was the victim of the robbery committed by A identified the jewelries on display on the store of X as those which has been stolen from her house. In fact, many of the jewelries has her initials. As a result, X was arrested. Is X liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery? X is not liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery. Because for one to be liable as an accessory it is necessary that the offender must have knowledge in the commission of the crime. X has no knowledge in the commission of the crime of robbery. He did not know the actual commission of the crime of robbery. Therefore, X 1. BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME. Two Situations: 1. The accessory themselves profited from the said commission of the crime. 2. The accessory helps the principal to profit from the effects of the crime. A swindled a diamond ring from his friend, so A, by means of deceit was able to get the diamond ring of his friend, but while A was in possession of the diamond ring of his friend, he went to B. B has a jewelry store. A told B, “how much would this diamond ring costs?” and B said, “it will cost about P250,000. A told B, “I am selling this to you at P50,000 but you have to give me the money right now, I need it right now. I am selling this to you only P50,000 because anyway I just stole this ring from a friend without her knowledge. So you have to give me P50,000 and this ring is yours.” Considering that it was a good price, B immediately paid P50,000 to A, A left the ring and A left. The ring was displayed by B on his jewelry store and there it was found out. What 93 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 cannot be considered as an accessory. What crime then is committed by X? 4. That there was on the part of the offender intent to Gain either for himself or for an amount. X is liable as a fence under PD 1612. All the elements are present; a crime of robbery took place. B was found in possession of the jewelry and he knows that it is a product of robbery because it was shown on national TV and even if it is not shown on TV, it should have been known to him that these jewelries were the products of robbery because imagine it was worth millions of pesos and yet it was only sold to him at 50, 000 pesos. Therefore, the third element of fencing is present. It should have been known to him that it is a product of robbery or thievery by the fact that the said jewelries were being sold at a very low price. He should have already suspected that these jewelries are the product of robbery. And the fourth element of fencing is present, there is intent to gain on the part of B because he displayed it on his pawnshop. All the four elements of fencing are present. Therefore, B is also a fence. A robbed a pawnshop he destroyed the door of the pawnshop, entered therein took the jewelries and placed the jewelries in the plastic bag. However, everything was seen in a CCTV camera which was shown in national TV. B was watching the said footage of the said robbery and there was the face of A , the face of A was shown in full. Then suddenly, A knocked at the door of B and said to him “I am selling to you these jewelries inside a plastic bag. You can take a look, this cost millions of pesos but I am selling it only to you for 50,000 because I am in need of money. So B after examining it and having realized that indeed it costs millions of pesos, and after looking at the face of A who’s face is shown on TV, he immediately bought the jewelries for 50,000. A left, later the police arrived at the store of B and found some jewelry stolen in the store of B. What is the criminal liability of B? Of what crime B should be prosecuted of? Is B an accessory to the crime of robbery? B is an accessory. B has knowledge of the commission of the crime because he saw it on national TV. He took part subsequent to the commission of the said crime. He bought it from A for 50,000 therefore A profited from the effects of the crime, as well as B. So if B is both an accessory and a fence, of what crime would you prosecute B if you were the public prosecutor? It is better to prosecute B as a fence because fencing is an independent crime from the said act of robbery or act of theft. Therefore, even without finding the thief or the other, you can immediately prosecute B, the one whom the police had arrested. And the crime charged would be an independent crime of violation of a special penal law, PD 1612 fencing. Is B also a fence? Yes, B is also a fence. Prima facie evidence of fencing It is easier to prove fencing also because under Section 571 of PD 1612, it is expressly provided mere possession of any article, item, object, or anything of value, which is the proceeds of the crime of robbery or thievery, shall be a prima facie evidence of fencing. Therefore, a mere possession of a stolen article already constitutes a prima facie evidence of fencing. On his face he is already presumed a fence. The burden is not on the prosecution to prove fencing, but rather, on the defense to prove that he has no knowledge that the thing in his possession is a stolen article. Under PD 1612 a fence is any person any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or other organization who with intent to gain for himself or for another shall buy, receive, sell, conceal, dispose of or in any other manner deal with any article, item, object or anything with value which he knows or should be known to him could have been derive from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. ELEMENTS OF FENCING (CP-KG) 1. That a crime of robbery or theft has been actually Committed. 2. That the offender is found in Possession of any article, item or object which is the proceeds of the said robbery or theft. 3. That the offender Knows or it should have been known to him that the things in his possession were the proceeds of robbery or thievery. A was caught in possession of a stolen ballpen; the law presumes he is a fence. So by the mere possession of a stolen article, the law presumes that the said offender is liable and the presumption is prima facie evidence therefore, it can only be rebutted by controverting evidence coming from the defense. Otherwise, it stays. Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. 71 94 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the victim. It refers to the fact of the commission of the crime. Therefore, it refers to the fact that A killed B and buried his body under the ground. For as long as someone has witnessed it, still the body of the crime can be proven in court. So it is easier to prove fencing than that of an accessory to the crime of theft or robbery. So in this case, let’s say that the pawnshop robbery took place in Manila but the jewelry store is in Quezon City. So from Manila, after the robbery, A went to B in Quezon City and sold it to B in Quezon City. The police arrived. The jewelries were there. So B was arrested. He is to be charged under PD 1612 fencing. Where shall the case be filed? Should the case be filed in Manila or should it be filed in Quezon City or in any of the courts in Manila or Quezon City? 3. BY HARBORING, CONCEALING, OR ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL, PROVIDED THE ACCESSORY ACTS WITH ABUSE OF HIS PUBLIC FUNCTIONS OR WHENEVER THE AUTHOR OF THE CRIME IS GUILTY OF TREASON, PARRICIDE, MURDER, AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IS KNOWN TO BE HABITUALLY GUILTY OF SOME OTHER CRIME. It should be filed only in Quezon City, the place where B took possession of the said stolen articles. Fencing is not a continuing offense. Therefore, the offender, the fence, can only be prosecuted in the place where he took possession of the said stolen property or article. TWO KINDS OF ACCESSORY UNDER THE THIRD ACT 2. BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME, OR THE INSTRUMENT OR THE EFFECTS THEREOF IN ORDER TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY. 1. Public officer. If the accessory who assisted in the escape of the principal is a public officer, the crime committed by the principal may be any crime but there must be abuse of public function on the part of the said public officer in concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal. 2. Private individual. If he is a mere private individual, the requisite is that the crime committed by the principal are stated; treason, parricide, murder, an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Outside these crimes mentioned, he is not an accessory if he is a private individual. He can be held liable under PD 1829 that is Obstruction of Justice. In order that the act of concealing or destroying the body of the crime may be considered as an act of the accessory, the purpose must be in order to prevent the discovery of the said crime. Body of the crime, otherwise known as the substance of the crime, otherwise known as corpus delicti, refers to the fact of the commission of a crime by someone. ELEMENTS OF BODY OF THE CRIME (OL) 1. Proof of the Occurrence of a certain event. 2. Proof of a person’s criminal Liability therefor. A was found guilty of estafa, it is not among the crimes listed. And then thereafter, he was able to escape with the help of his friend B who assisted him in his escape. B cannot be held liable as an accessory because the crime committed by A, the principal is not among those mentioned in Article 19. Therefore, what should be the crime against him? It’s a violation of PD 1829, the Obstruction of Justice. Define body of the crime. What are the requisites of the body of the crime? Do not say body of the crime is substance of the crime. Body of the crime is corpus delicti. That is only the other name. But body of the crime or substance of the crime or corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of a crime by someone. And then you state the two requisites: proof of the occurrence of the certain event and proof of the persons criminal liability therefor. Obstruction of Justice is committed by any person who knowingly and willfully obstructs, impedes, pampers, or frustrates the arrest and apprehension of criminals or the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. A killed B. Then he dug the ground and hid the body of B underneath the ground. Unknown to him, X saw everything. X saw A killed B and he saw A burying his body. Is the body of the crime gone the moment A buried the deceased body? In case of homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide, the body of the crime does not refer to the deceased body of A and B are sisters and they were cruel to their maid. For a minor mistake, they would slap and beat the said maid. So one night, B arrived home. The maid was already on the floor, dead. So both A and B placed the deceased body of the maid inside a sack and they placed 95 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the sack with the deceased body inside the trunk of the car of B. Unknown to them, while they were placing the sack with the body of the maid inside the trunk of the car, someone saw it and the witness called on the police. So it was a real case. The Alabang police were called by the witness. The witness told the police of Alabang that he saw two women placing the sack inside the trunk of the car and he saw feet of a person from the said sack. And the witness gave the plate number of the car as well as the particular place where he saw the said car. Immediately, the police arrived. It took them some time but they were able to find the said car because it was already moving. So, they tried to overtake and was able to do so. And they ordered B, the driver of the said car, to open the trunk. At first, she did not want but later, the police prevailed. And there, they saw the deceased body of the maid. So A and B were both prosecuted for the crime of murder. 5. relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 172 of the next preceding Article. There are some persons who are exempted from criminal liability as an accessory. Under Article 16, in cases of light felonies, there are no accessories. Therefore, if the crime committed is only a light felony, no person can be punished as an accessory. If the accessory is related to the principal as his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity in the same degree, he cannot be held liable as an accessory; except when the act committed by the said accessory relative is the first act under Article 19- that is by profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime. If the act performed by the relative accessory is the first act by Article 19 by profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime even if he is a relative of the principal, he becomes criminally liable as an accessory. They were both convicted before the Court of Appeals. But the case reached the Supreme Court. Supreme Court said only A is liable and the crime is not murder but Homicide because no one have seen how the crime was committed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the killing was done with treachery. Hence, A was liable for homicide. But note, if the acts performed by the accessory pertains to the second or third act under Article 19—that is, concealing or destroying the body of the crime, harboring or concealing the escape or assisting in the escape of the principal, then he being a relative shall not be held liable as an accessory. Supreme Court said that the act done by the sister B was that of an accessory. That is, she tried to conceal the body of the crime in order to prevent the discovery of killing act done by the sister. However, SC said, considering that she was related to the principal in the crime of homicide and considering that the act performed by the said sister is on the Second Act under Article 19, she is exempted from criminal liability under Article 20. So, in what instances may an accessory be exempted from criminal liability? 1. If the crime committed is only a light felony because accessories are not criminally liable for light felonies under Article 16 2. Under Article 20 if the accessory is related to the principal as spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degree except when the accessories’ acts is that of by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime. SC said, the fiscal should have filed the case of Homicide against A and against B Obstruction of Justice, not that as a principal also in the crime of murder. So B can have herself free. He should have been held liable as an accessory but she is exempted under Article 20. ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their 1. spouses, 2. ascendants, 3. descendants, 4. legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or 72 Art. 19 (1) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 96 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Contrary to law. TITLE THREE Penalties The judge will not state that he will also suffer the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction because the mere fact that the principal penalty imposed upon him is reclusion perpetua, necessarily civil interdiction and disqualification follows this penalty. CHAPTER ONE Penalties in General ART. 21. Penalties that May Be Imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. ART. 22. Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, 1. who is not a habitual criminal74, as this term is defined in rule 575 of Article 62 of this Code, 2. although at the time of the publication of such laws a. a final sentence has been pronounced and b. the convict is serving the same. What are penalties? Penalties are the punishment imposed by local authority upon a person who has committed an intentional felony or a culpable felony. The penalties that are imposed by the court are those which has been provided for in the laws and enacted by Congress. Under Article 21, only those penalties prescribed by law prior to its commission may be imposed by the court. This is in consonance with the expost facto law which is provided for in the Constitution. ART. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which may be imposed, according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following: TWO KINDS OF PENALTIES 1. Principal Penalties are those penalties which are prescribed by law or imposed by the court in case of conviction. 2. Accessory Penalties are penalties which are necessarily included in the imposition of principal penalties. SCALE PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Capital punishment: 1. Death76. Under Article 7373, accessory penalties follow the principal penalties as a matter of law. Hence, accessory penalties need not be stated in the judgment of the court because they follow the principal penalties as a matter of law. Afflictive penalties: 1. Reclusión perpetua, 2. Reclusión temporal, 3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, 4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, 5. Prisión mayor. The judge need not state the accessory penalties in judgment of conviction. ILLUSTRATION: A person is convicted by final judgment of murder. Wherefore finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. He is hereby ART. 73. Presumption in Regard to the Imposition of Accessory Penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods; b. Upon a fourth conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and c. Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusión temporal in its minimum period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. 76 Prohibited under R.A. 9346 73 provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict. Art. 62. A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. 75 Art. 62 (5) Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: a. Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found 74 97 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Correctional penalties: 1. Prisión correccional, 2. Arresto mayor, 3. Suspensión, 4. Destierro. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES 1. RECLUSION PERPETUA Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment are two separate and distinct penalties and should never be used interchangeably. Light penalties: 1. Arresto menor, 2. Public censure. Reclusion Perpetua vis-a-vis Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua is imposed in violation of the Revised Penal Code while Life Imprisonment is imposed in violation of Special Penal Laws. The former carries with it accessory penalties while the latter has no accessory penalty. Reclusion Perpetua has a duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years while Life Imprisonment has no duration. Penalties common to the three preceding classes: 1. Fine, and 2. Bond to keep the peace. ACCESSORY PENALTIES 1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, 2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. 4. Civil interdiction, 5. Indemnification, 6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, 7. Payment of costs. Is reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty or indivisible penalty? Reclusion perpetua, although under Article 27, it has now a duration of 20 years to one day to 40 years, reclusion perpetua remains to be an indivisible penalty. That is so because in the case of People vs. Lucas78 and henceforth, the Supreme Court said that when Article 27 was amended by RA 7659, there was no clear legislative intent to alter the designation of reclusion perpetua from an indivisible penalty to a divisible penalty. Hence, it remains to be an indivisible penalty. So whenever reclusion perpetua is imposed as a penalty, the court need not state its duration. It remains to be an indivisible penalty. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT—DEATH At present, death penalty cannot be imposed because R.A 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty. Under Section 2 it is provided that: In lieu of death penalty the penalty must be commuted to reclusion perpetua if it is a violation of RPC, it shall be commuted to life imprisonment if it is a violation of special penal law. Crimes with death penalty remain to be a heinous crime. Their penalty is still death however it cannot be imposed. 2. RECLUSION TEMPORAL Under Article 25 it is a principal penalty and under Article 27 it has a duration of 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs. 3. DISQUALIFICATION Moreover, under Section 377 of RA 9346 person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole. Disqualification is both a principal penalty and an accessory penalty. If disqualification that is temporary is imposed as a principal penalty it has a duration same with prision mayor— 6 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs. 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. (People vs. Lucas, 240 SCRA 66, G.R. Nos. 108172–73 January 9, 1995) Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. 78 After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 77 98 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Under Article 8779 destierro is a penalty wherein the convict is banished from a place designated by the judgment of the court, if a convict is punished by a penalty of destierro he is prohibited from entering the place designated in judgment of the court. He is prohibited to enter the place which shall not be more than 250km and not less than 25km from the place designated. If, however disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty its duration is that of the same duration as that of principal penalty to which it attaches. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification vis-a-vis Temporary Absolute Disqualification Perpetual Absolute Disqualification is effective during the lifetime of the convict, even after the service of the sentence whereas, Temporary Absolute Disqualification is effective only during the term of the sentence and is renewed after service of sentence except the right to hold public office and employment and also the right to retirement pay and other benefits for position previously held. What if a person convicted with destierro enters the prohibited place? He commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the RPC. The moment he enters the place designated by the court in the judgment which he is prohibited from entering he commits evasion of service of sentence as provided in Article 157 of the RPC. 4. PRISION MAYOR Under Article 27 it has a duration of 6yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs. LIGHT PENALTIES CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES 1. ARRESTO MENOR 1. PRISION CORRECCIONAL Has a duration of 1-30 days. Under Article 27 it has duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 yrs. 2. PUBLIC CENSURE Has no fixed duration. It is an indivisible penalty. It cannot be divided into three periods, it has no fix duration. 2. ARRESTO MAYOR Under Article 27 it has duration of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months. PENALTIES COMMON TO THE THREE PRECEDING CLASSES: 3. SUSPENSION 1. FINE Under Article 25 it is both a principal penalty and an accessory penalty. If suspension is imposed as a principal penalty it has duration as prision correccional— 6 months and 1 day to 6 yrs. Fine is a pecuniary penalty it does not involve imprisonment. It is imposed by the court in judgment by conviction. Under Article 26 fine can be afflictive, correccional or light. If, however, suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty its duration is the same duration as that of principal penalty to which it attaches. It is afflictive if it exceeds 6000 pesos, it is correccional if it is from 200 pesos to 6000 pesos and it is light if it is less than 200 pesos. 4. DESTIERRO 2. BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE. Under Article 27 it has duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 yrs. which is the same with prision correccional. It also involves deprivation of liberty but he is not necessarily to serve sentence behind bars. Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty under Article 25, the duration of which is dependent upon the sound discretion of the court. But note it is a penalty which cannot be imposed for any violation of the RPC ART. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter 1. the place or places designated in the sentence, 2. nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated. 79 99 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 because in book II there is no penalty imposed into a felony which is a bond to keep the peace. If a person is civilly interdicted, that is among the penalties imposed upon him, he is deprived of certain rights provided for in Article 3482. Under Article 34 a person who is civilly interdicted cannot exercise the following rights the rights of parental authority, rights of guardianship over the person or property of his wife, rights of marital authority, right to manage his property, right to dispose his property by any act or conveyance inter vivos. Do not be confused between bond to keep the peace and bond for good behavior. Bond to Keep the Peace vis-a-vis Bond for Good Behavior Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty which cannot be imposed for violation of RPC whereas, bond for good behavior is akin to a bail bond, it is imposed upon a person who is accused of grave threats or light threats. A is convicted of the crime of murder. The penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua. Since the penalty imposed upon him is reclusion perpetua, necessarily civil interdiction attaches. He is now serving sentence in Muntinlupa. He was terminally ill he is now preparing his last will of testament. He therefore is giving all his property to his driver, the person who always visits him during his stay in prison. He has no legal heirs. Is the last will of testament prepared by the convict valid? Yes. The will is still valid although he is civilly interdicted because under Article 34 he is only deprived of his right to dispose his property by any act or conveyance inter vivos. A last will and testament although prepared inter vivos during lifetime, it takes effect only mortis causa/ after death. The disposition of the said property will only take effect after death. He can also make a donation provided that it will take effect after death. Not now, but after death. It is still valid because what is prohibited is disposing his property by any act or conveyance inter vivos. If a person is charge of grave or light threats he will be asked by the court to post a bond for good behavior to ensure that he will not do his threat. In case a person does not want to post a bond he will be given the penalty of destierro to ensure the safety of the person against whom the threat is given. ILLUSTRATION: A told B “I will kill you the next time I see you”. B filed a case of grave threats and there was a probable cause. Court will order A to post a bond for good behavior. ACCESSORY PENALTIES 1. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION. 2. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION. 3. SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE PROFESSION OR CALLING. 4. CIVIL INTERDICTION. 5. INDEMNIFICATION These includes moral damages, actual damages, exemplary damages, temperate damages. Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty under Article 25. Under Articles 4080 and 4181 it is an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty of death if not executed and also the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. 80 ART. 40. Death — Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of 1. perpetual absolute disqualification and that of 2. civil interdiction during 30 years following the date of sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. 81 ART. 41. Reclusión Perpetua and Reclusión Temporal — Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusión perpetua and reclusión temporal shall carry with them that of 1. civil interdiction 1.1. for life or 1.2. during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer 2.1. even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, 2.2. unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. 82 ART. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of 1. the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, 2. of marital authority, 3. of the right to manage his property and 4. of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. 2. 100 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 6. FORFEITURE OR CONFISCATION OF INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEEDS OF THE OFFENSE. Fine can either be afflictive, correctional or light. Under Article 26, fine is afflictive, if it exceeds P6,000. Fine is correctional if it is from P200 to P6,000. And fine is only light if it is less than P200. It is an accessory penalty under Article 25. Under Article 4583 it is an accessory penalty that follows all kinds of principal penalties except light penalties. All the instruments and proceeds of the crime shall be forfeited in favor of the state in favor of the government, except if they belong to a third person who is not liable for the crime. Exception to the exception if the said proceeds or instruments is outside the commerce of man then it has to be destroyed. In the imposition of fines, under Article 66 85, it is provided that courts shall take into consideration the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances as well as the financial capability of the accused, the wealth and means of the said accused. CHAPTER THREE Duration and Effect of Penalties 7. PAYMENT OF COSTS. SECTION ONE Duration of Penalties Cost refers to expenses of litigation. What does cost include? Under Article 3784 it includes fees and indemnities in the course of judicial proceeding. Reclusión perpetua Reclusión temporal. Prisión mayor and temporary disqualification. Who shall pay the cost? It will depend if the accused is convicted or acquitted. If the accused is convicted generally cost shall be imposed upon him. But if the accused is acquitted both the complainant and the accused shall bear for their own cost. Prisión correccional, suspensión, and destierro. ART. 26. Fine — When afflictive, correctional or light penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered 1. an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; 2. a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and 3. a light penalty, if it be less than 200 pesos. Arresto mayor. Arresto menor. Bond to keep the peace. What is fine? Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed by the court in case of a judgment of conviction. Instead of imprisonment, fine is the penalty imposed. So it is a principal penalty, a pecuniary penalty imposed in case of a judgment of conviction. 3. ART. 27. 20 years and 1 day – 40 years 12 years and 1 day – 20 years 6 years and 1 day – 12 years except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. 6 months and 1 day – 6 years except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. 1 month and 1 day – 6 months 1 day – 30 days. The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine. but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. 84 ART. 37. Costs — What are included. — Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be 1. fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or 2. amounts not subject to schedule. 85 ART. 66. Imposition of Fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, 1. not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, 2. but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. ART. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it 1. the forfeiture of 1.1. the proceeds of the crime and 1.2. the instruments or tools with which it was committed. 2. Such proceeds and instruments or tools 2.1. shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, 2.2. unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, 83 101 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 28. Computation of Penalties. — 1. If the offender shall be in prison the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final. 2. If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. 3. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence. or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance: 1. Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, 2. the court may motu proprio order the re-arrest of the accused: 3. Provided, finally, That 3.1. recidivists, 3.2. habitual delinquents, 3.3. escapees and 3.4. persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment86. - Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, (1) with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, (2) if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases: In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment. PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT Preventive imprisonment is the detention of a prisoner while the case filed against him is on-going trial either because the case filed against him is a non-bailable offense and evidence of guilt is strong or the case filed against him is a bailable offense but he does not have the money to post the bail. 1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily. Those in the city jail, municipal jail and provincial jail they are merely undergoing detention. They are merely undergoing preventive imprisonment. They are merely called detention prisoner. They are not yet convicted by final judgment, hence they are presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They are only there because the crime they committed is a non-bailable offense and evidence of guilt is strong. Murder, kidnapping for ransom and evidence of guilt is strong or the case filed against him is a bailable offense but he does not have the money to post the bail. Hence, they remain behind bars while the case against them is on-going trial. That’s why even if they escape they are not criminally liable because they are not yet convicted by final judgment. They are presumed innocent by the constitution unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with 4/5 of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from 30 years. Whenever an accused 1. has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and 2. his case is not yet terminated, 3. he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof 86 Under Article 29, it has already been amended by R.A 10592 approved last May 2013. So under Article 29 as amended the period of preventive imprisonment may be As amended by R.A. 10592, May 29, 2013 102 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Under Article 29 whenever the accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the maximum period of the penalty which can be imposed upon the accused and his case is still not decided, under article 29 he must be immediately released without prejudice to the continuation of the trial against him or without prejudice to appeal if the case is under review. Therefore, the said accused must be immediately released. Note that the penalty for attempted homicide is prision correccional. The maximum period of prision correccional is 6 years. credited from the final sentence imposed upon the accused. There shall be full credit if the said detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing in the presence of a counsel that he shall abide by the same rules and regulations imposed when convicted. And there shall be 4/5 credit if the said detention prisoner does not voluntarily agree in writing in the presence of his counsel that he shall abide by the same rules and regulations imposed on convicted felons. Sentence must involve deprivation of liberty Before a detention prisoner may avail of this credit on his final sentence it is necessary that the final sentence imposed upon him must involve deprivation of liberty. Hence as a counsel you must file a petition of habeas corpus so that he can be immediately released from imprisonment. His continued detention is already arbitrary in nature because he has been behind bars equal to the penalty which may be imposed in case of conviction. If the final sentence impose upon him is fine how would you deduct the duration of his preventive imprisonment? Definitely you cannot. So it is necessary that the final sentence upon the detention prisoner involves deprivation of liberty. In order to have a credit or deduction from the preventive imprisonment that he has undergone. In fact if he is convicted he no longer need to serve his sentence because it is already time-served. If there is a mitigating circumstance you will lower it may utang pa ang government to the said accused. That is not without prejudice to the continuation of the trial, the trial will go on. A & B are husband and wife, A the husband has a mistress and they were already living together. The legal wife discovered, so the wife filed a case of concubinage against the husband and the concubine. They were arrested, placed behind bars although concubinage is a bailable offense they cannot post bail. So, during trial both A and the mistress was placed behind bars. They were already behind bars for a period of more than 30 days let us say 31 days. If you were the counsel what would you do in order to protect your client particularly the concubine? You have to file a petition for habeas corpus, so as the concubine will be immediately released from imprisonment. This is only in so far as the concubine is concern. Under Article 334, in case of concubinage the penalty for the said husband is prision correccional in its minimum and medium period, but the penalty for the concubine is destierro. Under Article 29 if the maximum penalty imposable is destierro the accused must be immediately released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment. The accused who has served a preventive imprisonment and he is convicted by final judgment and the penalty impose upon him is destierro, can it be deducted from destierro? The duration he has served during preventive imprisonment? Yes. Destierro is also a penalty which involves deprivation of liberty although partial. In destierro the convict is prevented from entering the place indicated in the judgment of the court. Under Article 27 destierro has duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. Therefore, you can deduct the period of preventive imprisonment from destierro. DISQUALIFIED TO BENEFIT FROM PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT 1. A recidivist or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime. 2. Those being summoned for the execution of their sentence failed to surrender voluntarily. A has been charged of the crime of attempted homicide? So he was arrested, placed behind bars. Although attempted homicide is a bailable offense he does not have the money to post bail. So the case went into trial he was behind bars. Due to protracted trial the case is now on its sixth year, more than six years and it is still on the presentation of evidence. If you were the counsel of A what will you do to protect your client? That is also provided for in the amendment. RA 10592, if the penalty imposable is destierro the accused must be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment. 103 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 23. Effect of Pardon by the Offended Party. 1. A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 34487 of this Code; 2. but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. So here the public prosecutor can still proceed in prosecuting A although B has already pardoned A because the pardon has been given while the criminal action has already been filed in court. Exception to the Rule under Article 23 “A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344” A stabbed B, B sustained a fatal wound. B was brought in the hospital, he survived. So A would often visit B. He shouldered the operating expenses and the hospital expenses. He provided medicine, everything, he will also give fruits to B for the early recovery of him. By reason of the said circumstances, although a case was already filed against A, B pardoned A. The crime is frustrated homicide. What is the effect of such pardon granted by B to A? The said pardon will not extinguish the criminal action already filed. It will not extinguish the criminal liability of the said accused A. A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344. Article 344 in case of private crimes seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, adultery and concubinage— these are private crimes because these are crimes which cannot be prosecuted without a complaint coming from the offended party. The state cannot on its own initiate these crimes, these are private crimes. Pardon by the offended party in case of private crimes only bars criminal prosecution In case of this private crimes pardon by the offended party only bars criminal prosecution. It should be given before the institution of the criminal action. Therefore in order that a pardon by the offended party may extinguish the criminal liability of the accused it must be given before the filing of criminal action, because pardon by the offended party only bars criminal prosecution but it does not extinguish criminal action already filed in court. Pardon by the offended party in public crimes does not extinguish criminal action already filed In public crimes, it is more of a crime against the state than against the private individual. That’s why it is called People of the Philippines versus in this case A. The public prosecutor can still prosecute A in so far as the case of frustrated homicide even if B has already pardoned A. Such pardon will have no effect against the criminal action already filed against A. That is in case of public crimes. So whether it be private or public crimes pardon by the offended party does not extinguish the criminal action. What about in case of private crimes? A touched the private parts of B, so B filed a case of acts of lasciviousness against A. The case was filed by the police before the fiscal; the fiscal filed it before the court. While the case is on-going trial A asked for forgiveness, B pardoned A. What is the effect of the pardon granted by the offender in case of private crime? Whether it be for public crimes or private crimes, pardon granted by the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. Pardon by the wife extinguishes not only the criminal action but also the penalty imposed by the court. The only exception to the rule is in case of husband and wife, particularly in case of marital rape as provided for in Article 266-C88 of the RPC. The subsequent forgiveness in case the accused is the legal husband, the forgiveness by the wife shall extinguish criminal action or penalty. That is the only exception. Pardon by the wife extinguishes not only the criminal action but also the penalty imposed by the court. Whether it be for public crimes or private crimes, pardon granted by the offended party does not extinguish the criminal action filed against the accused. A, the husband, raped the wife. The wife filed a case of rape against the husband. While the case is ongoing trial on the merits, the husband asked for the wife’s 87 Art. 344 par. 4 “In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him”. 88 ART. 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party 1. shall extinguish the 1.1. criminal action or 1.2. the penalty: 2. Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio. 104 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 forgiveness. The wife is so firm, she has not forgiven the husband. Now, evidence was overwhelming. Before judgment, again the husband asked for the wife’s forgiveness. The wife pardoned the husband. What is the effect of such pardon granted by the wife on the criminal action of rape already filed? It will extinguish the criminal action already filed in the court. Even if all evidence had already been presented, such pardon by the wife shall extinguish the criminal action already filed in court. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Pardon by the president is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the law which exempts the offender to whom it is bestowed from the penalty which the law provides from the crime he has committed. Pardon by the president extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender. Under Article 89 it is one of the modes of totally extinguishing the criminal liability of the offender. It extinguishes the criminal action and criminal liability however under Article 36, it does not restore the civil rights of the accused to hold public office and employment or to vote or be voted for unless it is expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Even if the president has already granted pardon to the offender, it does not automatically restore the rights to hold public office and employment, or to vote or be voted. It must be expressly granted—stated in the terms of the pardon granted by the President. What if in the same problem, when the husband asked for the wife’s forgiveness, the wife did not pardon the husband, she was so firm. So the judge rendered judgment finding the husband guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The husband was sentenced with reclusion perpetua and the judgment became final and executory. The husband is now serving his sentence in Muntinlupa. Suddenly, its Valentine’s Day the wife did not receive any flowers and chocolates, and so the wife missed her husband. The wife pardoned him. What is the effect of such pardon granted by the wife on the husband after conviction by final judgment, after the penalty has already been imposed by the court? The pardon by the wife will also relieve such penalty even though it is already granted by the court. That is how powerful the pardon of a wife is. It can even remit the penalty already granted by the court because if you will look at Article 266 of RPC, the pardon by the wife will extinguish both criminal action and penalty. So, even if there is already conviction by final judgment there is already a penalty the moment the wife pardon the husband, balewala ang penalty niya, panalo parin ang pardon ng wife, panalo parin ang Valentines. So this is how powerful the pardon of a wife is. Pardon by the President does not extinguish Civil liability Civil liability is not extinguished because such liability is not part of the penalty of the offender, it is personal to the victim, it is personal to the private offended party and the pardon of the president cannot touch the civil liability. PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT ART. 36 Extinguishes the criminal liability. That is the only exception to the rule. Perhaps, that is because of the relationship in order to insure harmony in the family. So, pardon by the wife extinguishes not only criminal action but even the penalty already imposed by the court. That is the only exception to the rule. Does not extinguish civil liability. How about in so far as civil liability is concerned? Pardon by the offender extinguishes the civil liability of the offender as if it is by express waiver. The offended party already forgiven the offender, definitely he is no longer expecting any damages to be granted on him. It may only be granted after conviction by final judgment. ART. 36. Pardon; Its Effects. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the (1) right to hold public office, or (2) the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. 105 PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY ART. 23 Does not extinguish criminal liability except in case of rape wherein the husband is the offender and the wife is the offended party who granted pardon. Extinguishes civil liability as it is deemed as an express waiver on part of the offended party. It may only be granted before the institution of the criminal proceedings and only in cases of private crimes, such as seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, adultery and concubinage. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 38. Pecuniary liabilities — order of payment. — In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. The reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of consequential damages. 3. The fine. 4. The costs of the proceedings. ART. 39. Subsidiary penalty89. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities mentioned in paragraphs 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the next preceding Article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court , subject to the following rules: Pecuniary liabilities are those imposed by the court in case of judgment of conviction and it shall go both to the government and the private offended party. 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prisión correccional or arresto and fine, 1.1. he shall remain under confinement until his fine and pecuniary liabilities referred in the preceding paragraph are satisfied, 1.2. but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence, and 1.3. in no case shall it continue for more than 1 year, and 1.4. no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, 2.1. the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 6 months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and 2.2. shall not exceed 15 days, if for a light felony. 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prisión correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, 4.1. the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, 4.2. shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists. 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him 5.1. from reparation of the damaged caused, 5.2. nor from indemnification for the consequential damages in case his financial circumstances should improve; but he shall be relieved from pecuniary liability as to the fine. Pecuniary penalties are those penalties imposed by the court in case of judgment by conviction which goes solely to the government. Under Article 25 pecuniary penalties include fine and payment of cost. Whereas pecuniary liabilities as provided for in Article 38 are as follows: reparation of damage caused, indemnification of consequential damages, fine and cost of proceedings. Under Article 38 if the offender has been imposed with pecuniary liabilities and he does not have the sufficient property to answer all of the pecuniary liabilities, there is the order of payment provided. 1. 2. 3. 4. Reparation of damages. Indemnification of consequential damages Fine Cost of Proceedings The first two both goes to the offended party in the order given priority. Those for the private offended party must first be settled before the offender pays the government. Fine and cost of proceedings goes to the government. How is pecuniary liabilities under Article 38 different from pecuniary penalties? When you say pecuniary penalty, this includes fine and also costs of proceedings. These are imposed by the court in case of a judgment of conviction and these are all owing to the State. In case of pecuniary liabilities, it includes reparation of damage caused and indemnification of consequential damages, fine and costs of proceedings. Pecuniary liabilities are both owing to the private offended party and to the State and it is adjudged in case of conviction. As amended by R.A. No. 5465, which lapsed into law on April 29, 1969; As amended by R.A. 10159, approved April 10, 2012. 89 106 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 SUBSIDIARY PENALTY RULES ON SUBSIDIARY PENALTY Subsidiary penalty is a substitute penalty for fine and fine alone. Subsidiary penalty can only be imposed on a fine. The moment the penalty imposed upon him is fine and he is insolvent to pay the fine, then judge may state that he should suffer subsidiary penalty or subsidiary imprisonment. 1. If the penalty imposed by the court is prision correccional, arresto and fine his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of his term of sentence but it no case shall exceed one year. 2. If the penalty imposed by court is fine alone subsidiary penalty should not be more than 6 months in case of grave and less grave felonies, and shall not exceed 15 days in case of light felonies. 3. If the penalty imposed by court in addition to fine is higher than prision correccional that is more than 6 years, even if the convict is insolvent to pay the fine he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. 4. If the other penalty that goes with fine is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution and it is of fix duration for example destierro. Then it shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence but in no case shall exceed one year. 5. If the other principal penalty that goes with fine is an indivisible penalty and not to be executed in a confinement in a penal institution there can be no subsidiary imprisonment even if insolvent to pay the fine. 6. Even if the accused has already suffered subsidiary imprisonment, it does not relieve him to pay the fine in case his financial circumstance shall improve. Subsidiary penalty is neither a principal nor an accessory penalty. It is not a principal penalty it is also not an accessory penalty. Therefore, subsidiary penalty must be expressly stated in the judgment of the court. If not, even if he is insolvent and should suffer subsidiary imprisonment, he cannot be allowed to do so because it is not stated in the judgment of the court. It is not an accessory penalty which attaches to the principal penalty as a matter of law. Hence, it must be expressly stated in the judgment of the court. Otherwise he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary penalty. Therefore, before subsidiary penalty may be imposed on a convict, it is necessary that first, the judgment of conviction includes fine as a penalty. And second, in the said judgment of conviction, there is a statement by the court saying that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, the said convict shall suffer subsidiary penalty. These two must be both present before one may suffer subsidiary penalty. A is charge of reckless imprudence causing damage to property. He was convicted. The penalty imposed upon him is public censure plus fine. In the judgment the court said, in case of non-payment of fine he shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment, is the judge correct? The judge is wrong because public censure, the other principal penalty goes with fine is not to be served by confinement in a penal institution and is without fixed duration. A has been convicted of a crime. The penalty impose includes a fine. The judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued by the judge against A. The sheriff went to A to implement the writ of execution however, it was returned unsatisfied. He does not have property to pay the said fine. And so, the judge immediately issued an order stating that A should suffer a subsidiary imprisonment. Is the judge correct? That judge is not correct, the failure of the judge to state in the judgment that in case of insolvency to pay fine the offender must suffer, subsidiary liability cannot be corrected by a mere order after the judgment became final and executory. The convict is not able to pay the fine and he suffered subsidiary imprisonment of one year. After a year he was released. Once out of prison before going home he went to the lotto station he placed a bet. That night he became a millionaire. Can the state go after A in order to pay the fine? Yes. Under Article 39 paragraph 5 as amended by RA 10159, it is provided that even if the said convict has suffered subsidiary penalty by reason of his insolvency, such subsidiary penalty shall not relieve him from the payment of fine in case his financial circumstances shall improve. What is the rate of subsidiary imprisonment? Article 39 8/ day amended by RA 10159 which took effect last April 2012. 1 day imprisonment is equivalent to the prevailing highest minimum wage rate in the Philippines upon the judgment of the court. It is based on the date of judgment by the trial court not the appellate court. 107 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 43. Prisión correccional — Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prisión correccional shall carry with it that of 1. suspension from public office, 2. from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of 3. perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed 18 months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this Article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. INSTANCES WHERE SUBSIDIARY PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY THE COURT. 1. When the judgment of the court failed to state that in case of insolvency the offender shall suffer from subsidiary imprisonment. 2. When the judgment of the court does not include fine as a penalty because subsidiary imprisonment is a substitute penalty for fine and fine alone. 3. When the other penalty imposed by the judgment of the court in addition to fine is higher than prision correccional. 4. When the other imprisonment that goes with fine in the judgment of the court is an indivisible penalty and is not to be served behind bars. 5. When what the convict failed to pay is not fined by reparation of damage, indemnification and cost. ART. 44. Arresto — its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of 1. suspension of the right to hold office and 2. the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. SECTION THREE Penalties in Which Other Accessory Penalties are Inherent ART. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it 1. the forfeiture of 1.1. the proceeds of the crime and 1.2. the instruments or tools with which it was committed. 2. Such proceeds and instruments or tools 2.1. shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, 2.2. unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, 3. but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. ART. 40. Death — Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of 1. perpetual absolute disqualification and that of 2. civil interdiction during 30 years following the date of sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. ART. 41. Reclusión Perpetua and Reclusión Temporal — Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusión perpetua and reclusión temporal shall carry with them that of 1. civil interdiction 1.1. for life or 1.2. during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of 2. perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer 2.1. even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, 2.2. unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. CHAPTER FOUR Application of Penalties SECTION ONE Rules for the Application of Penalties to the Persons Criminally Liable and for the Graduation of the Same ART. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony. ART. 42. Prisión mayor — Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prisión mayor shall carry with it that of 1. temporary absolute disqualification and that of 2. perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer 2.1. although pardoned as to the principal penalty, 2.2. unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony. Under Article 46, the law provides that the penalty prescribed by the law shall be imposed on the principal and shall be applied only to consummated felonies. So 108 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 the penalties prescribed by law, if you look at Book II, each crime in Book II has a corresponding penalty, those penalties prescribed by law shall only be impose to the principal offender and shall only be applied to the consummated felonies. TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES 1. Compound crime exist under Article 48 when the offender performs a single act and that single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies Article 48 says that when a single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, the crime shall be penalized based on which of the two shall be the most serious crime in its maximum period. So if the crime produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. Complex crime proper exist when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other offense. What if the offender is a mere accomplice? What if the offender is a mere accessory? What if the crime is only in the frustrated stage or in the attempted stage? The rules for penalties for frustrated felony, attempted felony, of an accomplice, of an accessory are provided for in Articles 50-57. ART. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. — The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is 1. below 18 years of age90 at the time of the commission of the crime or 2. is more than 70 years of age or 3. when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. COMPOUND CRIME Compound crime. There is a compound crime when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. ELEMENTS OF COMPOUND CRIME (SP) 1. The offender performs a Single act. 2. That the single act Produces two or more grave or less grave felonies. So the basis of a compound crime is singularity of the act on the part of the said offender. So note, the basis of a compound crime is the singularity of the act not the singularity of impulse In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the court en banc, within 20 days but not earlier than 15 days after (1) promulgation of the judgment or (2) notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within 10 days after the filing thereof by stenographic reporter91. In People v. Nelmida92 Supreme Court said, “In compound crime under Article 48, singularity of the act is the essence of the crime. Singularity of impulse is not written in the law”. Therefore, there must only be a single act performed by the offender and the said single act must produce two or more grave or less grave felonies. Therefore, if one of the resulting felony is a light felony, then you cannot complex it because you can only complex in two or more grave or less grave felonies. ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When 1. a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or 2. 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. What is the effect of a compound crime in the criminal liability of the offender? The penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed the same to be applied in its maximum period. A placed a bomb under the car of B. The moment B entered the said car together with two security guards the bomb exploded, B died. The two security guards R.A. 9344. SEC. 59. Exemption from the Application of Death Penalty. - The provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and other special laws notwithstanding, no death penalty shall be imposed upon children in conflict with the law. Amended by R.A. 9346 As we observed in People v. Tabaco,102 clarifying the applicability of Article 48 that “to apply the first half of Article 48, x x x there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law. (People vs. Nelmida, 680 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 184500 September 11, 2012) 90 91 92 109 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 were fatally wounded but they survived. What is the crime committed by A? The crime committed by A is murder with double frustrated murder. So the said act, one act placing the bomb under the car, it produces three grave felonies. We have murder and two frustrated murder. They are all grave felonies. Hence, it results to a compound crime of murder with double frustrated murder. attendant. The single act of shooting is intended to kill B but it was C who was hit. What if in the same problem, when A fired at B tending to kill B the bullet hit C. B was not hit but C was fatally wounded and he survived. What is the crime committed based on the single act of firing? The crime is attempted murder with serious physical injuries. This is because A has only the intention to kill B. There was a rally or a meeting on a plaza. A threw a bomb. Two persons died, five others were fatally wounded but they survived. What crimes are committed by A? Two persons died, therefore we have double murder. Five others were fatally wounded but survived, double murder with multiple frustrated murder. It is based on a single act. Therefore, the penalty for the most serious crime, murder shall be imposed to be applied in its maximum period that is double murder with multiple frustrated murder. The basis is the singularity of the act. What if the sustained would is only slight? So let us say that the bullet only hit a portion of his arm and based on the medical certificate it would heal within 1-7 days. So it is slight physical injuries. What is the crime committed by A? The crime is attempted murder against B and as against C the crime is slight physical injury. This is because the other crime committed is a light felony; it cannot be a complex crime. So two cases will be filed against A. A was mad at B and so he wanted to kill B and his family. A placed an explosive device under the car of B, when his family opened the car, the bomb exploded killing B, his wife and his three children. What crime or crimes is committed by A? A is liable for multiple murder, a complex crime, a compound crime under Article 48. A performed a single act, that of placing an explosive device under the car of the said victims and the said single act of placing an exploding device under the said car produces five grave felonies, five counts of murder. Since it is the product of the single act coming from the offender, we have a compound crime of multiple murder. In the case of People v. Nelmida, the accused waited in ambush for the coming of the vehicle, the service vehicle of Mayor Tawantawan of Lanao del Norte. So the moment they the vehicle passed by the said waiting shed, all the accused open fired on the vehicle of the said mayor. So all of them simultaneously firing shots at the said vehicle. As a result, two persons died. Two of the security guards died and several others were wounded. Later, the accused were arrested. And so the case filed before the fiscal is double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder. That was the case filed before the lower court, convicted. CA convicted. But the case reached the SC. What if in the same problem, when the car exploded, only the husband was killed. The wife and the children survived. They sustained fatal wounds but they survived due to immediate medical intervention. What crime or crimes is committed by A? A performed a single act and this single act produces five grave felonies, one murder and 4 frustrated murder. Therefore A would be liable for the complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder. SC said, we believe Article 48 is not applicable in the case. Note that the wounding and killing of the victims were not the result of a single act, it resulted from separate acts coming from different people, different accused. Therefore, SC said, Article 48 is not applicable in the instant case. Hence, they were convicted of two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder, It is not beneficial to them. A complex crime is beneficial to the accused because instead of being charged with so many crimes, being prosecuted and penalized with so many crimes, only one crime although the penalty is in its maximum period for the most serious penalty to be applied in its maximum period. The best example of a compound crime is aberratio ictus mistake in the blow. A wanting to kill B, fired at B, however because of poor aim he hit C who was near B. B did not sustain any wound but C died. What is the crime committed? It is based on a single act of shooting. So the crime is attempted murder with murder. Treachery is Here, SC said, since Article 48 is inapplicable, they are held liable for two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder. SC said, none of them, none of the 110 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 other victims, sustained fatal wound. Therefore, it will only be attempted murder. Seven counts of attempted murder. murder. Again, the basis was the single act, stepping on the accelerator of vehicle and into the said seamen. So that is the difference between People vs. Nelmida and People vs. Punzalan. In Nelmida, SC said compound crime is not committed. In case of Punzalan, there is a compound crime under Article 48. In the case of People v. Punzalan93, there were these seamen who attended schooling in Zambales, after schooling, they went for a drinking spree, then from the canteen they transferred to a videoke bar. While they were having their drinks at the videoke bar, they had an altercation with Punzalan, the accused in this case. So there was this altercation between one of the seamen and Punzalan, the accused. X barged inside a conference room. And with the use of a high-powered firearm, pressed the gun and several bullets came out in assault and 5 people died. What crime or crimes is/are committed by this X? The offender only performed a single act of pressing the trigger but in just one single act of pressing the trigger, five bullets came out and these five bullets killed five people. Supreme Court said, in the case of People vs. Mario Tabaco94, Supreme Court said that here Article 48 complexity of crimes does not apply. There was this flickering light bulb. And so, one of the seamen, the one who had altercation with Punzalan told the owner, “Patayin na yan.” But he was misinterpreted by Punzalan because he thought that “patayin mo na yan” was being referred to him, and so he said, “Sinong papatayin?” But he was stopped by the seamen who tried to pacify him. And so in order to prevent further trouble. All the seamen left. They went back to their barracks. Supreme Court said that when the gun used is a highpowered firearm submachine gun wherein just by one pull of the trigger several bullets will already come out, it is not the single act of pulling the trigger that will bring about the crime but the number of bullets that will be emitted and that killed the victims. Hence, in this case, the said accused was held liable for five counts of murder because Article 48 does not apply. However, Punzalan followed them on board his vehicle. So they were already walking on the right side of the road when Punzalan stopped at the sentry but even though there was no approval of him to enter, he already proceeded. And then he went to the right side of the road, bumping and hitting these seamen. As a result, two seamen died and others were thrown away although they were not wounded. And so he was charged with double murder with multiple attempted murder. Convicted RTC, convicted CA, the case reached SC while SC says “Yes, the charge is correct.” He is liable with double murder with multiple attempted murder. So it is not a complex crime of multiple murder but rather five counts of murder separate and distinct from each other. So in case of a high-powered firearm, it is not the single act of pulling the trigger but rather the number of bullets that came out and killed and wounded the offended party that will give rise to the crimes committed by the accused. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER SC says, The accused made a single act, stepping on the accelerator of his vehicle and thereafter running the said seamen who were walking on the right side of the road. As a result, two died, others were wounded. Obviously although not wounded, there was an attempt to kill them by means of motor vehicle. Hence, the crime committed was double murder with multiple attempted The other kind of a complex crime is known as complex crime proper. There is a complex crime proper when an offense is a necessary means to commit the other offense. perpetua. It was duly proved beyond doubt that the gun (Exhs. ‘K,’ SN No. 1492932, ‘K-2’—magazine of M-14 and Exh. ‘L’—Memo Receipt of M-14 issued to Tabaco), used by the accused, is admittedly an automatic powerful weapon, more powerful than an M-16 armalite rifle. It is so powerful that the bullets can penetrate even more than five (5) persons resulting to their deaths. And, this was proven when, according to witness Rosario Peneyra, the bullets even destroyed the cemented rail guard separating the lower and upper bleachers of the cockpit arena, and causing wounds on his face and on his right shoulder. Additionally, we have the used/spent empty shells. (People vs. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997) Appellant was animated by a single purpose, to kill the navy personnel, and committed a single act of stepping on the accelerator, swerving to the right side of the road ramming through the navy personnel, causing the death of SN1 Andal and SN1 Duclayna and, at the same time, constituting an attempt to kill SN1 Cuya, SN1 Bacosa, SN1 Bundang and SN1 Domingo. (People vs. Punzalan, Jr., 687 SCRA 687, G.R. No. 199892 December 10, 2012) 94 The four murders which resulted from a burst of gunfire cannot be considered a complex crime. They are separate crimes. The accusedappellant must therefore be held liable for each and every death he has caused, and sentenced accordingly to four sentences of reclusion 93 111 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ELEMENTS OF COMPLEX CRIME PROPER (TNS) 1. That there be Two or more offenses 2. That one offense is Necessary to commit the other offense. 3. All of them must be punished by the Same statute. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME When you say necessary to commit the other offense, it is necessary that one crime facilitated the commission of the other crime. Special complex crime is wherein two or more crimes were committed but in the eyes of the law there is only one crime committed. So the resulting felony is a special complex crime. Third kind of complex crime is the so-called special complex crime or composite crime or otherwise known as single indivisible crime. In order to rape B, A forcibly abducted B against her will and with lewd design. What is the crime committed by A? The crime is rape with forcible abduction. Forcible abduction was a necessary means in order to commit the crime of rape. When by reason or on the occasion of committing robbery homicide is committed we have robbery with homicide, when at the time of rape homicide was committed we have rape with homicide. When robbery was accompanied by rape, we have robbery with rape. In kidnapping and serious illegal detention the victim was killed as a consequence of the detention we have kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide, when by reason of the said kidnapping the victim was raped the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape . In order to swindle, A falsified a deed of absolute sale. Deed of absolute sale is a public document. It was committed in order to commit estafa, therefore the crime is estafa through falsification of a public document. What if a cash voucher was falsified? So A falsified a cash voucher and then he went to the customer of his company and by means of the said falsified cash voucher A was able to collect. So A committed estafa. The Supreme Court said in the case of People vs. Batulanon95 a cash voucher is merely a private document not a commercial document. What is the effect of special complex crime on the criminal liability of the offender? It is beneficial to the offender because only one crime will be charge against the offender with only one single penalty imposed by law. Special Complex Crime It is the law that provides for the crimes which should be combined. Therefore since the falsification of a cash voucher was a necessary means in order to commit estafa, is the crime committed estafa through falsification of a private document? There is no crime of estafa through falsification of a private document. The law provides for a single penalty. So when what is falsified in order to swindle another person is a private document, even if the falsification of the private document is a necessary means to commit estafa there is no such crime as estafa through falsification of a private document because both estafa and falsification of a private document have damage ascendance. And one and the same damage cannot give rise to two crimes. So you cannot complex the two, it can either be estafa or falsification of a private document but you can never complex it. A light felony committed in the commission of the crime is absorbed. Complex Crime The law merely states two or more grave or less grave felonies or an offense is necessary to commit the other. The penalty to be imposed will be for the most serious crime in its maximum period. A light felony committed would constitute a separate and distinct charge. they are private documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. (Batulanon vs. People, 502 SCRA 35, G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006) 95 The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. Rather, 112 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The crime committed is a continued crime or a delicto continuado. The said offender is impelled by a single criminal impulse that is to take amortization by means of abuse of confidence, by means of deceit, he swindled. And indeed the 2,000 from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and these acts violates one and the same provision of the law. And that is estafa. So here instead of being convicted of 5 counts of estafa or swindling, the said accused shall be convicted only of one count of estafa or swindling because it is a continued crime or a delito continuado. He is impelled by a single criminal impulse. He commits a series of overt acts of the same money of about the same time of about the same place violating one and the same provision of the law. CONTINUED CRIME/DELITO CONTINUADO Fourth kind is continued crime otherwise known as delito continuado. It is one wherein the offender impelled by a single criminal impulse commits a series of overt acts in about the same time in about the same place violating one and the same provision of the law. The basis of continuing crime is singularity of impulse. There is one compound, and in the said compound, there were brother A, B, C, D, and E. Five brothers. They have different houses because they have their own families. All of them are engaged in the business of selling puppies. So, one night, about 12 o’ clock midnight, here comes X. X went inside the compound and took one puppy from A, one puppy from B, one puppy from C, one puppy from D, and one puppy from E. He was thereafter arrested. How many counts of theft would you file against X? Only one count of theft because it is a continued crime or delito continuado. X, impelled by a single criminal impulse, that is to take the personal property of another with intent to gain commits a series of overt acts that is to take puppy of A, B, C, D, and E, a series of overt act and about the same time 12 o’ clock midnight, and about the same place that is the compound violating one and the same provision of the law that is Article 308 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. So here, we have only one crime committed, one count of theft. So those are the four kinds of complex crime. 1. Compound Crime – the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. Complex Crime Proper – the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. Special Complex Crime – only a specific penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. 4. Continued Crime or Delito Continuado – the offender despite having committed several or a series of acts shall only be punished with only one crime and therefore imposed with one penalty. And then we have the transitory offense, so in effect the complexity of offense would be favorable to the accused. It is favorable to the accused because instead of being convicted of separate and distinct crimes, the separate and distinct, only one penalty shall be imposed on the said accused. It is beneficial, in favor of the said accused. So again what is the effect? It is favorable to the accused instead of being charged of different counts of theft, he is only charged with one count. A has been designated by XYZ corporation to sell their condo units in a certain building. So A is one of the agents in selling these condo units. However, A is not entrusted to collect their monthly fees, their monthly payments, the monthly amortizations for the said house of the customers or clients have bought. He is only entrusted in order to sell the condo units. However, A was in need of money since he was in need of money in order to pay his indebtedness, he decided to collect payments from five of the condo unit holders. He decided to collect payments from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. So he went to the unit of 1 and he collected the monthly amortization in the amount of P2,000. He went to the unit of 2, 3, and 4 and 5 and from each of them he collected P2,000 monthly amortization. So now he has P10,000. How many crime have been committed? How many crimes of estafa is the said person liable of? CONTINUING CRIME/TRANSITORY OFFENSE There is another one, but this is more of remedial law, a continuing crime or a transitory offense. Transitory crime is one wherein the offender can be prosecuted in any of the courts of the place where the elements of the crime happened. So if any of the elements of the crime had happened, the offender can be prosecuted in the courts of the said place. Example of some continuing or transitory crimes we have under Article 315 estafa or postdating a check. We have kidnapping under Article 267. We have also violation of BP 22, the Bouncing Check Law. These are examples of transitory crimes. We have also rebellion. We have also a violation of service of sentence. It is a continuing crime. 113 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Violation of BP 22. A issued the check to B in Manila, B deposited the check in his depository bank in Quezon City the drawee bank is in Caloocan City. The drawee bank dishonored the cheque. Where may B file a case against A? In any of the MTC of the three cities because it is a continuing offense. provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories. Even if Articles 50-57 provides for the rules for the application of penalty to accomplices and accessories and in cases of frustration or an attempt if the law expressly provides for this accomplices and accessories or for the frustration or attempt then the said law shall prevail. A is kidnapped in Manila he was brought in Quezon City, Bulacan, Pampanga, Baguio. He was arrested in Baguio, can the case be filed in Baguio? Yes because kidnapping is a transitory offense. ART. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency96. — Mitigating or aggravating ARTICLES 50-57 Principals Accomplices Accessories Consummated Frustrated Attempted Penalty prescribed by law. 1 degree lower than the penalty prescribed by law. 1 degree lower than the penalty prescribed by law. 2 degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law for a frustrated felony. 2 degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law. 3 degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law for an attempted felony. 2 degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law 3 degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law for a frustrated felony. 4 degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law for an attempted felony. circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances. The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. An organized/syndicated crime group means i. a group of two or more persons (1) collaborating, (2) confederating or (3) mutually helping one another ii. for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise 3.1. from the moral attributes of the offender, or 3.2. from his private relations with the offended party, or 3.3. from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and If the offender is merely an accomplice you go one degree lower from the penalty prescribed by law. If the offender is merely an accessory you go two degrees lower from the penalty prescribed by law. If the crime is committed in the frustrated stage you go one degree lower from the penalty prescribed by law. If the crime is committed in the attempted stage you go two degrees lower from the penalty prescribed by law. ART. 60. Exceptions to the Rules Established in Articles 50 to 57. — The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty 96 As amended by R.A. 7659 Sec. 23 114 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 public position. It is the first aggravating circumstance in Article 14. Under Article 62, as amended by RA 7659. accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects : If the offender public officer took advantage of his position to the commission of the crime, it is a special aggravating circumstance because the law provides the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. Hence, it is not a mere generic aggravating circumstance. Another aggravating circumstance mentioned in Article 62 is being a member of a syndicated or organized crime group. a. Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; b. Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and c. Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. A syndicate or organized crime group is a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime. So, there must be two or more persons, they collaborated, they confederated, and they mutually helped one another. Note, for purposes of gain in the commission of the crime. The law provides that if the offender is a member of a syndicate or organized crime group, the effect is that the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed to them, it is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstances. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. A, B, C, and D? A, B, C, and D they killed X. After killing X, they also took the personal property of X. Hence, they were charged with murder and also with the crime of theft. In the information filed in court, it was alleged therein that they belong to a syndicate or organized crime group because they collaborated with one another. After trial on the merits, the judge convicted the four accused and the judge considered them as conspirators and the judge considered them to be a member of a syndicate or organized crime group. Hence, the maximum penalty prescribed by law was the one imposed by the court. Is the judge correct? The judge is wrong. According to the SC, when two or more persons committing a crime collaborated, confederated, or helped one another in the commission of the crime that does not immediately give rise to being a member of a syndicate or organized crime group. For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, i. if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, ii. he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. So under Article 62, we have different aggravating circumstances. It is stated there that: 1. If there are mitigating circumstances, the effect is to lower the imposable penalty. 2. If there are aggravating circumstances, the effect is to increase the imposable penalty without, however, going beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law. Another special aggravating circumstance mentioned in Article 62 is that if having taken advantage of one’s There must be evidence to show that their group was particularly formed for purposes of committing crimes involving gain. Absent that evidence that their group was particularly formed in order to commit crimes 115 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 circumstance. It provides for the imposition of an additional penalty. involving gain, being a member of a syndicate or organized crime group cannot be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. So it is not necessary that they collaborated and confederated and that they belong to this group, there must be evidence that the said group was primarily formed in order to commit crimes involving gain. RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES When you say degree of penalty it refers to the penalty prescribed by law or imposed by the court. When you say period of penalty, it refers to the division of a divisible penalty into three portions. The first 1/3 first portion is known as the minimum period, the second 1/3 portion is known as the medium period, and the third 1/3 portion is known as the maximum period. Another aggravating circumstance in Article 62 is habitual delinquency. A person is deemed to be a habitual delinquent if within the period of ten years from the date of his last conviction or release for any of the crimes of serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification he is found guilty of any of these crimes a third time or oftener. Indivisible penalties are those penalties which cannot be divided into periods. Under Article 25, the following are the so-called indivisible penalties: So in case of habitual delinquency, the crimes are specified. It must be serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, and falsification. Likewise, it is necessary that there must be at least three convictions and each conviction must come within ten years from the date of the last conviction or last release of the said person. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Death or capital punishment Reclusion perpetua Perpetual absolute disqualification Perpetual special disqualification Public Censure Fine These are all indivisible penalties. They cannot be divided into periods. What is the effect of habitual delinquency on the criminal liability of the offender? Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance; it can be offset by a mitigating circumstance, if not offset the maximum period of the penalty. Divisible penalties are those penalties which can be divided into three periods, minimum, medium, and maximum. Reiteracion is also considered as a generic aggravating circumstance, it can be offset by a mitigating circumstance. If not offset, then the maximum period of the penalty shall be imposed. Article 63 provides for the rules for the imposition of indivisible penalties whereas Article 64 provides for the rules for the imposition of divisible penalties. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years under Article 37. Yet, it is considered as an indivisible penalty. The reason is that in the case of People vs. Lucas (G.R. Nos. 108172-73, May 25, 1994) and all other cases in the court the SC said that in amending Article 27, Congress did not have any intention of altering the nature of reclusion perpetua from an indivisible penalty to a divisible penalty. There is no clear intention on the part of Congress to alter its original nature of being an indivisible penalty. Hence, reclusion perpetua remains to be an indivisible penalty which cannot be divided into period. Habitual delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance, it provides for the imposition of an additional penalty on the part of the said convict and this additional penalty increases the number of his conviction third, fourth, and fifth conviction. Provided that if you add the penalty for the crime that he has committed and the additional penalty for being habitual delinquent, it must not exceed thirty years. So, if a person is found to be a habitual delinquent, aside from the penalty for the crime that he has committed, there is an additional penalty imposed on him for being a habitual delinquent. ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the If you add these two penalties, the penalty for the crime and the additional penalty for being habitual delinquent, they must not exceed thirty years. So, habitual delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. 116 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: present, the greater penalty, death shall be the one imposed. So if there is one aggravating circumstance present only with no mitigating circumstance, you apply death. 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, 4.1. the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, 4.2. for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. 2. If there is only mitigating circumstance present with no aggravating circumstance present, the lesser penalty shall be the one imposed which is reclusion perpetua if there is one mitigating circumstance. If there is only one mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance, you apply the lesser penalty which is reclusion perpetua. 3. If there are no aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the lesser of the two penalties which is reclusion perpetua shall be the one imposed. 4. If there are aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances present, you offset the two then you apply the rules. RULES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF INDIVISIBLE PENALTY Let’s say there are two aggravating and one mitigating, so you offset one, you offset one, there is a remainder of one, therefore, the greater penalty shall be the one imposed. So this are the rules for the imposition of indivisible penalties. Let us say that the penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, reclusion perpetua. If it is a single indivisible penalty like reclusion perpetua, this can be imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7697 and 7798, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. Let’s say in the commission of the crime, the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua, there is an aggravating circumstance, there is a mitigating circumstance, you do not consider this because under Article 63, if the penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. If, however, the penalty prescribed by law consists of two indivisible penalties, let’s say reclusion perpetua to death. These are two indivisible penalties. The following are the rules. 1. If there is only one aggravating circumstance present without any mitigating circumstance 97 ART. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum(in the manner shown in the following table). 98 ART. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period. Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this book, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules. 117 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Let’s say the penalty prescribed by law is prision mayor, there are two mitigating, no aggravating circumstance, you lower it by one degree, it becomes prision correccional. So here it is necessary that there must be no aggravating circumstance. Even if there are two or more mitigating if there is one aggravating, you cannot lower the penalty by one degree, you have to offset. But this can only be applied, the lowering of the penalty by one degree will only apply if there is no aggravating circumstance present and there are two or more mitigating circumstances present. 6. Whenever there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, it shall first be applied before computing the penalty. 7. No matter how many aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the court cannot impose a penalty beyond the maximum penalty prescribed by law. 3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to 7.1. the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and 7.2. the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW In applying Article 64, we have to take into consideration the so-called Indeterminate Sentence Law. RULES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTY The Indeterminate Sentence Law is the law which modifies the imposition of penalty both in the RPC and in special penal laws. In case of rules for the imposition of divisible penalties, these are penalties which can be divided into periods, minimum, medium, maximum period, Under Article 64: Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, courts are mandated in imposing a penalty to fix a minimum term of the sentence and a maximum term of the sentence. So that the convict, after serving the minimum term of the sentence, he becomes eligible for parole. Once on parole, it doesn’t mean that he is already totally free. He is not serving the sentence inside the prison cell but he must report to the parole officer based on the term of the said parole. So, it doesn’t mean that once release on parole he is totally a free man. It suggests that instead of serving his sentence behind bars, he is released but he still has to report to the parole officer. 1. If there are no mitigating, no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be in its medium period, 2. If there is only one aggravating circumstance without any mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be in its maximum period. 3. If there is one mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance, penalty shall be in its minimum period. 4. If there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, you offset the two and then you apply the rules. 4.1. If after offsetting, no more, then it is in its medium period. 4.2. If after offsetting there is still mitigating, then it is in its minimum period. 4.3. If after offsetting, there is still one aggravating, then it is in its maximum period. 5. If there are two or more mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstance, you lower the penalty by one degree. The main objective of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to uplift and redeem valuable human materials and prevent unnecessary and prolonged deprivation of liberty. How is this objective/purpose of Indeterminate Sentence Law achieved? It is achieved because the moment the offender has already served the minimum term of his sentence. He is released by reason of parole. Therefore, instead of prolonged imprisonment, he is outside prison cell. 118 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 What is the benefit of an indeterminate sentence? The minimum term of the sentence, the maximum term of the sentence. The moment you serve the minimum term of the sentence, you become eligible for parole if you have shown that you have reformed. 7. Those who have been given conditional pardon by the Chief Executive but violated the terms of the pardon. 8. Those who have been sentenced to serve the maximum term of imprisonment which does not exceed one year. If, however, you are disqualified to avail of an indeterminate sentence, then you will be given a straight penalty. If the penalty given to you is straight penalty, there is no minimum. Therefore, you cannot be eligible for parole. So those given with straight penalty without minimum term of the sentence cannot avail of the benefit of parole. Therefore, for an offender to avail of an Indeterminate Sentence, it is necessary that the sentence imposed on him must exceed one year. If it will not exceed one year, it will always be a straight penalty. Because if it will not exceed one year, if you get the minimum, it is already so low. What else shall be served by the said convict? If we will still go by the minimum. So, therefore, if it does not exceed one year, it shall be a straight penalty, it will not be an indeterminate sentence. How is a straight penalty different from an indeterminate penalty? An indeterminate penalty is one with a minimum term of the sentence and a maximum term of the sentence. Such that when the minimum is served, the offender becomes eligible for parole. On the other hand, a straight penalty is one which has no minimum and maximum term of the sentence. The offender has to serve the sentence as is because he is not eligible for parole, there being no minimum term of the sentence. Person is convicted of murder, penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, he cannot avail of the benefit of an indeterminate sentence, it shall be a straight penalty of reclusion perpetua. A person has been convicted of conspiracy to commit treason, the penalty prescribed by law is prision correcional to prision mayor, can he avail of the benefit of an indeterminate sentence? Can he be given an indeterminate sentence? No because among those disqualified is a person convicted of conspiracy to commit treason. That’s why you have to know who are disqualified because if given a problem the question is, how would you compute the penalty? Compute ka nang compute yun pala disqualified. Because you have to know first, is he among those disqualified? You began computing; you have already consumed 15 minutes in computing, then it is wrong. Why? The only answer is that he is not qualified. He is disqualified because he is among those enumerated under Section 2 of ISLAW. So make sure that you know who are disqualified. What is parole? Parole is the conditional release of a person convicted from the penal institution after serving the minimum term of the sentence and after showing that he has reformed. REQUISITES FOR THE GRANT OF PAROLE (SMB) 1. The said convict must be Serving a sentence in jail or in prison cell an indeterminate sentence which must exceed one year based on the final conviction. 2. The convict has served the Minimum term of the sentence. 3. Board of Pardons and Parole finds that his release will not be inconsistent with the interest and welfare of the State and that once released, he will be a law abiding citizen. In the bar, it was asked in the multiple choice. A person was convicted of proposal to commit treason, the penalty prescribed by law is prision correcional to prision mayor. If you were the judge, would you give him an indeterminate sentence? What is the inderterminate sentence? A , B, C, and D, may mga one year etc and then the last one, I will not give him an indeterminate sentence because he is among those disqualified. That is the correct answer. He cannot be given an indeterminate sentence because he is among those disqualified. THE FOLLOWING ARE DISQUALIFIED TO BE GIVEN AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE 1. Those convicted of an offense punished by death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua. 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, 3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage. 4. Those convicted of piracy 5. Those who are habitual delinquent 6. Those who have evaded the service of their sentence, or those who have escape from confinement. If it is given in the problem, you have been computing where the answer is simple because he is disqualified. 119 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 That’s why you have to know who are disqualified to be given an indeterminate sentence. What if in the commission of the crime there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstance? So the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, and the offender voluntarily surrendered; the offender said he committed the crime in immediate vindication of a grave offense, so immediate vindication of a grave offense. So we have one aggravating circumstance, two mitigating circumstances. Under Article 63, if in the commission of the crime wherein the penalty prescribed by law consists of two indivisible penalties, there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstance, offset the two, then apply the rules. So you have to offset dwelling with voluntary surrender; there still remains one mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the lesser penalty – reclusion perpetua– shall be the one imposed. How do you compute the maximum term of the sentence and the minimum term of an indeterminate sentence? If it is a violation of the Revised Penal Code , the maximum term of the sentence shall be the penalty prescribed by law taking into consideration the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in accordance with the rules of Article 64. How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? After getting the maximum term of the sentence, you go one degree lower without taking into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstance that is the minimum term of the sentence. A person has been convicted of forcible abduction. The penalty prescribed by law for forcible abduction is reclusion temporal. Let us say that there is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and there is one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. How do you get the maximum term of the sentence, how do you get the minimum term of the sentence? You take into consideration the penalty prescribed by law, reclusion temporal, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in accordance with the rules provided for in Article 64. If it is a violation of special penal law, the maximum term of the sentence shall not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by law and the minimum term of the sentence shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by law. So if it is a violation of special penal law, it is very easy. It depends on the judge for as long as the penalty must not be more than the maximum penalty prescribed by law and the penalty must not be less than minimum penalty prescribed by law. The penalty prescribed by law reclusion temporal, mitigating, aggravating circumstances, under Article 64, if there are mitigating and aggravating, what do you do? You offset. Therefore, there is no more mitigating and no more aggravating circumstances. Therefore, it shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. And this is the maximum term of the sentence. The offender committed the crime of murder, under Article 248, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. So we have here 2 indivisible penalties - one is reclusion perpetua, and the other is death. Let us say that in the commission of the crime, the said crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party. So we have one aggravating circumstance. Under Article 63, if in the commission of the crime wherein the penalty prescribed by law consists of 2 indivisible penalties, the presence of an aggravating circumstance would mean the imposition of the greater penalty - death. How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? You just go one degree lower, it will now become prision mayor. So prision mayor will be the minimum term of the sentence. If, however, in the commission of the crime, what is present is the modifying circumstance, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender with no aggravating circumstance. So only one mitigating circumstance is present with no aggravating circumstance, Article 63 says the lesser penalty – reclusion perpetua - shall be the one imposed. What is the range? Under section 1, it is dependent on the sound discretion of the judge, we do not consider mitigating and aggravating circumstance in getting the minimum term of the sentence. So the range is dependent on the judge. If the judge sentences the accused, then it is in its minimum period, if not, it is in its maximum period, or safe, medium period. What if in the commission of the crime, there are both no mitigating circumstance, no aggravating circumstance, Article 63 says the lesser penalty shall be imposed. So let’s say it is in its medium period. So finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is thereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period as the minimum term of sentence to 120 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 reclusion temporal in its medium period as the maximum term of the sentence. Period, contrary to law, signed by the judge. So that is how you get the penalty. its medium period as the maximum term of the sentence. Let us add facts. Let us say that the person who committed frustrated homicide is a minor. So we have here minority, he acted with discernment. Let’s say he is 17 years of age, acting with discernment, therefore, it is no longer exempting. If minority is not exempting, it is always and always a privileged mitigating circumstance. It is never an ordinary mitigating circumstance. So the penalty prescribed by law is prision mayor. If there is privileged mitigating circumstance, you consider it first before computing. It should be the first thing that should be applied before computing, that’s why you call it privileged, it takes preference over all other things. So let’s say there is incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a relative, you always consider it first. What if there are three mitigating circumstances? So let us say we have voluntary surrender, we also have immediate vindication of a grave offense, and then we also have praeter intentionem. So we have here three mitigating circumstances. So let us say the crime was attended by three mitigating circumstances. So we have three ordinary mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstance. How do you get the penalty? Article 64 provides when there are two or more mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstance, lower the penalty by one degree. So here, there are three. Since there are three mitigating with no aggravating, you lower the penalty by one degree. NOTE: The law says two or more mitigating with no aggravating circumstance. So, whenever there are two or even more than two mitigating for as long as there is no aggravating circumstance, the lowering of the penalty is by degree. So minority, since it is a privileged, you will go one degree lower, it will now become prison correccional, but that is not yet the maximum term. So you have already considered this. Now, there are two mitigating, no aggravating, you again have to lower it. This time it will become arresto mayor. This is now the maximum term of the sentence, arresto mayor in its medium period. How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? You go one degree lower. Do you go one degree lower? Are we going to go one degree lower? You will not go one degree lower. He will be given a straight penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period. The offender committed the crime of frustrated homicide. The penalty prescribed by law for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249. Now this is a frustration. Under Articles 50-57, how do you get the penalty for frustrated, that is one degree lower. What is the one degree lower of reclusion temporal? Prision mayor. Therefore, the prescribed penalty by law for frustrated homicide is prison mayor. Why? The maximum period of arresto mayor is 6 months. It does not exceed one year. Among those disqualified those who have been sentenced to serve a maximum term imprisonment which does not exceed one year. This does not exceed one year, therefore, since it does not exceed one year, he is not entitled to an indeterminate sentence. Let us say that the killing was done based on passion and obfuscation and not only that, he also voluntary surrendered. So we have two ordinary mitigating circumstances. So there are no aggravating circumstances, so no aggravating circumstances present. How do you get the maximum term of the sentence? When there are two mitigating, and no aggravating, you go one degree lower. So this will become prision correccional. You have already considered all. Therefore, prision correccional in its medium period. This is the maximum term of the sentence. A committed the crime of rape. And so, because of that, the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua, he voluntarily surrendered. He was so sorry for what he had done and he said that it was only based on passion and obfuscation, so there are two ordinary mitigating but let’s say that the rape was committed in the dwelling, so there is one aggravating circumstance. How do you get the maximum term of the sentence? Offset, you have to offset dwelling from passion, obfuscation or voluntary surrender? No because it is single indivisible. Therefore, you do not consider this. Since it is single indivisible, you do not consider any mitigating or aggravating circumstances therefore even if there are ten aggravating How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? You go one degree lower, this will be arresto mayor. Within the range of arresto mayor, let’s say you are a good judge, it is medium period, this is the minimum term of the sentence. For having been found guilty of frustrated homicide, he is thereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period as a minimum term of the sentence to prision correccional in 121 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 who attacked Bruno first, unlawful aggression without any provocation coming from Bruno, Bruno prevailed upon the man because he made use of a knife and stabbed the man. While the man attacked Bruno by means of his fist, it is not reasonably necessary for Bruno to make use of a knife in killing the man. So what we have is an incomplete self-defense. And under paragraph 1 of Article 13, in case of incomplete selfdefense, if aside from unlawful aggression, another element is present but not all, we have a privileged mitigating circumstance. Therefore, this incomplete circumstances, the penalty shall still be reclusion perpetua because it is a single indivisible penalty. But let us add facts. Let us say that there was minority, a privileged mitigating circumstance. Since there is now privileged mitigating circumstance, a privileged mitigating circumstance can defeat even a single indivisible penalty. Since there is now a privilege, you now have to lower it to reclusion temporal, you have to lower it by one degree. Note that it is reclusion temporal, it is now a divisible penalty. Now that it is a divisible penalty, Article 64 in relation to the indeterminate sentence law shall now be the one applied, no longer Article 63. So you again this time compute, two mitigating, one aggravating, you can offset, there is still a remainder of one mitigating, so reclusion temporal in its minimum period. This is the maximum term of the sentence, and then you go one degree lower, this is the prision mayor medium period and this is the minimum term of the sentence. self-defense shall be treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance. Now, the problem says that Bruno was convicted of the crime of homicide. If you were the judge who convicted him of the crime of homicide, how would you impose the penalty? The Bar examiner says the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. So we have here the penalty for homicide, according to the bar examiner, reclusion temporal. Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Let us now compute the penalty by taking into consideration the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. So the prosecution was able to prove that the man is 75 years old. Would you consider the aggravating circumstance of disrespect of age? The answer is no. Even if Bruno killed the said 75 yearold man, there was no showing in the problem that he disrespected the age of the man. Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (BAR 2013) Arresto Mayor in its medium period (or in any of its period) to Prision Correccional in its medium period. How about nighttime, would you consider nighttime as an aggravating circumstance? The answer is no. Even if the problem says that the crime was committed at 10 in the evening, it did not say whether the house was lighted or not. There was also no showing that the offender deliberately sought nighttime to commit the crime. So when the Bar examiner stated these facts, what does the Bar examiner want from you? The Bar examiner wants you to determine if there was self-defense or no self-defense. The problem says the defense was able to prove that it was the man who first attacked Bruno; therefore, there was unlawful aggression. But there was no provocation coming from Bruno, lack of sufficient provocation. So two elements of self-defense are present. Would you consider dwelling? The problem says that although Bruno killed the man in the said dwelling, in the said dwelling both Bruno and the victim are residing. Therefore, dwelling is not an aggravating circumstance because since both of them are living in the same dwelling, it cannot be said that when Bruno killed the man, he disrespected the dwelling of the said man. Therefore, we have no aggravating circumstance present. How about the 3rd element of self-defense, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack, is this present? The 3rd element of self-defense is absent because based on the facts proven by Bruno, although it was the man How about the defense of Bruno? He was able to prove voluntary surrender, voluntary plea of guilt, and then we have an incomplete self122 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 defense which happens to be a privileged mitigating circumstance. court. If he applies for probation that means he is amenable to the decision of the court. Applying these, we have two ordinary mitigating circumstances with one privileged mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance. So we have these two ordinary mitigating circumstances. Let us compute the penalty. OBJECTIVES OR PURPOSES OF PROBATION 1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of the said offender. 2. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of the penitent offender 3. To prevent further commission of crimes because the offender is placed under the supervision of a probation officer. 4. To decongest jails, 5. To save the government that much needed fund this will be incurred if a convict is kept in jail. Whenever there is a privileged mitigating circumstance present, apply it first before computing the penalty. So we have incomplete self-defense, therefore you have to lower the penalty by one degree, since it is a privileged mitigating circumstance, it will lower the imposable penalty by one degree. So it will become prision mayor. So you have already applied the privileged mitigating circumstance. So now, there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstance. Article 64 says when there are two mitigating with no aggravating, lower the penalty by one degree, so again you lower it by one degree, it is now prision correccional. You have already applied everything so it will become prision correccional in its medium period. This is the maximum term of the sentence. So all in all we have five purposes or objectives of probation. The first 3 are stated in PD 968 as amended and the other two are jurisprudential. Is probation a matter of right? Can a convict apply for probation as a right? Probation is not a matter of right. It is a mere privilege. Only those who are qualified may apply for probation. Even if the convict is not disqualified, not among those listed as disqualified, in section 9 of PD 968, if upon application for probation the trial court deems it proper to deny the said application for probation then so be it, because the grant or denial of an application for probation is based solely on the sound discretion of the judge. That's why under Section 4 99, last paragraph, it is provided that an order denying or granting an application for probation is not appealable, because it is dependent on the sound discretion of the trial court. How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? You go one degree lower and that is arresto mayor, arresto mayor in its medium period, this is the minimum term of the sentence. These are some examples of how to compute the penalty in case of violation of the Revised Penal Code under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. PROBATION LAW DISQUALIFIED TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT OF PROBATION Probation is a disposition, under which a defendant after conviction and sentence, is released based on conditions imposed by court and subject to supervision by a probation officer. 1. Those who have been sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years. So what is the probationable penalty? Six years or below. The moment the penalty imposed on the convict is above six years, six years and one day, he can no longer apply for probation. Probation is not an appeal. Probation and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies. Once you appeal you cannot apply for probation. Probation and appeal are diametrically opposed with each other. If the offender appeals therefore he is questioning the judgment of the 99 Section 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. 123 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2. Those who have been convicted of subversion or any of the crimes against national security or public order. 3. Those who have been convicted by final judgment of an offense to which the law imposes a penalty of less than one month and one day or less than 200 pesos. 4. Those who have been once on probation because probation can be availed of by public only once. The Supreme Court said that that is but right because the rationale behind probation and the rationale behind appeal are diametrically opposed each other. If a person appeals, it means he is questioning the decision of the court on the merits of the case. He is insisting on his innocence on the case. On the other hand, if the said accused or the said offender, files an application for probation, it means he is amenable to the decision of the court but he doesn't want to serve his sentence behind bars. Therefore it is clear that he is amenable to the decision of the court, it is as if he has already admitted the commission of the crime. Therefore the reasons behind appeal and probation are opposed each other. That's why if you appeal, you cannot apply for probation and vice versa. That is only the general rule. If you appeal, you cannot apply for probation and vice versa. These are the offenders disqualified under Section 9, of PD 968 as amended. In other laws, there are also other persons who are disqualified. 1. Under the Omnibus Election Code, under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, any person who has been convicted of an election offense cannot avail the benefit of probation. 2. Under Section 24 of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, those persons who have been convicted of drug trafficking or drug pushing cannot avail of the benefit of probation. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE 1. If the appeal is only for purposes of questioning the sentence imposed on him which is not a probationable penalty. If the only purpose of the appeal is to question the penalty granted by the court which is not within the probationable penalty, then the said offender can still go back to the trial court and file an application for probation. It is necessary that he is not questioning the merits of his case. Where do you file an application for probation? Under Section 4, you file it with the RTC that is the trial court, the MTC or the RTC the trial court that heard the case. When do you file for an application for probation? You file an application for probation within the period for perfecting an appeal. Therefore within 15 days from the promulgation of judgment. A has been convicted. The penalty imposed to him by the court is 8 years. The counsel knows that it was an erroneous penalty because based on the law, it should only be five years, yet the judge imposed upon him the maximum of 8 years. And so they question it before the Court of Appeals, the only reason for appeal, the only issue is that the lower court judge rendered an erroneous penalty on the said accused. They are not questioning the merits of the case, they are not questioning the conviction, they are only questioning the penalty imposed which is beyond what the law provides. So on appeal the court affirmed the conviction but lowered the penalty to a maximum of 4 years. Can he go back to lower court and apply for an application for probation? The answer is yes, because he merely appeals in so far as the penalty is concerned. Therefore he can go back to the lower court and apply for probation. In case the application for probation is granted, what is the legal effect of probation? The only legal effect of probation is to suspend the execution of the sentence and nothing more. Probation does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender; probation does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender. Its only legal effect is to suspend the execution of the sentence, nothing more. Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies Under Section 4, it is provided that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted the moment the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. So based on this, the moment the offender appeals, he can no longer apply for probation. The moment he applies for probation, he can no longer appeal. So appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies; one bars the other. 124 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2. In case of minor offenders. Under section 42100 of RA 9344, in case of minor offenders, they can appeal at any time. Therefore even after conviction by the Supreme Court even affirmation by the Supreme Court of the said conviction, even after appeal, minor offenders can still apply for probation. restrictive, it must not be unduly restrictive of the liberty and freedom of the said person granted probation. In one case a teacher was convicted of a crime. The penalty imposed was within the probationable penalty so he applied for probation. Among the conditions imposed was that he cannot teach during the said period of probation. He has to undergo probation for a period of 2 years. And during those two years based on the terms of said grant of probation, he could not teach. He questioned it, is the said condition imposed by the trial court valid? Supreme Court said it is not valid because it is unduly restrictive of the right of the said convict. The Supreme Court said, teaching is the only means of livelihood that he knows. If you will deprive him of the right to teach, during the time that he is under probation, how can he survive? How can he live in liberty and freedom? How can he live as a good law abiding citizen if you do not give him the right to earn a livelihood. Hence said condition rendered by the Supreme Court is invalid. So it is necessary that these discretionary conditions although dependent solely upon the judge it must not be unduly restrictive on the liberty and freedom of the said defendant. And under Section 42 of RA 9344 last sentence, it is provided that this amends section 4 of PD 968 as amended that probation. Therefore the fact that the offender is a minor offender it means even after appeal he can still apply for probation. The only limitation is that the penalty imposed to him must be within the probationable penalty of 6 six years or below. What if a person is charged with many crimes. Let us say that a person is charged with 5 counts of violation of BP 22, or a person is charged with 5 counts of slander or oral defamation. For each count, he was convicted. Can he apply for probation? Yes, he can apply for probation for as long as none of the penalties imposed on him exceeds 6 years. For as long as none of the penalties imposed on him exceeds 6 years. If a person is convicted or is given multiple sentences, whether or not he can apply for probation, it is not the totality of the sentence imposed on him that shall be considered. It is the fact that each of the penalties imposed on him does not exceed 6 years. You do not consider the totality or the sum, it suffices that none of the sentences imposed on him exceeds 6 years. He can still very well apply for probation, and the court may grant him at the discretion of the said court. TWO CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN PERSONS GRANTED PROBATION CASE For how long should probation be? 1. If the penalty imposed on the said accused is imprisonment of not more than one year, probation shall not exceed two years. 2. If in any other case however, probation shall not exceed six years. A has been convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He was convicted, the penalty imposed was within the probationable penalty so he applied for probation. Granted. After his application for probation was granted, he now files a notice of appeal before the same court. He is appealing the civil indemnity imposed on him by the court, the damages, the civil indemnity imposed on him by the court. The court denied to give due course to the said notice of appeal because according to the court, I have already granted your application for probation, therefore you can no longer appeal. Is the court correct? The court is wrong because the appeal is only in so far as the civil indemnity is concerned. Probation has nothing to do with the civil liability of the offender. Because the civil liability of the offender is not part of OF 1. General conditions— include the reporting to the probation officer within 72 hours upon receipt of the order of probation. And then we have the continuous reporting to the probation officer usually once every month or depending on the terms of the sentence. These are the two mandatory or general conditions. 2. Special or discretionary conditions – are determinative on the sound discretion of the judge. It is dependent solely on what the judge wants to impose as a condition taking into consideration the crime committed. The only limitation is that this special or discretionary condition must not be SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly. 100 125 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 his penalty hence it can never be affected by probation. The civil liability is not a part of a penalty of the said convict, civil liability is personal to the private offended party or victim. Hence the said convict can still appeal the said civil liability. offended party and not part of the penalty of said defendant. In the case of Colinares vs. People101, Colinares was charged of the crime of frustrated homicide. Colinares was convicted by the trial court of frustrated homicide. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the said conviction. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that the said accused Colinares only committed the crime of attempted homicide. A has been convicted, he applied for probation, granted, the probation was granted by the court. Among the conditions imposed of the said probation was during the period of probation, he cannot change his place of residence. He has to live in the same place; he cannot change his place of residence. The said probation was for a period of 2 years. So for 2 years he religiously complied with all the conditions imposed in his probation. He did not change his place of residence. However after that period of two years, the following day he immediately changed his place of residence. When the. Probation officer learned about this, the probation officer immediately went to court and filed a motion to revoke the said probation. The judge granted the said motion to revoke the probation. And the said probation was revoked. Is the judge correct? Yes, the judge is correct. Supreme Court said the period, the termination, or the lapse of the period of probation does not ipso facto mean the termination of probation. Period of probation is not coterminus with the term of probation. Why attempted homicide? The Supreme Court said that the injuries sustained by the victim was not a mortal wound, not a fatal wound, not susceptible of bringing about death. Therefore, since the wound sustained by the victim was not a mortal nor fatal wound, or susceptible to bring about death, Supreme Court said that the accused Colinares was only guilty of attempted homicide and not frustrated homicide. Now that the Supreme Court has convicted the said accused of attempted homicide, and not frustrated homicide, can the said accused go back to the trial court and apply for probation? From frustrated homicide, the Supreme Court downgraded the crime to only attempted homicide. Can he avail of the right to apply for probation? In its decision, the Supreme Court said that yes, the said accused, the said convict can still apply for probation. The Supreme Court said in this case that what is only being granted to the said convict is the right to apply for probation, but still whether the said application for probation will be granted or denied shall be based on the sound discretion of the trial court. If the period of probation has already lapsed still the said person or offender has to comply with all the conditions imposed upon him until the court has issued an order of final discharge. It is only then that he discharged of the said probation. What is this order of final discharge? And how it will be granted? After the lapse of the period of probation the probation officer shall file a report to the court reporting therein that this accused, this convict has complied with all the conditions of probation. And the judge after reviewing the same will now issue an order of final discharge. Supreme Court said, we are not granting him probation, we are only giving him the right to go back to the trial court and apply for probation. Whether that application for probation will be granted or not will still depend on the sound discretion of the trial court judge. Hence, the Supreme Court granted this person the right to apply for probation. There are many dissenting opinion in this case penned by Justice Abad. Many justices dissented because the justices stated or contended that this decision will be contradictory, in violation of Section 4 of PD 968 which provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted the moment an offender has perfected an appeal. In this case, the What is the effect such order of final discharge? The order of final discharge shall restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended by reason of the sentence, likewise he will no longer be required to pay the fine. The only liability remaining of him is to pay the civil liability to the private offended party or the victim. Because said civil liability is personal to the private In a real sense, the Court’s finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation. (Colinares vs. People, 662 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 182748 December 13, 2011) 101 126 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 offender perfected an appeal so why grant him the right to apply for probation. Under Article 66, in the imposition of fine as a penalty, you consider the following: The Supreme Court said that in this case, there were actually two decisions. One is the erroneous decision of the RTC, of the trial court; and the other one is the decision of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court will deny on this accused the right to apply for probation, it means such denial of the right to apply for probation is founded on the erroneous decision of the trial court; hence, the decision of the trial court would prevail over the correct decision of the Supreme Court. 1. The presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the wealth. 2. Financial capability of the accused, So these are the two circumstances which must be considered by the court in the imposition of fine as provided for in Article 66. ART. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, 1. it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, 2. without, however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be observed with regard to fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional. Supreme Court said, why punish this accused for an erroneous decision made by the trial court. The Supreme Court even said in this case, “ang kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw’’. It is the said trial court judge that committed error in its decision yet the penalty, the consequence will be on the accused. As such, the Supreme Court granted the said accused the right to go back to the trial court and apply for probation. What if fine has to be lowered because the convict or the accused is a mere accomplice or he is a mere accessory, or the crime is in the frustrated stage or the crime is in the attempted stage? So you have to lower it by one degree or lower it by two degrees. How do you lower it by one degree? ART. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, 1. the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing Articles, 2. dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and 3. forming one period of each of the three portions. In what we have studied in case of impossible crime, the penalty of fine is from 200 to 500 pesos. So let us say that the offender is a mere accomplice or the offender is a mere accessory. Therefore, you have to lower it by one degree. How do you lower the fine? Under Article 75, you take one-fourth of the maximum fine and deduct it therefrom. What is one-fourth of 500? It is 125. You take one-fourth of the maximum amount and deduct it therefrom. Therefore, you minus 125. So, the next lower penalty prescribed for an accomplice is 200 to 375 if you have to lower it by one degree. ART. 66. Imposition of Fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, 1. not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, 2. but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. He is a mere accessory, you have to lower it for another degree, two degrees lower. How do you it? Again, take one-fourth of the maximum fine and deduct it therefrom. Again, minus 125. So this will be 200-250. So this is the penalty prescribed by law for an accessory, the penalty prescribed by law for an accomplice. What if the penalty prescribed by law is fine? So the penalty prescribed by law is fine. Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed by the court upon a person who has been convicted of a felony. So under Article 26, fine can either be afflictive if it exceeds 6,000 pesos. It is correccional if it is from 200 to 6,000 pesos. It is light if it is less than 200 pesos. You have to take one-fourth from the maximum fine and deduct it therefrom without reducing the minimum fine, without changing the minimum fine prescribed by law. You can never change the minimum fine prescribed by law. 127 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 70. Successive service of sentences; Exception. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, 1. he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; 2. otherwise, said penalties shall be executed successively, following the order of their respective severity, which shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: sentence. But if the nature of the penalty does not allow simultaneous service of sentence, he shall serve them successively. So if the nature of the penalty allows simultaneous service of sentence, he shall serve them simultaneously, sabay-sabay. If the nature of the penalty does not allow simultaneous service of sentence, he shall serve them successively, sunud-sunod. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Death. Reclusión perpetua. Reclusión temporal. Prisión mayor. Prisión correccional. Arresto mayor. Arresto menor. Destierro, Perpetual absolute disqualification, Temporal absolute disqualification. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and 12. Public censure. If all of the penalties imposed on the said convict is imprisonment, all of the penalties imposed on him is to serve the sentences behind bars, the said convict definitely cannot serve the sentences simultaneously. Therefore, he has to serve them successively. What are the sentences, penalties, which may be served simultaneously? Imprisonment and fine, imprisonment and disqualification, imprisonment and suspension, imprisonment and public censure, fine and destierro, fine and disqualification, they can be served simultaneously. What is the limit for the successive service of sentence? Under Article 70, we have the so-called three-fold rule. Under the so-called three-fold rule, the maximum duration of a convict sentence shall not exceed three times the length of the most severe penalty but in no case to exceed 40 years. Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, 1. the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. 2. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. 3. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years. So here, five reclusion perpetua. What is the maximum duration of reclusion perpetua? Under Article 37, 20 years and one day to 40 years. Therefore, its 40 years. So this will be 200 years. He cannot serve the sentence. He is no longer alive. So let us apply the three-fold rule. The maximum duration of a convict sentence shall not exceed three times the length of the most severe penalty. That is the most severe, reclusion perpetua, what is the maximum duration for two years. It shall not exceed three times, times three. So this is 120 years. But in no case to exceed 40 years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at 30 years. A, the father, raped the child 5 times. In case of rape, one carnal knowledge, one sexual intercourse equals to one count of rape. The father raped the child five times so it will be 5 counts of rape. So the father was charged with 5 counts of rape because he raped the child five times. The judge convicted him on all counts and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. So, for each count, reclusion perpetua. Therefore, five reclusion perpetua. So if the penalty imposed by the court or if the convict is given multiple sentences, how shall he serve the penalty? Under Article 70, if the said convict is imposed multiple sentences, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalty allows simultaneous service of the Therefore, for having been convicted of five counts of rape, he’s only to serve sentence for 40 years of imprisonment based on the so-called three-fold rule. So, it shall only be 40 years of imprisonment. NOTE: The three-fold rule refers to the service of the sentence, it is not for the judge to apply, but rather it is for the Director of Prisons to compute. So, let’s say you were the judge, the person was convicted of five counts of rape. The penalty you will 128 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 impose reclusion perpetua. Do not say that “he is thereby sentence 40 years applying the three-fold rule” That is not for the judge to apply that is for the Director of Prisons. TITLE FOUR Extinction of Criminal Liability and of Civil Liability Resulting from Crime CHAPTER ONE Extinction of Criminal Liability As a judge, you can only impose the penalty as prescribed by law. And for rape, the penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua. Five counts, therefore, five reclusion perpetua. That will be the sentence that you will impose. SECTION ONE Total Extinction of Criminal Liability ART. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished: The offender has been accused of 20 counts of estafa. He issued a check and the check bounced. Therefore, there are 20 counts of estafa. And for each count of estafa, the judge sentenced him with arresto mayor plus fine. Let’s say the fine is 250 pesos. So, 20 counts of estafa. For each count, he was sentenced with arresto mayor plus fine. So, arresto mayor, what is the maximum duration? Six months, so one month and one day to 6 months. So, if we will not apply the three-fold rule, it will be 6 months. So 20 na 6 months. So this will be 120 months, therefore it is equivalent to 10 years. 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty102; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art. 344 of this Code. So, if you will not apply the three-fold rule for having been convicted of the crime of 20 counts of estafa and sentenced with arresto mayor and fine for each count, he shall serve ten years. What are the modes of extinguishing criminal liability? First is death, then the service of sentence, absolute pardon, amnesty, prescription of crimes, prescription of penalty and the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party. But let us apply the three-fold rule. Because he was given multiple sentences, what is the maximum duration? Six months. It shall not exceed three times the length of the most severe penalty but in no case to exceed 40 years. 6 times 3, we have here 18 months. Therefore, it shall only be one year and six months. 1. DEATH. When does death extinguishes criminal liability? Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceedings, be it before trial, during trial, before conviction or after conviction. Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceedings, because the moment the said offender dies, there's nobody to serve the personal penalty, therefore death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceedings. So, imagine for being convicted of 20 counts of estafa, mahigit lang siyang isang taon because you have to apply the three-fold rule, because he is given multiple sentences. So, instead of serving 10 long years, paglabas niya mag-eestafa nanaman yan. Sasabihin niya, one year lang, kayang-kaya yan. So this is applying the socalled three-fold rule. The fine will be the same. So let’s say 250. 250 times 20, you have to take it as is. So there will be 20, 250. You cannot apply the three-fold rule. 102 How about in so far as the civil liability is concerned? When does death extinguish the civil liability? Death extinguishes civil liability if the said offender dies before conviction by final judgment. It is necessary that the said offender must die before conviction by final judgment. In that case, the civil liability is totally extinguished. Discussed under Article 92 129 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 This civil liability that is totally extinguished is civil liability ex delicto that is the civil liability arising from the crime itself. 2. SERVICE OF SENTENCE. When you say service of sentence the offender has already satisfied the penalty. If it is imprisonment, he has already served out the sentence. If it is fine, he had already paid the fine. Even if the said convict dies before the conviction by final judgment his civil liability survives if the said civil liability is based on other sources of obligations such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts or quasidelict. So the civil liability that is only extinguished if the offender dies before conviction by final judgment is the civil liability that is based solely and arising from the crime itself. 3. ABSOLUTE PARDON AS WELL AS AMNESTY they are both acts of grace proceeding from the power entrusted to the execution of the law which exempts the offender from the penalty which the law imposed for the crime that he has committed. There is a difference however in the sense that in case of amnesty, it is not limited only to the penalty, amnesty also obliterates all the effects of the crime as if no crime had been committed by the offender. But both will be granted by the President. If the said convict or if the said offender dies after conviction by final judgment his civil liabilities survive. And the case has to be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate of the said offender. PARDON May be granted only after conviction by final judgment X has been charged with the crime of rape, convicted by the RTC, he appealed to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and so he again appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in its decision dated January 9, 2013. However, on February 7, 2013 the Supreme Court received a letter coming from the Bureau of Corrections saying that this accused had already died on December 2012. What is the effect of such death of the offender on his criminal liability as well as on his civil liability? In the case of People vs. Amistoso103, the Supreme Court said the death of the offender Amistoso on December 2012 before the affirmation by the Supreme Court of his conviction on January 9, 2013, extinguishes both his criminal liability as well as his civil liability. Supreme Court said although they received the said letter coming from the Bureau of Corrections only on February 7, 2013, time after they have already affirmed the conviction on January 9, 2013, Supreme Court said the fact that the offender died before the affirmation of the said conviction means that the affirmation of said conviction is already moot and academic because the said death of the offender extinguishes both his criminal as well as his civil liability. Because the offender dies before conviction by final judgment. Only excuses the service of sentence. A private act of the President, therefore the person granted pardon must plead it before the courts because courts do not take judicial notice of pardon. Can be granted to any offender and to any crime committed. AMNESTY May be granted at any stage of the proceedings—be it before judgment or after judgment. Obliterates all the effects of the crime as if no crime had been committed. Usually done through a proclamation with the concurrence of Congress, hence courts take judicial notice of amnesty. Generally granted to those who have committed political offenses and generally to a community of offenders. What has been granted by the President, the former President GMA to former President Estrada is absolute pardon. What has been granted by Pnoy to Senator Trillanes is amnesty. If you had watched the TV, the moment former President Erap was granted pardon, then DILG Secretary Puno still has to go first to him, to the place only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.” (People vs. Amistoso, G.R. 201447, August 28, 2013) 103Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and 130 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription 1. shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the 1.1. offended party, 1.2. the authorities, or 1.3. their agents, and 2. shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and 3. shall commence to run again when such proceedings 3.1. terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or 3.2. are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. where he was incarcerated. There must be a signature coming from Erap. And after that it is only the time that he went to the Sandiganbayan to show it to the court, to prove that your honor the President has granted pardon to the former President Erap. Why? Because it is a private act of the President. The Sandiganbayan will not take judicial notice of the said grant of pardon. But in case of amnesty it is on the basis of the proclamation requiring the concurrence of Congress, hence courts take judicial notice of amnesty. It is not necessary for Senator Trillanes to plead it before the RTC of Makati. It suffices that he has been granted of amnesty, courts of Makati should take judicial notice of the fact that he was among those who availed and was given the benefit of an amnesty. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. 4. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES is the loss of the right of the State to prosecute an offense punishable by law. It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to prosecute an offender who has committed a violation of the law. The moment the crime has already prescribed it is not even necessary for the accused or defense counsel to plead it. The moment the crime has prescribed, the only jurisdiction of the court is to dismiss the case. The court can no longer hear the case motu proprio. The court must dismiss the case because the crime has already prescribed. The State has loss the right to prosecute the offender. When do you start counting the running of the period of the prescription of a crime? You start counting the running of the period of prescription of the crime from the time the crime has been committed, that is if it is known. If it is not known then from the time it has come to the knowledge of the offended party, the authorities, or the agents of the authorities. That is the time you start counting the running of the period of prescription of crime. Husband and wife quarreled, and then the husband killed the wife and buried the wife. A witness, the neighbor, a witness saw the incident. However he kept silent of the said incident as he was afraid of the said husband. 25 years thereafter he went to the police and he divulged what he saw 25 years ago. The police went to the place and indeed the said incident was true after they have dug the ground. Can the State still prosecute the said husband for the crime of parricide, or has the crime prescribed? The crime has not yet prescribed. The State can still prosecute the husband for the crime of parricide because although the said neighbor had witnessed the commission of the crime, the neighbor cannot be said to be an offended party. The neighbor cannot be said to be an authority or an agent of the authority. Therefore despite the knowledge of the said neighbor of the said commission of the crime, the running of the period of prescription of the crime has not yet commenced. It is only upon the time that he divulged to the authorities that you start counting the running of the period of ART. 90. Prescription of crimes. Prescribed Penalty Death, reclusión perpetua or reclusión temporal Other afflictive penalties104 Correctional penalty105, with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. Libel or other similar offenses Oral defamation and slander by deed Light offenses Prescription 20 years 15 years 10 years 5 years 1 year 6 months 2 months When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this Article. 105 Correctional Penalties – Prisión correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspensión, Destierro. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prisión mayor. 104 131 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 prescription of crime. Therefore the crime has not yet prescribed. registered with the Register of Deeds such registration constituted constructive notice to the whole world. It is as if the whole world has been informed including the private offended party. Hence that is the start of the running of the period of prescription of crime so it was too late for him to file a case of falsification. Two friends, A and B, A went to Mindanao and so A entrusted the titles of his properties to B. The moment A left, B looked at the titles of the properties and he became interested in one of the properties. So what he did, he executed a falsified deed of absolute sale stating that A sold the property to B. Thereafter, after falsifying the signature of A in the said deed of absolute sale, he had the same registered at the Register of Deeds and thereafter the said property was transferred to him. 20 years thereafter, here comes A. He came back to Manila. He went to B and he asked him for the return of the said titles of properties. B gave it. However, when A reviewed it, one title was missing that is the title of one property in Makati. So A called his friend, he could not be located. A went to the house of his friend, he had already changed residence. So he went to the office of Register of Deeds in Makati and there he discovered the said falsified deed of absolute sale. As a result, he wanted to file a case of falsification of public documents committed by a private individual under Article 172 of the RPC which is punishable by prision correccional. Has the crime prescribed? He has only discovered it on the twentieth year. Although it should prescribe in 10 years. Has the crime prescribed? Or can he still file the case of falsification of public document because he discovered it only on the twentieth year? He can no longer file a case because the crime has prescribed. Upon the filing of the falsified deed of absolute sale with the Register of Deeds upon its registration with the Register of Deeds it constituted constructive notice to the whole world. Since there is constructive notice to the whole world, the law presumes that even A has knowledge of the said registration. Therefore that is the start of the counting of the running of period of prescription of crime. What about the suspension of the running of period of prescription of crime? When is the running of prescription of crime suspended? When it is interrupted? It is interrupted upon the filing of the case with the office of the public prosecutor even for purposes of preliminary investigation. The running of the period of prescription of crime will already be suspended. In the case of People v. Bautista106, so a case of slight physical injuries was filed before the barangay. No amicable settlement before the barangay and so within the two months prescriptive period the said victim was able to file the case before the office the fiscal's office, office of the public prosecutor. So upon the filing of the case the public prosecutor resolved the case however it took the public prosecutor more than a year before they were able to file a case before the appropriate or proper metropolitan trial court. So upon the filing of the case before the MTC or the METC here comes the counsel of the accused, moving for the quashal of the said information on the ground that the crime has already prescribed. Has the crime prescribed? Supreme Court said the crime has not yet prescribed because upon the filing of the case with the office of the public prosecutor the running of the period of prescription of crime is suspended and it remains suspended until the said accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case has been dismissed. Therefore from the time that it has been filed before the fiscal's office up to the time that it was filed before the MeTC, the running of the period of prescription of crime remains to be suspended until a decision has been rendered by the said court. Hence the crime has not yet prescribed. This constructive notice to the whole world is peculiar only to transactions with the Register of Deeds. Transactions involving real property. It is not related or this does not apply to registration of marriage certificates, registration of birth certificate. It only applies to registration of any transactions conveyance disposition involving real properties. The moment it is In the case of People vs. Maria Theresa Pangilinan107, two cases Estafa and violation of BP 22, they were filed that respondent is either convicted or acquitted by the proper court. (People vs. Bautista, 522 SCRA 742, G.R. No. 168641 April 27, 2007) 107 There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., 211 SCRA 277 (1992), is not controlling in special laws. In Llenes v. Dicdican, 260 SCRA 207 (1996), Ingco, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, 272 SCRA 563 (1997), Brillante v. CA, 440 SCRA 541 (2004), and Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, 546 SCRA 303 (2008), cases involving special laws, this Court held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary The CA and respondent are of the view that upon approval of the investigating prosecutor’s recommendation for the filing of an information against respondent, the period of prescription began to run again. The Court does not agree. It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. The proceedings against respondent was not terminated upon the City Prosecutor’s approval of the investigating prosecutor’s recommendation that an information be filed with the court. The prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor until such time 106 132 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 before the Quezon City public prosecutor's office. It was filed on 16 September 1997. From that time many things happened. A case was filed with the RTC, then there was a filing of suspension of proceedings because of prejudicial question, and then there was a petition for review before the DOJ until the DOJ has said “no the cases has to be filed”. municipal ordinance. In case of violation of municipal ordinance, as held in Act 3326, which provides for the prescription of penalties and suspension in case of violation of special penal laws and ordinances. According to Supreme Court, in Act 3326, in case of violation of municipal ordinance the running of the period of prescription of crime is only suspended upon the institution of the judicial proceedings that is upon the filing of the case before the trial court. Because you start the institution of judicial proceedings if the case is filed before the trial court that is for the violation of municipal ordinance. So when was the case filed? The case was filed was received by the METC of Quezon City only on 3 February 2000. Therefore has the crime already prescribed? So upon the filing on 3 February 2000 before the MeTC here comes the counsel of the accused in June 2000 immediately filed a motion to quash the said violation of BP 22 information or cases. The METC dismissed the case. Granted the motion to quash. The crime has already prescribed. But what is involved in this case is not a violation of a municipal ordinance but a violation of BP 22 which is a special penal law. On appeal to the RTC, no the crime has not yet prescribed. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, yes the crime has already prescribed. According to the Court of Appeals the crime has already prescribed because you start counting the running of the period of prescription of crime on the latter part of 1995 the date the said drawer of the cheque received the notice of dishonor. And according to the Court of Appeals, based on the ruling of the Supreme Court on the case of Saldivia v. Reyes, in case of violations of special penal laws the running of period of prescription of crime will only be suspended upon the institution of judicial proceedings. The institution of judicial proceedings is upon the filing of the case before the court, not before the fiscal's office, because the fiscal is not within the judiciary. Therefore it is upon the filing of the case before the appropriate or the proper court. So in case of violations of special penal laws, when is the running of period of prescription of crime suspended? Supreme Court said there is no distinction between RPC and special penal laws. If the case involves violation of the Revised Penal Code or violation the RPC the running of period of prescription of crime is suspended upon the filing of the case before the office of the public prosecutor. So that is the start. There is no distinction. And so in this case, Supreme Court said when the said victim filed the case before the Quezon City public prosecutor on 16 September 1997, the running of period of prescription of crime is suspended. Therefore the crime has not yet prescribed when the case was filed on 3 February 2000. In Act 3326, it is provided that the period of prescription for violation of BP 22 is four years. When do you start counting it? Latter part of 1995, that is the time the drawer of the cheque received the notice of dishonor. That is the period of prescription of crime in case of violation of BP 22. If you count latter part of 1995 to February 3, 2000, it is already more than 4 years. Latter part of 1995, 96, 97, latter part of 1995 to 1996, 97, 98, 99. So according to the Court of Appeals, it should be filed on the latter part of 1999. But since it was filed on 3 February 2000, the crime has already prescribed. Therefore the Court of Appeals said the crime has already prescribed. And so the case was now on appeal before the Supreme Court. When is it suspended? Whether it is a violation of special penal laws or violation of the Revised Penal Code the running of period of prescription of crime is suspended upon the filing of the case before the office of the public prosecutor. But if it is a case of violation of municipal ordinance, the running of period of prescription of crime is suspended upon the institution of judicial proceedings that is the filing of the case before the trial court. What did the Supreme Court say? The Supreme Court said the ruling of the Court of Appeals is wrong. It is erroneous. And the basis Saldivia v. Reyes was also wrong. Supreme Court said that in Saldivia vs. Reyes what is dealt with is a violation of a investigation against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, et al., 567 SCRA 354 (2008), the Court even ruled that investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for violations of the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the prescription period because it is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases. (People vs. Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105, G.R. No. 152662 June 13, 2012) 133 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows: Prescribed Penalty Death and reclusión perpetua Other afflictive penalties108 Correctional penalty109, with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. Light penalties A has been charged with the crime of homicide. So it is a bailable offense, he posted bail. So he is now on temporary liberty. During the arraignment he appeared he pleaded not guilty, during the preliminary conference he also appeared, during the pre-trial he also appeared however during the start of the trial of the merits of the case he already failed to appear, he already junked bail. So he already went into hiding. Trial on the merits ensued in absentia. After trial on the merits the judge rendered the judgment convicting the said accused A, he is convicted of the crime of homicide. He did not appeal therefore judgment became final and executory. Therefore a warrant of arrest was now issued by the court against A. The police officers armed with the warrant of arrest tried to look for A but they could not locate A. They could not find A. And then they got a tip one time from an informant as to the location of A but that was already 20 years from the time the said judgment had been rendered. So 20 years had elapsed before they were able to arrest A. They placed A behind bars. Upon the time that they placed behind bars here comes the counsel of A filing a motion before the court petition for habeas corpus. According to the counsel his client accused A convicted A can no longer be placed behind bars because the penalty has already prescribed. Has the penalty already prescribed? Not yet, in fact it has not even begin to run. It has not even begun to run because you only start counting the period from the time he escaped from the penal institution. From the time he evaded the service of sentence. Here he has not yet even started serving the sentence; therefore the said running of period of prescription of penalty has not even commenced to run. Therefore it cannot be said that it has already elapsed. Prescription 20 years 15 years 10 years 5 years 1 year 5. PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY is the loss of the State of its right to execute the final sentence. The moment the penalty has already prescribed, the State loses the right to have the said convict to execute the final sentence. So note the distinction between the period of prescription of penalties versus the period of prescription of crimes they differ. ART. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties 1. shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and 2. it shall be interrupted if the defendant 2.1. should give himself up, 2.2. be captured, 2.3. should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or 2.4. should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. What if in the same problem, let us say A has been convicted of homicide. He was placed behind bars. Judgment became final and executory he is now in Muntinlupa serving his final sentence. Then there was a riot. During the time of the said riot he took it as an opportunity to escape. So the police officers the jail warden tried to look for him but they could not locate him. It took then 25 years before they were able to locate A. He was already old by that time. But still they were able to recognize A's face. So they arrested A and placed A behind bars. The counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus. If you were the judge, would you grant it would you deny it? Grant it. The penalty has already prescribed. When do you start counting the running of period of prescription of penalty? You shall start counting the running of period of prescription of penalty from the time the accused evaded the service of sentence. From the time the accused has escaped from the penal institution. So it is necessary that the said accused or the said convict must serve the sentence and while serving the sentence he escaped, that is the time that you start counting the running of period of prescription of penalty. 108Reclusion Temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prisión mayor. [Crimes punishable by reclusion temporal prescribes in 20 years, but with respect to Prescription of Penalty, it prescribes in 15 years.] 109 Correctional Penalties – Prisión correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspensión, Destierro. 134 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Why has the penalty prescribed? The penalty has already prescribed because you count it from the time he evaded the service of sentence and it took the police officers 25 years before they were able to locate him. Therefore it was too late for them. They could no longer make A execute the said final sentence. A raped B. While the case was on going they fell in love with one another they got married. What is the effect of such valid marriage on the criminal liability of the offender? It will extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. No more criminal action even if the penalty had already been imposed that is even the penalty had already imposed by the court that is a valid marriage. When is the running of the period of prescription of penalty suspended or interrupted? 1. The moment the said convict is captured. 2. The moment he surrender or he gave himself up to the proper authorities. 3. The moment he went to another country in which the Philippines has no extradition treaty. 4. In case he shall commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription of penalty. SECTION TWO Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially: 1. By conditional pardon; 2. By commutation of the sentence; and 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing 3.1. preventive imprisonment111 or 3.2. serving his sentence. 6. VALID SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED PARTY. This is applicable only in case of private crimes, seduction, abduction acts of lasciviousness. These are private crimes because they are crimes which cannot be prosecuted without the complaint coming from the victim or the complainant. CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS PARTIALLY EXTINGUISHED 1. By conditional pardon 2. By commutation of sentence 3. By good conduct allowance A seduced B and so B filed a case of seduction qualified seduction against A. Later while the case was on going they fell in love with one another they got married. What is the effect of such valid marriage on the criminal liability of the offender? It will extinguish the criminal liability of A. ART. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. — Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein; otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in 1. the revocation of the pardon and 2. the provisions of Article 159112 shall be applied to him. What if A had already been sentenced. Penalty has already been imposed on him. What is the effect of such valid marriage on the penalty already imposed by the court? It shall be remitted based on Article 344110. So a subsequent valid marriage will extinguish both the criminal action and the penalty. It will remit the penalty already imposed by the court in case of private crimes seduction abduction acts of lasciviousness and in one public crime rape. 1. Conditional pardon is granted by the president only after conviction by final judgment. It differs from absolute pardon in the sense that it has subject to strict terms and conditions which the offender must comply. The offender must have to comply no matter how strict the conditions are. It only partially extinguishes criminal liability because the said convict must comply with the conditions of the pardon otherwise he can be immediately brought back to incarceration plus he will be charged by Rape is not a private crime. Rape is no longer under title 11 crimes against chastity, it is already under Title 8 crimes against persons. So it is now a public crime. 112 Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence. xxx In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. 110 111 As amended by R.A. 10592, May 29, 2013 135 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 evasion of service of sentence provided in Article 159 of RPC. 3. In good conduct allowance, if the convict by final judgment behaves in the prison cell, and it is shown that he has reformed there will be a deduction which will be done by the director of prisons. ART. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence . — The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former. ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty114. — A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, 1. having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158115 of this Code, 2. gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code. 2. In commutation of sentence, the new sentence is in lieu of the original sentence. It is the new sentence now which will be served by the convict. ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct113. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence: 1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of 20 days for each month of good behavior during detention; 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of 23 days for each month of good behavior during detention; 3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of 25 days for each month of good behavior during detention; 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of 30 days for each month of good behavior during detention; and 5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, 5.1. he shall be allowed another deduction of 15 days, 5.2. in addition to numbers one to four hereof, f 5.3. or each month of 5.3.1. study, 5.3.2. teaching or 5.3.3. mentoring service time rendered. An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct. This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether 1. undergoing preventive imprisonment or 2. serving sentence. SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY This so-called special allowance for loyalty is the allowance given to a convict, who in times of calamaties escapes or evades his service of sentence, but he returns or gives himself up to the proper authorities within 48 hours following the declaration of the Chief Executive that the said calamity had already lapsed. There is an earthquake, the said offender escapes the penal institution. Now, he heard the Chief Executive declaring that the calamity had already lapsed. Within 48 hours, he gave himself up to the authorities, within 48 hours, he returned to the authorities. What is the effect on his criminal liability? There is this so called special allowance for loyalty as provided for under Article 98. There should be a credit, a deduction of 1/5 on the term of his sentence. As amended by R.A. 10592, May 29, 2013 As amended by R.A. 10592, May 29, 2013 115 Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities. - A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity. 113 114 Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98. 136 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 What if the said offender did not leave the said penal institution at the time of the said calamity? Can he also be given credit? Yes because Article 98 in relation to Article 158 of Book II had already been amended by RA 10592 which was approved last May 29, 2013. And under this new law amending Article 98 in relation to Article 158, it provides that if the convict, in times of calamities or disorder, did not leave the penal institution, there shall be a 2/5 credit on the term of his sentence. So there is a greater deduction, a deduction of 2/5 from the term of his sentence that is if the said offender would not leave the penal institution in times of calamity and disorder. So he is more loyal, so he is granted more deduction than one who leaves the penal institution and returns. judge will impose the penalty of imprisonment, but aside from that he will also impose civil indemnity on the part of the accused. If the victim dies the civil indemnity goes to the heir of the victim. If the victim survives the indemnity goes to him. INSTANCES WHERE THE FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTION, THE CIVIL ACTION DOES NOT GO WITH IT 1. When the private offended party waived the right to file a civil action. 2. When the private offended party reserves the right to file a civil action which must be made before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 3. When the private offended party instituted a separate civil action ahead of the criminal action. ART. 99. Who grants time allowances116. — Whenever lawfully justified, 1. the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, 2. the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or 3. the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked. In these three instances the filing of the criminal action does not include with it the civil action to recover civil indemnity. For every criminal action filed in court the civil action goes with it. What if in the criminal action the offender is acquitted? Does it mean the private complainant can no longer recover from the civil action? It depends on the judgment of the court. TITLE FIVE INSTANCES WHERE ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL ACTION TOTALLY BARS RECOVERY IN THE CIVIL ACTION. 1. If the judgment of the court states that the act imputed against the accused were not committed by him. 2. If the judgment of acquittal states that the offender is not guilty of either criminal or civil negligence. Civil Liability CHAPTER ONE Persons Civilly Liable for Felonies ART. 100. Civil liability of person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY FROM THE CIVIL ACTION 1. When the judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, because in civil action all you need is preponderance of evidence. 2. When the judgment of acquittal states that the liability of the offender is not criminal but civil in nature. (This usually happens in cases of estafa wherein there is a breach of contract) 3. When the civil liability of the offender arises from other sources of obligation. Whenever a crime has committed there are two injuries caused. We have two injuries one against the state for the disturbance of public order and the personal injury as against the private offended party. Social injury and personal injury respectively. That is why for every criminal action filed in court the civil action goes with it. Civil liability is against the private offended party and the criminal liability is against the state. ILLUSTRATION: A stabbed B, B survived so he filed a case of frustrated homicide against A. In the criminal action it is not necessary for the fiscal to state in the information that the private offended party also wanted to recover civil indemnity because civil indemnity is deemed included in the filing of the criminal action. The 116 As amended by R.A. 10592, May 29, 2013 137 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Art. 12 and in subdivision 4 of Art. 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: Who shall shoulder civil liability in case the offender is an imbecile or an insane, or a minor? The person who has custody and control over the imbecile, insane or minor who shall shoulder primarily the civil liability. The person who has legal authority to the imbecile, insane or a minor. Exception to the rule is when it is proven that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the person who has control or custody over the offender. If that is the case, it will devolve to the property of the imbecile, insane or minor. First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Art. 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an (1) imbecile or insane person, and (2) by a person under nine years of age, or (3) by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, 1. shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, 2. unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Secondary liability is on their property except properties which cannot be attached in the judgment of the court like conjugal dwelling. What if it a case of state of necessity? Under Article 11 par. 4 state of necessity is a justifying circumstance but in case of state of necessity although there is no criminal liability there is civil liability. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor 1. shall respond with their own property, 2. excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. So who shall shoulder civil liability? All the persons who have been benefitted of the said state of necessity shall be civilly liable. If they are many, the court shall divide the civil liability proportionately. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Art. 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. What if the offender, he was charge in the court and it was proven that he acted upon the compulsion of irresistible force or an impulse of uncontrollable fear for an equal or greater injury? This exempts him from criminal liability but under Article 12 there is civil liability, so who shall shoulder civil liability? Civil liability shall be shouldered primarily by the person who employed force on the said offender. Secondary liability is on the offender himself. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. 1. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or 2. when the liability also attaches 2.1. to the Government, or 2.2. to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, 3. in all events, whenever the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. ART. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of Innkeepers, Tavernkeepers and Proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable 1. for crimes committed in their establishments, 2. in all cases where a violation of 2.1. municipal ordinances or 2.2. some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Art. 12, 1. the persons using violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, 2. if there be no such persons, 2.1. those doing the act shall be liable, 2.2. saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, 1. provided that such guests shall have notified in advance 1.1. the innkeeper himself, or 138 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 1.2. the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and 2. shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. 3. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper’s employees. guard was hit and died. Later the robber was arrested and he was charged with robbery with homicide. Convicted by final judgment. A writ of execution is issued in so far as civil liability is concerned and he was found to be insolvent. Who shall shoulder subsidiary civil liability? Is the proprietor of the hotel liable? No he is not liable because the crime committed is robbery with violence against or intimidation against persons. They shall not be held civilly liable for such kind of crime except when the offender himself is an employee of the hotel. ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding Article shall also apply to 1. employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry 2. for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. Based on the municipal ordinance A’s establishment may be opened only during weekdays. It cannot be opened on weekends. However, one Saturday since there is so many customers A opened his establishment in violation of law and in violation of rules and regulation. It so happened, on that day a crime was committed in the said place. Later, the offender was arrested, convicted by final judgment and later on he was found insolvent. In so far as the civil liability is concerned he cannot pay the civil liability, who shall shoulder subsidiary civil liability? Whatever be the crime committed since the establishment operated in violation of a municipal ordinance, rules and regulations of the police the said owner shall always be subsidiarily civilly liable because the operation was in violation of the said ordinance. How about subsidiary civil liability of the minor, a pupil, an employee, after conviction by final judgment they were found to be insolvent, who shall shoulder subsidiary civil liability? In case of children the parents. In case of the pupil the teacher, in case of the employee the employer. In case of crime committed within their establishment, the innkeeper, tavernkeeper, proprietors of the said establishment. The person primarily liable must be convicted by final judgment and found to be insolvent In order for the teacher, parent, employer, proprietor can be made subsidiarily civilly liable, it is necessary that the person primarily liable is convicted by final judgment and he was found to be insolvent. Then subsidiary liability rests on these persons. A, an employee of XYZ corporation. A was a driver, so the business of XYZ corporation is distribution of goods. A while driving to deliver goods from a supermarket to another trying to beat time, he was driving recklessly. So he bumped he hit another car. The car was seriously, gravely totally damaged. So A was charged with reckless imprudence causing to damage to property. After trial under merits, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He did not appeal, judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution was ordered it was returned unsatisfied. The offender is found to be insolvent. What now is the remedy of the owner of the car that was totally damaged? How can he recover from XYZ Corporation the employer of A? It is not necessary for him to file a separate civil action. In the very same criminal action for reckless imprudence causing to damage to property which held A guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All the private complainant needs to do is to file a motion for the issuance of subsidiary writ of execution against the XYZ Corporation. A guest checked in in a hotel. He had valuables with him. He informed the proprietor of the hotel that he has valuables with him. The proprietor told him regarding the rules and regulations of the hotel as to the care and vigilance of the said valuables and the guess complied. However, that night a robbery took place and among the things taken where the valuables of the guest. Later the robber was arrested convicted by final judgment. A writ of execution was issued and he was found to be insolvent. So he cannot return the valuables stolen, likewise he could not return the value thereof. Who shall shoulder subsidiary civil liability? The proprietor of the said hotel, the innkeeper, the tavernkeeper of the said hotel. This motion is a litigated motion it is not an ex parte motion, therefore XYZ must be given a copy of the said motion and he must be given his day in court in the name of due process. It is not to be decided by the judge In the said course of robbery there was exchange of gunfire between the robber and the security guard of the hotel? And in the said exchange of gun fires the said 139 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ex parte but it is going to be litigated. There must be notice on the part of XYZ corporation in the nameof due process so that he can say “no he is not my employee”, “no he was not at the time of his job while the incident happened”. The thing itself shall be restored, 1. even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, 2. saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him. The moment that evidence is enough to show that the employer can be held subsidiarily civilly liable, the subsidiary liability of the employer is absolute in nature. The moment that the employee is convicted by final judgment and found to be insolvent, the subsidiary liability of the employer is absolute. It is absolute but it is not automatic. It is not automatic because there should be a motion for the issuance of subsidiary writ execution which is litigated. The moment that the requisites are present the liability of the said employer is absolute in nature. This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. Restitution is the return of the very thing taken. What if the thing taken is already in the possession of a third person? Can it still be recovered and be returned to the rightful owner? Yes. It can still be recovered from the purchaser of good faith and returned to the rightful owner except when the innocent purchaser bought it in a public sale like market fair. Then it can no longer be taken from him to be returned to the lawful owner. REQUISITES FOR AN EMPLOYER TO BECOME SUBSIDIARILY LIABLE (EI-FG) 1. There must exist an Employee-employer relationship. 2. That the employer is engaged in some kind of Industry. 3. That at the time of the commission of the crime the employee is in the performance of his Function. 4. That the employee was found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt by final judgment and was found insolvent to pay the civil liability. So restitution is impossible, what now is the remedy? We have the so-called reparation of damages. ART. 106. Reparation — How Made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, 1. taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and 2. its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly. If these four are present, then the liability if the employer is absolute in nature. The said owner of the car can recover from the employer. Reparation of damages is next, the judge shall determine the actual value of the thing taken into consideration its actual value plus the special sentimental value to the owner thereof and the same will be imposed against the said accused. CHAPTER TWO What Civil Liability Includes ART. 104. What is Included in Civil Liability. — The civil liability established in Art.s 100, 101, 102, and 103, of this Code includes: 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3. Indemnification for consequential damages. In addition there is the so-called indemnification of consequential damages. ART. 107. Indemnification — What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages 1. shall include not only those caused the injured party, 2. but also those suffered (1) by his family or (2) by a third person by reason of the crime. The civil liability includes: 1. Restitution 2. Reparation of damage caused 3. Indemnification of consequential damages ART. 105. Restitution — How Made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value as determined by the court. Indemnification of consequential damages, this is more on torts in civil code. These includes: 1. Actual damages. 2. Moral damages. 3. Exemplary damages. 140 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 In the case of People v. Quiachon. (See People vs. Gambao, 2013) The father raped the daughter eight years old. The penalty is death but by reason of RA 9346, death was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The father was convicted of qualified rape and the penalty imposed was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The judge also imposed upon him the following civil liability 75,000 civil indemnity ex-delicto, 75,000 moral damages and 25,000 exemplary damages. The counsel of Quaichon filed a motion for reconsideration saying that the judge committed an error stating that the civil liability must be in the amount of 75,000 pesos. He contended that the civil liability must only be in the amount of 50,000 pesos. Because according to him based on jurisprudence the civil liability which is 75,000 can only be imposed if the penalty imposed is death. Here he contended that although death penalty is the penalty prescribed by law it was commuted to reclusion perpetua therefore the appropriate civil indemnity should only be 50,000 and not 75,000. Is the contention of the counsel correct? The Supreme Court said, as early as the case of People v. Victor (G.R 127904, December 5, 2002) the imposition of 75,000 as civil liability is not dependent on the actual execution of the death penalty rather it is dependent on the presence of any qualifying circumstance which would merit the imposition of death penalty even if death was not executed. In this case there is a qualifying circumstance of relationship and the age of the victim for the imposition of death as a penalty. Therefore the appropriate civil liability is 75,000 pesos. How much would these damages be? In the case of People v. Gambao117, in that case, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom. So if the crime committed is a heinous crime, one punishable by death, but death commuted to reclusion perpetua, the Supreme Court said the following would be the amount for civil liability: first, civil liability in the amount of P100,000; second, moral damages in the amount of P100,000, this moral damages shall be imposed on the said accused in favor of the victim without need of proof, except of the fact that the crime had been committed; and the last one exemplary damages also in the amount of P100,000. So in this case of People v. Gambao (2013), the Supreme Court said these shall be the award of damages in case of heinous crimes, wherein the penalty imposable was death, but death cannot be imposed by reason of RA 9346. Moral damages is for the tension, sleepless nights, the pain— this shall be paid. In trial so the fiscal asked the witness. How do you feel when your husband died? I cannot eat, I cannot sleep there is so much pain in my heart. If you are going to quantify your emotional pain how much would it be? Will you tell the court? The witness answered “walang katumbas your honor” “hindi kayang bayaran your honor”. But in the end it will only be 100,000. An exemplary damages is imposed by the court in the commission of the crime there is an aggravating or qualifying circumstance, it is impose to set an example. The imposition of 75,000 pesos civil indemnity is not dependent on the actual imposition of death penalty but on the presence of qualifying circumstances which would provide for the imposition of death penalty. Civil indemnity may be imposed absent evidence because it is civil indemnity ex-delicto, arising from the crime itself. Even if there is no evidence presented, except for the fact that the crime is committed there is always civil indemnity. In the crime of rape, murder civil liability is always imposed on the accused no need for other evidence, all that is needed is the accused is found guilty because it is civil indemnity based on the commission of the crime. respective responsibilities and actual participation. Hence, each principal accused-appellant should shoulder a greater share in the total amount of indemnity and damages than Perpenian who was adjudged as only an accomplice. (People vs. Gambao, 706 SCRA 508, G.R. No. 172707 October 1, 2013) The ruling of this Court in People v. Montesclaros, 589 SCRA 320 (2009) is instructive on the apportionment of civil liabilities among all the accused-appellants. The entire amount of the civil liabilities should be apportioned among all those who cooperated in the commission of the crime according to the degrees of their liability, 117 141 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded: The case of People vs. Ireneo Jugueta118 summarized the damages for civil indemnity that may be awarded: Civil Indemnity Moral Damages Exemplary Damages Consumated 50,000 50,000 50,000 2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties: 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346 Consumated 25,000 25,000 25,000 V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties Consumated 50,000 50,000 Consumated 100,000 100,000 100,000 Frustrated 30,000 30,000 Frustrated 75,000 75,000 75,000 Attempted 20,000 20,000 Attempted 50,000 50,000 50,000 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned: VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are entitled to the following Consumated 75,000 75,000 75,000 Consumated Frustrated 50,000 50,000 50,000 Attempted 25,000 25,000 25,000 Consumated II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape: 100,000 100,000 100,000 Attempted 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Attempted 25,000 25,000 25,000 Consumated 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 118 75,000 75,000 50,000 ART. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices, and accessories of a felony — Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding Article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, 1. each within their respective class, 2. shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and 3. subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable. 100,000 75,000 50,000 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned: Consumated 50,000 ART. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond. 100,000 1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: Consumated 50,000 The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured. 1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded: Consumated 75,000 it devolves. — The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable. IV. For Special Complex Crimes and other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties: 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346: Consumated 75,000 for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and action to demand the same — Upon whom 1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned: Consumated 75,000 ART. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties: 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346: Consumated 100,000 C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned: Consumated 100,000 B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the rebellion and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded: 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346: Consumated 100,000 75,000 G.R. No. 222702. April 5, 2016 142 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, 1. first against the property of the principals; 2. next, against that of the accomplices, and, 3. lastly, against that of the accessories. CHAPTER THREE Extinction and Survival of Civil Liability ART. 112. Extinction of Civil Liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law. Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares. ART. 113. Obligation to Satisfy Civil Liability. — Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding Article, the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that 1. he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or 2. has not been required to serve the same by reason of (1) amnesty, (2) pardon, (3) commutation of sentence, or (4) any other reason. A, B, and C conspired with each other and they were convicted by final judgment, and civil liability was imposed by the court. How shall the civil liability be? The civil liability must be divided by the court proportionately. But what if A is a principal, B is an accomplice, C is an accessory they differ in their participation in the commission of the crime. How should they divide civil liability among themselves in so far as to the recovery of the damages to the complainant? Among themselves their liability is severally- in solidum, on the other hand the said offended party can recover from them subsidiarily. So among A, B and C their liability is in solidum, severally therefore they are liable for their own cause for being a principal, accomplice or accessory. How is civil liability extinguished? It is more on civil law; it is extinguished in the same manner provided for in the civil code. 1. 2. 3. 4. From whom can the private complainant recover? Let’s say based on the judgment of the court civil indemnity is in the amount of 50,000. From whom shall the private complainant recover? From A first, the principal. If A is insolvent the principal he can recover from B the accomplice. If B the accomplice is insolvent he can recover from C the accessory the entire 50,000. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Should the principal pay the entire 50,000 he acquires the right of action as against the accomplice and against the accessory as to their respective share. By payment of performance. By the loss of the thing due. By the condonation or remission of the debt. By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor By compensation. By novation. Annulment Rescission Fulfillment of a resolutory condition Prescription (Article 1231, Civil Code) What about the grant of pardon? Valid marriage? Prescription of crimes? Probation? Isn’t it that this all extinguishes criminal liability; will this also extinguish civil liability? No. It cannot be extinguished. Civil liability can only be extinguished in the same manner as in civil code but it cannot be extinguished by pardon, by probation, even by a subsequent valid marriage, the civil indemnity remains. ART. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation. 143 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 a war time crime. It can only be committed in times of war. In times of peace, treason remains to be a dormant crime but the moment emergency arises, the moment war erupts, treason is immediately put into effect as a crime, as a means of self-defense for self-preservation on the part of the Philippine government. BOOK TWO Crimes and Penalties TITLE ONE Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations Treason is a war time offense because there are only CHAPTER ONE Crimes Against National Security enemies, there are only traitors in times of war. In times if peace, there are no enemies. The Philippines have no enemies. When you say enemies, it means the citizens SECTION ONE of another country in which the Philippines is at war. Treason and Espionage The NPA’s, the MNLF they are not considered as enemies of the state because they are also Filipino citizens. What you consider as enemies are the enemy troops that belongs to another country. And in times of peace, there are no enemies. The Philippines have no enemies, hence treason will never be put into effect. ART. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who 1. levies war against the Philippines or 2. adheres to her enemies, 3. giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P100,000 pesos. The second element refers to the offenders who may commit the crime of treason. He could either be a Filipino citizen because he owes permanent allegiance to the Philippine government or he could also be a foreigner even he is temporarily residing in the Philippines he becomes liable for the crime of treason the moment he commits treasonable acts. No person shall be convicted of treason unless 1. on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or 2. on confession of the accused in open court. Likewise, (1) an alien, (2) residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P100,000 pesos This is so because while this foreigner or alien is in the Philippines, the Philippine government also gives him the same protection the government is giving to his own citizens. Hence, in return these foreigners owe temporary allegiance to the Philippine government. Treason is committed by any Filipino citizen who in times of war in which the Philippines is involved either levies war against the Philippine Government or adheres to the enemy by giving them aid or comfort. The third element of treason provides for the means of committing treason. And there are two means of committing treason: 1. By levying war against government and the other ELEMENTS 1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved. 2. Offender is either a Filipino citizen or a foreigner, an alien residing in the Philippines. 3. Offender either levies war against the Philippine government or adheres to the enemy by giving them aid or comfort. the Philippine Levying of war requires the concurrence of two elements. First, there must be an actual assembly of men and second, it is for a treasonable design by means of force. So it is necessary that Filipinos must be in collaboration with the enemy troops. That is levying war against the Philippine government. The first element requires that the Philippines must be at war. So the Philippines is involved in the said war. The Philippines is a party to the said war. The Filipinos who wants to commit treason connives or conspire with the enemy troops in order to hand over the Philippine government to the enemy troops. There is levying of war against the Philippine government. Treason therefore is a war time offense. In the old case of Laurel v. Singson, the Supreme Court said, treason is 144 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2. By adhering to the enemy by giving them aid or comfort. Extra-judicial confession is not a means of proving treason Likewise, treason can be proven by means of confession given by the accused in open court. So extra-judicial confession is not a means of proving treason. It must be a judicial confession made in open court. The other mode of committing treason is by adhering to the enemies by giving them aid or comfort. Adherence to the enemy means that the Filipinos who is committing treason, emotionally and intellectually favor the enemy. What if in times of war in which the Philippines is involved, in the course of committing treason the offender killed another Filipino? So in effect he committed murder, he committed homicide or inflicted physical injuries on another Filipino? Will such act of injuring another person, killing another person give rise to a separate and distinct crime aside from treason? No. These common crimes committed in furtherance of treason are absorbed in the crime of treason because they are known as atrocities of war. Hence, you only charge the offender with one crime and that is treason. The murder, the killing, the physical injuries, the burning of houses committed, they are considered as part and parcel and therefore, they are absorbed in the crime of treason. So it’s an internal state of the mind. So how do you show it? How do you manifest it? It is manifested by means of acts of giving aid or comfort to the enemies. So both adherence to the enemies and giving aid or comfort must concur, must be together. Mere adherence to the enemies will not give rise to treason. Strengthen the defense of the enemy and weaken the defense of the Philippines Mere giving aid or comfort to the enemies will not give rise to treason. It is necessary that giving of aid or comfort must be the manifestation of the adherence to the enemies. When you say giving aid or comfort to the ART. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. - The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos. enemy, it means giving the enemies information, giving them transportation, arms and other things which will strengthen the defense of the enemy and weaken the defense of the Philippines. In the old case of People v. Perez, the Supreme Court has ruled that the act of commandeering women giving women to the enemy troops is not considered as a treasonable act. It may have strengthened the enemy but such effect is only medial in nature, it will not weaken the defense of the Philippines. Hence, the act of commandeering women in times of war according to the Supreme Court is not a treasonable act. What if there is a war in which the Philippines is involved, A, B, C and D conspired with one another in order to commit treason against the Philippine government. After their agreement, A went to his friend X and he told X about his conspiracy together with B, C and D to commit the crime of treason against the Philippine government. After divulging the same plan to X, A left. X, despite knowledge of such conspiracy to commit treason of A, B, C and D did not disclose it to the proper authorities. What is/are the crime/crimes committed by A, B, C, and D as well as X? A, B, C and D are all liable for conspiracy to commit treason, whereas X will be liable for Misprision of Treason. A, B, C and D are all liable for conspiracy to commit treason because they conspired with one another to commit the crime of treason. TWO WAYS OF PROVING TREASON 1. Testimony of two witnesses, at least to the same overt act which is otherwise known as the “two witness rule”. 2. Confession made by the accused in open court. So it must be a judicial confession made in open court. Treason cannot be proven by mere circumstantial evidence The first way of proving treason requires two witnesses. Therefore, treason cannot be proven by mere circumstantial evidence. There must be direct evidence; someone had seen the perpetrators of the crime doing the same overt act. There is conspiracy to commit treason when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of treason and they decide to commit it. There is proposal to commit treason when a person who decided to commit the crime of treason proposes its execution to another person. 145 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 116. Misprision of treason. – Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of the Philippine Islands, 1. without being a foreigner, and 2. having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, 3. 3.1. conceals or 3.2. does not disclose and 3.3. make known the same, 4. as soon as possible to the 4.1. governor or 4.2. fiscal of the province, or 4.3. the mayor or 4.4. fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason. 1.1.4. military 1.1.1.4.1. establishment or 1.1.1.4.2. reservation 1.2. to obtain any 1.2.1. information, 1.2.2. plans, 1.2.3. photographs, or 1.2.4. other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or 2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation. The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee. There is misprision of treason when a Filipino citizen who has knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason failed to divulge it, failed to disclose it to the proper authorities as soon as possible. TWO WAYS OF COMITTING ESPIONAGE 1. By entering any warship, fort, naval, military establishment or reservation without authority therefor for the purpose of obtaining any information, plans, photographs or other data of confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. 2. By disclosing to a representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or information of confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines which he has in his possession by reason of the public office that he holds. Who can commit misprision of treason? Misprision of treason can only be committed by a Filipino citizen, one owing permanent allegiance to the Philippine government. Treason can be committed both by a Filipino citizen and an alien or foreigner but misprision of treason can only be committed by a Filipino citizen, one owing permanent allegiance to the Philippine government. It cannot be committed by an alien residing in the Philippines. The moment he fails to disclose a conspiracy to commit treason of which he is knowledgeable of as soon as possible to the proper authorities then he becomes liable for misprision of treason. Treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, as well as misprision of treason they can be committed only in times of war but espionage can be committed both in times of peace and in times of war. Under the first mode of committing espionage, the offender can be any person. He can be a public officer or employee. He can be a private individual. He can be a foreigner. He can be a Filipino citizen. The gravamen, the essence of the crime is the act of entering a military, fort, naval, establishment for the purpose of obtaining information, plans, photographs or other data of confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. Misprision of treason is a crime independent of treason. When the law says that he should be punished just like an accessory to the crime of treason, it means that the penalty will be equivalent to that of an accessory to the crime of treason. Therefore, two degrees lower from that of the penalty prescribed for the crime of treason. ART. 117. Espionage. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who: What if a Filipino citizen enters a Filipino warship, you do not know his intention, the moment he enters the said warship without any authority therefor, of course the law presumes that his intention is to obtain such information of confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. 1. Without authority therefor, 1.1. enters a 1.1.1. warship, 1.1.2. fort, or 1.1.3. naval or 146 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The fact that he enters the said place without authority therefor means there is a presumption that his cruelly by the Malaysian government. Based on the news, that sultanate of Sulu has died a month ago. So among that crimes which could have been filed against him is inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals because he performed acts would make liable to cause the Philippines to enter into war with the Malaysian government and not only that, Filipino citizens in Sabah suffered reprisals on the persons or property by reason of his acts. Hence, he can be held liable for this crime. intention is to obtain this confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. Under the second mode of committing espionage, the offender can only be a public officer or employee but not any public officer or employee can commit the crime because the public officer or employee must be in possession of articles, data or information of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines by reason of his public office that he holds. So he has the authority to possess these data or information. He is the kind of public officer who can commit the crime. And the essence of the crime is the act of disclosure, divulging to a representative of a foreign nation the contents of these data which are of confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. ART. 119. Violation of neutrality. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, 1. on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality. Violation of Neutrality is committed when there is a war and the Philippines is not a party to the said war. So the Philippines is not involved in the said war but the Philippine government, a competent authority coming from the Philippine government issued a declaration, a revelation saying that the Philippines shall stay neutral in the said war. Section Two. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war ART. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who, 1. by unlawful or unauthorized acts 2. provokes or gives occasion for a war 2.1. involving or 2.2. liable to involve the Philippine Islands or 3. exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their 3.1. persons or 3.2. property. The moment any person violates this declaration of neutrality, he becomes liable for violation of neutrality. Essence of the crime is the violation of the regulation issued by competent authority enforcing neutrality So in the crime of violation of neutrality the crime will only arise if there is a declaration or regulation issued by a competent authority and forcing neutrality in a war between two countries. Even if there is a war with two Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals is committed when the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts, and these acts provoke or give occasion to war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or give occasion or reprisals on the persons or property of Filipino citizens in another country. countries and the Philippines is not a party to the said war, if there is no declaration coming from the Philippine government that he should stay neutral, any Filipino citizen who would side with one country is not liable because the essence of the crime is the violation of the regulation issued by competent authority enforcing neutrality. So here the offender performs acts which are unlawful and unauthorized by the Philippine government and these acts that he performs may give occasion to war, may get the Philippines into war. ART. 120. Correspondence with hostile country . - Any person who (1) in time of war, (2) shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished: Remember the news before about the sultanate of Sulu who went to Sabah without the authority of the Philippine government claiming that based on heritage, this Sabah belongs to his family. That was his claim. Whether his claim is valid or not, his acts are unauthorized by the Philippine government. He has no right to just go there and claim that Sabah is ours. As a result, our Filipino citizens in Sabah were treated 1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government; 2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; and 147 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 121. Flight to enemy country. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, 1. owing allegiance to the Government, 2. (2.1.) attempts to flee or (2.2) go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority. 3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the enemy. 4. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death. Again, there is a war in which the Philippines is involved and a competent authority of the Philippine government issued a regulation prohibiting flight to the enemy country and the offender attempts to flee or to go to the enemy state. Correspondence with Hostile Country is committed when there is a war in which the Philippines is involved and the offender makes correspondence with the enemy country or a territory occupied by the enemy troops and the said correspondence is either prohibited by the Philippine government or carried on in ciphers or conventional signs or contains notices or information which may be useful to the enemy state. Again, the essence of the crime is the violation of the regulation issued by the competent authority prohibiting flight to the enemy country. Therefore, even if the Philippines is at war with another country, any Filipino citizen may go to that country provided that there is no regulation issued by competent authority prohibiting such flight to the enemy state. It is only when there is a prohibition which wherein the crime will arise. In case of correspondence with hostile country it is necessary under the: 1. 2. First mode that is making correspondence is totally prohibited by the Philippine government, there must be a regulation coming from the Philippine government that totally there is no correspondence between the Philippines and the enemy state. If there is no regulation prohibiting correspondence the crime will only arise if the said correspondence is carried out in ciphers or conventional signs or if it contains notices or information which may be useful to the enemy. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved and a competent authority issued a prohibition of making any correspondence. So the Philippines is at war with country A then a Filipino citizen, X, has a pen pal who lives in country A and so he wrote a small note and that small note only says “Hi! I miss you! Mwa mwa” Is he liable for the crime? Yes. He is liable for the crime because there is a prohibition coming from the Philippine government to make any correspondence. If there is a prohibition coming from the Philippine government to make any correspondence even if the correspondence contains nothing but a simple “Hi” the crime will arise, but if there is no regulation coming from the Philippine government prohibiting the making of correspondence, the crime will only arise if carried out in ciphers or conventional signs and contains notices and information which may be useful to the enemy. 148 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Essence of piracy is that of robbery Based on these elements, it is evident that the gravamen or essence of piracy is that of robbery , there is a thing or property and it is done with force or intimidation and it is committed with violence against persons or properties or use of force upon things. Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters ART. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters119. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon 1. any person who, 1.1. on the high seas, or 1.2. in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, 2. not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, 2.1. shall seize the 2.1.1. whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, 2.1.2. its equipment or 2.1.3. passengers. The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. In robbery the thing taken is the personal property of the offended party whereas in case of piracy the thing taken is either the vessel itself or the cargo, equipment in the vessel or personal properties inside the said vessel. On the other hand, in case of mutiny the elements are: ELEMENTS OF MUTINY 1. The vessel is also either on Philippine waters or on the high seas 2. The offenders must necessarily be members of the complement or passengers of the vessel. 3. Offenders cause an unlawful resistance on the Under title one, there are only four crimes committed on high seas or in Philippine waters. We have Piracy, Qualified Piracy, Mutiny and Qualified Mutiny. lawful command of the captain of the ship, bringing about a commotion at the circumstance inside the ship. Under Article 122, there is piracy when the following elements are present. Essence of mutiny is that of sedition So if the essence of piracy is that of robbery, in case of mutiny, the essence is that of sedition. There is a commotion. There is a disturbance against the lawful demand of the captain of the ship. In case of piracy, the offenders must be strangers to the vessel but in case of mutiny, the offenders are necessarily members of the complement and passengers of the vessel because only they may disagree to the lawful command of the captain of the ship. ELEMENTS OF PIRACY 1. The vessel is on Philippine waters or in the high seas. 2. The offender is not a member of its complement or passenger of the vessel. 3. The offender either attack or seize the vessel or seize the whole or a part of the cargo, equipment or personal belongings inside the said vessel. What if the vessel is on Philippine waters. While the vessel is on Philippine waters, suddenly there were four men. The four men boarded the said vessel and at gun point they took the cargo, the equipment of the said vessel. Thereafter they boarded another vessel. What is/are crime/s committed these four men? These four men are liable for piracy under Article 122. All the elements are present. The vessel is in Philippine waters. The offenders, the four men are not members of the complement or passengers of the vessel. And last element, they seized the cargo, the equipment of the said vessel. Hence, the crime committed is piracy under article 122. So the vessel in piracy is either on Philippine waters or on the high seas. Who may be the offenders? The offenders must be persons coming outside the vessel. They must not be members of the complement or passengers of the vessel. Therefore, they must be strangers to the said vessel. The third element provides that offenders either attack or seize the vessel itself or the offender either seize the whole or part of the cargo, the equipment or personal belongings inside the said vessel. As amended by R.A. 7659 Sec. 2, December 13, 1993, and is now considered as act of terrorism under R.A. 9372 119 149 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 What if the vessel is on Philippine waters then the members of the complement and the passengers of the vessel, in conspiracy with one another took away the cargo and the equipment inside the said vessel and boarded another vessel. What crime/s is/are committed by these members of the complement or passengers of the vessel? It cannot be piracy under article 122 because the second element of Article 122 provides that the offenders must not be members of the complement of the said vessel. In the problem, the offenders are members of the complement of the vessel. Hence it cannot be piracy under article 122. vessel in conspiracy with one another took the cargo and equipment of the said vessel then they boarded another vessel. What crime is committed by the conspirators, members of the vessel as well as the passengers of the vessel? It cannot be piracy under article 122 because under article 122 piracy is committed by strangers to the vessel. In the problem, the offenders are members of the complement and passengers of the vessel. So article 122 would not apply. Is it piracy under article 532? It is not piracy under PD 532 because in 532 the vessel must be on Philippine waters and in the problem that I gave the vessel is on the high seas. So what is the crime committed? The crime committed is still piracy. It is piracy under PD 532, the Anti-Piracy Law of 1974. Therefore, PD 532 does not apply. So since article 122 of the Revised Penal Code and PD 532 do not apply, the crime committed is robbery in an uninhabited place because as I said piracy is akin to robbery. So since piracy involved does not fall in the RPC and PD 532 will not apply, the crime committed will be Robbery. UNDER PD 532, piracy is committed by attacking or seizing the vessel or seizing in whole or in part the cargo, equipment or personal belongings therein irrespective of the value thereof, and is committed by means of violence against person by use of force upon things by any person, including members of the complement, passengers of the vessel while the vessel is What if the vessel is on Philippine waters on its way to Mindoro? While on its way to Mindoro suddenly there is a huge wave. As a result, the big wave endangered the said vessel. So the captain of the ship decided to rest the vessel near the seashore. However, the members of the complement and passengers of the vessel did not agree with the captain of the ship. And so they tied the captain of the ship and directed the vessel towards Mindoro. What crime is then committed by members of the complement and passengers of the vessel? The crime committed is mutiny. The vessel is on Philippine waters, the offenders are members of the complement and passengers of the vessel and there was a commotion, a disturbance in the vessel against the lawful command of the captain of the ship. So the crime committed is Mutiny. in Philippine waters. So in case of piracy under Article 122, the vessel must be on Philippine waters and acts of piracy may be committed by any person. Since article 122 punishes acts of piracy committed by persons who are outsiders to the said vessel then in order to reconcile PD 532 punishes offenders who are members of the complement and passengers of the vessel while the vessel is on Philippine waters. So in the problem that I gave, in the said problem the crime it still piracy, but it is piracy under PD 532. What if the vessel is on the high seas. While the vessel is on the high seas suddenly four men entered the said vessel and at gun point they took the cargo and equipment of the said vessel. What crime is committed by the four men? The crime committed by four men will still be piracy and it is piracy under article 122 because all the elements are present. The vessel is on the high seas. Second, the offenders are not members of the complement or passengers of the vessel and the offenders took the cargo and the equipment of the vessel. So the crime committed is piracy under article 122. Art. 123. Qualified piracy120. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances: 1. Whenever they have seized a vessel 1.1. by boarding or 1.2. firing upon the same; 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves or; 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by 3.1. murder, 3.2. homicide, 3.3. physical injuries or 3.4. rape. Same problem, the vessel is on the high seas but this time, members of the complement and passengers of the 120 Only reclusion perpetua may be imposed under R.A. 9346 150 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ELEMENTS OF QUALIFIED-PIRACY because physical injuries was used by law in its generic sense. 1. Whenever the offenders seize a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape What if in the same problem, when the said lady passenger who did not want to give the necklace but one of the men did was that before taking the said necklace he first touch the breast of the woman with lewd design and thereafter forcibly took the said necklace. What crime/s is/are committed by the said men? Both men are liable for piracy. They both are liable for piracy because they boarded the vessel and they took the valuables. The other man, who aside from piracy also touched the private parts of the woman, the breast of the woman with lewd design shall be liable for additional crime of acts of lasciviousness. It will not qualify piracy because acts of lasciviousness is not among the crimes under article 123 that will qualify piracy. So both will be liable for piracy but that other man who touched the breast of the woman this time aside from piracy will be also liable for another crime and that is acts of lasciviousness. Under the first qualifying circumstance, whenever the offenders have seized a vessel by boarding of firing upon the same, for piracy to be qualified under the first circumstance, it is necessary that it is the vessel itself that must be seized. Even if there is boarding or firing of the said vessel, if what they seize is only cargo, the equipment or personal belongings, it cannot be qualified piracy. What the law says is whenever they have seized a vessel. So it is necessary that the vessel itself must be seized for the circumstance would qualify as piracy. Under the second qualifying circumstance, whenever the offenders have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves. The offenders have committed piracy and they left the victim without means of saving themselves. Piracy would be qualified. What circumstances that would qualify mutiny? According to Reyes and according to the book of legal luminaries, the following circumstances would qualify mutiny, (1) first whenever the offenders have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; and (2) lastly whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. Third circumstance, whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. If any of these following crimes have been committed by the offenders while committing the crime of piracy, the crime committed is qualified piracy. They will not constitute separate and distinct crimes. They will not be also complex. They are absorbed in the commission of the crime of piracy because they are only treated as circumstances which would qualify piracy. According to legal luminaries, the first circumstance that will qualify piracy will no longer qualify mutiny because in mutiny, offenders are necessary inside the said vessel. So they will not board the said vessel. Hence, only the second and the third circumstances will qualify mutiny. So the vessel was on Philippine waters. Two men boarded the said vessel and at gun point. These two men point the gun to the passengers of the vessel to give to them their valuables. One of the passengers did not want to give her necklace and so what the man did was he slapped the woman after then they forcibly took the said necklace. What crime/s is/are committed by the said men? The men are liable for qualified piracy. Related to these crimes against National Security is Republic Act 6235 otherwise known as An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to Civil Aviation more popularly known as the ANTI-HIJACKING LAW. Under RA 6235, the following acts are punished as inimical civil aviation: 4 ACTS PUNISHED UNDER ANTI-HIJACKING LAW In qualifying piracy when it is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. Physical injuries is used in its generic terms. It does not state whether it is serious, less serious or slight. Therefore, whatever crime of physical injuries accompanied piracy it will already become qualified piracy. So even if the physical injury that accompanied the commission of piracy is slight, is less serious it is already qualified piracy 1. By compelling the pilot of an aircraft of Philippine registry to change its course or destination or by seizing or usurping control thereof while it is in flight. 2. By compelling the pilot of an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or by seizing or usurping control thereof while the same is in Philippine territory. 151 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 These are the first two acts. Let’s first distinguish the first acts. Philippines materials or substances which are flammable, explosive, corrosive or poisonous. Under the FIRST ACT by compelling the pilot of an aircraft of Philippine registry to change its course or destination or by seizing or usurping control thereof while it is in flight, if the aircraft is of Philippine registry it is necessary that the seizure or usurpation must take place while the aircraft is in flight. Where lies the difference? If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the mere act of carrying or loading flammable and explosive substances will already give rise to the crime but if the aircraft is a cargo aircraft the carrying or loading of poisonous or corrosive substances, flammable substances, is allowed. The crime will only arise if the said carrying or loading of these substances is not in accordance with the rules and regulations issued by the Air Transportation Office or the Civil Aviation Aeronautics Board. There lies the difference between the third and the fourth act. An aircraft must is said to be in flight the moment all external doors had been closed following the embarkation until all of these external doors been opened for purposes of disembarkation. On the other hand, in case of an aircraft which is of foreign registry, there is no requisite that it is in flight at the time of the seizure or usurpation. It suffices that the said aircraft of foreign registry is within Philippine territory and the seizure and usurpation thereof will already give rise to a violation of RA 6235. What if there is a bus and the bus is full of children. It was parked in Luneta Park and suddenly there comes X. He had arms, ammunitions, guns all over his body at gunpoint he boarded the bus and hijacked the bus, the children were forced to board the bus. Upon entry, X told the children to stay inside the bus and nothing will happen to them. Thereafter X placed cartolinas on the windows of the said bus. And on the cartolinas were his demands from the government. First, for the government to release his brother who is a member of the NPA who is being incarcerated by the military be released. Second, to recover and transfer funds to his account in the amount of 2M. As a result the media came, the parents of the children came, people from all walks of life came, the members of the cabinet arrived. So there was chaos everywhere. The PNP was trying to mediate so he will surrender but it took them 12 hours. X was arrested. Is X liable for terrorism? How is terrorism committed? In so far as these two acts are concerned, under RA 6235 these first two acts will be qualified by the following circumstances. 1. By firing upon the pilot or the member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft 2. By exploding or attempting to explode any bomb or explosives for the purpose of destroying the aircraft. 3. Whenever the act of hi-jacking is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape Under Sec.3 of RA 9372—Human Security Act of 2007, terrorism is committed when the offender commits any of the following acts punishable under the RPC: Art. 122 – Piracy Art. 134 – Rebellion Art. 134 A – Coup d’ Etat Art. 248 - Murder Art. 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention Art. 324 - Crimes involving Destruction If the offender commits any of these acts punishable under the RPC or any of the following crimes punishable under special penal laws: These three acts will qualify the first two punishing acts. We will notice that third following circumstances, the law is specific; the law says serious physical injuries. If what accompanied the commission of hijacking is only slight physical injury and not serious physical injury the crime will not then be qualified because the law specifies that it must be serious physical injuries. That is in case of hijacking. But in case of piracy, physical injuries is used in its generic term 3. The third act punishable under anti-hi jacking law is by carrying or loading on board a passenger aircraft operating as public utility in the Philippines materials or substances which are flammable, explosives, corrosives or poisonous. 4. And lastly, by carrying or loading on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the 152 PD 1613 – Law on Arson RA 6969 – The toxic Substances and hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act RA 5207 – Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act RA 6235 – Anti- Hijacking Law CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 PD 532 – Anti- Piracy and Anti- Highway Robbery Law of 1974 PD 1866 as amended – Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, dealing in , Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives Therefore, this is known as the THEORY OF ABSORPTION in terrorism. The absorption is involved in terrorism. A person who has been acquitted for the case of terrorism or dismissal of the case, he can no longer be prosecuted of any crime, of any offense or felony necessarily included therein. What are these crimes, offenses or felonies necessarily included therein? The predicate crimes that were mentioned. Therefore, among the predicate crimes that were mentioned, illegal possession of unlicensed firearms, hence he can no longer be prosecuted because illegal possession of unlicensed firearms is among the predicate crimes mentioned stated in section 3, kidnapping and serious illegal detention. It is absorbed. Therefore, he can no longer be prosecuted of serious illegal detention. If the offender commits any of these crimes that are mentioned, thereby sowing or creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand, the crime committed is terrorism and the penalty is 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole. So that is how terrorism is committed. He must first commit any of these predicate crimes but such commission of these predicate crimes created, sow fear and panic among the populace because these are coupled with a demand from the government, an unlawful demand to the government. Hence, it becomes terrorism. What if in the same problem, one of the minors was found by X beautiful and so X raped the said Girl. Can the state after X was acquitted of the crime of terrorism prosecute him for the crime of rape? Can the state prosecute him of violation of RA 7610? The answer is yes because rape and RA 7610 are not among the predicate crimes mentioned in section 3. Therefore, they are not crimes necessary included therein. Hence, the state can still prosecute him of the crimes which are not necessarily included in terrorism. In case of terrorism not only the principal is liable. Under section 4, a conspirator will also be liable. Under sections 5 and 6, even an accomplice and an accessory in the crime of terrorism will be held liable. What if in the same problem, so let us say that X was charged with the crime of terrorism. During the arraignment he pleaded not guilty. Prior to the next hearing the judge acted upon on the merits of the case and rendered a decision. The judge acquitted X of the crime of terrorism. Upon his acquittal, can the state still file a case of illegal possession of unlicensed firearms against him because all the ammunitions and firearms in his body were unlicensed? Can the state charge him with serious illegal detention because he detained the children minors for a period of 12 hours? Can the state prosecute him for these crimes considering that he has been acquitted of the crime of terrorism? The answer is no more. The reason is provided for in section 49 of RA 9372, under section 49 of RA 9372, whenever a person is charged of an act under RA 9372 based on a valid complaint or information, sufficient information and substance to bring about and thereafter he is acquitted or the case is dismissed, he can no longer be subsequently prosecuted for any other felony or offense necessarily included in the crime charged. Such acquittal or dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution or any other offense or felony necessarily included therein. 153 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 THREE KINDS OF ARBITRARY DETENTION. Title Two CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE 1. Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground under Article 124 2. Arbitrary detention by failing to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authorities within 12,18, 36 hours under article 125 3. Arbitrary detention by delaying the release of prisoners despite the judicial or executive order to do so under article 126 Chapter One ARBITRARY DETENTION OR EXPULSION, VIOLATION OF DWELLING, PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS AND CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP ELEMENTS OF ARBITRARY DETENTION UNDER ARTICLE 124 Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion 1. Arbitrary detention is committed by any public officer or employee 2. Offender detains a person 3. Detention is without a valid ground ART. 124. Arbitrary detention. – Any (1) public officer or employee who, (2) without legal grounds, (3) detains a person, shall suffer; Under Article 124, arbitrary detention is committed by any public officer or employee. The second element requires that the offender detains a person and the third element that detention is without a valid ground. 1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded 3 days; 2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention has continued more than 3 but not more than 15 days; 3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than 15 days but not more than 6 months; and 4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded 6 months. Who is the offender? The offender is a public officer or employee. Not any public officer or employee can commit the crime. He must be a public officer or employee who is vested with authority to effect arrest and detain a person. Police officers, members of congress, judges, barangay captain they can be held for liable arbitrary detention. Even if the offender is a public officer or employee, if he acted in his private capacity, the liability is either under Article 267, serious illegal detention or 268 slight illegal detention. So in arbitrary detention, the offender must The 1. commission of a crime, or 2. violent insanity or 3. any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person. be a public officer or employees vested with the authority to effect arrest and detain a person. The second element requires that the said offender detains another. There is detention when the said offended party is in incarceration, in captivity or whenever there is restraint of his person or liberty. So the intent to restraint of his person or liberty must be manifest, evident or otherwise it could be any other crime but not arbitrary detention. When you say fundamental laws of the state it is the Constitution, because the Constitution is the highest law of the land. So the acts punished under title two are acts in violation of the Bill of Rights inscribed in our Constitution. The first among these is Arbitrary Detention. The third element requires that detention was without legal grounds. Detention is without legal grounds if detention is not based on a warrant of arrest or when the said offended party was arrested and his arrest does not fall under the circumstance of a valid warrantless arrest or when the said offended party is suffering from insanity or any other ailment which requires compulsory confinement. In all these instances, there is no valid ground for detention. 154 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 VALID GROUNDS FOR DETENTION was released. Are the arresting officers liable for arbitrary detention? Again the answer is no because there is no manifestation to detain the person. 1. Detention is by virtue of a warrant of arrest 2. If the detention is based on the circumstances of a valid warrantless arrest 3. If a persons is suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement Next question suppose we are in the latter part of book II, what crime then is committed by the arresting police officers? The arresting police officers are liable for grave coercion. He was being compelled to do something against his will. He was being compelled to admit to the commission of the crime against his will. So for arbitrary detention to lie there must be a manifestation on the part of the public officer to detain a person. Absent that, it could be any other crime but not arbitrary detention. What if the police officers were conducting a patrol and they saw X near the lamp post. X was a suspect for snatching cellphones and a person attested that he is always snatching cellphone. At the time the police saw him, he was just there near the lamp post. After which, he was arrested by the police officers and he was brought to the nearest police station. Thereafter, the arresting police officer said he must be investigated however the investigating officer was not around. So he was brought to the investigation room however, since the investigating officer was not around so the arresting officer told him that he needs to be investigated and that he can leave but he must make sure to come back for purposes of investigation otherwise if he does not come back the next time they see him they will kill him. So because of that, X would get out of the precinct and ask if the investigator is in but if the investigator is out he would again leave. Are the police officers liable for arbitrary detention? The arresting officers are not liable for arbitrary detention. The second element is wanting. There is no detention. He was not placed in captivity. He was not restrained of his person or liberty. Hence, it cannot be said that there is arbitrary detention. What if a driver entered a one way street? Despite the sign in the street that entry is prohibited he entered the street, and a traffic enforcer arrested him, placed him behind bars. That was in the morning. The police left. He came back in the afternoon and released the said person. Is the police officer liable for the crime of arbitrary detention? Yes. The police officer is liable for arbitrary detention. He is a public officer vested with authority to effect arrest. He detains a driver, the detention is without legal ground. Having violated LTO rules and regulations is not a valid ground for incarceration or being placed behind bars. Under the LTO rules and regulations he must only be given a ticket but that is not sufficient for him to be placed behind bars. Hence, the incarceration is without valid ground. The police officer is liable of arbitrary detention. The obvious intent is to detain him. What if we are in the latter part of book two. The next question if he is not liable for arbitrary detention, what then is the crime committed? The crime committed is grave threats. The crime committed by the said arresting officers was grave threats because they threatened to kill him if he will not come back. It is the fact that is imposed in him that if he does not come back to be investigated they will kill him. ART. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities121. - The penalties provided in the next preceding Article shall be imposed upon the (1) public officer or employee who (2) shall detain any person for some legal ground and (3) shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; 1. 12 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; 2. 18 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and 3. 36 hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. What if in the same problem, he was investigated by the investigator. The said investigator told him to admit the said commission of snatching cellphones but he will not do it. So the arresting police officer told him unless he will going to admit the crime he will stay in the precinct. Thereafter, he told the police officers and investigators that he will return after two hours asking X if he is ready to admit the commission of the crime, X however was firm he did not admit the said snatching and so he As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively. 121 155 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 transferred from one penal institution to another (Escapee) In every case, the person detained 1. shall be informed of the cause of his detention and 2. shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. The third element requires that the public officer fails to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authorities. ELEMENTS OF ARBITRARY DETENTION UNDER ARTICLE 125 The word DELIVER, delivery means legal, constructive delivery. It does not mean physical delivery of the body of the accused. It refers to delivery, the filing of the appropriate charge, information or complaint before the proper court. The delivery must be done with the proper judicial authority. 1. The offender is a public officer or employee 2. He detains a person for some legal ground 3. The said public officer fails to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authorities within 12 hours for the crime punishable by light felonies or their equivalent; 18 hours for crimes punishable by correctional penalties or their equivalent; 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive penalties or their equivalent Judicial authority refers to courts of justices, judges of courts that have the power to order the arrest of the offender or releasing of the person upon the posting of bail. Is the fiscal within the meaning of judicial authority? A fiscal a public prosecutor is not within the meaning of judicial authority. The fiscal doesn’t belong to the judiciary. The head of the fiscal is Secretary De Lima and the President and not Chief Justice Sereno. So the fiscal does not belong to the judiciary. Again, the offender is a public officer or employee vested with authority to effect arrest and detains a person. The second element requires that the offender arrest and detains a person for some legal ground. What are these legal grounds being referred to in Article 125? The legal grounds being referred to under article 125 are circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest. Note this does not differ to a circumstance wherein incarceration is by virtue of a valid warrant of arrest. Because if a person is arrested by virtue of warrant of arrest he need not be delivered to proper judicial authority. So the detention referred herein is by virtue of a valid warrantless arrest. The fiscal can only recommend bail. But the fiscal cannot accept the bail and order the release of the accused for temporary liberty. Only the judges are allowed to fix the bail and order the temporary liberty of the accused until upon the posting of the said bail. What if the crime committed of the person arrested is a violation of a special penal law? Is the arresting police officer mandated to follow article 125? Is the arresting police officer required to deliver the accused to the proper judicial authorities? Yes, because the law says “or their equivalent”. 12 hours, for crimes punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent. That means all their equivalent refers to their equivalent even in cases of violation of special penal laws. Therefore, even if the crime committed or the crime for which the offender is being arrested is based on violation of special penal laws, the arresting police officer has the obligation to deliver the person arrested to the proper judicial authorities in consonance with Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. So what are these valid warrantless arrest circumstances? Under section 5 of rule 113 of Rules of court, under the following circumstance, a peace officer may even without a warrant arrest a person: 1. That in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime (In flagrante Delicto) 2. When a crime in fact has just been committed and the police officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested is the one who committed the crime (Hot Pursuit) 3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee from a penal institution or a place where he is serving final sentence or temporarily detained while his case is pending or has escaped while being What if the police officers were conducting a patrol and they saw X in the act of stabbing Y. and so they arrested X, placed him behind bars. That was Friday evening. The following day, Saturday they could not file a case courts are closed. Sunday, courts are also closed. Monday was declared a special non-working holiday courts are close so the arresting police officers filed the 156 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 case Tuesday only 8 oclock in the morning. Are the police officers liable for arbitrary detention under article 125? No. The filing of the case, the delivery was made beyond 36 hours under Article 125. The police officers are not liable under article 125. The department of justice has issued an administrative circular interpreting 12, 18, 36 hours. These 12, 18, 36 hours refers to working hours. It refers only to time that courts are open to receive the complaint or information. So whenever the courts are closed to receive the complaint filed against them, you do not include that to the 12, 18 and 36 hours. for the director of prisons or jail warden to abide to such order will make them liable for delaying release. Example of an executive order issued for the release of a prisoner. After a preliminary investigation the fiscal finds no probable cause against the accused and the fiscal will order the release of the said prisoner, failure of the jail warden to do so will make them criminally liable under Article 126. What if a person is accused of two crimes? One is for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and the other is selling of dangerous drugs. The illegal possession of dangerous drugs is raffled to RTC Branch 6 and the selling of dangerous drugs is raffled in RTC Branch 83. In so far as illegal possession of dangerous drugs is concerned the fiscal failed to present any witnesses, the PDEA agent who tested the dangerous drugs did not appear, and so the judge provisionally dismissed the case and in the said order of dismissal the judge ordered the immediate release of the accused. The jail warden upon receipt of such order did not release the prisoner, is he liable of delaying release? The answer is no because he still has a pending case before Branch 83 and the case is selling of dangerous drugs which is a non-bailable offense. Therefore, even if the other case was already been provisionally dismissed the jail warden has all the right to continuously detain him because he is still holding trial for another case— sale of dangerous drugs. So the crime will only arise if the delay in the performance of the judicial order or the executive order of release is only without valid reason. ART. 126. Delaying release. - The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee 1. who delays for the period of time specified therein 1.1. the performance of any judicial or executive order 1.2. for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, 2. or unduly delays 2.1. the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or 2.2. the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person. ELEMENTS OF DELAYING RELEASE 1. Offender is a public officer or employee. 2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person. 3. Offender unduly delays the: a. Service of notice of such order to the prisoner b. Performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner c. Proceedings upon the petition for the release of such prisoner ART. 127. Expulsion. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, 1. shall expel any person from the Philippine Islands or 2. shall compel such person to change his residence. Expulsion is committed by any public officer or employee who expels any person from the Philippines or compels a person to change residence when in fact he is not authorized by law to do so. The crime will only arise when the said public officer or employee without valid reason delays the performance of the judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner. Therefore, if the said public officer has a reason for such non-performance to the said judicial order he cannot be held liable. ELEMENTS 1. Offender is a public officer or employee 2. He either: a. Expels any person from the Philippine b. Compels a person to change residence 3. Offender is not authorize do so by law An example of a judicial order for the release of a prisoner let say for example the judge because of the failure of the fiscal to produce any witness, the judge provisionally dismiss the case. In this case the judge will issue an order for the release of the accused. Failure 157 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 PERSONS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO EXPEL A PERSON FROM THE PHILIPPINES OR COMPEL A PERSON TO CHANGE HIS ADDRESS ELEMENTS 1. The offender is a public officer or employee 2. That he is not authorize by judicial authority to enter the dwelling of another 3. He enters the dwelling of another either: a. Against the will of the latter b. He searches papers or effects found therein without previous consent of such owner c. Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and being required to leave but he refuses to leave There are certain public officers or employees who are given the authority to expel a person from the Philippines or to compel a person to change his residence. 1. President who has the inherent deportation power, he can deport a person from the Philippines to another country. This power is exercised by the Bureau of Immigration as the alter ego of the President, they are authorized by law to do so. 2. A judge can compel a person to change his residence, for example a person who is convicted of a crime wherein the penalty imposed upon him is destierro where the convict is prohibited from entering a place entered in the judgment of the court. If the place where he is compelled not to enter is his place of residence, therefore he can be compelled to change his residence. So who may be the offender? The offender is a public officer or employee but not all public officer or employee can commit the crime. He must be a public officer acting under color of authority, that means that the public officer or employee has the authority, the power to implement a search but at the time of the search he is not armed with the search warrant. If the offender is a public officer or employee but he acted under his private capacity the crime is not violation of domicile rather it can be trespass to dwelling or trespass to property under Article 280 or 281. Section Two. Violation of domicile ART. 128. Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon (1) any public officer or employee who, (2) not being authorized by judicial order, 1. shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, 1.1. search papers or other effects found therein 1.2. without the previous consent of such owner, or 2. having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and 2.1. being required to leave the premises, 2.2. shall refuse to do so. So, in order for the crime of violation of domicile be committed the offender must be a public officer or employee acting under colors of authority. The second element provides that the offender is not authorized by judicial authority to enter the dwelling of another. Judicial authority means a judicial order, it is a search warrant. Before a public officer or employee may conduct a search he must present to the owner or the possessor of the house or the dwelling. If the 1. offense be committed in the night-time, or 2. if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. The third element provides for the ways of committing the crime of violation of domicile. 1. By entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter. 2. Searches papers or effects found therein without previous consent of such owner 3. Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and being required to leave but he refuses to leave. 158 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 FIRST ACT: By entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter. No. He is not liable for violation of domicile because the door is open. There is no prohibition or opposition to enter, hence it cannot be said to be against the will of the owner of the house. Second act is also not present he has not yet conducted a search. The third act is not also present since the door is open anybody can enter. The Under the first act, entry against the will means the act of entering which does not mean without the consent of the owner. Entry against the will means there is an opposition; there is a prohibition from entering. This opposition or prohibition can either be implied or express. moment the door is open, it means anybody may enter. It means anybody is welcomed to enter the said house. Therefore the said police officer is not liable for violation of domicile. 1. Implied Prohibition— an implied prohibition or opposition is when the door of the house is close, this means nobody is allowed to enter. 2. Express Prohibition—an express prohibition or opposition is when the said owner of the house told the public officer that he cannot enter the house, or when there is a note which states that “no entry” or no one is allowed to enter, these are express prohibition to enter. What if in the same problem the door is open, the police officer entered, he went to the second floor of the house and the owner saw him and asked him to leave. But the police officer did not leave but he stayed put in the house. This time, is the police officer liable for violation of domicile? Still, he is not liable for violation of domicile; there is no opposition to enter. The door is open therefore anybody can enter; therefore it is not an entry against the will. He has not yet conducted a search. SECOND ACT: Searches papers or effects found therein without previous consent of such owner What about the fact that he refuses to leave? The fact that he refuses to leave only annoyed the owner of the house. Therefore, there is no violation of domicile. Under the second act, the offender searches papers or effects found therein without previous consent of such owner. Even if the public officer is allowed to enter the dwelling by the owner of the house that doesn’t mean that he is also allowed to initiate the search, before conducting the search he must first seek the previous consent of the owner. Without the previous consent of the owner having granted him to search, any conduct of search would amount to violation of domicile. Permission to enter does not mean that it is also a permission to allow the public officer to conduct a search. Let us say we are in the latter part of book II, the second question is what is the crime committed? The crime committed is only unjust vexation, it is any act which would irritate or annoys the said owner of the house but it is not violation of domicile. The door of the house is close but it was not locked. The police officer who wanted to conduct a search open the door and having realized that it is not locked, he entered. Once inside the house before conducting a search the owner of the house saw the police officer and the owner of the house told him to leave and he left. Is the police officer liable for violation of domicile? Yes. He is already liable because the door is close, therefore there is an implied opposition to enter his entry therefore is against the will of the owner. The first act is already committed which constituted violation of domicile even if he left the house. THIRD ACT: Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and being required to leave but he refuses to leave Under the third act, it is necessary that the entry is done surreptitiously, entering surreptitiously mean that the entry is done candidly, secretly. It is not however mean that entering surreptitiously will give rise to violation of domicile; rather it is the refusal of the public officer to leave when the owner of the house discovered the entry and asked the public officer to leave after the surreptitious entry. The police officer knocked at the door, the owner opened it and allowed the police officer to enter. The police officer said they are looking for stolen car stereo in the area, and then the owner of the house said “you cannot conduct any search because you are not armed with a search warrant”. Nevertheless the police officer conducted a search. Are the police officers liable for violation of domicile? The door of the house is open and a police officer who wanted to conduct a search entered the house all the way to the second floor of the house. The owner of the house saw him and the owner told him to leave and he left. Is the police officer liable for violation of domicile? 159 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Yes they are liable for violation of domicile. Although they were permitted, allowed to enter the house, they were not allowed to conduct a search, they were not given consent to conduct a search. The owner of the house refused their conduct of search, hence such search is illegal in nature and they may be held for violation of domicile. A police officer has been conducting surveillance on the house of X, a well-known drug pusher. So one time it was the birthday of X, so the gate of the house and the door of the house were both open where guests can come in and out. The said police officer disguised himself as one of the guest so he entered together with the other guest. While inside the house he tried to look for the area to conduct a search, while his eyes is roaming around to look for the area where he should search, the owner of the house saw him and went after him and told him “I know you, you are the police officer in the area even if you are in disguise I recognize you, get out of my house right now” and the police officer left the house. Is the police officer liable for violation of domicile? He is not liable for violation of domicile; entry is not against the will. The gate and the door are open so anybody can enter. He is not yet in the act of conducting a search. The third act, his entry is done surreptitiously because he was in disguise; however the moment he was recognized and ordered to leave, he left. Hence, violation of domicile is not committed. If when he was ordered to leave but he never left, he can be held liable for violation of domicile. What if in the same problem the owner of the house told them that they cannot conduct search there is no stolen car stereo inside my house. And the police officers obeyed, and they are about to leave and did not proceed with the search but on their way out, they saw a table. The said table is near the door where they will pass by and it can be evident that there is a drug paraphernalia in the table. And so, before leaving the police officers ceased and confiscated the said drug paraphernalia. Are the police officers liable for violation of domicile? How about the drug paraphernalia, is it admissible as an evidence to be used against the owner of the house? The police officer is not liable for violation of domicile. The entry is not against the will, they were allowed to enter and they did not conduct the search because they were not given permission and they were about to leave. There is no violation of domicile, they did not conduct the search when they were not allowed to search by the owner of the house but they confiscated drug paraphernalia on their way out. Please note that this three acts are separate and distinct from each other so if the entry is against the will you need not answer the second and the third act. It suffices that entry is against the will, violation of domicile is already committed. Note that in the second problem that I gave he was allowed to enter but violation of domicile is still committed because he conducted a search without the precious consent of the owner. Are these drug paraphernalia admissible as evidence against the owner? Yes, because they were taken under the so-called ‘plain view doctrine’ under constitutional law. In your constitutional law you have studied under the bill of rights that even if they have not conducted a search, a police officer would see a contraband— drug paraphernalia is a drug per se. They saw drug paraphernalia; they are authorized mandated by law to seize this drug paraphernalia. Again, these three acts are separate and distinct from each other. The commission of any of these acts will already give rise to violation of domicile. If the said entry to the house of another is without being armed with a search warrant is done in the nighttime or any instruments or effects found therein which does not constitute as evidence, were not immediately returned that will be considered as circumstances to qualify the crime. Note, that they saw it inadvertently when they are not conducting a search. It is a different story if they conducted a search and they saw drug paraphernalia, they can be held liable for violation of domicile and the drug paraphernalia cannot be admitted as evidence against the owner of the house. The search was not conducted when they were about to leave, “hindi sinasadya, nakita sa table, drug paraphernalia” These police officers are authorized by law, mandated by law to seize the drug paraphernalia under the plain view doctrine, because they are contrabands in their very own eye. 160 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained . - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, 2. having legally procured the same, 2.1. shall exceed his authority or 2.2. use unnecessary severity in executing the same. owner of the house or any member of the family or any two persons residing in the same locality. In these four instances under article 129 and 130, even if the public officer is judicially authorized, or is armed with a search warrant, still violation of domicile is committed by the said public officer. A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the people of the Philippines signed by the judge directing for peace officer or public officers to search particular things stated in the particular address and to bring it before the court. ART. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon 1. a public officer or employee 2. who, in cases where a search is proper, 3. shall search the (1) domicile, (2) papers or (3) other belongings of any person, 4. in the absence of the 4.1. latter, 4.2. any member of his family, or 4.3. in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality. REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT: 1. The search warrant must be for one specific offense. 2. There must exist probable cause. 3. The probable cause must be determined personally by the issuing judge. 4. The issuing judge has determined probable cause through searching questions and answers under oath and affirmation in writing as the testimony named by the applying police officer or his witnesses. 5. The police officer and the witnesses must testify only as to facts personally known to them. 6. The search warrant must specify the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Article 128 punishes violation of domicile because the public officer in entering the dwelling of another and in conducting a search they are not armed with a search warrant. So these are the requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant. If any of this requisite is absent then the search warrant is procured without just cause. The search warrant was maliciously procured and a conduct of a search with a maliciously procured search warrant is akin to a search without a search warrant. Article 129 and 130 provides for instances wherein violation of domicile is still committed even if the public officer is armed with a search warrant. In the following instances violation of domicile is still committed in the conduct of a search. A police officer is said to exceed the authority of the search warrant when he goes beyond what is stated in the search warrant. UNDER ARTICLE 129 1. When the search warrant was maliciously procured without just cause 2. When the search warrant even if legally procured, the public officer exceeded the authority in the search warrant. 3. When the search warrant even if legally procured, the public officer exercised unnecessary severity in the implementation of the said warrant. A public officer is said to have exercised unnecessary severity in the implementation of the said warrant when in the conduct of the search he exercised such physically injurious or any acts which will not be in accordance with law. A police officer is mad at his neighbor B. So the police officer applied for a search warrant against neighbor B. he told the judge “Judge I am asking a search warrant, based on my surveillance there are dangerous drugs inside his house” and the judge believed him and so the judge issued a search warrant against B. Police officer A armed with a search warrant proceeded to the house UNDER ARTICLE 130 4. When the search warrant even if legally procured, the search was conducted in the absence of the 161 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 of B and showed it to B. B knew that it was an illegally procured search warrant, B knew it was procured without just cause because he knew that there is no dangerous drugs inside his house. Should B allow the police officer to conduct the search? Yes. Even if the said search warrant was maliciously procured still the owner should allow him to conduct the search because it has been issued by the judge in the exercise of his function. Hence it must be given respect. B should allow the police officer to conduct the search. So the police officer conducted the search. Pedro. And it was at 321 Balukbaluk Street. When the police officer went to the said place he knocked at the door and Pedro opened the door, and Pedro read the search warrant. And Pedro said, “I am Pedro but I have different address than that which is stated in the search warrant, therefore I am not allowing you to conduct a search inside my house” Nevertheless, the police officers proceeded with the search. They conducted a search and they found drug paraphernalia, they found dangerous drugs inside. So are the police officers liable for violation of domicile under Article 129? Are the evidence obtained in the house admissible in the court as evidence against the owner of the house? Yes they are liable for violation of domicile because they exceeded the authority in the said search warrant because the said search warrant stated that the said house is located at 123 but they conducted a search at 321. So what now is the remedy of B against the said police officer? B may file a motion to quash the search warrant or a motion to suppress the evidence in case pieces of evidence are found inside his house. Aside from this motion B can also file the following cases against police officer A. He may file a case for violation of domicile under article 129 because the search warrant is procured without just cause and second he can also file a case of perjury against the police officer because he testified falsely against him before the judge. The police officer perjured himself in order to be able to get a search warrant. Therefore, B may also file perjury against the police officer. The Supreme Court said, the search warrant is specifically stated. The police officers cannot exercise any discretion in the conduct of the search. Police officers have to follow the search warrant through the letter. If they go beyond from what is stated from the search warrant, they exceeded the authority in the said search warrant So here, having conducted a search different from the address stated in the search warrant, the police officers may be held liable for violation of domicile. Are you going to complex violation of domicile and perjury? Considering that without the forgery violation of domicile has not been committed, right? Without perjuring himself before the judge the police officer could not have been able to get the search warrant and conduct the search. Therefore, perjury is a necessary means to commit violation of domicile. Under Article 48, if an offense is a necessary means to commit the other, you complex the two. So are you going to complex it? No. Because even if they should be complex because the one is necessary to commit the other, Article 129 does not allow complexity of crime. It is expressly provided that the liability of violation of domicile is in addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other crime. Therefore, complexity of crime is prohibited by the law by Article 129 in case of violation of domicile. Are the evidence admissible against the owner of the house? No they are not because under the constitutional law they are considered fruits of the poisonous tree because it was confiscated after an invalid search therefore; these pieces of evidence, dangerous drugs are not admissible as evidence against the owner of the house. The police officers is armed with a search warrant and went to the house of A and showed the search warrant, A allowed them to enter the house and conduct the search. In conducting the search the police officers turned upside down each and every furniture and every appliance looking for dangerous drugs. The wife of the owner of the house could no longer control herself and so he told the police officer to stop because almost everything has already been broken but the police officer slapped the wife of the owner of the house. The wife suffered slight physical injuries and the furniture were destroyed. What crime or crimes may be filed by the owner of the house against the police officer? First, the police officer may be held liable for violation of domicile under Article 129 because they exercised unnecessary severity in the implementation of the search warrant. Third act has been violated. Not only A search warrant is issued against Pedro. It was stated that Pedro is living at 123 Balukbaluk Street. So the police officer went to the house of Pedro and knocked on the door, the owner of the house which is Juan opened the door he told to the police officer that “this is my address but I am not Pedro I am Juan, therefore I will not allow you to conduct a search inside my house” So the police officer asked Juan, where is the house of Pedro? And Juan pointed the house of Pedro to the police officer, so the police officer went to the house of 162 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 be held liable for violation of domicile and the evidence confiscated is inadmissible as an evidence for being fruits of poisonous tree. that, the owner of the house may also file malicious mischief because they deliberately caused damaged to the properties of the owner of the house. They are also liable for slight physical injuries because of slapping the owner of the house. Therefore they are liable for three crimes. Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings Should the owner of the house file separate charges of these crimes? Or should they complex them considering that malicious mischief and slight physical injuries are manifestation of the exercise of unnecessary severity in the implementation of the search warrant. Although malicious mischief and slight physical injuries are manifestation of the implementation of the search warrant it cannot be complex. Complexity of crime is prohibited by the law itself under article 129. Article 129 states that the liability for violation of domicile shall be in addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any crime. Therefore three cases should be filed separately, independently against the police officers. ART. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon 1. any public officer or employee who, 2. without legal ground, 2.1. shall prohibit or 2.2. interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or 2.3. shall dissolve the same. The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person 1. from joining any lawful association or 2. from attending any of its meetings. A search warrant was issued against A, so the police officers went to the house of A, together with them are two barangay tanods brought by the police officers. And upon reaching the house they showed to A the search warrant and they told A his wife and his children, you remain in the sala why we conduct a search inside your bedroom. So the police officers conducted a search inside the bedroom of A and it was witnessed by two barangay tanods residing in the same locality. Thereafter they found two plastics of shabu underneath the pillow in the bed. Are the police officers liable for violation of domicile? Are the two plastic sachets of shabu admissible as evidence against the owner of the house A? Yes, the police officers may be held liable for violation of domicile. Article 130 provides for a hierarchy of witnesses who must be present in the conduct of the search. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who 1. shall prohibit or hinder any person 2. from addressing, either alone or together with others, 3. any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances. ELEMENTS The offender must be a public officer and performs any of the following acts: 1. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same. 2. Hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings. 3. Prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for corrections of abuses or redress of grievances. First it must be witnessed by the owner of the house, If the owner of the house is absent, it must be conducted in the presence of any member of the family. If any of the members of the owner of the house is not present it must be witnessed by two persons coming from the same locality. So under Article 131 the intention of the offender is to prevent a person to exercise his rights under the Bill of Rights. To exercise his freedom of speech, freedom of expression or any freedom to join any lawful organization, his freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. So these are felonies that go against the rights installed in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, if the owner of the house is present he shall be the one to witness the conduct of the search. So in this case the owner of the house is present but he is not allowed to witness the search instead the barangay tanods witnessed the search. That did not cure their violation under Article 130, hence, the police officer may 163 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 For the crime to arise it is necessary that the meeting that has been dissolved or prohibited by the said public officer or employee must be a meeting that is peaceful and for a lawful purpose. If the meeting is not peaceful, unruly or illegitimate or for illegal purpose the public officer has all the right to dissolve, to prohibit the said meeting. He cannot be held liable for grave threats but rather he must only be held liable for interruption of religious worship. The fact that he used threat and threatened the priest will only aggravate the penalty to be imposed upon him; hence, it will not constitute a separate and distinct charge. The commission of the public officer of any of these acts would constitute a crime because the acts would be in violation of the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution. It is in violation of a personal freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to join a local association as well as the freedom to peaceably assemble. Since these acts would constitute a violation of these constitutional rights, they are made criminal in nature under Art 131. ART. 133. Offending the religious feelings. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon 1. anyone who, 1.1. in a place devoted to religious worship or 1.2. during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. Section Four. ELEMENTS Crimes against religious worship 1. Acts complained of were performed: a. In a place devoted to religious worship (It is not necessary that there is religious worship) b. During the celebration of any religious ceremony 2. Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. ART. 132. Interruption of religious worship. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who 1. shall prevent or disturb 1.1. the ceremonies or 1.2. manifestations of any religion. It is committed by any public officer or employee or private individual who performs acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. And the said acts is performed either in the place dedicated to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony. If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Interruption of religious worship is committed by public officers or employee and there is a religious ceremony or a manifestation of any religion that is ongoing or is about to take place and the offender prohibits or interrupts the same. Who is the offender in offending the religious feelings? Article 133 is the only crime under title 2 wherein the offender is both a public officer or employee and a private individual. From Article 124 to Article 132 the offender is always a public officer or employee, but in Article 133 it may be committed by a public officer or employee and also a private individual. If the said act of prohibiting or interrupting is done by means of violence or by means of threats. The use of violence or threats shall not constitute a separate and distinct crime but rather they shall aggravate or qualify the crime of interruption of religious worship. The second element requires that the offender performs acts which are notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. When you say acts that are notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful it refers to the ritual, the dogma, the belief of a religion, and the offender attack, slaps of the said dogma of the religion or attempt to damage the object of veneration of the said religion. There is a mass to be celebrated, here comes a public officer who does not belong to the same religion so the police pointed a pistol to the priest and said that “if you are going to conduct a mass I will kill you” so the priest did not proceed in the conduct of the mass so the patrons inside the church left. So what is the crime committed if there is any? Is he liable aside from interruption of religious worship for grave threats because he threatened to kill the priest? 164 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Legal luminaries are one in saying that for it to be said a notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful it must offend the feelings not only a particular religion but all kinds of religion if the same happens to them. The third element is also present, the crime or act was done in a place devoted to religious worship, a Catholic church. Therefore, there is no need that there is a religious ceremony ongoing. It suffices that the said acts were notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful were performed in a place devoted to religious worship. The third element provides that the said act must be performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during celebration of any religious ceremony. The law uses the disjunctive word “or.” Therefore, when the act is committed in a place devoted to religious worship, it is not necessary that there be a religious ceremony ongoing. It suffices that it be committed in a place devoted to religious worship. At the PICC there is this art exhibit, among the arts exhibited is the painting of Jesus Christ and there was a thing (condom) attached in the face of Jesus Christ. It was a controversy before. Is the artist or painter liable under Article 133? The artist is not liable under Article 133, although it offended the feeling of the Catholics, PICC is not a place devoted to religious worship and the said art exhibit is not a religious ceremony, hence, the crime under Article 133 is not committed by the said offender. X, a private individual, went inside a Catholic church. He went near the altar, and then thereafter saw the crucifix, the symbol of Jesus Christ. He put down the said crucifix, he stepped on it and then thereafter, with the use of a lead pipe, he broke the same. Then he went to the tabernacle, he opened the same realizing that it was not closed. He took the chalice that contains the host which are being received by the Catholics as the representation of the body of Christ during the Holy Communion. He spread and poured the host on the floor, then he spat on them and stepped on them. Is A liable under Art 133, offending religious feelings? The offender is a private individual, the act was said to be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the Catholic. There was causing of damage to Jesus Christ and to the body of Christ which are venerated by the Catholics. Is the act notoriously offensive to the feelings of the people? I would say yes because if the same acts would be done on the object of veneration of the Muslims, Buddhists, they would also feel offended. Therefore, it is notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful because it will apply to any religion. 165 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Title Three CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 4. Chapter One REBELLION, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY 5. 6. ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed 1. by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government 2. for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, 2.1. the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, 2.2. of any body of 2.2.1. land, 2.2.2. naval or 2.2.3. other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. 7. 8. 3.2.2. communications network, 3.2.3. public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, 6.1. belonging to the military or police or 6.2. holding any public office or employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. Coup D’etat is committed when any person who is a member of the military or the police or those holding public office or employment with or without civilian support commits a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, or any public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power of the government turned out singly or simultaneously in any part of the Philippines for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. ELEMENTS 1. That there be: 1.1. Public uprising, and; 1.2. Taking of arms against the Government 2. Purpose of uprising or movement is either to: 2.1. Remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws 2.1.1. The territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or: 2.1.2. Any body of land, naval or other armed forces, 2.2. Deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, any of their powers or prerogatives The essence of rebellion is an armed public uprising. So aside from public uprising there must be the taking of arms. The essence of Coup D’état is there is a swift attack against the duly constituted authorities committed by the military, police or those holding public office or employment. Coup D’etat v. Rebellion Civilian support is not an element in case of coup D’etat whereas civilian support is a necessary element in rebellion because rebellion is a crime of the masses it involves a multitude of people. Whereas, coup d’état does not involve a multitude of people it suffices that it is committed by the military, the police or those holding public office or employment. ART. 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed122. - The crime of coup d'etat is 1. a swift attack 2. accompanied by 2.1. violence, 2.2. intimidation, 2.3. threat, 2.4. strategy or 2.5. stealth, 3. directed against 3.1. duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or 3.2. any 3.2.1. military camp or installation, What if in the course of commission of rebellion or in the course of commission of coup d’etat common crimes such as killing of person, murder, homicide, burning of houses, assault, inflicting of physical injuries had been committed by the participants to the said rebellion. What case or cases should be filed against the offender? As amended by R.A. 6968, October 24, 1990 and is now considered as acts of terrorism under R.A. 9372 122 166 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Only one case that is rebellion or coup d’etat. Under the theory of absorption in rebellion common crimes which are committed in furtherance of, incident to or in connection to the crime of rebellion or coup d’etat are considered absorbed in these crimes. Therefore, there is no separate and distinct charge for murder, homicide, physical injuries or arson. They are absorbed in the commission of the crime of rebellion or coup d’etat. charge. It will not be considered absorbed in the crime of rebellion. A was among the participants in a rebellion, he was arrested, and he was arrested in the act of killing another person in the course of rebellion. What crime or crimes should be filed against him? The crime to be charge against A is rebellion. The killing is absorbed by the crime of rebellion under the theory of absorption in rebellion because obviously the said killing was done in connection with the commission of rebellion. What if, the crime committed by the participant in the said rebellion is a violation of a special penal law? Violation of PD 1829 Obstruction of justice, so a participant concealed and harbored another rebel. Is violation of PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice also absorbed in the crime of rebellion? A police officer was on his way home. While on his way home a member of the NPA saw him, and then the NPA followed him and then thereafter the NPA shot him, the police officer died. What is the crime to be charge against the said person? Yes, according to the Supreme Court in the case of Enrile vs. Amin123, in this case during the time of Cory Aquino, Senator Enrile was charged with many cases, rebellion, murder, multiple frustrated murder and violation of PD 1829 because he harbored then Col. Gringo Honasan now Senator Honasan. So he was charged with many cases, Supreme Court said, only one case and it should be rebellion because the murder, multiple frustrated murder and even violation of PD 1829 a special penal law are all committed allegedly by him in furtherance of rebellion. Hence they are absorbed in the crime of rebellion under the theory of absorption in rebellion. The said person will be charge the case of murder. He contended that he is liable for the crime of rebellion and not murder. Supreme Court in a case in your book, appropriate charge should be murder and appropriate conviction should be murder. Supreme Court said there is no evidence showing in what way the said killing has promoted the ideals of the NPA. Mere membership in a rebel group like NPA, mere self-serving testimony that the killing is done to foster the ideals of the rebels will not suffice. There must be additional evidence to show in what way the said killing has promoted the ideals of the NPA. Absence of such evidence the appropriate charge and conviction is murder. So, even violation of special penal laws if they are committed in furtherance of rebellion they are also absorbed. Before however the theory of absorption in rebellion may lie in favor of the offender, it is necessary that there is evidence to show that the said killings, the said infliction of physical injuries the said burning of houses committed in furtherance to or in connection with rebellion. There must be an evidence to show in what way that the commission of these common crimes had promoted, espoused and fostered the ideas of the accused. Absence of such connection between the common crime and rebellion or coup d’etat as the case may be, then it will constitute a separate and distinct There was an armed encounter between the members of the military and members of the NPA in Lanao Del Norte. It was an armed encounter and so there was an exchange of gunfire. As a result one public officer died and several others were fatally wounded. Reinforcement arrived, the NPA’s were arrested. They were charged with murder and multiple frustrated murder. The NPA filed their counter-affidavit; they contended that they should be charged with rebellion not murder. They stated that what happened is not an ambush but rather an armed encounter where there The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending that harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable under a special law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised Penal Code; hence, prosecution under one law will not bar a prosecution under the other. This argument is specious in rebellion cases. In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the prosecution’s theory must fail. The rationale remains the same. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. Thus: “This does not detract, however, from the rule that the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. xxx (People v. Hernandez, supra, at p. 528) The Hernandez and other related cases mention common crimes as absorbed in the crime of rebellion. These common crimes refer to all acts of violence such as murder, arson, robbery, kidnapping etc. as provided in the Revised Penal Code. The attendant circumstances in the instant case, however, constrain us to rule that the theory of absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. (Ponce Enrile vs. Amin, 189 SCRA 573, G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990) 123 167 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 was exchange of gunfire’s. Despite their confession, the fiscal of Lanao filed a case of murder and multiple frustrated murder. And so, before the arraignment of the case the members of the NPA who were the accused filed a motion to quash or to dismiss the said information of murder and multiple frustrated murder. Should the said information for murder and multiple murder be quashed? In that case the RTC of Lanao denied the said motion to quash and so the case reached the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. What did the Supreme Court said? The Supreme Court said that the appropriate charge should be murder and multiple frustrated murder. Supreme Court said the hearing is still in its initial stage, therefore no evidence has yet been presented by the defense in order to show in what way the said killing and wounding has fostered and promoted the ideals of the NPAs. Absent that evidence, the charge would be murder and multiple frustrated murder. Can violation of Articles of War be absorbed in the crime of Coup D’etat? In the case of Gonzales vs. Abaya124, Trillanes and company where charged before the RTC the crime of coup d’etat and in the Military Court particularly in violation of Articles of War particularly acts unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. While the case was in trial, they filed a motion before the RTC of Makati contending that violations of Articles of War is already absorbed in the crime of coup d’etat, the RTC of Makati granted the motion saying that indeed violation of Articles of War is absorbed in the crime of Coup D’etat. The case reached the Supreme Court, Supreme Court said the RTC was wrong, according to the Supreme Court; coup d’etat cannot absorb violation of the Articles of War. The theory of absorption in rebellion and Coup d’etat would lie only in cases which could be heard by the same court. Supreme Court further said if let us say the case was put into trial, murder and multiple frustrated murder and then during the trial of the case the defense presented evidence that indeed it was committed for purposes of rebellion. It refers only to cases or crimes which are under the jurisdiction of the same court. In this case, the crime coup d’etat is under the jurisdiction of civilian court RTC of Makati, whereas violation of the Articles of War is only under the jurisdiction of the Military Court. Violation of Articles of War cannot be heard, it is not within the jurisdiction of any civilian court, hence, coup d’etat cannot absorb violation of articles of war. Therefore Supreme Court said what the fiscal should do is to withdraw the case for murder and multiple frustrated murder and add a new case of rebellion in consonance with the evidence presented by the defense. So the initial case to be filed is murder and multiple frustrated murder. Further Supreme Court Said violation of Articles of War is sui generis, it is a crime on its own, nothing compares it, no one is the same as violation of the Articles of War hence, unlike any other law it cannot be absorbed by coup d’etat or rebellion. So before a person may be charged with rebellion absorbing the commission of common crimes, it is necessary that there must be an evidence to show in what way the commission of the common crimes has promoted, espoused or fostered the ideals of the accused. 124 There is no merit in petitioners’ argument that they can no longer be charged before the court martial for violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War because the same has been declared by the RTC in its Order of February 11, 2004 as “not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d’etat,” hence, triable by said court (RTC). The RTC, in making such declaration, practically amended the law which expressly vests in the court martial the jurisdiction over “service-connected crimes or offenses.” What the law has conferred the court should not take away. It is only the Constitution or the law that bestows jurisdiction on the court, tribunal, body or officer over the subject matter or nature of an action which can do so. And it is only through a constitutional amendment or legislative enactment that such act can be done. The first and fundamental duty of the courts is merely to apply the law “as they find it, not as they like it to be.” Evidently, such declaration by the RTC constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and is, therefore, void. (Gonzales vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 445, G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006) 168 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat125. - Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. There is proposal to commit rebellion when a person who decided to commit rebellion proposes its execution to some other person or persons. The same way in the manner of committing conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. ART. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees . The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees 1. who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or 2. shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or 3. shall accept appointment to office under them. Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period. ART. 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. - The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon 1. any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, 2. shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in Article of this Code, 3. by means of 3.1. speeches, 3.2. proclamations, 3.3. writings, 3.4. emblems, 3.5. banners or 3.6. other representations tending to the same end. Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the command of unknown leaders, 1. any person who in fact 1.1. directed the others, 1.2. spoke for them, 1.3. signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or 1.4. performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat. ELEMENTS ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. - The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00). 1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the Government. 2. He incites others to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for any of the purposes of the rebellion 3. The inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of rebellion and they decide to commit it. As amended by R.A. 6968, October 24, 1990 and is now considered as acts of terrorism under R.A. 9372 125 169 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 139. Sedition; How committed. - The crime of sedition is committed by persons 1. who rise 1.1. publicly and 1.2. tumultuously 2. in order to attain by 2.1. force, 2.2. intimidation, or 2.3. by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects: What is the essence of sedition? What is the gravamen of sedition? The gravamen of sedition is a public uprising against what the government wants to implement, it is akin to any protest, any rally. Illustration: There is a new law; let say the TRO of the RH Bill has been lifted. And then those against the RH Bill held rally, they were against the implementation of the RH Law, if they carried out this rally in such a way that it disturbs public peace and order. In such away it is done by force or intimidation or any other unlawful methods it is now considered as a seditious act. 1. To prevent 1.1. the promulgation or execution of any law or 1.2. the holding of any popular election; 2. To prevent the (1) National Government, or (2) any provincial or municipal government or (3) any public officer thereof 2.1. from freely exercising its or his functions, or 2.2. prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee; 4. To commit, 4.1. for any political or social end, 4.2. any act of hate or revenge against 4.2.1. private persons or 4.2.2. any social class; and 5. To despoil, for any political or social end, 5.1. any person, 5.2. municipality or province, or 5.3. the National Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof. So just like rebellion, in sedition, there must also be public uprising, so again, it is a crime of the masses. There must be public uprising, it involves multitude of people but unlike rebellion, sedition does not require that the said uprising must be with the use of arms. It only requires public uprising but does not require that there be use of arms. It suffices that the said uprising must be done tumultuously that is carried out by means outside the legal methods. And if you will look in the purposes of sedition, if the purpose of rebellion is to overthrow the government and replace it with the government of the rebels, the purpose of sedition is either political or social in nature. The purpose of sedition is not to overthrow the government, not to destabilize the government. The purpose of sedition is to go against what the government wants to implement, to go against what the government wants to enforce, or to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon any public officer, or employee or national government or any local government. These are the purposes of sedition. Sedition is committed when there is public uprising done tumultuously and it is done by means of fraud, force, intimidation or by any other means outside the legal methods for any of the following purposes: So the purpose of sedition can either be political or social in nature. Sedition is a crime of protest and dissent against what the government wants to implement. It is a crime of protest or dissent against lawful authorities, against superior authority, that is sedition. 1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; 2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee; 4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and 5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government of all its property or any part thereof. So sedition is just like an ordinary rally except that it is committed through unlawful means. Hence, it will become a seditious act. The intention in case of sedition is not to overthrow the government. The intention is to prevent the government from promulgating something or that is to promulgate or to uphold. So the intention in case of sedition is not primarily political in nature it can also be social in nature. 170 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 140. Penalty for sedition. - The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos. 2.5. which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or 2.6. to disturb 2.6.1. the peace of the community, 2.6.2. the safety and order of the Government, or 2.7. who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices. Other persons participating therein shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos. ART. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. - Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. There is no such crime as inciting to coup d’etat but there is a crime as inciting to sedition. Inciting to sedition is committed by an offender who is not a party to sedition incites others to uprise for the purposes of sedition and the said inciting is done by the said speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end. ELEMENTS Conspiracy to commit sedition is committed when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of sedition and decide to commit it. But, there is no such crime as proposal to commit sedition. ART. 142. Inciting to sedition126. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, 1.1. should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, 1.2. by means of 1.2.1. speeches, 1.2.2. proclamations, 1.2.3. writings, 1.2.4. emblems, 1.2.5. cartoons, 1.2.6. banners, or 1.2.7. other representations tending to the same end, or 2. upon any person or persons 2.1. who shall 2.1.1. utter seditious words or speeches, 2.1.2. write, 2.1.3. publish, or 2.1.4. circulate scurrilous libels against the Government (of the United States or the Government of the Commonwealth) of the Philippines or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or 2.2. which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or 2.3. which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or 2.4. which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or 126 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, etc. 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace. 3. Writing, publishing, or circulating, scurrilous libels against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace. Who is the offender in inciting a rebellion? Inciting sedition? Whether it be inciting to rebellion or sedition the offender must not be a participant to the rebellion or sedition. Because if he is a party to a rebellion or sedition then the appropriate charge is sedition or rebellion as the case may be and not merely inciting rebellion or inciting to sedition. So he must not be a participant, he merely incites others to uprise for any of the purposes of rebellion or sedition. Inciting to rebellion the offender induces people to rebel against the government, in proposal to commit rebellion a person also induce another to rebel against the government. How then they differ? From proposal to commit rebellion distinguish from inciting to rebellion? Reinstated by E.O. No. 187, June 5, 1987 171 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Only attempted coup d’etat. There is no separate and distinct charge of illegal possession of unlicensed firearm under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294. Inciting to Rebellion v. Proposal to Commit Rebellion In case of inciting to rebellion the person who incites has not yet decided to commit rebellion whereas in proposal to commit rebellion the offender already decided to commit rebellion and he proposes its execution to another. In case of inciting to rebellion the inducement is done publicly whereas in case of proposal to commit rebellion the inducement is done secretly. A shot B. A was arrested B died. A, in committing the act of killing be used an unlicensed firearm. What case or cases should be filed against A? Only one case and that is homicide and the use of unlicensed firearm shall be a special aggravating circumstance. Under PD 1866127 as amended by RA 8294 if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, attempted coup d’etat such use of unlicensed firearm shall be absorbed in the commission of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition or coup d’etat. There is only one charge, rebellion, sedition or attempted coup d’etat. There is no separate and distinct charge for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm, it is absorbed. So if the act committed with the use of unlicensed firearm is any act of killing, whether it be homicide, whether it be murder, whether it be parricide, whether it be infanticide all acts of killing the use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered a special aggravating circumstance as provided for under PD 1866 as amended. In PD 1866 as amended the law says that when homicide or murder such use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Why it is a special aggravating? A was among the participants in a rebellion, he was apprehended then he was frisked, he was searched and an unlicensed firearm was found in his possession. What case or cases should be filed against A? Rebellion. The act of possessing unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Because the Supreme Court said so. According to the Supreme Court in People vs. Malinao128 the use of an unlicensed firearm in the act of killing shall be considered a special aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. A is a participant to sedition and he has arrested, he was found in possession of unlicensed firearm while participating in the said sedition. What case or cases should be filed against A? Only one case that is sedition. Sedition is the only charge because the use of unlicensed firearm is considered as absorbed in the crime of sedition. In the case of People vs. Mendoza129 the Supreme Court said that the word murder is used in its generic sense therefore it includes parricide and all other kinds of killing wherein the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. So as long as the unlicensed firearm is used in killing a person, it is a special aggravating circumstance. What if there is a participant in attempted coup d’etat he was arrested and an unlicensed firearm was found in his possession. What case or cases should be filed against him? What if the crime committed is another crime? Not homicide, not murder, not parricide, not rebellion, not Further Amended by R.A. 10591. SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable 127 because under R.A. No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in a murder or homicide case is considered simply as a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of homicide or murder and no longer treated as a separate offense in its aggravated form. It should be noted however that in either case, whether for illegal use of firearm in its aggravated form under P.D. No. 1866 as discussed in the Barros case or whether Murder or Homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the imposable penalty is death. (People vs. under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. Malinao, 423 SCRA 34, G.R. No. 128148 February 16, 2004) The word “homicide” used in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is to be understood in its generic sense as to include murder and parricide. (People vs. Manalang, 170 SCRA 149 [1989]) (People vs. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, G.R. Nos. 109279-80 January 18, 1999) 129 If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense. Applied to the present case, appellant may not now be convicted of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form by considering the commission of Murder or Homicide as an aggravating circumstance 128 172 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 sedition, not attempted coup d’etat. What if in the case of People vs. Ladjaalam the crime committed with the use of unlicensed firearm is direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. Can both cases prosper? Yes, both cases can prosper. Direct assault with multiple attempted homicide and also illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. Court means that there is conviction by final judgment brought about by successful prosecution or a judicial admission. In the case of Celino Sr. the Supreme Court said your motion to quash the information should be denied because according to the Supreme Court you are only being accused of having committed violation of COMELEC gun ban. You are not yet convicted for violation of COMELEC so both cases can still prosper. It is only upon conviction by final judgment of the violation of COMELEC gun ban that the said conviction for illegal possession unlicensed firearm must be set aside. Both cases will prosper, however, the moment there is conviction by final judgment in the case of direct assault with multiple homicide, the conviction for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm the Supreme Court said must be set aside. So the proper term is, it must be set aside. Yes, the Supreme Court also affirmed the conviction on unlicensed firearm; however, that conviction must be set aside. UPDATES The same thing happened in the case of Sison vs. People130. The said woman was raped, at gun point. So while she was being raped a gun was pointed at her, and so the charged filed was kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape and also illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said the illegal possession of unlicensed firearm conviction must be set aside, however the use of unlicensed firearm shall be considered a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape. Hence, the conviction made by the Supreme Court in this case is qualified rape under Article 266-B under the RPC because the said rape was committed with the use of unlicensed firearm. What if the offender who is a participant in the rebellion was arrested and then thereafter was frisked, he was bodily searched, and a .45 caliber pistol was found on his waist, he was asked to produce the license, he could not produce any license as well as permit to carry. What crime/s are committed by the said offender? What about in the case of Celino Sr. vs. People131 and also in the case of Escalante vs. People in both cases the accused were charged with violation of gun ban and the other charge is illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. Will both cases prosper? Yes it will both prosper. However, the Supreme Court said the moment there is conviction for the violation of COMELEC gun ban then the conviction for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm must be set aside. What if the offender was found in possession of these unlicensed firearm in a sedition? So the offender was a participant in the sedition, in a protest carried out outside the legal methods against the government. So the offender was found as a participant in a seditious act. He was frisked, he was searched and a .45 cal pistol was found in his possession without license and permit to carry. What crime/s are committed by the said offender? The Supreme Court interpreted the term “was committed” under Section 1of PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 the law says that a person can only be convicted of simple possession of illegal firearms provided that no other crime was committed. The phrase “was committed” according to the Supreme PD 1866 has been amended by RA 8294 which provides that, if the use of an unlicensed firearm is in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’ etat, such use of unlicensed firearm shall be absorbed as an element of the crime. What if in the same problem the offender was a participant in coup d’ etat, in an attempted coup d’ etat against the government. And the said offender was bodily searched, frisked and a .45 caliber pistol was found in his possession. It has no license, it has no permit to carry. What crime/s are committed by the said offender? “other crime” is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. (Celino, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 526 SCRA 130If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (Sison vs. People, 666 SCRA 645, G.R. No. 187229 February 22, 2012) “x x x A simple reading [of RA 8294] shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the 131 195, G.R. No. 170562 June 29, 2007) 173 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Chapter Two But PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, was further amended by RA 10591, which was approved last year, May 29, 2013. CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION Section One. Crimes against legislative bodies and similar bodies Under these new laws, RA 10591 Sec 29 (2) if the use of a loose firearm is in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection or attempted coup d’ etat, such use of loose firearm shall be absorbed in the crime of rebellion, insurrection or attempted coup d’ etat. Note that the crime of sedition had been deleted. ART. 143. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the Assembly and similar bodies132. - The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon 1. any person who, 1.1. by force or fraud, 1.2. prevents the meeting 1.2.1. of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or 1.2.2. of any of its committees or subcommittees, 1.2.3. constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or 1.2.4. of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board. Therefore, it is only the commission of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or attempted coup d’ etat that the use of a loose firearm shall be considered as an element of the crime. If the offender committed the crime of sedition, and he was found in possession of a loose firearm, then this use of loose firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The reason is that under Sec 29 (1) it is provided that when the use of a loose firearm is inherent in the commission of the crime, whether it is a crime punishable under the RPC or crime punishable by SPL, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In case of acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress, it is committed when there is a projected meeting of the Congress, or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or divisions thereof or any of the provincial board or city or municipal council or board and the offender who may be any person prevents such meetings either by force or by fraud. But if the crime was committed without the using the loose firearm, the loose firearm shall constitute a separate and distinct charge. ELEMENTS So again note, based on RA 10591, amending PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, in fact under the repealing clause of RA 10591, Section 1 of PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 had been totally repealed. Under this new law, it is only when the loose firearm is in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, that shall be considered as absorbed in the said crimes. Sedition is no longer included. 1. That there be a projected or actual meeting of the Congress of the Philippines or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or divisions thereof, or any of the provincial board or city or municipal council or board. 2. Offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud. Who is the offender? The offender is any person. The offender may be a public officer or employee or even a private person as long as he prevents the meeting by force or fraud he becomes liable under Article 143. So if the offender who is a participant in the crime of sedition was found in possession of a loose firearm, if the loose firearm was inherent in the commission of the crime, it shall constitute as a special aggravating circumstance. But if the said loose firearm has nothing to do with the commission of the crime, it will constitute a separate and distinct charge. 132 Reinstated by E.O. No. 187, June 5, 1987 174 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 144. Disturbance of proceedings133. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who disturbs the meetings of 1.1. the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) or 1.2. of any of its committees or subcommittees, 1.3. constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or 1.4. of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board, or 2. in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such manner as 2.1. to interrupt its proceedings or 2.2. to impair the respect due it. farmers and they arrested them. Aside from being cited in contempt of court, are they criminally liable? They are liable under Art 144. There is a meeting, a session of Congress ongoing and the offenders behaved in such a manner as to interrupt the proceedings or impair the respect due to the said Congressmen. The farmers are liable under Art 144. Section Two. Violation of parliamentary immunity ART. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity134. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall use 1.1. force, 1.2. intimidation, 1.3. threats, or 1.4. fraud 2. to prevent any member of the National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) 2.1. from attending the meetings of 2.1.1. the Assembly (Congress) or 2.1.2. of any of its committees or subcommittees, 2.1.3. constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, 2.2. from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and 3. the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon 3.1. any public officer or employee who shall, 3.2. while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special session, 3.3. arrest or search any member thereof, 3.4. except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor. ELEMENTS 1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or divisions thereof or any of the provincial board or city or municipal council or board 2. The offender commits any of the following acts: a. Disturbs any of such meetings. b. Behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner so as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it. What if there is a senate committee hearing about the illegal use of the pork barrel some Senators and Congressman. So resource persons were invited, there were also audience who are listening. While Senator A was asking the resource person suddenly five women from the gallery stood up and held up a banner saying “NO TO PDAF” they shouted no to PDAF several times, the security forces of the senate arrested them. Aside from being cited in contempt these five women persons has been prosecuted for violation of Article 144 Disturbance of Proceedings. They can be held liable for disturbance of proceedings because they behave in such a manner as to incur the respect due the said senate committee hearing and also disturbed the said proceeding. There was this session ongoing in the House of Representatives, a bill has to be passed saying there will be an extension of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And there was this votation ongoing as to whether it will be extended or not. Suddenly, a group of farmers who served as audience in the gallery stood up, they raised a placard and they shouted at the same time “no to the extension of the CARP law!” They shouted the same several times. The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives went to the group of 133 There are two kinds of violation of parliamentary immunity. There are two acts punish under Article 145. One is punish by prision mayor then the other one is punish by prision coreccional. The first act punish of prision mayor is (1) when the said offender who can be any person prevents any member of Congress from attending its meeting, expressing his opinion or casting his vote. The offender can be any person, the moment he prevents a member of Congress from expressing his opinion, casting his vote or from attending his meeting he becomes liable for violation of parliamentary immunity. Reinstated by E.O. No. 187, June 5, 1987 134 175 As amended by Commonwealth Act No. 264, April 22, 1938 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 penalty higher than prision mayor. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death therefore, since the crime he has committed carries a penalty higher than prision mayor, then the said Congressman may be arrested anytime even if Congress is in its regular or special session. In so far as the second act is concern, the offender can only be a public officer or employee. The (2) second act of violation of parliamentary immunity is committed by any public officer or employee. Who shall arrest, or search any member of congress while Congress is in session or special session. When the crime committed by the said member of Congress is penalized by a penalty not higher than prision mayor. Congressman A was charged with attempted homicide. The judge found probable cause and a warrant of arrest was issued against Congressman A. The police officers looked for Congressman A but they could not locate him so they decided to serve the warrant of arrest inside his house on Christmas day. So they went on December 25 on the house of Congressman A and they arrested Congressman A. Are the police officers liable under Art 145, violation of parliamentary immunity? The police officers are liable under Art 145 for violation of parliamentary immunity. Congress was in its regular session even if they were on Christmas break. Congress was in its regular session despite the break because these breaks constituted only recess of Congress but they’re still on the regular session. Second, the crime committed is attempted homicide, the penalty for attempted homicide is only prision correccional which is not beyond prision mayor. Therefore, the police officers in arresting Congressman A, would be liable for violation of parliamentary immunity. Who is the offender? The offender is only a public officer or employee and he either arrest or makes a search of a member of Congress REQUISITES OF THE SECOND OF VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY 1. It is necessary that the crime of the said arrest or at the time of the said search , that member of Congress has committed a crime which is punishable by a penalty not higher than prision mayor 2. Congress is on its special or regular session. Senator A was charged with the crime of libel. So a private individual, a businessman against Senator A. The fiscal found probable cause and filed a case before the RTC. The RTC judge found probable cause and so, a warrant of arrest was issued against Senator A. The police officers, armed with the said warrant of arrest went to the halls of Congress and they went to the session hall of the senate and while attending the session, the police officers went to Senator A and they served the said warrant of arrest. They arrested Senator A. Are the said police officers liable for violation of parliamentary immunity under Art 145? They are liable for violation of parliamentary immunity under Art 145. Congress was in its regular session and the crime of libel is punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. It is not beyond prision mayor therefore, the public officers’ arrest of Senator A constituted violation of parliamentary immunity under Art 145. Chapter Three ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS ART. 146. Illegal assemblies. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon the organizers or leaders 1. of any meeting 1.1. attended by armed persons 1.2. for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or 2. of any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of 2.1. treason, 2.2. rebellion or 2.3. insurrection, 2.4. sedition or 2.5. assault upon a person in authority or his agents. Congressman A was charged with the crime of double murder. And so the RTC found probable cause on this crime of double murder filed against Congressman A. The court issued a warrant of arrest. The police officers upon the receipt of the warrant of arrest went to the session hall of congress and there they arrested Congressman A. Are the police officers liable for violation of parliamentary immunity under Art 145? They are not liable for violation of parliamentary immunity under Art 145 because although the arrest was done while Congress is in its regular session, the crime committed by the said Congressman A carries a Persons merely present at such meeting shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, 1. unless they are armed, 2. in which case the penalty shall be prision correccional. 176 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, 1. it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting, 2. insofar as he is concerned, 3. is to commit acts punishable under this Code, and 4. he shall be considered a leader or organizer of the meeting within the purview of the preceding paragraph. A MEETING IN WHICH THE AUDIENCE, WHETHER ARMED OR NOT, IS INCITED TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF TREASON, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION, SEDITION OR ASSAULT TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY. ELEMENTS 1. There is a meeting, gathering or group of persons, whether in a fixed placed or moving. 2. The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault. As used in this article, the word "meeting" shall be understood to include a gathering or group, whether in a fixed place or moving. A MEETING ATTENDED BY ARMED PERSONS FOR COMMITTING ANY OF THE CRIME PUNISHABLE UNDER THE RPC. In either kind of illegal assembly the offenders can be both the leaders, and the organizers of the said assembly as well as persons merely present at the said meeting. ELEMENTS A, B and C all armed gathered 20 people in order to propose to them the commission of simultaneous bank robberies around Metro manila. So A, B and C met these people in a secluded place, they propose this idea to these 20 people. And they all agreed to commit simultaneous bank robberies on a particular day and time. After their agreement here comes the police, the police arrived because they got a tip that there is that agreement on-going. The police officers arrested A,B,C and the 20 persons. Are they liable of illegal assembly? Yes they are liable for illegal assembly there is this meeting and the said meeting was attended by armed persons A,B,C and the purpose is to commit robbery. It is a crime a felony punishable under the RPC. All the elements are present therefore; they are liable for illegal assembly. 1. There is a meeting, a gathering, or group of persons, whether in a fixed placed or moving. 2. The meeting is attended by armed persons. 3. The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the Code. So the first element requires that there be a meeting, gathering of a group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving and it is necessary that it be attended by armed persons. What do you mean by armed persons? Armed persons mean that the said meeting must be attended by any person who are in possession of arms. When you say arms, it does not only mean firearms or pistols. It could be knives, lead pipes, or even stones. Anything which can be used to cause injury or violence on another that is considered as arms. I said in the problem that only A, B and C are armed the 20 men are not armed. Are these 20 men also liable? Yes, because if you will look into Article 146 the law says that persons who are merely present shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor unless they are armed the penalty will be prision correccional. So if they are not armed the penalty is lower only arresto mayor, but if they are armed the penalty is higher that is prision correccional. What would bring about the crime is when the audience is incited. Take note “is incited” to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault. What if in the same problem. The problem did not state that A, B and C are armed they gathered 20 persons for purpose of committing robbery and there was an agreement, the police arrived. Can they be held liable for any crime? This time no because what they have is conspiracy to commit robbery and there is no such crime as conspiracy to commit robbery. Here as you have studied in book I, 177 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 conspiracy is only a mode of committing a crime and it is not punishable, there is no such crime as conspiracy to commit robbery. In the first problem it only becomes illegal assembly because it was attended by armed persons. Under the first kind of illegal association, note that the intention in forming the said association is to commit a crime punishable under the RPC. In the second kind of illegal association the purpose is for committing any of the crimes which is in violation of public morals. Therefore even if the purpose intended by the association is to commit a crime that is fined or punished by a special penal law there is still illegal association if the said special penal law involves violation of public morals. A, B and C gathered 500 men and women in Quezon City and the purpose of A, B and C is to incite this people to rebel against the government because of the anomalies of the government. And so this 500 men arrived they seated and upon sitting, here comes Colonel X, Colonel X went to the platform and took the microphone and started inciting the people to uprise, go out of the streets, overthrow the government and because of his speech, his proclamation, the audience were indeed incited to commit rebellion. The police arrived they were all arrested. What is/are the criminal liability of A.B and C Colonel X as well as the 500 people? A, B, C and Colonel X as well as the 500 people are all liable for illegal assembly under Article 146, under the second act because the audience were incited to commit rebellion even if none of them is armed. Being armed is immaterial in the second act of illegal assembly. What matters is the audience is incited to commit rebellion or sedition. The jueteng lords of Southern Tagalog region. These jueteng lords met in a certain hotel and their purpose is to form an association and their objective is to propagate and to spread jueteng to the provinces despite the campaign of the government against jueteng. Their idea is to use minors as kubradors so that they could not be arrested or if arrested would soon be released and then in the said meeting they elected their officers, and so an association was formed. What crime is committed? Violation of Article 147 illegal associations the second form of illegal association because jueteng is an illegal gambling and jueteng is considered as against public morals. In case of illegal associations not only members are liable but also the founders, the president and organizers. How about Colonel X? Colonel X uses speech proclamation to incite the people to rebel, he is not a party to rebellion therefore the crime committed by Colonel X is inciting to rebellion. So those were the crimes committed. Chapter Four ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS ART. 147. Illegal associations. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon the founders, directors, and presidents 1. of associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code or 2. for some purpose contrary to public morals. Mere members of said associations shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. ART. 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, 1. without a public uprising 1.1. shall employ force or intimidation 1.2. for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or 2. shall 2.1. attack, 2.2. employ force, or 2.3. seriously intimidate or resist 2.3.1. any person in authority or 2.3.2. any of his agents, 2.4. while 2.4.1. engaged in the performance of official duties, or 2.4.2. on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, 1. when the assault is committed with a weapon or Under Article 147 we have illegal association, just like in illegal assembly there are, TWO KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION 1. Association totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code. 2. Associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals. 178 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 If you will notice whatever kind of direct assault there is no public uprising, because whenever there is rebellion, whenever there is sedition wherein a principal element is that there be a public uprising direct assault cannot be committed. An element which is inconsistent with each other. So in times of rebellion, in times of sedition, direct assault cannot be committed because rebellion and sedition requires public uprising whereas, direct assault does not require public uprising. 2. when the offender is a public officer or employee, or 3. when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be present , the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed. ART. 149. Indirect assaults. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall make use of 1.1. force or 1.2. intimidation 2. upon 2.1. any person coming to the aid of the authorities or 2.2. their agents 3. on occasion of the commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article. The first element of the second form of direct assault: offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance. If the person attacked is a person in authority it is not necessary that the attacked or force employed is serious, because if you were to look Article 148 the mere laying of hands to a person in authority already qualifies direct assault, hence the mere act of pushing a person in authority is already a direct assault because a hand has been laid to a person in authority. TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING DIRECT ASSAULT 1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition. 2. Without public uprising , by attacking, by employing force or by seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on the occasion of such performance. But if the subject of the assault is only an agent of person in authority the attacked or the force employed must be serious in nature so as to show defiance of authority. In case of intimidation, in case of resistance both must be serious to amount to direct assault. The second element provides that: person assaulted is a person in authority or an agent of persons in authority. So who are the persons in authority for purposes of Article 148 or 149? The answer is under Article 152. Under Article 152 the following persons are deemed to be persons in authority. The more popular form of direct assault is the second form. First, any person directly vested with jurisdiction whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation board or commission. ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT 1. Offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance. 2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or an agent of persons in authority. 3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent was (a) engaged in the performance of official duties or that the assault is done on (b) occasion of such performance of his official duty. 4. The offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties. 5. There is no public uprising. Second, a barangay chairman or a barangay captain is deemed to be a person in authority. Under the third paragraph Article 152 teachers, professors, persons in charge with the maintenance of public and duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on occasion of the performance of their professional duties are deemed to be persons in authority. So these are the persons who are deemed to be persons in authority. Now, you include under Article 3 Section 388 of the Local Government Code for purposes of article 148 and 179 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 of that person in authority pass performance of his official duty, direct assault is committed. But if at the time of the said assault the person in authority was not engaged in the performance of his official duty and the reason behind the assault was of personal motive a personal vendetta it is plain murder, plain homicide, plain serious physical injuries, and plain less serious physical injuries but not direct assault. 149 not only is a barangay captain or chairman but also the members of the Sangguniang Barangay and the members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa are considered as persons in authority within their jurisdiction. A barangay captain is always a person in authority in whatever jurisdiction but, a member of Sangguniang Barangay or a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa is a person in authority within his jurisdiction. Pag lumabas na siya sakanyang jurisdiction, hindi na siya person in authority that is in case of Sangguniang Barangay and Lupong Tagapamayapa. So when you say on occasion of such performance of official duty it means the assault was by reason of, because of the past performance of his official duty. It will only apply when the person in authority was assaulted while he is not in the performance of his official duty. How about agents of person in authority? Who are agents of person in authority? The answer is also under Article 152, under Article 152 second paragraph any person who by direct provision of the law by election or by appointment by competent authority is charge with the maintenance of public order and the protection of life and property such a councilman, a police officer or a person who comes to the aid of a person in authority are deemed to be agents of person in authority. The fourth element requires that: the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties. The third element provides that: at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent was (a) engaged in the performance of official duties or that the assault is done (b) on occasion of such performance of his official duty. Knowledge is important on the part of the offender because the essence of direct assault is defiance of authority. How can you say attacking another is defying authority when in the first place he did not know that the person he assaulted is a person in authority. Does that mean one has to memorize Article 152 to know who are persons in authority or agents of persons in authority? No. It suffices that at the time of the assault, that person, the victim was in the performance of his official duty. So there are TWO SITUATIONS under the third element. The fifth element requires that: there is no public uprising. Under the (1) first situation the person in authority or his agent was engaged in the performance of official duties. If at the time of the assault the persons in authority or his agent is in the performance of his official duties, it is always and always direct assault therefore, regardless of the motive behind the said act because the person in authority is engaged in the actual performance of his official duties. Whenever direct assault is committed and there is a resulting felony you always complex. Direct assault with the resulting felony. So these are said to be agents of person in authority. Direct assault is the reason behind the resulting felony If the victim died direct assault with murder or direct assault with homicide. You always complex it because the direct assault is the reason behind the resulting felony, hence they must be always complex except when the resulting felony is only a light felony like slight physical injuries. The (2) second situation is the assault is done on occasion of performance of official duty. When you say “is done on occasion of performance of official duty” it means that the attack was by reason of, because of the pass performance of his official duty. You cannot complex slight physical injuries with direct assault. First because under Article 48 you cannot complex a light felony right? You cannot complex a light felony under Article 48 and second, in case of direct assault slight physical injury is already absorbed. When you assaulted a person somehow definitely that person So if the person in authority or his agent at the time of the assault was not engaged in the performance of his official duty determine the motive behind the assault. If the offender assaulted the person in authority because 180 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 will be injured no matter how slight. Slight physical injury is absorbed in direct assault. What if in the same problem, X is a person who tried to obtain a loan from the mayor a day prior to the killing but the mayor denied his loan, therefore the reason of X for killing the mayor was of personal reason. He killed the mayor out of personal motive, out of personal vendetta. What is the crime committed? The crime committed is still qualified direct assault with murder. Note that the mayor was at that time engaged in the performance of his official duties, therefore regardless of the motive behind the assault it is always and always direct assault. What are the circumstances which would qualify direct assault? 1. Assault is committed with a weapon 2. The offender is a public officer or employee 3. Offender lays hands upon a person in authority The first qualifying circumstance refers to the use of weapon. Weapon refers to anything that can cause injury or harm; it does not only mean firearms. Knifes bolos lead pipes and anything which can cause injury. You do not consider the motive behind the assault the moment the person in authority or agents of persons in authority is engaged in the actual performance of his official duties. So same crime committed qualified direct assault with murder. A public officer attacking another public officer that will qualify direct assault. The first two qualifying circumstance would apply even if the person assaulted is either a person in authority or agent of persons in authority, but the third qualifying circumstance specifically states whenever the offender lays hand upon a person in authority. What if the mayor just heard the mass together with his family. The mayor was about to board the vehicle, here comes X on board of a motorcycle. X shot the mayor, the mayor died. X was a former employee of the mayor at the city hall who was dismissed due to anomalous transaction. What is the crime committed by X? In the problem the mayor was not engaged in the performance of his official duties. Since the mayor is not in the performance of his official duty you have to know the motive behind the assault. What is the motive behind the assault? The mayor’s past performance of his duty therefore the crime committed is direct assault. It is direct assault because the attack was done on occasion of the performance of official duty. The mayor died so it is direct assault with murder obviously there was treachery. The offender used a weapon, qualified direct assault with murder. So, laying of hands as a qualifying circumstance will only apply if the victim is a person in authority. If the victim is a mere agent of person in authority laying of hands will not qualify direct assault. The mayor is in his actual performance of his duty. The mayor was delivering a speech after the flag ceremony explaining something to his constituents. Here comes X, X was able to get near the mayor and then he fired shots at the head of the mayor. The mayor died, what is the crime committed? The mayor is in the actual performance of his duty he is a person in authority. Therefore, the crime committed is direct assault, the mayor died. Obviously in committing the crime, there is treachery; hence there is another crime of murder. So you complex direct assault with murder. Now in killing the said mayor, in assaulting the mayor, the offender makes use of a weapon, he used a firearm. What if in the same problem, this time, the reason of X for shooting the mayor after coming out of the church was that X was a former gardener of the mayor. In gardening he cut a forbidden rose, so he was discharged from the household chores. So the reason for the assault was a personal vendetta, in the assault he killed the mayor. What crime is committed by X? The mayor is not engage in the performance of his official duty. Know the motive, what is the motive? Personal vendetta. Therefore the crime committed is not direct assault but plain murder because obviously there was treachery. So if the person in authority or the agent is not in the performance of his official duty know the motive. If the person in authority or the agent is in the performance of his official duties always direct assault regardless of the motive. The judge has just rendered judgment convicting the accused in the case. So after the hearing the judge locked his chamber, the accused was brought out of the So what is the crime committed? Qualified direct assault with murder. So in the exam, what is the crime committed? Qualified direct assault with murder, second paragraph it is direct assault because, third paragraph, it is complex with murder because…Last paragraph; it is qualified because the offender used a weapon. So that is how you get perfect points. 181 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 chamber. Then the judge went out of the office, the accused saw the judge still filled with anger because of his conviction. The accused although was in handcuff went to the judge and box the face of the judge several times until the judge fell on the ground. Y saw the situation and so he came to the aid of the said judge. As a result the accused also got mad of Y and so the accused also box Y until the security guard arrived and the accused was arrested. What crime or crimes is/are committed by the accused against the judge and against Y the person who came to the aid of the said judge? As against the judge, the judge is a person in authority based on Article 52 3rd paragraph, so the judge is a person in authority. At the time of the assault he was not in the actual performance of his official duty, so know the motive. Obviously the motive of the said accused was because of the judge conviction against him, because of the judge performance of his official duty. Therefore the crime committed is direct assault. The judge suffered serious physical injuries, so you complex it with serious physical injuries because the direct assault was the reason behind serious physical injuries. So there is direct assault with serious physical injuries. Now, the said accused box the judge, therefore he laid hands upon a person in authority. Therefore the crime committed is qualified direct assault with serious physical injury. The police officer is manning traffic. Despite his presence, traffic was heavy, cars were not moving and so X one of the driver of a car caught in the traffic was so mad. He alighted from his vehicle and went directly to the police officer and boxed the police officer several times. The police officer fell on the ground. A pedestrian crossing the street saw the situation, so the pedestrian immediately went to help the said policeman. And so this angered X, so X thereafter, box the pedestrian. The police officer suffered less physical injuries while the pedestrian suffered slight physical injuries. What crime or crimes are committed by X? The police officer who was box was an agent of persons in authority who at the time of the assault was engage in the performance of his official duty, therefore the crime is direct assault. He suffered less serious physical injuries so you complex it so therefore Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries. Even if X laid hands upon him since he is a mere agent of persons in authority it will not qualify direct assault. So as against the police the crime committed is direct assault with less serious physical injuries. What about as against Y, the person who come to the aid of the judge? Who is the victim of direct assault? It is the judge a person in authority. When Y came to the aid of this person in authority who is the victim of direct assault. Under Article 152 he becomes an agent of persons in authority. What about the pedestrian? Who was the subject of the assault? The subject was an agent of persons in authority. A pedestrian came to his aid. When the pedestrian came to his aid he did not become an agent of person in authority, he remains to be a private individual, hence when he too was assaulted the crime committed as against him is indirect assault under Article 149 of the RPC. The said pedestrian suffered slight physical injuries again you cannot complex it because it is a light felony and it is considered as absorbed. Therefore as against the pedestrian it is indirect assault. So Y, when he came to the aid of the judge becomes an agent of persons in authority. When the accused attacks Y he attacks an agent of person in authority. Under Article 148 when you assault an agent of persons in authority the crime committed is direct assault. So the crime committed as against Y who came to the aid of the judge who is a person in authority is direct assault under article 148. Now, Y suffered only slight physical injury, it is absorbed in the crime of direct assault. So you now ask, how come under Article 149 INDIRECT ASSAULT the ELEMENTS are: 1. A person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault. 2. A person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent. 3. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the authority or his agent. So only one crime that is direct assault. But isn’t it that the accused laid hands upon Y? Yes but the said laying of hands will not qualify direct assault because Y is only an agent of persons in authority. How come in the problem in so far as the judge is concern the person who comes to his aid the crime committed as I said is direct assault not indirect assault. The reason is because Article 152 was amended by Congress without amending Article 149. So what are the crimes committed as against the judge? Qualified direct assault with serious physical injuries. As against Y, the crime committed is direct assault. Congress amended Article 152 by saying that one who came to the aid of the person in authority becomes an 182 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 agent of person in authority without correspondingly amending Article 149. What about the crime committed by the driver with respect to the pedestrian who came to the aid of the MMDA officer? When the MMDA officer was being mauled by the driver, a pedestrian came to his aid. When the pedestrian came to the aid of the MMDA officer who is an agent of a person in authority, a victim of Direct Assault, he remains to be a private individual. When he too was assaulted by the driver, the crime committed by the said driver is Indirect Assault. The pedestrian suffered only Slight Physical Injuries therefore you cannot complex it. It being a light felony. It is absorbed in the crime of Indirect Assault. In so far as the pedestrian is concerned, the crime committed by the driver is Indirect Assault. So, if there is inconsistency what should you do according to the rules on statutory construction? You reconcile the two, in reconciling Article 149 and Article 152, indirect assault will only apply if the victim of direct assault is a mere agent of person in authority and someone came to his aid and that someone was also assaulted. The crime committed against that someone is only indirect assault. The MMDA officer stopped the driver of the car who beat the red light. The vehicle stopped the MMDA officer went to him. The MMDA officer will be issuing a ticket to him so he asked for his license so that he can get his name but the driver instead of giving his license alighted from the car and without warning boxed the MMDA officer several times until the MMDA officer was already lying on the ground. A pedestrian passing saw the incident, the public officer being attacked, and so this pedestrian came to the aid of the MMDA officer. He tried to stop the drive from pursuing his attacks on the MMDA officer. So the driver got mad at the pedestrian, he kicked the pedestrian thereafter he boarded the vehicle and left. The MMDA officer suffered Serious Physical Injuries while the pedestrian who was kicked suffered Slight Physical Injuries. What crime or crimes were committed by the said driver? The MMDA officer is an agent of person in authority. He is deemed an agent of person in authority because he is charged by provision of the law or by appointment of a competent authority to maintain order and the protection of life and security. So he is deemed an agent of a person in authority. So again under Article 149, Indirect Assault would only result if the victim of the direct assault is an agent of a person in authority, and someone came to his aid and that someone was also subjected with force and intimidation by the offender. The crime committed is indirect Assault. If the victim of Direct Assault is a person in authority and someone came to his aid that someone is deemed an agent of a person in authority. So when that someone is also assaulted, he being deemed an agent of a person in authority, Article 149 do not apply instead it is Article 148 because an assault upon an agent of a person in authority is Direct Assault under Article 148. Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme embarrassment. In class the following day, Mariano approached MissbReyes and without any warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (BAR 2013) Mariano is liable for two counts of direct assault135. He was attacked by the driver in the performance of his official function. Therefore the crime committed against the MMDA officer is Direct Assault. The MMDA officer suffered Serious Physical Injuries by reason of the said assault therefore you have to complex it so the crime committed is Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries. Even if the offender laid hands on him, it will not qualify Direct Assault because he is a mere agent of Person in Authority. Laying of hands qualify Direct Assault only if the victim is a person in authority. So in so far as the MMDA officer is concerned the crime committed is Direct Assault with Serous Physical Injuries. 135 First, when he slapped Miss Reyes, who is a person in authority expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the RPC, who was in the performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. Second, when he repeatedly punched Dencio, who became an agent of the person in authority when he came to the aid of a person in authority, Miss Reyes. Celig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010. 183 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Explained further crime committed by Mario in so far as Pedro is concerned is also Direct Assault. In so far as Ms. Reyes is concerned, Ms. Reyes was a teacher in the performance of her official function. Therefore under Article 152, third paragraph, Ms. Reyes is considered as a person in authority. At the time of the assault she was engaged in the performance of his official function. Therefore, the crime committed by Mario was Direct Assault. Article 149 Indirect Assault only applies if the victim of Direct Assault is a mere agent of Person in Authority and someone came to his aid, and that someone was subjected to force employed by force and intimidation by the offender. If the victim of Direct Assault is a person in authority, Article 149 will not apply because that someone who came to the aid of the person in authority who is the victim of Direct Assault under Article 152 is deemed to be an agent of a Person in Authority. Mario slapped the teacher and the teacher suffered Less Serious Physical Injuries, a less grave Felony; therefore, he should be charged with Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries, Mario when he slapped the face of the teacher, Mario laid hands upon the said person in authority; therefore the crime committed is Qualified Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries. The reason for this conflict is that congress amended Article 152 without likewise amending Article 149, and so it is provided in Statutory Construction that when there are two conflicting provisions what you do is that you reconcile. Therefore, Article 149 with Article 152, in order for Direct Assault to arise it is necessary that the victim of Direct Assault is only an agent of a person in authority and someone came to his aid. That someone who came to the aid of an agent of a person in authority who is the victim of Direct Assault remains to be private individual, when he too was attacked, when he too was assaulted, the crime committed is Indirect Assault. How about the crime committed by Mario in so far as Pedro is concerned? When Ms. Reyes was being attacked by Mario, Pedro came to the aid of Ms. Reyes, the moment Pedro came to aid of Ms. Reyes, under Article 152 2nd paragraph, Pedro became an agent of a person in authority. Pedro is deemed an agent of a person in authority. Pedro being deemed as an agent of a person in authority, when he too was being boxed by Mario, Mario committed the crime of Direct Assault because under Article 148, an attack on an agent of person in authority is considered as Direct Assault; hence, Mario also committed Direct Assault against Pedro who was deemed to be an agent of a person in authority when he came to the aid of Ms. Reyes, a person in authority, who was a victim of Direct Assault. ART. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon 1. any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the 1.1. National Assembly, (Congress), 1.2. its special or standing committees and subcommittees, 1.3. the Constitutional Commissions and 1.4. its committees, 1.5. subcommittees, or 1.6. divisions, or 1.7. before any commission or committee chairman or 1.8. member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or 2. being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, 2.1. refuses to be sworn or 2.2. placed under affirmation or 2.3. to answer any legal inquiry or 2.4. 2.4.1. to produce any 2.4.1.1. books, Pedro suffered Slight Physical injuries, a light felony, therefore it cannot be complexed with Direct Assault. It is absorbed by Direct Assault. Mario laid hands upon Pedro deemed to be an agent of a person in authority. Such laying of hands will not qualify Direct Assault because laying of hands will only qualify Direct Assault if it is made on a Person in Authority. Therefore, in so far as Pedro is concerned the crime committed by Mario is Direct Assault. But why is the crime committed by Mario, in so far as Pedro is concerned. Why the crime is committed Direct Assault? Why not Indirect Assault? The reason is that under Article 152 2nd paragraph, any person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is deemed to be an agent of a person in authority and under Article 148 an attack on an agent of a person in authority is also Direct Assault. Hence, in that case, the 184 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2.4.1.2. papers, 2.4.1.3. documents, or 2.4.1.4. records in his possession, 2.4.2. when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. 3. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person 3.1. who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or 3.2. who shall induce 3.2.1. disobedience to a summon or 3.2.2. refusal to be sworn by any such body or official. charged in the hospital, so therefore he has a valid, a legal excuse for not appearing. Under the second act the offender receives the summon and he appeared during the said hearing, however, once he is asked to raise his hand in order to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth he refuses to be sworn he also becomes liable under Article 150. Under the third act punished, he appeared, he allowed himself to be sworn in, however when the Senate chair or members began asking questions he began saying that he does not know or he does not want to answer any of this questions then he became liable under Article 150. A Senate hearing about anomaly in the DENR. And one of the person who got an invitation, a summon from the Senate Committee Chair was X. X received the summon however, upon receipt of the summon he immediately suffered hypertension and he was brought to St. Lukes Hospital. So on the day of the said hearing he was not able to appear. Is he liable under Article 150? The answer is no because he has a valid excuse he has a legal excuse for not appearing in the said committee hearing. What if he refuses to answer because his answer would incriminate him into the commission of the crime. What if he is being asked to produce a book but the producing of the book will incriminate him for the commission of the crime, is he liable under Article 150? The answer is no, because under your constitution bill of rights “no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself” therefore if the production of the said books, if the said answer to the question would incriminate the said person then he has all the right not to answer the said questions. So under Article 150 the following acts are considered as disobedience to summons issued by Congress. 1. Refusing without legal excuse, to obey summons of the Congress, its special or attending committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional commissions and its committees, sub-committees or divisions, or by any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses. 2. Refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or constitutional body or official. 3. Refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. 4. Restraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body. 5. Inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official. Under the fourth act, the offender restrain another from attending as a witness, he does not only want not to appear to the said hearing he also restrains other persons who are being invited by the said committee hearing not to appear. And fifth act he induces disobedience to a summons. ART. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who 1. not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles 2. shall resist or seriously disobey 2.1. any person in authority, or 2.2. the agents of such person, 3. while engaged in the performance of official duties. These acts are punished under disobedience to summons. When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender. Under the first act for one to be liable under Article 150, it is necessary that he has no legal excuse for his disobedience to the said summons. In the problem that I gave the said person who received the summon was 185 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 There was this fiesta and there was this singing contest. There were so many audience. While the singing contest was ongoing. Suddenly here comes Mang Pedro who went on stage, he was shouting and shouting. He had taken a bottle of beer and he kept shouting and shouting, roaming around the stage. Police officer X who was manning the said event in order to ensure Peace and Order went to Mang Pedro. He ordered Mang Pedro to go home. Mang Pedro, instead of obeying police officer X, Mang Pedro sat on the floor. Mang Pedro just sat on the stage looking at the audience. Is Mang Pedro liable of any crime? Mang Pedro is liable under Article 151 that is simple disobedience. Article 151 punishes two acts we have resistance and serious disobedience. And the other one is simple disobedience. In the problem that I gave the person who gave the order was only an agent of person in authority , the police officer the offender disobeyed him he just sat on the near the canal it is not serious disobedience, Hence crime committed is simple disobedience. ART. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such136. - In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, 1. any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an 1.1. individual or 1.2. as a member of 1.2.1. some court or 1.2.2. governmental corporation, 1.2.3. board, or 1.2.4. commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. 2. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. TWO ACTS PUNISHED 1. Resistance and serious disobedience 2. Simple disobedience. ELEMENTS OF SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE 1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender. 2. The offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent. 3. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of Arts. 148, 149, and 150. A 1. person who, 1.1. by direct provision of law or 1.2. by election or 1.3. by appointment by competent authority, 2. is charged with 2.1. the maintenance of public order and 2.2. the protection and security of life and property, 3. such as a 3.1. barrio councilman, 3.2. barrio policeman and 3.3. barangay leader and 3.4. any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE 1. An agent of person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender. 2. The offender disobeys such agent of person in authority. 3. Such disobedience is not of a serious nature. The act of Mang Pedro disobeying an order made by an agent of a person in authority police officer X cannot be considered as serious in nature. When ordered to go home, he just sat on the stage in front of the audience. Such disobedience is not serious in nature, hence, he is liable under Article 151 2nd paragraph Simple Disobedience. In applying the provisions of articles 148 and 151 of this Code, 1. teachers, 2. professors and 3. persons charged with the supervision of 3.1. public or duly recognized private schools, 3.2. colleges and 3.3. universities, and Note that in Article 151, 1st paragraph, in case of Resistance and Disobedience the order may be given either by a Person in Authority or an Agent of a Person in Authority. But in case of Simple Disobedience, the order is given only by an agent of a person in authority. As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985 136 186 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 4. lawyers 4.1. in the actual performance of professional duties or 4.2. on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. What are the acts punish under tumults and other disturbance of public orders? their ACTS PUNISH UNDER TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC ORDERS 1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment 2. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or gatherings or peaceful meetings if the act is not included Arts. 131 and 132 3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting association or public place 4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public disorder in such place. 5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. Chapter Five PUBLIC DISORDERS ART. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a 1.1. public place, 1.2. office, or 1.3. establishment, or 2. shall interrupt or disturb 2.1. public 2.1.1. performances, 2.1.2. functions or 2.1.3. gatherings, or 2.2. peaceful meetings, 3. if the act is not included in the provisions of articles 131 and 132. So these are the five acts punished as tumults and other disturbance of public orders. Under the first act: Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment. The act of causing such disturbance must be planned, there must be the deliberate intent to cause disturbance, otherwise, Article 153 is not committed Under the second act: Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or gatherings or peaceful meetings if the act is not included Arts. 131 and 132 The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character. There is a qualification “if the act is not included in Articles 131 that is Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings and 132 Interruption of Religious Worship. The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous 1. if caused by more than three persons 2. who are 2.1. armed or 2.2. provided with means of violence. There was this rally in EDSA, the rally in EDSA was against the pork barrel and it was attended by private individuals and public officer and by many people. Then suddenly X went to the stage and took the microphone and as the leader, he began attacking the use, the anomalous use of pork barrel by Congressmen’s, by Senators. And he also begun attacking the pork barrel of the President but he went beyond the limit, he also attacked the president below the belt saying personal things negative to the president. One of the public officers in attendance heard this and that is not the reason why he is there, he is there for purposes of the pork barrel, he was against the pork barrel but he was not against the President. And so what he did, he told person X, to stop. When X did not stop he brought out his gun and fired shots in the air so the meeting was dissolved. The meeting was interrupted, the meeting was disturbed. What crime or crimes are committed by The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon 1. any person who in any 1.1. meeting, 1.2. association, or 1.3. public place, 2. shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or 3. in such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public order. The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed P200 pesos shall be imposed upon these persons who in violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. 187 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 A person is said to be legally executed when he committed a heinous crime wherein the penalty prescribe by law is death, death penalty was imposed on him because he was convicted and the said death penalty has to be implemented and so he died by lethal injection. Now after his death he was being buried as if he was a hero, with all the extravagance of a hero, then it is considered as violation of Article 153 because if this criminal is buried as if he was a hero it will arose public sympathy against the government as if the government has committed a grave mistake in killing or legally executing this person. You cannot bury this person as if he is a hero with all the extravagance otherwise Article 153 is violated. the said public officer? Is the public officer liable under Article 131? Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings or under Article 153 that is tumults and other disturbances of public order. How would you distinguish Article 131 and Article 153? Articles 131 and 132 can be committed only by public officers or employees, whereas Article 153 Tumults and other disturbances of public order can be committed both by public officers or employees and private individuals. So what if the offender is a public officer? How would you distinguish if the crime committed is Article 131 or Article 153? If the offender is a public officer the crime commited is Article 131 if the said public officer is not a participant in the said meeting. The public officer must be an outsider in so far as the said meeting is concern. If the said public officer is one among those who participated in the said meeting then the crime committed is violation of Article 153. ART. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who by means of (1) printing, (2) lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news 1.1. which may endanger the public order, or 1.2. cause damage to the interest or credit of the State; 2. Any person who by the (1) same means, or by (2) words, (3) utterances or (4) speeches 2.1. shall encourage disobedience 2.1.1. to the law or 2.1.2. to the constituted authorities or 2.2. praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law; 3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document 3.1. without proper authority, or 3.2. before they have been published officially; or 4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed (1) books, (2) pamphlets, (3) periodicals, or (4) leaflets 4.1. which do not bear the real printer's name, or 4.2. which are classified as anonymous. Another distinction, in case of Article 131 the intention of the offender is to prevent a person from freely exercising his freedom of speech, freedom of expression whereas, under Article 153 the intention of the offender is to cause disturbance to public order. In the example the public officer is a member was a participant of the said meeting or assembly therefore, the liability is under Article 153 not Article 131. The third and the fourth act making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting association or public place related to the fourth act and that is, displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public disorder in such place. Unconscious outburst of emotion In both acts, it is necessary that the act of making an outcry the act of displaying placards or emblems must be some unconscious outburst of emotion not intentionally calculated to incite the people to rebellion or sedition because if the act of the offender is intentionally calculated to incite the people to rebel against the government then the crime committed is inciting to rebellion or inciting to sedition and not under Article 153. So it must be an unconscious outburst of emotion not intentionally calculated to incite the people to commit sedition or rebellion. A newspaper provides or has stated in its headline tomorrow at exactly 12:00 noon the biggest mall in the country, Mall of Asia, will be bombed. Because of this headline, the people believed and the no persons went to MOA, and so as a result thereof there was decrease in sales. The economy was affected. No foreigners also arrived on that day because they believed what was The last act punish is: Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. 188 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 written as headline in the said newspaper. The publisher of the newspaper knew that it was false news but nevertheless they published the said newspaper because they have already printed it. Is the said publisher of the leading newspaper liable under Article 154, Unlawful Use of Means of Publication? The said publisher is liable under Article 154 Unlawful Use of Means of Publication. Under the last act punish, it is necessary that whenever you make printing it must contain the real printers name and it must not be classified as anonymous. Even if it is classified as anonymous then Article 154 is violated. So you will notice during election time there would be this publication by members of those candidates there is always at the bottom the name of the publisher, the name of the printer because otherwise they can be held liable under Article 154. ACTS PUNISHED ART. 155. Alarms and scandals. - The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. By publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State. 2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches. 3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially. 4. Printing, publishing or distributing books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s name, or which are classified as anonymous. 1. Any person who within any town or public place, 1.1. shall discharge any 1.1.1. firearm, 1.1.2. rocket, 1.1.3. firecracker, or 1.1.4. other explosives 1.2. calculated to cause alarm or danger; 2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in 2.1. any charivari or 2.2. other disorderly meeting 2.2.1. offensive to another or 2.2.2. prejudicial to public tranquility; 3. Any person who, 3.1. while wandering about at night or 3.2. while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or 4. Any person who, 4.1. while intoxicated or otherwise, 4.2. shall cause any disturbance or scandal in public places, 4.3. provided that the circumstances of the case shall not make the provisions of article 153 applicable. The problem that I gave falls under this first act. The publisher of the said newspaper knew that their news was false news but nevertheless they published the same causing damage to said interest or damage to the state. As such, they are liable under Article 154. Let us say that the RH Law is already been enforced by the government and there is this group of people giving leaflets to any person who gets out of the church, and these leaflets encourages the people, tells the people not to follow the provisions of the RH bill. Can these people be held liable under Article 154? The answer is yes by encouraging disobedience to the law. The said law has been enacted by Congress it has to be followed. If you are questioning a law go to the Supreme Court, but it must be followed because it has been enacted by Congress and it has been approved by the President. PUNISHABLE ACTS 1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place calculated to cause alarm or danger. 2. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility. 3. Disturbing public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements. 4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided Article 153 is not applicable. Therefore, provided that it is not Under the third act punished, in case of official resolution or document note that for the publication of this official resolution to be punishable under Article 154 it must be done maliciously. Therefore, if there was no malice on the part of the offender in publishing the said official resolution then the crime is not committed. 189 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 serious in nature, because if it is serious in nature the violation is Article 153 not Article 155. The intention of the offender is to cause disturbance of public peace and order. said bar exams but in real life you should just patiently ignore the irritating voice. A person was drunk so from a drinking spree he is now on his way home. He is not in his own self he is singing on his own his way home. But what if aside from singing he took hold a bat and he would bang all the gates of the house repeatedly, all the gates of the house? He would pass-by he would bang he becomes liable for alarms and scandals because he causes disturbance of public peace and tranquility. Provided that it is not serious in nature otherwise Article 153 is the one violated. There were so many people in the park here comes X, X went in the middle of the park where this people are having merry making and then thereafter X pulled out his firearm and fired shots in the air. The people were so afraid. What crime is committed? The crime committed is alarms and scandals; the intention is to disturb public peace and order. What if in the same problem, there were so many people in the park X went there, when X went there he saw his enemy Y so he pulled-out his firearm and with intent to kill he shot Y, Y however was not hit. What crime is committed by X? X is liable for attempted murder. Even if Y is not hit, the fact that he fired the said firearm with intent to kill there is already an attempted felony because the said charging the said firearm with intent to kill against Y is an overt act directly connected to murder. Therefore the crime committed is attempted murder. Alarms and Scandals under Article 155 is a light felony. The penalty under the law is only Arresto Menor. But note even if the penalty is only of Arresto Menor, it being a light felony, the offender convicted of Alarms and Scandals cannot avail the benefit of probation under P.D. 968 because among those disqualified to avail the benefit of probation is any person who has been convicted of the crime involving public order. Alarms and Scandals under Title 3 is against public order is one such penalty, even if the penalty prescribe by law is a light penalty of Arresto Menor. The offender has to execute the said sentence. He cannot avail of the benefit of probation. What is charivari? It is a mock serenade. When you do a serenade for the ladies, you use guitars you put your best foot forward, you make good music in order to encourage the said woman. However when it is charivari, instead of using musical instrument we make use of broken cans kettles, therefore, what is produce instead of music is noise. You are creating noise disturbing public peace and order. Crime committed is alarms and scandals. ART. 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period or prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein or 2. shall help the escape of such person, by means of 2.1. violence, 2.2. intimidation, or 2.3. bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed. What if you have a neighbor and it was the birthday of your neighbor and your neighbor rented a videoke and then your neighbor together with the guest is singing on top of their voice. So it was okay, however it was already 3 o’clock in the morning, all guest were gone only your neighbor is singing on top of his voice. You cannot sleep the voice was so ugly irritating to the ears. So you cannot sleep you are so irritated. Can the said person be held liable for alarms and scandals? Yes it is disturbance of public peace and tranquility. It is only for purpose of the bar and the exam, who is liable under alarms and scandals? But in real life do not file a case of alarms and scandals because you will just be wasting your time. If the escape of the prisoner 1. shall take place outside of said establishments 2. by taking the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period. So under Article 156 that is delivery of prisoners from jail. It is committed when there is a prisoner convicted by final judgment or a detention prisoner but who must be in jail or in a penal institution and the offender removes or helps in the escape of the prisoner. The penalty for alarms and scandals is only arresto menor, it is a light felony. So it is just waste of time, waste of money of paying a lawyer because you are irritated by the said voice. It is only for the purpose of 190 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ELEMENTS Chapter Six EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE 1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment 2. That the offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such person ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon 1. any convict who shall evade service of his sentence 2. by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. Who is the prisoner being referred to under Article 156? He can be a detention prisoner or prisoners convicted by final judgment. Prisoners convicted by final judgment are those serving in Muntinlupa in the new bilibid prison. Detention prisoners those in the city jail, Manila City Jail, Quezon City Jail or those in the Municipal Jail, Provincial jail they are merely detention prisoners. Detention prisoners are not yet convicted by final judgment, hence, they are still presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In case of delivering prisoners from jail the prisoner can either be a detention prisoner or a prisoner convicted by final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place 1. by means of unlawful entry, 2. by breaking (1) doors, (2) windows, (3) gates, (4) walls, (5) roofs, or (6) floors, or 3. by using (1) picklocks, (2) false keys, (3) deceit, (4) violence or (5) intimidation, or 4. through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period. Who is the offender who may commit the crime? The offender can be any person he can be a public officer or employee, he can be a private individual, he can be an insider in the penal institution, he can be an outsider to the said penal institution except the custodian. In case of evasion of sentence the offender is a prisoner convicted by final judgment and he must be serving a sentence which involves deprivation of liberty and the said offender evades the service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. The custodian cannot commit delivering prisoners from jail because in so far as the custodian is concern when he helps in the escape of the prisoner the liability is infidelity in the custody of prisoners under Article 223. The government entrusted upon him the custody of the said prisoner and therefore the moment he helps in the escape of a prisoner there is breach of trust and confidence repose by him by the authorities. Hence crime committed will be infidelity in the custody of prisoners under Article 223 and not delivering of prisoners from jail under Article 156. Article 156 is the crime committed by the person who assist in the escape of the prisoner or those who removes the prisoner from jail. What about the crime committed by the prisoner who is removed from the penal institution? Or what is the crime committed by said prisoner who escapes from the penal institution? If the prisoner is a prisoner convicted by final judgment, he becomes liable under Article 157. Article 157 punishes Evasion of Service of Sentence. The circumstances which may qualify the penalty in delivering of prisoners from jail are: If the said act of helping in the escape of prisoner is committed by means of violence, intimidation or by using bribery. ELEMENTS 1. Offender is a convict by final judgment. 2. He is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty. 3. He evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. In evasion of service of sentence who is the offender? The offender is a prisoner convicted by final judgment. A mere detention prisoner those in the city jail, provincial jail, municipal jail they cannot commit evasion of sentence because they are only there because they have no money to post bail or the crime they are accused of is a non-bailable offense and the evidence of guilt is strong but they are not yet proven guilty. 191 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 talked to the guard at the front gate of the penal institution. Y asked the guard to allow his friend to escape. According to him, the custodian already agreed to allow his friend X to leave that night, and if this guard in the front gate of the penal institution would also allow his friend to leave he would give him P100,000. The guard agreed and so a check in the amount of P100,000 was issued by Y in favor of the said guard. That night, X was able to escape from the penal institution. What crime or crimes is/are committed by X, by Y, by the said custodian of X and by the said guard at the front gate of the penal institution? X is convicted by a prisoner of final judgment. His sentence, Reclusion Perpetua, involves deprivation of liberty, and he escapes during the term of his sentence; hence, he is liable under Article 157 Evasion of Service of Sentence but such escape was done in connivance with the employees of the penal institution; therefore, the Evasion of Service of Sentence will be qualified by the act being in connivance with the employees of the Penal institution. Therefore the law recognizes the fact that if such person behind bars of course he wants to get out he does not become liable for evasion of service of sentence the moment he leaves. You always hear from the news, three prisoners escape from Palawan provincial jail, three prisoners escaped from Quezon provincial jail in case they are arrested can they be held liable of evasion of sentence? The answer is no, because they are not persons convicted by final judgment. The second element requires that he must be serving a sentence that involves deprivation of liberty; therefore for evasion of sentence to arise it is not necessary that the prisoner be behind bars even if the prisoner is convicted by destierro. Destierro as you have studied in Book I is a penalty which does not include imprisonment the offender is only prohibited from entering a place stated in the judgment of the court, it also involves deprivation of liberty because there is a prohibition for him to enter a certain place. Hence there is a deprivation of liberty although partial not total in nature. When the convict sentenced with destierro enters the place which he is prohibited from entering based on the judgment of the court he becomes liable for evasion of service of sentence. In so far as Y is concerned, he is liable under Article 156, Delivering Prisoners from Jail. His friend was inside the jail or penal institution, and Y assist in the escape of his friend. Since Y assisted in the escape of his friend by means of giving bribe money, the fact that bribery was used would qualify the imposable penalty. It will not constitute a separate of distinct charge but it would be a circumstance that would qualify the imposable penalty in Delivering Prisoner from Jail. So Y is liable for Delivering Prisoners from Jail under Article 156 qualified by bribery. What are the circumstances which will qualify the penalty for evasion of service of sentence? 1. If the escape is done through an unlawful entry; 2. Breaking door, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors; 3. Using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation; 4. Conniving with other convicts or employees of the penal institution; In so far as the custodian is concerned, he being given custody of prisoner X, he being the custodian, he connives in escape of the prisoner under his custody. The custodian is liable under Article 223, Infidelity in the custody of Prisoners by connivance with the escape of the said prisoner. But since the custodian received bribe money from Y, the custodian becomes liable for another crime, and that is Direct Bribery under Article 210. So the custodian would be liable for 2 crimes, one Infidelity with the Custody of Prisoners by consenting or conniving with the escape of the Prisoner under Article 223, and the other one is under Article 210, Direct Bribery because he received Bribe money in order to allow the escape of the said prisoner. X is a prisoner convicted by final judgment, the penalty imposed on him was Reclusion Perpetua, and so he was serving his sentence. One day during his visiting hours, his best friend visited him, Y. After their conversation, X informed Y that he already wanted out of the penal institution. That he is tired of his life inside, and that he was begging Y for help. Y happens to be a rich man. To help his friend, Y before leaving the penal institution talked to the custodian of prisoner X. He told the custodian that if he would allow his friend to leave that night, he would give the said custodian P 500,000. When the custodian agreed, Y gave to the said custodian a check in the amount of P 500,000. Y did not only talk to the said custodian because he knew that even if the said custodian would allow him to leave the penal institution, his friend X would still pass by the guard and the front gate of the penal institution. So Y also In infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, under Article 223, Bribery is not a qualifying circumstance. Hence when the custodian received bribe money, he becomes liable for a separate and distinct charge of Direct Bribery. 192 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 c. In so far as the guard at the front gate of the penal institution is concerned, the crime committed is violation of Article 156 Delivering Prisoners from Jail. The guard at the front gate of the penal institution is not the custodian of prisoner X, and he helps or assist in the escape of prisoner X and he did so by receiving bribe money. Therefore, he is liable under Article 156, Delivering Prisoners from Jail qualified by Bribery. Bribery if used in removing a prisoner from Jail under Article 156 is a qualifying Circumstance. 2. 3. So to summarize the crimes committed are as follows: 1. X, the prisoner by final judgement committed Evasion of Service of Sentence qualified by the escape being in connivance with the employee of the penal institution that is under Article 157; 2. Y is liable for Delivering prisoners from jail qualified by Bribery under Article 156; 3. The custodian is liable for Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners under Article 223 by conniving and consenting the escape of the prisoner , and further he is liable for the crime of Direct Bribery cause in order to allow the escape, he received bribe money; 4. The guard at the front gate of the Penal Institution is liable also of Delivering Prisoners from Jail under Article 156 qualified by bribery. 4. To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chito gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (BAR 2014) 5. 6. Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by inducement (Art. 172[1], RPC); Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a principal by indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to such criminal plan; otherwise, he would not be liable for said crime if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only; Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping during the term of his imprisonment; The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of: a. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 in consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; b. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC); c. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false order and forging the judge's signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; d. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence; Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed the crimes of: a. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and providing them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC); b. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC); and The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime, there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done, nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners. ART. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion The crimes committed in this case are as follows: of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities. - A convict who shall evade the service of his 1. Chito committed the crimes of: a. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) for working out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent; b. Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212, RPC); and sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been confined, 1. on the occasion of disorder resulting from a 1.1. conflagration, 1.2. earthquake, 1.3. explosion, or 193 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 1.4. similar catastrophe, or 1.5. during a mutiny in which he has not participated, 2. shall suffer an increase of 2.1. 1/5 of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, 2.2. which in no case shall exceed 6 months, 3. if he shall fail to give himself up to the authorities 3.1. within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive 3.2. announcing the passing away of such calamity. to give him up to the authorities that will give rise to the crime. A is a prisoner convicted by final judgment and then there was this earthquake. He is serving his sentence at the new bilibid prison. There was this earthquake magnitude 7 so everything was shaking. So X together with the other prisoners left the penal institution. Hours later he saw the President in TV announcing that the earthquake had already lapsed and there will be no more aftershocks. He gave himself up to the proper authorities within 48 hours after hearing the announcement from the chief executive. What is the effect of his criminal liability of his act of returning to the penal institution? There will be a deduction, there will be a deduction of 1/5 form his term of original sentence. So he is given a credit a premium by the state for he already left, he left and then returned. This is known under Book I article 98 as special allowance for loyalty. He was so loyal to the government that after leaving he still returned. Therefore he is given a prize, a reward and that is deduction of 1/5 form his original sentence. Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in article 98137. Under Article 158 there is another kind of evasion of service of sentence. Again the offender is a prisoner convicted by final judgment and he is serving his sentence in a penal institution. What if in the same problem despite the fact that he heard the President announced that the calamity had already lapsed he did not returned within 48 hours. So the authorities looked for him and he was arrested. What is the effect on his criminal liability? There is an additional 1/5 from the remainder of his sentence which shall not exceed 6 months. So there will be an additional 1/5 on the remainder of his sentence. He is given an additional penalty of 1/5 from the remainder of his sentence but shall not exceed 6 months. This time the law requires that he must be serving a sentence in a penal institution. And there is a disorder conflagration, earthquake explosion or any other calamity or there is a mutiny in which he has not participated. The fourth element requires that the said prisoner escapes during this calamity or disorder. And the fifth element requires that he failed to give himself up to proper authorities despite the fact that the President has already announced the passing away of this calamity. He failed to give himself up within 48 hours from the said announcement by the chief executive that the said calamity has already lapsed had already passed away. What if he is so loyal to the government that he did not leave the penal institution? He just heed under the table while the earthquake was ongoing, and later on he discovered that everybody had left he is the only one who stayed there. What is the effect on his criminal liability? This has been amended by Republic Act 10592 which was approved last May 29, 2013 and based on this amendment by Congress the said person who did not leave the penal institution in times of calamity will be given a deduction of 2/5 from his sentence. Again the offender is a prisoner convicted by final judgment. Always a prisoner by final judgment but by this time he must be serving his sentence in a penal institution and then there was this calamity and he escapes at the time of this calamity. The mere act of leaving the penal institution during the time of this calamity will not immediately give rise to evasion of service of sentence. The crime will only arise if he failed to give himself up to the proper authorities within 48 hours from the time that the Chief Executive had announced the passing away of the said calamity. So it is not in the act of leaving but in the act of failing 137 So yung umalis 1/5 deduction, but the one who stayed who is so loyal to the government who did not even leave the penal institution there will be a better deduction 2/5 deduction if he will survive. Because if he will not survive he will not benefit from this. Congress See page 22 194 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 penalty of Prision Correccional in its minimum period. Here Evasion of Service of Sentence for violation of conditional pardon of Article 159 is a substantive offense. It is a substantive offense because a new penalty is imposed on the offender. recognizes the fact that this person is more loyal that the one who left and returned. That is the changes brought about by RA 10592 it was approved last May 2013. During the time of a riot A who was not a participant in the said riot. So therefore he duly escaped and he left the penal institution. While in the house he saw the President announcing that the riot already lapsed and he immediately returned within 48 hours from the announcement by the President. Upon his return will he be given the deduction of 1/5 on his sentence? The answer is no because a riot is not a mutiny, a riot is not a mutiny because it is a fight among inmates whereas a mutiny is an act of insubordination of the subordinates or the inmates against the head of the penal institution. On the other hand, if the penalty remitted by the grant of pardon exceeds or is more than 6 years. Even if the offender violates the terms or the conditions of his pardon, no new penalty will be imposed on him. He is only required to serve the remainder of his sentence. Since no new penalty is imposed upon the offender, Evasion of Service of Sentence is considered as not a substantive penalty. Here under the 2nd circumstance Evasion of Service of Sentence is not a substantive offense because no new penalty is reposed on the said offender. ART. 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence . - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon 1. the convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, 2. shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, 1. if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than 6 years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence. So those are the 3 ways in which Evasion of Service of Sentence can be committed. 1. Article 157 Evasion of Service of Sentence when the offender escapes the penal institution. 2. Article 158, Evasion of Service of Sentence when the offender escapes penal institution in times of calamity and failed to give himself up to the proper authorities within 48 hours following the declaration of the executive of the passing away of the said calamity. 3. Article 159 Evasion of Service of Sentence by violation of conditional pardon. Article 159 evasion of service of sentence by violation of conditional pardon. The offender is a convict by final judgment and he was granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive but he violated any of the terms, any of the conditions of the said pardon. He commits evasion of service of sentence. Those are the three kinds but note whatever be the kind of Evasion of Service of Sentence whether it is in Article 157 or under Article 158 or under Article 159, the offender must always be a prisoner convicted by final judgment. Just like an absolute pardon a conditional pardon will not free the offender from his criminal liability. Unlike an absolute pardon which is not subject to any condition a conditional pardon is subject to strict conditions. Therefore the moment a convicted prisoner has accepted his conditional pardon it means he has to comply with the strict conditions. The moment he violates any of the terms he becomes liable for evasion of service of sentence. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE Chapter Seven ART. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of article 62, 1. any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, 1.1. before beginning to serve such sentence, or 1.2. while serving the same, 2. shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Is Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 159 a substantive offense? The answer is it depends. There are two situations being referred to under Article 159. If the penalty remitted by the grant of pardon does not exceed 6 years for having violated the terms and conditions of the pardon. The offender shall be imposed with a new 195 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, 1. shall be pardoned at the age of 70 years if 1.1. he shall have already served out his original sentence, or 1.2. when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, 2. unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency. Quai-recidivism is misplaced because you have studied this already in book I, right? Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance it is not a felony. Book II speaks of felony then suddenly there is Article 160. Article 160 should be in book I because it is not a felony but a special aggravating circumstance. A quasi recidivist is any person who after having been convicted by final judgment shall commit a felony before serving his sentence or while serving the said sentence. And under Article 160 the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed hence it is a special aggravating circumstance. 196 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Section Two. Counterfeiting Coins138 Title Four CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST ART. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins139. - Any person who (1) makes, (2) imports, or (3) utters, false coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer: Chapter One FORGERIES Section One. Forging the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. 1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or above. 2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below tencentavo denomination. 3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign country. ART. 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall forge 1. the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands or 2. the signature or 3. stamp of the Chief Executive. ART. 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly make use of 1. the counterfeit seal or 2. forged signature or stamp mentioned in the preceding article. 3 ACTS PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 163 1. Counterfeiting of coins; 2. Importing of false coins; and 3. Altering false coins. 3 ACTS PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 161 1. Forging the great seal of the republic of the Philippines; 2. Forging the signature of the President; and 3. Forging the stamp of the President. COUNTERFEITING OF COINS There is counterfeiting of coins when the offender imitates a genuine and authentic coin. The offender copies the peculiar design of the said coin and creates a spurious one, a falsified one, a counterfeited one. The crime committed is counterfeiting of coins. X forged the signature of the president in a public document, then he gave the said document to Y. Y knew that the signature of the president in the said document was a forgery, and that it was X who forged the same; nevertheless Y used the said document in a transaction. What crime or crimes is/are said to be committed by X and Y? X is liable under Article 161 because he was the one who forged the signature of the president in the said document. In counterfeiting of coins, the coins which may be the subject of counterfeiting can be any coin. It can be a coin issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas in present circulation, or it could be a coin of foreign currency, or it could be a coin which is in circulation during the old times, old or vintage coins. Y, on the other hand, is liable under Article 162 Y is liable under Article 162 because he knows that the said document contains the forged signature of the president; nevertheless, despite such knowledge he used the same. He is liable under Article 162. 138 Regardless of the coin, as long as it is a genuine of authentic coin. The moment that it is imitated, the moment it is copied the offender becomes liable for Counterfeiting of Coins because what is being punished by the state is the act of counterfeiting or imitating the 2. That any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than P20,000 and/or by imprisonment of not more than 5 years. 139 As amended by R.A. No. 4202, approved June 19, 1965 PD No. 247 July 18, 1973: 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn or destroy, in any manner whatsoever, currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines; and 197 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 peculiar design of the said coin and to make a spurious one. Hence, regardless of the kind of coins the act of counterfeiting will arise. circulation. Old and Vintage coins, as well as coins of foreign currency cannot be the subject of Mutilation under Article 164. IMPORTATION OF FALSE COINS What if the offenders are three men A, B, and C who are kargadors in the public market. While waiting for the goods to arrive A, B, and C were playing Kara y Kruz before they would throw the coin in the air, they would first scratch the coin in the street; therefore part of the metal coin were scrapped. Are they liable under Article 164? They are not liable under Article 164 because they do not have intent to mutilate. After scrapping the metal content on the street of the ground on the cemented pavement, they did not gather the metal dust; hence, there was not intent to mutilate. They are not liable under Article 164, Mutilation of Coins. But they can be held liable under P.D. 247. Importation of false coins is committed when the offender brings into Philippine ports any of these counterfeited coins. UTTERING FALSE COINS Uttering false coins is committed when the offender circulates, gives away from one person to another, passes away from one person to another, these counterfeited coins. ART. 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the United States or of the Philippine Islands or 2. import or utter mutilated current coins, or in connivance with mutilators or importers. P.D. 247 punishes any person who willfully mutilates, bursts, turns or destroys any coin or currency note issued by the Bank Sentral ng Pilipinas. P.D. 247 being a Special Penal Law, intent to mutilate is not required. For as long as the coin has been scrapped or scratched of its metal content, the crime will immediately arise. ART. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. - The person who knowingly, 1. although without the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, 2. shall possess false or mutilated coin 2.1. with intent to utter the same, or 2.2. shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said articles. Mutilation of Coins is committed when the offender takes off a part of the metal content of the said coin, when the offender scraps or scratches the part or the metal content of the said coin. In Mutilation of Coins for the crime to arise, it is necessary for the coins that are the object of mutilation must be one that is in present circulation. One which is still the currency of the Philippines. TWO ACTS PUNISHED UNDER ART. 165 If the coin which has been scrapped, or scratched, or the contents thereof has been taken off is a vintage coin, the crime of Mutilation will not arise under Article 164. The reason is that the coin being old and vintage, the public will not be deceived even if it is mutilated. If an old and vintage coin is mutilated and it is given to the public, the public will not receive it because it is not current currency, not in present circulation. But if the coin mutilated is one of present circulation and then it is given to another person, and that person is deceived because in taking a part of the metal content of the content of the coin the offender in effect diminishes the intrinsic value of the coin thereby deceiving public interest. 1. Possession of Counterfeited or Mutilated Coins by another with intent to utter the same knowing that the same is counterfeited or mutilated; 2. Actually uttering coins which are counterfeited or mutilated by another person with knowledge that the said coin is counterfeited or mutilated. Under the first act punished, we have possession of coins counterfeited or mutilated by another person with intent to utter the same knowing that it is counterfeited or mutilated. ELEMENTS 1. There must be possession. 2. There must be intent to utter. 3. There must be knowledge. So in so far as Mutilation of Coins is concerned, the coins that must be the subject of Mutilation must be coins that are of legal tender, coins which are in present 198 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The first element requires that there must be possession. The possession here does not only refer to physical possession or actual possession of the said coin, it also includes constructive possession of the said coin for as long as the coin is under control and dominion of the offender. It is said to be under constructive possession. However, the third element is lacking. There is no knowledge on the part of the said vendor that the 10 peso coins paid to him were all counterfeited. Had he had knowledge, he would not have given the said person of X the bread worth 50 pesos. Since the third element was absent, the said vendor cannot be held liable under Article 165 for possession of counterfeited coins The second element requires intent to utter, the offender has intent to circulate this counterfeited coins. Section Three. Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities; importing and uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities. The last element requires that the offender has knowledge that the coin in his possession is a counterfeited or mutilated one. ART. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged notes and documents. – The (1) Under the second act punished actually uttering coins, counterfeited or mutilated by another with intent or knowledge that it is counterfeited or mutilated. forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and (2) the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows: ELEMENTS 1. Actually uttering the said coins; 2. Knowledge on the part of the offender that the coin that he is uttering is counterfeited or mutilated. 1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security (of the United States or) of the Philippines Islands. X was been followed by the police. The police officers got a tip that X had been circulating counterfeited coins, and so the police officers were following X. X was so hungry he passed by a bakery store. He bought bread worth 50 pesos. The vendor gave X bread that is worth 50 pesos, and X paid the vendor five 10 peso coins which are all counterfeited. Thereafter X hurriedly left worrying that the officers are after him. The officers arrived in the said bakery, and they inquired from the vendor if X bought anything. The vendor said that X brought bread worth 50 pesos. So he police asked the vendor for the money paid by X, and so the vendor opened the opened the cash register, and there the police officers saw the five 10 peso counterfeited coins. The police officers confiscated the said counterfeited 10 peso coins, and arrested the said vendor. The vendor was charged under Article 165 for possession of Counterfeited coins with intent to Utter in knowing that they are counterfeited. Is the said vendor liable under Article 165? First element, he was in possession. The counterfeited coins were found under his possession and dominion. The counterfeited coins were found in the cash register of the said vendor; therefore, it was under his control and dominion. The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all 1.1. bonds, 1.2. certificates of indebtedness, 1.3. national bank notes, 1.4. fractional notes, 1.5. certificates of deposit, 1.6. bills, 1.7. checks, or 1.8. drafts for money, 1.9. drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under any act of the Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature. 2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same. 3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified Second element, he has the intent to utter the same since the vendor placed the counterfeited coins inside the said drawer, he has the intent to utter the same. He can use it as change to other customers or he can use it in buying other things. There was the intent to utter. 199 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 169. How forgery is committed. - The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of the following means: or counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government. 4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor. 1. By giving to 1.1. a treasury or bank note or 1.2. any instrument, payable to bearer or order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine document. 2. 2.1. By 2.1.1. erasing, 2.1.2. substituting, 2.1.3. counterfeiting or 2.1.4. altering 2.2. by any means the 2.2.1. figures, 2.2.2. letters, 2.2.3. words or 2.2.4. signs contained therein. ART. 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. – 1. Any person who shall 1.1. forge, 1.2. import or 1.3. utter, 2. in connivance with the forgers or importers, 3. any 3.1. instrument payable to order or 3.2. other document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos. When is there forgery? When do you say that the offender has committed acts of forgery? There is forgery when the offender gives any currency note or instrument payable to bearer or payable to order, the appearance of a true and genuine document; and second, when the offender commits the act of evasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or uttering by any means, any figures, words, letters, or signs contained therein. ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. - Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, 1. any person who shall 1.1. knowingly use or 1.2. have in his possession, 2. with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles. How is forgery committed? The answer is simple under Article 169. If what has been falsified is a coin, it is called counterfeiting. Articles 166, 167 and 168 punishes the acts of forging treasury or bank notes, as well as instruments payable to bearer or payable to order. Likewise, it punishes the act of possessing forged currency notes or instrument payable to bearer, or payable to order. If what has been falsified treasure or bank notes or instruments payable to bearer or payable to order, it is called forgery. An instrument is payable to bearer when it can be transferred by the mere act of delivery. On the other hand, the instrument is said to be payable to order when it can be transferred only upon the endorsement coming from the payee thereof, plus delivery. If what has been falsified is the stamp or the signature of the president, the great seal of the Republic of the Philippines, the crime committed is forgery. If what has been falsified is a document, is a writing, the crime committed is falsification. So we now go to Falsification In order to bring about the crime of falsification, it is necessary that the writing that has been falsified must be a document in the legal sense of the word. A document or a writing is said to be a document in the legal sense of the word if it is capable of creating rights or extinguishing obligations. 200 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 So it is necessary that the writing is capable of extinguishing rights or creating obligations. The said document must be complete by itself. The said document must be susceptible of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein. Otherwise the crime committed is not falsification of document. FOUR KINDS OF DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD BE THE SUBJECT OF FALSIFICATION. 1. A public document is a document issued by the notary public or a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law. 2. An official document is a document which is issued by a public official in the exercise of his official function. 3. A commercial document is document which is defined and regulated by the code of commerce or any mercantile laws. 4. A private document is any deed or instrument executed by any private individual without any intervention of a notary public or any competent public official by which document any disposition or agreement is true evidence or set forth. X, was found outside the premises of the LTO, and he was selling fake forms of Driver’s License, the police got a tip about these acts of X. So the police arrested X and found in the possession of X falsified, fake forms of Driver’s License, and he was selling these to the people applying for a driver’s license. X was arrested and he was charged with falsification of a public document. Is X liable as charged of falsification of the said public document? X is not liable of falsification of public document because the thing in his possession are fake forms of driver’s license. Fake or falsified unfilled up forms of driver’s license; therefore, they are not yet documents in the legal sense of the word. They are not complete, no name, no address; hence, they are not susceptible of becoming evidence of the acts stated therein. They are not capable of creating rights or extinguishing obligation. X is not liable of falsification. All official documents are considered as public documents but not all public documents are considered as official document. Before a public document may be considered as an official document, it must be issued by a public official in the exercise of his official function. A private document may be considered as a public document the moment that the said public document becomes part of public records. So if a private document is submitted to a public official and now becomes part of public records and thereafter a certified copy released, it is now considered as a public document or an official document. So what crime then is committed by X? X is liable under Article 176 that is Possession of Instruments or Implements for Falsification. X was in possesion of these falsified and unfilled out forms of Driver’s license which are instruments or implements for purposes of Falsification. Hence, X can be only be held liable under Article 176. It is necessary to determine the kind of document which has been the subject of falsification because whether it is a public, official, commercial or private document, the crime committed will depend on the kind of the said document. Section Four. Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private documents, and wireless, telegraph, and telephone message. If the offender falsifies a public, official or commercial document damage or intent to cause damage on the part of the offender is not necessary to commit the crime. ART. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who, without proper authority therefor alters any 1.1. bill, 1.2. resolution, or 1.3. ordinance 2. enacted or approved or pending approval by either 2.1. House of the Legislature or 2.2. any provincial board or 2.3. municipal council. But if the document falsified is a private document, damage or intent to cause damage on the part of the offender is a material element. Without damage or without intent to cause damage on the part of the offender, the crime of Falsification on the said document will not arise. Why is it that when the document falsified is a public document, why is it when the document falsified is an official document there is no need for damage or intent to cause damage? If the document falsified is a public document, damage or intent to cause damage is not a material element because a public document is presumed by law to be 201 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 authentic and genuine. Since it presumed by law to be authentic and genuine, it is deemed to be evidence of the facts stated therein; therefore, when a public document is falsified what you are in effect is saying that the public would no longer believe in the said public document. What you are in effect is doing is perverting the truth which is being proclaimed by the said document. Damage or the intent to cause damage is not a material element in Falsification of a Public Document. 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a 8.1. protocol, 8.2. registry, or 8.3. official book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister 1. who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, 2. with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. But if the document falsified is a private document, damage or intent to cause damage is a material element. The reason is that the crime of falsification being a crime against public interest, it is necessary that there has been damage caused to the private offended party or to any other person in order for said crime to arise. ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 171 1. The offender is a public officer or employee, or a notary public, or an ecclesiastical minister. 2. The offender takes advantage of his official functions or position. 3. The offender falsifies a public document. ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any (1) public officer, employee, or notary who, (2) taking advantage of his official position, (3) shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: Who is the offender under Article 171? The offender is a public officer or employee, or a notary public, or an ecclesiastical minister. The second element requires that in committing the crime it is necessary that the said offender must have taken advantage of his public function or position. The offender public officer or employee, or a notary public is said to have taken advantage of his official position when he has made, prepared, or otherwise intervened in the preparation of the document that he falsified, or when he is the custodian of the document that he falsified. He instead has taken advantage of his public position in the commission of the crime. 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any 1.1. handwriting, 1.2. signature or 1.3. rubric; 2. 2.1. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any 2.1.1 act or 2.1.2 proceeding 2.2. when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any 6.1. alteration or intercalation in a genuine document 6.2. which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form 7.1. a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or 7.2. including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or The third element requires that the offender falsifies a document. Article 171 is silent as to the kind of document that has been falsified. Article 171 did not state what kind of document has been falsified. But the offender being a public officer or employee, or a notary public, it necessarily follows that the document which has been the subject of falsification under Article 171 is a public document, official document or a commercial document. If the person who committed the crime of falsification is an ecclesiastical minister, when will the crime arise? If the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the crime will arise if the document that he falsified will affect the civil status of the said person. If the document that he falsified does not affect the civil status of a person, the said ecclesiastical minister is still liable but not under 202 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 These are the different acts of Falsification, and these acts of Falsification which are enumerated under Article 171 would also be the same acts of Falsification under Article 172. Article 171 but he will be liable under Article 172 Falsification of Public, Official or a Commercial Document by a Private Individual. The priest falsified the certificate of marriage of A. What is the crime committed by the said priest? The crime committed by the priest is falsification under Article 171 because a certificate of marriage would affect the civil status of a person. (1) COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC; ANY What do you mean by counterfeiting? But what If priest falsified the baptismal certificate of A. What is the crime committed by A? The priest would be liable for Falsification under Article 172. The reason being that a baptismal certificate would not actually affect the civil status of a person; hence the crime committed is under Article 172 and not under Article 171. Counterfeiting is the act of imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric. It requires that there is an original handwriting, an original signature, an original rubric, and the offender copies or imitates, the said handwriting, signature or rubric. There is an original one and the offender copies the said handwriting, signature or rubric. What are the different acts of falsification under Article 171 which is also the same acts of falsification under Article 172? Is counterfeiting the same as simulating? Counterfeiting is not the same as simulating. While in counterfeiting there is an original handwriting, signature or rubric which is copied or imitated by the offender, in case of simulating there is no original handwriting, signature or rubric. The said handwriting, signature or rubric is produced out of mere imagination. It is inexistent and the offender merely produced one out of imagination that is simulation. Both counterfeiting and simulation are punished as acts of falsification. 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any 1.1. handwriting, 1.2. signature or 1.3. rubric; 2. 2.1. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any 2.1.3 act or 2.1.4 proceeding 2.2. when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any 6.1. alteration or intercalation in a genuine document 6.2. which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form 7.1. a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or 7.2. including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a 8.1. protocol, 8.2. registry, or 8.3. official book. (2) CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING WHEN THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO PARTICIPATE; Here the offender makes it appear that persons have participated in an act or proceeding, that will give rise to the crime of falsification because although this persons did not participate in the said act or proceeding, the offender made it appear otherwise. A notary public prepared this affidavit for extrajudicial settlement of estate. The heirs of the decedent were dividing the estate extrajudicially. There were 12 heirs, and all these 12 heirs are signatories under the said document that was the document made by the notary public. However 2 of these heirs, A and B are not in the Philippines at the time of the preparation and execution of the said document, both A and B were in another country; hence it is impossible for them to have signed the said document. What crime is committed by the said notary public? It is Falsification under the 2nd act. He caused it to appear that both A and B who were in another country participated in the said extrajudicial settlement of X, 203 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 ART. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: when in truth and in fact they did not participated in the said extrajudicial settlement of the estate. (3) ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR PROCEEDING STATEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE BY THEM; 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any 1.1. public or official document or 1.2. letter of exchange or 1.3. any other kind of commercial document; and 2. Any person who, 2.1. to the damage of a third party, or 2.2. with the intent to cause such damage, 2.3. shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Under the said third act punished, persons have participated in an act or proceedings. So these persons participated in the said act or proceedings. The crime will arise when the offender attributed to these persons statements other than those made in fact by them. The crime will arise because he attributed to them other statements than that which have been made by these persons. There was this Sanggunian Bayan session, and they were approving, they were voting an ordinance, and two of the councilors dissented with the said ordinance, and so they just stated a no vote without any explanation for their dissenting opinion; however, the moment that the secretary of the Sanggunian, a public officer, produced the minutes of the said session statements were already attributed to the said councilors, statements wherein they stated their dissenting opinions but in truth and in fact no such statement were made by such councilors because after stating their no vote, they did not anymore explain their dissent. But since the Sanggunian Secretary stated in the said minutes that these two explained their votes, the Sanggunian Secretary becomes liable for Falsification under the third act, he attributed to these councilors statements other than those in fact made by them. Any person who 1. shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or 2. to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents 2.1. embraced in the next preceding article, or 2.2. in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. THREE ACTS PUNISHED 1. Falsification of Public, Official or Commercial Document by a private individual; 2. Falsification of a Private Document by any person; and 3. Use of Falsified Document. (4) MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS; (5)ALTERING TRUE DATES; FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL Here the document that has been falsified is a Public, Official or Commercial Document. Even if the offender is a private individual, since the document falsified is a Public, Official or Commercial Document, damage to the offended party or intent to cause damage is not an element. The document being Public, Official or Commercial, no damage is required for the crime of Falsification to arise. Even of the offender is a mere Private Individual. (6) MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING; (7) ISSUING IN AN AUTHENTICATED FORM A DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A COPY OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WHEN NO SUCH ORIGINAL EXISTS, OR INCLUDING IN SUCH A COPY A STATEMENT CONTRARY TO, OR DIFFERENT FROM, THAT OF THE GENUINE ORIGINAL; OR (8) INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT OR NOTE RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF IN A PROTOCOL, REGISTRY, OR OFFICIAL BOOK. 204 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 FALSIFICATION OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT BY ANY PERSON Under the 2nd act punished the document falsified is a private document, one that is executed by a private individual without the intervention of a notary public or competent public official. If the document falsified is a private document, whoever be the offender, whoever be the person who falsified the same, whether he is a public officer or employee, or whether he is a private individual, there must be damage or at least there must be intent to cause damage. Absent damage or intent to cause damage, there is no crime of Falsification of a private document. So in case of falsification of a private document, it is necessary that there must be damage caused in the offended party, or at least intent to cause damage. So let us say he was charged with Falsification of a Public Document, during trial on the merits, evidence revealed that he was not the one who falsified the said document, instead they found another person who falsified the same and he was merely using the said Falsified Document. Therefore the judge acquitted him of the said charge. Can he is still be prosecuted for the crime of Use of Falsified Document? The answer is yes. If based on evidence the person of X was charged with Falsification of a Public Document was found to be the person who did not falsify the document. He was not the person who falsified the same document. Therefore, upon acquittal he can still be prosecuted for Use of Falsified Document. Double Jeopardy would not set in because the element of Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Document are different; hence, Double jeopardy would not set in. USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT So you have the first charged by Falsification of a Public Document, and in case evidence would show that he is not the falsifier then he should be charged with use of Falsified Document. In Use of Falsified Document is damage an element? It depends on where or what transaction is the falsified document used. Under the third act if the document falsified is used in a Judicial Proceeding, in a judicial transaction, damage or intent to cause damage on the part of the offender is not an element, but if the Falsified Document is used in any other official transaction then damage or intent to cause damage becomes a necessary element for the crime to arise. Note that in Article 172, the same acts of falsification are punished as enumerated in Article 171 also applies. ART. 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said falsified messages. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon 1. any officer or employee of 1.1. the Government or 1.2. of any private corporation or concern 2. engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message 3. who 3.1. utters a fictitious 3.1.1. wireless, 3.1.2. telegraph or 3.1.3. telephone message of any system or 3.2. falsifies the same. X was found in possession of a Falsified Document. It is a falsified public document and he was using the same in an official transaction. He was found using the same and it was verified to be a falsified one, and so X was arrested. He was charged with Use of falsified Document under Article 172. Is the charge correct? The charge is wrong. Although X was using the said falsified document. The proper charge for X would be Falsification of Public Document. If a person possesses a falsified document, the law presumes that he is the falsifier of the said document. Since the law presumes that he is the one who falsified the said document then the appropriate charge is Falsification of a Public Document, and not use of Falsified Document. So in this case since X is found in possession of a falsified document using in a single and official transaction, once arrested, he should be prosecuted for Falsification of a Public Document. He is deemed to be the person who falsified the said document. Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch 1. to the prejudice of a third party or 2. with the intent of cause such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree. THREE ACTS PUNISHED 1. Uttering fictitious wireless telegraph, telephone and messages, 2. Falsifying fictitious wireless telegraph, telephone and messages, and 3. Using falsified fictitious wireless telegraph, telephone and messages. 205 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The first act, Uttering fictitious wireless telegraph, and telephone messages; and the second act, Falsifying fictitious wireless telegraph, telephone messages can be committed by persons whether he is an officer or employee of any institution engaged in the business of sending or receiving wireless telegraph and telephone messages. witness saying that in the scheduled hearing the witness must present a medical certificate that indeed he was hospitalized on this day of hearing. And so the counsel informed the witness that in the next hearing he must present a medical certificate as to his serious illness. Upon learning this order of the court this witness became worried because he was not actually in the hospital. He just didn’t want to go to court and testify. Now he has to produce a medical certificate, and so what he did was that he went to a friend doctor, and he asked his friend doctor to issue a medical certificate saying that on the said day of trial he was sick, and that he could not get out of bed, and therefore could not testify in court. Out of friendship the doctor acceded to the request of friend W, and so on the next scheduled date of hearing. This witness upon his appearance before the court produced and submitted to the court a medical certificate issued by this friend doctor saying that on the previous date of hearing the said witness was seriously ill, hospitalized and could not get out of the hospital ; hence, the failure to testify on the said date. Upon the said filing or submission of the said medical certificate before the court, what crime or crimes is/are committed by the doctor who issued the medical certificate, as well as the said witness who submitted and filed the said falsified medical certificate before the court? The doctor shall be liable under Article 174, whereas the said witness shall be liable under article 175. The third act use of fictitious wireless telegraph, telephone and messages can be committed by any person. Section Five. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or services and the like. ART. 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. - The penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any physician or surgeon who, 1.1. in connection, with the practice of his profession, 1.2. shall issue a false certificate; and 2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of 2.1. merit of service, 2.2. good conduct or 2.3. similar circumstances. THREE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 174 1. Any physician or surgeon who in the connection of his practice or profession shall issue a false medical certificate; 2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit, certificate of service, certificate of good conduct, or any other kind of false certificate; 3. A private individual who shall make a false certificate of merit, certificate of good conduct or service, or shall make a false medical certificate. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions. ART. 175. Using false certificates. - The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed upon any one who shall knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article. The first one if the surgeon, if the doctor, if the physician in connection with the practice of his profession shall issue a false medical certificate. The second one if a public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit, certificate of service, certificate of good conduct, or any other kind of false certificate. The defense counsel was to present his witness in a court hearing; however before the start of the hearing, the defense counsel received a call from the said witness that he was indisposed, he was not available during the day of hearing because he was in the hospital, and that he couldn’t get out of bed because he was seriously ill. So when the hearing started the defense counsel informed the honorable court that he has no witness for that day, and the his witness called him, saying that he is in the hospital and was seriously ill, and so he move for a resetting of the said case. The judge granted the resetting of the said case but together with the said granted motion, the judge also issued an order to the This usually happens in the barangays. A constituent of the barangay will go to the barangay chairman and ask that he be issued a certificate of good moral character although in reality he is a menace in the said barangay. The said barangay shall issue a medical certificate showing that this person is of good moral conduct, that is a false certificate of moral conduct. 206 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The last person penalized under Article 174 is a private individual who shall make a false medical certificate or a false certificate of merit or service. TWO ACTS PUNISHED 1. Introduction to the Philippines of any stamp, dyes, marks, or any other instruments or implements for falsification or counterfeiting; 2. Possession with intent to use these instruments or implements for falsification. Under Article 175, the person liable is not the one who made, or who prepared the said false medical certificate, or false certificate of merit. He is any person who had knowledge that the thing in his possession is a false medical certificate, or a false certificate of merit, or a false certificate of service. He shall make use of the same. Remember the problem that I gave in the initial discussion of Falsification. A person was found outside the LTO office, and the said person was found in possession of falsified unfilled out forms of Driver’s license. I said that the crime committed is not Falsification of Public Document but rather under Article 176 possession of instruments or implements for falsification. He was in possession of falsified forms of driver’s license. They were unfilled out forms, no date, no name, no etc.. So they are not evidence of the facts stated therein therefore they are not yet considered as document. They are mere unfilled out forms; hence, they are merely considered as instruments or implements which are used for falsification. The offender is therefore liable under Article 176 that is possession of instruments or implements for falsification. So in the problem that I gave, the doctor is liable under Article 174 because he issued a false medical certificate, despite the knowledge of the fact that X was not in reality ill, he issued a medical certificate saying that X, the witness was ill on the said date of the hearing. When X presented and submitted this to the court despite knowledge that it is a false medical certificate, X becomes liable under Article 175 for having used the false medical certificate. Section Six. Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements intended for the commission of falsification. Chapter Two OTHER FALSITIES 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. - The ART. Section One. Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia. penalty of prison correctional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall 1.1. make or introduce into the Philippine Islands any 1.1.1. stamps, 1.1.2. dies, 1.1.3. marks, or 1.1.4. other instruments or implements 1.2. intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the preceding sections of this Chapter. 2. Any person who, 2.1. with the intention of using them, 2.2. shall have in his possession any of the instruments or implements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided therein. 140 177. Usurpation functions140. - Any person ART. of authority or official 1. who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any 1.1. department or 1.2. agency of the 1.2.1. Philippine Government or 1.2.2. of any foreign government, or 2. who, under pretense of official position, 2.1. shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, 2.2. without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Reinstated by E.O. No. 187, June 5, 1987 207 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 TWO ACTS PUNISHED 1. Usurpation of Public Authority 2. Usurpation of Official Function the drivers stuck in traffic, alighted from his vehicle and went in the middle of the street. Thereafter, he manned the traffic and eased the flow of the traffic. He performed an act pertaining to an MMDA officer or a traffic enforcer, a public officer. Is he liable under Article 177, for Usurpation? He is not liable for Usurpation, although he performs an act pertaining to a public officer. He is not liable because he did not perform the said act under false pretense of official position or without being lawfully entitled to do so. His only intent was to ease the flow of traffic. It was done under a civic spirit to help ease the flow of traffic. There was no showing that he had intent under false pretense to be considered as a public officer. Such being the case, he is not liable under Article 177. The first act which is Usurpation of Public Authority is committed when any person knowingly or falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent or a representative of any department or agency of the Philippines government or any foreign government. In case of Usurpation of Public Authority, the offender is not required to perform any act. The moment he falsely misrepresents himself to be an officer agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine government or Foreign government, the crime will immediately arise. X is the city mayor, he was charged before the office of the Ombudsman. He was charged for an administrative case before the office of the ombudsman. The office of the ombudsman while investigating the same, placed the city mayor under preventive suspension for a period of 6 months. He was placed under preventive suspension under 6 months. The DILG enforced the said order and placed X the city mayor under preventive suspension for a period of 6 months. The DILG designated the vice mayor as the acting city mayor. After just 90 days of preventive suspension, the city mayor just went back to office, and he now again performs the function of the mayor. He now again performs the function of the mayor, and he signs documents which should be signed by a mayor. So he was charged with the crime of Usurpation under Article 177. Is he liable as charged? He contended that he went back to office after preventive suspension because according to his counsel the maximum period that a person can go under preventive suspension is only for a period of 90 day, and since it is beyond 90 days he immediately assumes office. So according to him, he is not liable for usurpation under Article 177. If you were the judge would you convict him or would you acquit him on the ground of his contention? In the case of Miranda vs. Sandiganbayan141, the Supreme Court said that the said city mayor is liable The second act punished is Usurpation of Official Function is committed by a person who performs an act pertaining to a public officer or a person in authority under false pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so. Under the second act punished, Usurpation of Official Function, here it is required for the crime to arise, that the offender must perform an act pertaining to a public officer, or pertaining to a person in authority. Note that it must be under false pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so. In performing the said act pertaining to the public officer or pertaining to a person in authority, it is necessary that it must be done under false pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so. If a person performs an act pertaining to public officer or a person in authority but he has no intent to state that he was the said public authority. It was not done under false pretense of official position, and it can’t be said that it falls under Article 177. There was this heavy traffic and there was no traffic officer, no policemen, traffic enforcer, and the traffic was very heavy. No vehicle was moving and so X one of Not all acts of usurpation of authority or official functions involve “fraud upon government.” The essence of usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the RPC is false and malicious representation. The “gravamen of the offense of usurpation of authority is the false representation, maliciously made, that one is an officer, agent or representative of the Philippine Government or any foreign government.” Fraud on the government is not an essential element of the offense. The mere act of making a false and malicious representation that one is a government officer is sufficient to constitute the offense, whether or not the act defrauds the government. The essence of usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the RPC is performing, under pretense of official position and without lawful authority, an official act pertaining to an official. Fraud on the government is also not an essential element of the offense. The offense usually results in injury to private parties who are victimized by pretenders to public office. 141 On the other hand, the gravamen of “fraud upon government” in Section 13 of RA 3019 is the public officer’s act of defrauding the government. It is necessary that the act should defraud the government. Usurpation of authority, while involving fraudulent means, does not necessarily involve fraud on the government. The fraud may be committed only against private parties and not against the government. (Miranda vs. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 165, G.R. No. 154098 July 27, 2005) 208 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 must be done publicly; therefore, there must be an element of publicity to consummate the crime; whereas, in case of concealing true name, publicity is not an element. It is not necessary that the act of concealing one’s name and circumstances be done publicly. No element of publicity is required. under Article 177. He is liable for Usurpation. He was placed under preventive suspension by the DILG upon the order of the office of the Ombudsman for a period of 6 months. He has to comply with the said order, he cannot just go back to office without the office of the Ombudsman lifting the said preventive suspension. The moment that he goes back to office, and performs the act of the mayor, even without the Ombudsman lifting the said preventive suspension order, he commits the crime of Usurpation. The other distinction between the two is in their purposes. In case of using fictitious name, the purpose of the offender in using a fictitious name is to conceal a crime, evade execution of a judgment or to cause damage to public interest. In case of concealing true name, the purpose of the offender is to conceal his real identity. Hence it is necessary that not only does he conceal his real name but also his other personal circumstances because his purpose is to conceal his real identity. Second his contention was wrong that he can only be placed under preventive suspension for a period of only 90 days refers only to violation of R.A. 3019 but it does not refer to violation of administrative cases. So if the case filed is just an administrative case, the office of the Ombudsman has the right to place in preventive suspension for a period of 6 months, not only 90 days. For this, the said city mayor is liable to Usurpation under Article 177. X went to a sauna bath parlor, and while he was receiving services from an attendant. Suddenly police officers entered the said place. The police officers raided the said place. The police officers were able to secure a search warrant because they were able to prove before the issuing judge the said place as thought as a sauna bath parlor is in reality a prostitution den. As such the search warrant was issued by the court, and all persons that were there were arrested. So among those arrested, and brought to the PNP station was attorney X. Together with attorney X and others, he was investigated. Attorney X during investigation was asked of his real name. Instead of stating that he was attorney X, he said that he was Y. He did not reveal, he did not disclose his real name. When asked about his age, he revealed his real age. When asked on whether he was married or single, he revealed that he is a married man. When asked to state the name of his wife and of his children, he correctly stated the name of his wife, and the name of his three children. Is attorney X liable under Article 178 for Using Fictitious name? Attorney X is not liable under Article 178 for Using Fictitious name. Although he used a different name, which is the name of Y, he had no intention to conceal a crime or to evade an execution of a judgment, or to cause damage to public interest. Therefore he is not liable in Using Fictitious name. ART. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name 2. for the purpose of 2.1. concealing a crime, 2.2. evading the execution of a judgment or 2.3. causing damage. Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos. TWO ACTS PUNISHED 1. Using fictitious name 2. Concealing true name ELEMENTS OF USING FICTITIOUS NAME 1. The offender uses a name not his real name; 2. He uses this fictitious name publicly; and 3. The purpose of the offender is 3.1. to conceal a crime, 3.2. to evade execution of a judgment, or 3.3. to cause damage to public interest. Is Attorney X then liable for concealing true name? Attorney X is also not liable of concealing true name under Article 178. Attorney X is not liable under Article 178 of concealing true name because although he concealed his real name, he did not conceal his other personal circumstances. He revealed his other circumstance, his age, the name of his wife, the name of his children, and his address; Therefore, although he did not disclose his name, the fact that he disclosed his ELEMENTS OF CONCEALING TRUE NAME 1. The offender conceals his real name and other personal circumstance; and 2. The purpose of the offender is to conceal his real identity. In so far as the first act is concerned Using Fictitious Name, it is necessary that the use of the fictitious name 209 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 other circumstance, it means that he does not have intention to conceal his real identity. He has no intention to conceal his true identity, even if he used a different name because the police officers can just go to his real address, and then his identity will already be divulged; hence, attorney X is not liable for Concealing true name. Under C.A. 142 as amended an alias is a name or names used or intended to be used by a person publicly and habitually usually in business transaction other than the name by which he is registered at birth at the local civil registrar. So an Alias is a name or names used or intended to be used publicly and habitually in a business transaction. Is attorney X liable under C.A. 142 as amended, the Anti-Alias law? Attorney X is not liable under C.A. 142 as amended the Anti-Alias Law. So why is attorney X not liable under C.A. 142? Attorney X is not liable under C.A. 142 as amended because Y is not an alias of attorney X. The name Y that he used at during the investigation of X is not an Alias of attorney X. Y is not an alias of Attorney X because said name Y is not used habitually in a business transaction. Under C.A. 142 as amended, it is provided that except for writing, cinema, lithography, or television, or any other entertainment purposes, or in athletic events where the use of a pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person can use a name other than his name for which he is registered at birth, at the local civil registrar, or at the bureau of immigration as registered upon entry into the Philippines. A substitute name will only be used when allowed by a competent or judicial authority. In the case of Cesario Ursua vs. Court of Appeals142, as well as in the case of People vs. Estrada and Sandiganbayan143, the Supreme Court said that the use of the name other than a person’s real name in a single transaction without showing that henceforth, he wanted to be known under such name is not under the prohibition of C.A. 142 as amended. So under C.A. 142 as amended, a pseudonym may be used under any of the following circumstances. In any entertainment purposes, in radio, television or etcetera, or in athletic events wherein it is a person in the field of sports, or in case of literary, a pen name; or as a substitute name as approved by a competent Judicial authority. So here Y is not an alias of attorney X because he used the name while only in a single transaction without henceforth showing that he would be using the said name Y in any other transaction. Therefore, attorney X is not liable under any crime, when he used the name Y instead of attorney X during the investigation made by the police. These are the instance wherein the use of a name other than a real name other than which he is registered at birth at the local civil registrar, or other than the name that which he is registered under the Bureau of Immigration upon his entry into the Philippines. In that case of Cesario Ursua vs. CA, Cesario Ursua went to the office of the Ombudsman to get a copy of the complaint filed against him. He was asked by his counsel to get a copy. Since the messenger of the counsel is not available to get it, so he was the one tasked to get the copy of the complaint. So he said he did not want to use his own name, the name of the staff of the said What is an Alias? The presence of Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde and opened Trust Account No. C-163 does not necessarily indicate his intention to be publicly known henceforth as Jose Velarde. In relation to Estrada, Lacquian and Chua were not part of the public who had no access to Estrada’s privacy and to the confidential matters that transpired in Malacañan where he sat as President; Lacquian was the Chief of Staff with whom he shared matters of the highest and strictest confidence, while Chua was a lawyer-friend bound by his oath of office and ties of friendship to keep and maintain the privacy and secrecy of his affairs. Thus, Estrada could not be said to have intended his signing as Jose Velarde to be for public consumption by the fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also inside the room at that time. The same holds true for Estrada’s alleged representations with Ortaliza and Dichavez, assuming the evidence for these representations to be admissible. All of Estrada’s representations to these people were made in privacy and in secrecy, with no iota of intention of publicity. (People vs. Estrada, 583 SCRA Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to another person in a single instance without any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name in addition to his real name from that day forth does not fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended. This is so in the case at bench. (Ursua vs. 142 Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 147, G.R. No. 112170 April 10, 1996) Separately from the constitutional dimension of the allegation of time in the Information, another issue that the allegation of time and our above conclusion raise relates to what act or acts, constituting a violation of the offense charged, were actually alleged in the Information. The conclusion we arrived at necessarily impacts on the People’s case, as it deals a fatal blow on the People’s claim that Estrada habitually used the Jose Velarde alias. For, to our mind, the repeated use of an alias within a single day cannot be deemed “habitual,” as it does not amount to a customary practice or use. This reason alone dictates the dismissal of the petition under CA No. 142 and the terms of Ursua. 143 302, G.R. Nos. 164368-69 April 2, 2009) 210 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 counsel which is Oscar Perez was the one used by Cesario Ursua so with the consent of Oscar Perez. So Cesario Ursua went in the Office of the Ombudsman he logged down the name of Oscar Perez, and he was able to get the complaint for Cesario Ursua but someone recognized Cesario Ursua; therefore, an investigation was conducted that Cesario Ursua used and logged down a different name in the logbook of the Ombudsman that he used the name Oscar Perez instead of Cesario Ursua, and so he was charged with violation of CA 142 as amended. He was convicted by the lower court. trust account Jose Velarde in his trust account, the persons present were Atty. Chua, his friend lawyer, and Lacquian, his former Executive Secretary. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that the use of a different name, the use of the name of Oscar Perez in a single transaction that is to get a copy of the complaint in the office of the Ombudsman without showing henceforth that he wanted to be known under such name is not within the prohibition of CA 142 as amended. Second, the use of the name Jose Velarde was not done habitually, the prosecution did not show any evidence showing that Joseph Estrada used the name Jose Velarde in any other transaction thereafter. Therefore, a single use in that particular transaction is beyond CA 142 as amended, as such the Supreme Court acquitted Estrada for violation of CA 142 as amended, the AntiAlia Law. So the Supreme Court said that in so far as this two persons are concerned, they are not public in so far as Estrada is concerned because they are his friends; therefore, the signing of the name Jose Velarde was not done publicly. It was done in secrecy, inside of Equitable PCI bank before his 2 friends. These 2 persons are his friends and therefore cannot be considered as public in so far as Estrada is concerned. The Supreme Court said that there was no showing that the said accused used the name Oscar Perez in any other transaction after. The use of the name Oscar Perez in a single transaction without henceforth he uses it in any other transaction is outside the ambit of CA 142 as amended. The Supreme Court therefore acquitted Cesario Ursua. He did not use the name habitually because there was no evidence that he used it in any other transaction. ART. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon 1. any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of 1.1. insignia, 1.2. uniforms or 1.3. dress 2. pertaining 2.1. to an office not held by such person or 2.2. to a class of persons of which he is not a member. This case of Cesario Ursua V. CA was cited by the Supreme Court in People vs. Estrada and Sandiganbayan. Former president, and now the mayor of the city of Manila Joseph Ejercito Estrada. He used the name Jose Velarde in afixing his signature in a trust account in Equitable PCI bank. Inside the office of the bank, he signed it in the presence of 2 persons Atty. Chua, his friend lawyer, and Lacquian, his former Executive Secretary. So he used and signed his name Jose Velarde instead of Joseph Estrada in affixing his signature on a trust account. ELEMENTS 1. The offender makes use of an insignia, uniform or dress; 2. The said insignia, uniform or dress pertains to a class of persons for which he is not a member, or to an office not held by him. 3. The said offender uses such insignia, uniform or dress publicly and improperly. As such, he was charged with violation of CA 142 as amended. Convicted by the lower court, when it reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court citing Cesario Ursua vs. CA said that Estrada is not liable under CA 142 as amended, the Anti-Alias law. Note that under the 2nd element for the person to be liable for Illegal use of Uniform Insignia or Dress the said insignia, uniform or dress must pertain to a class of persons of which, the offender using it is not a member, or must pertain to an office which is not held by the said offender. Again an Alias is a name, or names used, or intended to be used publicly, and habitually usually in business transactions. In the instant case Supreme Court said that there was no showing that Joseph Estrada intended to use the name Jose Velarde publicly. The persons present when he affixed his signature in the So if the offender is wearing an insignia, uniform or dress which does not belong to any organization. It does not belong to any class of person, this person only imagined this insignia, uniform or dress out of nowhere, it is not the insignia, uniform or dress of any 211 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 organization or of any class of persons, the person bearing the same is not liable under Article 179 because the use of an imaginary insignia, uniform or dress was brought forth by speculation, adorned out of imagination, cannot be considered under Article 179 because such specifically requires that such insignia, uniform or dress must belong to a class of persons for which the offender is not a member or an office not held by the offender. It is necessary that the offender uses it publicly and improperly. 2.1. shall not exceed said amount or 2.2. cannot be estimated. ART. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person, 1. who knowingly makes untruthful statements and 2. not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, 2.1. shall testify under oath, or 2.2. make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. Section Two. False testimony ART. 180. False testimony against a defendant. - Any person who shall give false testimony against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer: Any person who, 1. in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, 2. shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein. 1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to death; 2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua; 3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive penalty; and 4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted. Articles 180, 181, 182, and 183 refers to False Testimony. 1. Articles 180 and 181 we have False Testimony in Criminal Cases. 2. Article 182 we have False Testimony in Civil Cases. 3. Article 183, we have False Testimony in other cases including Perjury. In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this articlethe offender shall further suffer a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos. False Testimony in Criminal Cases can either be against a defendant or in favor of a defendant. ART. 181. False testimony favorable to the defendants. - Any person who shall give false testimony in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, 1. shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and 2. the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case. 1. 2. 3. 4. ART. 182. False testimony in civil cases. - Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil case shall suffer 1. the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos, and 2. the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy ELEMENTS OF FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT There is a criminal proceeding; The offender testified falsely against the defendant; The offender knows that his testimony is false; and The defendant to whom the false testimony was given is either convicted by final judgment, or acquitted in the said case in which the false testimony has been given. These are the elements of False Testimony against a defendant. ELEMENTS OF FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT 1. There must be a criminal proceeding; 2. The offender testifies falsely in favor of the defendant; and 3. The offender knows that his testimony is a falsity. 212 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Testimony had been given must first be convicted by final judgment or acquitted. Here the said defendant and the said accused was not yet convicted by final judgment. Although convicted by the RTC, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, while the case is pending appeal before the Court of Appeals, while the said case has not yet been decided with finality, the said accused cannot file a False Testimony case against the false witness X. Note that false testimony against a defendant, and false testimony in favor of a defendant have almost the same elements except the fourth element. In case of False Testimony against a defendant, the 4 th element requires that the said defendant to whom the false testimony is given must either be convicted by final judgment or acquitted. Whereas in False Testimony in favor of a defendant this last element is absent, there is no requisite in which the defendant whose the False Testimony is given must first be convicted by final judgment or acquitted by the crime charged. 1. 2. 3. 4. It is premature because under Article 180 the penalty to be imposed on the false witness is dependent on the penalty imposed on the defendant. Since the penalty to be imposed on the False witness is always dependent on the penalty imposed on the defendant, it is necessary first that there be conviction of final judgment before this false witness may be prosecuted for False Testimony because at the moment you do not know yet the penalty that will imposed on this false witness because the penalty that would be imposed on him would be dependent on the penalty that would be imposed on the said defendant. Hence, there must first be conviction by final judgment before a case for False Testimony against a defendant under Article 180 may be filed before false witness X. ELEMENTS OF FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES There is a Civil Case. The offender testifies falsely on issues pertinent to the said civil case. The offender knows his testimony is a falsity. The offender did so with malice and intent to affect the issues relative to the said civil case. The accused was charged with the crime of Homicide. The accused was charged with homicide for having killed the victim so the case is now on trial. The prosecution presented the witness X, X was brought along by the family of the victim, and the fiscal believed based on the statement of the family that this witness X saw how the accused killed the victim, and so this witnessed X testified in open court that, he saw the accused stabbing repeatedly the victim to death, that was the testimony of X but X was a false witness. He was actually a paid witness. He was not present at the scene of the crime, and the accused knew that X was a false witness. He knew that X was not present at the scene of the crime. After the trial on the merits, the judge convicted the said accused. The judge believed the testimony of X and the judge convicted the accused, and so the accused appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals. At the same time the accused also filed a case of false testimony against the witness X. He filed a case of violation of Article 180 False Testimony against a defendant against X. Is X liable as charged? Or will the case of False testimony against X prosper? X definitely is liable but before he can be said liable. Will the case prosper? At the instant the answer is no. The case is premature. The filing of the false testimony case against false witness X under Article 180 is premature. Same problem, the accused killed the victim, and so a case of Homicide was filed against the accused. During the time for the defense to present his witness, the defense presented X a false witness. X testified in open court in favor of the accused. X testified falsely in favor of the accused. X said that it was impossible for the accused to kill the victim because he was with him at the exact date and time of the said killing. Therefore, the said witness X said that it is impossible for the accused to have committed the crime of Homicide. After trial on the merits the judge did not believe the said witness X, so the judge convicted the said accused. The judge convicted the accused of the crime of Homicide. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, while the case is pending appeal before the Court of Appeals, the heirs of the victim filed a case against the false witness X. They filed a case for violation of Article 181 False Testimony in favor of a defendant against the false witness X. Will the case prosper? Yes the case will prosper. This time the case will prosper because under Article 181, in case of False Testimony in favor of a defendant, there is no requisite that the defendant in whose favor the False Testimony had been given must first be convicted by final judgment, or acquitted. There is no such requisite because under Article 181 there is a fixed penalty to be imposed on a false witness. The penalty to be imposed on the false witness is not dependent on the penalty imposed on the The filing of the case is premature because the fourth element is wanting, the fourth element in False Testimony against a defendant under Article 180 requires that the defendant against whom the False 213 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Article 182 because Article 182 is Civil cases, Article 183 False Testimony in other proceedings as well as Perjury. defendant in case of conviction. Therefore, right after the giving of False Testimony, any victim, any heir s of the victim, or any other person may immediately file a case of False Testimony against the false witness under Article 181 that is False Testimony in favor of a defendant. What is Perjury? Perjury is the willful, deliberate assertion of falsehood on a material matter made before a competent authority that is duly authorized to receive, and administer the oath. What if same problem, the accused killed the victim. A case of homicide was filed against the accused. Here comes a witness, the witness was presented by the prosecution, and the witness falsely testified against the defendant. The witness X said that, he saw the defendant killing the victim, stabbing the victim until the victim died, but in truth and in fact, the false witness X was not present at the scene of the crime, but he testified falsely against the accused, against the defendant. After trial on the merits, the judge did not believe the testimony of witness X, and so the judge acquitted the accused. The judge said that there was no sufficient proof to show that the said accused killed the victim. Therefore, the judge acquitted the accused based on reasonable doubt. Now that the accused was acquitted upon his acquittal he immediately filed a case of False Testimony against the false witness X. He filed a case against X for violating Article 180 False Testimony against a defendant because X a false witness testified falsely against him the defendant. Right after the acquittal, the accused immediately filed a case of False Testimony against the defendant’s false witness X. Will the case prosper? Yes the case will prosper. The case will prosper because it is an acquittal. The fourth element of Article 180 requires that the defendant against him the False Testimony has been given must either be convicted by Final Judgment or acquitted. ELEMENTS OF PERJURY 1. The defendant makes a statement under oath, or executes an affidavit on a material matter ; 2. The said statement under oath or affidavit on a material matter must be made before a competent officer duly authorized to receive and administer the oath; 3. In the said statement or in the said affidavit, the offender made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and 4. The said statement under oath or affidavit is required by law. The first element that the offender makes a statement under oath or executes an affidavit on a material matter, the statement must be under oath. Affidavit, when you say affidavit, it is necessary that the same is under oath. TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING PERJURY 1. Making a statement under oath; and 2. Executing an affidavit on a material matter. The second element requires that statement under oath or the affidavit is made before a competent officer duly authorized to receive and administer the oaths. It is necessary that the said statement under oath or affidavit must be made before a competent officer duly authorized to receive and administer oaths because if it is not made before such officer, the crime can be any other crime, like Falsification, but not Perjury. Right after the acquittal of the said accused, right after the acquittal of the said defendant, he can immediately file a case of False Testimony against the defendant under Article 180 against false witness X. The reason is that acquittal is immediately executory. Acquittal is not subject to appeal. Therefore right after the filing, right after his acquittal, the said accused can immediately file a case of False Testimony against the false witness who testified falsely against him. In Perjury for the crime to arise it is necessary that the False Testimony under oath or the affidavit must be made before a competent officer duly authorized to receive and administer oath because the essence of Perjury is the violation of the Solemnity of the oath. So if the falsity is not made before the competent officer duly authorized to receive and administer the oath, perjury will not arise because the second element is absent. Under Article 183, we have False Testimony in other cases. In case of False Testimony under Article 180 and 181 which is False Testimony in criminal cases, False Testimony in Civil cases must refer to an actual civil case. If the False Testimony is given in a special proceedings, like for example a declaration of nullity of marriage, petition for adoption, it falls under Article 183 not The third element requires that in the said statement under oath the offender made a willful or deliberate 214 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 before a local sanggunian under oath. What crime if any is committed by the said accused? The crime committed is perjury not false testimony but Perjury because labor cases are administrative proceeding. Administrative proceedings are not Judicial proceedings. assertion of falsehood; therefore, Perjury can only be committed with deliberate intent. The law requires that there must be a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. It is done by means of deliberate intent. It cannot be done out of mere imprudence or out of mere negligence; hence good faith is a defense in Perjury. So when the false statement under oath is made in a non-judicial proceedings the crime committed is perjury, but if the false statement under oath is made in a judicial proceedings, the crime committed is false testimony. Then we have the last element requires that the said oath or affidavit must be required by law. It is necessary that the statement under oath or the affidavit must be required by law, because Perjury is under Title 4 which is Crimes against Public Interest. Therefore, if the said statement under oath, if the said affidavit which contains falsity is not required by law, then Perjury is not the crime committed because it cannot be considered as a crime against public interest. The offender stated falsities in his driver’s license. The offender stated falsities in his cedula or residence certificate, or community tax certificate. What crime if any is committed? Is he liable of Perjury? The said accused is not liable of Perjury because a driver’s license as well as a cedula or a community tax certificate is not required to be under oath. A public officer submitted his Statements of Assets Liabilities and Net worth. In his Statements of Assets Liabilities and Net worth, the said public officer stated falsities. He did not state his real properties. He also did no state his amount of money in the bank. Thereafter, he filed the same. What crime if any is committed by the said public officer? He is liable for the crime of Perjury because a Statements of Assets Liabilities and Net worth is required to be under oath; hence, when under oath he did not state his real properties in the said Statements of Assets Liabilities and Net worth he becomes criminally liable for Article 183, Perjury. So what crime has been committed by the offender? The offender is liable of Falsification. Falsification by making false narration in a statement of facts in a document. So the liability is falsification and not perjury because these documents are not required to be under oath. So if the offender stated falsities in a document which is required to be under oath, the crime committed is perjury, but if the said accused stated as falsities in a document which is not required to be under oath the crime committed is falsification. X was a witness in a case filed before the office of the ombudsman. So the complainant filed a case before the Office of the Prosecutor, and so the investigating prosecutor called the complainant, the witnesses, and the respondent and his witnesses. The investigating prosecutor was asking clarificatory questions on the witness, and the witness testified under oath. All the statements made by the witness were falsities. The statements that he made before the public prosecutor under oath were all falsities. What crime or crimes were committed by the said witness? He is liable of Perjury and not of false testimony. He is liable for Perjury under Article 183 because the said testimony made before the investigating prosecutor is not in a judicial proceeding. The said False statement or false testimony will be considered as a violation of Article 180, 181 or 182 if it is in a judicial proceedings but if it is in a none judicial proceedings the crime committed is under Article 183 that is Perjury. ART. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence . - Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this section. ELEMENTS 1. The offender offers in evidence a false witness or a false testimony; 2. The offender knows that the said witness or said testimony is a falsity; and 3. The offender offered the same either in a judicial proceeding or any other transaction. So in case of Article 184 or offering false testimony in evidence, the offender becomes criminally liable just by the mere act of offering in evidence either a false witness or a false testimony. The accused testified falsely in a labor case under oath. The accused testified falsely in an administrative case 215 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Under the first act, soliciting any gifts or present as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction. The mere act of soliciting will give rise to the crime. It is not necessary that the said gift or present will be received by the person who made the solicitation. It is also not necessary that he actually refrains from taking part in the public auction. It suffices that he makes this solicitation the crime will already arise. Note that, Article 184 is different from subornation in perjury. Subornation in perjury is committed by the suborner. A suborner is one who procures a false witness to testify in court. The suborner procures a false witness to perjure himself. Before a suborner can be criminally liable for subrogation of perjury it is necessary that the false witness that he procures must first be convicted of the crime of perjury. If the false witness that he procures is not convicted of perjury then the person he procures the same shall not be liable for subornation in perjury. Under the second act punished by attempting to cause bidders to stay away from public auctions by means of gifts, present, by means of threats or by means of fraud or any other artifice. It is not necessary that the said bidders would actually not participate, a mere attempt to cause these bidders not to participate in the public auction will then give rise to the crime. Subornation in perjury is not a crime punished under the RPC. It is not a crime punished under the RPC because we already have Article 184, Offering false testimony or false witness in evidence, just by the mere act of offering a false witness or testimony will the give rise to the crime. It is not necessary that the person or the said witness who testified falsely be actually convicted before the person who offered the same become criminally liable. Note that whether it is the first act of solicitation or the second act of attempting to cause bidders to stay away from public auctions, whether it is the first act or the second act the intention of the offender is to cause the reduction of the price of the thing which is the subject of the auction. Chapter Three FRAUDS That is the criminal intent of the offender, so the intention on the part of the offender is to cause the reduction of the price of the thing which is the subject of the said auction. Section One. Machinations, monopolies and combinations ART. 185. Machinations in public auctions. – 1. Any person who shall 1.1. solicit any gift or promise 1.2. as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, and 2. any person who shall 2.1. attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by 2.1.1. threats, 2.1.2. gifts, 2.1.3. promises, or 2.1.4. any other artifice, 2.2. with intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of the value of the thing auctioned. It is criminal in nature because when there is a public auction it is necessary that the best price would be given to the public. It refers to public interest. If persons would manipulate so that bidders would not participate in the said auction therefore the public will not have the best price for the thing which is the subject of the auction. As such the crime will arise. ART. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who shall 1.1. enter into any contract or agreement or 1.2. shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, 1.3. in restraint of trade or commerce or 1.4. to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market; 2. Any person who 2.1. shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or TWO ACTS PUNISHED 1. By soliciting any gift or present as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction; and 2. By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from public auctions by means of gifts, present, by means of threats or by means of fraud. 216 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 2.2. shall combine with any other person or persons to monopolize said merchandise or object 2.3. in order to 2.3.1. alter the price thereof by spreading false rumors or 2.3.2. making use of any other article to restrain free competition in the market; 3. Any person who, 3.1. being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or agent, wholesaler or retailer, 3.2. shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture, production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise or object of commerce or with any other persons not so similarly engaged 3.3. for the purpose of 3.3.1. making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or 3.3.2. of increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines, 3.4. of any such merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of commerce is used. 3. shall be held liable as principals thereof. THREE ACTS PUNISHED 1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market; and 2. Monopoly to restraint free competition in the market. These first two acts can be committed by any person who connives, conspires or try to monopolize free competition in the market. Under the (3) third act, it can only be done by manufacturers, producers, processors, or importers who connives, conspires, or agree in any manner with any person to perform acts prejudicial to local commerce or to cause the reduction of the price or to cause the increase the price of the basic commodities. So under the third act, not any person can commit that one. Under the third act the offender can either be the manufacturer, the producer, the importer or the processor of the said articles or merchandise. If the said manufacturers, producers, processors or importers, connives, conspires, agrees with any other person in order to commit any acts prejudicial to the lawful commerce or to increase the prices of the basic commodities, then, the crime will arise. It is not necessary that there be actual monopoly, that there be actual agreement. The mere initial steps will already give rise to the said crime. What if the offender happens to be juridical persons, the offender happens to be corporations, associations. And these corporations, associations conspired with one another in order to prevent free competition in the market. Who shall be held criminally liable? You cannot charge these juridical persons. Juridical persons can’t be charged in court because even if convicted, they cannot be imprisoned. They cannot be penalized with imprisonment. Then who shall be liable? It is the president and the directors of the said juridical persons or the said corporations, associations who knowingly permitted and who despite knowledge allowed the same shall be the one liable under Article 186. If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of the combination. Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines. Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, 1. the president and each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association, 2. who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the commission of such offense, Chevron, Petron, and Shell conspired and connived with one another to hoard gasoline/oil. The prices of oil in the foreign market it is very low so they decided to import and hoard the same because they know, that come summer, the prices will increase. What crime if any is committed by these Chevron, Petron, as well as Shell, 217 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 they aren’t liable for any crime for they are juridical persons. Who then should you prosecute? It is the president, the directors or the managers of these organizations of these companies charged in court. Those managers, those presidents, those directors who knowingly permitted and did not prevent the commission of the crime despite knowledge should be the one charged in court. But in case of watch cases and flatware made of gold, the actual fineness of such gold shall not be less by more than 3/1000 than the fineness indicated by said stamp, brand, label, or mark. ELEMENTS 1. The offender imports, sells, or disposes articles or merchandise made of gold, silver or any other precious metals or alloys. 2. The stamps, brands or marks of these articles or merchandise, fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of these precious metals or their alloys. 3. The said offender knew that the said articles or merchandise fail to indicate the actual fitness or quality of these precious metals or their alloys. If the thing subject of monopoly is basic commodities, like for example, food products, motor fuels, lubricants, any other commodities, basic commodities, basic needs of the people, it is not even necessary that there be conspiracy. It is not necessary that there be an agreement. Mere initial steps will suffice for the crime to arise. The product be it, the basic needs of the people. So in case of Article 187, the product being referred to here are misbranded articles, they are misbranded articles because these products made of gold, silver, precious metals or their alloys, the stamps, brands or marks, do not indicate the actual fineness and quality of the said precious metals or their alloys. Hence, they are misbranded. Section Two. Frauds in commerce and industry ART. 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys. - The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed on any person who 1. shall knowingly 1.1. import or 1.2. sell or 1.3. dispose of any article or merchandise 2. made of 2.1. gold, 2.2. silver, or 2.3. other precious metals, or 2.4. their alloys, with 2.4.1. stamps, 2.4.2. brands, or 2.4.3. marks 3. which fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys. For Article 187 to arise, it is not necessary that the offender would have sold the same. It is not necessary that the offender would have disposed the same. It suffices that the offender imported these misbranded articles. Despite knowledge that he knew that these articles or merchandise are misbranded but imported the same, violation of Article 187 will arise. ART. 188. Subsisting and altering trade-mark, tradenames, or service marks144. ART. 189. Unfair competition, fraudulent registration of trade-mark, trade-name or service mark, fraudulent designation of origin, and false description145. Any stamp, brand, label, or mark shall be deemed to fail to indicate the actual fineness of the article on which it is engraved, printed, stamped, labeled or attached, when the rest of the article shows that the quality or fineness thereof is 1. less by more than 1/2 karat, if made of gold, and 2. less by more than 4/1000, if made of silver, 3. than what is shown by said 3.1. stamp, 3.2. brand, 3.3. label or 3.4. mark. Superseded by the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293, January 1, 1998) Superseded by the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293, January 1, 1998) 144 145 218 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS Title Five146 Republic Act No. 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Under section 4 of RA 9165, there is importation of dangerous drugs when the offender brings into Philippine ports any dangerous drugs regardless of its quantity and purity. So the moment dangerous drugs have been brought to Philippine ports regardless of the quality or purity of these dangerous drugs, the offender would become criminally liable for importation of dangerous drugs. Section 4. IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS.- .The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, including any and all species of opium poppy or any part thereof or substances derived therefrom even for floral, decorative and culinary purposes. A foreign vessel was docked along Manila Bay, the police officer got a tip that there were boxes of shabu inside the said foreign vessel and so the police went to the place and there, upon arriving in the said place they saw about five boxes of dangerous drugs and confiscated the same. The persons therein were arrested. Are they liable under section 4? The Supreme Court said, before one can be held liable for importation of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that when the foreign vessel arrived from a foreign country to the Philippine ports the said dangerous drugs were already on board the said foreign vessel. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall import any controlled precursor and essential chemical. So it is necessary that the prosecution must prove that the said foreign vessel upon arrival into the Philippine ports already have the dangerous drugs in sight. Absent that evidence showing that upon the arrival the dangerous drugs were already on board it cannot be considered as importation of dangerous drugs, but only possession of dangerous drugs. The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized under this Act, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other means involving his/her official status intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of the same. In addition, the diplomatic passport shall be confiscated and canceled. So it is necessary that the prosecution must prove when the vessel arrived in the Philippine ports the vessel has already the said dangerous drugs on board the said vessel. The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. ∞∞∞ Section 5. SALE, TRADING, ADMINISTRATION, DISPENSATION, DELIVERY, DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section. 146 See R.A. 9165. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 219 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Section 5 punishes different acts. We have selling, trading, administering, dispensing, delivery, giving away to another, dispatching in transit, distributing and transportation of dangerous drugs. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions. ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS So many acts punished under section 5. Including among these is selling dangerous drugs. Selling is the act of giving away dangerous drugs from one person to another for money or any other consideration. ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS 1. The buyer and the seller are clearly identified. 2. The corpus delicti, that is, the dangerous drugs itself as well as the price are established. 3. The corpus delicti, that is the dangerous drugs, must be transferred or delivered from the hands of the seller to the hands of the buyer. If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. (Jurisprudential Elements: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof 147) For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. The first element, the buyer and the seller are clearly identified. Who is the buyer? Who is the seller of the said dangerous drug? It must be clearly identified no doubt. If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed. Second element, the corpus delicti and the price are established. In cases of violation of RA 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. It is the object, it is the substance of the crime. The dangerous drugs itself, its existence, its identity must be established. The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. Under the second element, not only the corpus delicti but also the price must be established. The price must be established because otherwise it cannot be considered as illegal sale of dangerous drugs, so the price must be established. The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section. 147 And the third element requires that it is necessary that the said corpus delicti or dangerous drugs must be transferred from the hands of the seller to the hands of the buyer. Because if the dangerous drugs was not given by the seller to the buyer then it is an aborted sale of dangerous drugs because there was no transfer of dangerous drugs from the hands of the seller to the hands of the buyer. It is an aborted illegal sale of dangerous drugs which cannot be considered as a consummated sale but only an attempted illegal sale of People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, J. VELASCO Jr. 220 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 dangerous drugs as found in the case of People vs. Rolando Laylo148. Therefore, according to X, since the mark money was not given to him it cannot be illegal sale of dangerous drugs. If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit X? How would you rule on the contention of the said accused? X is liable as charged. He is liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The police officers got a tip that X was engaged in buying/selling dangerous drugs so they conduct a surveillance in the house of X and based on the surveillance they are positive that he was engaged in selling dangerous drugs and so a buy bust operation was planned. Based on the said operation, A shall act as the poseur-buyer, A will be the one to buy dangerous drugs from the drug vendor X. And so during their buy bust operation planning, the police officers gave A marked money in the amount of five 100 peso bills. Based on their buy bust operation plan, the moment the sale transaction, between A and X is already consummated, A as the poseur buyer has to remove his eye glasses. The removal of the eyeglasses, will signal that the transaction is already finished and the police officers will already arrest X. That was the plan in the buy bust operation. So all the members of the team of the police went to the place or the house of X was located. The police officers positioned themselves nearby but in hiding so that X will not be able to see them. Meanwhile A, the assigned poseur buyer went alone to the gate of the house and knocked and it was X who opened the door, the drug vendor. Upon seeing X, A the poseur buyer told X that he is going to buy shabu worth 500 pesos. Upon hearing that X went inside the house and when X came back at the gate X showed to A two transparent sachets of shabu. X gave the same to A. A upon receipt of the same was about to give the five 100 peso bills to X when suddenly he accidentally removed his eyeglasses and the glasses fell on the ground. Upon the removal of the said eyeglasses and such fell on the ground. The police officers believing that the said transaction has already been consummated because based on their plan it is the removal of the eyeglasses that would signal that the sale/transaction has already been consummated this brings the officers immediately went to scene and they arrested X. X was thereafter charged of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5. But X contended, it cannot be illegal sale of dangerous drugs because he did not receive the mark money. The mark money remained in the hands of A because even before A was able to give the mark money to X, the police officers already arrived and arrested him. First element, the buyer and the seller are both identified. X is the seller, A is the poseur-buyer. Second element, the corpus delicti, the dangerous drugs and the price are established. The corpus delicti that is the two plastic sachets of shabu. The price, that is 500 pesos. Even if the marked money was not given by the poseurbuyer to the drug seller, there is still the presence of the second element because the second element only requires that the price must be established. So the Supreme Court said, there is no requisite that there must be a simultaneous exchange of money and dangerous drugs. It suffices that the price or the value or amount of dangerous drugs being bought has been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that the said money be given to the drug handler. The third element is also present because X gave the two plastic sachets of shabu to the poseur buyer. All the elements being present therefore, X is liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. So in case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is not necessary that the money actually be given to the seller. It suffices that the price be established. It suffices that the value of the dangerous drugs being bought have been established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. So what if, in the same problem, the poseur buyer A was not presented in court. So X was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs but the poseur buyer was not presented in court and so the poseur buyer did not testify to the transaction of sale between him and the seller. Even if the poseur buyer is not presented in court, can there still be a conviction? Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous drugs. Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165 provides: Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy.—Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act: x x x (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; x x x. (People vs. Laylo, 653 SCRA 660, G.R. No. From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor testified that they were the poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively identified appellant as the seller of the substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be positive for shabu. The same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when presented in court. Even the consideration of P200.00 for each sachet had been made known by appellant to the police officers. However, the sale was interrupted when the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested appellant and his live-in partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated but merely attempted. 148 192235 July 6, 2011) 221 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 The SC in a number of cases said that, the presentation of the poseur- buyer in court to testify as to the presence of the sale of said dangerous drugs is not material. His testimony will only be in effect corroborative, if the other police officers witness the said sale of dangerous drugs. If the other police officers present could see and have witnessed the actual sale of dangerous drugs, it is not necessary that the poseur buyer be presented in court. A parked his vehicle near a sidewalk in front of B. B was a cigarette vendor. And then thereafter, A lowered the window of his car and called on B. A told B, “I have here a box. If you agree to deliver this box to that man near the electric post on the other side of the street, I will give you Php 1,000.00.” And so B asked A, “What is inside this box? Why would you give me Php 1,000.00 just for delivering this to that man on the other side of the street?” So A told B, “This is just a valuable jewelry, this is just a valuable thing. So just give it to that man and here is Php 1,000.00.” B was in need of money so he accepted the Php 1,000.00 and he took the box from him and went to the other side of the street to the man near the electric post. He was in the act of delivering the said box when the police suddenly arrived and arrested B. The box was also confiscated. Upon looking at the said box, it was discovered that the contents of the box were marijuana and so B was charged for delivering dangerous drugs. Is B liable as charged? B is not liable for delivery of dangerous drugs because B has no knowledge that the thing he is delivering is dangerous drugs. Based on the definition of delivery under RA 9165, it is necessary that the person making the delivery must have knowledge that the thing he is delivering is dangerous drugs. Absent that knowledge, it could be a defense. Hence, he is not liable for delivering dangerous drugs. But the moment the said accused testified and denied the existence of the actual sale of dangerous drugs and the police officers who witnessed were far from the actual scene, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present the poseur buyer because in this case, the testimony of the police officers will only be hearsay evidence. They are not present at the actual sale and buying, they are only within the vicinity in hiding. Therefore it cannot be said that they know that the transaction had already lasted. So the absence or the presence of the testimony of the poseur buyer will depend upon the facts and circumstances presented in the case. If based on the presentation of evidence in court the drug seller denied the actual existence of the said sale or transaction, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present the said poseur buyer. The transaction only being between the drug teller and the poseur buyer, it is only the poseur buyer who can testify as to the consummation of the said sale. But if, other police officers are present nearby and they witnessed the actual sale then it is not necessary for the poseur buyer to be presented. ∞∞∞ Section 6. MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE OR RESORT. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. DELIVERY OF DANGEROUS DRUGS How is delivery of dangerous drugs defined under RA 9165? Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration149. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form. It is necessary that there be knowledge on the part of the courier. It is necessary that there be knowledge of the part of the person delivering dangerous drugs for him to be criminally liable under Sec. 5 of RA 9165. The courier, the person delivering the dangerous drugs must have knowledge that the thing he is delivering must be dangerous drugs because under RA 9165 delivering has been defined as the act of knowingly passing. So the offender knows that the thing he is passing is dangerous drugs. 149 The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed in every case where any dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such a place. R.A. 9165 Sec. 3 (k) 222 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 X told Y, “Y, you go to my house tonight. There is a session in my house. And if you may wish to join our session, drop by my house at around 9 o’clock tonight.” And so Y told X, “Okay, I will drop by your house 9 o’clock this evening.” And so at exactly 9 o’clock in the evening, Y went to the house of X. Upon arrival to the house of X, Y why so shocked. Y thought all along that it was a mahjong session, but upon reaching the house, he saw that it was a shabu session. Y was on his way out upon seeing that it was a shabu session when suddenly the police arrived. The police, armed with a search warrant, they raided the said place. And among those arrested was Y. Y was charged. Is why criminally liable? Under Sec. 7 of RA 9165, the following persons are also criminally liable. First, an employee of the said den, dive, or resort who has knowledge of the nature of the place as one use for the sale of dangerous drugs. And the second one is any person any person who has been an employee is aware of the nature of the said place as a den, dive, or resort for the use and sale of dangerous drugs and who shall normally visit the same. Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the penalty of death and a fine ranging from One million (P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the maintainer, owner and/or operator. If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall specifically allege that such place is intentionally used in the furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution shall prove such intent on the part of the owner to use the property for such purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner shall be included as an accused in the criminal complaint. The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. The penalty twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section. So in the said place which is for the use and sale of dangerous drugs, can the employees therein, can the workers therein, be held liable? The answer is yes, if they are aware of the nature of the said place and considering that they are employees, obviously they are aware that the said place is being maintained for the use and sale of dangerous drugs. Therefore the employees therein are criminally liable under Sec. 7. Section 7. EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS OF A DEN, DIVE OR RESORT. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon: How about Y? Y is not liable because although he went to the said place, he is not aware that the said place was used I order to maintain the use and sale of dangerous drug. Likewise, he did not knowingly visit the same despite such knowledge. a. Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as such; and b. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same For a mere visitor to be liable, Sec. 7 requires that first, he is aware of the nature of the said place as one which is maintained for the use and sale of dangerous drugs. And second element requires that he shall knowingly visit the same despite knowledge that it is a place, den, dive, or resort for use and sale of dangerous drugs. MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE, OR RESORT FOR USE AND SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS Section 6 punishes any person or group of persons who maintains any den, dive, or resort for the use and sale of dangerous drugs. In this case, based on the facts, Y didn’t know. Y is not aware of the nature of the said place, as one being maintained as the use and sale of dangerous drugs and he did not knowingly visit the same. Therefore, Y should be acquitted based on the provision of Sec. 7. What about the employee in the said place? What about persons visiting the said place? Can they also be held criminally liable? ∞∞∞ 223 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 Section 8. MANUFACTURE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any dangerous drug. Section 11. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: 1. 10 grams or more of opium; 2. 10 grams or more of morphine; 3. 10 grams or more of heroin; 4. 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; 5. 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"; 6. 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; 7. 500 grams or more of marijuana; and 8. 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall manufacture any controlled precursor and essential chemical. The presence of any controlled precursor and essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the clandestine laboratory is a prima facie proof of manufacture of any dangerous drug. It shall be considered an aggravating circumstance if the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or established under the following circumstances: a. Any phase of the manufacturing process was conducted in the presence or with the help of minor/s: b. Any phase or manufacturing process was established or undertaken within one hundred (100) meters of a residential, business, church or school premises; c. Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected with booby traps; d. Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with legitimate business operations; or e. Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner. Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows: 1. Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams; 2. Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section. Under this section, the persons of any controlled precursor or any essential chemical or any laboratory equipment in a clandestine laboratory shall be prima facie evidence of the manufacture of dangerous drugs. 224 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and 3. Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana. The answer is no. Insofar as the second element is concerned, the law presumes that any person in possession of any dangerous drugs does not have the authority to possess the same. The law prima facie presumes the same because dangerous drugs are per se contraband. Since dangerous drugs are per se contraband, since they are per se illegal, the law presumes that any person in possession of dangerous drugs does not have the authority to possess the same. Therefore, it is the accused who has the burden of proving that he has the authority to possess the said dangerous drug. So insofar as the second element is concerned it is presumed by law, therefore it is the accused that must prove that he has the authority to possess the dangerous drugs found in his possession. Then we have the third element requires that the offender freely consciously possesses the said dangerous drugs. There is animus posidendi, he knows that the thing in his possession is a dangerous drug. He freely and consciously possesses the said dangerous drug. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS ELEMENTS 1. The accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; 2. Such possession is not authorized by law; and 3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. ∞∞∞ Section 12. POSSESSION OF EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENT, APPARATUS AND OTHER PARAPHERNALIA FOR DANGEROUS DRUGS. -The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof. The first element, the offender was found in possession of an article or item identified to be dangerous drugs. What does possession mean? Possession does not only mean actual physical possession. Possession also includes constructive possession for as long as the said dangerous drugs is under the control and dominion of the said offender. It is not necessary that the dangerous drugs be found on his body or clothing. It is not necessary that there is physical possession for as long as it is found in a place under the control and dominion of the person, there is already constructive possession. The dangerous drugs was found under the pillow on the beddings where he was sleeping, there is already illegal possession of dangerous drugs because the said dangerous drugs were under his control and dominion hence there is constructive possession. The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act. The second element requires that the offender does not have the authority to possess dangerous drugs. Is this second element for the prosecution to prove? Is the prosecution mandated or incumbent to prove that the said accused has possession of the said dangerous drugs when he has no authority to possess the same? 225 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 When the offender is charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia what is the presumption of the law? When a person is found in possession of drug paraphernalia, the law presumes that the said person consumed, administered or injected dangerous drugs to himself. to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. So the possession of these drug paraphernalia would lead to the presumption that he consumed, administered, used, injected dangerous drugs on himself. ELEMENTS 1. The offender was found in the actual use of dangerous drugs. 2. After a confirmatory test, he was found positive for use of any dangerous drugs. 3. No other amount of dangerous drugs was found in his possession other than that what he is consumed, or used. ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS ∞∞∞ Section 13. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DURING PARTIES, SOCIAL GATHERINGS OR MEETINGS. – Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs. So under the first element it is necessary that the offender was actually seen by the police officers by the PDEA agents or any other person using dangerous drugs. Second element, after his arrest he must go to the PNP Crime Lab for confirmatory testing and the test showed that he is positive for use of dangerous drugs, that he actually consumed dangerous drugs. What if the offender was found in possession of dangerous drugs in a party, in a meeting, in a gathering? What is the effect on his criminal liability? Under Section 13 of RA 9165 if a person is found in possession of dangerous drugs in a meeting, party, gathering, or in the company of at least two or more persons. The maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. The third element requires that no other amount of dangerous drugs must be found in his possession because if any other amount of dangerous drugs was found in his possession other than the dangerous drugs that he has consumed or he was consuming, then the appropriate charge is already illegal possession and not illegal use of dangerous drugs. Therefore, the moment the person was found in possession of dangerous drugs in a meeting, gathering, or in any place in the company of at least two or more persons it will aggravate the criminal liability of the offender. The law says, the maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. So in order to give rise to illegal use of dangerous drugs the third element requires that no other amount, no other kind of dangerous drugs must be found in possession of the said offender. X was walking on the street on his way home when suddenly here comes a snatcher. The snatcher immediately grabbed her handbag and so X shouted for help the police officers who were nearby heard the shout of X for help and so the police officer chased the snatcher. The police officer blew the whistle for the snatcher to stop but the snatcher would not stop. The snatcher entered a house that has an opened door considering that the door of the house was open the police officer entered the said house. Upon entering, the police officers saw on the floor of the said house three persons, A, B, and C encircled and engaged in sniffing shabu. The police officers did not anymore follow the snatcher, instead the police officers arrested A, B, and C whom they caught in the actual act of sniffing shabu. They informed A, B, and C of their constitutional rights ∞∞∞ Section 15. USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found 226 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of 1.1. the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, 1.2. a representative from the media and 1.3. the Department of Justice (DOJ), and 1.4. any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; 2. Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; 3. A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twentyfour (24) hours; 4. After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be and handcuffed them. Thereafter they searched/frisked the body and the clothing of A, B, and C. And upon search the police officers found two plastic sachets of shabu on the pocket of the pants of A, two plastic sachets of shabu on the pocket of the pants of B and also two plastic sachets of shabu on the pocket of the pants of C. So from A, B, and C two plastic sachets of shabu were found in each of their pockets. The police officers confiscated the said dangerous drugs marked the same and thereafter brought A, B, and C to the PNP Crime Lab for testing and they also sent the dangerous drugs for testing. After the confirmatory test A, B and C were found to be positive for use of shabu. Based on these evidence, what case or cases should be filed by the police officers against A, B, and C? A, B, and C should only be charged with one case and that is illegal possession of dangerous drugs not illegal use of dangerous drugs. Illegal use of dangerous drugs is not the appropriate charge because the third element is absent for illegal use. The first element is present. A, B, and C were found actually using shabu. Second element is also present, after confirmatory test they are found positive for use of shabu. But the third element is absent. The third element requires that no other amount of dangerous drugs must be found in their possession when they were frisked, when they were searched two plastic sachets of shabu were found from the pockets of their pants from each of their pants. Therefore they can no longer be held liable for illegal use because the third element of illegal use is already absent. Instead, they shall be convicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs because form each of their pockets two plastic sachets of shabu were found. ∞∞∞ Section 21. CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF CONFISCATED, SEIZED, AND/OR SURRENDERED DANGEROUS DRUGS, PLANT SOURCES OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, INSTRUMENTS/PARAPHERNALIA AND/OR LABORATORY EQUIPMENT. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: 227 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER John Ree Esquivel-Doctor |2016 5. 6. 7. 8. counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official who shall be given a copy of the said inventory and who shall be required to sign the same. donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained; The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board; The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former; After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; and Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, w