CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
•
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
ATTY. THEODORE O. TE
OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES
OF PENAL LAW
Legality
Prospectivity
Art. 21
Arts. 21, 22
Pro
Reo
Art.
22
Territoriality
Generality
Art. 2
Civil
Code,
Art. 14
OUTLINE OF BOOK 1
Sources of Liability
Circumstances
Affecting Liability
Penalties
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Circumstances
Affecting Penalties
Extinction of Liability
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Articles 3, 365, 10
Article 4 (1) and 49
Article 4 (2) and 59
Articles 6, 7 and 9 and 25
Article 8 vis Articles 136,
141
Articles 16-19
Art. 48
Article 11
Article 12
Article 20 vis Article 19
Articles 25-26 vis RA
10591; Articles 27-45
Articles 46, 50-57 vis Arts.
6, 16-19
Article 58 vis Articles 19(3)
and 14 (1)
Article 61 vis Articles 71,
73-77
Articles 63-65
Indeterminate Sentence
Law
Articles 13-15
Article 61(1a)
Article 62 (5), 160
Article 48
Articles 70 vis 78-88
Articles 89-93
Articles 94-99
Articles 100-103
Articles 104-111
Articles 112-113
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW: it is a branch of public law that studies
the definition of crime and punishment
• It is the study of penal laws
It defines conduct which is criminal and provide
penalty for such conduct when an act or omission
is committed.
TEST WHETHER A LAW IS PENAL OR NOT: Whether a
law provides a punishment
• The punishment could be a term of imprisonment
or a fine or both.
Penal laws can be found in the Revised Penal Code or in
special laws (e.g. Republic Acts passed by Congress,
Presidential Decrees which are penal in nature)
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to define
crimes and to provide for their punishment, subject only to
constitutional limitations, exceptional circumstances,
general principles of international law, treaty stipulations
and laws of preferential application.
While the RPC provides penalties, Congress is not limited
to those penalties as it may devise and define other forms
of penalties, subject to constitutional injunction against
cruel, degrading, and inhumane punishment, and due
process clause.
5 MAIN PRINCIPLES: Legality, Prospectivity,
Pro Reo, Territoriality and Generality
1. Legality
Article 21, Revised Penal Code. Penalties that may be
imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
There is no punishment without a penal law. Unless the
act is defined as a crime and a penalty is prescribed for it,
it cannot be punished as a crime no matter how perverse,
immoral, odious or wrong the act is.
LATIN MAXIM: Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
•
•
•
If an act or omission is no longer defined as a
crime because the law punishing it has been
repealed, then the person previously punished or
he may no longer be made to continue serving his
sentence.
The duty to interpret the law and determine
whether there is a violation of the appropriate
penal law belongs to the judiciary.
The courts must interpret penal laws strictly
against the State, represented by the People of
the Philippines, and liberally in favor of the
accused.
2. In Dubio Pro Reo
Article 21, Revised Penal Code. supra
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
1
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
Article 22, Revised Penal Code. Retroactive effect of
penal laws. - Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the persons 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.
This provides for a liberal construction of penal laws in
favor of the accused.
• In case of doubt, rule in favor of the accused.
3. Prospectivity / Non-retroactivity
Article 22, Revised Penal Code. Supra
Section 22, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. No ex post
facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Rationale: Prohibition against an ex post facto law passed
by Congress.
• This also implements Art. 3, Section 22 of the
1987 Constitution.
Ex Post Facto Law: a law which retroactively burdens
someone and prejudicial to the accused.
People v. Ringor, Jr., G.R. No. 123918, February
9, 1999
Pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, where
the new law is favorable to the accused, it has to be
applied retroactively. Thus, insofar as it spares accusedappellant a separate conviction for illegal possession of
firearms, Republic Act No. 8294 has to be given
retroactive application in Criminal Case No. 13100-R.
…The amendatory law making the "use of an unlicensed
firearm" as an aggravating circumstance in murder or
homicide, cannot be applied here because the said
provision of R.A. No. 8294 is not favorable to accusedappellant, lest it becomes an ex post facto law.
Note: In this case, the Court applied the amendment to
the law of illegal possession of firearms, both in
prospective and retroactive manner, depending on the
benefit or prejudice to the accused.
4. Territoriality
Application of its
provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship
2.
Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.
Article 2 starts with an exception, then proceeds to tell us
that the RPC shall be enforced “not only within…” “but
also outside” in 5 situations.
Does Article 2 provide a general rule on territoriality or
general rule in extra territoriality?
• It provides a general rule that penal laws are
territorial and the exceptions are those listed in
Article 2.
• The limitations of extraterritorial application are
those provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application (exception to the exception
which brings it back to the general rule)
5. Generality
Article 14, Civil Code. Penal laws and those of public
security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live
or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
GENERALITY V. TERRITORIALITY
Generality
Territoriality
ONLY Philippine penal
Philippine penal laws
laws apply within
apply ONLY within
Philippine territory
Philippine territory
Exclusive application with
Non-application of penal
Philippine territory
laws
The 2 concepts complement each other
Article 2, Revised Penal Code.
SOURCES OF LIABILITY AND
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING LIABILITY
1. Arts. 3, 365, 10
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
2
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
Article 3, Revised Penal Code. Criminal Liability. —
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.
The next articles – Arts. 4, 6, 16-19, 48, and 49 – are
illustrative of situations that give rise to criminal liability.
2. Arts. 4 (1) and 49
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.
Article 4 (1), Revised Penal Code. Criminal Liability. —
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
Article 365, Revised Penal Code. Imprudence and
negligence. – x x x
Article 49, Revised Penal Code. Penalty to Be Imposed
Upon the Principals When the Crime Committed is
Different from that Intended. — In cases in which the
felony committed is different from that which the
offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be
observed:
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing or 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.
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. x x x
When are omissions punishable? When the law prescribes
a duty and there is a failure to perform the duty.
• Some punishable omissions under RPC: Arts.
116, 137, 208, 223, 234, 275
Act or omission can be by dolo (malice) or culpa (fault)
These 2 provisions must also be read with Art. 10:
Article 10, Revised Penal Code. Offenses Not Subject to
the Provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in
the future may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary.|||
1ST RULE: first sentence, there is no relationship between
RPC and special laws; separate and distinct
2ND RULE: second sentence, supplementary/ suppletory
relationship
When is the second sentence applied/when is there
something missing? If the special law provides penalties,
provisions, principles, characterization are similar to those
in the penal code, the 2nd sentence applies.
• Exception: even if the special law provides such, if
it specifically states that the RPC does not apply,
then the 1st sentence should be followed.
• Example: Under RA 9165, RPC shall not apply.
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended x x x
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. The rule established by the next preceding
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts
committed by the guilty person shall also constitute
an attempt or frustration of another crime, 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.
4 (1) shows that criminal liability may be incurred even for
unintended results so long as there is criminal intent.
3 Instances under 4 (1)
a. Mistake in the blow (Aberratio ictus)
b. Mistake in identity (error in personae)
c. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
(praetem intentionem)
In relation to Art. 49, there must always be criminal intent.
3. Arts. 4 (2) and 59
Article 4 (2), Revised Penal Code. Criminal Liability. —
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.|||
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
3
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
Article 59, Revised Penal Code. Penalty to Be Imposed
in Case of Failure to Commit the Crime Because the
Means Employed or the Aims Sought are Impossible. —
When the person intending to commit an offense has
already performed the acts for the execution of the same
but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason
of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means
employed by such person are essentially inadequate to
produce the result desired by him, the court, having in
mind the social danger and the degree of criminality
shown by the offender x x x
Impossible crimes may be committed in 2 ways:
(a) By reason of inherent impossibility
(b) By reason of ineffectual means
Rationale: social danger and the degree of criminality shown
by the offender
• Acts would have resulted in a felony against
persons or property.
4. Arts. 6, 7, and 9 and 25
Article 6, Revised Penal Code. Consummated,
Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. —
Article 7, Revised Penal Code. When Light Felonies are
Punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been consummated, with the exception of
those committed against person or property.
Article 9, Revised Penal Code. Grave Felonies, Less
Grave Felonies and Light Felonies. — Grave felonies are
those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional,
in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.
Light felonies are those infractions of law Light felonies are
those infractions of law or the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided.
Article 25, Revised Penal Code. Penalties Which May be
Imposed.
Consummated: When all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present
Attempted v. frustrated
Attempted
Frustrated
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 his
own spontaneous
desistance.
The external circumstance
affects the last act needed
to consummate
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.
The external circumstance
affects the result intended
Nuance in the last external circumstance: In offenses
involving killing, the “last act” needs to be defined
Marasigan v. Fuentes, G.R. No. 201310, January
11, 2016
… there is basis for prosecuting respondents for murder in
its attempted, and not in its frustrated, stage.
In this case, petitioner alleged that respondents
coordinated in assaulting him and that this assault
culminated in efforts to hit his head with a stone or hollow
block. Had respondents been successful, they could have
dealt any number of blows on petitioner. Each of these
could have been fatal, or, even if not individually so, could
have, in combination, been fatal. That they were unable to
inflict fatal blows was only because of the timely arrival of
neighbors who responded to the calls for help coming from
petitioner and witnesses x x x
People v. Labiaga, G.R. No. 202867, July 15,
2013
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…
Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal, we hold
that appellant should be convicted of attempted murder
and not frustrated murder.
People v. Caballero, G.R. Nos. 149028-30, April
2, 2003
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives,
the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries,
if the offender had no intention to kill the victim or frustrated or
attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder
if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be
proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
4
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature
and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner
the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the
offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the
victim.
In this case, appellant Armando was armed with a wooden
pole. Appellant Ricardo and accused Robito used knives. Dr.
Quisumbing, who attended to and operated on Arnold,
testified that the stab wound sustained by Arnold on the left
side of his body was mortal and could have caused his death
were it not for the timely and effective medical intervention x x
x
NOTE:
• Marasigan v. Fuentes - (Attempt) no fatal blow
• People v. Labiaga – (Frustration) wound would
have been fatal had it not been for timely medical
intervention (affected the last act from being
carried out)
• People v. Caballero – (Frustration) blows would
have cause death if not for the medical
intervention (prevented the result)
IN SUM: Medical intervention is an external circumstance
which could affect either the last act or the results.
Art. 6 also defines criminal liability
• Art. 46 (2) )applicable to consummated felony.
• Arts. 50-57 apply to attempt, frustrated,
accomplice, accessory, etc.)
5. Arts. 8 vis Articles 136, 141
Article 8, Revised Penal Code. Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Felony. — Conspiracy and
proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided
to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.
Article 136, Revised Penal Code. Conspiracy and
Proposal to Commit Rebellion or Insurrection.
Article 141, Revised Penal Code. Conspiracy to Commit
Sedition.
Art. 8: Punishable Proposals and Conspiracies
• Punishable only when the RPC provides for
penalties
•
•
GR: act of one is the act of all
If there is a specific provision of law: then the
preparatory act becomes a felony in itself
o Example: Art. 136 - If the rebellion is
actually committed, then the coup itself is
the felony, and the conspiracy would be
punished only as a means to commit the
felony.
6. Arts. 16-19
Article 16, Revised Penal Code. Who are Criminally
Liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and
less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
Article 17, Revised Penal Code. 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.
Article 18, Revised Penal Code. Accomplices. —
Accomplices are those persons who, not being included
in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts.|||
Article 19, Revised Penal Code. Accessories. —
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime,
or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape
of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory
acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever
the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
Article 20, Revised Penal Code. Accessories Who are
Exempt from Criminal Liability.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
5
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
Principal by direct participation: performs the acts
constituting the elements of the felony
A conspiracy does away with classification: the act of one
is the act of all; all conspirators treated as principals
Principal by inducement: supplies the criminal intent to
direct participant through force, fear or incentive
• inducement must be given to procure the
commission of the felony
• the inducement must be the reason the direct
participant commits the felony
• the inducement precedes the felony
Art. 19: the accessory
• 3 acts are punished: all after the felony and without
participation in the felony itself.
People v. Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 13352728, December 13, 1999
In order that a person may be convicted as principal by
inducement, the following must be present: (1) the
inducement be made with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime, and (2) such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission by the material
executor (U.S. vs. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 [1913]). To
constitute inducement, there must exist on the part of the
inducer the most positive resolution and the most persistent
effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with
the presentation to the person induced of the very strongest
kind of temptation to commit the crime.
By the foregoing standards, the remark of Jeanette to "take
care of the two" does not constitute the command required
by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by
inducement. As we held in U.S. vs. Indanan, supra, "a
chance word spoken without reflection, a wrong
appreciation of a situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtless
act, may give birth to a thought of, or even a resolution to
crime in the mind of one for some independent reason
predisposed thereto without the one who spoke the word
or performed the act having any expectation that his
suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it
produce the result. In such case, while the expression was
imprudent and the results of it grave in the extreme, he (the
one who spoke the word or performed the act) would not
be guilty of the crime committed".
Furthermore, the utterance which was supposedly the act
of inducement, should precede the commission of the
crime itself (People vs. Castillo, July 26, [1966]). In the case
at bar, the abduction, which is an essential element of the
crime charged (kidnapping for ransom with murder) has
already taken place when Jeanette allegedly told accusedappellant Geroche to "take care of the two." Said utterance
could, therefore, not have been the inducement to commit
the crime charged in this case.
The principal by indispensable cooperation: provides the
support without which the felony would not be possible.
• different from an accomplice under Art. 18 in that
the accomplice’s support is preferrable, but not
indispensable (characterization of the cooperation)
Art. 20 immunizes some accessories
• Note: immunity is only for the second and third acts
of an accessory under art. 19.
7. Art. 48
Article 48, Revised Penal Code. Penalty for Complex
Crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more
crimes, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.|||
The key element is that there is only one act performed
that produces 2 or more grave or less grave felonies.
• the single act is the means to commit another
felony.
• The penalty is the penalty for the more serious
offense in its maximum period.
Article 48 distinguished from special complex crimes
• the law provides one penalty for 2 or more
felonies.
• There is more than one act.
• Ex. Robbery with Homicide - punished with 1
penalty but more than 1 act
o The determining factor is the intent
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING LIABILITY
These are the justifying circumstances in Art. 11 and
exempting circumstances in Art. 12
• If the circumstances exist, criminal liability does not
arise
• These are matters of defense, thus the burden of
proving the existence of the circumstances is on
the accused
Justifying Circumstances
There is no criminal liability
because the act is lawful
There is only civil liability in
11 (4)
Exempting Circumstances
There
accused
is
exempted from criminal
liability, but not civil liability
because the crime exists.
There is no civil liability only
in 12 (4)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
6
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
Article 11, Revised Penal Code.
Justifying
Circumstances. — The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
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.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
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, in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that
the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
of a stranger, provided that the first and second
requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this
article are present and that the person defending be
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful purpose.
ART. 11
Self-defense
Defense of
Relatives
ELEMENTS
1.Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on
part of relative, or, in case of
provocation, the one making the
defense had No part therein.
Defense of
Strangers
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending was not
Induced by revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.
Avoidance of
greater evil
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually
Exists.
2. Evil or injury must Not have been
produced by the one invoking the
justifying circumstances.
3. Injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it; and
4. There are no other practical and less
harmful Means of preventing it.
1. Offender acted in Performance of
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office; and
2. The injury caused or the offense
committed be the Necessary
consequence of the due performance
of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
1. Order must have been issued by a
superior;
2. The order is for some lawful
Purpose; and
3. Means used to carry it out must be
lawful.
Fulfillment of
duty or lawful
exercise of
right
Obedience to
Superior
order
In all circumstances of Art. 11, the acts are admitted but not
the nature of the acts.
Art. 11 (1-3) defense of persons or rights
• first 2 elements are common, the 3rd element is
unique.
3RD ELEMENT
Par 1: accused must not have provoked the aggression
Par 2: even if the relative attacked gave provocation, the
one defending must have taken no part
Par 3: the person defending is not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
Take note of the enumeration of relatives in Art. 11 (2)
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted Siblings, or relatives
by affinity in the same degrees (parents-in-laws,
children-in-law, siblings- in-law)
5. Relatives by Consanguinity within 4th civil degree
•
Relatives not enumerated in par. 2 are considered
strangers for par. 3.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
7
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
ON REASONABLE NECESSITY TO REPEL OR PREVENT
AGGRESSION: this is not a one-to-one correspondence,
but refers to the proportionality of the means used.
Accident
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 12, Revised Penal Code. Circumstances Which
Exempt from Criminal Liability. — The following are exempt
from criminal liability:
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 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.
2.
A person under nine years of age.
3.
A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of article 80 of
this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who
shall be charged with his surveillance and education;
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said article 80.
4.
Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
5.
Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force.
6.
Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7.
Any person who fails to perform an act required by
law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause.
ART. 12
Insanity
or
imbecility
Minority;
Without
Discernment
ELEMENTS
Imbecile or insane person did not act
during lucid interval
1. Accused is 15 years old and Below;
and
Irresistible
force
Uncontrollable
fear
Insuperable or
lawful cause
2. Accused is Between 15 and 18
years old, and he acted Without
Discernment
1. A person is performing a Lawful act;
2. Act was done with Due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by
mere Accident; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing
it.
1. There is compulsion is by means of
Physical force;
2. Physical force must be Irresistible;
and
3. Physical force must come from a
Third person.
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be Real and Imminent.
3. Fear of an injury is Greater than or
Equal to that committed.
1. That an act is Required by law to be
done;
2. That a person Fails to perform such
act;
3. That his failure to perform such act
was due to some Lawful or
insuperable cause.
In exempting circumstances, the will is impaired or
overwhelmed thus unable to act otherwise
Art. 12 (1): insanity and imbecility
• standard is a legal one, not a medical or scientific
one
• the test is WON there is total deprivation of
freedom, intelligence or will
People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12,
2000
In the Philippines, the courts have established a more
stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required
that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason;
he acted without the least discernment because there is a
complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a
total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability.
The issue of insanity is a question of fact for insanity is a
condition of the mind, not susceptible of the usual means of
proof. As no man can know what is going on in the mind of
another, the state or condition of a person's mind can only be
measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing the
insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may
be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the
accused, by a witness who has rational basis to conclude that
the accused was insane based on the witness' own
perception of the accused, or by a witness who is qualified
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
8
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. The testimony or proof
of the accused's insanity must relate to the time preceding or
coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he
is charged.
People v. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July
23, 1997 (on imbecility)
Imbecility, one of the exempting circumstances under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, is defined as
feeblemindedness or a mental condition approaching that
of one who is insane. It is analogous to childishness and
dotage. An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12, is one
who must be deprived completely of reason or discernment
and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. He
is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two
and seven years of age.
People v. Laroy, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992
Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense which pertains to the
mental condition of a person. Our caselaw projects the
same standards in respect of both insanity and imbecility,
that is, that the insanity or imbecility must constitute
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of the will. The
above quoted medical evidence that was admitted into the
record in the case at bar does not show complete
deprivation (nor even substantial deprivation) of intelligence
on the part of appellant Buenaflor and he, accordingly,
cannot be deemed exempted from criminal liability for the
rape of Isabella Federis. His behavior on the night he raped
Isabella showed that he was quite conscious of his acts and
aware of the moral quality thereof.
NOTE Article 20: on accessories
• not a justifying or exempting circumstance but also
spares the offender from liability.
PENALTIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING PENALTIES
CLASSIFYING THE PENALTIES UNDER THE RPC, ART.
25: Principal and accessory penalties
• Principal – capital, afflictive, correctional, light,
penalities common
• Accessories – no further classification
TO MAKE PENALTIES EASIER TO REMEMBER:
ARTS. 25, 46-50-57, 63-64, 71
• Prescribed
• Imposable
• Imposed
• Served
Penalty Prescribed
Penalty Imposable
Penalty Imposed
Penalty Served
Found in Book 2
Determined by applying the
circumsntances affecting
penalties under Aarts. 13-15
May be an indeterminate
sentence under the
indeterminate sentence law
Will consider the application of
GCTA, loyalty awards,
commutation, etc.
PENALTY ON PRINCIPAL IN CONSUMMATED STAGE:
Article 46, RPC
Art. 12 (2) (3): minority
• repealed by RA. 9344, sec. 6.
• Minimum age of criminal responsibility – 15 years
of age under RA 9344, sec. 6, subject to
intervention program
• Ages 15-18 are exempt unless they acted with
discernment
• Civil liability is still present as the act still considered
unlawful
ARTICLES 50-57 in relation to art. 71
• To determine penalties for different stages of
execution and degrees of participation
Art 12 (4): accident
• Only instance under Art. 12 where there is no civil
liability
Participation Consummated Frustrated
/Stage
Principal
P
1
Accomplice
1
2
Accessory
2
3
P: Penalty Prescribed; # - Degrees Lower
Art. 12 (5)(6): force and fear
• Both must impair and overwhelm the will of the
offender, resulting in complete lack of discernment
Art. 12 (7): lawful or insuperable cause
• It is a felony by omission brought about by
insurmountability of the obstacle
AS A RULE:
• For each stage of execution below consummation,
one degree lower
• For each participation lower than principal, one
degree lower
Attempted
2
3
4
IS THE PENALTY DIVISIBLE?
• In Art. 25, penalty is divisible if capable of being
divided into 3 equal periods (maximum, medium,
minimum)
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
9
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
•
•
reclusion perpetua remains to be an indivisible
penalty.
desterrio – indivisible
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF A PENALTY IS
DIVISIBLE OR NOT?
• If indivisible: under Art. 63, mitigating
circumstances
(MC)
an/or
aggravating
circumstances (AC) are no longer considered
• If divisible: under Art. 64, the penalty depends on
the number of circumstances affecting penalties.
Art. 64:
•
•
•
•
•
1 AC, 0 MC, maximum period
1 MC, 0 AC minimum period
0 MC, 0 AC, medium period
2 or more MCS, 0 AC (privileged mitigating
circumstance), penalty next lower in degree and
then impose in the proper period
Ordinary MC without AC, medium period
Art. 70 application: successive service of sentences and 3fold rule
• GR: whenever possible, penalties must be served
simultaneously
• EX:
if the penalties cannot be served
simultaneously, successively
• Successive sentences to be served according to
scale, see Art. 70.
3-FOLD RULE
• Maximum duration of sentences to be served shall
not be more than 3 times the length corresponding
to the most severe penalty, and the maximum
period shall be 40 years.
NOTE: In Art. 13, there are 2 privileged MCS
• Incomplete justification (12 and 13); and
• minority in rel. to Art. 12 as amended by the
Juvenile Justice Act, sec. 6
• Effect: lower penalty initially by 1 degree.
RE: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES in Art. 14
• There are qualifying circumstances which not
necessarily increase the penalty, but provide for a
specific penalty.
• Ex. Murder – the effect of the qualifying
circumstance is not to impose the penalty in the
maximum, but provide for a specific penalty.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, CAPACITY TO BE
OFFSET AND EFFECT ON PENALTY
Nature
Capacity for
Effect on Penalty
Offset
Generic
Can be offset
Article 64; if not offset,
penalty to be imposed
in minimum period
Privileged
Cannot be
offset
Reduces penalty by
one to two degrees;
cf. Article 71
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; CAPACITY TO BE
OFFSET AND EFFECT ON PENALTY
Nature
Capacity for
Effect on Penalty
Offset
Generic
Can be offset
Art. 64; if not offset,
penalty to be imposed
in maximum period
Qualifying
Cannot be
No effect on penalty;
offset
effect is to define the
offense and provide a
specific penalty for the
offense
Inherent
Cannot be
No effect; considered
offset
an element of the
offense
Specific
Can be offset
Same effect as generic
circumstance; only
difference is that these
apply only to specific
felonies
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The manner of extinction of criminal liability is found in 2
articles: Articles 89 and 94.
Arts. 90 and 93 explain the mode of absolute extinction of
liability in Art. 89.
Arts. 95-99 explain the mode of partial extinction in Art. 94.
Art. 89: Total Extinction
Article 89, Revised Penal Code. How Criminal Liability is
Totally Extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
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 penalty.
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in
article 344 of this Code.
•
•
Service of sentence: Arts. 87-88
Amnesty – completely extinguishes the crime and
all its effect; joint action of the executive and
Congress.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
10
CRIMINAL LAW | Criminal Law 1 | Atty. Theodore O. Te
Reason: it removes the very basis for
which an act was criminal in the first place
Absolute pardon
o Absolute v. conditional v. pardon of
offender party (Art. 23)
Prescription
o Prescription of offense – cuts off right to
prosecute
o Prescription of penalty – cuts off the right
to enforce the sentence.
o Both instances absolutely bar the action to
be done.
Marriage of offended woman in Art. 344 in offenses
against chastity and for rape under Art. 266-A.
o
•
•
•
Art. 94: Partial Extinction
Article 94, Revised Penal Code. 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 preventive imprisonment or serving
his sentence.
CIVIL LIABILITY
GR: Art. 100
• every person criminally liable is civilly liable, except
those provided by law
COVERAGE OF CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A CRIME
• Restitution
• Reparation
• Indemnification
As a rule: First, there must be restoration and then, the
damage must be repaired. In either case, the offended party
may ask for consequential damages.
Art. 112 on how to extinguish civil liability
• Same as in the Civil Code
Article 112, Revised Penal Code. 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.
Article 113, Revised Penal Code. 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 he has served his sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has
not been required to serve the same by reason of
amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other
reason.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute
11