Articles 1-10 of the RPC Total or absolute, or partial or

relative repeal. As to the effect of

repeal of penal law to the liability of
Criminal Law A branch of municipal offender, qualify your answer by
law which defines crimes, treats of saying whether the repeal is absolute
their nature and provides for their or total or whether the repeal is partial
punishment. or relative only.

Limitations on the power of A repeal is absolute or total when

Congress to enact penal laws (ON) the crime punished under the
repealed law has been decriminalized
1. Must be general in application. by the repeal. Because of the repeal,
the act or omission which used to be a
2. Must not partake of the nature crime is no longer a crime. An
of an ex post facto law. example is Republic Act No. 7363,
which decriminalized subversion.
3. Must not partake of the nature
of a bill of attainder. A repeal is partial or relative when
the crime punished under the
4. Must not impose cruel and
repealed law continues to be a crime
unusual punishment or excessive
inspite of the repeal. This means that
fines.
the repeal merely modified the
Characteristics of Criminal Law: conditions affecting the crime under
the repealed law. The modification
1. General the law is binding to may be prejudicial or beneficial to the
all persons who reside in the offender. Hence, the following rule:
Philippines
Consequences if repeal of penal
2. Territorial the law is binding law is total or absolute
to all crimes committed within
the National Territory of the (1) If a case is pending in court
Philippines involving the violation of the repealed
law, the same shall be dismissed,
Exception to Territorial Application: even though the accused may be a
Instances enumerated under Article 2. habitual delinquent.
3. Prospective the law does not (2) If a case is already decided
have any retroactive effect. and the accused is already serving
sentence by final judgment, if the
Exception to Prospective Application:
convict is not a habitual delinquent,
when new statute is favorable to the
then he will be entitled to a release
accused.
unless there is a reservation clause in
Effect of repeal of penal law to the penal law that it will not apply to
liability of offender those serving sentence at the time of
the repeal. But if there is no
reservation, those who are not more lenient to them, it will be the
habitual delinquents even if they are repealing law that will henceforth
already serving their sentence will apply to them.
receive the benefit of the repealing
law. They are entitled to release. Under Article 22, even if the offender
is already convicted and serving
If they are not discharged from sentence, a law which is beneficial
confinement, a petition for habeas shall be applied to him unless he is a
corpus should be filed to test the habitual delinquent in accordance with
legality of their continued confinement Rule 5 of Article 62.
in jail.
Consequences if repeal of penal
If the convict, on the other hand, is a law is express or implied
habitual delinquent, he will continue
serving the sentence in spite of the (1) If a penal law is impliedly
fact that the law under which he was repealed, the subsequent repeal of
convicted has already been absolutely the repealing law will revive the
repealed. This is so because penal original law. So the act or omission
laws should be given retroactive which was punished as a crime under
application to favor only those who the original law will be revived and the
are not habitual delinquents. same shall again be crimes although
during the implied repeal they may
Consequences if repeal of penal not be punishable.
law is partial or relative
(2) If the repeal is express, the
(1) If a case is pending in court repeal of the repealing law will not
involving the violation of the repealed revive the first law, so the act or
law, and the repealing law is more omission will no longer be penalized.
favorable to the accused, it shall be
the one applied to him. So whether These effects of repeal do not apply to
he is a habitual delinquent or not, if self-repealing laws or those which
the case is still pending in court, the have automatic termination. An
repealing law will be the one to apply example is the Rent Control Law
unless there is a saving clause in the which is revived by Congress every
repealing law that it shall not apply to two years.
pending causes of action. Theories of Criminal Law
(2) If a case is already decided 1. Classical Theory Man is
and the accused is already serving essentially a moral creature
sentence by final judgment, even if with an absolute free will to
the repealing law is partial or relative, choose between good and evil
the crime still remains to be a and therefore more stress is
crime. Those who are not habitual placed upon the result of the
delinquents will benefit on the effect felonious act than upon the
of that repeal, so that if the repeal is criminal himself.
 1. Positivist Theory Man is Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit
subdued occasionally by a rea
strange and morbid
phenomenon which conditions The act cannot be criminal where the
him to do wrong in spite of or mind is not criminal. This is true to a
contrary to his volition. felony characterized by dolo, but not a
felony resulting from culpa. This
Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy maxim is not an absolute one because
it is not applied to culpable felonies, or
This combines both positivist and those that result from negligence.
classical thinking. Crimes that are
economic and social and nature Utilitarian Theory or Protective
should be dealt with in a positivist Theory
manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes The primary purpose of the
should be dealt with in a classical punishment under criminal law is the
manner; thus, capital punishmen protection of society from actual and
potential wrongdoers. The courts,
therefore, in exacting retribution for
the wronged society, should direct the
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW punishment to potential or actual
Doctrine of Pro Reo wrongdoers, since criminal law is
directed against acts and omissions
Whenever a penal law is to be which the society does not approve.
construed or applied and the law Consistent with this theory, the mala
admits of two interpretations one prohibita principle which punishes an
lenient to the offender and one strict offense regardless of malice or
to the offender that interpretation criminal intent, should not be utilized
which is lenient or favorable to the to apply the full harshness of the
offender will be adopted. special law.

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine Sources of Criminal Law

lege
1. The Revised Penal Code
There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same. This is true to 2. Special Penal Laws Acts
civil law countries, but not to common enacted of the Philippine
law countries. Legislature punishing offenses
or omissions.
Because of this maxim, there is no
common law crime in the Philippines. Construction of Penal Laws
No matter how wrongful, evil or bad 1. Criminal Statutes are liberally
the act is, if there is no law defining construed in favor of the
the act, the same is not considered a offender. This means that no
crime. person shall be brought within
 their terms who is not clearly When the act penalized is not
within them, nor should any act inherently wrong, it is wrong only
be pronounced criminal which is because a law punishes the same.
not clearly made so by statute.
Distinction between crimes
2. The original text in which a punished under the Revised Penal
penal law is approved in case of Code and crimes punished under
a conflict with an official special laws
translation.
1. As to moral trait of the
3. Interpretation by analogy has offender
no place in criminal law
In crimes punished under the Revised
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Penal Code, the moral trait of the
offender is considered. This is why
Violations of the Revised Penal liability would only arise when there is
Code are referred to as malum in se, dolo or culpa in the commission of the
which literally means, that the act is punishable act.
inherently evil or bad or per
se wrongful. On the other hand, In crimes punished under special laws,
violations of special laws are generally the moral trait of the offender is not
referred to as malum prohibitum. considered; it is enough that the
prohibited act was voluntarily done.
Note, however, that not all violations
of special laws are mala prohibita. 2. As to use of good faith
While intentional felonies are always as defense
mala in se, it does not follow that
prohibited acts done in violation of In crimes punished under the Revised
special laws are always mala Penal Code, good faith or lack of
prohibita. Even if the crime is criminal intent is a valid defense;
punished under a special law, if the unless the crime is the result of culpa
act punished is one which is inherently In crimes punished under special laws,
wrong, the same is malum in se, and, good faith is not a defense
therefore, good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense; 3. As to degree of
unless it is the product of criminal accomplishment of the crime
negligence or culpa.
In crimes punished under the Revised
Likewise when the special laws Penal Code, the degree of
requires that the punished act be accomplishment of the crime is taken
committed knowingly and willfully, into account in punishing the offender;
criminal intent is required to be proved thus, there are attempted, frustrated,
before criminal liability may arise. and consummated stages in the
commission of the crime.
In crimes punished under special laws, Analyze the violation: Is it wrong
the act gives rise to a crime only when because there is a law prohibiting it or
it is consummated; there are no punishing it as such? If you remove
attempted or frustrated stages, unless the law, will the act still be wrong?
the special law expressly penalize the
mere attempt or frustration of the If the wording of the law punishing the
crime. crime uses the word willfully, then
malice must be proven. Where malice
4. As to mitigating and is a factor, good faith is a defense.
aggravating circumstances
In violation of special law, the act
In crimes punished under the Revised constituting the crime is a prohibited
Penal Code, mitigating and act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of
aggravating circumstances are taken liability, unless the special law
into account in imposing the penalty punishes an omission.
since the moral trait of the offender is
considered. When given a problem, take note if
the crime is a violation of the Revised
In crimes punished under special laws, Penal Code or a special law.
mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are not taken into Art. 1. This Code shall take effect
account in imposing the penalty. on January 1, 1932.

5. As to degree of Art. 2. Except as provided in the

participation treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this
In crimes punished under the Revised Code shall be enforced not only
Penal Code, when there is more than within the Philippine Archipelago
one offender, the degree of including its atmosphere, its
participation of each in the interior waters and Maritime
commission of the crime is taken into zone, but also outside of its
account in imposing the penalty; thus, jurisdiction, against those who:
offenders are classified as principal,
accomplice and accessory. 1. Should commit an offense
while on a Philippine ship or
In crimes punished under special laws, airship;
the degree of participation of the
offenders is not considered. All who 2. Should forge or counterfeit any
perpetrated the prohibited act are coin or currency note of the
penalized to the same extent. There is Philippine Islands or obligations
no principal or accomplice or and securities issued by the
accessory to consider. Government of the Philippine
Islands;
Test to determine if violation of
special law is malum prohibitum 3. Should be liable for acts
or malum in se connected with the introduction
into these islands of the board a vessel within its territorial
obligations and securities waters and these are:
mentioned in the preceding
number; (1) When the crime is
committed in a war vessel of a
4. While being public officers or foreign country, because war vessels
employees, should commit an are part of the sovereignty of the
offense in the exercise of their country to whose naval force they
functions; or (Some of these crimes belong;
are bribery, fraud against national
treasury, malversation of public funds (2) When the foreign country in
or property, and illegal use of public whose territorial waters the crime was
funds; e.g., A judge who accepts a committed adopts the French Rule,
bribe while in Japan.) which applies only to merchant
vessels, except when the crime
5. Should commit any crimes committed affects the national
against the national security and security or public order of such foreign
the law of nations, defined in Title country.
One of Book Two of this
Code. (These crimes include treason, Requirements of an offense
espionage, piracy, mutiny, and committed while on a
violation of neutrality) Philippine Ship or Airship

Rules as to crimes 1. Registered with the Philippine

committed aboard foreign Bureau of Customs
merchant vessels: 2. Ship must be in the high seas or
1. French Rule Such crimes are the airship must be in
not triable in the courts of that international airspace.
country, unless their Under international law rule, a vessel
commission affects the peace which is not registered in accordance
and security of the territory or with the laws of any country is
the safety of the state is considered a pirate vessel and piracy
endangered. is a crime against humanity in
1. English Rule Such crimes are general, such that wherever the
triable in that country, unless pirates may go, they can be
they merely affect things within prosecuted.
the vessel or they refer to the US v. Bull
internal management thereof.
(This is applicable in the A crime which occurred on board of a
Philippines) foreign vessel, which began when the
ship was in a foreign territory and
two situations where the foreign continued when it entered into
country may not apply its criminal law Philippine waters, is considered a
even if a crime was committed on
continuing crime. Hence within the Felonies acts and omissions
jurisdiction of the local courts. punishable by the Revised Penal
Code
As a general rule, the Revised Penal
Code governs only when the crime Crime acts and omissions
committed pertains to the exercise of punishable by any law
the public officials functions, those
having to do with the discharge of What requisites must concur before a
their duties in a foreign country. The felony may be committed?
functions contemplated are those,
There must be (1) an act or omission;
which are, under the law, to be
(2) punishable by the Revised Penal
performed by the public officer in the
Code; and (3) the act is performed or
Foreign Service of the Philippine
the omission incurred by means of
government in a foreign country.
dolo or culpa.

How felonies are committed:

Exception: The Revised Penal Code
1. by means of deceit (dolo)
governs if the crime was committed
There is deceit when the act is
within the Philippine Embassy or
performed with deliberate
within the embassy grounds in a
intent.
foreign country. This is because
embassy grounds are considered an Requisites:
extension of sovereignty.
1. freedom
Paragraph 5 of Article 2, use the
phrase as defined in Title One of 2. intelligence
Book Two of this Code.
3. intent
This is a very important part of the
Examples: murder, treason, and
exception, because Title I of Book 2
robbery
(crimes against national security) does
not include rebellion. Criminal intent is not necessary in
these cases:
Art 3. Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies. (1) When the crime is the
product of culpa or negligence,
Acts an overt or external act
reckless imprudence, lack of foresight
Omission failure to perform a or lack of skill;
duty required by law. Example
(2) When the crime is a
of an omission: failure to render
prohibited act under a special law or
assistance to anyone who is in
what is called malum prohibitum.
danger of dying or is in an
uninhabited place or is wounded In criminal law, intent is
abandonment. categorized into two:
(1) General criminal intent; and is motive in the commission of a
crime, it always comes before the
(2) Specific criminal intent. intent. But a crime may be committed
General criminal intent is presumed without motive.
from the mere doing of a wrong act. If the crime is intentional, it cannot be
This does not require proof. The committed without intent. Intent is
burden is upon the wrong doer to manifested by the instrument used by
prove that he acted without such the offender. The specific criminal
criminal intent. intent becomes material if the crime is
Specific criminal intent is not to be distinguished from the
presumed because it is an ingredient attempted or frustrated stage.
or element of a crime, like intent to kill 1. by means of fault (culpa)
in the crimes of attempted or There is fault when the wrongful
frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. act results from imprudence,
The prosecution has the burden of negligence, lack of foresight, or
proving the same. lack of skill.
Distinction between intent and 1. Imprudence deficiency of
discernment action; e.g. A was driving a
Intent is the determination to do a truck along a road. He hit B
certain thing, an aim or purpose of the because it was raining
mind. It is the design to resolve or reckless imprudence.
determination by which a person acts. 2. Negligence deficiency of
On the other hand, discernment is perception; failure to foresee
the mental capacity to tell right from impending danger, usually
wrong. It relates to the moral involves lack of foresight
significance that a person ascribes to 3. c. Requisites:
his act and relates to the intelligence
as an element of dolo, distinct from 1. Freedom
intent.
2. Intelligence
Distinction between intent and
motive 3. Imprudence, negligence,
lack of skill or foresight
Intent is demonstrated by the use of
a particular means to bring about a 4. Lack of intent
desired result it is not a state of The concept of criminal
mind or a reason for committing a negligence is the inexcusable lack of
crime. precaution on the part of the person
On the other hand, motive implies performing or failing to perform an
motion. It is the moving power which act. If the danger impending from
impels one to do an act. When there that situation is clearly manifest, you
have a case of reckless Mistake of fact would be relevant only
imprudence. But if the danger that when the felony would have been
would result from such imprudence is intentional or through dolo, but not
not clear, not manifest nor immediate when the felony is a result of culpa.
you have only a case of simple When the felony is a product of culpa,
negligence. do not discuss mistake of fact.

Mistake of fact is a Art. 4. Criminal liability shall be

misapprehension of fact on the incurred:
part of the person who caused
injury to another. He is not 1. By any person
criminally liable. committing a felony, although the
wrongful act done be different
a. Requisites: from that which he intended.

1. that the act done would have Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes

been lawful had the facts been that the act done is the proximate
as the accused believed them cause of the resulting felony. It must
to be; be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the felonious act.
2. intention of the accused is
lawful; Causes which produce a
different result:
3. mistake must be without fault of
carelessness. 1. Mistake in identity of the
victim injuring one person
Example: United States v. Ah who is mistaken for another
Chong. (this is a complex crime under
Ah Chong being afraid of bad Art. 48) e.g., A intended to
elements, locked himself in his room shoot B, but he instead shot C
by placing a chair against the door. because he (A) mistook C for B.
After having gone to bed, he was In error in personae, the
awakened by somebody who was intended victim was not at the scene
trying to open the door. He asked the of the crime. It was the actual victim
identity of the person, but he did not upon whom the blow was directed, but
receive a response. Fearing that this he was not really the intended victim.
intruder was a robber, he leaped out
of bed and said that he will kill the How does error in personae affect
intruder should he attempt to enter. criminal liability of the offender?
At that moment, the chair struck him.
Believing that he was attacked, he Error in personae is mitigating if the
seized a knife and fatally wounded the crime committed is different from that
intruder. which was intended. If the crime
committed is the same as that which
was intended, error in personae does
not affect the criminal liability of the circumstance due to lack of
offender. intent to commit so grave a
wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A
In mistake of identity, if the crime wanted to injure B. However, B
committed was the same as the crime died.
intended, but on a different victim,
error in persona does not affect the praeter intentionem is
criminal liability of the offender. But if mitigating, particularly covered by
the crime committed was different paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order
from the crime intended, Article 49 however, that the situation may
will apply and the penalty for the qualify as praeter intentionem, there
lesser crime will be applied. In a way, must be a notable disparity between
mistake in identity is a mitigating the means employed and the resulting
circumstance where Article 49 felony
applies. Where the crime intended is
more serious than the crime In all these instances the
committed, the error in persona is not offender can still be held
a mitigating circumstance criminally liable, since he is
motivated by criminal intent.
2. Mistake in blow hitting
somebody other than the target Requisites:
due to lack of skill or fortuitous
1. the felony was intentionally
instances (this is a complex
committed
crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and
C were walking together. A 2. the felony is the proximate
wanted to shoot B, but he cause of the wrong done
instead injured C.
Doctrine of Proximate
In aberratio ictus, a person Cause such adequate and
directed the blow at an intended efficient cause as, in the natural
victim, but because of poor aim, that order of events, and under the
blow landed on somebody else. In particular circumstances
aberratio ictus, the intended victim as surrounding the case, which
well as the actual victim are both at would necessarily produce the
the scene of the crime. event.

aberratio ictus, generally gives rise Requisites:

to a complex crime. This being so,
the penalty for the more serious crime 1. the direct, natural, and logical
is imposed in the maximum period. cause

3. Injurious result is greater 2. produces the injury or damage

than that intended causing
3. unbroken by any sufficient
injury graver than intended or
intervening cause
expected (this is a mitigating
 4. without which the result would it not for the inherent
not have occurred impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of
Proximate Cause is negated the employment of inadequate or
by: ineffectual means.
1. Active force, distinct act, or fact Requisites: (IMPOSSIBLE
absolutely foreign from the CRIME)
felonious act of the accused,
which serves as a sufficient 1. Act would have been an offense
intervening cause. against persons or property

2. Resulting injury or damage is 2. Act is not an actual violation of

due to the intentional act of the another provision of the Code or
victim. of a special penal law

proximate cause does not require 3. There was criminal intent

that the offender needs to actually
touch the body of the offended party. 4. Accomplishment was inherently
It is enough that the offender impossible; or inadequate or
generated in the mind of the offended ineffectual means were
party the belief that made him risk employed.
himself. Notes:
Requisite for Presumption blow
1. Offender must believe that he
was cause of the death Where can consummate the intended
there has been an injury crime, a man stabbing another
inflicted sufficient to produce who he knew was already dead
death followed by the demise of cannot be liable for an
the person, the presumption impossible crime.
arises that the injury was the
cause of the death. Provided: 2. The law intends to punish the
criminal intent.
1. victim was in normal health
3. There is no attempted or
2. death ensued within a frustrated impossible crime.
reasonable time
Felonies against persons:
The one who caused the
parricide, murder, homicide,
proximate cause is the one liable. The
infanticide, physical injuries,
one who caused the immediate cause
etc.
is also liable, but merely contributory
or sometimes totally not liable. Felonies against
property: robbery, theft,
2. By any person performing an
usurpation, swindling, etc.
act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were
 Inherent impossibility: A a catching question. Even though the
thought that B was just facts constitute an impossible crime, if
sleeping. B was already dead. the act done by the offender
A shot B. A is liable. If A knew constitutes some other crimes under
that B is dead and he still shot the Revised Penal Code, he will not be
him, then A is not liable. liable for an impossible crime. He will
be prosecuted for the crime
When we say inherent impossibility, constituted so far by the act done by
this means that under any and all him.
circumstances, the crime could not
have materialized. If the crime could this idea of an impossible crime
have materialized under a different is a one of last resort, just to teach the
set of facts, employing the same offender a lesson because of his
mean or the same act, it is not an criminal perversity. If he could be
impossible crime; it would be an taught of the same lesson by charging
attempted felony. him with some other crime constituted
by his act, then that will be the proper
Employment of inadequate way. If you want to play safe, you
means: A used poison to kill B. state there that although an
However, B survived because A impossible crime is constituted, yet it
used small quantities of poison is a principle of criminal law that he
frustrated murder. will only be penalized for an
impossible crime if he cannot be
Ineffectual means: A aimed his
punished under some other provision
gun at B. When he fired the
of the Revised Penal Code.
gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empty. A Art 5. Whenever a court has
is liable. knowledge of any act which it may
deem proper to repress and which is
Whenever you are confronted
not punishable by law, it shall render
with a problem where the facts
the proper decision and shall report to
suggest that an impossible crime was
the Chief Executive, through the
committed, be careful about the
Department of Justice, the reasons
question asked. If the question asked
which induce the court to believe that
is: Is an impossible crime
said act should be made subject of
committed?, then you judge that
legislation.
question on the basis of the facts. If
really the facts constitute an In the same way the court shall
impossible crime, then you suggest submit to the Chief Executive,
than an impossible crime is through the Department of
committed, then you state the reason Justice, such statement as may be
for the inherent impossibility. deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the
If the question asked is Is he
sentence, when a strict
liable for an impossible crime?, this is
enforcement of the provisions of
this Code would result in the other than his own spontaneous
imposition of a clearly excessive desistance.
penalty, taking into consideration
the degree of malice and the Development of a crime
injury caused by the offense.
1. Internal acts intent and plans;
When a person is charged in usually not punishable
court, and the court finds that there is
2. External acts
no law applicable, the court will acquit
the accused and the judge will give his 1. Preparatory Acts acts
opinion that the said act should be tending toward the crime
punished.
2. Acts of Execution acts
Paragraph 2 does not apply to directly connected the
crimes punishable by special crime
law, including profiteering, and
illegal possession of firearms or Stages of Commission of a Crime
drugs. There can be no
executive clemency for these
Attempt Frustrated
crimes.

Art. 6. Consummated felonies, as well Overt acts of execution

as those which are frustrated and are started
attempted, are punishable.
Not all acts of execution
A felony is consummated when all are present
the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment Due to reasons other
are present; and it is frustrated than the spontaneous
when the offender performs all desistance of the
the acts of execution which would perpetrator
produce the felony as a
consequence but which, All acts of execution are
nevertheless, do not produce it by present
reason of causes independent of
Crime sought to be
the will of the perpetrator.
committed is not
There is an attempt when the achieved
offender commences the
Due to intervening
commission of a felony directly by
causes independent of
overt acts, and does not perform
the will of the
all the acts of execution which
perpetrator
should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident All the acts of execution
 there was desistance on the part of
are present
the offender, if the desistance was
The result sought is made when acts done by him already
achieved resulted to a felony, that offender will
still be criminally liable for the felony
Stages of a Crime does not brought about his act
apply in:
In deciding whether a felony is
1. Offenses punishable by Special attempted or frustrated or
Penal Laws, unless the consummated, there are three criteria
otherwise is provided for. involved:

2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, (1) The manner of committing

adultery, etc.) the crime;

3. Impossible Crimes (2) The elements of the crime;

and
4. Crimes consummated by mere
attempt. Examples: attempt to (3) The nature of the crime
flee to an enemy country, itself.
treason, corruption of minors.
Applications:
5. Felonies by omission
1. A put poison in Bs food. B
6. Crimes committed by mere threw away his food. A is liable
agreement. Examples: attempted murder.[1]
betting in sports (endings in
2. A stole Bs car, but he returned
basketball), corruption of public
it. A is liable (consummated)
officers.
theft.
Desistance
3. A aimed his gun at B. C held
Desistance on the part of the As hand and prevented him
offender negates criminal liability in from shooting B attempted
the attempted stage. Desistance is murder.
true only in the attempted stage of
4. A inflicted a mortal wound on
the felony. If under the definition of
B. B managed to survive
the felony, the act done is already in
frustrated murder.
the frustrated stage, no amount of
desistance will negate criminal 5. A intended to kill B by shooting
liability. him. A missed attempted
murder.
The spontaneous desistance of
the offender negates only the 6. A doused Bs house with
attempted stage but not necessarily kerosene. But before he could
all criminal liability. Even though
 light the match, he was caught but he himself did not proceed
attempted arson. because he believed that he had done
enough to consummate the crime,
7. A cause a blaze, but did not Supreme Court said the subjective
burn the house of B frustrated phase has passed
arson.
NOTES ON ARSON;
8. Bs house was set on fire by A
(consummated) arson. The weight of the authority is
that the crime of arson cannot be
9. A tried to rape B. B managed to committed in the frustrated stage.
escape. There was no The reason is because we can hardly
penetration attempted rape. determine whether the offender has
10.A got hold of Bs painting. A performed all the acts of execution
was caught before he could that would result in arson, as a
leave Bs house frustrated consequence, unless a part of the
robbery.[2] premises has started to burn. On the
other hand, the moment a particle or
The attempted stage is said to a molecule of the premises has
be within the subjective phase of blackened, in law, arson is
execution of a felony. On the consummated. This is because
subjective phase, it is that point in consummated arson does not require
time when the offender begins the that the whole of the premises be
commission of an overt act until that burned. It is enough that any part of
point where he loses control of the the premises, no matter how small,
commission of the crime already. If he has begun to burn.
has reached that point where he can
no longer control the ensuing ESTAFA VS. THEFT
consequence, the crime has already In estafa, the offender receives
passed the subjective phase and, the property; he does not take it. But
therefore, it is no longer attempted. in receiving the property, the recipient
The moment the execution of the may be committing theft, not estafa, if
crime has already gone to that point what was transferred to him was only
where the felony should follow as a the physical or material possession of
consequence, it is either already the object. It can only be estafa if
frustrated or consummated. If the what was transferred to him is not
felony does not follow as a only material or physical possession
consequence, it is already frustrated. but juridical possession as well.
If the felony follows as a consequence,
it is consummated. When you are discussing estafa,
do not talk about intent to gain. In the
although the offender may not same manner that when you are
have done the act to bring about the discussing the crime of theft, do not
felony as a consequence, if he could talk of damage.
have continued committing those acts
Nature of the crime itself co-conspirator merely cooperated in
the commission of the crime with
In crimes involving the taking of insignificant or minimal acts, such that
human life parricide, homicide, and even without his cooperation, the
murder in the definition of the crime could be carried out as well,
frustrated stage, it is indispensable such co-conspirator should be
that the victim be mortally wounded. punished as an accomplice only.
Under the definition of the frustrated
stage, to consider the offender as Art. 7. Light felonies are punishable
having performed all the acts of only when they have been
execution, the acts already done by consummated with the exception of
him must produce or be capable of those committed against persons or
producing a felony as a consequence. property.
The general rule is that there must be
a fatal injury inflicted, because it is Examples of light felonies: slight
only then that death will follow. physical injuries; theft;
alteration of boundary marks;
If the wound is not mortal, the malicious mischief; and
crime is only attempted. The reason intriguing against honor.
is that the wound inflicted is not
capable of bringing about the desired In commission of crimes against
felony of parricide, murder or properties and persons, every
homicide as a consequence; it cannot stage of execution is punishable
be said that the offender has but only the principals and
performed all the acts of execution accomplices are liable for light
which would produce parricide, felonies, accessories are not.
homicide or murder as a result.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to
An exception to the general rule commit felony are punishable only in
is the so-called subjective phase. The the cases in which the law specially
Supreme Court has decided cases provides a penalty therefore.
which applied the subjective standard
A conspiracy exists when two or
that when the offender himself
more persons come to an
believed that he had performed all the
agreement concerning the
acts of execution, even though no
commission of a felony and decide
mortal wound was inflicted, the act is
to commit it.
already in the frustrated stage.
There is proposal when the person
The common notion is that when
who has decided to commit a
there is conspiracy involved, the
felony proposes its execution to
participants are punished as
some other person or persons.
principals. This notion is no longer
absolute. In the case of People v. Conspiracy is punishable in the
Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled that following cases: treason,
even though there was conspiracy, if a rebellion or insurrection,
 sedition, and monopolies and Mere conspiracy in combination
combinations in restraint of in restraint of trade (Art. 186),
trade. and brigandage (Art. 306).

Conspiracy to commit a crime is Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

not to be confused with
conspiracy as a means of (1) There is an agreement.
committing a crime. In both (2) The participants acted in
cases there is an agreement but concert or simultaneously which is
mere conspiracy to commit a indicative of a meeting of the minds
crime is not punished EXCEPT in towards a common criminal goal or
treason, rebellion, or sedition. criminal objective. When several
Even then, if the treason is offenders act in a synchronized,
actually committed, the coordinated manner, the fact that
conspiracy will be considered as their acts complimented each other is
a means of committing it and indicative of the meeting of the
the accused will all be charged minds. There is an implied
for treason and not for agreement.
conspiracy to commit treason.
Two kinds of conspiracy:
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime
(1) Conspiracy as a crime; and

Conspiracy (2) Conspiracy as a manner of

incurring criminal liability

Agreement among 2 or more

When conspiracy itself is a
persons to commit a crime
crime, no overt act is necessary to
bring about the criminal liability. The
They decide to commit it
mere conspiracy is the crime itself.
This is to
A person has decided only true when the law
commit
a crime expressly punishes the mere
conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy
He proposes its does
commission to about the commission
not bring
Elements another of the crime because conspiracy is not
an overt act but a mere preparatory
1. act. Treason,
Conspiracy to commit seditionrebellion, sedition, and
coup detat are the only crimes where
2. the conspiracy
Conspiracy to commit rebellionand proposal to
commit to them are punishable.
3. Conspiracy to commit treason
When the conspiracy is only a
4. Proposal to commit treason
basis of incurring criminal liability,
there must be an overt act done
Crimes 5. Proposal to commit rebellion
before the co-conspirators become
criminally liable. For as long as none conspiracy as a crime, must have
of the conspirators has committed an a clear and convincing evidence of its
overt act, there is no crime yet. But existence. Every crime must be
when one of them commits any overt proved beyond reasonable doubt. it
act, all of them shall be held liable, must be established by positive and
unless a co-conspirator was absent conclusive evidence, not by
from the scene of the crime or he conjectures or speculations.
showed up, but he tried to prevent the
commission of the crime. When the conspiracy is just a
basis of incurring criminal liability,
As a general rule, if there has however, the same may be deduced
been a conspiracy to commit a crime or inferred from the acts of several
in a particular place, anyone who did offenders in carrying out the
not appear shall be presumed to have commission of the crime. The
desisted. The exception to this is if existence of a conspiracy may be
such person who did not appear was reasonably inferred from the acts of
the mastermind. the offenders when such acts disclose
or show a common pursuit of the
For as long as none of the criminal objective.
conspirators has committed an overt
act, there is no crime yet. But when mere knowledge, acquiescence
one of them commits any overt act, all to, or approval of the act, without
of them shall be held liable, unless a cooperation or at least, agreement to
co-conspirator was absent from the cooperate, is not enough to constitute
scene of the crime or he showed up, a conspiracy. There must be an
but he tried to prevent the intentional participation in the crime
commission of the crime with a view to further the common
felonious objective.
As a general rule, if there has
been a conspiracy to commit a crime When several persons who do
in a particular place, anyone who did not know each other simultaneously
not appear shall be presumed to have attack the victim, the act of one is the
desisted. The exception to this is if act of all, regardless of the degree of
such person who did not appear was injury inflicted by any one of them. All
the mastermind. will be liable for the consequences. A
conspiracy is possible even when
When the conspiracy itself is a participants are not known to each
crime, this cannot be inferred or other. Do not think that participants
deduced because there is no overt are always known to each other.
act. All that there is the agreement.
On the other hand, if the co- Conspiracy is a matter of
conspirator or any of them would substance which must be alleged in
execute an overt act, the crime would the information, otherwise, the court
no longer be the conspiracy but the will not consider the same.
overt act itself.
 Proposal is true only up to the agreed upon. This happens when the
point where the party to whom the crime agreed upon and the crime
proposal was made has not yet committed by one of the co-
accepted the proposal. Once the conspirators are distinct crimes.
proposal was accepted, a conspiracy
arises. Proposal is unilateral, one Exception to the exception: In
party makes a proposition to the acts constituting a single indivisible
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it offense, even though the co-
requires two parties. conspirator performed different acts
bringing about the composite crime,
SEDITION; all will be liable for such crime. They
can only evade responsibility for any
Proposal to commit sedition is not a other crime outside of that agreed
crime. But if Union B accepts the upon if it is proved that the particular
proposal, there will be conspiracy to conspirator had tried to prevent the
commit sedition which is a crime commission of such other act.
under the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 9. Grave felonies are those to
Composite crimes which the law attaches the capital
Composite crimes are crimes punishment or penalties which in any
which, in substance, consist of more of their are afflictive, in accordance
than one crime but in the eyes of the with Article 25 of this Code.
law, there is only one crime. For Less grave felonies are those
example, the crimes of robbery with which the law punishes with
homicide, robbery with rape, robbery penalties which in their maximum
with physical injuries. period are correctional, in
In case the crime committed is accordance with the above-
a composite crime, the conspirator will mentioned article.
be liable for all the acts committed Light felonies are those
during the commission of the crime infractions of law for the
agreed upon. This is because, in the commission of which he penalty
eyes of the law, all those acts done in of arresto mayor or a fine not
pursuance of the crime agreed upon exceeding 200 pesos, or both is
are acts which constitute a single provided.
crime.
Capital punishment death
As a general rule, when there is penalty.
conspiracy, the rule is that the act of
one is the act of all. This principle Penalties (imprisonment): Grave
applies only to the crime agreed six years and one day
upon. to reclusion perpetua (life);
Less grave one month and one
The exception is if any of the co- day to six years; Light arresto
conspirator would commit a crime not menor (one day to 30 days).
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES the felony by reason of causes
independent of the perpetrator; and,
This question was asked in the bar consummated felony when all the
examination: How do you classify elements necessary for its execution
felonies or how are felonies classified? are present.
What the examiner had in mind was (3) According to their
Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the gravity
classification of felonies under Book 2
of the Revised Penal Code. That was Under Article 9, felonies are classified
not what the examiner had in mind as grave felonies or those to which
because the question does not require attaches the capital punishment or
the candidate to classify but also to penalties which in any of their periods
define. Therefore, the examiner was are afflictive; less grave felonies or
after the classifications under Articles those to which the law punishes with
3, 6 and 9. penalties which in their maximum
period was correccional; and light
Felonies are classified as follows: felonies or those infractions of law for
(1) According to the the commission of which the penalty
manner of their commission is arresto menor.

Under Article 3, they are classified as, Why is it necessary to determine

intentional felonies or those whether the crime is grave, less grave
committed with deliberate intent; and or light?
culpable felonies or those resulting To determine whether these felonies
from negligence, reckless imprudence, can be complexed or not, and to
lack of foresight or lack of skill. determine the prescription of the
(2) According to the crime and the prescription of the
stages of their execution penalty. In other words, these are
felonies classified according to their
Under Article 6., felonies are classified gravity, stages and the penalty
as attempted felony when the attached to them. Take note that
offender commences the commission when the Revised Penal Code speaks
of a felony directly by overt acts, and of grave and less grave felonies, the
does not perform all the acts of definition makes a reference
execution which should produce the specifically to Article 25 of the Revised
felony by reason of some cause or Penal Code. Do not omit the phrase
accident other than his own In accordance with Article 25
spontaneous desistance; frustrated because there is also a classification
felony when the offender commences of penalties under Article 26 that was
the commission of a felony as a not applied.
consequence but which would produce
the felony as a consequence but
which nevertheless do not produce
If the penalty is fine and exactly Plea of guilty is not mitigating
P200.00, it is only considered a light for offenses punishable by
felony under Article 9. special laws.

If the fine is imposed as an alternative No minimum, medium, and

penalty or as a single penalty, the fine maximum periods for penalties.
of P200.00 is considered a correctional
penalty under Article 26. No penalty for an accessory or
accomplice, unless otherwise
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, stated.
apply Article 26. It is considered as
correctional penalty and it prescribes
in 10 years. If the offender is
Provisions of RPC applicable
apprehended at any time within ten
to special laws:
years, he can be made to suffer the
fine. 1. Art. 16 Participation of
Accomplices
This classification of felony according
to gravity is important with respect to 2. Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal
the question of prescription of crimes. laws if favorable to the accused

In the case of light felonies, crimes 3. Art. 45 Confiscation of

prescribe in two months. If the crime instruments used in the crime
is correctional, it prescribes in ten
years, except arresto mayor, which SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE
prescribes in five years. REVISED PENAL CODE

Art. 10. Offenses which are or in In Article 10, there is a reservation

the future may be punishable provision of the Revised Penal Code
under special laws are not subject may be applied suppletorily to special
to the provisions of this Code. laws. You will only apply the
This Code shall be supplementary provisions of the Revised Penal Code
to such laws, unless the latter as a supplement to the special law, or
should specially provide the simply correlate the violated special
contrary. law, if needed to avoid an injustice. If
no justice would result, do not give
For Special Laws: Penalties suppletorily application of the Revised
should be imprisonment, and Penal Code to that of special law.
not reclusion perpetua, etc.
For example, a special law punishes a
Offenses that are attempted or certain act as a crime. The special
frustrated are not punishable, law is silent as to the civil liability of
unless otherwise stated. one who violates the same. Here is a
person who violated the special law
and he was prosecuted. His violation
caused damage or injury to a private
party. May the court pronounce that 533, punishing cattle-rustling, is not a
he is civilly liable to the offended special law. It can absorb the crime of
party, considering that the special law murder. If in the course of cattle
is silent on this point? Yes, because rustling, murder was committed, the
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code offender cannot be prosecuted for
may be given suppletory application murder. Murder would be a qualifying
to prevent an injustice from being circumstance in the crime of qualified
done to the offended party. Article cattle rustling. This was the ruling
100 states that every person in People v. Martinada.
criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable. That article shall be The amendments of Presidential
applied suppletory to avoid an Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous
injustice that would be caused to the Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act
private offended party, if he would not No. 7659, which adopted the scale of
be indemnified for the damages or penalties in the Revised Penal Code,
injuries sustained by him. means that mitigating and
aggravating circumstances can now
In People v. Rodriguez, it was held be considered in imposing penalties.
that the use of arms is an element of Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not
rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further expressly prohibit the suppletory
prosecuted for possession of firearms. application of the Revised Penal Code.
A violation of a special law can never The stages of the commission of
absorb a crime punishable under the felonies will also apply since
Revised Penal Code, because suppletory application is now allowed.
violations of the Revised Penal Code
are more serious than a violation of a Circumstances affecting criminal
special law. But a crime in the liability
Revised Penal Code can absorb a There are five circumstances affecting
crime punishable by a special law if it criminal liability:
is a necessary ingredient of the crime
in the Revised Penal Code (1) Justifying circumstances;

In the crime of sedition, the use of (2) Exempting

firearms is not an ingredient of the circumstances;
crime. Hence, two prosecutions can
be had: (1) sedition; and (2) illegal (3) Mitigating
possession of firearms. circumstances;

But do not think that when a crime is (4) Aggravating

punished outside of the Revised Penal circumstances; and
Code, it is already a special law. For
(5) Alternative
example, the crime of cattle-rustling is
circumstances.
not a mala prohibitum but a
modification of the crime theft of large
cattle. So Presidential Decree No.
There are two others which are of accessories who profited
found elsewhere in the provisions themselves or assisting the offender
of the Revised Penal Code: to profit by the effects of the crime.

(1) Absolutory cause; and Then, Article 89 provides how criminal

liability is extinguished:
(2) Extenuating
circumstances. Death of the convict as to the
personal penalties, and as to
In justifying and exempting pecuniary penalties, liability therefor
circumstances, there is no criminal is extinguished if death occurs before
liability. When an accused invokes final judgment;
them, he in effect admits the
commission of a crime but tries to Service of the sentence;
avoid the liability thereof. The burden
is upon him to establish beyond Amnesty;
reasonable doubt the required Absolute pardon;
conditions to justify or exempt his acts
from criminal liability. What is shifted Prescription of the crime;
is only the burden of evidence, not the
burden of proof. Prescription of the penalty; and

Justifying circumstances contemplate Marriage of the offended woman as

intentional acts and, hence, are provided in Article 344.
incompatible with dolo. Exempting
circumstances may be invoked in
culpable felonies. Under Article 247, a legally married
person who kills or inflicts physical
Absolutory cause
injuries upon his or her spouse whom
The effect of this is to absolve the he surprised having sexual intercourse
offender from criminal liability, with his or her paramour or mistress
although not from civil liability. It has in not criminally liable.
the same effect as an exempting
Under Article 219, discovering secrets
circumstance, but you do not call it as
through seizure of correspondence of
such in order not to confuse it with the
the ward by their guardian is not
circumstances under Article 12.
penalized.
Article 20 provides that the penalties
Under Article 332, in the case of theft,
prescribed for accessories shall not be
swindling and malicious mischief,
imposed upon those who are such
there is no criminal liability but only
with respect to their spouses,
civil liability, when the offender and
ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
the offended party are related as
natural and adopted brothers and
spouse, ascendant, descendant,
sisters, or relatives by affinity within
brother and sister-in-law living
the same degrees with the exception
together or where in case the
widowed spouse and the property a mere instrument or tool of the law
involved is that of the deceased enforcer in the performance of his
spouse, before such property had duties.
passed on to the possession of third
parties. On the other hand, in entrapment, a
criminal design is already in the mind
Under Article 344, in cases of of the person entrapped. It did not
seduction, abduction, acts of emanate from the mind of the law
lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment
of the offended party shall extinguish involves only ways and means which
the criminal action. are laid down or resorted to facilitate
the apprehension of the culprit.
Absolutory cause has the effect of an
exempting circumstance and they are The element which makes instigation
predicated on lack of voluntariness an absolutory cause is the lack of
like instigation. Instigation is criminal intent as an element of
associated with criminal intent. Do not voluntariness.
consider culpa in connection with
instigation. If the crime is culpable, do If the instigator is a law enforcer, the
not talk of instigation. In instigation, person instigated cannot be criminally
the crime is committed with dolo. It is liable, because it is the law enforcer
confused with entrapment. who planted that criminal mind in him
to commit the crime, without which he
Entrapment is not an absolutory would not have been a criminal. If the
cause. Entrapment does not exempt instigator is not a law enforcer, both
the offender or mitigate his criminal will be criminally liable, you cannot
liability. But instigation absolves the have a case of instigation. In
offender from criminal liability instigation, the private citizen only
because in instigation, the offender cooperates with the law enforcer to a
simply acts as a tool of the law point when the private citizen upon
enforcers and, therefore, he is acting instigation of the law enforcer
without criminal intent because incriminates himself. It would be
without the instigation, he would not contrary to public policy to prosecute
have done the criminal act which he a citizen who only cooperated with the
did upon instigation of the law law enforcer. The private citizen
enforcers. believes that he is a law enforcer and
that is why when the law enforcer tells
Difference between instigation him, he believes that it is a civil duty
and entrapment to cooperate.
In instigation, the criminal plan or If the person instigated does not know
design exists in the mind of the law that the person is instigating him is a
enforcer with whom the person law enforcer or he knows him to be
instigated cooperated so it is said that not a law enforcer, this is not a case of
the person instigated is acting only as instigation. This is a case of
inducement, both will be criminally criminal intent. So in mistake of fact,
liable. it is necessary that had the facts been
true as the accused believed them to
In entrapment, the person entrapped be, this act is justified. If not, there is
should not know that the person criminal liability, because there is no
trying to entrap him was a law mistake of fact anymore. The
enforcer. The idea is incompatible offender must believe he is
with each other because in performing a lawful act.
entrapment, the person entrapped is
actually committing a crime. The
officer who entrapped him only lays
down ways and means to have Extenuating circumstances
evidence of the commission of the The effect of this is to mitigate the
crime, but even without those ways criminal liability of the offender. In
and means, the person entrapped is other words, this has the same effect
actually engaged in a violation of the as mitigating circumstances, only you
law. do not call it mitigating because this is
Instigation absolves the person not found in Article 13.
instigated from criminal liability. This
is based on the rule that a person
cannot be a criminal if his mind is not Illustrations:
criminal. On the other hand,
entrapment is not an absolutory An unwed mother killed her child in
cause. It is not even mitigating. order to conceal a dishonor. The
concealment of dishonor is an
In case of somnambulism or one who extenuating circumstance insofar as
acts while sleeping, the person the unwed mother or the maternal
involved is definitely acting without grandparents is concerned, but not
freedom and without sufficient insofar as the father of the child is
intelligence, because he is asleep. He concerned. Mother killing her new
is moving like a robot, unaware of born child to conceal her dishonor,
what he is doing. So the element of penalty is lowered by two degrees.
voluntariness which is necessary in Since there is a material lowering of
dolo and culpa is not present. the penalty or mitigating the penalty,
Somnambulism is an absolutory this is an extenuating circumstance.
cause. If element of voluntariness is
absent, there is no criminal liability, The concealment of honor by mother
although there is civil liability, and if in the crime of infanticide is an
the circumstance is not among those extenuating circumstance but not in
enumerated in Article 12, refer to the the case of parricide when the age of
circumstance as an absolutory cause. the victim is three days old and
above.
Mistake of fact is an absolutory cause.
The offender is acting without
In the crime of adultery on the part of (3) Since the act is
a married woman abandoned by her considered lawful, there is no crime,
husband, at the time she was and because there is no crime, there
abandoned by her husband, is it is no criminal;
necessary for her to seek the
company of another man. (4) Since there is no crime
Abandonment by the husband does or criminal, there is no criminal
not justify the act of the woman. It liability as well as civil liability.
only extenuates or reduces criminal In exempting circumstances
liability. When the effect of the
circumstance is to lower the penalty (1) The circumstances affect
there is an extenuating circumstance. the actor, not the act;

A kleptomaniac is one who cannot (2) The act complained of is

resist the temptation of stealing things actually wrongful, but the actor acted
which appeal to his desire. This is not without voluntariness. He is a mere
exempting. One who is a tool or instrument of the crime;
kleptomaniac and who would steal
objects of his desire is criminally (3) Since the act complained
liable. But he would be given the of is actually wrongful, there is a
benefit of a mitigating circumstance crime. But because the actor acted
analogous to paragraph 9 of Article without voluntariness, there is
13, that of suffering from an illness absence of dolo or culpa. There is no
which diminishes the exercise of his criminal;
will power without, however, depriving
(4) Since there is a crime
him of the consciousness of his act.
committed but there is no criminal,
So this is an extenuating
there is civil liability for the wrong
circumstance. The effect is to
done. But there is no criminal
mitigate the criminal liability.
liability. However, in paragraphs 4
Distinctions between justifying and 7 of Article 12, there is neither
circumstances and exempting criminal nor civil liability.
circumstances
When you apply for justifying or
In justifying circumstances exempting circumstances, it is
confession and avoidance and burden
(1) The circumstance affects of proof shifts to the accused and he
the act, not the actor; can no longer rely on weakness of
prosecutions evidence.
(2) The act complained of is
considered to have been done within
the bounds of law; hence, it is
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of [1]The difference between
the law; murder and homicide will be discussed
in Criminal Law II. These crimes are
found in Articles 248 and 249, Book II found in Title Ten, Chapters One and
of the Revised Penal Code. Three, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code.
[2] The difference between
theft and robbery will be discussed in
Criminal Law II. These crimes are