I. Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related Special Laws Article 1. Time when Act takes effect.

hen Act takes effect. — This Code shall take

effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and
A. BOOK 1 (ARTICLES 1-99,RPC) thirty-two
1. Fundamental Principles Two theories in Criminal Law -RPC continues like the old Penal
1. Fundamental principles Code, to be based on the principles of the Old or classical school.

MAGNO ENTERED INTO A BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH Characteristics of the classical theory
VP TENG OF MANCOR INDUSTRIES (TO SUPPPLY 1.The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose
EQUIPMENT) AND VP GOMEZ OF LF FINANCE (TO of the penalty is retribution.
BORROW SOME FUND). UNKNOWINGLY TENG IS THE
ONE WHO LEND HIM THE BOUNCING CHECKS. 2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free
UNAVAILABLE TO PAY HIS DEBTS, HE PULLED OUT THE will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress
EQUIPMENT. MRS. TENG ON THE OTHER HAND TO upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the
FILED WITH THE RTC VIOLATION BP BLG.22 OF THE criminal himself.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW. RTC AND COA FIND ACCUSED
GUILTY WHILE THE SC REVERSED AND ACQUITTED 3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion
THE ACCUSED. between crime and penalty.

HELD: Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in 4. There is a scant regard to the human element. (Basic Principles,
criminal law, "affirms that the primary function of punishment is the Rationale, p. 2, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes.
protective (sic) of society against actual and potential wrongdoers." Characteristics of the positivist theory
.The application of the theory that "criminal law is founded upon that
moral disapprobation . . . of actions which are immoral, i.e., which 1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
are detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or
depend the existence and progress of human society. This contrary to his volition.
disapprobation is inevitable to the extent that morality is generally
2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon; each
founded and built upon a certain concurrence in the moral opinions
case is different
of all . . . That which we call punishment is only an external means
of emphasizing moral disapprobation: the method of punishment is a) Definition of Criminal Law
in reality the amount of punishment." (Magno v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992) Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc.
129)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law.
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently
Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another.
Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa. (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006)
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law. Revised Penal Code.
(i) Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita MALA IN SE- Acts complained of are inherently immoral, they
are punished by a special law.[8] Accordingly, criminal intent
Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed before the RTC must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime;
Alaminos charging Election Officer Arsenia B. Garcia, Municipal otherwise, no crime is committed.
Treasurer Herminio R. Romero, Public School District Supervisor
Renato R. Viray, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary, - wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide,
respectively, of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, etc.,
Pangasinan, tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera with - Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on
violation of Sec 27 RA 6646 by conspiring to decrease the votes society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of
received by him from 6998 to 1921 votes (difference 5034). its members
- Intent govern
The RTC acquitted all the accused, for lack of evidence, except for
Garcia. Garcia was sentenced six months to six years imprisonment, MALA PROHIBITA- the criminal acts are not inherently
without probation, disqualified to hold public office, and be deprived immoral but become punishable only because the law says they
of her right to suffrage/vote. Her bail posting was also cancelled. are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law
has been violated.[9] Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts
Garcia appealed and filed a motion for reconsideration before the are prohibited for reasons of public policy.[10]
Court of Appeals (CA) but was denied. The CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC but increased the minimum penalty from six - by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms
months to one year. - violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. (Bouvier's
Garcia filed before the Supreme Court (SC) contending that the Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Revision)
judgment of the CA was based on speculations not evidence and that - has the law violated
she has no motive to reduce the votes (good faith).
(ii) Construction of penal laws
The CA argued that good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a
defense under the violation of an election law, which falls under the 1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and
class of Mala Prohibita. liberally in favor of the accused. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil.
243; People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728)
The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are Mala In Se because even the
errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be (The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the
punishable. It could not be the intent of the law to punish State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is
unintentional election canvass errors but intentionally increasing or doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear and
unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule. A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
(People vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664) ambassador or minister
2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the ii) Territoriality
Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text is controlling, because it
was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. - Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions
(People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665, 66.) of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.
b) Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal
law Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.

(i) Generality 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

-in that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine territory. (Art. 14, new Civil Code) Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of
the Philippines;
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
The opening sentence of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code says Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within the preceding number;
Philippine Archipelago, "except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application." 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
Article 14 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws and those
of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the Revised
international law and to treaty stipulations. Penal Code.

EXAMPLE : The Bases Agreement entered into by and between the (iii) Prospectivity
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America on Penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was
March 14, 1947 . not punishable when committed.
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.
virtue of the principles of public international law.
Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions
The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal laws: more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive
(1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state. effect.

(2) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and But this exception has no application:
charges d'affaires
1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending (ii) Due process
actions or existing causes of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463,
470-471) 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1])
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5,
Article 62, Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC) (iii) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or
excessive fines
(a) Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sec. 19[1]) (Statutory Rights of the
law shall be applied, except when the offender is a habitual Accused )
delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action. (a) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines (R.A. No. 9346)
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby
prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the
which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed,
the crime is obliterated. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A.
No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other
c) Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death
penal laws penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
limitations:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. Ill, use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code;
Sec. 22) or
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not
due process of law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1]) make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
(i) Equal protection Code.

- Constitution prohibits any state from denying to any person within SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
(iv) Bill of attainder ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided
in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
judicial determination of guilt. (People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
395)
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES
CANNOT ENACT LAWS THAT PUNISH PEOPLE
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. 1. "Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application."
(v) Ex post facto law
- the RP-US Visiting Forces Accord, the Military Bases Agreement
An ex post facto law is one which: between the Republic
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and 2. "its atmosphere."
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
penal laws extend to all the air space which covers its territory,
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed; 3. "interior waters."
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than interior waters" includes creeks, rivers, lakes and bays, gulfs,
the law annexed to the crime when committed; straits, coves, inlets and roadsteads lying wholly within the
three-mile limit.
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of 4. "maritime zone."
the commission of the offense;
States by means of treaties have fixed its length to three miles
(5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect from the coastline, starting from the low water mark.
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago, but also outside of its jurisdiction
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to in certain cases.
which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431) airship;
The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the
seashore, is considered part of the national territory.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is
registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship II. Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign
or airship while the same is outside of the Philippine territory can be merchant vessels.
tried before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code.
French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that
But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of
foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
subject to the laws of that foreign country.
English Rule. — Such crimes are triable in that country, unless
EXAMPLE: if a crime is committed ten miles from the shores of the they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the
Philippines on board a vessel belonging to a Filipino, but the same is internal management thereof. PHILIPPINES OBSERVED THIS
not registered or licensed in accordance with the laws of the RULE.
Philippines, paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2 is not applicable.
III. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our
committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered or courts.
licensed in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order. courts
I. RPC AND SHIP acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the
vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship. violation of the laws of the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18
-an offense commited on the high seas on board a foreign Phil. 573, 577-578)
merchant vessel is not triable by our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach
614) of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel. jurisdictional waters. (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)

-The offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed
animals while transporting them on a (foreign) ship from a foreign on board foreign warships in territorial waters
port to a port of the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts II. Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372 -
of the Philippines Human Security Act of 2007"
Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Has subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the
Philippine waters is triable before our court. Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of
- Since the Philippine territory extends to three miles preferential application,
from the headlands, when a foreign merchant vessel enters this the provisions of the Act shall apply
three-mile limit, the ship's officers and crew become subject to the
jurisdiction of our courts. ● persons who commit any of the crimes within the Philippine
territory
 ● persons involved in a crime within the territory despite being accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218), illegal use of
physically outside the territory. public funds or property (Art. 220),
● persons commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine
ship or airship; When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our
● persons who commit any of said crimes within any public officers or employees while in the exercise of his functions,
embassies, consulate or diplomatic premises belonging to or he can be prosecuted here.
occupied by the Philippine government in an official 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and
capacity; the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
● persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits
of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine treason (Art. 114), conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art.
citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their 115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting to war and giving motives for
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the reprisals (Art. 118), violation of neutrality (Art. 119), correspondence
crime; and with hostile country (Art. 120), flight to enemy's country (Art. 121),
● persons commit said directly against the Philippine and piracy and mutiny on the high seas. (Art. 122)
government.
2. Felonies
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Art. 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
felonies (delitos).
Government of the Philippine Islands;
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also
Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or
by means of fault (culpa).
forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art.
166) in a foreign country may be prosecuted before our civil courts There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and
for violation of Art. 163 or Art. 166 of the Revised Penal Code. there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the I. Elements of felonies.
preceding number;
The elements of felonies in general are:
The reason for this dangerous to the economical interest of the
country. 1. That there must be an act or omission.

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an 2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal
offense in the exercise of their functions; or Code.

bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. 211), frauds against the 3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of
public treasury (Art. 213), possession of prohibited interest (Art. dolo or culpa.
216), malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217), failure of
II. FIRST REQUISITE: THERE MUST BE AN ACT OR B. Are Internal Acts Covered By The Revised Penal Code?
OMISSION
No because they are beyond the sphere of penal law. Thinking of
A. IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES committing a felony does not constitute a felony unless you act on it.
Thus, only external act is punished.
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal
Code. III. SECOND REQUISITE : Said Act Or Omission Must Be
Punishable By Revised Penal Code
"act”
● "Punishable by law."
- Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the ⮚ "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege," that is, there is
external world, no crime where there is no law punishing it.
EXAMPLE : A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without Case: People v. Silvestre and Atienza
the consent of the latter. The act of taking the watch of B, with intent
to gain, constitutes the crime of theft. ⮚ Atienza threatens to burn down a house; Silvestre is
standing right beside him.
-Must be defined as a felony in the Revised Penal Code ⮚ Silvestre does nothing as Atienza commits the crime.
● At least an overt act à an act which has direct connection ⮚ Court ruled that Silvestre is not criminally liable
with the felony to be committed. because mere passive presence at the scene of
another’s crime, mere silence, and a failure to give
Omission the alarm, without evidence of agreement or
conspiracy is not punishable.
It will be noted that in felonies by omission, there is a law requiring
a certain act to be performed and the person required to do the IV. THIRD REQUISITE : SAID ACT OR OMISSION
act fails to perform it. PERFORMED BY MEANS OF DECIT OR FAULT
Failure to perform a positive duty that one is bound to do a) Classifications of felonies: INTENTIONAL v. CULPABLE
● There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of (1) intentional felonies, and
an act
intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is
Examples malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is performed with
deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act or
● Article 275, par. 1 à Abandonment of persons in danger.
in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
● Article 213, par. 2[b] à Failure to issue receipts
another.
● Article 116 à Misprision of Treason..
Intentional Felonies
● Act is performed with deliberate intent (malice).
 ● Offender has the intention to cause an injury to the person, ⮚ Accused did not commit a culpable felony because deliberate
property or right of another. intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with
● Crimes which cannot be committed through the idea of reckless imprudence.
imprudence or negligence such as murder, treason,
robbery, and malicious mischief. ● Acts resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
● Requisites of dolo (malice) ● Reason for punishing acts of negligence:
o A man must use his common sense and exercise
o Freedom due reflection in all his actions.
- Without freedom, a person is no longer a human being, but a o He is responsible for such results as anyone might
tool. foresee and for his acts which no one would have
- There is no freedom if the offender is under the compulsion performed except through culpable abandon.
of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.

o Intelligence Examples
- Intelligence is necessary to determine the morality of human
acts. Without this, no crime can exist. ⮚ US v. Divina - Defendant who is not a medical
⮚ The imbecile, insane, infant under years of age, practitioner ties up a girl and sets her
and minor between 9-15 years of age have no on fire.
criminal liability. -He claims he is trying to cure
o Intent her ulcer and that he acted in good
- This is presumed from the proof of the commission of an faith.
unlawful act -Defendant is guilty of physical injury
through imprudence
(2) culpable felonies.
the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury
caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being ⮚ People v. Lopez - A man runs over a girl with his truck
simply the incident of another act performed without malice." despite him not intending to do so.
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) As stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act -Man convicted of reckless imprudence
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill. -The driver should have taken the precaution
necessary to avoid injury to persons because he was neither
● The injury caused is unintentional, it being simply the compelled to refrain from or prevented from doing so.
incident of another act performed without malice.
⮚ People v. Guillen ● Definition of reckless imprudence à consists in voluntarily
⮚ Accused threw a grenade at the president in an attempt to kill but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
him and ended up killing other people. material damage results.
B. Both Intentional And Culpable Felonies Are Voluntary A. Presumption Of Criminal Intent Does Not Arise From The
Proof Of The Commission Of An Act Which Is Not Unlawful.
● Reasons
o Man has free will. ⮚ US v. Catolico
⮚ Judge orders money deposited by the defendants as a bond to
o Man is a rational being who can distinguish between good be given to the plaintiff. Judge is subsequently accused of
and evil. malversation.
o Intentional felonies were intended while culpable felonies ⮚ It was ruled that his original act was not unlawful therefore
resulted from acts, which were voluntary but not intended as there was no criminal liability.
felonies. ⮚ Actus non facit reum, nisi mens set rea
-The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
● Acts cease to be voluntary when there is compulsion or intentions were so.
prevention by force or intimidation
V. Intent
● Intent is a mental state manifested through the overt acts of
B. Criminal Intent Is Necessary In Felonies Committed By
people.
Means Of Dolo
o A person who causes an injury by mere accident does
● There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
not have intent therefore is not criminally liable.
● Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
o An act done by me against my will is not my act.

● When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are Example

slow in concluding that some other result was intended ● People who commit crimes while sleepwalking do not incur
criminal liability because there was no intent (People v.
⮚ People v. Sia Teh Ban - Respondent stole a watch therefore Taneo).
showing intent to gain.
-Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always C. Distinction Between General Intent And Specific Intent
presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an
● Some felonies necessitate specific types of intent.
act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear
o Robbery necessitates intent to gain.
o Frustrated homicide necessitates intent to kill.
● Lack of intent to kill the deceased because offender meant to
kill another person does not clear the offender of criminal ● When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence
liability. of criminal intent is a plausible defense.
● Lack of intent may be inferred from the facts of the case
 o If there is only error on the part of the accused, he does not ⮚ Killed a sleeping man because he was mistaken for an
act with malice and as such, he cannot be liable for intentional escaped felon.
felony. ⮚ Accused was convicted because he did not take all the
necessary precautions needed to verify the identity of the
● Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in person and the accused had no authority to shoot a sleeping
felonies committed by means of culpa. man even if he was the escaped felon. Lastly, the
circumstances did not press him for immediate and decisive
action.

VI. Mistake Of Fact

2. Intention of the accused must be lawful.
A. General Points
● When an unlawful act is done willfully, mistake of the
● Ignorantia facti excusat identity of an intended victim does not relieve the accused of
criminal responsibility (People v. Gona).
o Ignorance of fact relieves the accused from criminal
● Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless
liability.
imprudence (People v. Guillen).
● Mistake of fact à is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
the person who injury to another. He is not criminally liable,
accused
because he did not act with criminal intent.
● An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of ⮚ People v. De Fernando
criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a ⮚ Accused shot a man going up the stairs because he thought
felonious act. he was an escaped felon
⮚ Accused is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence
B. Requisites Of Mistake Of Fact As A Defense:
because he failed to take all the necessary precautions to
1. Act would have been lawful is facts were as the accused believed ensure the identity of the man he eventually shot
them to be.
● The act done by the accused would have constituted:
⮚ US v. Ah Chong
⮚ Accused killed a man because after taking all of the o A justifying circumstance (Article 11)
necessary precautions, he thought that he was being attacked
o Absolutory clause (Article 247)
by a robber .Acquitted by mistake of fact because had the
facts been as the accused thought, his actions would have o An involuntary act
constituted self defense. Also, the circumstances pressed him
for immediate and decisive action ● Resisting arrest is not a crime when there is a mistake of fact
⮚ People v. Oanis
 considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
VII. Crimes Punishable By Special Laws
C. Good Faith And Absence Of Criminal Intent Are Not Valid
A. General Points Defenses In Crimes Punished By Special Laws
● Includes crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances. ● Since the offense is malam prohibitum, the performance of
● Dolo is not required. the act itself will constitute the offense.
o It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.
o The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
offense. Exceptions:
⮚ People v. Bayona ⮚ People v. Landicho à If it is done in order to
⮚ Unwittingly but voluntarily brought a gun into a polling comply with government policies.
place. ⮚ When there is a law prohibiting the carrying
⮚ Convicted because no matter what his intentions were, the of loose firearms in relation to a man who
act prohibited by the special laws was committed was authorized to buy and collect guns to be
● Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetuate the act sold to the authorities later on, that
must be distinguished individual is not criminally liable.
o If there is no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited, ⮚ This is not the same if the man held on to
there is no criminal liability. the firearms for a undue length of time
when he had all the chances to surrender it
B. Reasons Why Criminal Intent Is Not Necessary In Crimes to the proper authorities.
Made By Statutory Enactment ⮚ People v. Asa & US v. Samson à Civilian
● The act in itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is guards who acted in good faith and never
the evil. had any intention of committing an offense
⮚ Example: Law Prohibiting display of revolutionary against the law prohibiting the carrying of
flags loose firearms because they believed their
⮚ The evil to society and to the government does position in the civilian guard association
not depend upon the state of mind of the one warranted the carrying of such firearms.
who displays the banner, but upon the effect
which that display has upon the public mind. ⮚ Peope v. Mallari à When the accused has a
⮚ The public is not affected by the intention pending application for permanent permit to
of the offender but by the act itself. possess a firearm and whose possession in
● When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is not unknown to the authorities who actually
 advised him to keep his firearm for the because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his
meantime. fundamental rights. For such an act to be punished, it must
⮚ People v. Lucero à When accused was given be shown that said act was committed with malice.
authority to carry a revolver in order to
capture or kill a wanted person. IX. Motive
● In all cases mentioned, the absence of intent to violate the A. Intent Distinguished From Motive
law was considered in favor of the accused.
● Motive- à The moving power which impels one to action
VIII. Mala In Se And Mala Prohibita Distinguished for a definite result.
● General rule: Acts in mala in se, there must be a criminal ● Intent - à The purpose to use a particular means to effect
intent; but those in mala prohibita it is sufficient if the such result.
prohibited act was intentionally done. B. Motive: When Relevant And When Not Need To Be Established
A. Mala In Se ● Not an essential element of a crime; need not be proven for
● Wrongful from its nature. purposes of a conviction.
● Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on o Even a strong motive cannot take the place of proof
society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation from beyond reasonable doubt.
its members. ● Good motives do not prevent an act from becoming a crime
● Punishable by Revised Penal Code. ⮚ Example: Mercy Killing
Relevance:
B. Mala Prohibita When the identity of the perpetrator is being disputed,
the motive is very relevant (People v. Murray).
● Wrongful because it is prohibited by a statute
● Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society ● Not applicable if perpetrator has been
● Found in special laws. positively identified (People v. Gadiana).
● Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws. ● Not applicable if perpetrator admits to crime
(People v. Arcilla).
C. When The Acts Are Inherently Immoral, They Are Mala In Se
Even If Punished Under Special Law o When ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic
theories or versions of the killing (People v.
⮚ People v. Sunico et al. Boholst-Caballero; People v. Lim; People v. Tabije)
⮚ Voters names were omitted from the list.
⮚ The act was mala in se because the omission and failure to o Where the identification of the accused proceeds from
include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is not an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive
only wrong because it is prohibited, it is wrong per se and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is
 necessary (People v. Beltran). I. The Manner Of Incurring Criminal Liability Under The Revised
Penal Code Is Stated In Article 3
o When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion falls on
a lot of people (People v. Melgar). ● This article has not reference to the manner criminal liability
o When evidence is merely circumstantial (People v. is incurred.
Oquiño). II. One Who Commits An Intentional Felony Is Responsible For
All The Consequences Which May Naturally And Logically Result
● Not applicable if guilt is established by Therefrom, Whether Foreseen Or Intended Or Not
sufficient evidence (People v. Corpuz).
o When there is no doubt that the accused committed ● One is not relieved from the criminal liability for the natural
the crime, his motives are unimportant (People v. consequence of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does
Feliciano). not intend to produce such consequences.
o Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C
C. How Motive Is Proved instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although the one who
fired the gun had no intention to injure C.
● Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the III. Rationale Of Article 4
commission of the offense.
● El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
● Establishment through the evidence presented.
● Lack of motive may be aid in showing innocence. o He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.
● Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a
conviction. It cannot take the place of proof beyond IV. Important Words
reasonable doubt, ● “Committing a felony”
sufficient to overthrow presumption of innocence
o Act or omission has to be punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
b) Elements of criminal liability
o Necessitates malice because of the phrase “that which he
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: intended”.
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
o Cannot therefore be an act or omission punished by a
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
special law because the offender violating such a law may not
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense have the intent to do an injury to another.
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the ⮚ US v. Divino
employment of inadequate or ineffectual mean.
 ⮚ Defendant who is not a medical practitioner ties up a girl Accused proceeds to take his wife home and take
and sets her on fire. He claims he is trying to cure her care of her. Wife dies.
ulcer and that he acted in good faith. Accused is guilty of parricide.
⮚ He is not guilty of a felony because he had no intent to SC ruled that the fact that the accused intended to
harm. He is however guilty of physical injury through maltreat his wife only or inflict physical injuries
imprudence and/or illegal practice of medicine. does not exempt him from liability for the
resulting and more serious crime of parricide
● “Although the wrongful act be different from that which ⮚ Maltreatment inflicted by the accused was the
he intended” proximate cause of wife’s death

o Causes
o Mistaken identity (error in personae) à A shoots B
because he thinks he is C. V. When A Person Has Not Committed A Felony, He Is Not
o Mistaken blow (aberration ictus) à A tries to shoot B but Criminally Liable For The Result Which Is Not Intended
accidentally shoots C. ⮚ US v. Villanueva
o The act exceeds the intent (praeter intentionem) à A only ⮚ Accused, out of curiosity, snatched a bolo carried
intends to injure B but ends up killing him. by the victim in his belt. The victim was
Examples subsequently injured.
⮚ Accused is not criminally liable because there is
⮚ People v. Mabugat no provision punishing the act of snatching the
⮚ Accused and B were sweethearts. They got into a property of another just to satisfy curiosity.
fight and one night, accused, with revolver in
hand, waited for B and her niece C to leave the ⮚ People v. Bindoy
house of D and head home. As they reached the
house, accused aimed and fired a shot at B but ⮚ Accused, carrying a bolo in one hand, got into a
instead hit C. heated altercation with Pacas’ wife. Pacas
⮚ Accused is criminally liable (frustrated murder) attempted to take away the bolo from the accused
and during the scuffle, an innocent bystander was
injured.
⮚ People v. Tomotorgo
Accused, incensed by his wife, beats her until she ⮚ Accused is not criminally liable because the law
falls to the ground and complains of chest pains. permits him to use necessary force to retain what
belongs to him. If accused had been trying to
 strike Pacas and instead hit someone else, he ⮚ Accused, along with B, go to the house of C and D.
would be criminally liable. Accused enters the house, B stays outside. B challenges C
to a fight and accused holds on to C to prevent him from
going outside. A struggle ensues and D, while holding a
PAR. 1: BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY baby, attempts to free C from the accused. D ends up
(DELITO), ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE falling down the stairs, baby in hand. The baby eventually
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED dies.
I. Requisites Of Article 4 Paragraph 1 ⮚ Accused cannot be criminally liable for holding on to C
and preventing him from engaging in what would have
⮚ In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a been a bloody encounter with B because such an act is not
felony different from that which he intended to commit: punishable.
⮚ Similarly, accused is not guilty of the death of the baby
1. Intentional felony was committed
because the death was not the direct consequence of a
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, crime seeing as how accused did not committing any
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender crime.
II. FIRST REQUISITE: Intentional Felony Was Committed
A. No Felony Is Committed When: B. Any Person Who Creates In Another’s Mind An Immediate
Sense Of Danger, Which Causes The Latter To Do Something
⮚ The act or omission is not punishable under Revised Resulting In The Latter’s Injuries, Is Liable For The Resulting
Penal Code. Injuries
o Suicide is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code ⮚ People v. Toling
(Article 253) à If A jumps off the building and lands on B, he is o Accused proceeds to commit robbery aboard a jeepney.
not criminally liable for intentional homicide. Accused threatens the passengers and subsequently, B jumps out
⮚ The act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances of the jeepney in order to escape. B ends up hitting her head on
in Article 11 the pavement and eventually dies.

o Self defense, fulfillment of duty, etc. o It was held that accused is guilty for the death of B
because he created an immediate sense of danger that prompted B
o These acts must still be exercised with due care otherwise to try and escape.
the accused will be liable for culpable felony.
o Similarly, if a person believing himself to be in danger
Example: People v. Salinas of death or great bodily harm jumps into the water and drowns,
the person who caused him to believe he was in danger is ⮚ Even if erroneous medical treatment comes into play, the
criminally liable for his death. one who inflicted the wound is still criminally liable.
III. SECOND REQUISITE: Wrong Done Must Be The Direct, ⮚ People v. Illustre; People v. Rodriguez; People v. Reyes à
Natural, And Logical Consequence Of A Felonious Act Victim was suffering from an internal malady and said
(Proximate Cause) malady was fatally aggravated by a blow from the
⮚ General Rule: A person is criminally responsible for acts accused.
⮚ Accused is criminally liable.
committed by him in violation of the law and for all the natural
and logical consequences resulting therefrom. ⮚ US v. Marasigan à Victim refused to submit to surgical
operation.
Examples ⮚ §Offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical
operation to relieve the accused from the natural and
⮚ US v. Valdez à Victim who was threatened or chased ordinary results of his crime.
by the accused with a knife, jumps into the water and drowns ⮚ People v. Martir à Injury was aggravated by infection
because of the heavy current.
⮚ Accused is criminally liable. CASE
⮚ People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011
⮚ People v. Quianson à Victim removes drainage from a ⮚ The SC ruled there is merit in the argument of Villacorta
wound given to him by the accused in order to alleviate that he should only be held liable for slight physical
injuries for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. The
great pain. Victim subsequently contracts an infection proximate cause of Cruz's death is the tetanus infection,
and not the stab wound. The rule is that the death of the
and dies.
victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
⮚ Accused is criminally liable because he directly caused consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
the great pain which victim was trying to alleviate. accused. The proof that the accused caused the victim's
death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable
⮚ People v. Moldes à A wound that was inflicted was doubt. Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability.
dangerous or calculated to destroy human life. Villacorta is guilty of slight physical injuries under Article
266(1) of the Revised Penal Code for the stab wound he
Immediate cause of death was erroneous medical inflicted upon Cruz. SC cannot hold Villacorta criminally
treatment. liable for attempted or frustrated murder because the
prosecution was not able to establish Villacorta's intent to
kill. Villacorta's assault was done only once. Thus, there is
 doubt as to whether appellant had an intent to kill the
victim. The intent must be proved in a clear and evident
● Exceptions (felony committed is not proximate cause when)
manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the
homicidal (or murderous) intent of the aggressor. When 1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony
such intent is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct
is not frustrated murder but physical injuries only. act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused.
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
A. Proximate Cause ● The offender is criminally liable for the death of the
victim if his delictual (wrongful) act caused, accelerated,
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting or contributed to the death of the victim.
injury
B. How To Determine The Proximate Cause
● Proximate cause à is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening ⮚ People v. Luces
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result ⮚ Accused gave a fist blow to victim in the stomach, causing
would not have occurred. her to fall to the ground and become unconscious. Victim
never regains consciousness and eventually dies. Autopsy
o Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human shows that cardiac failure was probable cause for death.
life or events. ⮚ Accused argues that cardiac failure and not the fist blow
o Logical means that there is a rational connection between the was not the cause of death.
act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage. ⮚ Court rules that the fist blow was the primary and proximate
cause of death because the cardiac failure (incurred either
● Proximate legal cause directly because of the fist blow, while falling to the ground,
or while being unconscious) was caused by the fist blow.
o That acting first and producing the injury, either immediately,
or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and § He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection caused.
with its immediate predecessor.
— Causes, not being efficient intervening causes, do not break
o There must be a relation of “cause and effect”, the cause being
the felonious act of the offended, the effect being the resultant the relation of cause and effect – the felony committed and
injuries and/or death of the victim. the resulting injury
● Not altered because of pre-existing conditions, C. Intervening Causes
predisposition of the offended party or the concomitant or
concurrent conditions, or the conditions supervening the The following are not efficient intervening causes
felonies.
 ⮚ People v. Illustre & People v. Reyes à The weak or diseased
physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering ⮚ People v. Rockwell
from tuberculosis or heart disease. ⮚ A strikes B. B falls to the ground. A horse jumps on B and
⮚ People v. Almonte & People v. Quianson à Nervous kills him. A is not liable for the death of B
temperament, as when a person dies in consequence of an ⮚ US v. De los Santos
internal hemorrhage because he was moving around against ⮚ A lightly injures B. B deliberately immerses himself in a
doctors orders because of his nervous temperament due to cesspool of filth. The injuries of B become greater.
the wound inflicted by the accused. ⮚ A is not liable for the worsened condition of B.
D. Natural Consequence - When death is presumed to be the natural o Urbano v. IAC
consequence of physical injuries inflicted
⮚ When medical findings lead to the possibility that the
1. The victim was in normal health when the injury was inflicted. infection of the wound was an efficient intervening cause
(not a proximate cause), the accused must be acquitted of the
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted. crime of homicide.
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
— Case: People v. Tammang PAR. 2: BY ANY PERSON PERFORMING AN ACT
o Boy was in good health the morning of the incident. Teacher WHICH WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS
assaults boy and boy complains about experiencing oppressive pain OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT
to his mother later on. Boy vomits blood until he dies 3 days later. IMPOSSIBILITY OF IT’S ACCOMPLISHEMTN, OR ON
ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE
o Teacher’s liability for homicide necessarily follows from the OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS.
premises stated.
I. Impossible Crimes
o Had it been proven that the boy died from hypochondria and not
the injuries inflicted by the teacher, accused would have been ● The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of
acquitted on the charge of homicide. criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of
the actor.
Not direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed. o Such person is therefore a potential criminal.
o The community must be protected from anti-social
● If the consequences produced have resulted from a
activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal
type of man called “socially dangerous person”.
act, the offender is not responsible for such
consequences. II. Requisites Of Impossible Crime
● A person is not liable criminally for all possible
consequences which may immediately follow his 1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or
felonious act, but only for such as are proximate: property
2. Act was done with evil intent § Robbery (Art. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303)
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means § Brigandage (Article 306 and 307)
employed are inadequate or ineffectual § Theft (Article 308, 310, 311)
4. Act is not a violation of another provision of the Revised § Usurpation (Article 312 and 313)
Penal Code
§ Culpable insolvency (Article 314)
§ Swindling and other deceits (Article 315, 316, 317 and318)
III. Important Words And Phrases
§ Chattel mortgage (Article 319)
● “Performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property” (Requisite 1) § Arson and other crimes involving destruction, malicious
mischief (Article 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331)
o A felony against persons or property should not be
actually committed, for, otherwise, offender would be liable
for that felony. This means there is no impossible crime to ● If the act performed would be an offense other than a
speak of. felony against persons or property, there is no impossible
o Felonies against persons crime

§Parricide (Article 246) ● Act was done with evil intent (Requisite 2)
§ Murder (Article 248), ⮚ A peppers the bedroom of B with bullets. B was not in his
§ Homicide (Article 249), bedroom.
⮚ Convicted of an impossible crime
§ Infanticide (Article 255),
● “Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
§ Abortion (Article 256, 257, 258, and 259),
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
§ Duel (Article 260 and 261), inadequate or ineffectual means”

§ Physical injuries (Art, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266) o Inherent impossibility of accomplishment

§ Rape (Article 266-A) 1.Legal impossibility

Stealing a watch even if it turns out the said watch is
actually yours à legal impossibility,
o Felonies against property
2.Physical impossibility
 Examples: People of the Philippines v. Malisce, G.R. No. 190912. January 12,
2015
Trying to kill a person without knowing that he is
already dead à legal and physical impossibility. ● YES. The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist
• A tries to shoot B in the head only to find out the School, recognizes in the offender his formidability, and
gun is not loaded when he pulls the trigger now penalizes an act which were it not aimed at
something quite impossible or carried out with means
which prove inadequate, would constitute a felony
against person or against property. The rationale of
Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies.

CASE: ● The Supreme Court held that factual impossibility is

Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 present in this case. Factual impossibility is when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
● In this case, petitioner performed all the acts to
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is a
intended crime. One example is the man who puts his
crime against property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot be
hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check
steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.
meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be
● In the case at bar, Petitioner shot the place where he
unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check
thought his victim would be, although in reality, the
bounced, she would have received the face value
victim was not present in said place and thus, the
thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was
petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check
being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the
time, that prevented the crime from being produced. Article 5. – Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
be absolutely worthless, because the check was excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by
the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report to the Chief
● Hence, the accused is found guilty of the IMPOSSIBLE Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
CRIME. induce the court to believe that said act should be the subject of
legislation.
 In the same light, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statements as may be
II. Second Paragraph Pertains To Excessive Penalties
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
⮚ Second paragraph requires the following:
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the 1. The court of trial finds the accused guilty
offense.
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for
the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because

⮚ The accused acted with lesser degree of malice

I. First Paragraph Pertains To Acts Which Should Be Repressed But
⮚ There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
Which Are Not Punishable By Law.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
⮚ Basis of Paragraph 1: Nulllum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
4. The judge should submit a statement to the chief executive,
o There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency.

act (no matter how bad that act may be).

A. Cases
⮚ Trial of a criminal case requires the following:
⮚ People v. Monleon
1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by
any law. ⮚ Accused maltreats his wife while inebriated. Wife dies. Since
2. The court deems it proper to repress such act. the accused had no intent to kill his wife and her death may
have been hastened by lack of proper medical care, the
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by
punishment of reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.
dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.
⮚ People v. Espino
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive
through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce ⮚ Accused steals coconuts for his family’s consumption.
him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal
legislation.
 o Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, or
⮚ Punishment for the crime was 4 months and 1 day of arresto
morality of laws. Such questions fall exclusively within the legislative
mayor to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prison that makes the law and the executive who approves or vetoes it.
correccional according to the Revised Penal Code
Example
⮚ In light of the circumstances surrounding the case, the
court recommended the accused be pardoned after serving ⮚ Judge sentences accused to life imprisonment when the law
4 months of the sentence
clearly states that the punishment should be death.
B. Penalties Are Not Excessive When Intended To Enforce A Public ⮚ In this situation, the judge did not fulfill his duty
Policy
B. Judge Has The Duty To Apply The Law As Interpreted By The
Supreme Court
⮚ People v. Estoista
● Judge must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as
⮚ Rampant lawlessness justifies imprisonment for
interpreted by the Highest Court of the land, and that any
promiscuous carrying and use of powerful firearms when deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would
ordinarily such a penalty would seem excessive. unavoidable cause, as a sequel, unnecessary
inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants
● Judge is free to state his opinion on the matter if his views
⮚ People v. Tiu Ua contrast with those of the SC but he must still follow the
interpretation of the SC
⮚ Heavy fines imposed by congress to repress profiteering so
that people would not take advantage of critical conditions C. Courts Are Not The Forum To Plead For Sympathy
(like a global recession, strong storms, etc.) to make unusual
profits. ● Dura lex sed lex

III. Duty Of The Courts To Apply The Law o The law is hard but it is the law

A. Courts Have The Duty To Apply The Penalty Provided By Law

III. Strict Enforcement Of The Provisions Of This Code
● It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law,
regardless of their private opinions. ● Article 5 may not be invoked for cases of mala prohibita
because it is expressly worded that Article 5 only applies to
 strict enforcement of the provisions of the Revised Penal ● Thoughts in the mind of the person; can never be punishable
Code no matter how evil they are.
● Mere intent to commit a crime cannot be punished if it
produces no effect.
● Intent and effect must concur.
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts
● Ordinarily they are not punishable unless provided by law.
● The act of buying poison is not necessarily punishable.
Carrying a picklock is punishable because there is a
provision against it.
● BUT preparatory acts which are considered in themselves by
Article 6. – Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. law as independent crimes are punishable.
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and o Article 304 à The possession of picklocks is a
attempted are punishable. preparatory act to the commission of robbery.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its b. Acts of execution
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce ● Punishable by law
the felony as a consequence but, which, nevertheless do not produce ● Stages of acts of execution:
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Attempted- Frustrated-Consummated
● All stages of acts of execution are punishable
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of
a felony, directly through overt acts, and does not perform all the acts II. STAGE 1: Attempted Felony
of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some
A. Elements Of Attempted Felony
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
1. Commencement of the commission of the felony directly by overt
I. Development Of Crime
acts.
● From the moment the culprit conceives the idea of
2. Offender does not perform all acts of execution which should
committing a crime up to the realization of the same, his act
produce the felony.
passes through certain stages.
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
A. Stages:
desistance.
1. Internal acts
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
B. Important Words And Phrases For Attempted Felony
⮚ Accused did not enter the store therefore there was only an
● “Commences the commission of a felony”
attempted trespass.
o Two requisites:
i. There must be an external act committed. ● “By reason of some cause or accident”
ii. External acts must be connected with the crime o Cause
intended to be committed. ⮚ A tries to pickpocket B but B catches him before he
can do so.
⮚ A has not done all the acts of execution in relation to
pick pocketing.
o Accident
● “Directly by overt acts” ⮚ A tries to shoot B but the gun jams.
⮚ A has not committed all the acts of execution.
o Only offenders who personally execute the commission of
a crime can be guilty of attempted felony. ● “Other than his own spontaneous desistance”
o You cannot be punished if you stop yourself from
⮚ If A tells B to kill C but B refuses –
committing a crime.
⮚ A is not liable for attempted homicide since the attempt was
o It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who,
not done directly with physical activity
having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of
their conscience and return to the path of
⮚ If A tells B to kill C and B shoots at C and misses
righteousness.
⮚ A and B are criminally liable of attempted felony because of
o One who takes part in planning a criminal act but
conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
desists in its actual commission is exempt from criminal
liability.
§ Could have been caused by his conscience
● “Does not perform all the acts of execution” o It does not matter if spontaneous desistance was due
to either fear or remorse as long as act is stopped on
o If all the acts of execution are performed, it is
account of the would-be offender’s own free will.
automatically either frustrated or consummated.
o Desistance must be made before the crime is
o If not all acts are performed, it is only attempted. committed.
§ A steals a chicken & brings it back an hour later.
⮚ US v. Eduave ⮚ Robbery has already been committed
⮚ If anything yet remained for him to do, he would be guilty therefore the return of the chicken
of an attempted crime. does not free A from criminal liability.
o Own spontaneous desistance exempts one from
⮚ People v. Lamahang
 criminal liability for the intended crime, and not from perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
any crimes which may have been committed before the concrete
desistance. offense.

⮚ A shoots B and misses. A decides not to shoot A. Distinguishing Between Preparatory Acts And Overt Acts
anymore.
⮚ A is not guilty of attempted homicide ● Act of buying poison
because of his spontaneous desistance o On its own, this act is a mere preparatory act because
but he is guilty of making grave threats it does not logically follow that he who buys poison
which he had already committed. wishes to commit a felony.
o It becomes an overt act when he who buys poison
begins to mix said substance into a soup which he will
Subjective phase of the offense serve to his intended victim. In such case, there is clear
● In an attempted felony, the offender never gets past the intent to poison a person
subjective phase. ⮚ People v. Tabago
● Definition ⮚ Accused seemed to be drawing his pistol while
o That portion of the acts constituting the crime, talking to a policeman.
starting from the point where the offender begins the ⮚ Accused is not criminally liable for attempted
commission of the crime to that point where he still has homicide because merely drawing a pistol does not
control over his acts, including their natural cause. show intent to kill.
- As long as he does not commit the last act of ⮚ To constitute attempted homicide, the person using a
execution, offender is still in the subjective phase firearm must fire it, with intent to kill, at the
intended victim without inflicting a mortal wound.
⮚ US v. Simeon Accused raised a bolo as if to strike at
Example: A tries to poison B with poisoned soup. the offended party.
⮚ Not an overt act because there was no blow struck,
o Subjective phase ends as soon as the B swallows the soup. and there is no proof that the accused issued threats
to kill or to do bodily harm.
III. Overt Acts
B. Overt Acts May Not Always Be Physical Activities
⮚ US v. Gloria
● Some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to
⮚ Offering money to a public officer with the purpose
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
of corrupting him is an overt act in the crime of
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
corruption of a public officer.
following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles, nor by the voluntary desistance of the
 C. External Acts Must Have Direct Connection With The
Crime Intended To Be Committed By The Offender V. STAGE 2: Frustrated Felony

⮚ People v. Lamahang A. Elements Of Frustrated Felony

⮚ Accused was caught making an opening in the wall
of a store while the owners were asleep. Cannot be 1. Offender commits all acts of execution.
counted as attempted robbery because the mere act 2. All the acts performed would produce a felony.
of making an opening in the wall of the store does 3. Felony is not produced.
not immediately mean that a robbery was taking 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
place. perpetrator.
⮚ The crime that the accused was convicted of was
attempted trespass given that when he was caught, the B. Important Words And Phrases For Frustrated Felony
only act that he had committed so far was the making ● “Performs all the acts of execution”
of an opening in the wall of the store. o Nothing left to be done by the offender.
⮚ Homicide à Offender is able to afflict a fatal wound.
IV. Indeterminable offense o The SC in some cases has emphasized the belief of the
● It is one when the purpose of the offender in performing an accused.
act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous. ⮚ People v. Sy Pio
⮚ A shoots at B. B escapes and A does not chase him. A
A. The Intention Of The Accused Must Be Viewed From cannot be accused of frustrated homicide because he knew
The Nature Of The Acts Executed By Him, And Not From that he did not perform all the acts of execution necessary to
His Admission kill his victim.
● The intention of the accused must be ascertained from the ⮚ A is guilty of attempted murder.
facts It is necessary that the mind be able to directly infer ⮚ People v. Dagman
from the facts the intention of the perpetrator to cause ⮚ A shoots at B. B pretends to be dead. A no longer shoots at
a particular injury. B. .A is guilty of frustrated homicide because he only
⮚ People v. Lamahang stopped shooting because he thought he had already killed B.
⮚ Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in ⮚ US v. Eduave
favor as well as against the accused, and which show an ⮚ A thinks he kills B and disposes of the in the bushes.
innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and ⮚ A is guilty of frustrated homicide because he believed he had
cannot furnish grounds by themselves for attempted already killed B.
crime.
⮚ Acts must be shown to be directly aimed at the o The belief of the accused need not always be
execution of the crime, and therefore they must have What ought to be considered is whether or not
an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. all the acts of execution that would produce
 the felony as a consequence were performed. preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
“Would produce the felony as a consequence” following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the
o All the acts of execution performed by the offender perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
could have produced the felony as a consequence. concrete offense. It is necessary that the overt act should
⮚ A tries to stab B but instead stabs the back of have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the
the chair where B was sitting. Attempted design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent
murder only because murder would not have step in a direct movement towards the commission of the
been produced as a consequence of the actions performed by offense after the preparations are made." The act done need
A. Does not pertain to the stopping of the felony from not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is
happening because the performance of the acts of necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal
execution were prevented. relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the
overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to
● “Do not produce it” If the intended felony was produced, the the offense.
act is consummated. In this case, petitioner had already successfully removed the
victim’s clothing and had inserted his finger into her vagina.
● “Independent of the will of the perpetrator” ;[
o If the crime is not produced because of the timely
intervention of a third party (after all acts of execution
have been committed).

o If the crime is stopped because of spontaneous

desistance (perpetrator’s own will), there is no
frustrated felony, because the 4th element is absent.
⮚ Example:
⮚ Doctor poisons wife but immediately
administers to her an adequate antidote. Not guilty of
frustrated parricide because the intervening cause that saved
the wife was not independent of the will of the perpetrator.
⮚ Doctor is only guilty of physical injuries since
the wife already ingested the poison before he administered
the antidote.

This Court has held that an overt or external act -is defined
as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
CONSUMMATED THEFT
Aristotle Valenzuela v. People
G. R. No. 160188 | June 21, 2007
J. Tinga
Indeed, we have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or
apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same.[92] And long ago, we asserted in People v.
Avila:[93]

Insofar as we consider the present question, "unlawful taking" is

most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the
deprivation of one's personal property, is the element which
produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time,
without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could
only be attempted theft, if at all.

With these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article

308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage.
Theft can only be attempted or consummate
 10. Alonzo and Red pushed the door open but as soon as they
entered they were shot several times. Alonzo and Red were not
able to return fire because the gunshots were sudden.
11. Carandang shot Montecalvo and fell to the ground. Estores
pulled Montecalvo out of the house. 12. 4;30 PM reinforcements
arrived and Montecalvo was brought to General Hospital.Milan
also stepped out of the house and was brought to the hospital.
13. Carandang and Chua negotiated and asked for the presence
of Col. Reyes and Ramon Tulfo. 14. Around 11PM to 12 MN
Carandang and Chua surrendered.
Three Friends Drug Raid WHTHER OR NOT The court a quo erred in holding that there
1. Accused: Henry Milan, Jackman Chua, and Restituto was conspiracy among the appellants in the case at bar.
Carandang 2. Setting: April 5, 2001, in QC Philippines Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
3. Criminal Case No. Q-01-100061. Accused conspired and killed agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
PO2 Dionisio Alonzo y Salgo by shooting him with several commit it.
gunfires. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the
4. Criminal Case No. Q-01-10006 conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the
commission of the crime.
2. Accused conspired and killed SPO2 Wilfredo Red y Pilar by
shooting him with several gunfires and placing grenade Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which
underneath the body demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient.

5. Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063. Accused conspired to kill When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all
SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo y Dalida by shooting him on his regardless of the degree of participation of each.43
neck. It was unsuccessful. In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with
6. The sister of accused Milan requested assistance from La Carandang was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot
Loma Police Station regarding a drug deal that would allegedly the victims (Milan’s closing the door when the police officers
take place in her house. introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and
(2) after the shooting (Chua’s directive to Milan to attack SPO1
7. Red was instructed to talk to Milan’s sister. He formed a team Montecalvo and Milan’s following such instruction). Contrary to the
composed of himseld, Alonzo, Montecalvo, and Estores. 8. 4 PM suppositions of appellants, these facts are not meant to prove that
- they reached the said house and saw the accused inside Chua is a principal by inducement, or that Milan’s act of attacking
Milan’s room which was open. SPO1 Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct
participation. Instead, these facts are convincing circumstantial
9. Milan immediately shut the door as soon as they noticed it evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the three. As
was the police. co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by direct
participation.
Furthermore, we have time and again ruled that factual findings of Pasion and Vitalicio were both rushed to the hospital. Pasion died
the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are after few hours. Elsa, Pasion's wife testified that when he heard her
conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on husband's moans, she immediatly went down and was blocked by
record.45 It was the trial court that was able to observe the Col. Col ordered her to open the pawnshop's vault. Col was holding
demeanors of the witnesses, and is consequently in a better position her neck when Bokingco called Col to leave the area because
to determine which of the witnesses are telling the truth. Thus, this Pasion was already dead. Col immediately ran away together with
Court, as a general rule, would not review the factual findings of the Bokingco.
courts a quo,
Bokingco admitted that he hit Pasion in the head and that he has ill
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a feelings towards the victim. Afterwards, Bokingco pointed out Col as
finding of conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is no the person who killed Pasion.
requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of
time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that
Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, appellants fled together after killing her husband and the extrajudicial
expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject felony.47 confession of Bokingco.

As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, Milan’s act of
closing the door facilitated the commission of the crime, allowing WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
Carandang to wait in ambush. The sudden gunshots when the police APPELLANTS?
officers pushed the door open illustrate the intention of appellants
and Carandang to prevent any chance for the police officers to For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at
defend themselves. Treachery is thus present in the case at bar, as the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
what is decisive for this qualifying circumstance is that the execution himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular
of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves means, method or form of attack employed by him.29
or to retaliate.48
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must
PAWNSHOP
establish the confluence of the following requisites:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, (a) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime;
vs. (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his
MICHAEL BOKINGO alias "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" and determination; and
REYNANTE COL, Accused-Appellants.
(c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the
At around 1am on 29 February 2000, Dante Vitaliano saw Michael execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
Bokingco hitting something on the floor in Apartment 3. Bokingco of his act.
saw Vitalicio and the latter was allegedly hit many times by Bokingco
with a hammer. Vitalicio managed to pushed away Bokingco and In the instant case, the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible
escaped to his house. His wife told him that Pasion was found dead against Bokingco because he was not assisted at all by counsel
in the kitchen of Apartment 3. during the time his confession was taken before a judge.
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is . Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or
anchored on the presumption that there was evident premeditation. declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
Having ruled however that evident premeditation has not been existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by
properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show that Bokingco such act or declaration.49
purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the commission of the
offense. Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that Col
conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s
actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was actually
the initial information filed against appellants before it was amended,
1) when the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not on motion of the prosecution, for murder.47
supported by the evidence on record, or
Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had
2) when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the been killed and that they had to leave the place. This does not prove
outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or that they acted in concert towards the consummation of the crime. It
3) when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of only proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed
facts.41 The second exception obtains in this case. simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from
the crimes they separately committed.
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their
moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing
Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the
pawnshop.1avvphi1
Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation in
the case before us, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and
Bokingco be proved.
In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that
to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself;
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused second, the admission relates to the common object; and
evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action,
and community of interest.42 third, it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying
out the conspiracy.50
essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.43
As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same quantum of
● Unity of purpose and proof as the crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the
commission of the crime.44
● Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective
As we have previously discussed, we did not find any sufficient • He was in this position when Erwin and his companions attacked
evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the and mauled him. Some, including Erwin, stabbed Joey with their
extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is inadmissible in knives. They scampered away afterwards.
evidence against Col. All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because
no sufficient evidence was adduced to implicate him.
• Joey was rushed to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital but died
shortly on arrival.

GIN
• A subsequent autopsy of his body showed that he died of traumatic
injuries on the head and multiple stab wounds on the abdomen.
G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014
• Trial took place only as to Erwin since John jumped bail and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERWIN TAMAYO Y remained at-large.
BAUTISTA, Appellant.
Whether or not the CA and the RTC erred in finding that abuse of
DECISION superior strength qualified the killing of Joey to murder.

• Norman Pleno (Norman), Wilson Quinto (Wilson), Alvin Hernaez The Court also finds no error in the RTC and the CA’s rejection of his
(Alvin), and Leonard Miranda (Leonard) testified that in the early alibi. The site of the murder was not far from where he lived.
Besides, he presented no corroborating testimony that he was then
morning of April 8, 2004, while Joey M. Obamen (Joey), Wilson,
at his house. As to his lament that the RTC and the CA should not
Alvin, and Lorenzo Gloria (Lorenzo) were having drink and
have given credit to Norman’s testimony for he had a grudge against
merriment beside the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) chapel on Lacson Street him, Erwin presented no proof apart from his word that this was so.
in Tondo, Manila, someone hurled empty bottles of gin at them. At any rate, the accounts of the remaining eyewitnesses were just as
positive, straightforward, consistent, and clear. They all testified that
• As Wilson went to look for whoever had done it, he saw accused Erwin stabbed Joey with a knife.
Erwin and John, in the company of several others, also having their
drink.

• Retaliating, Joey and his group threw stones and empty gin bottles Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify exactly
at accused Erwin and his companions. who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the commotion, Erwin’s
liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with
• Enraged, the latter group gave chase to Joey and the others with concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes
all the assailants equally liable as co-principals by direct
him.
participation.22crallawlibrary

• Unfortunately, Joey tripped on an iron chain that guarded the INC’s

parking area and fell to the ground. People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 158754 | August 10, 2007
 conducting numerous bail hearings and evaluating the weight of the
prosecution’s evidence, it determined that the evidence against
GARCIA, J. individual respondent was not strong and, on the basis of that
This case involves a petition for certiorari against the Resolution of determination, resolved to grant him bail.
Sandiganbayan granting the prayer for bail in the respondent's
motion. Impeachment proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada
and members of his family were filed in the office of Ombudsman.
Upon finding a probable cause, the crime of plunder was charged
against Jinggoy Estrada. A warrant of arrest was issued against
Jinggyo and he were placed in custody of the law. Jinggoy filed a
Very Urgent Omnibus Motion and Motion to to Resolve, alleging that
there is no probable cause, but they were denied by Sandiganbayan. SIMON FERNAN, JR. and EXPEDITO TORREVILAS
Jinggoy petitioned for a certiorari before this court, but was also
denied. Jinggoy motioned to Sandiganbayan to conduct hearings to vs.
determine if the evidence of guilt is strong as to warrant the granting
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
of bail to him. Sandiganbayan issued the assailed resolution in
March 6, 2003, where Sandiganbayan granded the omnibus G.R. No. 145927 | August 24, 2007
application for bail of Php 500,000 in cash.
Whether Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted bail to VELASCO, JR., J
respondent Jinggoy Estrada considering that the undisputed fact
clearly evidences that respondent Jinggoy Estrada, even without a
finding of conspiracy, is equally guilty and liable as accused Joseph 1. This petition under Rule 45 originated from 119 criminal cases filed
Estrada himself by his indispendable cooperation and/or direct with the Sandiganbayan (SB) involving 36 former officials and
participation in the commission of the crime of plunder. employees of the then Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) and
Petitioner’s second and third arguments focus on the possible several suppliers of construction materials for defalcation of public
degrees of participation of Jinggoy in the crime of Plunder. funds arising from numerous transactions in the Cebu First Highway
Noticeably, both arguments, if pursued to their respective logical Engineering District in 1977. The incident is popularly known as the
conclusions, tend to cancel each other out, one leading as it were to “86 million highway scam.”
a direction quite the opposite of the other. For while the second
argument attempts to establish an "implied conspiracy" between
Jinggoy and his father - hence, the guilt of one is the guilt of the 2.The conspiracy to defraud the government was formed in February
other - the third argument eschews the idea of conspiracy, but 1977 when accused Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia
respondent Jinggoy is nonetheless "equally guilty" as President Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and
Estrada because of his indispensable cooperation and/or direct Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH Region VII, met at the Town and
participation in the crime of Plunder. Country Restaurant in Cebu City and hatched their plan. The
fraudulent scheme involved the splitting of Letters of Advice of
In all, the Court rules that public respondent Sandiganbayan (Special Allotments (LAAs) and Requisition for Supplies and Equipment
Division) did not commit grave abuse of discretion when, after
(RSE) so that the amount covered by each general voucher is less Petitioners Simon Fernan, Jr. and Expedito Torrevillas were both
than P50,000.00 to do away with the approval of the Regional Civil Engineers of the MPH assigned to the Cebu First HED.
Auditor; the charging of disbursements to unliquidated obligations Petitioner Fernan, Jr. was included among the accused in 6 of the
due the previous year to provide the supposed source of funds; and criminal cases allegedly for having signed six tally sheets or
the manipulation of the books of account by negation or adjustment, statements of deliveries of materials, used as bases for the
i.e., the cancellation of checks through journal vouchers to conceal preparation of the corresponding number of general vouchers. Fund
disbursements in excess of the Cash Disbursement Ceiling (CDC), releases were made to the suppliers, contractors, and payees based
so as not to reflect such disbursements in the trial balances on these general vouchers.
submitted to the Regional Office.

6. The Sandiganbayan found Fernan, Jr. guilty in all 6 criminal cases

3. In 1978, a Commission on Audit (COA) investigation confirmed the as co-principal (with Mangubat et al) in the crime of Estafa thru
suspected issuance of fake LAAs in the Cebu City, Cebu 1st, Cebu falsification of Public Documents under Articles 318 and 171, in
2nd and the Mandaue City Highway Engineering Districts (HED). relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
They discovered that two sets of LAAs were received by the districts.
One set consists of regular LAAs which clearly indicated the covering
sub-allotment advices and were duly signed by Mrs. Angelina 7.Petitioner Torrevillas was similarly convicted under the same
Escaño, Finance Officer of the MPH Regional Office. The other set offense in 9 criminal cases.
consists of fake LAAs which do not indicate the covering
sub-allotment advice and were signed by Chief Accountant Rolando
Mangubat and Engr. Jose Bagasao, instead of the Finance Officer.
Mangubat, however, had no authority to approve them because 8. Petitioners made the supplication before the court a quo to recall
since October 1977 he had already been detailed to the MPH the adverse judgments against them which was declined by the
Central Office. There were indications that the practice had been August 29, 2000 SB Resolution. Firm in their belief that they were
going on for years. innocent of any wrongdoing, they now interpose the instant petition
to clear their names.

4.The fake LAAs became the vehicles in the disbursement of funds

amounting to P3,839,810.74 for the purchase and delivery of 9. Petitioner interpose the instant petition claiming that their guilt was
materials allegedly used for the maintenance and repair of the not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the State was
national highways within the Cebu First HED. Despite the enormous unable to show that government funds were illegally released based
additional expenditure, the testimonies of barangay captains of the on alleged ghost deliveries in conjunction with the false or fake tally
afftected areas disclosed that were no actual major repair works sheets and other documents which they admittedly signed.
undertaken on the national highway except the filling of potholes by
WHETHER OR NOT The honorable sandiganbayan erred in
crushed limestone (anapog).
convicting petitioners as co-conspirators despite the prosecution’s
failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts and
circumstances that would implicate them as co-conspirators and
5.Rolando Mangubat and others were found guilty in all 119 counts justify their conviction.
and were accordingly sentenced by the Sandignbayan.
The essential elements of estafa through falsification of public (2) the "chain" conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of
documents. narcotics or other contraband, in which there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the same way as with
legitimate business operations between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the
consumer.51
shoulders of the prosecution. Considering, however, the difficulty in
establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the
no need to prove it by direct evidence. In People v. Pagalasan, the
"wheel" conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who constituted the
Court explicated why direct proof of prior agreement is not
massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a
necessary:
single hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia
Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and
After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a
Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate "spokes" of the
successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may
conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel.
be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a
Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three
common purpose and design.
agreed to help him carry out his plan. They typed fake LAAs during
Saturdays. Cruz and Sayson also took charge of negotiating or
Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons
selling fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of the gross amount.
aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
Preagido manipulated the general ledger, journal vouchers and
object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
general journal through negative entries to conceal the illegal
apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and
disbursements. In the initial report of COA auditors Victoria C.
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
Quejada and Ruth I. Paredes it was discovered that the doubtful
concurrence of sentiment.
allotments and other anomalies escaped notice due to the following
manipulations:
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
"The letter-advices covering such allotments (LAA) were not signed
furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation
by the Finance Officer nor (sic) recorded in the books of accounts.
in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
Disbursements made on the basis of these fake LAAs were charged
design and purpose.50
to the unliquidated obligations although the obligations being paid
were not among those certified to the unliquidated obligations at the
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) structures of end of the preceding year. To conceal the overcharges to authorized
multiple conspiracies, namely: allotments and the excess of checks issued over authorized cash
disbursements ceiling, adjustments were prepared monthly through
(1) the so-called "wheel" or "circle" conspiracy, in which there is a journal vouchers to take up the negative debit to and a negative
single person or group (the "hub") dealing individually with two or credit to the Treasury Checking Account for Agencies Account
more other persons or groups (the "spokes"); and 8-70-790. These journal vouchers in effect cancelled the previous
entry to record the disbursements made on the basis of fake LAAs. AMADO C. ARIAS, petitioner,
Thus the affected accounts as appearing in the trial balance, would vs.
not show the irregularity. The checks, however, were actually THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
issued."52
G.R. No. 82512 December 19, 1989

CRESENCIO D. DATA, petitioner,

The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious conspiracy. Other vs.
government employees, tempted by the prospect of earning big THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
money, allowed their names to be used and signed spurious
documents. Paredes Law Office for petitioner
• In 1975, the Bureau of Public Works initiated the Mangahan
Floodway Project to ease the perennial floods affecting the towns of
Marikina and Pasig, Metro Manila
Where the acts of each of the accused constitute an essential link in
a chain and the desistance of even one of them would prevent the • The implementation of the Mangahan Floodway Project was
chain from being completed, then no conspiracy could result as its entrusted to the Pasig Engineering District headed by the District
consummation would then be impossible or aborted. But when each Engineer, Cresencio Data. He formed a committee. The team was
and everyone of the accused in the instant cases performed their tasked to notify lot owners affected by the project of the impending
expropriation of their properties and to receive and process
assigned tasks and roles with martinet-like precision and accuracy,
applications for payment.
by individually performing essential overt acts, so much so that the
common objective is attained, which is to secure the illegal release of • May 5, 1977 - Among the lots affected was a portion of a riceland
public funds under the guise of fake or simulated public documents, in Pasig registered in the name of Benjamin Agleham under Original
then each and everyone of said accused are equally liable as Certificate of Title No. 0097.
co-principals under the well-established and universally-accepted
• Among those who filed an application for payment at the District
principle that, once a conspiracy is directly or impliedly proven, the
Engineer's Office was Natividad Gutierrez, who was armed with a
act of one is the act of all and such liability exists notwithstanding Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed on February 24, 1978
no-participation in every detail in the execution of the offense.54 by Benjamin Agleham in her favor. She submitted supposedly
certified Tax declaration describing the property as "residential"
In sum, the required quantum of proof has been adduced by the (instead of riceland), and with a fair market value of P2,413,520 or
State on the conspiracy among the accused including petitioners. P80 per sqm (instead of P5 per sqm).
The conviction of petitioners must perforce be sustained.
• On April 20, 1978, the Deed of Absolute Sale was signed by Data
and Gutierrez (as attorney-in-fact of Agleham).
• On June 8, 1978, the sale was registered and Transfer Certificate
G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989 of Title No. T-12071 was issued in the name of the Government after
the documents were returned to Data's office for Transfer of Title to Whether Arias and Data beyond reasonable doubt, as
the government. co-conspirators in the conspiracy to cause undue injury to the
Government through the irregular disbursement and expenditure of
• On October 23, 1978, the voucher and its supporting documents public funds, has not been satisfied.
were pre-audited and approved for payment by the accused, Amado
C. Arias, as auditor of the Engineering District.
• October 24, 1978, sixteen (16) PNB checks were issued to The majority is of the view that Messrs. Arias and Data should be
Gutierrez as payment for Agleham's lot. acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. The Court feels that the
quantum of evidence needed to convict petitioners Arias and Data
• On October, 1979, an investigation was conducted by the Ministry beyond reasonable doubt, as co-conspirators in the conspiracy to
of National Defense on the gross overpricing of Agleham's property cause undue injury to the Government through the irregular
where it was found that the xerox copy of Tax Declaration No. 47895 disbursement and expenditure of public funds, has not been satisfied
submitted by Gutierrez was fake.
• This case presents a conspiracy of silence and inaction where We agree with the counsel for the People. There is no adequate
chiefs of office who should have been vigilant to protect the interest evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioners, Amado C. Arias and
of the Government in the purchase of Agleham's two-hectare Cresencio D. Data, beyond reasonable doubt. The inadequate
riceland, accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
subordinates, and approved without question the million-peso
purchase which, by the standards prevailing in 1976-78, should have
pricked their curiosity and prompted them to make inquiries and to
verify the authenticity of the documents presented to them for
approval. The petitioners kept silent when they should have asked A conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of the acts
questions; they looked the other way when they should have probed charged, but may and generally must be proven by a number of
deep into the transaction. indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances (People vs. Maralit,
G.R. No. 71143, Sept. 19,1988; People vs. Roca, G.R. No. 77779,
• Both Arias and Data appealed. Arias anchors his petition for review June 27, 1988).
of the Sandiganbayan's decision (G.R. No. 81563) on his contention
that the court's findings that he conspired with his co-accused and
that he was grossly negligent are based on misapprehension of
facts, speculation, surmise, and conjecture. Data's main defense is
that the acquisition of the Agleham property was the work of the This case presents a conspiracy of silence and inaction where chiefs
committee of Precillo Fernando in which he did not take an active of office who should have been vigilant to protect the interest of the
part, and that the price which the Government paid for it was Government in the purchase of Agleham's two-hectare riceland,
reasonable. Hence, it suffered no injury in the transaction. accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their subordinates, and
approved without question the million-peso purchase which, by the
• In his consolidated brief or comment for the State, the Solicitor
standards prevailing in 1976-78, should have pricked their curiosity
General recommends the acquittal of the petitioners because the
Agleham property was allegedly not grossly overpriced. and prompted them to make inquiries and to verify the authenticity of
the documents presented to them for approval. The petitioners kept
silent when they should have asked questions they looked the other that “although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of
way when they should have probed deep into the transaction. witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where
there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive
identification of the assailant.”36