USJ-R School of Law

1st Sem AY 2022-2022

CRIMINAL LAW 1

REVISED PENAL CODE FELONIES

Book One AND
CIRCUMSTANCE
S WHICH
AFFECT
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
BOOK
ONE
Felonies
 Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law
are felonies (delitos).
 Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but
also by means of fault (culpa).
 There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
 Felony by performing an act:
 Ana took the watch of Betty with intent to gain and without the
consent of the latterTheft.

 Felony by omission:
 Anyone ho fails to render assistance to any person whom he finds in
an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
dyingAbandonment of persons in danger.
 Ana hit Betty with her vehicle and just sped off without helping
Betty Abandonment of one’s victim.
 “Punishable by Law”
 “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”

 Classification of felonies according to the means by means they

are committed:
 Intentional Felony – committed by means of deceit (dolo) or with
malice
 Culpable Felony – committed by means of fault (culpa)
 Defendant who was not a medical practitioner, tied a girl,
wrapped her feet with rags saturated with petroleum and
thereafter set them on fire, causing injuries. According to him,
he undertook to render medical assistance in good faith and to
the best of his ability to cure her of ulcer. (U.S. v. Divino, 12 Phil
175)
 -no intent
 Imprudence v. Negligence
 Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action
 ->take necessary precaution to avoid the injury
 ->lack of skill

 Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception

 ->pay proper attention or use of due diligence in foreseeing the
injury or damage
 ->lack of foresight

  acts executed negligently  must be VOLUNTARY

 1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do
an act;
 2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting
to do the act;
 3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do
the act.
 Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act
(People v. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil 52, 53).

 But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof
of the commission of an act which is not unlawful (U.S. v. Catolico, 18
Phil 504, 508).

  “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea,”- a crime is not committed
if the mind of the person performing to act complained be
innocent.
 There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
 The presumption of criminal intent from the commission of an unlawful
act may be rebutted by proof of lack of such intent. (U.S. v. Penalosa, 1
Phil 109),(People v. Taneo, 58 Phil 255)

 While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance

therewith (ignorantia legis non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact
relieves the accused from criminal liability (ignorantia facti
excusat).
 MISTAKE OF FACT is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another but does not incur criminal
liability as he did not act with criminal intent.
 REQUISITES of mistake of fact as a DEFENSE:
 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be.
 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be
lawful.
 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of
the accused.
 1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do
an act;
 2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting
to do the act;
 3. He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACK OF FORESIGHT or
LACK OF SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
 Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in
felonies committed by means of culpa.
 Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused were instructed
to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped
convict and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and
on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door,
simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, but it turned
out to be Tecson, an innocent man.
 Held: Both accused are guilty of murder. (People v. Oanis, 74
Phil 257
 --> Reckless Imprudence cases->culpable felony
  those punished by special laws.
 Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.
 Intent to commit a crime not necessary; it is sufficient that the
offender has the intent to perpetuate the act prohibited by the
special law.
 Intent to commit the crime versus intent to perpetuate:
 First, consciously intended to commit the crime
 Second, consciously intent to commit the act prohibited by special
law, done freely and consciously
 1. wrongful from their nature;  1. wrong merely because it is
prohibited by a statute;
 2. violations of mere rules of
 2. so serious in their effects to
convenience;
society;
 3. criminal intent not required;
 3. criminal intent is required;
 4. refers generally to acts made
 4. refers generally to felonies
criminal by special laws;
defined by the RPC;
 MOTIVE INTENT

 - is the moving power which  - is the purpose to use a

impels one to action for a particular means to effect
definite result. such result.
 - reason  - means
 -is not an essential element  - is an essential element of
of a crime, hence, need not the crime and need to be
be proved for purposes of proved.
conviction.
 Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the
assailant. It is immaterial when the accused has been positively
identified. (People v. Gadiana, G. R. No. 92509, 3/13/1991)
 When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion
is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is relevant and
significant. ( People v. Melgar, No. L-75268, 1/29/1988)
 If the evidence is merely circumstancial, proof of motive is
essential. (People v. Oquino, No. L- 37483, 6/24/1983)
 Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
 A 6 year old died after being rape by accused. It would appear that
she died by accident when she hit her head on the pavement while
struggling. Accused is responsible for all the consequences of said
act, regardless of his intention. (People v. Mario Mariano, 75 O.G.
4802, No. 24, 6/24/1979)
 ->One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural
consequences of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does not
intent to produce such consequences.
 ->Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead, is
liable for the injury caused to C (Mistake in the blow)
 ->One who gave a fist blow on the head of D, causing the latter to
fall with the latter’s head striking a hard pavement (Injury is greater than that
intended)

 ->And one who stabbed another in the dark, believing that the
latter was E, when in fact he was G (Mistake in identity)
“ El que es cause de la causa es causa del mar causado,”-
he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused
(People v. Ural, No. L- 30801, 3/27/1974, 56 SCRA 138).

Important words and phrases in par 1, Art. 4:

1. “Committing a felony (intentional)”
 Defendant, who was a regular medical practitioner, tied a girl
wrapped her feet with rags saturated with petroleum and thereafter
set them on fire causing injuries. His defense was that he undertook
to render medical assistance in good faith and to the best of his
ability to cure her of ulcer. He admitted applying petroleum but
denied causing the burns. Held: While there was no intention to
cause an evil but to provide a remedy, accused was liable for
injuries thru imprudence. (U.S. v. Divino, 12 Phil 175)
 par 1 of Art. 4 is inapplicable
2. “Although the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended.”
Under par. 1, Art. 4, a person is committing a felony is still
criminally liable even if –
1. There is mistake in the identity of the victim – error in
personae (People v. Oanis)
2. There is mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus
3. The injurious result is greater than that intended –
praeter intentionem
 A. Error in Personae
 Defendant went out of the house with the intention of assaulting
Dunca, but in the darkness of the evening, defendant mistook
Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted upon him mortal wound with the
bolo. (People v. Gona, 54 Phil 605)
 B. Aberratio Ictus
 Accused discharged his firearm at Juana Barolo but because of
lack of precision, hit and seriously wound Perfecta Buralo.
(People v. Mabugat, 51 Phil 967)
 C. Praeter Intentionem
 The accused with intent to kill, struck the victim with his fist on
the back part of the head from behind, causing the victim to fall
down with his head hitting the asphalt pavement resulting in the
fracture of the head that led to the victim’s death. (People v.
Cagoco, 58 Phil 524)
 1. That an intentional felony has been committed; and
 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender.
 HENCE,
 No felony is committed (1) when the act or omission is not
punishable by the Revised Penal Code, or (2) when the act is
covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in
Art. 11.
 Proximate cause is “that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.” (Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil 181)
 ”Natural” refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of
human life or events
 ”Logical” means that there is rational connection between
the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.
 HOW?
 the cause being the felonious act of the offender, the effect
being the resultant injury to the victim.
 The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury when:

 a. There is an active force that intervened between the felony

committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct
act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused;
or
 b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
 A. A person struck another with his fist and knocked him down and
a horse near them jumped upon him and killed him. (People v.
Rockwell, 39 Mich 503)

 B. If slight physical injuries be inflicted by A upon B, and the latter

deliberately immerses his body in a contaminated cesspool,
thereby causing his injuries to become infected and serious, A
cannot be held liable for the crime of serious physical injuries. (U.S.
V. Delos Santos, G. R. No. 13309)
 Par. 2, Art 4 defines the so-called impossible crime:
 Requisites of impossible crime:
 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or
property.
 2. That the act was done with evil intent.
 3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
 4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
 A. Parricide (Art. 246)
 B. Murder (Art. 248)
 C. Homicide (Art. 249)
 D. Infanticide (Art. 255)
 E. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
 F. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
 G. Physical Injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266)
 H. Rape (Art. 266-A)
A. Robbery (Art. 294, 297-300, 302 and 303)
B. Brigandage (Art. 306 and 307)
C. Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311)
D. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
E. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314)
F. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315-318)
G. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
H. Arson and other crimes of destruction (Art. 320)
I. Malicious Mischief (Art. 329-331)
 Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense
against person or against property, it must be shown that the actor
performed the act with evil intent, that is, he must have the intent to do
an injury to another.
 A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found out that
B was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in his breast
three times with a knife.
 Not an impossible crime, because A knew that B was already dead when
he stabbed the lifeless body. There was no evil intent on the part of A,
because he knew that he could not cause an injury to B.
Prepared by: Prof. Jadraque
 either legal impossibility or its physical impossibility
 Illustration:
 1. Would be an offense against persons.
 A fired at B, who was lying on bed, not knowing that B was dead
hours before.
 2. Would be an offense against property.
 A with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket of B. When A had
the watch in his possession, he found out that it was the watch which
he had lost a week before.
 Employment of inadequate means.
 A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing it
with the food given to B, believing that the quantity employed by him is
sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed.
 Employment of ineffectual means.
 A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he thought was
arsenic when in fact it was sugar. B could not have been killed, because
the means employed was ineffectual. But A showed criminal tendency
and, hence, he should be punished for it in accordance with Art. 4, par. 2
in relation to Art. 59.
 A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter, A, not
knowing that it was empty.When he pressed the trigger it did not fire.
 A, who knew that B owned and always carried a watch, decided to
rob B of said watch. When A met B for that purpose, B did not have
the watch because he forgot to carry it with him. Thinking that B had
the watch with him, A pointed his gun at him and asked for the
watch. Finding that B did not have the watch, A allowed B to go
without further molestation.
 Not an impossible crime but attempted robbery
 Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases
of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any
act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said
act should be made the subject of legislation.
 e.g. Driving/importation of right hand drive vehicles
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through
the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a
strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration
the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
e.g. Genosa case
Does not apply to offenses defined and penalized by a special law.
 Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. -
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated
and attempted, are punishable.
 A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for
its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
 There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
 These stages are:
 (1) Internal acts – mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not
punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would
constitute a crime.
 (2) External acts – (a) preparatory acts, and (b) acts of execution.
 (a) preparatory acts – ordinarily they are not punishable, except when
the law provides otherwise.
 e.g. Carrying of poison, weapon, buying of gasoline
 (b) acts of execution – they are punishable under the RPC
 Elements of Attempted Felony:
 1. That the offender commences the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts;
 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony;
 3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
 4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or
accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
 1. Directly by overt acts.
 Requires that the offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts, must be done by him personally.
 Thus, if A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it, A cannot be held
liable for attempted homicide, because, although there was an attempt
on his part, such an attempt was not done directly with physical activity.
The inducement made by A to B is in the nature of a proposal, not
ordinarily punished by law.
 But if B, pursuant to his agreement with A, commenced the commission
of the crime by shooting C, with intent to kill, but missed and did not
injure C, both A and B are guilty of attempted felony because of
conspiracy. When there is conspiracy, the rule is – the act of one is the
act of all.
 2. Does not perform all the acts of execution.
 If the offender has performed all the acts of execution – nothing more is
left to be done – the stage of execution is that of a frustrated felony, if the
felony is not produced; or consummated, if the felony is produced.
 If anything yet remained for him to do, he would be guilty of an
attempted crime.
 Thus, the accused for the purpose of entering the dwelling of another
broke one board and unfastened another from the wall but before he
could start entering through the opening thus created he was arrested
by a policeman, the crime committed was only attempted trespass to
dwelling, because there was something yet for him to do, that is, to
commence entering the dwelling through that opening in order to
perform all the acts of execution.
 3. By reason of some cause or accident.
 e.g. A picked the pocket of B, inside of which there was a wallet
containing P50. Before A could remove it from the pocket of B, the
latter grabbed A’s hand and prevented him from taking it. In this
case, A failed to perform all the acts of execution, that is, taking the
wallet, because of a cause, that is, the timely discovery by B of the
overt act of A.
 e.g. A aimed his pistol to B to kill the latter, but when he pressed the
trigger it jammed and no bullet was fired from the pistol.
 4. Other than his own spontaneous desistance.
 If the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of
his own spontaneous desistance, there is no attempted felony. The
law does not punish him.
 It is a sort of reward granted by law to those, who having one foot on
the verge of crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to
the path of righteousness.
 The desistance should be made before all the acts of execution are
performed.
 The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference
to the crime intended to be committed and has no reference to the
crime actually committed by the offender before the desistance.
 Elements of Frustrated Felony:
 1. The offender performs all the acts of execution.
 2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence.
 3. But the felony is not produced.
 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
(People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, 4/3/1990).
 1. Performs all the acts of execution.
 In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the acts of
execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender.
 Thus, if A, with intent to kill, fires his gun at B, the discharge of the
gun is only an overt act. If the slug fired from the gun misses B or the
wound inflicted on B is not mortal, the last act necessary to produce
the crime of homicide is not yet performed by A. But if the wound
inflicted is mortal, that is, sufficient to cause death, A performs the
last act. If no medical attendance is given, B would surely die. In
homicide or murder, the crime is consummated if the victim dies. If
the victim survives, the crime is frustrated. (U.S. V. Eduave, 36 Phil
209)
  Where the accused stabbed the offended party in the
abdomen, penetrating the liver, and in the chest. It was only the
prompt and skillful medical treatment which the offended party
received that saved his life. (People v. Honrada, 62 Phil 112).
 2. Would produce the felony as a consequence.
 All the acts of execution performed by the offender could have
produced the felony as a consequence.
 If the acts of accused would not produce the felony as a consequence,
he can’t be charged of a frustrated felony but could only be an
attempted felony.
 3. Do not produce it.
 In frustrated felony, the acts performed by the offender do not produce the
felony, because if the felony is produced it would be consummated.
 4. Independent of the will of the perpetrator.
 Even if all the acts of execution have been performed, the crime
may not be consummated, because certain causes may prevent its
consummation. These certain causes may be the intervention of
third persons who prevented the consummation of the offense or
may be due to the perpetrator’s own will.
 If the crime is not produced because of the timely intervention of a
third person, it is frustrated.
 If the crime is not produced because the offender himself
prevented its consummation, there is no frustrated felony, for the 4th
element is not present.
 A doctor conceived the idea of killing his wife, and to carry out his
plan, he mixed arsenic with the soup of his victim. Immediately
after the victim took the poisonous food, the offender suddenly felt
such twinge of conscience that he himself washed out the stomach
of the victim and administered to her the adequate antidote. Would
this be frustrated parricide?
 No, for even though the subjective phase of the crime had already
been passed, the most important requisite of a frustrated crime, i.e.
that the cause which prevented the consummation of the offense be
independent of the will of the perpetrator, was lacking.
 1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal
purpose.
 2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence, in attempted felony, the offender merely
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts
and does not perform all the acts of execution.
 In other words, in frustrated felony, the offender has reached
the objective phase; in attempted felony, the offender has not
passed the subjective phase.
 1. In attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime, the evil
intent of the offender is not accomplished.
 2. But while in impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender
cannot be accomplished, in attempted or frustrated felony the evil
intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment.
 3. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be
accomplished because it is inherently impossible of
accomplishment or because the means employed by the offender
is inadequate or ineffectual; in attempted or frustrated felony, what
prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of certain causes
or accident in which the offender had no part.
 A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present.

 How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or

frustrated or it is consummated?
 1. NATURE OF THE CRIME
 Arson – not necessary that the property be totally burned by fire, it
is sufficient that even just a portion of the wall or any part is burned;
it is frustrated when rags soaked in kerosene is set on fire and
placed near the wall; it is attempted before setting it on fire.
 2. ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING THE CRIME
 Theft – consummated when the thief is able to take or get hold of
the thing belonging to another, even if he is not able to carry it
away.
 3. MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
 3. MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
 A. Formal crimes- consummated in one instance, no attempt
 B. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt
act – Flight to enemy country, Corruption of minor
 C. Felony by omission – no attempt, offender does not perform an
overt act
 D. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them
are consummated by mere agreement.- betting in sports contest,
corruption of public officials
 E. Material crimes – not consummated in one instant or by single
act, e.g. Rape, homicide
 Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against person or property.

  "Light felonies are those infractions of law or the commission of

which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided.“ (RA 10951)

  Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and

material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a
light penalty for their consummation. If they are not consummated,
the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a
penalty at all.
 Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. -
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only
in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.
 A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.
 There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit
a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
 Generally –
 Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable

 Exception –
 They are punishable only in the case in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
 -Conspiracy as a felony are those that are specially defined and
punished by law such as Conspiracy to commit treason (Art.
115), Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection (Art 136.) and Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art
141)

 -Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability relates

to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a
manner of incurring criminal liability, that is, when there is
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
 1. A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and take arms
against the government with the help of their followers. Even if they
did not carry out their plan to overthrow the government, A and B
are liable for conspiracy to commit rebellion under Art 136 of the
RPC.
 2. A, B and C, after having conceived a criminal plan, got together,
agreed and decided to kill D. If A, B and C failed to carry out the
plan for some reason or another, they are not liable for having
conspired against D, because the crime they conspired to commit,
which is murder, is not treason, rebellion or sedition.
 But if they carried out the plan and personally took part in its
execution which resulted in the killing of D, they are all liable for
murder, irrespective of their individual participation.
 When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing another
part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the
same object, and their acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action and occurrence of
sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said
defendants were engaged in conspiracy. (People v. Geronimo,
No. L-35700, 10/5/1973)
  doctrine of Implied Conspiracy
  Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it. Once this assent is established, each and
everyone of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the
crime, committed by anyone of them. (People v. Monroy, et al,
104 Phil 759)

  if conspiracy cannot be proved, they shall be made liable for

their individual acts.
 1. That two or more persons came to an agreement
 2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony
 3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.
 Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy.
  Evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or
approval of an illegal act is required.
 Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not
make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship.
 The act of one is the act of all.
 1. That the person has decided to commit a felony; and
 2. that he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

  no criminal proposal when the person who proposes is not

determined to commit the felony
 there is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
 it is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
 Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. -
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
 Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above-mentioned Art..
 Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of
which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000
pesos or both; is provided. (RA 10591)
 Death Penalty – Capital punishment
 Reclusion Perpetua - Afflictive
 Reclusion Temporal
 Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
 Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
 Prision Mayor
 1. Prision correccional
 2. Arresto mayor
 3. Suspension
 4. Destierro
 1. Arresto Menor
 2. Fine not exceeding 40,000 or both

  When the Code provides a fine of exactly P40,000 for the

commission of a felony, it is a light felony. If the amount of fine
provided by the Code is more than P40,000, then is a less grave
felony.
  classification of fine – Art. 26, correctional penalty
 classification as to gravity of the felony – Art. 9, light felony
 Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. -
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary.
  Code is not intended to supersede special penal laws.
 General Rule:
  not applicable; no scales of penalty; no attempted or frustrated
stage; no accomplice or accessory and no mitigating or aggravating
in special penal laws.
 Supplementary application in the following:
  retroactivity if favorable to the accused (Art. 22)
  participation of principals (Art. 17)
 subsidiary imprisonment (Art. 39)
  confiscation of instruments (Art. 45)
 SPL amending specific articles of the RPC.
End of Chapter
One