CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal law branch/division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment

Crime an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it

Sources: Revised Penal Code, Special Penal Laws, Penal Presidential Decrees

Characteristics: General, Territorial, Prospective

o General criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory
o Territorial criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory
o Prospective A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not
punishable when committed. As provided in Art. 366 of RPC, crimes are punished under the laws
in force at the time of their commission.

ARTICLE 1 (TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT)

This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty two.
1996 BAR:

(1) What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly.
(2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?
1. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these are CLASSICAL THEORY, which simply means that the
basis of criminal liabilities is free will, and the purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the
gravity of the offense; and POSTIVIST THEORY, which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not
just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely blamed; law and
jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired
into.
2. We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in tendencies like
punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our Code.
ARTICLE 2 (APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISION)
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of this Code.

Revised Penal Code enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago but also outside of its jurisdiction in
certain cases << Article 2 (1-5)
o Exceptions:
Treaties/ Treaty Stipulations

Law of Preferential Application

Public International Law

Rules to Jurisdiction over Foreign Merchant Vessels

o English Rule triable unless offense affect things within the vessel
o French Rule triable if offense affects peace, security or safety of the state is endangered

Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach of public order aboard merchant vessels
anchored in Philippine jurisdictional waters. (Example: smoking/possession of opium)

2000 BAR:
After drinking one case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of pulutan, Binoy, a Filipino
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V Princess of the Pacific, an overseas vessel
which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a
rich Filipino businessman. When M/V Princess of the Pacific reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the
Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An information for homicide
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the information for lack of
jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion?
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime
committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered
or licensed in the Philippines. It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama
govern while it is in the high seas.
ARTICLE 3 (DEFINITION)
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.

Felonies acts or omissions1 punishable by the Revised Penal Code2 by means of dolo or culpa3
o Element No. 1
Acts bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. Only external acts are punished
because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law
Omission failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. There is a law requiring a certain act
to be performed and the person required to do the act fails to perform it.
o Element No. 2
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege no crime where there is no law punishing it
o

Element No. 3
Intentional Felony malicious; intention to cause injury to the person, property, or right of
another
Culpable Felony not malicious; unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice

IMPRUDENCE
- deficiency of action
- failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury
to person or damage to property
- lack of skill
NEGLIGENCE

- deficiency of perception
- failure to pay proper attention and to use due diligence
in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be
caused
- lack of foresight

In felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice and in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa, the
acts or omissions are voluntary.
A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact prevails over assumption and in the absence of indubitable
explanation, the act must be declared voluntary and punishable.

Requisites for Dolo and Culpa:

1.
Freedom (both) when a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but
a tool

2.
Intelligence (both) necessary to determine the morality of human acts

3.
Intent (Dolo) being purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption arises
from the

proof of the commission of an unlawful act

Imprudence, Negligence or Lack of Foresight or Skill (Culpa)

Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the legal maxims:
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were
so
o Actus me invito factus non est meus actus an act done by me against my will is not my act
Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia facti excusat) is the misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who caused
injury to another. There is no liability because there was no intent.
o Requisites:
1. Lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be

2. Intention of accused in performing the act should be lawful

3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

1997, 2003 BAR

1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita

2. May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?

1. In concept: Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions penalized are inherently bad, evil, or wrong
that
they are almost universally condemned. Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts penalized are not
inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or interest and whoever
violates the prohibition are penalized.
In legal implications: In crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence is a defense, while in
crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; it is enough that the
prohibition was voluntarily violated. Also, criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se even when
the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred
only when the crime is consummated. Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
appreciated in imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated
unless the special law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code
2. Yes. An act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People vs. Sunicoit was held that
the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voters name in the registry list of voters
is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in
se. Since it is punished under a Special Law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised ELECTION Code), it is considered
malum prohibitum.
1996, 1999, 2006 BAR: 1. Distinguish motive from intent
2. When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be
established?

1. "Motive " is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result; while "intent" is the
purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired result. Motive is not an element of a crime but intent
is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the intent.

2. Relevant:

* Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant.

* Important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions

* When the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive and

not free from doubt

* Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of
persons

*Evidence is merely circumstancial

Not necessary:

* If the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing

* When the accused has been positively identified

* Where the defendant admits the killing

* Crimes mala prohibita

* In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person in authority or agent of a person in authority was
attacked in

The actual performance of duty

* Crimes committed through reckless imprudence

How to prove motive? It is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused
before or immediately after the commission of the offense.
o Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime but proof of
motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no
reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system of criminal justice
o Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.

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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.

Applicability: Criminal liability is incurred by any person in the cases mention in the two paragraphs of Article 4

PARAGRAPH 1
o One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and
logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

Rationale of the rule in Article 4, Paragraph 1 is found in the doctrine that el que es causa de la causa es
causa del mal causado he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused

When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended
No felony is committed when the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC or when the act
done is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Article 11.
Illustration: If A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself, but when he
dropped to the ground he fell on an old woman who died as a consequence. A is NOT criminally
liable for intentional suicide. A was not committing a felony when he attempted a suicide.

A person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if:

Error in Personae mistake in the identity of the victim
Aberratio Ictus mistake in the blow
Praeter Intentionem resulting injury is greater than that intended

Requisites:

1. An intentional felony has been committed

2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence
of the felony committed by the offender
Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do
something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.

1996 BAR:
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila
from Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of
the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were
ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander
be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the
proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of
another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process,
sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death.
2005 BAR:
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the police.
Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had reported him,
Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he was about to run her over. He revved the
engine of his car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was slippery at that time,
the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her death. Was gaston criminally liable? What is the liability of
Gaston? Why?
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because even though Gaston has no intent to kill Belle rather just to scare
Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, provides in
part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended. In other words, the rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates
in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and

in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or
death.

Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act.

Illustrations:
The victim was threatened or chased by the accused with a knife, jumped in to the water and
because of the strong current or he did not know how to swim, he sank and died of drowning
The victim was suffering from internal malady
1. Blow was efficient cause of death
2. Blow accelerated death
3. Blow was proximate cause of death
The resulting injury was aggravated by infection

2003 BAR:
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond
his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his
fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble,
immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It
turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held
guilty of?
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hit- ting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting
physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the
wrongful consequence is different from what he intended. Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was
generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart
attack, having materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent to
kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be given the mitigating
circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3,
Revised Penal Code)

The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
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.
Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while logical
means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or
damage.
There must be a relation of cause and effect, the cause being the felonious act of the offended,
the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim
The cause and effect relationship is not altered or changed because of the pre-existing conditions:
1. Pathological condition of the victim
2. Predisposition of the offended party
3. Concomitant or concurrent conditions
4. Conditions supervening the felonies act
The felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
1. 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
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
The following are not efficient intervening causes:
1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim

2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim

3. Causes which are inherent in the victim
4. Neglect of the victim or third person
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time

1994 BAR:
Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to
Scott's house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister's whereabouts, while
Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott's)
waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott, carrying her two-month old child, approached Rustom
and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom's hand from Scott's waist. But Rustom pulled
Olive's hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died mo-ments later. Is Rustom criminally
liable for the death of the child?
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the proximate cause of
such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling Olive's hand which caused the latter to fall on her baby. Had it not been
for said act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause for Olive to
fall over her baby. In short, Rustom's felonious act is the cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a
felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence there-of although different from
what he intended.
1999 BAR:
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun upward
in the ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and
killed as a result. The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not perpetrated in
connection with, or for purposes of, the robbery. Will you sustain the defense? Why?
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's death, the
offender is liable therefore although it may not be intended or different from what he intended. The offender shall
be prosecuted for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or accidental,
as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery.
1996 BAR:
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand,
causing upon him a two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further
because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was
accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later,
while the preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of
symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which developed
twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's felonious act of causing a
two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's death because
without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus
infection the victim would not have died with it.

PARAGRAPH 2
2000 BAR:

What is an impossible crime? Is an impossible crime really a crime?

An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. An
impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But
actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency or propensity although
no crime was committed.

Requisites of Impossible Crime:

1. The act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. The act was done with evil intent
3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual (legal or physical impossibility)
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC

2004 BAR:
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ
decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO's coffee thinking it was arsenic.
It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after
he drank the coffee. What criminal liability did OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly.
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred 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 (Art. 4,
par. 2, RPC). In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against
persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes
criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because
subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime was committed.
1994 BAR:
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas.
They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the
evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the
guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired
their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in
another barangay in Laurel. JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional
Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial
court the sole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you
decide the appeal?
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find
them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible
crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in
the case at bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended
inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2
practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an
incident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony.

1998 BAR:
Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing
poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate, Jerry to
whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he him-self harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy
a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy
and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk.
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit?
2. Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for
ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the same?
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called "impossible crime" because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison
Jun and thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers
were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done
with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the
inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted,
because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal.
2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less serious
physical injuries for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing
with the food eaten by Jun the matter which required such medical attendance, committed with criminal intent,
renders them liable for the resulting injury.
2000 BAR:
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to
bring and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's
parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the
ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was
rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received
by Carla's parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to Commit
Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why?
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for "impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against Enrique.
Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against persons or property.
As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have
incurred an "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.

Purpose of the law punishing the impossible crime: To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

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. 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.