NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW: ARTICLES 1-5 Latin Statements/Foreign Language: Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit

rea: - A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained to be innocentc or The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so. Actus me invitio factus no est meus actus - An act done by me against my will is not my act. (US vs Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499) Ignorantia legis no excusat Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith Ignorantia facti excusat Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability Error in personae mistake in identity El que causa de la causa es causa del mal causado He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused) Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act Crime an act or omission that is punishable by law (RPC) SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW: 1. Revised penal code and its amendments 2. Special penal laws by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines and Batasang Pambansa 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law THERE ARE NO COMMON LAW CRIMES IN THE PHILIPPINES Even if an act is socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its commission Court decisions are NOT sources of criminal law they MERELY EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF AND APPLY the law as enactive by the legislature THE STATE HAS THE POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAW- MAKING BODY AS STATED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1987 CONSTITUTION 1. No ex post fact law or bill of attainder (Art. III, Sec 22) 2. No person shall be held to answer for a CRIMINAL OFFENSE without due process of law In relation this, CONGRESS is prohibited from passing laws that would inflict PUNISHMENT WITHOUT TRIAL EX POST FACTO Criminal act done BEFORE the passage of the law

Aggravates a crime/ making it greater that it was Changes the punishment, greater punishment Alters the legal rules of evidence, authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies onl Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED: - Right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies

Due process- no person should be held to answer for a criminal offense without this Bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance EXCEPT those charged with punishment of reclusion perpetua PRESUMED INNOCENT -speedy impartial trial, see witnesses face to face, have compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses; AFTER ARRAIGNMENT: trial may proceed whether or not the accused is present provided he was notified witness against himself double jeopardy FREE access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied due to poverty Excessive fines shall NOT be imposed

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 1. Presumed innocent, prove beyond reasonable doubt 2. Inform him of the nature and cause of accusation 3. Present and defend in person and by counsel during all the stage of proceedings 4. Testify as a witness in his own behalf BUT SUBJECT to cross-examination 5. witness against himself 6. Confront and cross examine the witnesses against him at the trial 7. Compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses 8. Speedy, impartial and PUBLIC trial 9. Appeal in all cases as allowed by law RIGHT that MAY BE WAIVED (PERSONAL): Right to confrontation and cross-examination MAY NOT BE WAIVED (INVOLVE PUBLIC INTEREST): Be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws 1. Must be general in application. 2. Must not partake of the nature of ane x post factloa w. 3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. 4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. Characteristics of Criminal Law 1. Generality 2. Territoriality 3. Prospectivity GENERALITY Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are assigned. Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consul or any consul in a foreign country, who are therefore, not immune to the operation or application of the penal law of the country where they are assigned. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where they are assigned. It has no reference to territory. Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not include territory. It refers to persons that may be governed by the penal law. TERRITORIALITY Territoriality penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere. Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere. The Archipelagic Rule All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islands comprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine territory regardless of their breadth, depth, width or dimension. On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently a departure from the accepted International Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted the Archipelagic Rule. In the International Law Rule, when a strait within a country has a width of more than 6 miles, the center lane in excess of the 3 miles on both sides is considered international waters. 3 CLASSES OF CRIMES: (1) The intentional felonies (dolo) (2) The culpable felonies (3) Crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances (special laws) Negligence voluntary Acts executed negligently are voluntary Involuntary if there is compulsion or prevention by force and intimidation 3 REASONS WHY ACT/OMMISSION IN FELONIES MUST BE VOLUNTARY: 1. RPC is based on Classical Theory basis of criminal liability is human free will 2. Man is a rational being unless in cases of Imbecility and Insanity (Article 12) 3. Dolo (deceit) act is performed with deliberate intent necessarily voluntary - felony by DOLO cannot be so, if there is no criminal intent INTENT must be present in DOLO!!! Culpa (fault) voluntary BUT WITHOUT MALICE So, dolo and culpa are BOTH VOLUNTARY what differs is the intent or malice *3 REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE / CULPA (FAULT) 1. FREEDOM

2. INTELLIGENCE 3. INTENT INTENT PRESUPPOSES THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM AND USE OF INTELLIGENCE (1) FREEDOM while doing the act or omission, without this human becomes merely a tool (e.g. knife used to kill, ladder used to rob) -without freedom, there is NO INTENT -without intelligence NO INTENT -FREEDOM + INTELLIGENTCE still NO INTENT (e.g. by accident) (2) INTELLIGENCE no power to determine morality of human acts Includes imbecile, child <9 years of age, insane, >9 but <15 y/o, acting without discernment (?) (3) INTENT (dolo), HE IS IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT OR LACKS FORESIGHT OR SKILL (Culpa) INTENT - purely a mental process, PRESUMED because of the proof of commission of the unlawful act - a mental state - purpose to use a partical means to effect such result (difference from motive) -existence: shown by OVERT ACT of the person - criminal intent and will to commit crime - different from motive -- MOVING POWER which impels one to action for a definite result e.g. Extreme moral perversion may push a man to commit a crime just for the sake of committing it but with no real motive; lack of which cannot be fully known - motive involves the CONSCIENCE - PRESUMPTION does not arise if the committed act is NOT UNLAWFUL (a.k.a. it is LEGAL) - Mistake of Fact NO INTENTION to commit the crime, the act is STILL LAWFUL as opposed to mistake of killing one for another, there automatically is intent e.g. mistake of age, initially resisting apprehension because he thought the policeman was just a bandit MISTAKE OF FACT may NOT be used in the following: - negligence or indifference to duty also equivalent to criminal intent - Error in personae -- Mistake of killing one for another DOES NOT RELIEVE criminal liability - Negligence: not applicable in culpable felony, in mistake of fact there should be LACK OF INTENT on the accused In culpa, there is no INTENT but it is replaced by Imprudence Negligence Lack of foresight Lack of skill FREE, INTELLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL ACT! *REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT: 1. Act done would be lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be 2. Intention should be lawful 3. Mistake must be WITHOUT FAULT OR CARELESSNESS on the part of the ACCUSED Notes from Article 11 (SELF-DEFENSE) (1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it

(3)

Lack of sufficient provocation of the person defending himself

Ah Chong and Oanis compared Oanis had time to contemplate and verify the identity of the criminal, Chongs situation necessitates immediate action, no time to think Notorious criminal apprehending of, NO PERMISSION for the captor to KILL Only if the fugitive is determined to fight with the officers would it be justified to KILL HIM Felonies committed by DOLUS (DECEIT): Differentiate bet General and specific intent General Intent - Specific intent for certain felonies e.g. Art. 293 (robbery) intent to gain Art. 308 (theft) intent to gain Art. 6, Art. 249 intent to kill frustrated and attempted homicide Art. 342 forcible abduction intent of lewd designs - If there is only error, he DOES NOT ACT WITH MALICE not liable for intentional felony Felonies committed by CULPA (FAULT): - requisite of CRIMINAL INTENT is replace by requisite of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill but these

ARE EQUIVALENT TO CRIMINAL INTENT mind of the accused is NOT CRIMINAL in culpa but his ACT is WRONGFUL and injury and damage was caused - MISTAKE IN IDENTITY IS NOT RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE unlawful act is still willfully done

Absence of malice or negligence makes a person NOT criminally liable

CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS Intent is not required because it is enough that the offender had intent to perpetrate the ACT PROHIBITED by special law - Intent to commit may not intend to commit a crime but intend to commit an act the act is the crime itself i. There is CRIMINAL INTENT - Intent to perpetrate enough that the PROHIBITED ACT is done freely and consciously i. Act alone, irrespective of motives constitutes the offense ii. It follows then that good faith and lack of criminal intent are NOT VALID defenses in this type of cases iii. EXCEPTION OF CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS: 1. Doctrine of immateriality of animus possidendi e.g. a seller of firearms is temporarily has the firearms in his possession prior to turning over to the buyer 2. Neither the accused had ever intend to commit the offense of illegal possession of firearms 3. Pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm 4. Duly appointed civilian confidential agent with a mission to make surveillance and effect the killing or capture of a wanted person Mala in se wrongful FROM THEIR NATURE e.g. theft, rape, homicide, etc - effects are SO SERIOUS that calls for unanimous condemnation by the society Mala prohibita wrong merely BECAUSE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE - a.k.a. acts made criminal by special laws - violations of MERE RULES of CONVENIENCE - criminal intent is NOT NECESSARY - designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society e.g. illegal possession of firearms - Revised election Code is a special law and not part of the RPC MOTIVE - generally not needed but in cases where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute Motive may have impelled its commission Proven by testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused BEFORE or after the commission of the offense Not needed if there had positive identification of the assailant, convincing evidence, defendant admits the killing Needed in: i. Identification of accused is unreliable ii. Testimony is inconclusive, doubtful iii. No eyewitnesses iv. Suspicion is to fall on a number of persons v. Circumstantial evidences proof of MOTIVE ALONE is NOT sufficient to support a conviction or guilt if there is NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE from which it may reasonably deduced PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is the mainstay in criminal law LACK OF MOTIVE may be an AID is showing the INNOCENCE of the accused Art. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY (1) Any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from which he intended

(2)

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

NO reference to the manner of criminal liability incurred Manner of incurring criminal liability is stated in Article 3 performing or failing to do an act, when either is punished by law, by means of deceit (with malice) or fault (through negligence or imprudence) One is NOT RELIEVED from criminal liability of ones illegal acts merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences RATIONALE: He who is the cause of the cause, is the cause of the evil caused

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF ART. 4 1. Committing a felony not merely an act BUT an act or omission PUNISHABLE by RPC If it is not punishable by RPC then it is NOT felony a. felony committed should be by means of dolo or WITH MALICE

2.

Should NOT BE violated special law because he may NOT have INTENT to do injury to another c. If wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight/skill liability Is to be determined under Art. 365 (Definition and Penalties of Criminal Negligence) Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended a. Mistake in the identity of the victim b. Aberratio ictus: Mistake in the blow, that is when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another c. Praeter intentionem: The act EXCEEDS the intent the injurious result is greater than thant intended

b.

*REQUISITES OF ARTICLE 4, PAR. 1 For persons to be held criminally liable for a felony DIFFERENT from that which he intended to commit: (1) An INTENTIONAL FELONY has been committed

(2)

again IF act or omission is not punishable by RPC Act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Art. 11 (Self-defense) e.g. suicide, self-defense, defense of a relative/stranger or in the fulfillment of duty ONE ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE IS NOT COMMITTING FELONY WRONG DONE to the aggrieved party be the DIRECT natural and logical consequence of the felony

Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger causing the latter to do something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries Blow was efficient cause of death/ accelerated / proximate cause Efficient cause: TB + Low grade fever (?) fist blows on the right hypochondriac internal hemorrhage secondary to liver trauma Accelerated Death: Peritonitis and inflammation of spleen Proximate cause of death: Heart disease, stab wound on the thoracic cage but not penetrating to the thoracic cavity shock Examples: a. Refusing surgical operation b. Blows different types c. Removal of wound drainage thereby leading to peritonitis d. Threatened or chased, victim jumped to water but does not know how to swim e. Wound inflicted is dangerous regardless of unskillful medical or surgical treatment

ARTICLE 4:

Felony has been committed 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 Wrong done must be the DIRECT, NATURAL AND LOGICAL consequence of felonious act committed A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a new charge WITHOUT double jeopardy

Initially SLIGHT physical injury but during the preliminary investigation serious physical injury NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY DONE

NOT direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony Distinct possibility of wound infection with tetanus - Slight physical injuries victim VOLUNTARILY immerses in a cesspool Death is presumed to be the NATURAL consequence of the physical injuries inflicted

(1)

Victim at the time of the physical injuries was in NORMAL HEALTH (2) Death is expected from physical injuries (3) Death ensued WITHIN A REASONABLE time

Felony must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury

Proximate: cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury - without which the result would not have occurred - either immediate or may set things in motion Natural: occurrence in the ordinary cause Logical: there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injuryCause and effect relationship result is not altered by pre-existing conditions

(1)

Pathologic condition of the victim INEFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSES: -they DO NOT BREAK the cause and effect relationship

- Tuberculosis, heart disease - Nervousness or temperament of the victim (if in shock) - Causes inherent to the victim: not knowing how to swim, addicted to tuba drinking - Refusal to medical attendance or surgery - Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment (2) Predisposition of the offended party (3) Concomitant or concurrent conditions as the negligence, fault of the doctors (4) Conditions supervening the felonies act tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE (1) Active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury Such force is a distinct act or absolutely foreign from the felonious act (2) Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim * Article 266, RPC Ill-treating another without causing any injury * Neglect of wound or unskillfull treatment active force BUT NOT A DISTINCT ACT or absolutely foreign from the criminal act

Impossible crimes (ARTICLE 5) indicative of criminal tendency Potential criminal / socially dangerous person Positivists: PROTECT society from anti-social activities Penalty: Article 59 - BASIS: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act REQUISITES OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES: (1) Act performed is an offense to persons or property (2) EVIL INTENT (3) Ineffectual or inadequate means / accomplishment is inherently impossible (4) Act is NOT a violation of another provision of the RPC

FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS 246 Parricide 248 Murder 249 Homicide 255 Infanticide 256, 257, 258, 259 Abortion 260, 261 Duel Physical Injuries (262 -266) 266-A Rape

FELONIES AGAINST PROPERT 294, 297-300, 302-303 Robbery 306, 307 Brigandage 308, 310-11 Theft 312 313 Usurpation 314 Culpable insolvency 315 318 Swindling and other deceits 319 Chattel mortgage 320 326 Arson and other crimes involving destruction 327 331 Malicious mischief

Impossible Crimes IMPORTANT TERMS: (1) Inherent impossibility of accomplishment act intended is one of impossible accomplishment Either legal impossibility or physical impossiblility (2) Means employed must be INADEQUATE, if adequate: it is NOT an impossible crime but FRUSTRATED FELONY FOR ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE LAW (1) Act committed is NOT punishable by ANY LAW (2) Court deems it proper to REPRESS SUCH ACT (3) Court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case; acquit the accused (4) Judge must make a report / recommendation to the Chief Executive via the Secretary of Justice and state reasons why the act should be subject to penal legislation ARTICLE 5

Cases of EXCESSIVE PENALTIES (1) Court AFTER TRIAL finds the accused guilty (2) Penalty provided by law is CLEARLY EXCESSIVE because a. Accused acted with LESSER DEGREE of malice and/or (e.g. stealing coconuts, penalty 4mos only) b. NO INJURY or injury caused is of lesser gravity (3) Court should NOT suspend the execution of the sentence (4) Judge should submit a statement to the Secretary of Justice recommending executive clemency The penalties are NOT excessive when intended to enforce a public policy Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws The ONLY function of Judiciary: to interpret the laws and if not in disharmony with the Constitution to apply them

Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court Judge may state his own opinion BUT it is his DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND Inconsistencies may cause unnecessary delays and expenses Courts ARE NOT THE FORUM TO PLEAD FOR SYMPATHY, courts duty is TO APPLY THE LAW