1) FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW

- SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW:

1) Revised Penal Code (R.P.C. – Act No. 3815) and its amendments
2) Special Penal Laws passed by the:
· Philippine Commission,
· Philippine Assembly,
· Philippine Legislature,
· National Assembly,
· the Congress of the Philippines, and
· the Batasang Pambansa
3) Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
- COMMON LAW CRIMES – body of principles, usages and rules of action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express
and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. (Not recognized in this country). Court decisions are not sources of criminal
law, because they merely explain the meaning of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government.
- CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
1) General
2) Territorial
3) Prospective
4) Pro Reo Principle
- REVISED PENAL CODE:
- ARTICLE 1:  Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-
two.
➢ OLD Penal Code   -  14 July 1887 to 31 December 1931
➢ RPC    -  01 January 1932
o ACT NO. 3815 passed by congress on 8 December 1930
 
a. Definition
- REYES, p. 1.
- CRIMINAL LAW – is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their penalty.
- An act constitutive of a crime which provides for its elements/requisites, circumstances, kinds and participants.
- Laws that have penal clauses are Special penal laws
- We know that a particular act is criminal when we have an actual law that saids it is a criminal. Therefore, you cannot find a crime
apart from criminal law; there should always be a law that defines and punishes it.
- Criminal law is a branch of public law- when you offend a party you offend the public or the society as whole. This is based on
social contract which is when peopple consented to curtail their freedom in favor to its governing body, called the state, because I
will notpilage murder but I will have to surrender my excess freedom for security. This is based on the philosophy of Hobes, Locke
(enlightenment period) and Rossau.
- Any law that has a penal clause would by definition be a special penal law.
- CRIME – is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
- We know that an act is criminal if there is a law that saids it is criminal
- PENALTY – is the index of severity of crime.
- The purpose of criminal law is to punish the wrongdoer (retribution through classical theory) or to reform or rehabilitation of the
offender (through positivist theory)
 
b. Philosophy
i. Theories of Criminal Law and of Legal Punishment
- REYES, pp. 23-24.
- A. Zachary Hoskins, The Moral Permissibility of Punishment, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
[Link]
- THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW:
1. The Classical Theory
- Looking backward
- To punish the wrong doer as a consequence of his deliberate intent to do such harm or violate the law
(in terms of punishment) RETRIBUTIVIST- Just deserts
Characteristics of Classical Theory
a) the basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution.
1) RETRIBUTION – punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.
Retribution addressed to the killer because the wrong doer deliberately intended to commit a crime where they decided to violate the
law.
b) that man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress
upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself.
c) it has endeavoured to established a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty.
d) there is a scant regard to the human element.
2. The Positivist Theory
- Looking forward
- The assumption of positivist theory is that the acused was pushed by social environmental factors which are external to the person.
- (in terms of punishment) CONSEQUENTIALIST -the consequence or effect of punishment for his incapacitstion not to do harm in
the society at large or reformation of the criminal.
- Modern phenomenon 1980-1990 (socio-economic)
Characteristics of Positivist Theory
a) that man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary
to his volition.
2) MORBID– deserved not based on the act of the person.
b) that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of
abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through
the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a
competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
3. The Hybrid Theory
Eclectic approach
Mixture of classical and positivist theory.
Used in the Philippines
Crimes committed is due to the external environmental factors where criminals don’t act on their own volition all the time nd because
there is still in RPC that is classical.
 
ii. Some Modern Challenges to Conceptions of Criminal Liability
- B. David Eagleman, The Brain on Trial, The Atlantic (July/August 2011). Available at
[Link]
➢ Neurological/physiological incapacity. To addres the cause of the criminal act accordinglywhere the criminal should undergo
health care services first. Because to punish the patient-criminal is not fair because retribution of classical theory has no point here.
➢ However this may be used to disregard the penal laws; thus making penal laws excused/useless.
- C. Debbie Cenziper, et al., Special Report: Doctors Doubt Shaken Baby Syndrome Science, Fear Bad Convictions, Daily Herald
(March 23, 2015). Available at [Link]
➢ Passé science because SBS is not really the cause of the baby’s death.
➢ SBS:
· Subdureal hemorage- just under the surface of the dura matter
· Retinal hemorage-bleeding at the back of the eyes
· Swelling of the brain
 
c. Principles
i. Generality
- REYES, pp. 6-13.
- GENERAL – Criminal law is binding on all persons (regardless of citizenship) who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. (Art 14,
NCC)
- TRUST IS ON PERSONALITY and not in territoriality.
- Penal laws are applicable even to those who only pass through the country even in a short period of time.
- The customary law of (foreign) nations are not subject to the Philippines territorial jurisdiction
- As a general rule, jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accussed, unless controlled by express
legislation to the contrary. Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the AFP. Even in
times of war provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are  in progress and civil courts are functioning.
- RPC or other penal law is not applicable when a military court takes cognizance of the case. The Articles of War (Commonwealth
Act 408) apply.
- When AFP, CAFGU and other persons subject to military law committed penal law crimes he shall be tried by the proper civil
court, except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, in which case the offense
shall be tried by court-martial: provided, that the President may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before
arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
➢ Military courts have jurisdiction over service-connected crimes (CA408 Arts; 54-70, 72-92, 95-97 such as:
· 63 Disrespect towards the president
· 64 Disrespect toward superior officer
· 96 Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman
· 97 General Article of the articles of war
- The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense (criminal case not
administrative case) because it will place him to double-jeopardy.
- Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission (court martial)
➢ MILITARY COMMISSION has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continuous. This includes an armistice (cease-fire),
or military occupation, up t the effective date of the treaty of peace.
- that crime
- exemption to the the general application of criminal law.
➢ In the treaties and laws of preferential application (Art 2, RPC)
➢ TREATY– an agreement formally signed ratified or adhered to between two or more nations or sovereigns. It is governed by
international law. (also termed: accord, convention, covenant, declaration, pact). Example Mutual defense treaty the agreement of
VFA- jurisdiction of VFA soldiers is in their country however it is not absolute.
➢ LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION –example RA 75 since it favors diplomatic representative and their domestic sevants
(domestic servants are immuned because we do not want to impede the work of the ambassadors)
➢ PERSONS EXEMPT FROM OPERATION OF CRIMINAL LAW: By virtue of Principles of Public International Law
· Received by the President
· Sovereigns and
· other chiefs/heads of state (President/premiere) *different from head of government (Prime Minister)
· Ambassadors,
· ministers plenipotentiary,
· ministers resident, and
· charges d’affaires
· Received by the DFA
· secretaries or maids of the persons above mentioned
➢ Principle of Auto-limitation-any state may by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction/limitation of its own
sovereign rights (to continue benefiting). Embassy is a territory of that country.
➢ Principle of equal sovereignty (principle of same plane is applicable only to persons exempted)
➢ Diplomatic representatives (ambassadors or public ministers and their official retinue) possess IMMUNITY FROM THE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTRY OF THEIR SOJOURN AND CANNOT BE SUED, ARRESTED OR
PUNISHED BY THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY.
➢ Persons do not include in exemption:
· Consuls,
· Vice-consuls and
· other commercial representatives of foreign nations
they DO NOT POSSESS THE SAID STATUS AND CANNOT CLAIM THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ACCORDED to
ambassadors and ministers.
➢ Persons included in exemption should (RA 75):
1) Accredit by the sending country as the representative of that country
2) Courtesy call to the receiving state through the President by the presentation of LETTERS OF CREDENCE
2) Names of the servant, (diplomatic staff) registered in the DFA, and transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of
Police of Manila who shall post the same in some public place in his office.
NOTE: not applicable in the foreign country where it does not provide similar protection.
Course it to proper diplomat channels.
➢ If the immuned person is declared as PERSONA NON GRATA, his letters of credence is revoked and he should immediately
leave the country, he is liable to the laws of their own country. (Art 2, Par 4) (principle of sovereign equality)
➢ Our President may declare his immediate exit.
 
ii. Territoriality
- REYES, pp. 13-14
- TERRITORIAL – Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed WITHIN Philippine territory.(/its jurisdiction)
- Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only WITHIN ITS TERRITORY.
- Archipelago doctrine (base line law- actual measuring of the coordinates starting from the low-watermarks )-
- Article 1 of 1987 Constitution: NATIONAL TERRITORY comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial,
fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.  The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines. Arcipelago doctrine
- EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW - per Article 2 of RPC
- RPC, Art. 2.
- REYES, pp. 24-32.
- ARTICLE 2:  Application of its provisions. — 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.
- Principle of extra territoriality: (An exemption to the principle of territoriality)
➢ Par 1-5
➢ 6 Extra-territorial application
➢ 1-6 RPC is enforced even outside of the country when acts affect the political or economic life f the nation
➢ Crimes punishable under Par 2, RPC shall be cognizable by the RTC in which the charge is first filed. (Rule 110, Sec 15[d],
Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure)
- (PAR 1) RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS:
FRENCH RULE ENGLISH RULE
Flag carried try Throw jurisdiction however, if the crime si
committed in the high seas the authority of
prosecution reverts back to the flag state

General We try receiving state try it

rule
Excempt Unless, peace and security (serious) Unless, internal management
ion
Default jurisdiction is the flag state Default of jurisdiction is in the receiving
country
To prosecute vessel:
1) Determine or classify the crime committed if its serious (PS) or not (IM)
2) Determine the rule of the Country of the ship and the receiving

- Ships registered in MARINA.

- Every ship or airship will be the extension of their country of registration.
- Warships–are always reputed to be the extension of territory of the country (flag state) to which they belong and cannot be
subjected to the laws of another state.
- Foreign merchant vessel in transit (sailing)–not triable in our courts but if cans of opium is landed in Phil soil (merchant vessels
anchored in Philippine jurisdictional waters) the said courts acquire jurisdiction
- Foreign merchant vessel NOT in transit–because the Philippines is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board
that vessel is liable, because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium.
1. FRENCH RULE–such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the peace and security
of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
2. ENGLISH RULE – such crimes are triable in that (receiving) country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they
refer to the internal management thereof.
- Philippines observes the English Rule.
- Crime committed on board of a Philippine vessel while the same is outside of its territory is traible in our civil courts for violation
of the Penal law
- The nationality of the vessel will determine the country of its registration not the citizenship of the owner of the vessel
- From cannon shoot ball rule of 3nm, now 12 nm
➢ 12 nm =territorial (Philippine may allow ownership)
=can enforce all laws
➢ 24nm =contiguous zone
=RPC not applicable
=customs issues can be prosecuted before the prosecutor or fiscal
➢ 200nm =Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
=possible or open for exploration
➢ High seas =no country can claim exclusive jurisdiction
=does not belong to any nation
=English rule or French rule do not apply.
=In case of crimes committed at high seas the jurisdiction will automatically revert back to the flag state
=beyond 200nm
- DOCTRINE OF PRECEDURAL PRESSUMPTION – If the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our court
will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local and domestic or international laws.
- (PAR 2 & 3) Prosecution by asking first the authority or government of that country to seek the person who did the act
➢ Extradition of the accused from other country
- (PAR 4) By virtue of diplomatic immunity by declaring Philippine ambassador as persona non grata who committed a crime abroad
in the exercise of public function such as:
· Art 210 Direct bribery
· Art 211 Indirect bribery
· Art 213 Fraud against public treasury
· Art 216 Possession of prohibited interest
· Art 217 Malversation of public funds or property
· Art 218 Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
· Art 220 Illegal use of public funds or property
· Art 221 Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
· Art 171 Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position
- (PAR 5) THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS ARE:
· Art  114 Treason
· Art  115 Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
· Art 117 Espionage
· Art 118 Inciting to wars and giving motives for reprisals
· Art 119 Violation of neutrality
· Art 120 Correspondence with hostile country
· Art 121 Flight to enemy’s country
· Art 122 Piracy and mutiny on the high seas
o HOSTIS HUMANI GENERIS – “The enemy of mankind.”  Any country may prosecute the enemy of mankind. Once they are
captured in that country they can prosecute [Link] are:
▪ Pirates
▪ Terrorists
▪ Slave traders
- (PAR 6[incorporated])
➢ 6. Extra-territorial application - thus, the RPC still applies even outside of the Philippine territory.
➢ (Anti Terrorism law) Human security act of 2007 Sec 58, RA 9372 provides that subject to the provisions of an existing treaty of
which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of the act shall
apply.
- 1. Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, 10 December 2014.
➢ VOWC for economic abuse for the child.
➢ In the rules of evidence; Van Wilsem failed to provide the law of his nationality (Dutch; Netherlands) which states that divorced
couple do not have the obligation to give support for their children. Having said that, we will asume that the laws of their country will
be the same as ours.
➢ Family code,
➢ Civil laws, in terms of nationality is you take your civil laws wherever you go.
➢ Essential elements for the validity of marriage LEX NACIONALIS, what only changes when you go to other countries is the LEX
DOCI CELEBRACIONIS the documents but the essential elements are taken with you. But the extent of peal laws stop and start the
moment you cross boarders. In the case at bar RA 9262 will strart
➢ Guilty of violation of RA 9262, he is liable to give support
- 2. Evangelista vs. People, G.R. No. 163267, 05 May 2010.
➢ Evangelista bought firearms at Angola to Dubai. From Dubai it can be implied that technically he is deemed in CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION, even he is not in actual and physical possession of the arms when he arrived at NAIA, because he signed the customs
declaration form.
- 3. People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001.
➢ When it comes to territoriality, we do not have to go to deatails because in cases involving piracy by virtue of conventions of
public international law the world have already decided, that if you have a pirate in your territory you can prosecute him regardless of
where he did his piracy; piracy is included in the  customary of intenational law.
 
i. Prospectivity
- REYES, pp. 14-18
- PROSPECTIVE – A penal law shall be applicable only to present and future acts.
- The principle of prospectivity rests on the constitutional right to DUE PROCESS
- As provided in Article 366 of RPC, crimes are punished under the laws in force AT THE TIME OF THEIR COMMISSION.
➢ sees after
➢ general rule: law is prospective (Art 21, RPC) An act when commited was not a crime.
➢ applicable to:
· Administrative
· Judicial decisions
· circulars
- EXEPTION: RETROACTIVE if it favors the accused. (Art 22, RPC)
- EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEPTION:
1) where the new law is EXPRESSLY (an express reservation of the law) made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of
action.
2) where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62 RPC (Article 22 RPC)
HABITUAL CRIMINAL – a person who is 3 times convicted (robo, hurto, estafa,falsification, serious less serious physical injuries)
and the spaces in each convictions is 10yrs
- DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW:
1) Repeal = penalty LIGHTER in the new law. New law shall be applied EXCEPT
- When the offender is a habitual delinquent
- When the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action
2) New law  = imposes HEAVIER penalty. Law in force AT THE TIME of the COMMISSION of the  OFFENSE shall be applied
 
3) New law  = totally (absolute) repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is NO LONGER
PUNISHABLE. Crime is obliterated (or wiped-out)
➢ CESSANTE RATIONE LEGIS CESSAT IPSA LEX “The reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases.”
4) Repeal=reenactment even without saving clause. Criminal liability is not destroyed
- RPC, Arts. 21-22.
- REYES, pp. 601-610.
- ARTICLE 21:  Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
- It is a guaranty to the citizen of this country that no act of his, will be considered criminal until the Government has made it so by
law and has provided a penalty.
➢ Article 21 is not a penal provision. It neither defines crime nor provides a punishment for one. It has simply announced the policy
of the Government with reference to the punishment of alleged criminal acts.
➢ It is a declaration that no person shall be subject to criminal prosecution for any act of his until after the State has defined the
crime and has fixed a penalty therefor.
➢ REASON:  a law cannot be rationally obeyed unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be expected to obey an order that
has not been given.
- ARTICLE 22:  Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of
the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
➢ Exception to Art 21
➢ FAVORABILIA SUNT AMPLIANDA ADIOSA RESTRIGENDA- penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given
retroactive effect.
➢ REASON:  the sovereign in enacting a subsequent penal law more favorable to the accused, has recognized that the greater
severity of the former law is unjust.
➢ The sovereign would be inconsistent if it would still enforce its right under conditions of the former law, which has already been
regarded by conscientious public opinion as juridically burdensome.
➢ Giving a law retroactive effect, if unfavorable to the accused, will violate the constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto law.
➢ SITUATIONS ON FAVORABLE RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF NEW LAW: (Favorable new statute benefits the defendant
and should apply to him)
1) The crime has been committed and prosecution begins;
2) Sentence has been passed but service has not begun;
3) The sentence is being carried out.
➢ The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far as they favor the culprit DOES NOT APPLY to the latter’s CIVIL
LIABILITY, because the rights of the offended persons or innocent third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of the
State.
➢ But a new law increasing the civil liability cannot be given retroactive effect.
➢ A person cannot be prosecuted, convicted and punished for acts no longer criminal.
➢ When the repeal is by reenactment, the court has jurisdiction totry and punish an accused person under the old law.
➢ Criminal liability under former law is obliterated (destroyed completely) when the repeal is absolute.
➢ CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER THE REPEALED LAW SUBSISTS:
1) When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; or
2) When the repeal is by implication; or
➢ The repeal of penal law which IMPLIEDLY repealed an old penal law REVIVES the old law; unless, the language of the
repealing statute provides otherwise
3) When there is a saving clause.
➢ The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the action, NOT
at the time of the commission of the crime.
➢ The jurisdiction of the courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and NOT by the
findings the court may make after trial.
- 4. Ortega vs. People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008.
➢ In 1996 Ortega raped 6old girl when he was 13. He was guilty of rape in 1999 but in 2006 JJWA RA 9344 increased the minimum
age of criminal responsibility to 15. Because of the passage of JJWA, he was already 25yold at the time, he cannot be held
responsible because he was minor when he committed the crime of rape since it is favorable to him.
➢ He is herby released from prison.
- 5. Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-30026, 30 January 1971.
➢ Gumabon filed writ of habeas corpus invoking (Amado V Hernandez) HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE- rebellion cannot be complexed
with the ingredient crimes of rebellion
➢ There is NO COMPLEX CRIME of REBELLION with murder, homicide, destruction to property, arson, robbery or other
common crimes are MERE INGREDIENTS of the crime of rebellion, as means “NECESSARY” for the perpetration of the offense.
Such common offenses are absorbed or inherent in the crime of rebellion.
➢ Because of complexing the crime the penalty increased
➢ Hernadez ruling is relevant to them because of stare decisis
 
ii. Pro Reo Principle
- REYES, pp. 18-20.
- PRO REO-In favor of the criminal (semantically acused)
- IN DUBIO PRO REO- when in doubt, in favor of the criminal
- The basis of pro reo is the constitutional presumption of innocence where the level of scale should always favor the accused
- In criminal trial the court weight on the acused which is not the case in civil cases
- CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS – (is only applicable only when in doubt) penal laws are strictly construed against the
Government and liberally in favor of the accused
- Also called as Rule of lenity (rule of strict construction) is always absolute to favor the defendant/accused when the law is
unclear/ambiguous and strictly against the state. In case of 50 50 (equipoise) court should acquit the acused.
➢ LENITY derived from the word lenient
- When there is conflict in of presumption of innocence, it should be ruled in view of doctrine of regularity where it presumes that if
there is a government official performing his functions it will be presumed to be regular.
- IN DUBIO PRO REO PRINCIPLE- When in doubt, rule in favor of the criminal. (if the law is clear and unambiguous there is no
construction needed).
- EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS- where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may
not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others.
- 6. Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, 01 September 1994.
➢ Solicitation from Judge of contributions for the renovation of church.
➢ Charitable purposes is different from religious purposes
- 7. People vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314, 24 September 2014.
➢ When there is a conflict with the presumption of innocence vs doctrine of regularity. If it’s a government official performing
his/her function it is presumed to be regular.  The court will resolve in favor of the acused.
 
iii. Legality
- RPC, Art. 5.
- REYES, pp. 88-94.
- 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.
- Philippines is a Civil law country where decisions is reffered from the codes and not common law (judge made law)
- It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law, regardless of their private opinions but they can recommend.
- The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and, if not in disharmony with the Constitution, to apply them, DURA
LEX SED LEX – “The law may be harsh but it is the law.”
- The President can write the law same as the law which is written year after year (general appropriations bill that can only come
from malacanan)
- Peoples initiative to pass a law by the people
- 2 ways for international law to become laws in  the Philippines:
1) DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION-
2) DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION-whether may be imposed at by particular time we are bound by that.
- General Appropriations Billl proposal is by INITIATIVE or REERENDUM
- 8. Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, 27 February 2006.
➢ Laurel is one of the BOD.
➢ Theft of PLDT services for the international calls
➢ Art 208, RPC. Theft of tangible. You can actually steal things that can be possessed or appropriation adverse to the rights of the
owner
➢ However, the decision is reverted.
- 9. People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-39274, 26 July 1991.
➢ Aquino did kaingin in a public land area punishable uner Act 3701.
➢ Aquino contended the proclamation of Marcos (during his speech 1974) that he is giving private rights to the public land. But SC
decided that a mere declaration cannot be binding law because in accordance to the PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY- (every crime must
be defined by law) the law will tell you who exactly to punish and what to punish that person for and you cannot go anywhere the
confines and the meets and bounds of the law.
➢ Mere speeches of the President, even during Martial law (parliament; judicial, legislature, executive is the same), cannot be
binding as a law or a proper authority because of the absence of black and white.
➢ Absence of an actual declaration of binding law.
- 10. Bernardo vs. People, G.R. No. L-62114, 05 July 1983.
➢ The raised violation of the PD 772 applies only to urban or metro lands Plaridel, Bulacan is rural.
➢ SC deduced its decision on the preambular or whereas clauses. Now the purpose or objective of law is found in the legislative
intent (journal/records) of the said law at the explanatory note (covering letter of the bill)
- 11. United States vs. Taylor, G.R. No. 9726, 08 December 1914.
➢ There is no common law (judge made law) crime in the Philippines only civil law.
➢ Libel is a criminal liability that attaches to the acting editor, proprietor, manager and printer publisher. Taylor is the Bussnes
Manager which according to the SC does not fall to any of the persons enumerated above. If the law does not define the term of art/
wording/ phrase in the law then the SC should resort to apply to its plain meaning or ordinary usage which is not the case in Criminal
law. Criminal law do not apply the liberal meaning.
➢ Taylor cannot be held liable because he is a Business Manager, because in application of criminal law you have to be precise.
➢ Principle of legality will tell you exactly who to punish and what to punish that person for.
 
b. Criminal Law in the Larger Legal System
i. Authority to Punish
- REYES, pp. 2
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 110):
1) Crime
2) Complaint
· Because every crime is a public outrage
3) Preliminary investigation
· To see if there is a probable cause
· Victim complainant vs respondent
· If there is enough evidence that a crime is to believed to be executed by the victim
4) (filtering)
5) Information/indictment
· What, where, who, when, how
· Referring that a person has been charged
· Already at the lower court
· People vs acused
· Petitioner/plaintiff vs respondent
· People is defended by private prosecutor for damages or compensation; or by pubic prosecutor (OSG to CA if appealed) in order
to punish, imprison, or guard and defend the interest of the public
· Accused is defended by PAO, and if found guilty by the lower court s/he may file for certiorari.
6) Trial
· trial prosecutor
· the victim becomes the witness
7) Punishment
· Desistance of the victim will not have an effect to the dismissal of the case, the case will still prosper thru the name of the
government. Because crime is public, and everyone has a right to file throught the government’s Police power; a pulic crime can be
prosecuted de oficio even without a private complaint, but it cannot be without a victim. Even the witness filed an affidavit of
desistance the case may still prosper by using the evidences and documents submitted at hand of the prosecutor.
· However in cases of (CASAAD) Concubinage, Adultery, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness and Defamation of
pertaining to those crimes if the victim desisted the case will not be prosecuted de oficio; it affords the personal sense of privacy. The
victim in this case should file an affidavit of desistance in a criminal case and in doing so is deemed to waive his rights as an
offended party. As the active cooperation of the private complainant as witness is esential for such cases to prosper
o in SAA there shall be no criminal prosecution if the offender has been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party or her
parents, grandparents, or guardian, as the case may be.
· CASAAD are crimes that cannot be prosecuted de oficio (or by the government) if the victim actively participated both the
offender spouse and the paramour will be subjectas responden to the crime.
o Its cure (will obliterate the crime):
▪ CA the victim consented will will obliterate the crime of both the unfaithful partner and the paramour.
▪ SAA marying the victim will obliterate the crime
- The statute has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure.
States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses.
- THE RIGHT OF PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME is one of the attributes that by a natural law belnongs to
the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests
of the community, the individual and the social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights.
 
- REYES, pp. 610-612. RPC, Art. 23
- ARTICLE 23:  Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the offended party DOES NOT EXTINGUISH criminal
action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished
by his express waiver.
- REASON: In criminal cases, the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution. Only the
President can Pardon the Offenders.
- It is sufficient that the People of the Philippines appear in the caption of the information (title of the case) to emphasize that penal
laws of tha state have been violated. For indeed, a crime is an offense against the state.
- COMPROMISE DOES NOT EXTINGUISH CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
- There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense; but such compromise SHALL NOT EXTINGUISH the
public action for the imposition of the legal penalty.  (Article 2034 NCC)
- Pardon by the offended party has legal effects only to civil liabilities but not to criminal liabilities.
- A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the right to prosecute an offense or waiving the criminal liability is VOID.  The
consideration or subject matter is illegal.
- In crimes of CASAA needs conformity from the victim to institute criminal prosecution. If she conformed and expressly pardoned
the offender there shall be no criminal prosecution. Civil liability is extinguished by express waiver.
- 2 CLASSES OF INJURIES:
1) Social Injury – produced by the disturbance and alarm which are the outcome of the offense.
· Is sought to be repaired through the imposition of the corresponding penalty.
· The State has an interest in this class of injury.
· The offended party CANNOT PARDON the offender so as to relieve him of the penalty.
2) Personal Injury – caused to the victim of the crime who suffered damage either to his person, to his property, to his honor or to
her chastity.
· Is repaired through indemnity, which is civil in nature, the offended party MAY WAIVE it and the State has no reason to insist in
its payment.
· Waiver MUST be EXPRESS.
 
- REYES, pp. 638-640. Art 36.
ARTICLE 36:  Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
- EFFECTS OF PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT:
1) A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage.
Exception:  When any or both such rights is or are EXPRESSLY RESTORED by the terms of the pardon.
2) It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity.  The pardon cannot make an exception to this rule.
- LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE PARDONING POWER:
1) That the power can be exercised only AFTER CONVICTION.
➢ Agencies or instrumentalities of the Government concerned must require proof from the accused that he has not appealed from his
conviction.
➢ Pardon may be granted only “after conviction by final judgement.” Any application for pardon cannot be granted during the
penency of his appeal from his conviction by the trial court.
➢ Such proof may be in the form of a certification issued by the trial court or the appellate court, as the case may be that he had not
appealed from his conviction or that he has withdrawn his appeal.
2) That such power DOES NOT EXTEND to cases of IMPEACHMENT.
- PARDON GRANTED IN GENERAL TERMS DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCESSORY PENALTY:
- When the principal penalty is remitted by pardon, only the effect of that principal penalty is extinguished, but NOT the accessory
penalties attached to it.
- Ex.  A person sentenced to prision mayor (carries accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification from the right to hold
public office or the right of suffrage) is pardoned by the President. Such pardon does not restore the right to hold public office or the
right to vote, UNLESS such right be EXPRESSLY restored by the terms of the pardon.
- Exception:  When an absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes all that is left of the
consequences of conviction.
- Exception:  Where the facts and circumstances of the case already show that the purpose of the Chief Executive is precisely to
restore those rights
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY
Art 36 Art 23
Extinguishes the criminal liability of the DOES NOT extinguish the criminal liability
offender. of the offender.
CANNOT include civil liability which the Offended party can waive the civil liability
offender must pay. which the offender must pay.
 Granted only AFTER CONVICTION and - In cases where the law allows pardon by the
may be extended to any of the offenders. offended party (Art 344), pardon given the
offenders must come BEFORE the institution of the
criminal prosecution and must be extended to
both/all offenders)
- In the crimes of SAA:
- When the complaint of the said crimes has already
been filed in court, a motion to dismiss based solely
on the pardon by the offended party, given after the
filing of the complaint, will be DENIED by the
court.

- 12. People vs. Romero, G.R. Nos. 103385-88, 26 July 1993.

➢ Large scale illegal recruitment
➢ Case is dismissed when the 3 victim filed a afidavit of desistance
- AFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE-waiver to persue this case. The victim waived his right to exact civil liability against the accused is
the legal effect
- 13. People vs. CFI of Quezon, G.R. No. 41903, 10 June 1992.
➢ He raises there that in the information there is no damage to the people and that the case should be a civil case damage. SC
clarified that all penal crime is always implied that a crime is an outrage against the people. And that it is the People of the
Philippines bringning the action of all the criminal case so do not find the damage or prejudice of the people to the crime because it is
always inferred.
➢ Outrage of the people of the Philippines is always a matter of inference and implication in penal cases
➢ Accusatory portion “that on or before…”
 
ii. Vis-à-vis Special Penal Laws
- RPC, Art. 10.
- REYES, pp. 139-148.
- 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.
➢ SUPPLEMENTARY means supplying what is lacking; additional. (presupposes the existence of something)
- SPECIAL LAW – penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the Penal Code. It is a statute enacted by the
Legislative branch in character, which is not an amendment to the RPC. It usually follow the form of American penal law.
- LEX SPECIALIS DEROGANT GENERALI– “Special legal provisions prevail over general ones.”
- RPC v SPL
RPC SPL
As to what
is Felony Crime
committed
As to name
of
Reclusion perpetua Life imprisonment
punishmen
t
As to (second clause) (first clause)
clause (Art RPC shall only supply when SPL is Special laws are controlling in regard to
10) silent on a particular matter; deficiencies offenses therein specifically punished.
of SPL:
1. Subsidiary penalty,
2. Civil liability,
3. Rules on service of sentence,
4. Definition on principals, accomplice
and accessories,
5. Principle of conspiracy

- Some application of art 10:

1) Subsidiary penalty. Art 39 to Revised Motor Vehicle Law
o In cases when the Special Law provides a penalty of prision correctional we make reference (supplement) to the term of art of the
penalties structured in the RPC.
2) Civil liability. Art 100 to Revised Motor Vehicle Law
o If the SPL does not provide on how to compute the civil liability the definition of the RPC will be the suplemented
3) Rules on service of sentence. Art 70 to Dangerous Drugs Act of of 1972
o Rule on successive service on sentence can be applied to SPL (people vs liway tiung)
o (1) Material accumulation; add all penalties (not simultaneous but has to be successive)
o (2) juridical accumulation or 3 fold rule (you cannot be imprisoned for more than three times of the most severe penalty);and
o (3) in all cases you cannot be imprisoned continuously for more than 40 years
4) Rules on graduation on penalties
5) Definition o principals, accomplices and accessories. Art 17, 18 and 19 to Migrant Workers and Overseaes Filipino Act 1995
o Supplementation by virtue of the RPC of the of criminal participants
6) Principle of conspiracy. Art 8 to BP 22
o Principle of conspiracy may not be specifically provided under the SPL then supplement the definition of the RPC.
- Exception: when there is no suppletory effect:
1) When there is legal impossibility of application either by
o Express provision
o Necessary implication
2) When penalty under the special law are different from the RPC
3) When special law provides for its own penalties (ex. Anti-carnaping law)
4) Mitigating and aggrevating is not applied to offenses punishable under special laws
5) Life imprisonment (Art 70 cannot be applied to RPC)
 
iii. Vis-à-vis other Bodies of Laws
- REYES, pp. 2-6.
- LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION: (Bill of Rights
of 1987 Constitution)
1) No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art III, Sec 22, 1987 Consti)
- EX POST FACTO LAW- A law which punishes an act which is not punishable at the time of its commission.
- Alter the rules on evidence. Alter or modify the penalty that prejudices the accused
- LEX PROSPICIT NON RESPICIT The law looks forward never backward.
o Law has a prospective, not a retroactive effect.
o After the fact
- Exception: if it is favorable to the accused  
- Exception to exception: The penal laws that favor the guilty person who is not a habitual criminal (Art 22, RPC)
➢ HABITUAL CRIMINAL is a person who is convicted 3 times and the spaces between each of his convictions is 10 years.
o FAVORABILIA SUNT AMPLIADA ADIOSA RETRIGENDA – “Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given
retroactive effect.”
2) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Art III, Sec 14 [1], 1987 Consti)
- KINDS OF EX POST FACTO LAW:
1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission;
5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and
6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
- 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF EX POST FACTO LAW–
1) The law must refer to criminal matters
2) The law must be retroactive in its application
3) The law is to the prejudiced of the accused (alters the penalty/rules of evidence)
- BILL OF ATTAINDER – a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.
- a usurpation of juridical power by a legislative body.
- Congress is prohibited from passing an act which would inflict punishment without judicial trial.
- Legislature that enacts a law that dentifines the criminal and not of the the acts that constitutes a crime
- CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED: (Article 3 Bill of Rights)
➢ Procedural due process
o Refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, libert or property
o Concerns itself with the government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere.
➢ Substantive Due Process
o Completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It requires whether the government has sufficient justification for
depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
1) All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
2) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
3) All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
4) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.  However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
5) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
 Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
The rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him.  Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
6) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
7) No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.  If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
8) Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
- STATUTORY RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED:
1) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
3) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the
judgment.
4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination.  His silence
shall not in any manner prejudice him.
5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
6) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
7) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
8) To have a speedy, impartial, and public trial.
9) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
- RELATION OF CRIMINAL LAW AND THE CIVIL LAW
- CIVIL LIABILITIES- every criminal action will always have instituted it automatically the corresponding civil liability.
- TORTS AND DAMAGEAS- finding liability for moral damages
- People vs Van Wilsem, VOWC, economic support, Familiy code, failed to prove dutch law, procedural presumption.
- CRIME OF BIGAMY- subsequent marriage is a crime
- REMEDIAL LAW-.
- RELATION OF CRIMINAL LAW AND OTHER LAW
- ORDINANCES that criminalizes- Local ordinanzes that technically did not come from legislature
- Congress that creates a city by virtue of law. City have delegated powers entitlement to enact laws with limitation not to penalize an
act for more than a year.
- RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED WHICH:
MAY BE WAIVED MAY NOT BE WAIVED
Reason; it is necessary to be done
Right to confrontation and cross-examination Right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him
Rights which involved public interest which
Rights which are personal
may be affected

- 14. White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, 20 January 2009.
➢ City Ordiance that prohibits the wash up rates in the Hotels at Manila to prevent illicit realtions.
➢ The ordinance is unconstitutional because it prevents the due process, eaqual protection
➢ Rational connection of the penal law does not fit exactly to the evil sought to be avoided in the said ordinance.
 
3) CRIMINAL LIABILITY
a. Elements of a Felony
- REYES, pp. 33-36
- ELEMENTS OF FELONIES:
1) That there must be an act or omission.
2) That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC.
a) Physical
b) Voluntary
c) Actus reus
3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
a) Mens rea Mental
b) Actus reus Mterial
- ONLY EXTERNAL ACT IS PUNISHED. An external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed.
Because, (a) internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law, (b) criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or
improper it may be, WILL NEVER CONSTITUTE A FELONY.
- NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE – “there is no crime where there is no law punishing it.”
- The omission must be punishable by law. OMISSIONS THAT ARE  NOT PUNISHABLE BY LAW:
1) A person who does not report a crime he withnessed.
2) His mere passive presence at the scene of the crime
3) His mere silence or failure to give alarm without agreement of conspiracy.
 
b. Classification of Felonies
- RPC, Art. 3.
- 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.
- FELONIES- are acts or omissions punishable by RPC.
- A person performing an act and omission, has the intention to do an injury to the person, property, or right of another.
➢ ACT – must be one which is defined by RPC as constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external act
which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed.
➢ An OVERT ACT is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning
or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into concrete offense.
➢ OMISSION is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing
or performance of an act. (ex. crime of abandonment. Req: 1. Uninhabited 2. May render aid without harming self)
 
i. Intentional and Culpable Felonies
- REYES, pp. 36-44.
- Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed:
INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES
An act to be qualified as imprudence there
voluntary act is free, intelligent and intentional act. should be no malice nor intention to cause
injury
An act of the offender  is MALICIOUS An act of the offender  is NOT malicious
An act performed with DELIBERATE INTENT (with
An act performed WITHOUT MALICE
malice)
Injury caused to another is
Injury caused to another  is INTENTIONAL, in
UNINTENTIONAL, it simply being the
performing the act or in incurring the omission
incident of another act performed
Requisites (By means) Requisites (By means)
DECEIT (DOLO/MALICE) FAULT (CULPA)
a) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or a) He must heve FREEDOM while doing an
omitting to do an act. act or omitting to do an act.
A person who acts without freedom is no longer b) He must heve INTELLIGENCE while
voluntary but a tool: doing the act or omitting to do the act.
· A person who acts under the compulsion of an c) He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENCE,
irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. LACK OF FORESIGHT, LACK OF SKILL
(Art 12 par 5) while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
· A person who acts under the impulse of an IMPRUDENCE
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is NEGLIGENCE
exempt from criminal liability. (Art 12 par 6) deficiency of action
b) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act deficiency of perception
or omitting to do the act. Lack of skill
No criminal liability because they act without Lack of foresight
intelligence: Failure to take the necessary precaution to
· Imbecile or insane avoid injury to person or damage to property
· Infant under nine years of age Failure to pay proper attention and to use due
· Minor over 9 but less than 15 and acting without diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
discernment impending to be caused
c) He must have INTENT while doing the act or  
omitting to do the act. Reason for punishing acts of negligence. A
There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent or man must use his common sense, and
will. exercise due reflection in allhis acts; it is his
Example of particular specific intent: duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not
· Intent to gain in theft/robbery from instinct, then through fear of incurring
· Intent to kill in homicide punishment.
· Forcible abduction in lewd designs.
MOTIVE
INTENT
is the moving power which impels one to action for a
definite result.
is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such
result.

MOTIVE INTENT
is the moving power which impels one to action for is the purpose to use a particular means to
a definite result. effect such result.

IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
deficiency of action deficiency of perception

Lack of skill Lack of foresight

Failure to pay proper attention and to use due
diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
Failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid impending to be caused
injury to person or damage to property
 Reason for punishing acts of negligence. A man
must use his common sense, and exercise due
reflection in allhis acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then
through fear of incurring punishment.

 
ii. Mistake of Fact
- REYES, pp. 44-49.
- DEFENSE IN ART 3 (criminal liability) –Mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent as he believe that certain facts to
be the case lawful
- Criminal intent/will to cause injury is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo. Any person who caused injury to another
without malice or fault is not criminally libable under RPC
- IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT – “ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability;”different from
IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT – “ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith”
- REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT:
1) that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
➢ the act done would not constitute a felony had the facts been as the acused believed them to be.
2) that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
➢ ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA – “the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so.”
➢ ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS – “an act done by me against my will is not my act.”
➢ Ah Chong being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then
appeared to him.
➢ EXEPTION In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply.
➢ Self-defense/property exclude anyone from taking your person/property is lawful.
3) that the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
➢ In case of police agent, the use of force is acceptable only in subduing a resisting criminal.
- (Exception to the exception):
➢ In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply. Lack of intent to kill
the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility. He having acted
maliciously and willfully.
➢ When the accused is negligent.
➢ When the accused is charged with culpable felony.
- 15. Baxinela vs. People, G.R. No. 149652, 24 March 2006.
➢ There is no actual peril or danger on his part
➢ There was no ulawful aggression becase there was no self defense
- 16. United States vs. Peñalosa, G.R. No. 424, 27 January 1902.
➢ Mistake of fact is different from mistake of law. The case at bar is mistake of fact because her parents made her belief that she was
born in 1979.
➢ Had that act been true the marriage would have been lawful
 
 
ii. Malum in se and Malum Prohibitum; Intent and Motive
- REYES, pp. 49-61.
- THREE (3) CLASSES OF CRIMES penalized by the RPC.
1) Intentonal felonies
2) culpable felonies
3) Special Penal Laws (which include crimes punished  by municipal or city ordinances)
➢ Dolo is not required in crimes punished by Special laws
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
(malum in se) (malum prohibitum)
Merely requires perpetration/comit of the
Requires deliberate criminal intent
prohibited act (knowing voluntarily)
Do not require dolo or culpa (the mere
Proving the intentional felonies by way of dolo or
commission of the prohibited act will already
culpa
consummate the offense)
Good faith and absence of criminal intent is not
Good faith is a defense
a defense
 Defense:
· He has no intent to perpetrate do the
Defense: prohibited act.
mistake of fact · The act is by accident.
· Good faith is not a defense
Exception:
Temporary, incidental, casual or harmless act

 
- 17. Napoles vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 213529, 13 July 2016.
➢ Motive simply provided to prove who really has intent.
- 18. Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 134298, 26 August 1999.
➢ Fencing is treated in two ways:
an accessory of theft under the RPC as a principlal to the crime of fencing under the Anti
Fencing Law (PD 1612)
Mala in se Malum prohibitum
all we need is the intent to perpetrate the prohibited
act good faith is not a defense
Requires more proving by the prosecutor Easier to prove by the posecutor

Easier to defend by the defense counsel Harder to defend by the defense counsel
Prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property

➢ The SC decided that it is understandable if the prosecutor decided to prosecute the acused as principal under the Anti Fnecing Law
because it will proceed as malum prohibitum. Where we dont need to prove criminal itent all we need is the intent to perpetrate the
prohibited act where good faith is not a defense.
- 19. Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, 05 July 1996.
➢ COMELEC barred him of running from official office because of moral turpitude due to his previous crime of Fencing
➢ MORAL TURPITUDE- an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals
➢ He is disqualified. Mala prohibitum. For purposes of election law Fencing is inherently evil. 
 
c. Special Cases
i. Unintended Felonies
- RPC, Art. 4 (1); Art. 49.
- REYES, pp. 61-81.
- 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. 
- When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
1) That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health.
2) That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
3) That death ensued within a reasonable time.
➢ ENSUE – happen or occur afterward or as a result
➢ Persons who are responsible for an act constituting a crime are also liable for all the consequences arising therefrom and inherent
therein, other than those due to incidents entirely foreign to the act executed, or which originate through the fault or carelessness of
the injured person.
 
ii. “Impossible Crimes”
- RPC, Art. 4 (2); Art. 59.
- REYES, pp. 81-87
UNINTENDED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
 Paragraph 2
By any person performing an act WHICH
Paragraph 1 WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the PERSONS OR PROPERTY, were it not
wrongful act done be different from that which he for the inherent impossibility of its
intended. accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means

Also called as transferred intent where the intended Crime of last resort
felony is transferred to (another) unintended felony.

Reason
You cannot get away with harboring criminal intent with
actually committing something (actus reus material) the
law will not let you get away with just because you were
not able to achieve the result you want to

Purposes: Purposes:
A person who performs a criminal act is responsible To suppress criminal propensity or
for all the consequences of said act regardless of his criminal tendencies. Objectively, the
intention offender has not committed a felony, but
One is not relieved from criminal responsibility from subjectively, he is a criminal.
criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s
legal acts, merely because one does not intended to
produce such consequences.
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.”

a) Any person who casuses in another’s mind an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CANNOT BE

immediate sense of danger, which causes the later to APPRECIATED IF THE INTENDED
escape resulting in the latter’s injury to himself, he one FELONY RESULTED   TO SOME
who creates such state of mins is responsible for the OTHER CRIME
resulting injuries.
b) That the victim at the time the physical injuries were
inflicted was in normal health
c) The death may be expected from physical injuries
inflicted
d) That death ensued within a reasonable time.

Questions that it will answer:

1) Will you be held liable for an unintended felony?
2) And what will be held liable for?
REQUISITES REQUISITES
Transfer to fill 1) That the act performed would be an
1) That an intentional felony has been committed offense against persons or property
(Committing a felony); and · felonies against persons Parricide,
➢ Committing an act by means of dolo (or with malice) murder, homicide; infanticide, abortion,
➢ Should be punishable under RPC otherwise, if the said duel, physical injuries, rape.
act is punishable under Special Law, the accused may get ➢ A dead erson cannot be injured or
away of it if he did not have intent to do an injury to killed
another. · felonies against property (has intent to
2) That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the gain from the property) Robbery,
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony brigandage, theft; usurpation; culpable
committed by the offender (Proximate cause). insolvency, swindling and other deceits,
No felony is committed: chattel mortgage, arson and other crimes
· When the act or omission is NOT punishable by the involving destruction; malicious mischief
RPC 2) That the act was done with evil intent.
· If there is efficient intervening cause 3) That its accomplishment is inherently
· When the act is covered by any of the justifying impossible, or that the means employed is
circumstances enumerated in Article 11: either inadequate or ineffectual.
a) Self defense, ➢ INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
b) defense of relative, occurs when extraneous circumstances
c) defense of stranger, or unknown to the actor or beyond his
d) in the fulfilment of a lawful duty control to prevent the consummation of
➢ PROXIMATE CAUSE-that case which, in natural and the intended crime. 
continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient Legal impossibility
intervening cause, produces the injury , and without Physical impossibility
which the result would not have occurred (causation; go SC does not distict because it does not
backward) matter (ex: stabing of a cadaver)
➢ EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE. Is an active Penalty for murder and homicide if you
force that is absolutely foreign, distinct and independent kill a person
from the felonious act. Felony commited resulted to a crime.
➢ NATURAL-an occurrence in the ordinary course of 4) That the act performed should not
human life or events constitute a violation of another provision
➢ LOGICAL-there is a rational connection between the of the RPC.
act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage
a) Error In Personae (mistake in the identity of the There is NO felony committed due of
victim) the inadequate or ineffectual means
-1 employed by the aggressor which are
- penalty under Art 49 in view of pro reo principle, the unknown to the him at the time the
lower penalty between the intended felony and the criminal attempt was commited
unintended felony of the relationship of the victim.
b) Aberration Ictus (mistake in a blow)
-2
- The criminal would be held liable for both the intended
and the unintended (the actual) crime committed and will
be complexed and Art 48 will apply
c) Praeter Intentionem (The injurious result is greater than
that intended /lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong)
-1
- Apply the penalty for the crime that is actually
commited then mitigate it under Par. 3, Art 13, RPC
(Entitled to mitigating circumstances because he has no
intention to commit so grave wrong)
Checklist:
1) is there felonious intent? (because you cannot apply Art
4Par 1 in culpa) transfer intent
2) causation (a,b/c)
3) penalty

Par 1, Art 4 is not applicable to cases: Par 2, Art 4 is not applicable to cases:
· where there was no intention to cause an evil but to · By means of culpa (impossible crime
provide a remedy, accused was liable for injuries through will always be intentional)
imprudence. · If the crime commited violated another
· This article does not refer to accident. crime penalized by the RPC will be
· Snatching the property of another just to satisfy penalized by the crime commited and not
curiosity of impossible crime
· Use of necessary force to retain what belongs to him · When  crime is actually been
(only defending his possession/property. commited. The felony should not be
· The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the actually committed, for, otherwise, he
victim. would be liable for that felony and there
· you cannot blame the inefficient health care for a would be no impossible crime to speak of.
resulting death because you would not have been bought
to the hospital in the first palce if you were not injured
(crim) unless you can prove that the hospitals acted either
maliciously or with negligence/malpractice (torts and
damages)
· EGGSHELL SKULL DOCTRINE-you take your victim
as you find him (your wrongful act cannot be excused by
the inherent frailty or feebleness of your victim; you
cannot pass the blame on the victim) (ex: belief or
hemophilia)
ARTICLE 49:   PENALTY to be imposed upon the principals ARTICLE 59:  Penalty to be imposed in
when the crime committed is different from that intended. — case of failure to commit the crime because
In cases in which the felony committed is different from that the means employed or the aims sought are
which the offender intended to commit, the following rules impossible. — When the person intending to
shall be observed: commit an offense has already performed the
1) If the penalty prescribed for the FELONY COMMITTED be acts for the execution of the same but
HIGHER than that corresponding to the offense which the nevertheless the crime was not produced by
accused INTENDED TO COMMIT, the penalty corresponding reason of the fact that the act intended was
to the LATTER shall be imposed in its MAXIMUM PERIOD. by its nature one of impossible
2) If the penalty prescribed for the FELONY COMMITTED be accomplishment or because the means
LOWER than that corresponding to the one which the accused employed by such person are essentially
INTENDED TO COMMIT, the penalty for the FORMER shall inadequate to produce the result desired by
be imposed in its MAXIMUM PERIOD. him, the court, having in mind the social
3) The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall danger and the degree of criminality shown
not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person by the offender, shall impose upon him the
shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200
crime, if the law prescribes a HIGHER penalty for either of to 500 pesos.
the latter offenses, in which case the penalty PROVIDED FOR  
THE ATTEMPTED OR THE FRUSTRATED CRIME shall be PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME is
imposed in its MAXIMUM PERIOD. ARRESTO MAYOR or a fine ranging from
Art 49 is applicable only when the intended crime and the P200 to P 500.
crime actually committed are punished with different penalties. (penalties may be 1 mnt &1 day 200 or
GR: Par 1 &2 Art 49 contemplate of cases where the 6 mnts 500)
intended crime and the crime actually committed are punished  
with different penalties by reason of relationship between the BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PROPER
offender and the offended party, which qualifies one of the PENALTY:
crimes 1) social danger; and
Exemption: if the intended crime and the crime actually 2) degree of criminality shown by the
comiited are punished with the same penalties, Art 49 is not offender. 
applicable.  
a) Art 49 applies only when there is error in personae a mistake Ex.  A person who fired a revolver upon his
in the identity of the victim of the crime, and The lesser enemy from a distance of 1 km. The act
penalty is ALWAYS TO BE IMPOSED, only that it shall be shows stupidity rather than dangerousness.
imposed in the MAXIMUM PERIOD. Because that act is absolutely harmless.
Rules stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 49 CANNOT  
APPLY to case involving aberratio ictus or praeter  
intentionem. PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.
b) Aberratio ictus – mistake in the blow where 2 crimes This Article uses the word offense and crime
committed:  (1) the committed crime of [homicide]; and (2) which include light felony. So, he who
attempted crime of [parricide], which is a result of a SINGLE attempts to commit a light felony of
ACT. Hence the criminal committed a COMPLEX CRIME of impossible materialization may be punished
consummated homicide with attempted parricide. (There being by the penalty  arersto mayor which is higher
a complex crime, ART 48, not Art 49, is applicable). than that prescribed for the consummated
c) Praeter intentionem – where a more serious consequence felony, which is aresto menor.
not intended by the offender befalls the same person. Art 49
HAS NO APPLICATION
ARTICLE 48 vs ARTICLE 49:
ARTICLE 48
ARTICLE 49
The PENALTY for the MORE or MOST SERIOUS CRIME
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its MAXIMUM
PERIOD
The LESSER PENALTY is to be imposed, to be applied in the
MAXIMUM PERIOD (Pars 1 and 2)
 Legal impossibility Physical impossibility

SC does not distict because it does not matter (ex: stabing of a cadaver)

Penalty for murder and homicide if you kill a Felony commited resulted to a crime.
person

ARTICLE 48 ARTICLE 49
The PENALTY for the MORE or MOST SERIOUS The LESSER PENALTY is to be imposed, to be
CRIME shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its applied in the MAXIMUM PERIOD (Pars 1 and
MAXIMUM PERIOD 2)

 
iii. Unintended Felonies Cases
- 20. People vs. Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, 18 January 1950.
➢ Guillen threw a bomb during the speech of President for intent to kill him however, it was kicked out of the stage injuring the the
listeners and killing 2.
➢ Absent any intent the SC should decide in favor of the acused which is not the case at bar. SC found the intent through his letter to
do ham not only to the President but also to his suporters
➢ Motive purpose
➢ Intent a purpose to use a particular means to effect a result
- 21. People vs. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, 31 August 1998.
➢ Claiming aberatio ictus (mistake in the blow) because they fired at the wrong people instead of the intended but the unintended.
Both are present in the time of the commission of the crime
➢ SC held the case at bar as error in personae (mistake in identity) Only one is present at the time of the commission of the crime
➢ Test:
· (1) Present together for aberatio ictus
· (2) Not present together for error in personae.
- 22. People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, 15 July 2015.
➢ If you were able to establish aberatio ictus, it will be 2 crimes (which is to be complexed) but in this particular case, this time it wil
be unintended killing.
➢ Defense not liable for the killing of the bystander because he did not intend of killing him, but the SC decided that it would be
logical and physically possible to establish that  he can kill a bystander the accused will still be liable.
- 23. People vs. Albuquerque, G.R. No. 38773, 19 December 1933.
➢ Alburquerque tried to convince the victim to marry his daughter but the latter did not agree, which made him want to give him a
scar in the face using a penknife but due to his stroke, he was not really limber with his arm he stabed him at neck.
➢ SC decided that the killing was of Praeter intentionem (did not intend to do so grave a wrong) penalty is mitigated.
- 24. Vda. De Bataclan vs. Medina, G.R. No. L-10126, 22 October 1957.
➢ Bus turned turtle. That made the residents near the area to respond carriying fire lighted torch that resulted to the explosion of the
bus
➢ Bus company was held liable for the death of 4 persons because of their negligence to change the tires and breaks of the bus
before the
➢ Direct cause is the people
➢ Proximate cuse (sometimes called as legal cause) is the Medina bus company. The cause of the cause. Then the bus caompny is
the cause of the evil cause.
➢ Test of proximate cuse is (1) to describe the causal links as naturally and logically connectet to each other or (2) to find the
illogical.
- 25. Gelig vs. People, G.R. No. 173150, 28 July 2010.
- 26. People vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, 07 September 2011.
 
iiii. Impossible Crimes Cases
- 27. Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009.
➢ Elements that are satisfied:
· There was evil intent
· There was legal and physical impossibility to steal cash that was not there
· The crime would have been a crime against property had it not been for the impossibility
· There was no violation of any other proviosion of the RPC
➢ Thus, impossible crime.
- 28. Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992.
➢ Elements that are satisfied 
· It would have been crime against person there was evil intent 
➢ It was impossible because the target that they wanted to kill is actually out of town (physically impossible to kill a person who is
actually not there)
➢ Dissent: they should be liable for illegal discharge of firearms and destruction to property.
 
v. Conspiracy and Proposal as Crimes
- RPC, Art. 8.
- REYES, pp. 126-135.
- 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.
CONSPIRACY PROPOSAL
Generally, conspiracy is not a crime/ felony except The law does not require that the proposal be
when the law specially provdes a penalty therefore. accepted by the person to whom the proposal
(unless the RPC provdes for specific penalty for a is made.
conspiracy or proposal to comit a particular crime
then there is no such thing as a conspiracy or
proposal to comit that crime.)
As to liability As to liability
· Co-conspirator – should not actually have · Proposal to commit CRIST should not
committed the CRIST (preparatory) actually have committed by reason of the
· conspiracy is absorbed if they committed CRIST; proposal
conspiracy is not a separate offense. · proposal is absorbed if they actually
o Coup d’etat committed it and would be liable for Principal
o Rebellion by inducement (Art 17, Par 2)
o Insurrection · Liable for attempted bribery Art 212 (the
o Sedition proposal of an overt act of crime of corruption
o Treason of public officer)
(CRIST is a felony because if it succeeds  no one can
held them liable as they already obtained power)

As to crime committed As to crime committed

Crime is actually committed Crime is NOT actually committed
As to what constitutes a felony As to what constitutes a felony
Agreement to commission and decision to commit The mere making of a proposal. No
it ( Conspiracy is absorbed) agreement is necessary
Mode of commission of crime is Conspiracy (as a
manner of incurring criminal liability)
Requisites Requisites
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement; 1. That a person has decided to commit a
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony;
felony; and 2. That he proposes its execution to some other
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon. person or persons; and
3. Should not actually committed the reason of
proposal
As to ways of proving its existence
1) EXPRESS FORM – Requires proof of an actual
agreement among all the co-conspirators to commit
the crime. However, conspiracies are not always
shown to have been agreed upon. ( ex: voice records,
minutes of mtg, membership [If membership comes
later, he should also be held liable as co-conspirator])
2) IMPLIED FORM – an implied conspiracy exist
when two or more persons are shown to have aimed
by their acts towards the object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently
independent were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating closeness of their personal association and
concurrence of sentiment. (ex: collective act, flight at
the crime scene [fail or not] as a proof of guilt)
a. Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode,
method and manner of the commission of the
offense, or from the acts of the accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime
indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of
action and a community of interest.

As to responsibility As to responsibility
· Each is responsible for logical, probable and No criminal proposal if the proponent induces
natural consequence of the conspired crime. his trusted followers to to organize and
· By purposely engaging in the conspiracy their convince others the necessity of having a new
responsibility extends to collateral acts and offenses government.
incident to a growing out of a the purpose intended
 Defense Defense
• ARIAS DOCTRINE– (no conspiracy) The head of · The person who proposes is not determined
office is not required to personally examine every to commit the felony
single detail of any transaction from its inception · There is no decided, concrete and formal
until it is finally proved because he rely on a proposal.
reasonable extent on his subordinates and in good There was merely a suggestion- not a decided
faith. However, if discrepancy is greatly conclusive concrete and formal proposal.
he must be held responsible of negligence. · It is not the execution of a felony that is
• Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime proposed
does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy · LOCUS POENITENTIAE– (pagbabalik
transcends companionship. loob) an opportunity to withdraw or desist from
• Does not bear responsibility if such acts differs a contract or obligation before intended crime is
radically and substantially from that which they contemplated to commit by the proponent to
intend to commit (the crime is too far from the other persons 
contemplated crime. Desistance before the contemplation of the
• If it cannot be shown that each of the accused has a intended crime and informed the authorities
part in a conspiracy by performing an overt act in and aid the arrest oh his fellow ploters should
pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, will be exempted to the penalties provided for
not be liable as a co-conspirator and may be held criminal proposals and conspiracies, for the law
only responsible for the results of his own act. would rather prevent than punish crimes and
• If there is no positive and conclusive evidence to encouragement should be given to those who
establish close relationship in furtherance of the hearken to the voice of conscience.
conspiracy.

 
- 2 KINDS OF CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT A CRIME:
1) WHEEL CONSPIRACY
Wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually
with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub
rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there
is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of
the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
Each spokes does not know the prior or simultaneous conspiracy of the other spokes
Each is liable only for their own conspiracy
2) CHAIN CONSPIRACY
The chain conspiracy exists when there is successive communication and cooperation in
individuals (like between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer
and consumer). This involves individuals linked together in a vertical chain to achieve a criminal
objective.
Each conspirator knew that “the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned
was dependent upon success of the whole.” This means, therefore, that “every member of the
conspiracy was liable for every illegal transaction carried out by other members of the conspiracy
The act of one the act of all because each are dependent upon success of the whole conspiracy
- 29. People vs. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, 04 April 2011.
➢ Kidnaping with ransom but in the process of kidnapping Rafael died.
➢ Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such acts differs radically and substantively (so
outside the realm of possibility) from the originally contemplated crime.
➢ Conspirators are liable for the acts of another conspirator even if the act is not part of the common criminal design provided that
the act is necessary, reasonably related or natural consequence for commiting the originally contemplated crime
- 30. People vs. Regular, G.R. No. L-38674, 30 September 1981.
➢ In conspiracy there must be a relation ental & physical aspect
➢ Prison riot Regular and De lara
➢ Ther is unity of action
➢ But De Lara is not part of the conspiracy.
➢ Exception to conspiracy: de lara did not act in his own volition because he only participated in prison riot as he is acting out of
fear of his own life due to prison rivals
➢ He was not acting to persueance of the common criminal design of all the other co-accused.
- 31. People vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. 78853, 08 November 1991.
➢ Point in time when you are deemed as a co-conspirator when you are in reckon to the felony; in presence of (1) common criminal
design and (2) performance of the conspiracy in common criminal action.
➢ Joining later in the founding group of conspirators does not make him less of a co-conspirator.
➢ A co-conspirator may disengage or dissociate to the conspiracy provided that he was not in the crime scene and he did not do any
of the overt acts of the conspiracy by leaving (desistance) before the actual crime is committed
➢ LOCUS PONITENTIAE the position/ point that which you can penitentiate/ to disavow the evil. (loci-plural of locus) for each co-
conspirator which we will locate at the agreed upon part in the conspiracy. Each co-conspirator has diffenrent locus ponitentiae
➢ Liability locate the locus ponitentiae at the time of the consumation of the crime not from the start of the commission of the
material acts of execution… GR is that as long as the crime that was contemplated has not been consummated yet you can still
disavow- Atty Balisacan
➢ Regret does not eaqual disavowal
➢ You can no longer dissociate yourself from the crime in the mode of conspiracy after the crime had already been consumated
➢ Unity of action in conspiracy does not entail actual participation in the material acts of execution; unity of action is like a team
work, as long as you performed your agreed upon part in the conspiracy, even you are not there (ex remote command)
➢ Gang rape, end turn is still liable for he lent moral support.
- 32. People vs. Esponilla, G.R. No. 122766, 20 June 2003.
➢ If there is no direct conspiracy to be shown, the conspiracy may be proved in Implied conspiracy and will still have same weight.
The case at bar does not have direct proof (eye witness, cctv, minutes of mtg) of the actual shooting but the conspiracy is implied
where (1) the wife Enriquieta saw the Esponilla brothers pointing a gun to her husband Jose after shooting, (2) flew after she shout
for help and (3) performance of overt acts (physical element; the unity of action) when Samson was shooting (4) common criminal
design of criminal action also present when Felipe was there to give moral aid.
➢ Conspiracy here is established through implied facts
➢ How conspiracy may be shown
DIRECT CONSPIRACY IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy is seen clearly and Circumstantial evidences (implied) are used in the absence of
convincingly as there is a direct direct proof
proof
- Conspiracy per se An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are
- Proof of an actual agreement among shown to have aimed by their acts towards the
all the co-conspirators to comit the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part
crime. However, conspiracies are not so that their combined acts, though apparently independent,
always shown to have been expressly were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of
agreed upon. personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
a) Where conspiracy is deduced from the mode, method, and
manner by which the offense was perpetrated before, during
and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a
joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest
or
b) (Inferred from circumstantial evidence) inferred from the
acts of the accused themselves, when such acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
interest.

fewer evidence will do Must be more than one evidence that implies a paint of
coherent picture.
These both, when used, have the same weight in proving a conspiracy.

➢ Hence, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution
of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or
it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.
➢ Flight is an evidence of guilt
- 33. Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563 19 December 1989.
➢ Conspiracy in budget releases from all of the signatories.
➢ Aries relied on his subordinates of doing the necessary checking in documents is and the superior don’t have time of double
checking due to pile of documents.
➢ Superiors should trust upto a REASONABLE EXTENT of his subordinate; otherwise, he is responsible for a crime of gross
inexcusable negligence due to red flags
- 34. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, G.R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016.
➢ Confidential and Intelligence Fund disbursed from the PCSO fund by the President by noting OK on the voucher. SC clarified that
the note of OK is the regular standard in qualifying that the voucher can be processed and cannot be used as an evidence against
President Gloria’s virtue of approval is an overt act  that is an immediate and necessary relation to plunder
➢ 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 preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense. 
➢ Participating in advancing the conspiracy the marginal note is not enough to prove that Gloria is in the criminal scheme.
➢ There is no main plunderer
➢ Defined the wheel and chain conspiracy
➢ SC acquits due to insufficiency of evidence.
 
vi. Conspiracy as a Mode of Commission of Crimes
- REYES, pp. 508-534.
ART 17, PAR 1 REQUISITES
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT 1. That they (1. material) He must
PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATED in participate in the assault
- Those who take a DIRECT PART in the the CRIMINAL and (2. mental) the
execution of the act. RESOLUTION. common criminal
- It is the one personally committing the crime in resolution to be
obedience to that order of because of the considered as principal by
inducement, who is the principal by direct direct participation
participation
- Where between them, there has been
conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in
the commission of the crime

2. PERSONALLY If 2 is lacking there is

took part in its only a conspiracy
execution.

- CONSPIRACY – exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. (Art 8, Par 2)
- Conspiracy is not a felony but only a manner of incurring criminal liability
- To be a party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to participate in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose
- In order to hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established that he performed an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to
his co-conspirators by being present at the crime scene, or by excerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move
them to executing the conspiracy.
- Existence of conspiracy
· There should be:
1) Unity of action (actus reus)
2) Common criminal design (mens rea)
· ALL the accused manifested by their acts a COMMON INTENT (mental criminal design) or desire to attack.
· Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. (Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
· Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in its execution (mental element).
· A co-conspirator starts when you have joined to be a member in the conspired felony
· Their acts, though aparenlty independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association
and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them but concert ways and means is
proved.
· That they acted in unison and cooperated with each other towards the accomplishment of a common felonious purpose.
· The existence of conspiracy does not require necessarily an agreement for an appreciable length of time prior to the execution of
its purpose.
· Coonspiracy arises on the very instant the ploters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to
persue it.
· All is animated by the same purpose
· There may be conspiracy even if there is not evident premeditation on the part of the accused. From the legal viewpoint,
conspiracy exists if at the time of the commission of the offense, the acused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.
· Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is commited by a band. It is sufficient that he was present at the place of the commission
of the felony performing an act, augmenting with his arms and presence the power of the band, thus aiding the common act of all.
· MANSLAUGHTER-persuing the the defenseless victim even after he fled and giving an increased number of assault.
- PROOF OF CONSPIRACY:
1) The direct evidence of conspiracy may consist in the INTERLOCKING EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS of several accused
and the TESTIMONY of one of the accused who is discharged and MADE A WITNESS AGAINST HIS CO-ACCUSED who did
not make any confession.
2) To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proofs as to the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime, it
being sufficient that the MALEFACTORS shall have ACTED in CONCERT pursuant to the SAME OBJECTIVE.
- Non conspiracy
· Silence is not a circumstance indicating participation in the same criminal design.
· Mere knowledge, acquiescence, approval of the act WITHOUT cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute
a party to a conspiracy, but then there must be intentional participation in the transaction w/ a view to the furtherance of the common
design & purpose.
· Mere prescence in the crime scene at the time of its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy.
· Attempted to prevent the assault
· Fled at the scene of the crime before its execution (Locus poenitentiae) and did not take part therein is not criminally liable.
➢ LOCUS POENITENTIAE is a Latin phrase associated with contractual law which means opportunity to withdraw from a
contract or obligation before it is completed or to decide not to commit an intended crime
· No anterior conspiracy but there is a motive when there was no sufficient proof to establish any anterior conspiracy but only a
common motive as they cooperated to accomplish the death of the deceased. (the act of one came so close that he had no time to see
that the other intend to cause the deceased the wound he did. When there is NO CONSPIRACY, each of the offenders is LIABLE
ONLY for the ACT performed BY HIM
· There could be no conspiracy to comit an offense through negligence.
- Liability
· Act of one accused becomes ACT OF ALL. – there is a collective criminal responsibility.
· Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character
of their participation
· Co-conspirator is liable only for the acts pursuant to the conspiracy
· When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary to ascertain the specific act of the conspirator
· All are liable for abduction, even if only one acted with lewd designs
· In multiple rape, EACH rapist is EQUALLY LIABLE for the OTHER RAPES because each of them cooperated in the
commission of the rape perpetrated by the others, by acts without which it would not have been accomplished.
- Non liability-
· A conspirator is not liable for another’s crime which is not the object of the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical
consequence thereof.
· Cospirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator, unless, such acts differs radically and substantively from that
which they intended to commit.
· The conspiracy of killing A befell on the person of B, Only the person who killed B is liable
· Wife conspired with a stranger to kill her husband, only the wife is liable for paricide and the stranger is liable of murder
· A and B conspired to kill C but only A knew the treachery. Only A will be liable for murder and B will only be liable for homicide
- UNITY OF PURPOSE AND INTENTION IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME:
· Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint responsibility.
· Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime will also create joint responsibility. (simultaneous attacks)
· Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent also creates joint responsibility.
· Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support thereto, also create joint responsibility with the
material executions.
o Par 2, Art 296, RPC robbery by a band.
· Where one of the accused knew of the plan of the others to kill a victim and he accepted the role assigned to him, which was to
shoot one of the victim, and he actually performed that role, he is a co-principal by direct participation in the murder
 
vii. Complex Crimes
- RPC, Art. 48.
- REYES, pp. 670-701.
- ARTICLE 48:  Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
Art 48 Complex Non Art 48
1 act resulting to 2 crime 2/ more acts
Double murder 2 counts of murder
Filing of only ONE murder, even if several persons were killed by Filing of 2 indictment
the single act.
1 penalty for both crime but (the penalty for the most serious crime) 2 penalty for each crime
shall be imposed on its maximum period

Purpose is to reduce the penalty  because it is most favorable to the

accussed
Reason: when two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the
offender is deemed less morally perverse than when he commits
said crimes through separate and distinct acts

- (plurality of crimes) At least TWO crimes must be committed.

- A complex crime is ONLY ONE CRIME.
➢ if in case the both crimes is punishable with the same penalty, the penalty for any of them shall be imposed, the same shall be
applied in its maximum period.
➢ Fine is not included in the list of penalties in the order of severity, and it is the last in the graduated scales in Art 71 of the RPC
- Article 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not provide a definite penalty
- When two crimes produced by single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the
COURT OF HIGHER JURISDICTION SHALL TRY the complex crime.
- robery by a band is considered as a principal unless he tries to stop the robbery before the consummation of all its execution then he
will not be held liable.
- 3 KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES:
- * 3) Special complex crime- (composite crime)
 1) COMPOUND CRIME 2)COMPLEX CRIME 3)SPECIAL
PROPER COMPLEX
CRIME
Delito compuesto Delito complejo Composite
crime
When a single act constitutes (resulting in) 2 or When an offense is a necessary Found in book
more grave or less grave felonies. means for committing the 2, RPC
other.  
NECESSARY MEANS-(not to - Art 266B shall
mean indispensable means, apply not Art
because it is not its 48 because
ingredient to the crime) RPC provides
single penalty
for each of the
special complex
crime.
- These are
crimes that go
well together.
- The law fixes
a single penalty
for two or more
offenses
committed.
REQUISITES REQUISITES
1) That only a single act is performed by the  
offender. 1) That at least 2 offenses are
2) That the single act produces: committed.
a) or more grave felonies, or 2) That one or some of the
b) One or more grave and one or more less grave offenses must be necessary to
felonies, or commit the other.
c) 2 or more less grave felonies.  3) That both or all the offenses
Except light felonies (see not complex crime) must be punished under the
same statute.s

Exception Exception
· LAWAS CASE When in obedience to an order When one of the offense, as a
WITHOUT CONSPIRACY, several  accused means to commit the other, was
simultaneously shot many persons, WITHOUT committed by one of the accused
EVIDENCE how many each killed (impossible to by reckless imprudence, that
determine who killed whom) and , there is ONLY accused who committed the
A SINGLE OFFENSE, there being a SINGLE offense by reckless imprudence
CRIMINAL IMPULSE. The Court is forced to is liable for his act only.
find the appelans guilty of only one offense of
multiple homicide for which the penalty to be
imposed should be in the maximum
· PRISON RIOT CASES (not prison escape)
Not complex crime
1) Use of Thomson machine gun (each kill is single count of murder)
2) Crimes in SPL cannot be complexed in felonies of RPC, proceed them
independently. Punishable under SPL (ex. When two crimes are punished under
different statutes, when one of the offenses is penalized by special law like illegal
possession of firearm is not the necessary means to commit homicide; it is
considered as a SPECIAL AGGREVATING CIRCUMSTANCE punishable under
RA 8294.) (ex Theft of firearm and illegal possession of same firearm do not form a
complex crime (intent to own and intent to use)- they are two distinct crimes)
3) a single act resulted in a grave offense and a light offense,
4) the light offense may be absorbed,
5) if light offense cannot be absorbed by the grave offense disregard Art 48 then file
2 separate indictment) Independently charged (homicide cannot absorb the damage
to property.
6) Legally incomplexible
7) Concealment (ex When one offense is commited to conceal the other Fernan vs.
People) (Ex.  after committing homicide, the accused, in order to conceal the crime,
set fire to the house where it had been perpetrated. crime of arson with homicide)
8) Ingredient or element indispensable (doctrine of absorption of common crimes or
Hernandez doctrine- you cannot complex a crime with its elements)
9) Common element (doctrine of common element)
10) Direct / indirect means
11) Additional counts (ex: abduction with first rape is absorbed he succeeding
counts of rape is not complexed)
12) Express provision of Art 235
13) When trespass to dweling is a direct means to commit a grave offense
14) When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused
can be convicted of the other.
 EXAMPLE: EXAMPLES: EXAMPLES:
- placing a time bomb in a plane, · the accused received 17 money orders with a - Art 294 Par 1
which caused it to explode in letter, all in one envelope, addressed to the Roberry with
mid-air, killing 13 persons offended party.  The accused presented them to homicide
therein – constitutes a complex the post office for cashing on one occasion, - Art 294 Par 2
crime of multiple murder and after having falsified the signature of the Roberry with
destruction of property remitter on each and every one of the 17 rape
- several shot bullets money orders. HELD:  In all the acts - Art 267 Par 3
automatically in succession from performed by the accused, there was ONLY Kidnaping with
machine gun causing several ONE CRIMINAL INTENT.  To commit estafa, serious physical
deaths, caused by a single act of the accused had to commit 17 falsifications. injuries
pulling the trigger These falsifications were NECESSARY means - Art 267 Last Par
- The single act of X in firing a to commit estafa. ONE COMPLEX CRIME of kidnaping with
shot, the same bullet causing the ESTAFA through multiple falsifications and murder or
death of 2 persons who were NOT 17 separate estafas and 17 separate homicide
standing on the same line of the falsifications. - Art 335 rape
direction of the bullet. - In murder where the killing of a person is with homicide
- Where the stabbing and killing qualified by the circumstance that it was - Regardless of
of the victim which caused committed by means of fire or by means of whether the
likewise the death of the fetus explosion which in themselves are felonies second actus reus
arose from the single criminal defined and penalized (under Article 321 and was purposely
intent of killing the victim, as Article 324) as arson and crimes involving sought or an
shown by accused’s pursuit of destruction, respectively afterthought (not
the victim after she was able to punishable under
escape – complex crime of Art 48 not as
murder with abortion. separate crimes
- 2 riots on 2 successive days in but shall be
the national penitentiary wherein punished as
9 prisoners were killed (5 on the special complex
1st day and 4 on the 2nd day), the crimes under last
14 members of Sigue-Sigue gang par Art 267.
who took part in the killing were
convicted of multiple murder and
NOT of 9 separate murders.
- Applicable to crimes through
negligence
- A man poured gasoline in the
tank of his passenger bus in a
garage then light the place where
a house is caught fire.  During the
fire his mother-in-law, jumped
from a window then died and
another person suffered serious
physical injuries. HELD:  Crimes
of arson, homicide, serious
physical injuries, and damage to
property constitute a COMPLEX
CRIME.

- PLURALITY OF CRIMES – consists in the successive execution by the SAME INDIVIDUAL of different criminal acts upon
any of which NO CONVICTION has yet been declared.
- 2 KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES:
FORMAL OR IDEAL PLURALITY REAL OR MATERIAL PLURAL
 There is but one criminal liability in this kind of There are different crimes in law as wel
plurality. conscience of the offender.  The offende
punished for each and every offense
committed.
Ex.  A stabbed B with a knife.  Then
stabbed C. – 2 crimes committed
performed

 
- PLURALITY OF CRIMES vs RECIDIVISM:
PLURALITY OF CRIMES RECIDIVISM
There is NO CONVICTION of any of the crimes There must be CONVICTION by FINAL
committed. JUDGMENT of the first or prior offense.

- PLURAL CRIMES OF THE FORMAL OR IDEAL TYPE ARE DIVIDED INTO 3 GROUPS A person committing multiple
crimes is punished with ONE PENALTY in the following cases:
1) COMPLEX CRIME
- When the offender commits any of the complex crimes defined in Article 48 of the Code
2) SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
- When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed
3) CONTINUED
- Delito continuado
- When the offender commits continued crimes
➢ CONTINUED CRIME – is a SINGLE crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. 
➢ A CONTINUING OFFENSE is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an
unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. Although there is series of acts, THERE IS ONLY ONE CRIME
COMMITTED. Hence, ONE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED.
➢ INTERMITTENT – occurring at regular intervals; not continuous or steady
- Requisites:
1) Plurality of acts during a period of time
2) Unity of penal provisions violated
3) Unity of criminal purpose or intent
- Takes over time and place
- Not a complex crime, the offender in a continued crime does not perform a single act, but series of acts, and one offense is not a
necessary means for committing the other.
- The penalty is not imposed in its maximum
- No specialized or definition for the penalty in continuing crime
- Example:
1) A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for his personal use several amounts collected by him from different persons.
There is here ONE CRIME only, because the different and successive
appropriations are but the different moments during which one criminal
resolution arises and a single defraudation develops.
2) A thief who takes from the yard of a house 2 game roosters belonging to 2 different persons commits only ONE CRIME, for the
reason that there is a UNITY OF THOUGHT in the criminal purpose of the offender.
CONTINUED CRIME CONTINOUING CRIME
the offender performs a series of acts violating one for crim pro.
and the same penal provision committed at the Also known moving crime/transitory crime
same place and about the same time for the same
criminal purpose, regardless of a series of acts
done, it is regarded in law as one

Essence of foreknowledge principle- If from the CONTINOUING CRIME- the criminal action
start of commiting the crime there is a certatnty on may be instituted and tried in the court of the
the part of criminal that he can do it again with municipality, city or province wherein any of the
regularity unless caught essential ingredients thereof took place in their
territorial jurisdiction.
Different jurisdiction of instituting criminal
action
 NO SERIES OF ACTS for the accomplishment of different purposes,
but only of ONE PURPOSE which is consummated, and which DETERMINES
the EXISTENCE OF ONLY ONE CRIME
- Continued crime vs a Continuing crime

 
- REAL OR MATERIAL PLURALITY vs CONTINUED CRIME
CONTINUED CRIME REAL OR MATERIAL PLURALITY

There is a series of acts performed by the offender.

The DIFFERENT ACTS constitute only ONE EACH ACT performed by the offender
CRIME because all of the acts performed arise constitutes a SEPARATE CRIME because each
from one criminal resolution. act is generated by a criminal impulse

- There is NO COMPLEX CRIME of REBELLION with murder, arson, robbery or other common crimes.
- Article 48 is intended to favor the culprit.
· In directing that the penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other
purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately.
· When 2 or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is DEEMED LESS PERVERSE than when he commits said
crimes through separate and distinct acts.
- 35. People vs. Canlas, G.R. No. 141633, 14 December 2001.
➢ 
- 36. People vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199892, 10 December 2012.
➢ At least 2 related action is considered single actus reus. In the case at bar, accelerator plus swerving the steering wheel.
➢ Held: double murder with attemte murder
➢ Exception: Use of machine gun is not considered as single act. There are as many crimes as there are victims.
- 37. People vs. Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002.
➢ Killing of pregnant wife and the death of the fetus
➢ Held: complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion
- 38. Santiago vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, 02 December 1993.
➢ Miriam Santiago in her capacity as Imigration signed all 32 cases of legalizing Filipino citizenship of foreign nationals on the
same day who must not be legalized
➢ The concept of the continued crime originated in the Single larceny doctrine
➢ SINGLE LARCENY DOCTRINE taking of different items of property belonging to either the same or different owners at the same
time and place constitutes one act of larceny
➢ Rape or  killing is not considered as in larceny
➢ Foreknowledge principle continued crime of knowing certainty of its success:
- Requisites:
1) Series (plurality) of acts
2) One criminal resolution Ilagan
3) Unity of penl provision violated
4) During a period of time Ilagan
- 39. Ilagan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110617, 29 December 1994.
➢ There should be 8 counts of estafa: 1 estafa of abuse of trust and confidence to their principal and 7 estafa from the customers
because even they have on criminal resolution of gaining from estafa the plurality of their acts on a period of months abusing
different parties where its success is of no certainty (foreknowledge)
➢ 
- 40. Navaja vs. De Castro, G.R. No. 180969, 11 September 2017.
➢ 
- 41. People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, 11 September 2012.
➢ Jail house (there is conspiracy + Prison) exeption to Art 48. The complexing of crimes that do not fall either under Art 48 or
Lawas case (no conspiracy + indeterminable individual liability) exception.
➢ Where several cases on the same occasions were perpetrated but not involving prisoners a different ruling will apply.
➢ Fraternity wars (conspiracy + the actual war of killing) is not considered complex crime. If there is conspiracy in fraternity the
responsibility is collective thus cannot be complexed
➢ If there is a conspiracy Lawas case will not be considered. Thus liable, not of complex crimes, but of two counts of murder.
- 42. Samson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-10364 & L-10376, 31 March 1958.
➢ Checks encashed by false claimants guaranteed by Samson
➢ Held: failure of being prudent as what is expected of his rank (Lt) had cooperated in the comples crime of estafa through
falsification by gross negligence
- 43. Fernan vs. People, G.R. No. 145927, 24 August 2007.
➢ Complex crime of falsification and malversation. Falsify, then got money, then malverse- Falsification is the necessary means of
commiting malversation because the offender had to falsify a public document to obtain possession of the funds whish he
misappropriated. While money at hand, then malveration, then falsify- is a falsification to conceal malversation.
- 44. People vs. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, 11 April 2012.
➢ 
 
 
 
d. Stages of Execution of Felonies
- RPC, Art. 6.
- REYES, pp. 95-123.
- 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 or 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.
Stages of execution of felonies
CONSUMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
3rd stage 2nd stage 1st stage
2st par, 1st sentence 2st par 2nd sentence Last par
Objective phase; the Subjective phase has been done Never pases the subjective phase. From
crime is ( the acts of the offender overt acts to persue crime until he is
consummated, reached the objective phase) but prevented, gainst his will, by some outside
following the FELONY IS NOT cause from performing all the acts which
subjective phase, the PRODUCED would produce the offense
last of the elements
of the FELONY
MEETS TO
CONCUR
when all the when the offender performs all when the offender commences the
elements necessary the acts of execution which commission of a felony directly by overt
for its execution and would produce the felony as a acts , and does not perform all the acts of
accomplishment are consequence but which, execution which should produce the felony
present nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of some cause or accident OTHER
by reason of causes than his own spontaneous desistance.
independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
· If the crime is not produced Excemption: when he is stoped by his OWN
because of the timely desistance BEFORE he executed all the acts
intervention of a third person, it of execution (may be through fear or
is frustrated. remorse)
· If the crime is not produced Exeption to the exception: when he already
due to the perpetrators consummated some of the overt acts before
DEPENDENT WILL brought he stoped by own spontaneous desistance
his victim to the hospital, (thus
he will be liable for serious
physical injuries)
 ELEMENTS OF ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY:
FRUSTRATED FELONY: 1) The offender commences the commission
1) The offender performs all the of the felony directly by overt acts;
acts of execution; a) That there must be external acts (related
2) All the acts performed would to overt acts); and
produce the felony as a b) Such external acts have direct connection
consequence; with the crime intended to be committed,
3) But the felony is not therefore they must have an immediate and
produced; necessary relation to the offense.
4) By reason of causes 2) He does not perform all the acts of
independent of the will of the execution which should produce the felony;
perpetrator. (the said reason are 3) The offender’s act is not stopped by his
those of timely intervention of own spontaneous desistance (some cause
foreign, extraneous cause or apart from his own voluntary desistance);
agency or third person between 4) The non-performance of all acts of
the beginning of the execution was due to cause or accident other
consummation of the crime and than his own spontaneous desistance
the moment when all the acts (the said desistance should be before the all
have been performed which the acts of execution are performed).
should result in the
consummated crime)

Ex: he inflicted mortal wound Must not inflict a mortal wound

but the crime is not produced
due to good medical
interventions
Material act of execution that would
constitute an attempt is when: (a) overt act
immediate and necessary connection (b)
Physical act indicating intention carried to
its own termination following the natural
force  would logically and necessarily  ripen
to a complete offense

- DEVELOPMENT OF CRIME:
1. Internal acts
such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime.
(In between internal and external:
- Direct overt act
- Indicative of intent
o The only intent court decisions can attribute to an accused would be the intent discernible from the overt acts.
o Cannot be guessed.
- Direct connection between overt act and felony
- Logical termination
- Have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense
- Logically and naturally will ripen to a complete offense)
➢ OVERT ACT – is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning
or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. 
2. External acts
a) Preparatory Acts – ordinarily they are not punishable (see Art 8)
b) Acts of Execution – they are punishable under the RPC (stages of execution attempted, frustrated, consummated)
 
➢ INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – it is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain.
➢ SUBJECTIVE PHASE OF THE OFFENSE – it is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the
offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts, including their (acts) natural
course. (This is the part where the criminal will still have control of his acts)
➢ OBJECTIVE PHASE OF THE OFFENSE –
- A mind able to cause a particular injury (intention) must be ascertained from facts
- Court decisions cannot be based on confessions, it has to be decided in the overt acts
- When there is conspiracy, the rule is – the act of one is the act of all.
- Frustrated felony vs impossible crime
 Frustrated felony Impossible crime

Evil intent of the offender is possible of The evil intent of the offender cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
What prevented its accomplishment is the Because it is inherently impossible of
intervention of certain cause or accident in which accomplishment or
the offender has no part Because the means employed by the offender is
inadequate or inefectual
Therefore, There can be no crime of attempted or frustrated impossible crime

- Attempted felony vs impossible crime

attempted felony Impossible crime
2 degrees lower of the consummated crime. (see in Regardless of the crime intended to be
relation of the penalty of the consummated crime) accomplished he is only penalized of Art 59

“the accused is liable of attempted crime of…” “the accused is liable for an impossible crime.”
There are material acts of execution:  it has an There can be no material acts of execution
immediate and necessary connection in the crime because it is inherently incapable of being
that is intended to commit and that naturally and executed
naturally and logically it can ripen into a concrete
offense
A matter of “when is the perpetrator may be Right from the outset the perpetrator can no
stoped longer even approach to commiting the intended
felony
The potential of consummation of the felony wil The potential of actually consumating the crime
start at 1 and will gradually grow until not caught is already 0 right from the start

- 
- HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CRIME IS ONLY ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED OR CONSUMATED: (What to
consider)
1) the nature of the offense
2) the elements constituting the felony
3) the manner of committing the same
- MANNER OF COMMITTING A CRIME:
1) FORMAL CRIMES – consummated in one instant,
➢ no attempt /frustrated
➢ Ex. slander and false testimony
➢ These are consummated in one instant, by a single act.
➢ As a rule, there can be no attempt at a formal crime, because between the thought and the deed there is no chain of acts that can be
served in any link.
➢ No frustrated stage
➢ Theft or rape. from attempt next is consummated.
2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act.
➢ Ex Flight to enemy’s country (Art 121) and corruption to minors (Art 340)
➢ There is no attempted crime of treason because the overt act in itself consummates the crime.
3) Felony by omission
➢ There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because in this kind of felony the offender does not execute acts.
He omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do.
4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement.
➢ Ex. betting in sport contests or bribery are crimes that require the intervention of two persons to commit them, the same are
consummated by mere agreement. The offer made by one of the parties to the other constitutes attempted felony if the offer is
rejected.
➢ There is no frustrated bribery (corruption of public officers) exept in the case of People v diego Quinn where the public officer
returned the money. The crime here is frustrated bribery.
5) Material crimes – there are three stages of execution (attempted, frustrated and consummated)
- Not consummated in one instant or by a single act
- Note: there is of crime of frustrated rape, physical injuries, theft
 
- RPC, Art. 7.
- REYES, pp. 1234-125
- 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 for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding PHP 40,000, or both, is provided. (Art 9, Par 3)
- LIGHT FELONIES PUNISHABLE BY RPC:
· Slight physical injuries (Art 266);
· Theft (Art 309, Par 7 & 8);
· alteration of boundary marks(Art 313);
· malicious mischief(Art 328, Par 3; Art 329, Par 3);
· intriguing against honor(Art 364)
- reason for the GR, light felonies sproduce 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 consumted, the wron done is so slight thst there is no
need of providing a penalty at all.
- 45. People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, 24 January 2003.
➢ 
- 46. People vs. Gajetas, G.R. No. L-38325, 24 February 1981.
➢ 
- 47. Rait vs. People, G.R. No. 180425, 31 July 2008.
➢ 
46