2012C R I M I N A L L A W 1 (REVIEWER)thPrimary Ref: The RPC 8 Edition by Luis B. ReyesAct. No. 3815 – An Act Revising the PenalCode and Other Penal Laws(December 8, 1930)Criminal Law – branch or division of law whichdefines crimes, treats of their nature, andprovides for their punishment.Limitation on the power of the lawmakingbody to enact penal legislation under 1987Constitution:1. No Ex Post Facto Law or Bill ofAttainder shall be enacted (Art.III,Sec.22)2. No person shall be held to answer for acriminal offense without due process oflaw (Art. III, Sec. 14[1])3. No to infliction of cruel punishmentsEx Post Facto Law is one which: Makes criminal an act done before thepassage of the law Aggravates a crime, or makes it greaterthan it was Changes the punishment and inflicts agreater punishment Alters legal rules of evidence, andauthorizes conviction upon less ordifferent testimony than the law required Assumes to regulate civil rights andremedies only Deprives a person accused of crimesome lawful protection to which he hasbecome entitledBill of Attainder – is a legislative act whichinflicts punishment without trial. Its essence isthe substitution of a legislative act for a judicialdetermination of guilt.Construction of Penal Laws Liberally in favor of the accused Strictly against the State Doctrine of Equipoise – when theevidence of the prosecution and of thedefense is equally balanced, the scaleshould be tilted in favor of the accusedin obedience to the constitutionalpresumption of innocence. “void-for-vagueness” doctrine Doctrine of Pro Reo – when acircumstance is susceptible to twointerpretations, one favorable to theaccused and the other against him, that ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWinterpretation favorable to him shallprevail“Where the inculpatory facts admit of s innocence and another with hisguilt, the evidence thus adduced fails tomeet the test of moral certainty and itbecomes the constitutional duty of the Courtto acquit the accused.” [People vs. Sayana,405 SCRA 243 (2003)]Characteristics of Criminal (Penal) Laws1. Generality – means that the criminallaw of the country governs all personswithin the country regardless of theirrace, belief, sex, or creed.R.A. No. 75 - AN ACT TO PENALIZE ACTSWHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPEROBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC ANDINHABITANTS OF THE PHILIPPINES OFTHEIMMUNITIES,RIGHT,ANDPRIVILEGES OF DULY ACCREDITEDFOREIGN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULARAGENTS IN THE PHILIPPINESIt is well settled that a consul is notentitled to the privileges and immunitiesof an ambassador or minister, but issubject to the laws and regulations of thecountry to which he is accredited.Schneckenburger vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 250(1936)2. Territoriality – penal laws of thecountry have force and effect within itsterritory.3. Prospectivity – penal laws only operateprospectively (moving forward); alsocalled irretrospectivity.Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — ThisCode shall take effect on the first day ofJanuary, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.Theories in Criminal Laws(1) Classical (or Juristic) Theory Basis of criminal liability is free will andthe purpose of penalty is retribution Man is essentially a moral creature withabsolute free will to choose betweengood and evil, thereby placing moreNotes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE 1

2012 C R I M I N A L L A W 1 (REVIEWER)stress upon the effect or result offelonious act than upon the man, thecriminal himselfIt has endeavored to establish amechanical and direct proportionbetween crime and penalty (“oculo prooculo, dente pro dente”)There is scant regard to the humanelement.(2) Positivist (or Realistic) Theory Man is subdued occasionally by astrange and morbid phenomenon whichconstrains him to do wrong, inspite ofcontrary to his volition Crime is essentially a social and naturalphenomenon(3) Eclectic (or Mixed) Theory Philosophy is based on the combinationof Classical and Positivist Theory The Revised Penal Code today followsthis theory or philosophyRules on Repeal of Penal LawsAs a general rule, penal laws will generallyhave prospective application except wherethe new law will be advantageous to theaccused. In this case R.A. 8294 will spareaccused-appellantfromaseparateconviction for the crime of illegal possessionof firearm. Accordingly, said law should begiven retroactive application. [People vs.Avecilla, G.R. No. 117033, February 15, 2001].Art. 2. Application of its provisions. —Except as provided in the treaties and lawsof preferential application, the provisions ofthis Code shall be enforced not only withinthe Philippine Archipelago, including itsatmosphere, its interior waters and maritimezone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,against those who:1. Should commit an offense while on aPhilippine ship or airship2. Should forge or counterfeit any coinor currency note of the PhilippineIslands or obligations and securitiesissued by the Government of thePhilippine Islands;3. Should be liable for acts connectedwith the introduction into these ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWislands of the obligations andsecurities mentioned in the presidingnumber;4. While being public officers oremployees,shouldcommitanoffense in the exercise of theirfunctions; or5. Should commit any of the crimesagainst national security and the lawof nations, defined in Title One ofBook Two of this Code.The Philippine court has no jurisdiction on thecrime of theft committed on high seas on boarda vessel not registered or licensed in thePhilippines. (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)Crimes punishable in the Philippines underArticle 2 are cognizable by the Regional TrialCourt in which the charge is filed. (Sec.44[g],Judiciary Act of 1948, R.A. No.296)EXCEPTIONS OF APPLICATION (RPC) Treaties Laws of preferential applicationo RP-US Visiting Forces Accordo Military Bases Agreemento Diplomatic Immunity (R.A.75) Public International LawContinuing offense on board a foreign vessel.Failing to provide stalls for animals in transit iswithin the jurisdiction of Philippine courts once itreached the territorial waters (violation of ActNo. 55) even if when the ship sailed from foreignport. (U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil.7)Rules as to the jurisdiction over crimescommitted board foreign merchant vessels.French Rule – such crimes are not triable in thecourts of the country, unless their commissionaffects the peace and security of the territory orthe safety of the state is endangered.English Rule – such crimes are triable in thatcountry, unless they merely affect things withinthe vessel or they refer to the internalmanagement thereof.In the Philippines, we observe the EnglishRule.Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE 2

2012C R I M I N A L L A W 1 (REVIEWER)Crimes not involving breach of public ordercommitted on board a foreign merchantvessel in transit not triable by our courts.Mere possession of opium in a foreignmerchant vessel in transit not triable in thePhilippines.Possessionvessel notPhilippineslaws. (U.S.578)of opium in a foreign merchantin transit (terminal port) in theis an open violation of Philippinevs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573, 577-Smoking of opium aboard English vessel whileanchored 2 ½ miles in Manila Bay constitutes abreach of public order. (People vs. WongCheng, 46 Phil. 729,733)Philippine courts have no jurisdiction overoffenses committed on foreign warships interritorial waters.Distinction should be made between a merchantship and a warship. The former is subjected toterritorial laws.Title OneFELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCESWHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITYChapter OneFELONIESElements of felonies in general are:1. That there must be an act or omission,2. That the act or omission must bepunishable by the Revised Penal Code,3. That the act performed or the omissionincurred by means of dolo or culpa.Act – any bodily movement tending to producesome effect in the external world, it beingunnecessary that the same be actuallyproduced, as the possibility of production issufficient.Omission – or inaction, refers to failure toperform a positive duty which one is bound todo. There must be a law requiring the doing orperformance of an act.nullum crimen, nulla poene sine lege – nocrime when there is no law punishing it.Classification of felonies:1. Intentional felonies – committed bymeans of dolo or with malice. There isdeliberate intent and must be voluntary.2. Culpable felonies – performed withoutmalice or intent to cause evil.Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissionspunishable by law are felonies (delitos).Felonies are committed not only be means ofdeceit (dolo) but also by means of fault(culpa).There is deceit when the act is performedwith deliberate intent and there is fault whenthe wrongful act results from imprudence,negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.virtuallaw libraryFelony - acts and omissions punishable by theRevised Penal Code.Felony violation of Revised Penal CodeOffense violation of Special LawsCrime violation of ordinary/public law(in some books, “infraction”) ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWImprudenceDeficiency of actionLack of skillLack of precautionNegligenceDeficiency of perceptionLack of foresightFailure to apply diligenceA criminal act is presumed to be voluntary.Acts executed negligently are voluntary.Reasons:1. Revised Penal Code is based onClassical Theory (basis of criminalliability is human free will).2. Act or omissions punished by law arealways voluntary, since man is a rationalbeing.3. Felonies by dolo must necessarily bevoluntary; in felonies by culpa,imprudence consists in voluntarily butwithout malice, resulting to materialinjury.Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE 3

2012C R I M I N A L L A W 1 (REVIEWER)Requisites of dolo or malice: FREEDOM INTELLIGENCE INTENTIntent presupposes the exercise of freedom anduse of intelligence. One who acts without freedom has no intent. One who acts without intelligence has nointent. One who acts with freedom and intelligence,but without intent, he is not criminally liable.Existence of intent is shown by overt acts of aperson.Intent, being a mental act, is difficult to prove. Itcan only be deduced from external actsperformed by a person.Criminal intent is presumedcommission of an unlawful act.fromtheCriminal intent and will to commit a crime arealways presumed to exist unless the contraryshall appear. (U.S. vs. Apostol, 14 Phil. 92, 93)But the presumption of criminal intent does notarise from the proof of the commission of an actwhich is not unlawful.actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea –a crime is not committed if the mind of theperson performing to act complained beinnocent.mala in seInherently immoral andwrongful in natureGenerally refers toRevised Penal Codemala prohibitaWrong because ofprohibition by lawGenerally refers tocriminal Special LawsMISTAKE OF FACTignorantia legis non excusat – ignorance ofthe law excuses no one from compliancetherewith. (Art. 3, New Civil Code)ignorantia facti excusat – ignorance or mistakeof fact relieves the accused from criminalliability. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWRequisites of mistake of fact as a defense:1. The act done would have been lawfulhad the facts been as the accusedbelieved them to be;2. The intention of the accused inperforming the act should be lawful;3. The mistake must be without fault orcarelessness on the part of the accused.Ah Chong case and Oanis case distinguished.In Ah Chong case (U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil.488) there is an innocent mistake of fact withoutany fault or carelessness on the part of theaccused.In the Oanis case (People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil.257), the accused found no circumstanceswhatever which would press them to immediateaction.Dolo is not required in crimes punished byspecial laws.Intent to commit the crime there must becriminal intentIntent to perpetrate the crime it is enoughthat prohibited act is done freely and consciouslyIn those crimes punished by special laws, theact alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutesthe offense.Good faith and absence of criminal intent notvalid as defenses in crimes punished by speciallaws.Motive – the moving power which impels one toaction for definite result.Motive is not an essential of a crime, and neednot be proved for purposes of conviction.(People vs. Aposaga, 108 SCRA 574, 595)Motive is essential only when:- there is doubt in the identity of theassailant (People vs. Gadiana, G.R. No.92509, March 13, 1991, 195 SCRA 211,214-215)- in ascertaining the truth between twoantagonistic theories or version of killing(People vs. Boholst-Caballero, No. L23249, November 25, 1974, 61 SCRA180, 191)Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE 4

2012---C R I M I N A L L A W 1 (REVIEWER)the identification of the accused wasfrom unreliable source (People vs.Beltran, No. L-31860, November 29,1974, 61 SCRA 246, 254-255)there are no witnesses to the crime(People vs. Melgar, No. L-75268,January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 718, 725)evidence is merely circumstantial(People vs. Oquiño, No. L-37483, June24, 1983, 122 SCRA 797, 808)When motive is material (Atty.L.Macababbad)1. the act brings 2 or more crimes2. question of accidental or intentional3. need to determine the nature of crime4. claims for self-defense5. perpetrator not identified ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWpersons or property, were it notthe inherent impossibility ofaccomplishment or an account ofemploymentofinadequateineffectual means.foritstheorRequisites of Article 4(1): Intentional felony has been committed Wrong done to aggrieved partyo DIRECTo NATURALconsequenceo LOGICAL“el que causa de la causa es causa del malcausado”- he who is the cause of the cause isthe cause of the evil causedMotive is established by testimony of witnesseson the acts or statements of the accused beforeor immediately after the commission of theoffense. Such deeds or words may indicate themotive. (Barrioqu