Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

1

CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE

Part V: Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies

I. Principals

A. Distinguish Principals under Art. 17 RPC from co-conspirators under Art. 8 RPC.

B. Who are considered principals? (Art. 17 RPC)


a. Principal By Direct Participation
1. Requisites
People v. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil 788
People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil 38

 Participation in the criminal resolution


 Carrying out the plan, personally taking part in its execution by acts
tending directly to the same end

Must a principal by direct participation be present at the scene of the


crime?
Gen. Rule: People v. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil 788
Exception: People v. Tibo-Tan, G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009

b. Principal By Inducement/Induction

1. Requisites
US v. Indanan, 24 Phil 203
People v. Otadora, 86 Phil 244

2. What matters are covered by the term “inducement”?


People v. Gensola, 29 SCRA 483

3. Ways of becoming a principal by Inducement

 By directly forcing another


i. Using Irresistible Force (cf. Art. 12[5] RPC)
ii. Causing Uncontrollable Fear (cf. Art. 12[6] RPC)

 By directly inducing another


iii. Price, Reward or Promise
People v. Lao, 1 SCRA 42; cf. Art. 14[11] RPC

iv. Command
U.S. v. Gamao, 23 Phil 81; People v. Omine, 61 Phil 609

v. Pacto or Agreement
2

cf Art. 8 RPC; People v. Asaad, 55 Phil 697

c. Principal By Indispensable Cooperation


1. Meaning of “cooperation”
People v. Aplegido, 76 Phil 571

2. Requisites

II. Accomplices

A. Who are considered accomplices? (Art.18 RPC)


1. Differentiate an Accomplice from a Principal
People v. Tampus, G.R.No. 181084, June 16, 2009
People v. Ubina, 97 Phil 515

2. Differentiate an Accomplice from a Co-Conspirator


People v. De Vera, G.R.No. 128966, August 18, 1999
People v. Manzano, 58 SCRA 250

3. Meaning of “cooperation”
People v. Aplegido, 76 Phil 571
People v. Lingad, 98 Phil 5

4. Requisites
People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil 38

III. Accessories

A. Who are considered accessories? (Art. 19 RPC)

1. Distinguish from Principals and Accomplices.


2. Requisites
People v. Verzola, 80 SCRA 600

3. Can an accessory be convicted despite acquittal of the principal?


U.S. v. Villaluz, 32 Phil 376
Vino v. People, 178 SCRA 626

4. Importance of having knowledge of the commission of the crime


U.S. v. Montano, 3 Phil 110

5. Types of Accessories after the fact:


a. Those who profit themselves or assist the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime
People v. Tanchoco, 76 Phil 463
3

US v. Empainado, 9 Phil 613


Art. 307 RPC

b. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or


instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery
US v. Leal, 1 Phil 118
People v. Verzola, 80 SCRA 600

c. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the


crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
guilty of some other crime.

*Two classes of accessories under Art.19(3) RPC:


i. Public Officers
Requisites

ii. Private Individuals


Requisites

*Compare/Contrast the two classes of accessories under Art.19(3) RPC.

6. Accessories exempt from Criminal Liability (Art. 20 RPC)


a. Rationale for the exemption
b. Rationale for the exception re: Art. 19(1) RPC

7. PD 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law


a. Distinguish Accessories under Art. 19 RPC from Fences under PD 1612

Part VI: PLURALITY OF CRIMES

I. Definition of Plurality of Crimes


II. Kinds of Plurality:

a. Real/Material Plurality
- Two or more crimes actually committed
- Distinct criminal intent for each crime
- Separate criminal liability for each and every crime committed

b. Formal/Ideal Plurality
- Two or more crimes actually committed
- One criminal intent
- One criminal Liability
4

Three classes of Plural Crimes of the Formal/Ideal type:


1. Complex Crimes (Art. 48 RPC)
a. Compound Crime
b. Complex Crime Proper
2. Special Complex Crimes
3. Continued Crimes

A. COMPLEX CRIMES (DELITO COMPLEJO)


1. Rationale

2. Purpose of Art. 48 RPC (People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515)

3. Application of Art. 48 RPC


People v. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil 475
People v. Abay, G.R.No.177752, February 24, 2009
People v. Paycana, G.R.No.179035, April 16, 2008

4. Is Art.48 RPC applicable to culpable felonies?

5. Two Types of Complex Crimes under Art. 48 RPC:


a. Compound Crime
i. Requisites

People v. Guillen, 85 Phil 307


US v. Montiel, 9 Phil 162
People v. Lopez, G.R.No. 136861, Nov.15, 2000

b. Complex Crime Proper


i. Requisites

People v. Barbas, 60 Phil 241


People v. Manguiat, 51 Phil 406
US v. Geta, 43 Phil 1009

B. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

1. Definition

2. Differentiate Art. 48 RPC Complex Crimes from Special Complex Crimes


People v. Lasala, 4 SCRA 61

3. Some examples of Special Complex Crimes:


Art. 294 RPC - People v. Gayeta, G.R.No.171654, December 17, 2008
Art. 267 RPC - People v. Reyes, G.R.No.178300, March 17, 2009
Art. 266-B - People v. Pascual, G.R.No.172326, January 19, 2009
5

C. CONTINUED CRIMES

1. Definition
2. Differentiate from Complex Crimes
3. “Single Intent” requirement

People v. De Loen, 49 Phil 437


People v. Dela Cruz, G.R.No. L-1745, May 23, 1950

Part V: EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

I. Total Extinction of Criminal Liability (Art. 89 RPC)


 Death of the convict
People v. Dumlao, G.R.No.168918, March 2, 2009
Republic v. Desierto, G.R. No. 131966, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 458, 469
 Service of Sentence
 Amnesty
 Absolute Pardon
 Prescription of Crimes (Art. 90, 91 RPC)
 Prescription of Penalties (Art. 92, 93 RPC)
 Marriage under Art. 266-B RPC

II. Effect on Civil Liability (Petralba v. Sandiganbayan, 200 SCRA 644)

III. Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability (Art. 94, RPC)


 Conditional Pardon (Art. 95 RPC)
 Commutation (Art. 96 RPC)
 Good Conduct Time Allowances (Art. 97, 98, 99 RPC)

Part VI: CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO

I. Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable


Art. 100 RPC
People v. Tampus, G.R.No.181084, June 16, 2009)

II. Obligation to satisfy civil liability (Art.113 RPC)

III. Civil liability includes (Art. 104 RPC; Art. 108 RPC)
A. Restitution (Art. 105 RPC)
B. Reparation of damage (Art. 106 RPC) and
C. Indemnification for consequential damages (Art. 107 RPC)

IV. Rules re: Civil Liability (Art. 101 RPC)


6

V. Subsidiary civil liability for innkeepers, tavern keepers, and proprietors (Art. 102 RPC), Other
persons (Art. 103 RPC),

VI. Persons who are not criminally liable but have participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony are bound to make restitution (Art. 111 RPC)

VII. Extinction of Criminal Liability (Art. 112 RPC)—in accordance with Civil Law (Art.1231,
Civil Code)

Part VII: PENALTIES

1. ‘Penalty’ defined.

2. Three-fold purpose of penalties under the RPC

3. Constitutional Limitations
People v. Dela Cruz, 92 Phil 906
People v. Dionisio, 22 SCRA 1299

4. When and how penalties are to be executed (Arts. 78, 86, 87, 88 RPC)

5. 5 Measures of Prevention/Safety that are not considered penalties (Art. 24, RPC)

6. Penalties that may be imposed


Art. 21 RPC;
US v. Avillar, 28 Phil 131
People v. Limaco, 88 Phil 35People v. Dela Cruz, 85 SCRA 285

7. Classification of Penalties—
a. according to subject matter
b. according to gravity (cf Art. 9 RPC)

8. Define and distinguish—


a. Divisible from Indivisible Penalties
Arts. 63, 64, 65 RPC
Manantan v. People, G.R. No. 156248, August 28, 2007
People v. Abare, G.R.No. 172973, December 18, 2008

b. Principal from Accessory Penalties

9. Penalties which may be imposed either as Principal or Accessory

10. Confiscation and Forfeiture of Proceeds/Instruments of the Crime (Art. 45, RPC)

11. Effects of Pardon


a. By the Offended Party
7

Art. 23 RPC; cf Art.266-C RPC


Laceste v. Santos, 56 Phil 472
People v. Miranda, 57 Phil 264

b. By the President (Art. 36 RPC)

12. Pecuniary Liabilities


a. Definition. What it includes:
i. Reparation for Damages
ii. Indemnification for consequential damages
iii. Fine
iv. Costs. (Art. 37 RPC)

b. Order of payment in case of insufficiency of the offender’s assets (Art. 38 RPC)


c. Preference of Payment of the civil liabilities (Art. 72 RPC)

PROBATION LAW

Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended


Sable v. People, G.R.No.177961, April 7, 2009