What is the doctrine of pro reo?

How does it relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal

Code? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to
be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender, consonant to
and consistent with the constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be
presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Following the pro reo doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are
complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e that prescribed for the most
serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that
the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates
lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several
criminal resolutions. (People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384 [2004}. However, Art. 48
shall be applied only when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser
than the penalties imposable for all the component crimes if prosecuted separately
instead of being complexed.

Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae. (1994 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person
against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended
victim. Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was
directed at the person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio
ictus brings about at least two (2) felonious consequence. i.e the attempted felony on
the intended victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was
hit. A complex crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In error in
personae only one crime is committed.

State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:

1. GENERALITY — That the law is binding upon all persons who reside to
sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal
cricumtances.

2. TERRITORIALITY - That the law is applicable to all crimes committed with

in the limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere interiors waters
and maritime zone (Art. 2).
3. PROSPECTIVITY — that the law does not have any retroactive effect,
except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the
law otherwise provides.

Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the following exception:
“Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application”

Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder (2015)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act
was committed. It is a Latin phrase which means “from something done
afterwards.” It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
than when it was committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater penalty than the law governing the crime when committed. A bill of
attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a named individual or a group of
individuals without judicial trial.

Ex post facto law pertains to the act while a bill of attainder pertains to a named
individual or to members of a group.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (2012 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws
are the following:
1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a
retroactive effect.
2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide
punishment without judicial process.
3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment.
4. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.

Art 3-dolo and culpa

Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished from crimes mala insets follows, to wit:
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are
punished only because there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus
good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.

In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally
condemned. The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of
criminal intent on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the
result of criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying circumstances are
considered in punishing the offender.

When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established?

Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

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

Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to the identity of the
offender or when the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is the
need to determine the proper crime to be imputed to the offender.

It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or

the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes.

May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Explain.

A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases:

1. Offense, punishable as mala
prohibita; and
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.

Motive is essential in the determination of the commission of a crime and the

liabilities of the perpetrators. What are the instances where proof of motive is
not essential or required to justify conviction of an accused? Give at least 3
instances. 5%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Proof of motive is not required –

a. Where the offender is positively identified or

b. has admitted the commission of the crime (People v. Yurong, 133
SCRA 26 (1984] citing People v. Realon, et. al., 94 SCRA 422 [1980]);
c. Where the crime committed is a malum prohibitum; or
d. Where the crime is the product of culpa or criminal negligence.

Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (2004, 1996 Bar Question)
Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to achieve the desired result;
while motive is the moving power which impels a person to act for a definite
result. Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate
felonies; while motive is not an element of a crime but only considered when the
identity of the offender is in doubt.

ARTICLE 4-criminal liability and impossible crime

Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000)

A. What is an impossible crime? (2%)

(2000 Bar Question)

B. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against

person or property, were if not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).

B. No. An impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called

because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is
committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency or
propensity although no crime was committed.

Art 6