Crim

September 6, 2018

Article 6?

A wanted to kill B. A stood in front of B's room and, with an

armalite, rained bullets towards the room. B was then not in the room
but elsewhere. Is A liable?
Yes. A is liable for impossible crime under Article 4(2).

What if B was actually in the room hiding behind a foundation post.

She wasn't hit by any of the bullets bullet. Is A still liable?
Yes. A is liable for attempted homicide applying Article 6. All the
elements of an attempted felony are present and A had the intent to
kill B.

What if besides B, C was also in the room and A did not know about it.
And because C was behind the wooden door, he was hit in different
parts of the body and died. What is A's liability?
A is liable for the complex crime of homicide and attempted homicide.
Articles 4 (1), 6(3), and 48 are applicable in determining A's
liability.
Article 4(1): A committed an intentional felony and the death of C is
the direct result of A trying to kill B, the proximate cause.
Article 6(3): There is an attempt because all the elements of
attempted felony are present.
Article 48: Finally, because A committed two grave felonies in a
single act, or abberatio ictus, he is liable for a complex crime to
which the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period.

Why is A not liable for negligence when he accidentally killed C?

No. Article 3 provides for the manners of committing a felony: by dolo
or by culpa. In order to be liable for a culpable felony, the
requisites are intelligence, freedom and imprudence or negligence. In
criminal negligence, the injury caused should be unintentional or
without malice. Since A performed the act with deliberate intent to
kill, A committed the felony by dolo, not by culpa.
Note: People v. Guillen

A, who wanted to burn San Beda down, told this to his close friend B.
B then went to the police and reported A's criminal intent. The police
found A after he has bought a gallon of gasoline in the school store.
The police apprehended A. Can A be criminally liable?
No. Because A's act of buying gasoline is just a preparatory act not
punishable by law. Even if A intended to commit arson, there is no
attempted arson in accordance with Article 6(3) because A did not
perform any overt act. An overt or external act is a physical activity
or deed indicating the intention to commit a particular crime. It is
more than mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
complete termination following its natural course, not being
frustrated by any external obstacle or the spontaneous desistance of
the perpetrator, would logically and necessarily ripen into an
offense.

A, intending to rob San Beda, purchased a picklock. A told B of this

fact which B reported to the police. A went home where he was
apprehended by the police. Is A liable for attempted robbery?
No. Because mere possession of picklock is only a preparatory act to
the crime of robbery. In order to commit attempted robbery, overt acts
indicating the intention to commit robbery must be performed. However,
the RPC defines possession of picklocks as a different felony, and
theredore, A is still punishable.

A, with abhorrent malicious mind, imagined raping B in the worst

possible way. He envisioned it completely in his mind. Is A liable?
No. However malicious a criminal intent may be, if it remains unacted
upon and only in the realm of the mind, the same cannot be within the
jurisdiction of law. Article 3(1) states that acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies. When the law prohibit the performance
of an act, it can only be violated through acts causing a change to
the external world.

Is there a frustrated arson?

Yes. In the case of US v. Valdez, the Court ruled and found the
accused liable of frustrated arson. In this case, the offender placed
rags and sacks soaked in gasoline near the partition of the entrance
to the house, which could have burned had the fire not been put out.
All the acts of execution has been committed - there was already a
fire and the offender was only waiting for it to spread, but no part
of the house had yet burned.
note: Eventhough the case is old and other laws have evolved to
exclude frustrated stages for other crimes, the case of US v. Valdez
is still the prevailing jurisprudence for arson.

What are the elements of a frustrated felony?

1. The offender performs all the acts of execution
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence
3. But the felony is not produced
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

Is there frustrated robbery?

No. Similar to theft, robbery has no frustrated stage because the mere
act of taking, consumates the felony.

Valenzuela v. People
- Petition to lower the crime from consummated theft to frustrated
theft only
- Hauled Tide products from an SM supermarket store
- Stopped by the security guard when the taxi they boarded was leaving
the parking space
- Fleed when asked for receipt and was later apprehended
- RTC convicted them of theft, CA affirmed
- Argued frustrated theft only on the ground of the DiÒo/Flores case
where the CA rendered a conviction of frustrated theft and the element
of "ability of the thief to dispose freely the articles stolen" was
added in the crime
- SC ruled that this new element was not under the law (legislature)
but only a product of statutory interpretation (judicial)
- Theft (and robbery) is consummated by unlawful taking, which does
not require the ability to dispose freely the taken property
- Conviction affirmed
Note: The SC, in defining unlawful taking in Valenzuela,
unintentionally added the element that there be value in the property
taken. That is why when it was applied to the case of Jacinto, the
theft of the unfunded check was only convicted of impossible crime.
Note: In the case of Intod, the SC correctly applied impossible crime.
Because there was nothing provided as to the information charged. If
the question was directed to the prosecution, the proper crime to be
charged would have been malicious mischief.

How do we determine if a felony has 3 stages?

By identifying the manner of committing, the elements necessary and
the nature of the felony.

What is the penalty for impossible crimes?

Arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. (Article 59)

Penalty for light felonies?

Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos or both. (Article 9
as amended by RA 10951)

A went inside the house of B and pointed a gun towards B, who was then
standing 5 meters away from A. A demanded B to pass him the phone in
B's hand. B obliged and skidded the phone on the floor tiles which
stopped exactly just before A's feet. Just before A could reach down
and pick up the phone, police arrived and A was apprehended. Is A
liable?
Yes. A is liable for the consummated crime of theft because in
accordance with Article 6, all the elements necessary for the
execution and accomplishment of the felony are present. Despite the
fact that A was yet to touch or hold the phone, it was already
considered within the control of A. Constructive taking is therefore
present.

People v. Salvilla
- Petition for the RTC decision convicting the 4 accused of robbery
with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention
- The 4 accused, all armed, staged a robbery in a lumber yard where
the owner, Choco, and his two daughters were present
- They demanded money. Choco put 20,000 pesos in a paper bag and
handed it them. Wallets and wristwatches were also taken.
- Afterwards, they detained the victims. Police later came and
negotiated with them, to no avail. The police launched an assault and
apprehended the 4. The victims were injured in the crossfire.
- Issue: Whether there was "taking" even if the accused only touched
the paper bag and not the money inside
- Taking includes constructive taking - when the offender has taken
control over the personal property of another and has effectively
deprived him of it without his consent, there is already unlawful
taking
- The "ability to dispose the property taken" element was again
rejected
- Conviction affirmed
Note: There is still no decision which tackles the merits whether
there is frustrated robbery or not, although the law itself mentions a
frustrated robbery.

A placed rags near the foundation of a building and poured gasoline.

While in the act of lighting a match, B was able to stop A. What is
A's liability?
A is liable for attempted arson. Article 6(3), all the elements of
attempted felony present. A fire was not yet started, thus all the
acts of execution are not yet performed, while there are already overt
acts such as the pouring of gasoline and taking out a match.

What if A was able to light a fire and it burned a thumb size portion
of the building, what is the crime committed?
Consummated arson because no matter how small the portion of the
property is destroyed, all the elements for the felony would already
be present, in accordance with Article 6(2).

What if A burned the furniture inside the building?

Still consummated arson. Because arson is committed by the burning of
the property of another. (as amended by special law)

A hacked B with a bolo but the blow was blocked by a chair. A was
unharmed. The crime of murder was committed in what stage?
Attempted stage. In accordance with Article 6, all the elements of an
attempted felony are present: (1) hacking with the bolo, (2) B did not
die, (3) there was no desistance of ay kind, and (4) A failed to kill
B because of the chair.

When is there attempted homicide or murder?

- When there is:
1. Overt acts to the felony
2. Intent to kill
3. If there be any injuries, it is only slight physical injuries (not
required)
Give an instance when there is an attempted homicide and the victim
was unharmed.
A, with the intent to kill B, fired shots towards B while running
after him. B was able to evade all the bullets.
All the elements of attempted felony are present in accordance with
Article 6(3).

When there is no intent to kill, and a mortal wound was caused that
did not result to death. Crime?
Serious physical injuries

Article 7?

Is there frustrated rape?

No. Becuase the manner of how the crime of rape is produced
constitutes the single act penetration. And penetration, no matter how
slight, consummates rape.

Case of Lamahang? *see previous notes

What is indeterminate offense?

It is where the overt acts of the offender pertain not only to one
specific offense but to different various offenses. The relation of
the acts to the offense is therefore ambiguous, and the intent of the
offender uncertain.

What is the subjective phase?

It is when the offender still has control over the outcome of his
actions. It constitutes the acts between the commencement of the
commission of the crime and the last act of execution. During this
stage, if the offender is stopped other than his own spontaneous
desistance, there is an attempt.

What is the objective phase?

It is when the offender has no longer control over the outcome of his
actions. It commences once the last act of execution has been
performed. During this stage, there can be frustrated or consummated
felonies.

Article 8?

What are the light felonies against persons or property?

STAMO
1. Slight physical injuries
2. Theft
3. Alteration of boundary marks
4. Malicious mischief
5. Other deceits
What are the two kinds of conspiracy and two concepts of conspiracy?
Kinds:
1. Conspiracy by prior agreement
2. Implied conspiracy
Concept:
1. Conspiracy as a felony
2. Conspiracy as a basis of criminal liability

A and B conspired to kill C. While the two were planning, D heard A

and B. Is there conspiracy?
Yes. Under Article 8, there is conspiracy when:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a crime
2. They decide to commit it
3. The overt acts of the conspirators, although independent of each
other, shows a common criminal design
There is conspiracy to kill A, however it is not punishable since the
law does not provide a penalty for it.

What are the punishable conspiracies under RPC?

TRICSM
Treason
Rebellion
Insurrection
Coup d'Ètat
Sedition
Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade

A proposed to B to commit rebellion. But because B studied the law and

knew that a conspiracy to commit rebelllion is punishable, B refused.
Is B liable?
No. B cannot be liable. There was no meeting of the minds or an
agreement arrived into in order for B to be liable for conspiracy.
How about A?
A is liable for proposal to commit rebellion to which the law
specially provides a penalty. Article 8(3)

What if A and B agreed and later on committed rebellion. Are they

liable for conspiracy?
No. Although all the elements of conspiracy are present and the same
is specially punsihable by law, the conspiracy here is now absorbed by
the crime of rebellion and becomes a basis for criminal liability.

What are the punishable proposals under RPC?

TRIC

What is Article 9?

_woot_