Criminal law review notes 2018

SESSION 1

Penal Laws- laws that provide penalties

PROBATION LAW: (di ka magsisilbi ng sentensiya sa kulungan)

● undergone amendments that are drastic and substantial

● persons disqualified (Sec 9):

1. Sentenced to maximum term of more than 6 years

2. Previously availed of probation

3. Previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more

than 6 mos. and 1 day and/or fine of 1,000.

○ so 6 mos and 1 day, pwede pa

4. Convicted of crimes against national security

5. Already serving sentence at time (not mentioned)

○ How to apply for probation

● In writing

○ To whom filed

● To court that renders judgment of conviction

○ When should it be filed

● Within reglementary period of perfecting an appeal (15 days)

● Rules:

● Filing of application of probation operates as a waiver on part of the accused to file an

appeal

○ Example: Motion to withdraw application for probation (admission of guilt) +

Motion to grant notice of appeal

■ Should grant motion to withdraw, but deny grant of appeal because

■ Filed out of time, judgment already attained finality

■ Under Rule 120, conviction becomes final:

■ Expiration of

■ Serves sentence

■ Files for probation (waiver of appeal) or waives in writing

right to appeal

○ Probation and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies

○ Ex: judgment of conviction promulgated jan 1 2017, imprisonment of 4 yrs

■ Feb 2 accused filed a notice of appeal

 ■ Before judge could approved or even if approved it on day filed

■ Feb 3, applied for probation

■ Application should be denied

■ This is the general rule

○ RA10707 amended PD 968

■ Provides exception found in:

■ Francisco v. CA

■ Lagrosa v. People

■ Culinares v. People*

■ Dimacuta v. CA

■ Ex:

■ 3 accused for frustrated homicide (XYZ)

■ Penalty max is more than 6 yrs- not probationable

■ X appealed (YZ final na, kulong)

■ CA modified decision, X guilty only of attempted homicide

■ Max penalty is no more than 6 yrs.

■ Sentenced 4yrs - probationable

■ Old law: probation not allowed because already appealed

■ New law: may still apply for probation, may be granted barring
other disqualifications under Sec. 9. (non-prob - appeal - modified
- prob - allowed)

■ If X appeals 4 yrs (dapat daw 2 yrs lang) - granted

■ X applied for probation in RTC- should be denied. Kasi nag

appeal na.

■ YZ should be benefited by the decision (since favorable;

exemption from finality of decision)

■ Fact that they did not appeal

■ May apply for probation

● Tandaan: Sections 4, 9, period of probation

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW:

● Why?

○ penalty imposed may be lower (within the range) than minimum prescribed by RPC

○ persons who served minimum sentence may be entitled to parole

● Disqualified:

1. Those convicted with death penalty or life imprisonment

○ N.B.: Reclusion Perpetua v. Life Imprisonment: synonymous? TRALSE

■ True: SC held for purposes of ISLAW, synonymous because persons

convicted by crime punishable by reclusion perpetua may not be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
 ■ While Reclusion Perpetua has a definite duration , it remains an
indivisible penalty

■ Fals:

○ RP is more severe than LI? TRALSE

RP LI

■ RPC and some SPL ■ SPL

■ Has a definite duration (20yrs and 1 ■ No definite duration

day to 30 yrs, extendible to 40)

■ Has accessory penalties ■ No accessory penalties

■ TRUE: RP has accessory penalties, LI has none.

■ FALSE: RP has definite duration. LI no definite duration.

2. Treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage or piracy

○ Penalty is RP

3. Habitual delinquents

4. Those who have escaped confinement or evaded sentence

5. Those who violated the conditional pardon

6. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one (1) year

7. Those already sentenced with final judgment at the time of the approval of the act

8. Sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension only (no prison term included)

TIP: look at maximum, not minimum penalty

SPL

● Straight penalty (no min, med, max)

● No next lower degree

RPC 89,90, 91, 92, 93, 94, complex crime

MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

● Total

○ Death

○ Service of sentence

○ Amnesty

○ Absolute Pardon

○ Prescription of crime

○ Prescription of penalty

○ Marrigiage of offended women in crimes of SARA

 ● Partial

○ Commutation

○ Conditional Pardon

○ Allowances for good behavior

DEATH

● Totally extinguishes criminal liability whether death before or after judgment of conviction
becomes final

○ NB: criminal liability includes FINE imposed by law.

● Insofar as civil liabilities are concerned - depends on nature of liability

○ Arose from delict

■ deemed extinguished if death of accused occurs before judgment final

■ X: civ liability from other sources of obligation

■ Ex. BP 22 - MTC convicted- imprisonment, fine , payment of loan

■ Civ liab.- payment of loan- not extinghuished- source is

contract.

■ If after death- estate liable

■ Ex: death before pd of appeal lapse

■ Hospital expenses- arose from crime

■ Civ and Crim both extinguished

PARDON

● Kinds

○ Absolute

○ Conditional

● Similarities

○ Both sole prerogative of Chief Executive

■ Remedy against Pres

■ Impeachment: culpable violation of the Constitution

○ When: final judgment

○ No pardon

■ Election offenses

■ Civil contempt cases

● Distinction:

○ Absolute ○ Conditional

○ Total extinguishment of criminal liability ○ Mode of partial extinguishment

 ○ may be given even in the absence of ○ must be accepted; may be rejected
acceptance of grantee

○ When released, can no longer be ○ Can be cancelled (if violated a

cancelled condition)

AMNESTY

● It is a law

● Congress approval

Amnesty Absolute Pardon

○ only political crimes ○ any crime, including political crimes

○ Looks sideways/backwards- ○ Looks forward- obliterates

obliterates crime consequences of crime

○ Public Act- may be taken judicial ○ Private act- must prove existence of
notice written order granting him of such
clemency

○ Even during investigation of pendency ○ After conviction by final judgment

of case

○ given to classes of persons

● What are the political crimes

○ Sedition

■ Depends: if may political objectives

○ Treason

○ …

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME

● state loses right to prosecute due to lapse of certain period of time

Exam: Study offenses with period of prescription:

20yrs and up

1 yr or less

-commence: date of discovery of crime by offended party or by authorities

-suspended: upon the institution of criminal action

NB: commencement of criminal action: filing of information

-JADEWELL case: exception

institution of criminal action: filing of complaint with prosecutor

 ● Ex: in 1990, C the housemaid, who was then 20 yrs old,witnessed husband stabbing to death the
wife, dug a pit where he buried wife

○ C has not told anyone of what she had witnessed until 2015, she went to authorities/police

○ Found skeletal remains of a person

○ Prescription has not started running. C is not an offended party, not an authority

● Ex: C is the daughter of A& B, only 3 yrs old at the time, same facts

○ Has it prescribed?

○ NB: parricide prescribes in 20 yrs

○ Check VAWC, child witness rule, ewan

● Ex: Hubert Webb:

● RECEBIDO: recording of falsified doc- reckoning for discovery

○ Why? Recording in registry is constructive notice to world

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES

● state loses right to implement penalty already imposed after lapse of certain period of time

● Exam: 20 yrs din

● Requisites (look at case)

○ Convicted by final judgment

○ Started serving sentence

○ Escaped

○ …

○ Lapse of prescription period

● Ex: transported to national bilibid prison, made to undergo photographs, thumbprints, taken to a
cell, 1 hr later, escaped

○ If period lapsed, prescribed

● Commences: From escape after started serving sentence

● Tolled:

○ Surrenders

○ Captured

○ Flees to another country, no extradition treaty

■ Why? Bec. PH has no remedy

■ If with extradition treaty, and PH did not make any move to capture, di na
kasalanan ng convict

● If recaptured:

○ Count period when accused

-Art 344- prosecution of crimes against chastity (enumeration)

● extend to co-principals, co-accessories, co chuchu

● pero pwede isama rape kahit hindi na siya crime against chastity.

● Pero yung naging asawa lang. hindi co-principals chuchu because public crime na siya
 SESSION 2

COMMON TO PRINCIPALS:

-take part in criminal resolution- CONSPIRACY

RPC:

Principals may be sentenced to suffer the penalty as may be prescribed by law

Accomplices: penalty next lower to that prescribed for principals

Accessories: 2 degrees lower than prescribed for principals

Without prejudice to application of ISLAW

T/F: only principals and accessories may be held liable for light felonies. T

But may accessories be held liable for light felonies (penalty arresto menor)

Art. 9 already amended: arresto menor or fine- not more than 40K, or both

Next lower in degree to arresto menor- public censure

No 2 degrees lower than arresto menor- that's why accessories not punished

CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME vs. CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF INCURRING CRIM. LIABILITY

-not an aggravating circumstance

-2nd has effect on criminal liability, if crime subject of conspiracy has actually been committed, effect: all
who participated #equally liable; "act of one is the act of all"- not synonymous. Don’t use this

-doctrine of absorption

IMPLIED CONSPIRACY

-may be inferred from acts before, during and after the commission of crime showing unity of purpose

PRINCIPAL by inducement (elements)

1. Intention of PROCURING the commission of the crime

2. -

DOG example (induced to kill)- principal by direct participation

Equipoise rule- utterance capable of 2 or more interpretations, that which is consistent with the innocence
of the accused

PRINCIPAL BY IC vs. ACCOMPLICE

-principal participated in criminal resolution

-accomplice community of design with principal

WHAT IS COMMUNITY OF DESIGN

-knew of the criminal design and concurred with it

BODY OF THE CRIME- FACT OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME

-EX: drug in DDA, firearm in Illegal Possession of Firearms

-HOMICIDE: through testimony of witnesses

Transferring (but not concealing) the body to another place (100m)- can lead to destruction of body of the
crime

-can mislead prosecution or prevent discovery of the crime

-hence, accessory

-state of mind look at intention of moving the body

If intention is to conceal- accessory

If intention is to take the body to the hospital- X accessory

EX. A killed C in Luneta, in a concealed place where no one can see. A told X to conceal the body. X got
the body and placed it under (sa paanan) the statue of Rizal. Is X liable as an accessory?

- YES. There was a destruction of the body and its effects when the body was transferred. The
transfer of the body may mislead the authorities.

EX. A (police officer) saw B who punched C. Instead of arresting, A brought B home (Hinatid pauwi sa
bahay). Is A liable as an accessory?

- NO. But A is liable of a light felony = Dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice.

If A saw B stab C to death? Is A guilty as an accessory?

- YES. As A must have effect arrest. It is the duty of A as police officer to arrest B.

-People v. Verzola

Sec 19:

Par. 3- Public officer, if abused his office; Private

Public officer not accessory but may be

-Dereliction in the prosecution of offense (Art 208)

-obstruction of justice

Par. 2- offender is anyone; if public officer, need no abuse his office

Par.1- anyone; profit by effects of crime

● NOT! Profiting or assisting to profit in robbery or theft: anti-fencing law

Effects:

-2M reward- X effect

ART. 20 - EXEMPT ACCESSORIES

Anti-Fencing law

EX. A learned that B purchased a new phone. A borrowed B’s phone. A showed it to his GF. A gave it to his
GF. The phone never went back to B. What crime is A and GF guilty?

- A is liable for estafa by direct participation. GF is liable for estafa as an accessory. No Anti-Fencing
Law violation in here because there was no robbery or theft

-intent to gain may be presumed

-note: boyfriend borrowed phone of another and gave it to girlfriend

-X robbery/theft

-hence, no fencing

-crime here is estafa

-bf is principal, gf is accessory under par. 1

-TAN case: no crime of theft or property to speak of; no complainant- did not report the incident

● No fencing

-ONG case:

SESSION 3

MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA

● Ysidoro v. People (malum prohibitum)

Mala in se Intent is an element Good faith is a defense

Mala prohibita Intent immaterial GF not a defense

INTENT- freely and consciously committed the act

PLUNDER- Special Law, but malum in se

● Estrada v. SB

TECHNICAL MALVERSATION- RPC, malum prohibitum

● Ex. A and B are husband and wife. B suspects that A is having an affair with C. A wants to go on a
business trip. B allowed A, but she put an unlicensed firearm in the luggage of A. Can A invoke
good faith as a defense?

○ Yes. Because he did not intend to commit a crime because he did not know that the gun
was in his possession.
 ○ Locked and loaded gun = There is a presumption that it will be used. Tanim bala is only a
defense. Possession of the gun is prima facie evidence.

○ Good faith = NOT a defense in mala prohibita

MISTAKE OF FACT:

-lack of intent

● Elements of Voluntariness

○ Freedom

○ Intelligence

○ Intent

● Requisites:

○ Act done would have been lawful had the facts been as accused believe them to be

○ Intent was lawful

○ Mistake not due to fault or carelessness of accused

● MISTAKE- was without fault or carelessness on the part of the

● Ex.1: A & B spouses, no kids. A is a military man. B is a police officer. A told B that he will be assigned
in Marawi for 2 weeks. A missed B so he asked his superior to go back to Manila. A came back after
4 days. A wanted to surprise B so he arrived at around 2am. A entered the house and went to the
room. The lights were switched off. B had the habit of sleeping naked. A went on top of B. B
believed that he was an intruder but he smelled A’s perfume so they continued having sex. After
having sex, while the lights were still closed A said, “Honey, I hope you enjoyed the act as much as
I did.” Their term of endearment is not “honey” and the man who spoke did not sound like A. B shot
A. Is B guilty?

○ 1st element- no; self-defense requires unlawful aggression. There was NO lawful aggression
in this case. A was already putting on his clothes when the crime happened.

○ 2nd element- no; retaliation not lawful

○ 3rd element- no; could have asked husband, she had a gun so not in danger; could have
aimed the gun and threatened husband to identify himself.

● Ex.2: 30y/o bachelor; went to a bar; ordered 2 bottles of beer; beautiful creature (5'6, voluptuous,
scantily clad); offered her a drink and joined him in his table; woman said she was 21; had sex; she
left; 2 weeks after somebody knocked on his door and served him with subpoena for violation of
Art 266 or statutory rape; she was below 12 y/o, authenticated copy of birth certificate.

○ 1st element: present;

○ 2nd element: present; not unlawful to have sex

○ 3rd element: present; can't blame him for mistaking her as of age

■ Appearance

● YAPYUCO- mistake of fact not appreciated as a defense because they were not in fulfillment of
their duty (rules of engagement)

ART 4. HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY INCURRED

2 WAYS:
 ● Wrongful act done different than that intended

● Impossible Crime:

WRONGFUL ACT DONE DIFFERENT THAN INTENDED

● Requisites:

○ Intentional felony committed

○ Wrong done was the direct, natural and logical consequence of felony committed or

■ Intentional felony was the proximate cause of the resultant injury (jurisprudence)

● Ex.1: A owns a licensed gun. He went out of his house and pointed it upwards and pulled the
trigger. One of the bullets hit a neighbor inside latter's house and caused his death. Is A liable for
Homicide?

○ Liable

○ 1st element: intentional felony- alarms and scandals

○ 2nd element: would not have died if not for the bullet

● Ex.2: A was dumped by GF for another girl. A thought of killing himself. Fired his gun on his right
temple and went through to the left side of his head and hit his brother. A survived. Brother is dead.
Is A liable?

○ Not guilty. A was not trying to commit a felony when he was trying to kill himself.

● Ex.3: BAR Q; person jumped off a building to kill himself; head on collision with another person, who
died

○ No intentional felony: Suicide not a crime

○ Essence of reckless imprudence

■ Lack of precaution

● A person will be liable for all consequence of that action if he is committing an intentional felony.

● Ex.4: Loose firearm; gone out of house with that gun to clean that gun and to brag about it; not
knowing that it was "nakakasa", fired it and killed another

○ Not liable

○ Not committing an intentional felony

○ But liable for culpable felony- reckless imprudence

● PROXIMATE CAUSE:

○ Definition. That cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have
been produced.

○ Causal connection between felonious act and resultant injury

● EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

○ new and independent act which itself is a proximate cause of an injury and which breaks
the causal connection between the original wrong and the injury.

○ Yet, he may not be excused totally from criminal liability. May be held liable for crime
actually committed.

○ Quinto v. People

■ There are certain factors that would not alter the causal relationship between
felonious act and resultant injury
 ■ Predisposition of offended party

■ Pathological disease

■ Negligence of physician

■ Supervening causes

1. Tetanus

2. Gangreen?

○ People v. Villacorta

■ Stabbed with bamboo stick not together proximate cause

■ Die 22 days` due to tetanus- efficient intervening cause

■ Exception

■ Tetanus that killed could not have come from the bamboo stick

■ Gestation pd is 14 days

■ Not liable for murder, only slight physical injury.

○ Ex.1: lighting

○ Ex.2: stabbed, not fatally wounded; able to flee; got a can of a poisonous substance and
poured it on his wound. Act of stabbing not proximate cause.

■ deliberate act of offended

○ Ex.3: offended party (deceased) was stabbed, not fatally wounded; able to flee; went to
hospital and had his wound treated; advised not to report for work within 10 days because
of nature of job (swimmer); still reported for work

■ deliberate act of offended

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

● Requisites

● Ex.1: Had sex with a person's gorilla (Gorilla doctrine)

○ Guilty of IP

● Ex.2: Had sex with brother of intended victim

○ Rape

● People v. Domasian

○ Domasian, in conspiracy with Dr. Tan, kidnapped a 7 y/o boy, who is the son of another
doctor

○ Child was able to escape

○ Took child 1-2 hrs to reach their house

○ After his return, somebody delivered a ransom note

○ Traced to Dr. Tan

○ Convicted of Illegal detention

○ Impossible crime cannot cover kidnapping.

■ Crime against liberty

 ○ Violated another provision of RPC (consummated)

■ Kidnapping with serious illegal detention

● Jacinto v. People (MIDTERMS)

● Intod v. People (Possible MIDTERMS/FINALS)

○ OSG: Attempted Murder

■ Cited US jurisprudence

○ Convicted of IC

■ US- impossible crime not punished

○ May be held liable for

■ Alarms and scandals

■ Malicious Mischief

○ In both, intent (or lack thereof) may yield to result.

ART. 6

● ATTEMPTED vs. FRUSTRATED (in homicide)

○ Look at nature of the wound

○ If fatal, but survives due to timely medical attention- frustrated

○ Not fatal- attempted

○ 2 conflicting cases

■ PEOPLE v. ALMAZAN

■ FATAL/MORTAL WOUND- would have killed the victim were it not for timely
medical attention.

■ PEOPLE vs. LISTERIO

■ Hot by lead pipe on his head

■ Frustrated Homicide

■ Had inflicted a fatal/mortal wound

■ Not actual injuries inflicted, but whether subjective phase has

been passed

○ ATTEMPTED

■ Victim able to duck

How many stages of execution for RAPE?

● 2 = attempted and consummated

● WHY: Touching of male organ and the vagina, no need for penetration

No FRUSTRATED Theft

● NOT the fact that the accused may freely dispose the property, but the fact of deprivation of the
owner the right to possess the property.
 ● EX. A got a hairclip from the department store. He placed it in his pocket = CONSUMMATED

● EX. A got a poster. He rolled it and placed it inside his shirt.

○ Before = Frustrated (Dino & Espiritu as basis)

○ Now = Consummated. As long as the offender has gotten hold of the stolen article, always
in the consummated stage.

SESSION 4

Justifying v. Exempting

Justifying v. Exempting v. Mitigating

● ALL 3: accused has burden

● J & E: no criminal/civil liability

● M

Mitigating v. Aggravating

● M: accused has burden

● A: prosecution has burden

Par. 4, ART. 11

Ex.1: 10 tons of gold bars worth 40B owned

● BC Air Cargo for transport GB

● Would be piloted by captain X; he has to have 3 complements (EFG) in aircraft

● 10 tons of GB loaded

● Value of aircraft 75M

● Cruising on territorial airspace in PH

● Aircraft experienced engine trouble

● Weight of GB was causing fast descent of aircraft

● X ordered 5 tons to be jettisoned (20B) by EFG- plunged into ocean and sank

○ Could no longer be recovered

● Aircraft safely landed somewhere in the Visayas.

● X charged with Malicious Mischief

● State of Necessity?

○ Evil sought to be avoided - death upon crash; loss of entire bulk of GB; destruction of
aircraft

○ Injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it

 ■ Life over property

○ No other practical or less harmful means to prevent it

● CIVIL damages?

○ In whose favor?

■ Owner of GB

○ Who should be held liable?

■ BC Air Cargo- benefited

■ Aircraft not damaged

■ X,E,F,G

■ A also benefited. Did not lose everything

○ How much?

■ P75M (aircraft)

■ XEFG- liable for 20B-75M (theoretically)

Ex.2

● A and B spouses

● B, police officer, suspected of wife B having and affair with C

● Had his service firearm

● Followed cab ridden by wife

● True to his suspicion, wife proceeded to a motel

● Noticed wife alighting car and proceeding to motel and checked in

● B asked hotel personnel re room of wife

● B did not immediately barge into room

● Waited outside for 30 mins

● With drawn gun, decided to knock on the door, opened by C

● C recognized B as husband of A, shut the door and escaped thru window and fire escape

● No cab driver taking him © because he was naked

● B saw C

● C saw a bycicle of a motel customer, mounted it and drove away

● C arrested, charged with theft

● Defense: state of necessity

● Not entitled. Evil which brought about greater evil must not result from his own negligence,
imprudence or violation of law

Par 1. Art 11

247: husband catches a wife with another woman- no sexual intercourse; there is still unlawful aggression

● If husband does not kill, what charge? UNJUST VEXATION

○ Not adultery- must be different gender

 ● If wife catches husband with another man? VAWC

○ Not concubinage- must be different gender

Husband catches wife with another man

-lawful aggression - acting in defense of his honor

-no self-defense by paramour

MEANS EMPLOYED MUST BE REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES

● .22 v. bazooka

○ If bazooka lang ang meron ka, or even if may ibang available, but you can't fully
choose,reasonable parin

● If blade v. palakol

○ Nag away sa drum

○ Blade more potent kasi you can’t swing the axe inside the drum

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

-if provocation, even if sufficient, but came from person other than the one defending himself, entitled

-sufficient provocation- relative term

-sufficient for 1, not for another

-anabelle rama telling belo her boobs are pirated- SP

Consider time given

Consider place where given

Social standing of person provoked

Defense of relative

-provocation, however sufficient, by person attacked (relative whose rights is being defended)- still entitled
to defense of a relative

-as long as person defending did not

Defense of stranger

● Not induced by…. - state of mind

● Ex.

○ Boyfriend while strolling along luneta, saw his GF with another man

○ Led to heated argument among parties

○ Boyfriend pulled out dagger, about to stab GF but she fled

○ From where 2nd BF was, saw BF chasing GF

○ 2nd GF had a gun and shot BF to death

○ Defense? Not sure. Do not know the motive

● People v. Toring