Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: (PGT) (1) General (2)

Territorial (3) Prospective

As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested,

he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in
actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer
for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during
the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the
court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed
that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving
final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any
business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while
in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and
detention.26 (Underscoring supplied)
Trillanes man . exempted daw sya sa crime . pas sudlon daw sya sa
senate. GENERALITY.
the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the
exception that the acts was done in "official capacity." It is therefore
necessary to determine if petitioner's case falls within the ambit of
Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the
chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the
opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so
desire.
Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an
action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised
by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official
functions.5 As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime
is not part of official duty.
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed
to enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to
the extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces Agreements involving
foreign military units around the world vary in terms and conditions,
according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their
bargaining power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State
can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to
the extent agreed upon by the parties.12
except to the extent agreed upon –IF there is an existing
agreement. Jurisdiction of local courts. If wala, general laws apply.
Art. V, VFA, which defines criminal jurisdiction over United States
military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in
connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.

The US and Philippines agreed that:

(a) US shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the
military law of the US over US personnel in RP;
(b) US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel
with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of
the US punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of
RP;
(c) US military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise
jurisdiction over US personnel subject to the military law of the US in
relation to:
(i) Offenses solely against the property or security of the US or
offenses solely against the property or person of US personnel; and
(ii) Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance
of official duty. [Reyes, The RPC]
 (2) Laws of Preferential Application

Examples: (a) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander
for any speech in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution) (b) Any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or
any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or
minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose
properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment. (R.A.
No. 75)
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance
by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities,
rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines.

Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even though docked in

the Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its
respective country. This also applies to embassies.

The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC: (1)
Sovereigns and other heads of state (2) Ambassadors, ministers,
plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d’ affaires. (Article 31,
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)

Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local
prosecution. [See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations]
(a) Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local
jurisdiction. (b) Generality has NO reference to territoriality.

TERRITORIALITY
Art. 2, RPC embraces two scopes of applications: (1) Intraterritorial –
refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine territory
(land, air and water). (2) Extraterritorial – refers to the application of
the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory.
General rule: Penal laws of the country have force and effect only
within its territory.
(a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its territory. (b) The
national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago… [Art. I, 1987
Constitution]. (c) The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and
interior waters as well as its atmosphere.[Art. 2, RPC]

(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. (2)

Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and
interior waters. (3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over the atmosphere.

Exception: Extraterritorial Crimes, which are punishable even if

committed outside the Philippine territory [Art. 2, RPC]

Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard Philippine ship or airship:

The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime is committed
while the ship is treading: (a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
(b) The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction of any State
(extraterritorial)
 Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels while in the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a
foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels
treading foreign waters):
(1) French Rule: It is the flag or nationality of the vessel which
determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and
order of the host country.
(2) English Rule: the location or situs of the crime determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management
of the vessel.

(a) The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE. (b) However, these
rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas when the
crime was committed. In these cases, the laws of the nationality of
the ship will always apply. (c) When the crime is committed in a war
vessel of a foreign country, the nationality of the vessel will always
determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong.

Note: The country of registry determines the nationality of the

vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel registered in
China must fly the Chinese flag. PIRACY AND SLAVERY CAN BE TRIED
ANYWHERE. HIGH SEAS NON REGISTERED VESSELS ARE DEEM
PIRATES.

International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction

(1) Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the
jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the protection of its
national security and public order.
(2) Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only
to the extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof
(3) Absolute Theory
The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere
above it subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign
country.

Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter

how high, as long as it can be established that it is within the
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law (See AntiHijacking
Law) will govern.

Note: The Philippines adopts the Absolute Theory.

Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting and Coins or Currency Notes in the

Philippines

Forgery is committed abroad, and it refers only to Philippine coin,

currency note, obligations and securities.

Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the abovementioned

obligations and securities.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or
counterfeited obligations and securities into the Philippines is as
dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the
economic interest of the country.

Par. 4: When public officers or employees commit an offense in the

exercise of their functions.

Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s

functions:
The crimes which may be committed are:
(i) Direct bribery (A.210) (ii) Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A) (iii) Indirect
bribery (A.211) (iv) Corruption (A.212) (v) Frauds against the public
treasury (A.213) (vi) Possession of prohibited interest (A.216) (vii)
Malversation of public funds or property (A. 217) (viii) Failure to
render accounts (A.218) (ix) Illegal use of public funds or property
(A.220) (x) Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
(A.221) (xi) Falsification by a public officer or employee committed
with abuse of his official position (A.171) (xii) Those having to do with
the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.

The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law: (a)
to be performed by the public officer; (b) in the foreign service of
the Phil. government;
(c) in a foreign country.

Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against national security and the
law of nations, (Title One, Book 2, RPC)
Crimes against national security: (i) Treason (A.114) (ii) Conspiracy
and proposal to commit treason (A.115) (iii) Misprision of treason
(A.116) (iv) Espionage (A.117)

Crimes against the law of nations: (i) Inciting to war or giving motives
for reprisals (A.118) (ii) Violation of neutrality (A.119) (iii)
Correspondence with hostile country (A.120) (iv) Flight to enemy’s
country (A.121) (v) Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or
in Philippine waters (A.122)

Note: Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion, coup d’etat,

sedition) committed abroad is under the jurisdiction of the host
country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against national security and
the law of nations. (See R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007).

TRANSITORY CRIMES
Maybe tried in any municipality or territory.
BIGAMY. Ang wife na sa phils ang bigamy naa sa gawas. The effect is
on the Philippines. Pwede ra man try as Philippines. Kay ang ni suffer
sa Philippines. Our court may have jurisdiction.

PROSPECTIVITY
General rule: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if
they are committed AFTER a penal law has taken effect.

Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed before the

effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law.
 2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty (a) Law in force at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be applied.

(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act
which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, (a)
The crime is obliterated. (b) Pending cases are dismissed. (c)
Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.

(4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions,

administrative rulings and circulars.[Art. 8, Civil Code]

Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability of an act must

be reasonably known for the guidance of society[Peo v. Jabinal].

LEGALITY Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not

prescribed by law prior to its commission.

Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege –There is no crime when there
is no law punishing the same.

Limitation: Not every law punishing an act or omission may be valid

as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null
and void.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO

ENACT PENAL LAWS
EQUAL PROTECTION Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

DUE PROCESS Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held
to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OR

EXCESSIVE FINES Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not
be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.

Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (RA

9346) Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A. 8177) and the
law imposing the death penalty (R.A. 7659) (Sec. 1)

This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion perpetua for

offenses under any act using the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a))
and the punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under any act
which does not use the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2(b))

BILL OF ATTAINDER Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law
or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Bill of Attainder- a legislative act that inflicts punishment without

trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial
determination of guilt.
EX POST FACTO LAW
Ex Post Facto Law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon
less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.]
Philippine criminal law system uses four philosophies depending
on the circumstances:
(1) Classical or juristic theory which provides that man, who
possesses freedom, is punished for an act or omission willingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently performed. Under this philosophy, man
should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as
free will appears unimpaired,[6] so that if one lacks free will and
intelligence, he should not be held criminally liable. This philosophy
is so basic it is implied so often in bar exams.
(2) Positivist or Realistic Theory which provides that man is
inherently good but his acts or behavior may be conditioned by his
environment. Because of his upbringing, social environment and
associations he may become socially ill or an offender. Thus, under
this philosophy penal laws are meant to “reform” and the penalties
are considered “corrective or curative.” Jails are reformatories and
penalties are imposed after an examination of the circumstances of
the offender. Unlike the classical theory which emphasizes on the
offense itself, positivistic theory emphasizes on the offender and not
on the offense.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (a) Must not provide

imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art.
III, Sec. 19 (1)] (b) Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms,
e.g. due process, religion, free speech, and assembly.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

(1) Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea
Exception: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect, insofar as they
favor the person guilty of a felony. [Art. 22, RPC]

Exception to the Exception: (1) The new law is expressly made

inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of actions; or (2)
The offender is a habitual criminal. [Art. 22, RPC]

Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law (1) If the repeal makes the

penalty lighter in the new law, (a) The new law shall be applied, (b)
EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of
action.
Applicable here is the familiar maxim in criminal law: Nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege. There is no crime where there is no law
punishing it.
DUAL NATURE OF CRIME.
Nevertheless, our jurisdiction recognizes that a crime has a private
civil component. Thus, while an act considered criminal is a breach
of law against the State, our legal system allows for the recovery of
civil damages where there is a private person injured by a criminal
act. It is in recognition of this dual nature of a criminal act that our
Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable is
also civilly liable.21 This is the concept of civil liability ex delicto.

"threefold liability rule"

The "threefold liability rule" holds that the wrongful acts or
omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal and
administrative liability. This simply means that a public officer may
be held civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful
doing

DEATH AS RESULT OF A CRIME

Finally, on the matter of damages, when death results from the
commission of a crime, the heirs of the victim are entitled to the
following awards:
(a) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim without need
of evidence other than the commission of the crime;45
 (b) actual or compensatory damages to the extent proved,46 or
temperate damages when some pecuniary loss has been suffered
but its amount cannot be provided with certainty;47
(c) moral damages;48 and
(d) exemplary damages when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances.49

Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be

granted if at least one aggravating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime. The aggravating circumstance for this
purpose need not be specifically alleged in the information, and can
be either a qualifying or attendant circumstance. As expounded in
People v. Catubig:26 AWARRDED EVEN THOUGH NOT ALLEGED IN
THE INFORMATION.

It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of

acquittal shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.20 In either case, the
judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist.21 When the exoneration is merely
due to the failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the court should award the civil liability in favor of
the offended party in the same criminal action.22 In other words, the
"extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a
final judgment that the fact from which the civil [liability] might
arise did not exist."23
Under Pantig and Singson, whenever the elements of estafa are not
established, and that the delivery of any personal property was made
pursuant to a contract, any civil liability arising from the estafa
cannot be awarded in the criminal case. This is because the civil
liability arising from the contract is not civil liability ex delicto (civil
liability ex contractu naa), which arises from the same act or
omission constituting the crime. Civil liability ex delicto is the
liability sought to be recovered in a civil action deemed instituted
with the criminal case.

The situation envisioned in the foregoing cases, as in this case, is civil

liability ex contractu where the civil liability arises from an entirely
different source of obligation. Therefore, it is not the type of civil
action deemed instituted in the criminal case, and consequently
must be filed separately. This is necessarily so because whenever the
court makes a finding that the elements of estafa do not exist, it
effectively says that there is no crime. There is no act or omission
that constitutes criminal fraud. Civil liability ex delicto cannot be
awarded as it cannot be sourced from something that does not exist.

BP 22
In B.P. 22 cases, the criminal action shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil actions. Instead of instituting two separate cases,
only a single suit is filed and tried.40 This rule was enacted to help
declog court dockets, which had been packed with B.P. 22 because
creditors used the courts as collectors. As we observed in Hyatt v.
Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.:41cralawlawlibrary
Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases
for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a
criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being
paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of
the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower
the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on
dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of
these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for
criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and
tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is
to discourage the separate filing of the civil action.
As a necessary consequence of this special rule, the civil liabilities
arising from the issuance of a worthless check are deemed instituted
in a case for violation of B.P. 22; the death of Bernardo did not
automatically extinguish the action. The independent civil liability
based on contract, which was deemed instituted in the criminal
action for B.P. 22, may still be enforced against her estate in the
present case. We thus rule on the present action to determine
Bumanglag's civil liability.
CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO SURVIVES THE DEATH OF THE ACCUSE

Interpretation of penal statutes

PRO REO PRINCIPLE
Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting
criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In
dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused.36 This is in
consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall
be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is established beyond
reasonable doubt.37
RULE OF LENITY
Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of
lenity.38 The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible
interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the
accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.
Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed
through the lens of the basic purpose of Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code to preserve family harmony by providing an absolutory
cause. Since the goal of Article 332(1) is to benefit the accused, the
Court should adopt an application or interpretation that is more
favorable to the accused. In this case, that interpretation is the
continuing affinity view.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
The basic principle in every criminal prosecution is that accusation is
not synonymous with guilt. The accused is presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved by the prosecution. If the prosecution fails, it
fails utterly, even if the defense is weak or, indeed, even if there is no
defense at all. The defendant faces the full panoply of state
authority with all "The People of the Philippines" arrayed against
him. In a manner of speaking, he goes to bat with all the bases
loaded. The odds are heavily against him. It is important, therefore,
to equalize the positions of the prosecution and the defense by
presuming the innocence of the accused until the state is able to
refute the presumption by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

EXPRESS REPEAL – WILL NOT REVIVE THE PRIOR LAW

IMPLIED REPEAL – WILL REVIVE THE PRIOR LAW

FELONIES
Felonies
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
FELONY – refers only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. (a) A
crime punishable under a special law is not referred to as a felony.
“Crime” or “offense” is the proper term. (b) Importance: There are
certain provisions in the RPC where the term “felony” is used, which
means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special
laws.

OFFENSE – A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory

offense.

MISDEMEANOR –A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of

an ordinance.

CRIME –Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised

Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word “crime” can be
used.

FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED Felonies are committed not only by

means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. [Art. 3, RPC]

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Felonies are classified as follows:

(MSG) (1) According to the manner of their commission (2) According
to the stages of their execution (3) According to their gravity
Other classifications: (4) As to count (5) As to nature

(a) The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a

proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. (b) The penalties
are graduated according to their degree of severity. (1) The stages
(Art. 6) may not apply to all kinds of felonies. (2) There are felonies
which do not admit of division.

(1) According to the Manner of Their Commission Under Art. 3, they

are classified as: (a) Intentional felonies – those committed with
deliberate intent; and (b) Culpable felonies – those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

Elements Of A Crime: Mens Rea And Actus Reus. Most crimes consist
of two broad elements: mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea means to
have "a guilty mind."

For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a

confluence of both an evil act and an evil intent. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea.35

MENS REA IN CRIME BY DOLO – REQUIREMENT OF FREEDOM,

INTELLEGENCE AND INTENT WHILE DOING AN ACT OR OMITTING TO
DO AN ACT.

CRIMINAL INTENT – STATE OF MIND WHICH WILLINGLY CONSENTS

TO THE ACT THAT IS DONE, OR FREE WILL CHOICE, VOLITION IN THE
DOING OF AN ACT. IT MEANS THAT THE ACT IS VOLUNTARY , AND
THAT IF PROCEEDS FROM A MIND FREE TO ACT.
The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in
the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder Law
indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since
the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his
criminal intent. CRIMINAL INTENT IS NEEDED IN PLUNDER

CULPA
Granting among the admissions made by the accused, that he
continued the treatment of the ulcers of the girl until he or his
daughters burned her, or that the action of the petroleum irritated
the said ulcers and caused them to spread, as may be judged from
the extent of the scars, to have been intended to cause an evil, but
rather as a remedy; however, taking into account the imprudence
defined in paragraph 2 of article 568 of the Penal Code, as having
been committed by an ignorant person who was prohibited from
exercising the art of healing not only by the regulations governing it
but also by the Penal Code, the penalty prescribed by the paragraph
above referred to, that is, arresto, must therefore be applied in its
medium and maximum degrees.lawphil.net

First. It would appear that accused-appellants are members of a cult

and that the bizarre ritual performed over the victim was consented
to by the victim's parents. With the permission of the victim's
parents, accused-appellant Carmen, together with the other
accused-appellants, proceeded to subject the boy to a "treatment"
calculated to drive the "bad spirit" from the boy's body.
Unfortunately, the strange procedure resulted in the death of the
boy. Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to kill the boy.
Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence because they
ought that to know their actions would not bring about the cure.
They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and not of murder.
they ought that to know their actions would not bring about the
cure.

INVOLUNTARY ACT
e.g. sleep killing, SLEEP WALKING
Our conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a dream and his
acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in the sense of
entailing criminal liability.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides for the
definition of reckless imprudence –

LAWFUL ACT.
DEFENDING AS FRIEND ; LABAY BATO
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.
in the Petition at bar, this Court cannot, in good conscience, attribute
to petitioner Calimutan any malicious intent to injure, much less to
kill, the victim Cantre; and in the absence of such intent, this Court
cannot sustain the conviction of petitioner Calimutan for the
intentional crime of homicide, as rendered by the RTC and affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. Instead, this Court finds petitioner
Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Lack of foresight caused excessive injury man sad

MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia Facti Excusat) – It is a reasonable
misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to
another. Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without
criminal intent. (a) Under this principle, what is involved is the lack
of intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the defense of
mistake of fact is an untenable defense in culpable felonies, where
there is no intent to consider. (b) An honest mistake of fact destroys
the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act.

Requisites: (1) That the act done would have been lawful had the
facts been as the accused believed them to be; (2) That the
intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; (3)
That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part
of the accused. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not
a defense.[People v. Oanis (1993)]
Loci:
Tadwhbl
Htfbatabttb
Lf
wF
remember: is there a time to make further inquiry by the accused;
is the circumstance pressed him to act immediately. The two
question should be answered by yes.

However,mistake of fact is NOT availing in People v. Oanis (74 Phil.

257),because the police officers were at fault when they shot the
escaped convict who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his
identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined to fight the
officers of law trying to catch him that killing the former would be
justified

General rule: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ALL the natural
and logical consequences of his felonious act, although not
intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting
harm.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended in the following
cases:

(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring

one person mistaken for another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in
its maximum period) (a) At least two subjects (b) A has intent to kill
B, but kills C (c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no criminal
liability. But because of Art. 4, his act is a felony.
Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the

wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when offender intending to

do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on
complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in its maximum period)
(a) There is only one subject. (b) The intended subject is a different
subject, but the felony is still the same.

(3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater than that

intended (Art. 13 – mitigating circumstance)

If A’s act constitutes sufficient means to carry out the graver felony,
he cannot claim praeter intentionem.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury when: (1) There is an efficient intervening cause or an active
force that intervened between the felony committed and the
resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or (2) The resulting
injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause: (1) The weak or
diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering
from tuberculosis or heart disease. [People v. Illustre] (2) The
nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in
consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about
against the doctor’s orders, because of his nervous condition due to
the wound inflicted on the accused. [People v. Almonte] (3) Causes
which are inherent in the victim, such (a) the victim not knowing to
swim and (b) the victim being addicted to tuba drinking. [People v.
Buhay and People v. Valdez] (4) Neglect of the victim or third person,
such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or
surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus
injection to the injured person. [U.S. v. Marasigan] (5) Erroneous or
unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took
place in anu outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical service
was not available. [People v. Moldes]

Omission– It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which

a person is bound to do.

There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.

Punishable omissions in the RPC: (1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.

(2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees. (3) Art. 208:
Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of offenses. (4) Art. 223:
Conniving with or consenting to evasion. (5) Art. 275: Abandonment
of person in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim. (6) Art.
276: Abandoning a minor

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR LACK OF INTELLEGENCE

1. INSANDE AND IMBECILE
2. CHILDREN BELOW 15
3. CHILDREN 15 TO 18 ACTED WITHOUT DISCERNMENT
4. PERSONS WHO ACTED UNDER MISTAKE OF FACT

EXEMPTIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR LACT OF FREEDOM

1. COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
2. IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR FOR AN EQUAL OR
GREATER INJURY.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Mala in se(“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act that is inherently
immoral, such as murder, arson or rape. [Black’s Law Dictionary,
9th Ed.]

Mala prohibita(“prohibited evil”) – An act that is a crime merely

because it is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not
necessarily immoral. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]

(a) Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita.

(b) In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the act alone
irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.
(c) Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid
defenses in crimes mala prohibita.
(d) When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se,
even if punished under special law, like plunder which requires
proof of criminal intent. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)]
(e) Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
(f) A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime punishable by a special
lawif it is a necessary ingredient of the felony defined in the Code
but a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the
RPC, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more
serious than a violation of a special law. [People v. Rodriguez
(1960)]
(g) The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum prohibitum but a
modification of the crime of theft of large cattle under the RPC
(i.e. there are special laws which only modify crimes under the
RPC therefore still mala in se). [People v. Martinada]
 It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine
of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the petitioner as the
accused. Thus, the Court should consider all possible
circumstances in his favour.
The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges
from one day to 30 days of imprisonment.20 In imposing the correct
penalty, however, we have to consider the mitigating circumstance
of passion or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised Penal
Code,21 because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control,
thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.22 Passion or
obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the
honest belief of the accused.23 It is relevant to mention, too, that in
passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a diminution of
intelligence and intent. With his having acted under the belief that
Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor daughters,
and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, the petitioner was
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is
prescribed in its minimum period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the
absence of any aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating
circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not
exceeding one year,24 the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of
10 days of arresto menor.
With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child
abuse.
Dili child abuse but slight physical injury ang offense nya.4
Omission– It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which
a person is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.

Punishable omissions in the RPC: (1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.

(2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees. (3) Art. 208:
Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of offenses. (4) Art. 223:
Conniving with or consenting to evasion. (5) Art. 275: Abandonment
of person in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim. (6) Art.
276: Abandoning a minor

MOTIVE
Motive – it is the moving power which impels one to do an act (ex.
vengeance). Generally, it is not an essential element of a crime;
hence, it need not be proved for purposes of conviction (except in
certain cases enumerated below).

WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL

LIABILITY (1) When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g.
kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno (1993)]) (2) When there is
doubt as to the identity of the assailant. (3) When there is the need
to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the
crime. (4) When the identification of the accused proceeds from an
unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from
doubt. (5) When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when
suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons.
(6) When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely
circumstantial. (a) Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the
accused, especially where there is doubt as to the identity of the
accused. [People v. Hassan (1988)]
(b) Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly
where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his
participation is adequately established. [People v. Delos Santos]
(c) In the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense,
it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had
committed it. [People vs. Galano]

Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of intent, merely

intelligence [People v. Cordova (1993)]. Thus, discernment is
necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility
of its accomplishment
or
an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
THESE ARE DOLO (NOT CULPA CRIMES)
NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURIES ARISING FROM LAWFUL ACT
E.G. DEFENDING THE POSSESSION OF THE BOLO KATO NAA NA
PATAY

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
First, For an accused to be criminally liable for the unintended
consequences of his criminal act, the following requisites must be
present:
No intentional felony has been committed;
And
Second, The wrong done be the direct, natural and logical
consequences of the felony committed by the offender.
Directly injured the victim on the first one.

If a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of

danger, which cause the person to try to escape, and, in doing so,
the latter injures himself, the man who creates such state of mind is
responsible for the resulting injuries.

PROXIMATE CAUSE
THIRD, Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury without which the result would not have
occurred.

The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a
close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should,
as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to
some person might probably result therefrom. [Vda. De Bataclan v.
Medina (1957)]

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

Wheel conspiracy
Chain consipiracy. Unsa ni?

SUSPENDED SENTENCE
The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the
promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What
matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she was
still of tender age.
PWEDE RAH MO EXTEND LAPAS 21 YEARS OLD
VOLITION – TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL

VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE. PWEDE RAH NAAY TIME LAPSE.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

TREACHERY
CONSCIOUSLY OR DELIBERATELY ADOPTED THE MEANS
DOES NOT AFFORD OPPORTUNITY THE RETALIATE OR DEFEND