I.

General Principles of Criminal Law

A. Nature and definition
a. Common Law – U.S. v. Taylor, G.R. No. 9726. December 8, 1914

In the Philippine Islands there exist no crimes such as are known in the United States and
England as common law crimes. No act constitutes a crime here unless it is made so by law.
Libel is made a crime here by Act No. 277 of the United States Philippine Commission. Said
Act (No. 277) not only defines the crime of libel and prescribes the particular conditions
necessary to constitute it, but it also names the persons who may be guilty of such crime. In
the present case the complaint alleges that the defendant was, at the time of the publication of
said alleged article "the acting editor, proprietor, manager, printer, publisher, etc. etc. of a
certain bilingual newspaper, etc., known as the ’Manila Daily Bulletin,’ a paper of large
circulation throughout the Philippine Islands, as well as in the United States and other
countries."cralaw virtua1aw library

b. Military character of the accused – U.S. v. Sweet, 1901

the contention that the court was without jurisdiction, as we understand it, is reducible to
two propositions: First, that an assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a
prisoner of war is not an offense under the Penal Code; and second, that if it is an offense
under the Code, nevertheless the military character sustained by the person charged with the
offense at the time of its commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil
tribunals.

c. War crimes – Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 1949

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the
present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant
precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those
person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of
aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental
thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization are held
accountable therefor. Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution
Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally
accepted and policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.
d. Consuls: Non-immunity – Schneckerburger v. Moran, 1936

(1) That the Court of First Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction to try the case filed
against the petitioner for the reason that under Article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the
United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in all cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and such jurisdiction excludes the
courts of the Philippines; and (2) that even under the Constitution of the Philippines original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, is
conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

e. Effect of Repeal
i. People v. Tamayo, 1935 - In the leading cases of the United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil.,
241), and Wing vs. United States (218 U.S., 272), the doctrine was clearly established
that in the Philippines repeal of a criminal Act by its reenactment, even without a
saving clause, would not destroy criminal liability. But not a single sentence in either
decision indicates that there was any desire to hold that a person could be prosecuted,
convicted, and punished for acts no longer criminal.

ii. People v. Sindiong and Pastor, 1947 – The effect of the decision of the Philippine
Supreme Court is to hold that under the law and local statutes, the repealing act re-
enacting substantially the former law, and not increasing the punishment of the
accused, the right still exists to punish the accused for an offense of which they were
convicted and sentenced before the passage of the later act. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
 In the case of United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil., 241), the earliest Philippine case cited
in the Solicitor General's brief, this Court declared (p. 245):

. . . In other words, that the enactment of new penal laws, notwithstanding the
fact that they contain general repealing clauses, does not deprive the courts of
jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence persons charged with violations of the old
law prior to the date when the repealing law goes into effect, unless the new law
wholly fails to penalize the acts which constituted the offense defined and penalized
in the repealed law.

In accordance with this doctrine, where the repealing law wholly fails to penalize
the acts which constituted the offense defined and penalized in the repealed law, the
repeal carries with it the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and
sentence persons charged with violations of the old law prior to the repeal. This is our
case, since, as already seen, the National Internal Revenue Code, and for that matter
even Commonwealth Act No. 503, wholly fails to penalize the acts imputed upon the
herein defendants.

f. Construction of Penal Laws - U.S. v. Abad Santos, 1917

Courts will not hold one person criminally responsible for the acts of another, committed
without his knowledge or consent, unless there is a statute requiring it so plain in its terms
that there is no doubt of the intention of the Legislature. Criminal statutes are to be strictly
construed. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them,
nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute. (U. S.
vs. Madrigal, 27 Phil. Rep., 347.)
MEMORIZE
1.Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege - There is no crime when there is no law that punishes it
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi men sit rea - The act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.
3. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus- An act done by me against my will is not my act.
4. El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado - He who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused.

B. Characteristics of Criminal Law

1) General (Art. 2, RPC)
2) Territorial (Art.2, RPC)
3) Prospective (Article 21 and 22, RPC)
a) Effects of repeal
C. Sources of Criminal Law
a) Revised Penal Code
b) Special Penal Laws
D. Constitutional Limitations on Criminal Law

1. Due process and Equal protection (Art. 3, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution) White Light Corp. v. City of Manila,
G.R. No. 122846, 20 January 2009 Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013

2. Freedom of expression (Art. 3, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution) Guingguing v. People, G.R. No. 128959, 30
September 2005.

3. Freedom of religion (Art. 3, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution) Estrada v. Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, 22 June
2006, 492 SCRA 1

4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. (Art. 3, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution)
People v. Echagaray, G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997, 267 SCRA 682 Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014

5. Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax (Art. 3, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution)

6. Bill of attainder (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution) People v. Ferrer, L-32613-14, 27 December 1972, 48
SCRA 382

7. Ex-post facto laws (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution) US v. Diaz Conde, L-18208, 14 February 1922

E. Construction and interpretation

1. Liberally in favour of the accused

2. Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English text People v. Abilong, L-1960, 26 November 1948.

3. Retroactive application when favourable to the accused

4. Prescribed but undeserved penalties (Art. 5, RPC) People v. Formigones, L-3246, 29 November 1950