CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal law is that branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of
their nature and provides for their punishment.

It is that branch of public substantive law which defines offenses and

prescribes their penalties. It is substantive because it defines the state’s
right to inflict punishment and the liability of the offenders. It is public law
because it deals with the relation of the individual with the state.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of

two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the
offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will
be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of
innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law.

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to
civil law countries, but not to common law countries.

Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No

matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the
act, the same is not considered a crime.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a
felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This
maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies,
or those that result from negligence.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which
literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On
the other hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to as malum
prohibitum.

FELONY, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME

Felony

A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use
this term in reference to a violation of special law.

Offense

A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutory offense.

Misdemeanor

A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred

to as a misdemeanor.

Crime

Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under
a special law, the generic word crime can be used.

HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE

Punishable by the Revised Penal Code

The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code.
When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as
a felony. So whenever you encounter the term felony, it is to be understood
as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code
An act or omission

To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere

imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act
refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the outside
world. For example, if A, a passenger in a jeepney seated in front of a lady,
started putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness that is already an act in
contemplation of criminal law. He cannot claim that there was no crime
committed. If A scratches something, this is already an act which annoys
the lady he may be accused of unjust vexation, not malicious mischief.

Dolo or culpa

However, It does not mean that if an act or omission is punished under the
Revised Penal Code, a felony is already committed. To be considered a
felony, it must also be done with dolo or culpa.

Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as criminal intent, and must be

coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the offender
as to the act done by him.

The term, therefore, has three requisites on the part of the offender:

(1) Criminal intent;

(2) Freedom of action; and
(3) Intelligence.

If any of these is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be

no intentional felony.

Proximate cause

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause
of the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the felonious act.

Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and
which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony
without which such felony could not have resulted. He who is the cause of
the cause is the evil of the cause. As a general rule, the offender is
criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not
intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or
resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause.
This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which
sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony.

Aberration ictus

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but

because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus,
the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the
crime.

In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim,
but because of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a
complex crime, unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less
grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended victim and also
giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. To be more
specific, let us take for example A and B. A and B are enemies. As soon as
A saw B at a distance, A shot at B. However, because of poor aim, it was
not B who was hit but C. You can readily see that there is only one single
act – the act of firing at B. In so far as B is concerned, the crime at least is
attempted homicide or attempted murder, as the case may be, if there is
any qualifying circumstance. As far as the third party C is concerned, if C
were killed, crime is homicide. If C was only wounded, the crime is only
physical injuries. You cannot have attempted or frustrated homicide or
murder as far as C is concerned, because as far as C is concern, there is no
intent to kill. As far as that other victim is concerned, only physical injuries
– serious or less serious or slight.

Error in personae

In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime.
It was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not
really the intended victim. There was really a mistake in identity.

Praeter intentionem

In People v. Gacogo, 53 Phil 524, two persons quarreled. They had fist
blows. The other started to run away and Gacogo went after him, struck
him with a fist blow at the back of the head. Because the victim was
running, he lost balance, he fell on the pavement and his head struck the
cement pavement. He suffered cerebral hemorrhage. Although Gacogo
claimed that he had no intention of killing the victim, his claim is useless.
Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because
the purpose of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries
from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated
homicide or frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not talk
of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that
victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for homicide for the death
of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article13, that is,
"that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed”.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

Felonies are classified as follows:

(1) According to the manner of their commission

Under Article 3, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those

committed with deliberate intent; and culpable felonies or those
resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or
lack of skill.

(2) According to the stages of their execution

Under Article 6., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance; frustrated felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do
not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the
perpetrator; and, consummated felony when all the elements
necessary for its execution are present.

(3) According to their gravity

Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to

which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of
their periods are afflictive; less grave felonies or those to which the law
punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was
correccional; and light felonies or those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.
Circumstances affecting criminal liability

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:

(1) Justifying circumstances;

(2) Exempting circumstances;

(3) Mitigating circumstances;

(4) Aggravating circumstances; and

(5) Alternative circumstances.

Justifying circumstances

Since the justifying circumstances are in the nature of defensive acts, there
must be always unlawful aggression. The reasonableness of the means
employed depends on the gravity of the aggression. If the unlawful
aggressor was killed, this can only be justified if it was done to save the life
of the person defending or the person being defended. The equation is “life
was taken to save life.”

Self Defense
In justifying circumstances, the most important is self-defense. When this is
given in the bar, it is the element of unlawful aggression that is in issue.
Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. Mere provocation is
not enough.

Illustration:

A and B are long standing enemies. Because of their continuous quarrel over
the boundaries of their adjoining properties, when A saw B one afternoon, he
approached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. When
he was about five feet away from B, B pulled out a revolver and shot A on
the chest, killing him. Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed, if
any?

The act of A is nothing but a provocation. It cannot be characterized as an

unlawful aggression because in criminal law, an unlawful aggression is an
attack or a threatened attack which produces an imminent danger to the life
and limb of the one resorting to self-defense. In the facts of the problem
given above, what was said was that A was holding a bolo. That bolo does
not produce any real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the
bolo. As long as that arm of A was down holding the bolo, there is no
imminent danger to the life or limb of B. Therefore, the act of B in shooting
A is not justified.

Do not confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. What justifies the

killing of a supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the offender did not kill the
aggressor, it will be his own life that will be lost. That will be the situation.
If that is not the situation, even if there was an unlawful aggression that has
already begun, you cannot invoke self-defense.

Illustration:

Two policemen quarreled inside a police precinct. One shot the other. The
other was wounded on his thigh. The policeman who was wounded on the
thigh jumped on the arm of the fellow who shot him. In the process, they
wrestled for possession of the gun. The policeman who shot the other guy
fell on the floor. On that point, this policeman who was shot at the thigh
was already able to get hold of the revolver. In that position, he started
emptying the revolver of the other policeman who was lying on the floor. In
this case, it was held that the defense of self-defense is no available. The
shooting was not justified.

Defense of property rights

This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the
defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. Life cannot be equal to
property.

Defense of relatives
This may be availed of if one acts in defence of the person of rights of one’s
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degree and those by affinity
to the fourth degree. The requisites for self-defence must likewise be
present.

Defense of stranger
If the person being defended is already a second cousin, you do not invoke
defense of relative anymore. It will be defense of stranger. This is vital
because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge, resentment
or some evil motive in killing the aggressor, he cannot invoke the justifying
circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the
law. On the other hand, if the relative defended is still within the coverage
of defense of relative, even though he acted out of some evil motive, it
would still apply. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against
the relative defended, and that the person defending did not contribute to
the unlawful aggression.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury

To invoke this justifying circumstance, the evil sought to be avoided must

actually exist and the injury feared must be greater than that done to avoid
it. Also, there be should no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.

The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the
justifying circumstances. For example, A drove his car beyond the speed
limit so much so that when he reached the curve, his vehicle skidded
towards a ravine. He swerved his car towards a house, destroying it and
killing the occupant therein. A cannot be justified because the state of
necessity was brought about by his own felonious act.

Fulfillment of duty

In the justifying circumstance of a person having acted out of fulfillment of a

duty and the lawful exercise of a right or office, there are only two
conditions:

(1) The felony was committed while the offender was in the fulfillment of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and
(2) The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due
fulfillment of the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office.

Obedience to lawful order

The order must been issued by a superior for some lawful purpose and the
means used to carry it out must be lawful.

Exempting circumstances

In exempting circumstances, the reason for the exemption lies on the

involuntariness of the act
– one or some of the ingredients of voluntariness such as criminal intent,
intelligence, or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing. In
case it is a culpable felony, there is absence of freedom of action or
intelligence, or absence of negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack
of skill.
Imbecility and insanity
There is complete absence of intelligence. Imbecile has an IQ of 7. The
intellectual deficiency is permanent. There is no lucid interval unlike in
insanity.

Minority
In exempting circumstances, the most important issue is how the minority of
the offender affected his criminal liability.

Damnum absque injuria

Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is exempt not only from criminal
but also from civil liability. This paragraph embodies the Latin maxim
“damnum absque injuria”.

Illustration:

A person who is driving his car within the speed limit, while considering the
condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at that time, tripped on a stone
with one of his car tires. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the head.
The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. What is the liability of the driver?

Compulsion of irresistible force and under the impulse of an

uncontrollable fear

The offender must be totally deprived of freedom. If the offender has still
freedom of choice, whether to act or not, even if force was employed on him
or even if he is suffering from uncontrollable fear, he is not exempt from
criminal liability because he is still possessed with voluntariness. In
exempting circumstances, the offender must act without voluntariness.