Book I: General Provisions

CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal law is that branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
- 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.
Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws
1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec.22)
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec 22)
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec 19)

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.
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.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual or potential wrongdoers.

DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

Code of Kalantiao - if a man would have a relation with a married woman, she is penalized. Even offending religious things,
such as gods, are penalized. The Code of Kalantiao has certain penal provisions. The Filipinos have their own set of penology
also.
Spanish Codigo Penal
When the Spanish Colonizers came, the Spanish Codigo Penal was made applicable and extended to the Philippines by Royal
Decree of 1870. This was made effective in the Philippines on July 14, 1876. Rafael Del Pan - drafted a correctional code
which was after the Spanish Codigo Penal was extended to the Philippines. But that correctional code was never enacted into
law. Instead, a committee was organized headed by then Anacleto Diaz. This committee was the one which drafted the
present Revised Penal Code.
The Present Revised Penal Code
Code of Crimes by Guevarra
During the time of President Manuel Roxas, a code commission was tasked to draft a penal code that will be more in keeping
with the custom, traditions, traits as well as beliefs of the Filipino
Special Laws
Presidential Decrees

DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING THE CRIMINAL LAW SYSTEM

Classical or Juristic Philosophy
Best remembered by the maxim “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer for the wrong he has done. Man is regarded as a moral
creature who understands right from wrong. So that when he commits a wrong, he must be prepared to accept the
punishment therefore.
Positivist or Realistic Philosophy

The purpose of penalty is reformation. There is great respect for the human element because the offender is regarded as
socially sick who needs treatment, not punishment. Cages are like asylums, jails like hospitals. They are to segregate the
offenders from the “good” members of society.

Crimes are regarded as social phenomena which constrain a person to do wrong although not of his own volition. A tendency
towards crime is the product of one’s environment. There is no such thing as a natural born killer.

Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social by nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
capital punishment.

Since the Revised Penal Code was adopted from the Spanish Codigo Penal, which in turn was copied from the French Code of
1810 which is classical in character, it is said that our Code is also classical. This is no longer true because with the American
occupation of the Philippines, many provisions of common law have been engrafted

MALA INSE VS. MALA PROHIBITA

Test to determine if violation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se

Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law, will the
act still be wrong?

If the working of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully,” then malice must be proven. Where malice is a factor,
good faith is a defense.

In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore, culpa is not a basis of liability, unless
the special law punishes an omission.

When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law.

DEFINITIONS

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 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, 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.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity

GENERALITY
Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within the country regardless of
their race, belief, sex or creed. However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement.
Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in
the country where they are assigned.

Note that consuls are not diplomatic officers. This includes consul-general, vice-consul or and consul in a foreign country, who
are therefore, not immune to the operation or application of the penal law of the country where they are assigned.

TERRITORIALITY
Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes
committed outside the same. This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice.
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.
 Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.
 Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters.
 Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.

PROSPECTIVITY
This is also called irretrospectivity.

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had already taken effect. Vice
versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such
penal law because penal laws operate only prospectively.

REPEALS
Effect of repeal of penal law to liability of offender
In some commentaries, there are distinctions as to whether the repeal is express or implied. However, what affects the
criminal liability of an offender is not whether a penal law is expressly or impliedly repealed; it is whether it is absolutely or
totally repealed, or relatively or partially repealed.

Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal.-- As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of offender, qualify
your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalized by the repeal. Because
of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which
decriminalized subversion.
Express or implied repeal.- Express or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done.
Express repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an earlier enactment. For
example, in Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), there is an express provision of repeal of Title V of the
Revised Penal Code.

Implied repeals are not favored. It requires a competent court to declare an implied repeal. An implied repeal will take place
when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequent law is passed also on the same subject matter but is
inconsistent with the first law, such that the two laws cannot stand together, one of the two laws must give way.
FELONY

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 of 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.

Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is deceit. This is no longer true. At the time the Revised Penal Code was codified, the
term nearest to dolo was deceit. However, deceit means fraud, and this is not the meaning of dolo.

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 (Visbal vs. Buban, 2003).

Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest translation is deliberate intent.

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

1. General criminal intent; and

2. Specific criminal intent.

General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the
wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.

Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes
attempted or frustrated homicide/ parricide/ murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same.

ELEMENTS
Mens rea

The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of the offense. To a layman, that
is what you call the “bullseye” of the crime. This term is used synonymously with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not
exactly correct.

Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a crime by knowing the
particular crime committed.

Mistake of fact
When an offender acted out of a misapprehension of fact, it cannot be said that he acted with criminal intent. Thus, in
criminal law, there is a “mistake of fact.” When the offender acted out of a mistake of fact, criminal intent is negated, so do
not presume that the act was done with criminal intent. This is absolutory if the crime involved dolo.

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony
is a result of culpa

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Since in Article 3, a felony is an act or omission punishable by law, particularly the Revised Penal Code, it follows that whoever
commits a felony incurs criminal liability. In paragraph 1 of Article 4, the law uses the word “felony,” that whoever commits a
felony incurs criminal liability. A felony may arise not only when it is intended, but also when it is the product of criminal
negligence. What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4 confusing is the addition of the qualifier “although the wrongful act be
different from what he intended.”

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 and 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.

Wrongful act done be different from what was intended

What makes the first paragraph of Article 4 confusing is the qualification “although the wrongful act done be different from
what was intended.” There are three situations contemplated under paragraph 1 of Article 4:

1. Aberratio ictus or mistake in blow;

2. Error in personae or mistake in identity;
3. Praeter intentionem or where the consequence exceeded the intention.

Aberratio ictus

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on someone
else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

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 vs. 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, 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 have talk of intent to
kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that the victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for
homicide for the death of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, that is, “that the offender did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.”

Impossible crime

An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility
of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY

The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. This does not apply
to crimes punished under special laws. But even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not
admit of these stages.
Formal Crimes
Formal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. For example, in oral defamation, there is no attempted
oral defamation or frustrated oral defamation; it is always in the consummated stage.

Composite crimes

Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one
crime. For example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical injuries.

In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the
commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime
agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

Two ways for conspiracy to exist:
1. There is an agreement.
2. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common
criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized. Coordinated manner, the fact that their
acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.

Two kinds of conspiracy:

1. Conspiracy as a crime; and
2. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.

When conspiracy itself as a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the
crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring
about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion,
sedition and coup d’ etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit them are punishable.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
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.”