CRIMINAL LAW 1

San Beda University - College of Law

Minucher v. Scalzo: A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked

I. General Principles of Criminal Law
with immunity from suit as long as it can be established that he is acting within the
directives of the sending state.
A. Nature and Definition
Liang v. People: Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic
Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of envoy is immune from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State for all acts, whether
their nature, and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc. 129) private or official, and hence he cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished for
any offense he may commit,unless his diplomatic immunity is waived. On the other
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or
commanding it. (I Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, 729) hand, officials of international organizations enjoy "functional" immunities, that is,
only those necessary for the exercise of the functions of the organization and the
Ient v. Tullett Prebon: The provision of Section 144 of the Corporation Code is also fulfillment of its purposes. This is the reason why the ADB Charter and Headquarters
applicable in the case at bar as the penal provision provided therein is made Agreement explicitly grant immunity from legal process to bank officers and
applicable to all violations of the Corporation Code, not otherwise specifically employees only with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity,
penalized. except when the Bank waives immunity. In other  words, officials and employees of
the ADB are subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts for their private acts,
After a meticulous consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, the Court notwithstanding the absence of a waiver of immunity.

comes to the conclusion that there is textual ambiguity in Section 144; moreover,
such ambiguity remains even after an examination of its legislative history and the The immunity of ADB is absolute whereas the immunity of its officials and employees
use of other aids to statutory construction, necessitating the application of the rule of is restricted only to official acts. The immunity accorded to petitioner is limited only to
lenity in the case at bar. acts performed in his official capacity, it becomes necessary to make a factual
determination of whether or not the defamatory utterances were made pursuant and
There is no provision in the Corporation Code using similarly emphatic language that in relation to his official functions as a senior economist.
evinces a categorical legislative intent to treat as a criminal offense each and every
violation of that law. Consequently, there is no compelling reason for the Court to
construe Section 144 as similarly employing the term "penalized" or "penalty" solely in
2. Territorial: Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the
terms of criminal liability.
Philippine territory.

The Corporation Code was intended as a regulatory measure, not primarily as a

penal statute. Sections 31 to 34 in particular were intended to impose exacting Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
standards of fidelity on corporate officers and directors but without unduly impeding preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only
them in the discharge of their work with concerns of litigation. within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

B. Characteristics of Criminal Law a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

1. General: Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to Government of the Philippine Islands;

the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (Article c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
14, New Civil Code)
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding
number;

Page 1 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

d. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense 2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly,
in the exercise of their functions; or
Philippine Legislature, National; Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and
e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the the Batasang Pambansa.

law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. 3. Penal Presidential Decreed issued during Martial Law.

(Article 2, Revised Penal Code)

People v. Tulin: Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, D. Constitutional Limitations on Criminal Law
provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a
member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Republic Act No. 7659, the 1. Due process and equal protection: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
Philippine waters.” On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in protection of the laws. (Article 3, Section 1, 1987 Constitution)

1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including “a
passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, White Light Corp v. City of Manila: The due process guaranty has traditionally been
passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on
law. Republic Act No. 7659 neither  superseded nor amended the provisions on government,"procedural due process" and "substantive due process." Procedural
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the two due process refers to the procedures that the government must　follow before it
laws.
deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.

Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the Procedural due process concerns itself with government action adhering　to the
vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Substantive
of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It
need not be committed in Philippine waters. inquires whether the government has　sufficient justification for depriving a person
of life, liberty, or property.

3. Prospective: Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable

by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. (Article 21, Garcia v. Drilon: Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the
Revised Penal Code)
constitutionality of a statute. At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are
special courts, of the same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369,
Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997,” family courts have exclusive
insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women
criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although and children. In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated from
at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of
pronounced and the convict is serving the same. (Article 22, Revised Penal several key cities identified.

Code)

2. Freedom of expression: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,

C. Sources of Criminal Law of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances. (Article 3, Section 4,
1. Revised Penal Code and its amendments.
1987 Constitution)

Page 2 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

US v. People: The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to b. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment
criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
concern. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively suppressed. It is a duty (Article 3, Section 19, 1987 Constitution)
which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any
alleged misconduct. It is further the duty of all who know of any official dereliction on People v. Echaragay: Heinous crime is an act or series of acts which, by the
the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to flagrantly violent manner in which the same was committed or by the reason of its
the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them.
inherent viciousness, shows a patent disregard and mockery of the law, public peace
and order, or public morals.   It is an offense whose essential and inherent
Guingguing v. People: Criminal libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation viciousness and atrocity are repugnant and outrageous to a civilized society and
of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, hence, shock the moral self of a people.

status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a

natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. The right of a person is not only to live but to live a quality life, and this means that
the rest of society is obligated to respect his or her individual personality, the
Two major propositions in the prosecution of defamatory remarks were established: integrity and the sanctity of his or her own physical body, and the value he or she
first, that libel against a public person is a greater offense than one directed against puts in his or her own spiritual, psychological, material and social preferences and
an ordinary man, and second, that it is immaterial that the libel be true. This Court has needs.
accepted the proposition that the actual malice standard governs the prosecution of
criminal libel cases concerning public figures.
Corpuz v. People: The gravamen of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence
under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or
3. Freedom of religion: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner and that the
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime.
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or 5. Non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax: No person shall be
political rights. (Article 3, Section 5, 1987 Constitution)
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. (Article 3, Section 20, 1987
Constitution)
Estrada v. Escritor: The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising
her right to freedom of religion. The free exercise of religion is 6. Bill of attainder:  No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Article
specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. 3, Section 22, 1987 Constitution)

4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment:

People v. Ferrer: A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act. It punishes without the
benefit  of the  trial.  It is  the substitution of judicial determination to a legislative
a. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman determination of guilt. In order for a statute be measured as a bill of attainder, the
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for following requisites must be present:

compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter

1.) The statute specifies persons, groups.
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
 2.) The statute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. (A bill of attainder
relatively is also an ex post facto law.)

Page 3 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

7. Ex post facto law: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. law and whether it will be made by the  court  that rendered it or by the
(Article 3, Section 22, 1987 Constitution) highest court of the land. When, however, circumstances transpire after the finality of
the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, the  Court  may sit
US v. Diaz Conde: A law imposing a new penalty, liability or disability, or giving a en  banc  and give due regard to such exceptional  circumstancewarranting the
new right of action, must not be construed as having a retroactive effect.  It is an relaxation of the doctrine of immutability.
elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time of the contract was
made must govern its interpretation and application.  Laws must be construed 4. Prescribed but undeserved penalties

prospectively and not retrospectively.  If a contract is legal at its commencement, it

cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation.  If that were permitted, then People v. Formigones: Two mitigating circumstances are present: passion or
the obligations of a contract might be impaired, which is prohibited by Philippine law.
obfuscation (having killed his wife in a jealous rage) & feeblemindedness. In
conclusion, appellant is found guilty of parricide & the lower court’s judgment is
Ex post facto laws, unless they are favorable to the defendant, are prohibited in this hereby affirmed w/ the modification that appellant will be credited with half of any
jurisdiction. Every law that makes an action, done before the passage of the law, and preventive imprisonment he has undergone (because of the 2 mitigating
which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action, is an ex post circumstances)

facto law.

E. Construction and Interpretation 5. Suppletory application of RPC to Special Penal Laws

1. Liberally in favor of the accused

Ladonga v. People: Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “a conspiracy
2. Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English text
exist when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of  a felony and decide to commit it.” To be held liable guilty as co-principal
People v. Abilong: It is clear that the word "imprisonment" used in the English text is by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have perform an overt act in
a wrong or erroneous translation of the phrase "sufriendo privacion delibertad” used pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.

in Spanish text.
It was not proven by direct evidence; petitioner was merely present at the time of the
It is equally  clear  that  although  the  Solicitor Generally impliedly admits destierro as issuance of the checks. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean
not constituting to imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty, through partial, in the concurrence with the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by
sense that as in the present case, the appellant by his sentece of destierro was conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.

deprived of the liberty to enter the City of Manila.

People v. Simon: The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by
Under the case of People vs. Samonte, as quoted in the brief of the Solicitor General Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised
that “it is clear that a person under sentence of destierro is suffering the deprivation Penal Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and
of his liberty and escapes from the restrictions of the penalty when he enters the effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, the court
prohibited area.”
have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision
correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period.
3. Retroactive application when favorable to the accused
Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now in effect punished by and
under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, the court
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan: The general rule is that a judgment that has acquired applied first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that “in imposing a prison
finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments,
respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence

Page 4 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

the  maximum  term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending commission of the act, who does not force or induce other to commit it, nor
circumstances, could be properly imposed  under the rules of said Code,  and cooperates in the commission of the act by another act without which it would not
the  minimum  which shall be within the range of the  penalty next lower to that have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or
prescribed by the Code for the offense.” simultaneous actions.

No evidence of moral or material cooperation, no agreement to commit the crime in

II. General Principles of Criminal Liability
question, and mere presence and silence while they are doing simultaneous acts do
not constitute cooperation. It does not appear that they encouraged or nerved to
A. Felony commit the crime; and as for failure to give the alarm, that being a subsequent act it
does not make her liable as an accomplice.
Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, and mere silence and failure
to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of cooperation required by Art. 14 of the Penal Code for complicity in the commission of
fault (culpa).
the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has kept silent.

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault People v. Talingdan: Subsequent acts of "concealing or assisting in  the escape of
when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or the principal in the crime" which makes an accused liable as an accessory after the
lack of skill.(Article 3, Revised Penal Code) fact under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.

The elements of felonies in general are:

2. Mental Element

1. That there must be an act or omission.

a. Deliberate Intent (Dolo)

2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the

Revised Penal Code.
In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must necessarily
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by be voluntary 

means of dolo or culpa.
Manuel v. People: Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
B. Elements of Criminal Liability humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary  computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s
1. Physical Element
wrongful act or omission.

a. Act - must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some

effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually A. An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions:
produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. (People v. first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly
Gonzales)
sustained by the claimant;

b. Omission - is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which is B. second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established;

bound to do.
C. third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the
injury sustained by the claimant; and

People v. Sylvestre and Atienza: Art. 14 of the Penal Code, in connection with Art. D. fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article
13 defines an accomplice to be one who does not take a direct part in the 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Indeed, bigamy is not one of those

Page 5 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

specifically mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may 2. Intelligence. Without this power, necessary to determine the morality ofhuman acts,
be ordered to pay moral damages to the private complainant/offended party. no crime can exist. Thus, the imbecile or the insane, and the infant under nine years
Nevertheless, the petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral of age as, well as the minor over nine but less than fifteen years old and acting
damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.
without discernment, have no criminal liability, because they act without intelligence.
(Art. 12, pars. 1, 2 and 3)
According to Article 19, “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and 3. Intent. Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is
good faith.” This provision contains what is commonly referred to as the principle of presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an
abuse of rights, and sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the unlawful act.
exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties.
All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present, because
The standards are the following: "a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil.
A. act with justice; 488, 495)
B. give everyone his due; and
C. observe honesty and good faith. ii. General and specific intent

The elements for abuse of rights are: Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo.
(a) there is a legal right or duty;
(b) exercised in bad faith; and
(c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the
legal maxims —
i. Elements of dolo

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make a man guilty
unless his intention were so."
In order that an act or Omission may be considered as having been performed or
incurred with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur:
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, "an act done by me against my will is not
my act." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
Distinction between general intent and specific intent.
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntari- ness is a general intent;
(3) He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
whereas, in some particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required.
Thus, in certain crimes against property, there must be the intent to gain (Art. 293 —
1. Freedom. When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but robbery; Art. 308 — theft). Intent to kill is essential in frustrated or attempted homicide
a tool; his liability is as much as that of the knife that wounds, or of the torch that sets (Art. 6 in relation to Art. 249); in forcible abduction (Art. 342), the specific intent of
fire, or of the key that opens a door, or of the ladder that is placed against the wall of lewd designs must be proved.
a house in committing robbery.
People v. Puno: There is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive,
Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from
criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 5) nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful acts against
complainant,  other than the extortion of money from her  under the compulsion of
So also, a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or threats or intimidation.
greater injury is exempt from criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 6)

Page 6 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

For this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. In the case, the restraint injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with
of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of another offense criminal intent.
primarily intended by the offenders. This does not constitute kidnapping or serious
illegal detention An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises
upon the commission of a felonious act. (People vs. Coching, et al., C.A., 52 O.G.
People v. Delim: CONSPIRACY - is determined when two or more persons agree to 293, citing People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257)
commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same
quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a
previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
believed them to be.

Appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
synchronized and executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill
Modesto
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.
There is no:

TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes US v. Ah Chong: There is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or
against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to
tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the
the defense which the offended party might make. accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and
For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove: such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.

a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity

to defend himself People v. Oanis: The accused found no circumstances whatever which would press
b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the accused
in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves,
and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been
Modesto was assaulted and killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be made, as the victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course ofaction
proven since it cannot be presumed that modesto was defenseless during the time for the accused to follow even ifthe victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed
that he was being attacked and shot at by the appellants. not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest, and to get him dead or alive only if
resistance or aggression
Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not constitute is offered by him.
proof that the three took advantage of their numerical superiority and their handguns
when Modesto was shot and stabbed.
Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault when they shot the victim in
violation of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first
iii. Mistake of Fact
the identity of the victim.

While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia iii. Malum Prohibitum as exception to the requirement of Mens Rea – not
legis non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal crime: wrong merely because prohibited by statute (illegal possession of firearms) –
liability (ignorantia facti act itself not immoral v mala in se(condemnation); mere rules of convenience
excusat)

Page 7 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

designed to secure a more orderly regulation of societal affairs (speed limit); when b. Constructive Intent (Culpa) - committed unconsciously and quite
doing an act prohibited by special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to unintentionally; Constructive = to bring about result

public welfare: crime.

i. Elements
Padilla v. Dizon: When a crime is punishable by a special law, intent to commit a 1. Freedom while doing/omitting to do act
crime is not necessary. In mala prohibitum, it is suffcient that the prohibited act as 2. Intelligence
intentionally done. 3. Imprudent, negligent or lacks foresight or
skill while doing/omitting to do an act
i. Intent distinguished from motive

Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is ii. Imprudence or lack of skill - deficiency of action ie. failure to take
the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. necessary precaution: ie speeding in school zone: knows risk but does not desist
from act

Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for
purposes of conviction. (People vs. Aposaga, No. L-32477, Oct. 30, 1981, 108 SCRA iii. Negligence or lack of foresight - deficiency of perception, failure to pay
574, 595) proper attention/due diligence in foreseeing what a reasonable person could foresee:
ie going on a long trip but not checking brakes
An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real motive
but just for the sake of committing it. Or, the apparent lack of a motive for committing People v. Pugay: Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective
a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there is none, but that simply it is not criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed
known to us, for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where it may be against miranda is individual NOT collective and each of them is liable only for the
found, hidden away and inaccessible to our observation. (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. act that was committed by him. Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of
255, 256) the assailants in confronting the victim.

One may be convicted of a crime whether his motive appears to be good or bad or Ivler v. San Pedro: The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a
even though no motive is proven. A good motive does not prevent an act from being a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such
crime. In mercy killing, the painless killing of a patient who has no chance of recovery, that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for
the motive may be good, but it is nevertheless punished by law. the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this
Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article
Magno v. CA: The noble objective of the law is tainted with materialism and 365.
opportunism in the highest degree.
Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and
Garcia v. CA: Penalty interests are in the nature of liquidated damages and may be simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Our
equitably reduced by the courts if they are iniquitous and unconscionable. Article ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and
1229 of the New Civil Code states that "The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing
debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus caused is more than
compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as
the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.”

"light offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence prosecuted belatedly).
If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the
sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be
imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized as grave,

Page 8 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

less grave or light offenses. This will still keep intact the distinct concept of quasi- 4. Resulting Harm: If a crime does require a bad result, the prosecution must prove
offenses. Meanwhile, the lenient schedule of penalties under Article 365, befitting the additional elements of  causation  and  harm. Issues involving the law of
crimes occupying a lower rung of culpability, should cushion the effect of this ruling. accessories and attempts are highlighted.

c. Transferred Intent

5. Causation:  It is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury
i. Aberratio Ictus - mistake in the blow
or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise
the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and
People v. Guillen: The accused is liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

inn accordance with Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code where criminal liability is
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done Bataclan v. Medina: Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and
be different from that which he intended. continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
ii. Error in Personae - there is a mistake in the identity of the victim
Comprehensively, '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
People v. Sabalones: Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by the and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
prosecution witnesses.  The crime scene was still quite near. It is overruled by immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as
positive identification.
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
RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated testimonies of two witnesses. prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
There was positive identification by survivors who saw them when they peered during his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.
lulls in gunfire. The place was well-lit, whether from post of car’s headlights. The
extrajudicial confession has no bearing because the conviction was based on positive People v. Iligan: Article 4 of the RPC states that criminal liability shall be incurred by
identification. It is binding though to the co-accused because it is used as any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
cirmustancial evidence corroborated by one witness. The inconcistencies are minor which he intended. The essential requisites are: that an intentional felony has been
and inconsequential which strengthen credibility of testimony. committed and that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct natural and
logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.

iii. Practer Intentionem - the injurious result is greater than that intended

People v. Albuquerque: The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause so Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court: An accused is criminally responsible for
grave an injury as the death of the deceased as well as those of his having voluntarily acts committed by him in violation of law and for all the natural and logical
surrendered himself to the authorities, and acted under the influence of passion and consequences resulting therefrom. The rule is that the death of the victim must be
obfuscation, should be taken into consideration in favor of the appellant. the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
accused.

3. Concurrence: A  crime  consists of two  elements: a guilty mental state (the mens Proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately
rea) and a guilty act (the actus reus). There must be concurrence between the guilty or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
mental state and the guilty act. This means that both  elements  must occur at the events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the
same time, or at essentially same time.
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 ordinarily prudent and intelligent person,

Page 9 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
San Beda University - College of Law

have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances
some person might probably result therefrom. unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended
crime.

D. Impossible Crimes People v. Saladino: The victim’s failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not
make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of the accused-appellant. The SC
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or held that the “intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and
criminal tendency on the part of the actor. Such person is a potential criminal. judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast
According to positivist thinking, the community must be protected from anti-social rule; it is therefore enough that it produces fear — fear that if the victim does not
activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid type of man called "socially
yield to the bestial demands of the accused something would happen to her at that
dangerous person."
moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the
incident.” The failure to shout or offer resistance was not because she consented to
The penalty for impossible crime is provided in Article 59 of this Code.
the deed but because she honestly believed she would be killed if she shouted or
resisted. Such threat is sufficient intimidation as contemplated by our jurisprudence
Intod v. CA: The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes
on rape. And be that as it may, if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of
in the offender his formidability. It now penalizes an act which were it not aimed at a continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the
something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate, assault as to make the victim’s participation in the sexual act voluntary.
would constitute a felony against person or against property. The rationale of Article
4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies.
Jacinto v. People: The requisites of an impossible crime are:

A. That the Act performed would be an offer against persons or property;

Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense B. That the act was alone with evil intent; and
against persons or property because: C. That the accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was
(1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment; or either inadequate or ineffectual.
(2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual.

To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its
nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either
(1) legal impossibility, or
(2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the
act as an impossible... crime.

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not
amount to a crime.

Thus:
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
(1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
(2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
(3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the...
consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category.

Page 10 of 10 BY: EMD S.Y. 2019-2020