Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B. CODE OF KALANTIAO
3. MISDEMEANOR
During Martial Law, there are many
Presidential Decrees issued aside from the special A minor infraction of the law, such as a
laws passed by the Philippine Legislature violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a
Commission. All these special laws which are penal misdemeanor.
in character, are part of our Penal Code.
4. CRIME
1. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is e. Distinction Between Intent and Motive
deceit. This is no longer true. At the time the Intent is demonstrated by the use of a
Revised Penal Code was codified, the term particular means to bring about a desired
nearest to dolo was deceit. However, deceit result- it is not a state of mind or a reason for
means fraud, and this is not the meaning of committing a crime.
dolo.
On the other hand, motive implies motion.
Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to It is the moving power which impels one to do
as criminal intent, and must be coupled with an act. When there is motive in the
freedom of action and intelligence on the part of commission of a crime, it always comes before
the offender as to the act done by him. the intent. But a crime may be committed
without motive.
iii. Rule Of Negative Ingredient When given a problem, take note if the crime
This is related to the doctrine of is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a
proximate cause and applicable when special law.
certain causes leading to the result are not
identifiable. 3. DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
This rule states that the prosecution must CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
first identify what the accused failed to do. SPECIAL LAWS
Once this is done, the burden of evidence
shifts to the accused. The accused must a. As To Moral Trait Of The Offender
show that the failure did not set in motion In crimes punished under the Revised Penal
the chain of events leading to the injury. Code, the moral trait of the offender is
(Carillo vs People, 1994) considered. This is why liability would only
arise when there is dolo or culpa in the
C. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY commission of the punishable act.
SPECIAL LAWS
In crimes punished under special laws, the
moral trait of the offender is not considered; it
1. CRIMES MALA IN SE AND MALA is enough that the prohibited act was
PROHIBITA voluntarily done.
Violations of the Revised Penal Code are b. As To Use Of Good Faith As Defense
referred to as malum in se, which literally
means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or
In crimes punished under special laws, good In Ladonga vs. People, 451 SCRA 673, it
faith is not a defense. was held that the first clause should be
understood to mean only that the special penal
c. As To Degree Of Accomplishment Of laws are controlling with regard to offenses
The Crime therein specifically punished. Said clause only
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal restates the elemental rule of statutory
Code, the degree of accomplishment of the construction that special legal provisions prevail
crime is taken into account in punishing the over general ones. Lex specialis derogant
offender; thus, there are attempted, generali. In fact, the clause can be considered as
frustrated and consummated stages in the a superfluity, and could have been eliminated
commission of the crime. altogether.
In crimes punished under special laws, the The second clause contains the soul of the
act gives rise to a crime only when it is article. The main idea and purpose of the article
consummated; there are no attempted or is embodied in the provision that the "code shall
frustrated stages, unless the special law be supplementary" to special laws, unless the
expressly penalizes a mere attempt or latter should specifically provide the contrary.
frustration of the crime.
For example, a special law punishes a certain
d. As To Mitigating And Aggravating act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the
Circumstances civil liability of one who violates the same. Here
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal is a person who violated the special law and he
Code, mitigating and aggravating was prosecuted. His violation caused damage or
circumstances are taken into account since the injury to a private party. May the court
moral trait of the offender is considered. pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended
party, considering that the special law is silent
In crimes punished under special laws, on this point? Yes, because Article 100 of the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances are Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory
not taken into account in imposing the application to prevent an injustice from being
penalty. done to the offended party. Article 100 states
that every person criminally liable for a felony is
e. As To Degree Of Participation also civilly liable. That article shall be applied
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal suppletorily to avoid an injustice that would be
Code, when there is more than one offender, caused to the private offended party, if he would
the degree of participation of each in the not be indemnified for the damages or injuries
commission of the crime is taken into account sustained by him.
in imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are
classified as principal, accomplice and In People vs. Rodriguez, it was held that the
accessory. use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel
cannot be further prosecuted for possession of
In crimes punished under special laws, the firearms. A violation of a special law can never
degree of participation of the offenders is not absorb a crime punishable under the Revised
considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited Penal Code, because violations of the Revised
act are penalized to the same extent. There is Penal Code are more serious than a violation of
no principal or accessory to consider. a special law. But a crime in the Revised Penal
Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special
4. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC the Code.
Offenses punishable under special laws are not In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is
subject to the provisions of the RPC. The RPC not an ingredient of the crime. Hence, two
shall be supplementary to special laws, unless prosecutions can be had: 1. sedition; and 2.
the latter should specially provide the contrary illegal possession of firearms.
(Art. 10, RPC)
But do not think that when a crime is punished
Article 10 is the consequence of the legal outside of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a
requirement that you have to distinguish those special law. For example, the crime of cattle-
punished under special laws and those under the rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a
Revised Penal Code. With regard to Article 10, modification of the crime of theft of large cattle.
observe the distinction. So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-
rustling, is not a special law. It can absorb the
In Article 10, there is a reservation “provision crime of murder. If in the course of cattle
of the Revised Penal Code may be applied rustling, murder was committed, the offender
suppletorily to special laws.” You will only apply cannot be prosecuted for murder. Murder would
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of
supplement to the special law, or simply
The amendments of Presidential Decree No. This question was asked in the bar examination:
6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by How do you classify felonies and how are felonies
Republic Act NO. 7659, which adopted the scale classified?
of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, means
that mitigating and aggravating circumstances What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6
can now be considered in imposing penalties. and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies
Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not expressly under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. That was
prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised not what the examiner had in mind because the
Penal Code. The stages of the commission of question does not require the candidate to classify
felonies will also apply since suppletory but also to define. Therefore, the examiner was
application is now allowed. after the classifications under Articles 3, 6 and 9.
The ruling in the case of US vs. Valdez is The explanation is academic. You will
still correct. But in the case of People vs. notice that under the Revised Penal Code,
Garcia, the situation is different. Here, the the crime of physical injuries is penalized on
offender who put the torch over the house the basis of the gravity of the injuries.
of the offended party, the house being a Actually, there is no simple crime of physical
nipa hut, the torch which was lighted could injuries. You have to categorize because
easily burn the roof of the nipa hut. But the there are specific articles that apply whether
torch burned out. the physical injuries are serious, less serious
or slight. If you say physical injuries, you do
In that case, you cannot say that the not know which article to apply. This being
offender believed that he had performed all so, you could not punish the attempted or
the acts of execution. There was not even a frustrated stage because you do not know
single burn of any instrument or agency of what crime of physical injuries was
the crime. committed.
If the penalty is a fine and exactly P200.00, it A complex crime strictly speaking is one
is only considered a light felony under Article 9. where the offender has to commit an offense
as a means for the commission of another
If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty offense. It is said that the offense is
or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is committed as a necessary means to commit
considered a correctional penalty under Article the other offense. “Necessary’ should not be
26. understood as indispensable, otherwise, it
shall be considered absorbed and not giving
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article rise to a complex crime.
26. It is considered as a correctional penalty and
it prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is A composite crime is one in which substance
apprehended at any time within ten years, he is made up of more than one crime, but which
can be made to suffer the fine. in the eyes of the law is only a single
indivisible offense. This is also known as
This classification of felony according to special complex crime. Examples are robbery
gravity is important with respect to the question with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with
of prescription of crimes. homicide. These are crimes which in the eye
of the law are regarded only as a single
In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe indivisible offense.
in two months. After two months, the state loses
the right to prosecute unless the running period c. Composite Crimes
is suspended. If the offender escapes while in This is one which is substance is made up of
detention after he has been loose, if there was more than one crime but which in the eyes of
already judgment that was passed, it can be the law is only a single indivisible offense.
promulgated even if absent under the New Rules This is also known as a special complex crime.
on Criminal Procedure. If the crime is Example are robbery with homicide, robbery
correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except with rape, robbery with physical injuries and
arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years. rape with homicide.
The first form of the complex crime is A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of
actually a compound crime, is one where a D. It was agreed that A would go to the
single act constitutes two or more grave second floor, B would stay in the first floor,
and/or less grave felonies. The basis in and C stands guard outside. All went to their
complexing or compounding the crime is the designated areas in pursuit of the plan.
act. So that when an offender performed While A was ransacking the second floor,
more than one act, although similar, if they the owner was awakened. A killed him. A, B,
result in separate crimes, there is no complex and C will be liable for robbery with
crime at all, instead, the offender shall be homicide. This is because, it is well settled
prosecuted for as many crimes as are that any killing taking place while robbery is
committed under separate information. being committed shall be treated as a single
indivisible offense.
When the single act brings about two or
more crimes, the offender is punished with As a general rule, when there is conspiracy,
only one penalty, although in the maximum the rule is that the act of one is the act of all.
period, because he acted only with single This principle applies only to the crime agreed
criminal impulse. The presumption is that, upon.
since there is only one criminal impulse and
correctly, only one penalty should be imposed. The exception is if any of the co-conspirator
would commit a crime not agreed upon. This
Conversely, when there are several acts happens when the crime agreed upon and the
performed, the assumption is that each act is crime committed by one of the co-conspirators
impelled by a distinct criminal impulse, a are distinct crimes.
separate penalty. However, it may happen
that the offender is impelled only by a single Exception to the exception: In acts
criminal impulse in committing a series of acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even
that brought about more than one crime, though the co-conspirator performed different
considering that Criminal Law, if there is only acts bringing about the composite crime, all
one criminal impulse which brought about the will be liable for such crime. They can only
commission of the crime, the offender should evade responsibility for any other crime
be penalized only once. outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that
the particular conspirator had tried to prevent
There are in fact cases decided by the the commission of such other act.
Supreme Court where the offender has
performed as series of acts but the acts The rule would be different if the crime
appeared to be impelled by one and the same committed was not a composite crime.
impulse, the ruling is that a complex crime is
committed. In this case it is not the Illustration:
In earlier rulings on abduction with rape, if Article 48 also applies in cases when out a
several offenders abducted the woman and single act of negligence or imprudence, two or
abused her, there is multiple rape. The more grave or less grave felonies resulted,
offenders are to be convicted of one count of although only the first part thereof (compound
rape and separately charged of the other rapes. crime). The second part of Article 48 does not
apply, referring to the complex crime proper
In People v. Jose, there were four because this applies or refers only to a
participants here. They abducted the woman, deliberate commission of one offense to commit
after which, the four took turns in abusing her. another offense.
It was held that each one of the four became
liable not only for his own rape but also for those However, a light felony may result from
committed by the others. Each of the four criminal negligence or imprudence, together with
offenders was convicted of four rapes. In the other grave or less grave felonies resulting
eyes of the law, each committed four crimes of therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all
rape. One of the four rapes committed by one felonies resulting from criminal negligence
of them was complexed with the crime of should be made subject of one information only.
abduction. The other three rapes are distinct The reason being that, there is only one
counts or rape. The three rapes are not information and prosecution only. Otherwise, it
necessary to commit the other rapes. Therefore, would be tantamount to splitting the criminal
separate complaints/information. negligence similar to splitting a cause of action
which is prohibited in civil cases.
In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court
through Jusitce Aquino ruled that there is only Although under Article 48, a light felony
one count of forcible abduction with rape should not be included in a complex crime, yet
committed by the offenders who abducted the by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the
two women and abused them several times. This light felony shall be included in the same
was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino, information charging the offender with grave
that there could be only one complex crime of and/or less grave felonies resulting from the
abduction with rape, regardless of the number of negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs
rapes committed because all the rapes are but counter to the provision of Article 48. So while
committed out of one and the same lewd design the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony
which impelled the offender to abduct the victim. resulting from the same criminal negligence
should be complexed with the other felonies
In People v. Bojas, the Supreme Court because that would be a blatant violation of
followed the ruling in People v. Jose that the Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated
four men who abducted and abused the offended that an additional penalty should be imposed for
women were held liable for one crime – one the light felony. This would mean two penalties
count or forcible abduction with rape and distinct to be imposed, one for the complex crime and
charges for rape for the other rapes committed one for the light felony. It cannot separate the
by them. light felony because it appears that the culpa is
crime itself and you cannot split the crime.
In People v. Bulaong, the Supreme Court
adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino Applying the concept of the “continued crime”,
in People v. Pabasa, that when several persons the following cases have been treated as
abducted a woman and abused her, regardless constituting one crime only:
of the number of rapes committed, there should (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two
only be one complex crime of forcible abduction different persons committed by the
with rape. The rapes committed were in the accused at the same place and period
nature of a continued crime characterized by the
So also, if A tried to intimidate B by poking Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude
a gun at the latter’s back, and B died of was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code
cardiac arrest, A will be prosecuted for on impossible crime would only apply when the
homicide but will be given the mitigating wrongful act, which would have constituted a
circumstance of praeter intentionem. crime against persons or property, could not and
did not constitute another felony. Otherwise, if
In Ramos-Andan v. People (2006) the such act constituted any other felony although
court said that the mitigating circumstance of different from what the offender intended, the
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong criminal liability should be for such other felony
may not be availed of when fraud is employed. and not for an impossible crime. The attitude
was so because Article 4 of the Code provides
3. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES two situations where criminal liability shall be
incurred, to wit:
Under par. 2, Article 4, An impossible crime is Article 4. Criminal liability—Criminal
an act which would be an offense only against liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a
person or property were it not for the inherent
felony (delito) although the
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account wrongful act done be different
of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual from that which he intended.
means. 2. By any person performing an act
which would be an offense
Liability under this paragraph is incurred only against persons or property,
if the offender has actually performed the act were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its
against the person or property of the intended
accomplishment or on account of
victim and such act does not constitute another the employment of inadequate
felony. Example, the dead victim was shot to or ineffectual means.
make it appear that he was trying to escape, the
accused is not a principal to an impossible crime Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the
but an accessory to the killing committed by the wrongful act done constituted a felony although
principal. it may be different from what he intended.
Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the
Modified Concept of impossible crime wrongful act done did not constitute any felony,
In a way, the concept of impossible crime has but because the act would have given rise to a
been modified by the decision of the Supreme crime against persons or against property, the
Court in the case of Intod vs. CA, et. al., 285 same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies
SCRA 52. In this case, four culprits, all armed to curtail their frequency. Because criminal
with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the liability for impossible crime presupposes that no
intended victim’s house and after having felony resulted form the wrongful act done, the
pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from
and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking P200.00 to P500.00, depending on the “social
that the intended victim was already there as it danger and degree of criminality shown by the
was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened offender”(Article 59), regardless of whether the
that the intended victim did not come home on wrongful act was an impossible crime against
that evening and so was not in her bedroom at persons or against property.
that time. Eventually the culprits were
prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of
attempted murder. The Court of Appeals Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1
affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court of the same Article, that is, where a felony
modified the same and held the petitioner liable resulted. Otherwise, a redundancy or duplicity
only for the so-called impossible crime. As a would be perpetrated.
result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
imprisonment of only six months of arresto
There are five circumstances affecting criminal Since the justifying circumstances are in the
liability: nature of defensive acts, there must be always
1. Justifying circumstances; Art. 11 (6) unlawful aggression. The reasonableness of the
2. Exempting circumstances; Art. 12 (7) means employed depends on the gravity of the
3. Mitigating circumstances; Art. 13 (10) aggression. If the unlawful aggressor was killed,
4. Aggravating circumstances; Art. 14 (21) this can only be justified if it was done to save
5. Alternative circumstances. Art. 15 (3) the life of the person defending or the person
being defended. The equation is “life was taken
There are others which are found elsewhere in to save life.”
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
1. Absolutory cause; and a. Self-Defense
2. Extenuating circumstances. In justifying circumstances, the most
important is self-defense. When this is given
In justifying and exempting circumstances, there in the bar, it is the element of unlawful
is no criminal liability. When an accused invokes aggression that is in issue. Never confuse
them, he in effect admits the commission of a unlawful aggression with provocation. Mere
crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The provocation is not enough.
burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the required conditions to justify of exempt Illustration:
his acts from criminal liability. What is shifted is A and B are long standing enemies.
only the burden of evidence, not the burden of Because of their continuous quarrel over
proof. the boundaries of their adjoining
properties, when A saw B one afternoon,
Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional he approached the latter with a bolo in his
acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. hand. When he was about five feet away
Exempting circumstances may be invoked in from B, B pulled out his revolver and shot
culpable felonies. A on the chest, killing him. Is B criminally
liable? What crime was committed, if any?
Distinctions between justifying circumstances and
exempting circumstances The act of A is nothing but a
Justifying Exempting provocation. It cannot be characterized as
Circumstances Circumstances an unlawful aggression because in
The circumstance The circumstances criminal law, an unlawful aggression is an
affects the act, not he affect the actor, not the attack or a threatened attack which
actor act produces an imminent danger to the life
The act complained of is The act complained of is and limb of the one resorting to self-
considered to have actually wrongful, but defense. In the facts of the problem given
been done within the the actor acted without above, what was said was that A was
bounds of law; hence, it voluntariness. He is a holding a bolo. That bolo does not
is legitimate and lawful mere tool or instrument produce any real or imminent danger
in the eyes of the law of the crime unless A raises his arm with the bolo. As
Since the act is Since the act long as that arm of A was down holding
considered lawful, there complained of is the bolo, there is no imminent danger to
is no crime, and actually wrongful, there the life or limb of B. Therefore, the act of
because there is no is a crime. But because B in shooting A is not justified.
crime, there is no the actor acted without
criminal voluntariness, there is In People vs. Dijan, it was held that
absence of dolo or unlawful aggression must also be a continuing
culpa. There is no circumstance or must have been existing at
criminal the time the defense is made. Once the
Since there is no crime Since there is a crime unlawful aggression is found to have ceased,
or criminal, there is no committed but there is the one making the defense of a stranger
criminal liability as well no criminal, there is would likewise cease to have any justification
as civil liability. civil liability for the for killing, or even just wounding, the former
wrong done. But there aggressor.
is no criminal liability.
However, in paragraphs In People vs. Cueto, 2003, the Court held
4 and 7 of Article 12, that self-defense is questionable when there is
there is neither criminal FLIGHT, for such is an act of evading the
nor civil liability. course of justice and responsibility. It tends to
(Accident and indicate guilt.
The second requisite is absent because they In exempting circumstances, the reason for
acted with negligence. There was nothing that the exemption lies on the involuntariness of the
prevented them from looking around the act—one or some of the ingredients of
house and looking at the face of the fellow voluntariness such as criminal intent,
who was sleeping. There could not be any intelligence, or freedom of action on the part of
danger on their life and limb. Hence, they the offender is missing. In case it is a culpable
were held guilty of the crime of murder felony, there is absence of freedom of action or
because the fellow was killed when he was intelligence, or absence of negligence,
sleeping and totally defenseless. However, the imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Supreme Court granted them the benefit of
incomplete justification of fulfillment of duty a. Insanity And Imbecility
and the penalty was reduced by one or two There is complete absence of intelligence.
degrees. The intellectual deficiency is permanent. There
is no lucid interval unlike in insanity. An
Do not confuse fulfillment of a duty with imbecile is a person whose mental
self-defense. development is like that of a child between 2
to 7 years of age.
Illustration: The insanity that is exempting is limited
A, a policeman, while waiting for his only to mental aberration or disease of the
wife to go home, was suddenly stabbed at mind and must completely impair the
the back by B, a hoodlum, who mistook intelligence of the accused. Under common
him for someone else. When A saw B, he law countries, emotional or spiritual insanity
drew his revolver and went after B. After are exempting circumstances unlike in this
firing a shot in the air, B did not stop so A jurisdiction because the Revised
shot B who was hit at a vital part of the Administrative Code, as defined is limited to
body. B died. Is the act of A justified? mental aberration of the mind. This was the
ruling in People vs. Dungo.
Yes. The justifying circumstance of
self-defense cannot be invoked because In People vs. Rafanan, the following are
the unlawful aggression had already the two tests for exemption on the grounds of
ceased by the time A shot B. When the insanity:
unlawful aggressor started fleeing, the i. The test of cognition, or whether the
unlawful aggression ceased. If the person accused acted with complete deprivation
attacked runs after him, in the eyes of the of intelligence in committing the said
law, he becomes the unlawful aggressor. crime;
Self-defense cannot be invoked. ii. The test of volition, or whether the
accused acted in total deprivation of
You apply paragraph 5 on fulfillment freedom of will.
of duty. The offender was not only
defending himself but was acting in Schizophrenia (dementia praecox) can only
fulfillment of a duty, to bring the criminal be considered a mitigating circumstance
to the authorities. As long as he was not because it does not completely deprive the
acting out of malice when he fired at the offender of consciousness of his acts.
fleeing criminal, he cannot be made
criminally liable. However, this is true In People vs Galigao, the defense of
only if it was the person who stabbed was insanity, to be tenable, should be based on
the one killed. more than the non-medical opinion of the
defense counsel that his client is insane.
If, let us say, the policeman was
stabbed and despite the fact that the In People vs. Formigones, It was held
aggressor ran into a crowd of people, the that feeblemindedness is NOT an exempting
policeman still fired indiscriminately. The circumstance since it does not remove the
policeman would held criminally liable persons ability to discern right from wrong.
because he acted with imprudence in
The commission of the felony must be You have to look at two criteria:
immediate to the threat or provocation in i. If from the element of time, there is a
order that this circumstance be mitigating. If material lapse of time stated in the
there is no sufficient break of time before the problem and there is nothing stated in
The word “immediate” here does not carry When a married person surprised his better
the same meaning as that under paragraph 4. half in the act of sexual intercourse with
The word “immediate” here is an erroneous another, he gets the benefit of Article 247.
Spanish translation because the Spanish word However, that requisite which in the first
is “proxima” and not “immediatementa.” place, the offender must have surprised his/
Therefore, it is enough that the offender her spouse actually committing sexual
committed the crime with the grave offense intercourse should be present. If the
done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or surprising was done not in the actual act of
descendant or to his brother or sister, whether sexual intercourse but before or after it, then
natural, adopted or legitimate and that is the Article 247 does not apply.
proximate cause of the commission of the
crime. Although this is the ruling, still, the accused
will be given the benefit of sufficient
f. Passion Or Obfuscation provocation if the intercourse was done in his
This stands on the premise or proposition dwelling. If this act was done somewhere else
that the offender is suffering from a and the accused kills the paramour or the
diminished self control because of the passion spouse, this may be considered as mitigation
or obfuscation. The same is true with the of a grave offense to him or otherwise as a
circumstances under paragraphs 4 and 5. So, situation sufficient to create passion or
there is a ruling to the effect that if the obfuscation. Therefore, when a married man
offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4, upon coming home, surprises his wife who
he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 was nude, Article 247 does not apply. If he
or 6, or vice-versa. Only one of the three kills them, vindication of a grave offense will
mitigating circumstances should be given in be mitigating in favor of the offender.
favor of the offender.
Illustrations:
However, in one case, one of the mitigating A is courting B, a receptionist in a
circumstances under paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 beerhouse. C danced with B. A saw this
stands or arises from a set of facts, and
A balcony is part of the dwelling As a rule, the crime must begin and end
because it is appurtenant to the house. during the night. Crime began at day and
ended at night as well as crime began at night
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with and ended at day is not aggravated by the
homicide because the crime can be committed circumstance of nighttime.
without the necessarily transgressing the
sanctity of the home. (People vs. De Los Darkness is what makes this circumstance
Reyes, decided October 22, 1992) aggravating. The darkness of night must be
purposely sought.
Dwelling is aggravating where the place is,
even for a brief moment, a “home,” although Illustration:
he is not the owner thereof as when the victim One evening, a crime was committed
gets shot in the house of his own parents. near the lamppost. The Supreme Court
e. Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious held that there is no aggravating
Ungratefulness circumstance of nighttime. Even if the
Do not confuse this with mere betrayal of crime was committed at night, but there
trust. This is aggravating only when the very was light, hence, darkness was not
offended party is the one who reposed the present, no aggravating circumstance just
confidence. If the confidence is reposed by by the fact of nighttime alone.
another, the offended party is different from
the fellow who reposed the confidence and Even if there was darkness but the
abuse of confidence in this case is not nighttime was only and incident of a chance
aggravating. meeting, there is no aggravating
circumstance. It must be shown that the
Illustrations: offender deliberately sought the cover of
A mother left her young daughter darkness and the offender purposely took
with the accused because she had nobody advantage of nighttime to facilitate the
to leave the child with while she had to go commission of the offense.
on an errand. The accused abused the
child. It was held that the abuse of Nocturnity is the period of time after sunset
confidence was not aggravating. What is to sunrise, from dusk to dawn.
present is betrayal of trust and that is not
aggravating. h. Uninhabited Place
It is determined not by the distance of the
In a case where the offender is a servant, nearest house to the scene of the crime but
the offended party is one of the members of whether or not in the place of the commission
the family. The servant poisoned the child. It of the offense, there was a reasonable
was held that abuse of confidence is possibility of the victim receiving some help.
aggravating. This is only true, however, if the
servant was still in the service of the family Illustration:
when he did the killing. If he was driven by A is on board a banca, not so far
the master out of the house for some time and away. B and C also are on board on their
he came back to poison the child, abuse of respective bancas. Suddenly, D showed
confidence will no longer be aggravating. The up from underwater and stabbed B. Is
reason is because that confidence has already there an aggravating circumstance of
been terminated when the offender was driven uninhabited place here? Yes, considering
out of the house. the fact that A and C before being able to
give assistance still have to jump into the
f. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The water and swim towards B and the time it
Chief Executive would take them to do that, the chances
Performance of function is not necessary in of B receiving some help was very little,
the circumstances of the offense being despite the fact that there were other
committed in the palace of the Chief persons not so far from the scene.
Executive, in a place devoted to religious
Evidence tending to prove that the offender
took advantage of the place and purposely
When the felony is grave, or less grave, all There was a quarrel between two families. One of
participants are criminally liable. the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. His
mother then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed
But where the felony is only light, only the someone. Is the mother liable? No.
principal and the accomplice are liable. The
accessory is not. Examples of inducement:
“I will give you a large amount of money”
But even the principal and accomplice will not “I will not marry you if you do not kill B”
be liable if the felony committed is only light and
the same is not consummated unless such felony In People v. Balderrama, Ernesto shouted to his
is against persons or property. If they are not and younger brother Oscar, “Birahin mo na, birahin mo
the same is not consummated, even the principal na!” Oscar stabbed the victim. It was held that there
and the accomplice are not liable. was no conspiracy. Joint or simultaneous action per
se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is common design. Oscar has no rancor with the victim
against persons or property that criminal liability for him to kill the latter. Considering that Ernesto
attaches to the principal or accomplice, even had great moral ascendancy and influence over
though the felony is only attempted or frustrated, Oscar, being much older (35 years old), than the
but accessories are not liable for light felonies. latter, who was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who
provided his allowance, clothing, as well as food
and shelter, Ernesto is principal by inducement.
In People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69, the son In the first situation, the facts indicate that if the
was mauled. The family was not in good terms fellow who held the legs of the victim and spread
with their neighbors. The father challenged them did not do so, the offender on top could hardly
everybody and when the neighbors approached, penetrate because the woman was strong enough to
he went home to get a rifle. The shouts of his move or resist. In the second situation, the son was
wife “here comes another, shoot him” cannot much bigger than the woman, so considering the
make the wife a principal by inducement. It is strength of the son and the victim, penetration is
not the determining cause of the crime in the possible even without the assistance of the father.
absence of proof that the words had great The son was a robust farmer and the victim was
influence over the husband. Neither is the wife’s undernourished. The act of the father in holding the
act of beaming the victim with a flashlight legs merely facilitated the penetration, but even
indispensable to the killing. She assisted her without it, the son would have succeeded in what he
husband in taking good aim, but such assistance wanted to do.
merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting.
Considering that it was not so dark and the The basis is the importance of the cooperation to
husband could have accomplished the deed the consummation of the crime. If the crime could
without his wife’s help, and considering further hardly be committed without such cooperation, then
that doubts must be resolved in favor of the such cooperation would bring about a principal. But if
accused, the liability of the wife is only that of the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the
an accomplice. consummation of the crime, this would make the
cooperator merely an accomplice.
The principal by induction becomes liable only
when the principal by direct participation In a case, the offender was running after the
committed the act induced. victim with a knife. Another fellow came and blocked
the way of the victim and as a result, the one
The effects of acquittal of principal by direct chasing caught up with the victim and stabbed the
participation upon the liability of principal by latter at the back. It was held that the fellow who
inducement are: blocked the victim’s way is a principal by
a. Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of indispensable cooperation because if he did not block
co-defendant. the way, the offender could not have caught up with
b. One cannot be held guilty of having the latter.
instigated the commission of a crime
without first being shown that the crime In another case, A was mauling B. C, a friend of B
has been actually committed by another. tried to approach but D stopped C so that A was able
to continuously maul B. The liability of D is as an
3. BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION accomplice. Obviously, he did not cooperate in the
mauling, he only stopped C from rescuing B in the
Distinguished from an accomplice hands of A.
It is not just a matter of cooperation, it is
more of whether the crime could have been In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or
hardly committed. It is not that the crime would liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.
not be committed because if that is what you
would imply, it becomes an ingredient of the B. ACCOMPLICES
crime and that is not what the law
contemplates.
When there is no conspiracy between or among
In the case of rape, where three men were the defendants but they were animated by one and the
accused, one was on top of the woman, one held same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective,
the hands, and one held the legs, the Supreme those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous act
Court held that all participants are principals. but cannot be held liable as principals are accomplices.
Those who held the legs and arms are principals
by indispensable cooperation. An accomplice does not have a previous
agreement or understanding or is not in conspiracy
The accused are father and son. The father with the principal by direct participation.
told his son that the only way to convince the
victim to marry him is to resort to rape. So CONSPIRATOR ACCOMPLICE
when the opportunity came, the young man
grabbed the woman, threw her on the ground
and placed himself on top of her while the father
Although under Article 24, the detention of a In the amendment, the law does not speak of
person accused of a crime while the case against credit. Whether the person is entitled to credit is
him is being tried does not amount to a penalty, immaterial. The discharge of the offender from
yet the law considers this as part of imprisonment preventive imprisonment or detention is predicated on
and generally deductible from the sentence. the fact that even if he would be found guilty of the
crime charged, he has practically served the sentence
When will this credit apply? If the penalty already, because he has been detained for a
imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty. Not all period already equal if not greater than the
Note: This article does not apply when the If the crime is a violation of a special law, in fixing
law does not fix the minimum of the fine. the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the court
Thus, it is in the discretion of the court to will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty
impose any amount without exceeding the prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not
minimum. exceed the limit of the penalty. In fixing the minimum,
the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range
of penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it
will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty
I. ACT NO. 4013 (INDETERMINATE under said law. No mitigating and aggravating
SENTENCE LAW), AS AMENDED circumstances are taken into account.
Three things to know about the Indeterminate The minimum and the maximum referred to in the
Sentence Law: Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. So, do
1. Its purpose; not say, maximum or minimum period. For the
2. Instances when it does not apply; and purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law, use the
3. How it operates term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence
which the convict shall serve as a minimum, and when
Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether we say maximum, for purposes of ISLAW, we refer to
the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal the maximum limit of the duration that the convict may
Code or a special Law. It is not limited to be held in jail. We are not referring to any period of
violations of the Revised Penal Code. the penalty as enumerated in Article 71.
It applies only when the penalty served is Courts are required to fix a minimum and a
imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it maximum of the sentence that they are to impose
does not apply. upon an offender when found guilty of the crime
charged. So, whenever the Indeterminate Sentence
PURPOSE Law is applicable, there is always a minimum and
maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve.
If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code, the
The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by
law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment, because it considering the mitigating and aggravating
is proven to be more destructive than constructive circumstances in the commission of the crime
to the offender. So, the purpose of the according to the proper rules of the Revised Penal
Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the Code. To fix the maximum, consider the mitigating
possible detention of the convict in jail is to save and aggravating circumstances according to the rules
valuable human resources. I other words, if the found in Article 64. This means –
valuable human resources were allowed prolonged 1. Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime
confinement in jail, they would deteriorate. committed shall be imposed in the medium period if
Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for no mitigating or aggravating circumstance;
these people for having committed a crime – to 2. If there is aggravating circumstance, no mitigating,
reform them rather than to deteriorate them and, penalty shall be imposed in the maximum;
at the same time, saving the government 3. If there is mitigating circumstance, no aggravating,
expenses of maintaining the convicts on a penalty shall be in the minimum;
prolonged confinement in jail. 4. If there are several mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, they shall offset against each other.
If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Whatever remains, apply the rules.
Code, the court will impose a sentence that has a 5. If there are two or more mitigating circumstance
minimum and maximum. The maximum of the and no aggravating circumstance, penalty next
indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking lower in degree shall be the one imposed.
into account the attendant mitigating and/or
aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the
of the Revised penal Code. In arriving at the maximum but not in determining the minimum.
minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court
will take into account the penalty prescribed for In determining the applicable penalty according to
the crime and go one degree lower. Within the the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there is no need to
range of one degree lower, the court will fix the mention the number of years, months and days; it is
minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned
within the range of the penalty arrived at as the while the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The attendant
maximum in the indeterminate sentence, the court mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the
will fix the maximum of the sentence. If there is a commission of the crime are taken into consideration
privilege mitigating circumstance which has been only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed.
taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of But in so far as the minimum is concerned, the basis of
the indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, and
based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege go one degree lower than that. But penalty one
mitigating circumstance within the range of the degree lower shall be applied in the same manner
penalty next lower in degree. that the maximum is also fixed based only on
Among the different grounds of partial Although a person may be eligible for probation,
extinction of criminal liability, the most important the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment
is probation. Probation is a disposition under of conviction, he cannot avail of probation anymore.
which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the
is released subject to the conditions imposed by earliest instance after conviction. He should not wait
the court and to the supervision of a probation up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the
officer. This may be availed of before the convict sentence has become final and executory. The idea is
begins serving sentence by final judgment and that probation has to be invoked at the earliest
provided that he did not appeal anymore from opportunity.
conviction. The filing of application for probation is
a waiver of the right to appeal. The application’s An application for probation is exclusively within
resolution (denied or granted) is not appealable. the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the
judgment. For the offender to apply in such court, he
An order placing the defendant on probation is should not appeal such judgment.
not a “sentence” but rather a suspension of the
imposition of sentence. Being a privilege, it is in If the offender would appeal the conviction of the
the discretion of the court to grant the defendant trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty
probation. If granted, accessory penalties are to say, less than six years, that convict can still file an
deemed suspended. But, granting such application for probation, because the earliest
probation has no bearing on his civil liability. opportunity for him to avail of probation came only
after judgment by the appellate court.
Without regard to the nature of the crime,
only those whose penalty does not exceed six
Prescription of crime Prescription of the The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of
penalty prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at
Forfeiture of the state Forfeiture to execute the public prosecutor’s office suspends the running of
to prosecute after a the final sentence after the prescriptive period, but not the filing with the
lapse of a certain time the lapse of a certain barangays. So the earlier rulings to the contrary are
time already abrogated by express provision of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Prescription of the crime begins, as a general
rule on the day the crime was committed, unless The prescription of the crime is interrupted or
the crime was concealed, not public, in which case, suspended –
the prescription thereof would only commence 1. When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for
from the time the offended party or the conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7,
government learns of the commission of the crime. Local government Code, but the suspension of the
prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. After
“Commission of the crime is public” – This which the prescription will resume to run, whether
does not mean alone that the crime was within the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not;
public knowledge or committed in public. 2. When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor’s
office, the prescription of the crime is suspended
Illustration: until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is
In the crime of falsification of a document terminated for a cause not attributable to the
that was registered in the proper registry of accused.
the government like the Registry of Property
or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry, But where the crime is subject to Summary
the falsification is deemed public from the Procedure, the prescription of the crime will be
time the falsified document was registered or suspended only when the information is already filed
recorded in such public office so even though, with the trial court. It is not the filing of the complaint,
the offended party may not really know of the but the filing of the information in the trial which
falsification, the prescriptive period of the will suspend the prescription of the crime.
crime shall already run from the moment the
It was held in the case of Espaňa v. People Liability specially attaches when the management
(2005) that the award for civil indemnity ex is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or
delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of regulation governing such establishment.
the victim without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime. Even if the crime is robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons or committed by the
Also in the crime of rape, the damages innkeeper’s employees, management will be liable,
awarded to the offended woman is generally otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the
P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In offender, liable only for theft and force upon things.
earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the
offended woman is younger or a married woman. Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an
Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended employer or master for the crime committed by his
woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, employee or servant may attach only when the
court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a following requisites concur.
woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages.
Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a 1. The employer must be engaged in business or
private prosecutor can recover all kinds of in trade or industry while the accused was his
damages including attorney’s fee. The only employee
So if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center Q5: A mayor awarded a concession to his
lane and a crime was committed, the crime daughter. She was also the highest bidder.
will be prosecuted before Philippine Courts. The award was even endorsed by the
municipal council as the most advantageous
to the municipality. The losing bidder
challenged the validity of the contract, but
Q2: A, a prisoner, learns that he is already the trial court sustained its validity. The case
overstaying in jail because his jail guard, goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor
B, who happens to be a law student gets convicted for violation of Republic Act
advised him that there is no more legal No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
ground for his continued imprisonment, Act). He appeals alleging his defenses raised
and B told him that he can go. A got out in the Sandiganbayan that he did not profit
of jail and went home. Was there any from the transaction, that the contract was
crime committed? advantageous to the municipality, and that
A: As far as A, the prisoner who is serving he did not act with intent to gain. Rule.
sentence, is concerned, the crime committed A: Judgment Affirmed. The contention of the mayor
is evasion of sentence. that he did not profit anything from the
transaction, that the contract was advantageous to
As far as B, the jail guard who allowed A to the municipality, and that he did not act with
go, is concerned, the crime committed is intent to gain, is not a defense. The crime involved
infidelity in the custody of prisoners. is malum prohibitum.
Q3: One boy was accused of parricide and Q6: Distinguish, in their respective concepts and
was found guilty. This is punished by legal implications, between crimes mala in se
reclusion perpetua to death. Assuming and crimes mala prohibita.
you were the judge, would you give the A: A(Suggested): In concept, crimes mala in se are
accused the benefit of the Indeterminate those where the acts and omissions penalized are
Sentence Law (ISLAW)? The ISLAW does inherently wrong that they are universally
not apply when the penalty imposed is condemned. In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are
life imprisonment or death. Would you not inherently evil but prohibited by law for public
consider the penalty imposable or the good, welfare and interest.
penalty imposed, taking into
consideration the mitigating In legal implications, good faith or lack of criminal
circumstance of minority? intent is a defense in crimes mala in se but not in
A: If you will answer “no,” then you go against crimes mala prohibita, where mere voluntary
the doctrine of Pro Reo, because you can commission of the prohibited act suffices. In
interpret the ISLAW in a more lenient manner. crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is incurred
Taking into account the doctrine, we can when the crime is consummated while in mala in
interpret the ISLAW to mean that the penalty se, criminal liability is incurred even when the
imposable and not the penalty prescribed by crime is only attempted or frustrated. Also, in
law, since it is more favorable for the accused crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating
to interpret the law. circumstances are appreciated in imposing
Q21: The facts were one of aberratio ictus, Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness
but the facts stated that the offender were committed under circumstances of rape,
aimed carelessly in firing the shot. Is meaning to say, there is employment of violence
the felony the result of dolo or culpa? or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason.
What crime was committed? Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of
A: All three instances under paragraph 1, Article lasciviousness is committed. This is a crime that is
4 are the product of dolo. In aberratio ictus, not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of
error in personae and praeter intentionem, lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only
never think of these as the product of culpa. when it is committed under the circumstances
They are always the result of an intended of seduction. If it is committed under the
felony, and, hence dolo. You cannot have circumstances of rape, the victim may be a
But if let us say, when he started squeezing If the question is “Is an impossible crime
the trigger, he did not realize that the firearm committed?”, the answer is yes, because on the
was empty. There was not bullet at all. There basis of the facts stated, an impossible crime is
is an impossible crime, because under any and committed. But to play safe, add another
all circumstance, an unloaded firearm will paragraph: However, the offender will not be
never fire. prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____
[state the crime]. Because it is a principle in
Whenever you are confronted with a problem criminal law that the offender can only be
where the facts suggest that an impossible prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do
crime was committed, be careful about the not constitute some other crimes punishable under
question asked. If the question asked is: “Is the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is a
an impossible crime committed?” Then you crime of last resort.
judge that question on the basis of the facts.
If the facts really constitute an impossible
crime, then you suggest that an impossible
crime is committed, then you state the reason Q29: A and B are husband and wife. A met C who
for the inherent impossibility. was willing to marry him, but he is already
married. A thought of eliminating B and to
If the question asked is “Is he liable for an poison her. So, he went to the drugstore
impossible crime?” this is a tricky question. and bought arsenic poison. On the way out,
Even though the facts constitute an impossible he met D. D asked him who was sick in the
crime, if the act done by the offender family, A confided to D that he bought the
constitutes some other crimes under the poison to poison his wife in order to marry
Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for C. After that, they parted ways. D went
an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for directly to the police and reported that A is
the crime so far by the act done by him. The going to kill his wife. So the policemen
reason is an offender is punished for an went to A’s house and found A still
impossible crime just to teach him a lesson unwrapping the arsenic poison. The
because of his criminal perversity. Although policemen asked A if he was planning to
objectively, no crime is committed, but poison his wife B and A said yes. The police
subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of arrested him and charged him with
the law will also be served if he is prosecuted attempted parricide. Is the charge correct?
for some other crime constituted by his acts A: No. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the
which are also punishable under the Revised poison with the food his wife is going to take.
Penal Code. Before this, there is no attempted stage yet.
Q28: A and B are neighbors. They are jealous Q30: A awakened one morning with a man
of each other’s social status. A thought sleeping in his sofa. Beside the man was a
of killing B so A climbed the house of B bag containing picklocks and similar tools.
through the window and stabbed B on He found out that the man entered the sala
the heart, not knowing that B died a by cutting the screen on his window. If you
few minutes ago of bangungot. Is A were to prosecute this fellow, for what
liable for an impossible crime? crime are you going to prosecute him?
A: No. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to A: The act done by him of entering through an
dwelling. Although the act done by A against B opening not intended for the purpose is only
constitutes an impossible crime, it is the qualified trespass. Qualified trespass because he
principle of criminal law that the offender shall did so by cutting through the screen. There was
be punished for an impossible crime only force applied in order to enter. Other than that,
when his act cannot be punished under some under Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code, illegal
other provision of the Revised Penal Code. possession of picklocks and similar tools is a crime.
Thus, he can be prosecuted for two crimes: 1.
In other words, this idea of an impossible qualified trespass to dwelling, and 2. illegal
crime is one of last resort, just to teach the possession of picklocks and similar tools; not
offender a lesson because of his criminal complex because one is not necessary means to
perversity. If he could be taught of the same commit the other.
lesson by charging him with some other crime
constituted by his act, then that will be the
proper way. If you want to play safe, you
state there that although an impossible crime Q31: Is there an attempted slight physical
is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal injuries?
Q54: Is the bond to keep the peace the same (Alternative): The word “INFLICTED” is found only
as bond for good behavior? in Art. 83 to the effect that the death penalty may
A: No. The legal effect of each is entirely not be “INFLICTED” upon a pregnant woman, such
different. The legal effect of a failure to post a penalty is to be suspended.
bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either
for 30 days or 6 months, depending on If “INFLICTED” is to be construed as
whether the felony committed is grave or less “EXECUTION,” then No.5 is the choice.
grave on the one hand, or it is light only on
the other hand. The legal effect of failure to Q56: The penalty imposed by the judge is fine
post a bond for good behavior is not only. The sheriff then tried to levy the
imprisonment but destierro under Article 284. property of the defendant after it has
become final and executory, but it was
returned unsatisfied. The court then issued
an order for said convict to suffer the
Q55: The death penalty cannot be inflicted subsidiary penalty. The convict was
under which of the following detained, for which reason he filed a
circumstances: petition for habeas corpus contending
1. When the guilty person in at least that his detention is illegal. Will the
18 years of age at the time of the petition prosper?
commission of the crime.
(2) Persons convicted of treason, Q59: TRY was given the death penalty. But
conspiracy or proposal to commit subsequently he was granted pardon by the
treason; President. The pardon was silent on the
perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold
(3) Persons convicted of misprision of any public office. After his pardon, TRY ran
treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage; for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown.
His opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY
(4) Persons convicted of piracy; contended that he is not disqualified
because he was already pardoned by the
(5) Persons who are habitual delinquents; President unconditionally. Is TRY’s
contention correct? Reason briefly.
(6) Persons who shall have escaped from A: No, TRY’s contention is not correct. Article 40 of
confinement or evaded sentence; the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that
when the death penalty is not executed by reason
(7) Those who have been granted of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties
conditional pardon by the Chief of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil
Executive and shall have violated the interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date
term thereto; of the sentence shall remain as the effects thereof,
unless such accessory penalties have been
(8) Those whose maximum term of expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because
imprisonment does not exceed one pardon only excuses the convict from serving the
year; sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of
the conviction unless expressly remitted in the
(9) Those already sentenced by final pardon.
judgment at the time of the approval of
Indeterminate Sentence Law;
The period of prescription of a crime shall Q63: What are the cases the provisions of the
commence to run only from the day on which ROC are made applicable even if the felony
the crime has been discovered by the is committed outside the Philippines? (Bar
offended party, the authorities or their agents 1959, 1964, 1973, 1982)
(Article 91, RPC). OW, a private person who A: In these cases when the offender:
saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not 1. Commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
the offended party nor has the crime been or airship
discovered by the authorities or their agents. 2. Forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government
3. be liable for acts connected with the
Q61: Distinguish between an ordinary introduction into the Philippines of the
complex crime and a special complex obligations and securities (e.g. forged and
crime as to their concepts and as to the counterfeited coins, notes, obligations)
imposition of penalties. 4. is an officer or employee and should commit
A: An ordinary complex crime is made up of 2 or an offense in the exercise of his functions;
more crimes being punished in distinct and
provisions of the RPC but alleged in one 5. Commit any of the crimes against national
information, so that only 1 penalty will be security and the law of nations.
imposed, because either they were brought
about by a single act or one offense was a
necessary means to commit another. The
penalty for the most serious crime shall be Q64: The American consul accredited to the
imposed in its maximum period. Philippines while driving his car recklessly
and imprudently along Roxas Boulevard
On the other hand, a special complex crime is bumped a pedestrian who was crossing the
made up of 2 or more crimes that are street and the latter died as a consequence
considered only as components of a single of his injuries. Prosecuted in court for the
indivisible offense punished in one provision of crime of homicide thru reckless
the RPC. The component crimes are not imprudence, the Consul claimed diplomatic
regarded as distinct crimes so only one immunity alleging that he is not subject to
penalty is specifically prescribed for all of Philippine law and regulations. Is his
them. defense tenable? (Bar 1975)
A: Consuls under international law do not enjoy the
diplomatic immunity enjoyed by sovereigns or
heads of states, ambassadors, ministers
Q62: A learned two days ago that B received plenipotentiary and ministers resident; hence, his
dollar bills worth $10,000 from his defense is not tenable because he could be
daughter working in the US. With the criminally prosecuted.
intention of robbing B, A entered B’s
house at midnight, armed with a knife
used to gain entry and began quietly Q65: Penal law defines distinct classes of crimes.
searching the drawers and other likely Discuss and elucidate on their distinctions.
receptacles for cash. While doing that, (Bar 1978)
B awoke, rushed out of his room and A: Penal laws or crimes in general may refer to any
grappled with A for the possession of act or omission punishable by the RPC and special
the knife. A stabbed B to death, found laws. Crimes punished under the RPC are called
the latter’s wallet beneath the pillow, felonies and those penalized by special laws are
which was bulging with the dollar bills called statutory offenses. As a rule felony is an act
he was looking for. A took the bills and mala in se which is wrongful from its very nature
left the house. What crime/s was/were while an offense is an act mala prohibita which is a
committed? wrong only because there is a law punishing
A: The crime committed was robbery with it. Misdemeanors are infractions of the law
homicide, a composite crime. A’s primordial such as violations of ordinances.
RPC also classifies felonies as intentional, if Q70: What is meant by impossible crime? (Bar
dolo or malice is present, and culpable, if 1947) Explain impossible crime (Bar 1993,
there is culpa or fault. 2000)
A: An impossible crime is an act which would be an
According to gravity, felonies are grave, if offense against person or property were it not for
penalty is capital or afflictive in nay of its the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
periods; less grave, if the penalty in its on account of the enjoyment of inadequate or
maximum period is correctional; and light, if ineffectual means.
the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding P200.00 or both.
Q107: As Sergio, Yoyon, Zoilo, and Warlito Q109: In case of acquittal, may the acquitted
engaged in a drinking spree at person be subjected to public censure?
Hearthrob Disco, Special Police (Bar 1988)
Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang A: No. Censure, being a penalty is not proper in
suddenly approached them, aimed his acquittal.
revolver at Sergio whom he
recognized as a wanted killer and
fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Q110: P was sentenced from 6 years and 1 day
Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito ganged up to 12 years and 1 day and ordered to pay
on Yabang. Warlito using his own a fine of P2000.00. May P be compelled to
pistol, shot and wounded Yabang. serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of
(a) What are the criminal liabilities of failure to pay the fine? (Bar 1980)
Yoyong, Zoilo, and Warlito for the A: No, because the principal penalty imposed is
injury of Yabang? Were there higher than prision correccional. Had it been solely
conspiracy and treachery? (Bar 1992) a fine, the answer would be otherwise.
(b) In turn, is Yabang criminally liable for
the death of Sergio? (Bar 1992)