Introduction

Ex Post Facto Law

- Crime was not punishable thus accused was innocent when done
- Aggravates crime
- Inflicts greater punishment
- Authorize conviction for less testimony
- Deprivation of rights
- Lawful protection of crime to which he was entitled

Bill of attainder punishment without trial

Constitutional Rights of the accused:

1. Speedy disposition
2. Due process
3. Bailable by sufficient sureties
4. Presumption of innocence
5. Not compelled to be a witness against himself
6. No excessive fines
7. No double jeopardy
8. Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies

Art. 1: EFFECTIVITY OF RPC

2 theories:
1. Classical theory
Basis of criminal liability is human free will, purpose of penalty is retribution.

2. Positivist theory

Art. 2: PENAL LAWS BINDING WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES

Binding outside PH if:

1. On PH sip or airship
o Registered by PH BOC

GENERAL RULE: 3 MILES

2. Counterfeit coin or currency

3. Public officer/employees in exercise of funtions
4. Crimes of national security
a. Treason
b. Conspiracy for treason
c. Espionage
d. War and reprisals
e. Violation of neutrality
f. Correspondence with hostile country
g. Flight to enemys country
h. Piracy and mutiny
Regional Trial Court original jurisdiction overall crimes and offenses commited on high seas or beyond
jurisdiction of any country (Sec. 44g Judiciary Act of 1948, RA 296)

Continuing Crime triable by PH courts

Note: Landing or using of Opium is an open violation of the laws of PH (US vs. Look Chaw)

When vessel is not in transit because PH is terminal port, may be liable for illegal importation of opium.
(US vs. Ah Sing)

Smoking opium is against public policy. (People vs. Wong Cheng)

Merchant ships and warships always subject to laws in which country they belong.

US vs. Bull
A foreign merchant ship sails into the Philippines cattle in the condition not suitable and secured. The
case is within the PH jurisdiction because it is a continuing crime.

The ship was in high seas.

People vs. Wong Chen

Smoking opium aboard a foreign merchant ship is within the jurisdiction of PH because it involves public
policy.

Homicide aboard a foreign ship is also within the jurisdiction of the court because it involves violation of
public policy.

US vs. Look Shaw

Opium was discovered inside a foreign ship. The accused admitted that it was purposely for sale. Opium
said to have landed on PH soil thus under the jurisdiction of the courts, unless there is a treaty.

Mere possession of opium is not triable by our courts.

US vs. Ah Sing
Selling of opium is under PH court jurisdiction.

Art 3: FELONY

Elements: PAP
1. Act or omission
2. Punishable under RPC
3. Performed by means of dolo or culpa

Mere passive presence at the scene of anothers crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm,
without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. (People vs Silvestre and Atienza)

To be punishable, acts must be:

 1. External acts
2. Voluntary acts

2 types of felonies:
1. Intentional
2. Culpable
Both are voluntary.

Requisites of voluntariness of intentional felony:

1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent

Mistake of Fact
Requisites:
1. Act done wouldve been lawful had the facts been known LAWFUL ACT
2. Intention should be lawful LAWFUL INTENTION
3. Mistake is without fault/carelessness WITHOUT FAULT

Case:
US vs. Ah Chong
Roommate was mistaken for a robber.

People vs. Oanis

Didnt exercise care in the conduct of duty; killed an innocent man without confirming identity.

Note: error in personae

- Mistake of fact does not apply

TO DETERMINE IF ONE IS A FELONY

1. MUST BE INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT (FELONY)
2. MUST BE VOLUNTARY
3. WITH OR WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT
4. ACT IS UNLAWFUL DESPITE IT RESULTED DIFFERENTLY FROM EXPECTED

Motive is not an essential element of a crime. Essential only in the identification of the accused.

Art 4: CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Who commit criminal liability?

1. Person committing felony (all consequences)
a. Mistake in identity of victim (error in personae)
b. Mistake in the blow (aberration ictus)
c. Injurious result is greater than that intended (praeter intentionem)

Requisites:
d. There was intentional felony
e. Wrong done was direct, natural, and logical consequence of felony
 2. Person acting against persons or property

el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado

He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.

HOW TO DETERMINE IF ONE IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE?

1. The crime is punishable by law

People vs. Bindoy

He only defended his possession of Bolo. Self-defense is not a crime but a justifying circumstance.

2. The crime was intentional or negligent (intentional felony)

People vs. Cagoco

He had no intention to kill only that he threw a fist at the back of the head of his victim. He had
intention to injure.

3. The crime or negligence was voluntary

NO FELONY IF:
1. Not punishable under RPC
Note:
This applies to your intentioned crime like intentional suicide resulting to homicide of another.
The crime that has to be in your mind is punishable under RPC.

2. A justifying circumstance (Art. 11)

Self-defense as an example

People vs. Salinas

Preventing someone to fight someone else is not a crime punishable under RPC. If the act resulted in the
death of the child, it cannot be criminally liable for the death.

Note: First ask: is the act a crime punishable under RPC?

People vs. Page

If a man creates in another persons mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to
try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such state of mind is
responsible for the resulting injuries.

There was an attempted crime.

CRIME AGAINST THOSE DIAGNOSED WITH DISEASE

1. If latter died directly, naturally and logically because of the crime committed that resulted to
acceleration in disease leading to death
 2. If the latter refuses to undergo surgery to heal injury result of crime, the latter is not obliged.
(US vs. Marasigan)
3. If the wound got infected subsequently, still liable as consequence unless he was at fault even if
it took long to effect.

Note: Latter is at fault must be malicious (with intention)

Example: when victim dumped the wound into the garbage to have it infected.

People vs. Quinson

The victim took out the drainage in the wound which causes his death.

The accused is still liable as natural consequence. The victim is assumed to be in good faith in taking out
the drainage.

US vs. Marasigan
The victim is not obliged to undergo surgery for the severed fingers. The accused is still liable.

People vs. Reloj

The victim developed paralytic ileum resulting from exposure of organs from surgery. Surgery was a
consequence of the crime which resulted to his death. Accused is liable.

Proximate Cause THAT CAUSE, WHICH, IN NATURAL AND CONTINUOUS CONSEQUENCE, UNBROKEN
BY ANY EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE, PRODUCES THE INJURY AND WITHOUT WHCH THE RESULT
WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED.

Natural occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events

Logical rational connection between the act and the resulting injury

Bataclan vs. Medina

The cause of the fire of the bus was the gas leak lighted up by the torches brought by people to the
rescue. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was the result of old tires. Accused is
liable.

Efficient intervening causes free of liability; must be distinct and foreign from felonious act.

Not EIC:
1. Weak of diseased physical condition
2. Nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes inherent in the victim (not know how to swim)
4. Neglect of the victim or third person to undergo medical attendance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment

Note: In order to know if the accused is liable, ask what could have caused the death or injury and then
trace it from the result back to the cause.

If the cause was not proved, the accuseds act is deemed to be the cause of the injury or death.
Impossible Crimes
(compare to FRUSTRATED FELONY)

Requisites:
1. Act performed is an offense against persons and property

Person intends to commit felony. If felony is actually done, he is liable criminally for felony and
not impossible crime.

2. With evil intent

He is liable if he did not know that the victim was dead but still pursued in the crime. If he knew
that the victim was dead yet still pursued, he is liable for impossible crime.

3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or means employed is inadequate or ineffectual

a. Legal impossibility
b. Physical impossibility

Different from frustrated felony:

Impossible crime: inadequate means hence no effect
Frustrated felony: adequate means but no effect

4. Not punishable under RPC

Jacinto vs. People Commented [r1]: I dont know why it isnt frustrated
Accused stole a check and deposited it to her account. The check bounced. This is an impossible felony. Theft is punishable under RPC. The crime
crime. consummated although it was prevented.

Art. 5: DUTY OF THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT WHICH
ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES

CRIMES THAT SHOULD BE REPRESSED

Requisites:
1. The act was not punishable under the law
2. The court deemed it proper to repress the act
3. Made proper decision to acquit the accused
4. Make a report to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice stating reason why he
believes that such should be a crime

EXCESSIVE PENALTY
1. Accused is guilty
2. Penalty provided by law is excessive:
a. Accused acted with lesser degree of malice
b. No or light injury
3. Court should not suspend execution of sentence
4. Submit statement to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice recommending
executive clemency

People vs. Monleon

Wife prevented husband from whipping son which caused injury and death to wife. The court thinks
that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was excessive.

People vs. Espino

Father and son stole coconuts for family consumption. The court thinks the penalty of arresto mayor/
prision correctional is excessive.

Note: Not applicable if penalty was meant to uphold PUBLIC POLICY (profiteering, rampant
lawlessness)

Art. 5 is not punishable under special laws.

Art. 6: CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED, AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES

Consummated Felony
All elements necessary for the execution and accomplishment are present.

Frustrated felony
1. Performed all acts to produce felony
2. Do not produce it for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRIME

1. Internal Acts in the mind; not punishable
2. External Acts
a. Preparatory acts not punishable
b. Acts of execution-punishable may they be attempted, frustrated, or consummated

Note: Frustrated felony must have been executed to the extent that there is no doubt if the execution
was a crime or not because it is already apparent that that crime was his intention.

Attempted Felony
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts (more than a mere
planning, which when done, would logically, necessarily ripen into a concrete offense)
a. There be external act
b. (a) has a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed
2. Does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony
3. Offender is not stopped by his own desistance Commented [r2]: If it is by his own desistance, it
4. non-performance was due to cause or accident other than (3) constitutes an internal act.

US vs. Simeon
The accused raising his bolo does not constitute attempted felony.

Attempted Frustrated
All acts necessary to All acts necessary to
produce the crime produce the crime
was not complete was complete just
that, external acts
 prevented its
consummation.

Note: There must be no double interpretations of the crime done. If so, it does not constitute an
attempted felony. Such is still at subjective phase where he still has control of his acts.

Frustrated Felony
1. Performs all acts of execution (reached the objective phase) Commented [r3]: Basically, this is the only difference of
2. All acts wouldve produced the felony as a consequence attempted and frustrated murder that is why most of the
3. Felony is not produced time, they are lumped.
4. Reason independent of the will of the perpetrator

People vs. Pio

A random guy shot him with the following facts:
1. The victim escaped and the guy knew
2. The victim was shot not at a vital part of the body
3. The guy just left store

The fact that he knew the victim escaped gave him the idea that he did not hit the victim at the vital part
which if he couldve, it wouldve led to his death (his intention). This is attempted murder because he
was not able to perform all acts necessary (hit the vital part).

Problem
The husband placed arsenic in the food of the wife. The wife took the poison. Immediately, the husband
prevented the death from poison by cleansing her stomach. There was no attempted nor frustrated
murder because the all acts necessary to produce the crime was present BUT consummation was
prevented by the perpetrator himself.

Impossible Attempted Frustrated

Crime Felony Felony
- evil intent was - evil intent was - evil intent was
not not not
accomplished accomplished accomplished
- evil intent
CANNOT BE - There is - There is
ACCOMPLISHED possibility of possibility of
- it is inherently accomplishment accomplishment
impossible or - there was an - there was an
means intervention intervention
employed is independent of independent of
inadequate or the perpetrator the perpetrator
ineffectual
- all acts - all acts - all acts
necessary were necessary were necessary were
done except not completely completely
that they were done done
inadequate
Consummated Felony
Considerations:
a. Nature of the offense
b. Elements constituting the felony
c. Manner of committing the same

Note:
a. The comsummation of crime of arson does not depend upon the extend of the damage caused
b. It is enough in theft that the thief got hold of the thing belonging to another
c. To consummate estafa, damage must be caused
d. In robbery, there is force in order to obtain the thing. The thing has to be taken to a place where
it can be freely disposed. Commented [RNC4]: Compared to theft where there is
no force needed.
People vs. Flores
Van full of boxes stolen did not pass the check point where the guard discovered the crime. This is
frustrated theft.

People vs. Espiritu

Hospital linen were stolen and upon reaching the check point, the crime was discovered. This is
consummated theft.

CONFLICT
There is no crime of frustrated theft. (Vanzuela vs. People)

VANZUELA VS. PEOPLE

Calderon and Vanzuela loaded boxes of Tide Ultramatic to a taxi. When the security guard hailed the taxi
and asked for the receipt of the goods, Calderon fled.

This is not frustrated fraud as all elements to the crime of theft are present.

Frustrated and Attempted Homicide

Rule:
With intention to kill homicide
Without intention to kill physical injuries Commented [RNC5]: Be careful with intention. It can
either be expressed I will kill you or implied the wound
COLINARES VS. PEOPLE was in a vital part of the body

The complainant was hit in the head by the defendant with a stone. At first, the defendant threw a fist
at the back of the complainant and when he fell, he hit him (complainant) with the stone. He invoked
self-defense in that the complainant was drug and hit him first.

This is attempted homicide in that the wound was not fatal but there was intention to kill because the
stone was hit at the right temple of the head.

ROQUE VS. PEOPLE

The accused, with criminal intent, hit the right ear, and nape, and kicked the face and back causing
serious injury. This is frustrated homicide because there was intention to kill and the injuries were fatal
(could lead to death).

Formal crimes
- Consummate by a single act
SLANDER AND FALSE TESTIMONY

Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act

- The attempt consummates the act
o Flight to enemys country
o Corruption of minor
o Treason

Felony by omission
- There can be no attempt

Crime requiring intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement
- Mere agreement consummates felony
- Offer is attempted felony

Material crimes
- Homicide, rape, etc.

Art. 7: WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE

only when they are consummated

Exception:
When against persons or property, liable for frustrated or attempted felony.

Mnemonic: malicious intruiging slight theft alteration

1. Slight physical injuries (exception)

2. Theft(exception)
3. Alteration of boundary marks (exception)
4. Malicious mischief (exception)
5. Intriguing against honor

Art 8: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY

General Rule: Not a crime as long as there are no overt acts

Reason:
- Only preparatory acts
- Presumed innocent

Exception: when penalty for it is provided by law

a. Treason (punishable even if proposal)
 b. Rebellion(punishable even if proposal)
c. Sedition

Indications of conspiracy
It has to be proved that there was a pattern or meeting of minds. The crime has to show a common
design.

Requisites:
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement
2. Agreements concern commission of a felony
3. Execution of felony be decided upon

Agreement
a. Meeting of minds
b. Refers to a commission of a crime
c. Made up their minds to commit crime

People vs. Silvestre

Silvestre was accused to have transpired in a conspiracy for arson. She testified that she was just merely
at the scene.

An accomplice means doing nothing on the crime itself but cooperated by executing acts before or after
the crime. Mere appearance at the scene is not punishable under RPC.

PROPOSAL

Requisites:
1. Person has decided to commit a felony Commented [RNC6]: Thus a mere do you want to
2. Proposes its execution to another commit a crime? is not a proposal because you are not
sure yourself.
Note: the plan has to be concrete. Also when you are afraid to do it alone.

CASES

People vs. Aleta

The accused was hitting the man with his co-accused having his arms locked on both sides. There is
conspiracy based on the unity of the purpose. There is no need for direct proof of conspiracy because
eye witness accounts were clear.

People vs. Lopez

Art. 10: GRAVE, LESS GRAVE, AND LIGHT FELONIES

Grave Felonies
1. Capital punishment
2. Afflictive penalties in any periods
a. Reclusion perpetua
 b. Reclusion temporal
c. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
d. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
e. Prision mayor
Note: periods mean higher or highest of the penalties are afflictive.

Less Grave Felonies

Higher or highest penalty must be a correctional penalty:
a. Prision correccional
b. Arresto mayor
c. Suspension
d. Destierro

Art. 10: OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE

This code is supplementary to special laws.

Art. 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Act is said to be in accordance with law and free from both criminal and civil liability.

Basis: LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT

1. Self-defense
Requisites:
a. Reasonable necessity
b. Unlawful aggression
c. Lack of sufficient provocation
2. In defense of the person or right of:
a. His spouse
b. Ascendants
c. Descendants
d. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers or sisters
e. relatives by affinity in the same degrees
f. consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
Requisites (a) and (b) in (1)
3. In defense of a stranger
Requisites:
a. (a) and (b) in (1)
b. Not induced by revenge, resentment or evil motive
4. In order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act that causes damage to another.
Requisites:
a. Evil sought to avoid exists
b. Injury feared be greater
c. No practical or less harmful means of preventing it
5. In the fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
6. Acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose

SELF-DEFENSE
Sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence
Unlawful Agression
Must be an actual physical assault or threat to inflict real injury.

Note: threat must be offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.

Considerations:
1. Retaliation not self-defense
The unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from a fray.

2. Unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused

3. Defense must be made within an appreciable interval of time

4. Hitting from the back not self-defense

5. When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists unless retreated to take more
advantageous position. Commented [RNC7]: Must be clear that this is his
purpose.
6. There is no aggression when there is agreement to fight. Commented [RNC8]: Agreement may be expressed
(accused consented to the fight) or implied (after victim said
7. Robbery and theft victim can always invoke self-defense come down, lets fight then the accused fired a blow, he
has impliedly accepted)

8. Toy gun can be used for unlawful aggression If agreement had taken place, but did not consummate,
there is unlawful aggression.
9. Mere threatening attitude not an unlawful aggression Commented [RNC9]: Picking up a weapon is preceded by
circumstances indicating the intention of the deceased to
10. Imaginary aggression not unlawful aggression. use it in attacking the defendant is unlawful aggression.
Commented [RNC10]: Such as when you just saw him
11. For defense of property, there must be an unlawful aggression against the accused. Life cannot with a pistol.
be equated to property.

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

-
How to determine sufficiency:
Note: verbal argument cannot be considered