Criminal law - is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their (2) aggravates a crime, or makes

e, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;

nature, and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc. 129)
Crime - is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or
commanding it. (I Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, 729)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law:
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly,
Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the
Batasang Pambansa.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
Common law crimes are not recognized in this country (known in the US and
England) as the body of principles, usages and rules of action, which do not rest for
their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the
meaning of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government.
Power to define and punish crimes.
[People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124]
= The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes
and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police
power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and denning criminal offenses
[U.S. vs. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94, 100]
= The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime by a natural law belongs to
the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of
society.
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation. The
Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations:
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. Ill, Sec. 22) ex post
facto law is one which:
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
(5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty
or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1])
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.
(People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395)
Ex:
Congress passes a law which authorizes the arrest and imprisonment of
communists without the benefit of a judicial trial.
Characteristics of criminal law:
I. GENERAL, in that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn
in Philippine territory. (Art. 14, new Civil Code)
>The state has the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed
within its territory, regardless of the nationality of the offender.
No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its
laws and jurisdiction, with the exception of heads of states and diplomatic
representatives who, by virtue of the customary law of nations, are not subject to the
Philippine territorial jurisdiction."
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military
character of the accused. U.S. vs. Sweet (1 Phil. 18)
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
= Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of malversation (Art. 217)
committed by an army finance officer. (People vs. Livara, G.R. No. L-6021, April 20,
1954)
= Even in times of war, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the
military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the Philippine Army,
provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in
progress and civil courts are functioning. (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356)
The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable when the military court
takes cognizance of the case.
= Articles of War apply. (Ruffy, et al. vs. Chief of Staff, et al., 75 Phil. 875)
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.
1. Treaties or treaty stipulations. Ex. Visiting Forces Agreement bet. Ph & US
2. Law of preferential application.Ex. Rep. Act No. 75 in favor of diplomatic
representatives and their domestic servants.
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of
public international law.
(1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
(2) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges
d'affaires.
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or
minister. (Schneckenburger vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 250)
II. TERRITORIAL, in that criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed
within Philippine territory.
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
Article I of the 1987 Constitution
III. PROSPECTIVE, in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a
manner in which it was not punishable when committed. As provided in
Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are punished under the laws in
force at the time of their commission.
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.
= Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient
or favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect. But this exception has
no application:
1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471)
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, Revised Penal
Code. (Art. 22, RPC)
Preliminary Title: DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
History of the Revised Penal Code.
= Committee which was created by Administrative Order No. 94 of the Department
of Justice (October 18, 1927):
Anacleto Diaz, as chairman, and Quintin Paredes, Guillermo
Guevara, Alex Reyes and Mariano H. de Joya, as members,
was instructed to revise the old Penal Code, taking into consideration the existing
conditions, the special penal laws and the rulings laid down by the Supreme Court.
= The old Penal Code, which was revised by the Committee, took effect in the
Philippines on July 14, 1887, and was in force up to December 31, 1931.
> (U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321, 323) "The royal order dated December 17,
1886, directed the execution of the royal decree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was
ordered that the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula be published and applied in
the Philippine Islands, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on
March 13 and 14, 1887, became effective four months thereafter."
= The Revised Penal Code, as enacted by the Philippine Legislature, was approved
on December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1, 1932.
The Revised Penal Code consists of two books.
Book One: (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20), and (b) the
provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113).
Book Two are defined felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and
grouped under fourteen different titles (Arts. 114-365).
Date of Effectiveness.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect.
There are two important theories in criminal law:
(1) the classical theory (2) the positivist theory.
Characteristics of the classical theory.
1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is
retribution.
2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose
between good and evil, more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than
upon the man, the criminal himself.
3. establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty.
4. There is a scant regard to the human element.
Characteristics of the positivist theory.
1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.
2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and it cannot be treated
and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor
by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through
the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough,
personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of
psychiatrists and social scientists.
Art. 2. Application of its provisions.
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
(registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs)
> The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is
considered part of the national territory.
> But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country,
the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign
country.
(U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of
theft committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the
Philippines.
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines
or obligations and securities issued by the Government.
Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or forges treasury
or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign country may
be prosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art. 163 or Art. 166 of the
Revised Penal Code.
3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited
obligations and securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
counterfeiting of the same, to the economical interest of the country.
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in
the exercise of his functions.
The crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are direct
bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. 211), frauds against the public treasury (Art.
213), possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation of public funds or
property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218), illegal
use of public funds or property (Art. 220), failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (Art. 221), and falsification by a public officer or employee committed with
abuse of his official position. (Art. 171).
When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our public officers or
employees while in the exercise of his functions, he can be prosecuted here.
5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the
law of nations.
The crimes against the national security and the law of nations are treason (Art. 114),
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting
to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118), violation of neutrality (Art. 119),
correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120), flight to enemy's country (Art. 121),
and piracy and mutiny on the high seas. (Art. 122)
The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court in which the charge is filed.
> The crimes committed outside of the Philippines but punishable therein under
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in
which the charge is first filed. (Rule 110, Sec. 15[d], Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure)
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship.
Just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory, foreign merchant ship is
considered an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs. For this
reason, an offense commited on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is
not triable by our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.
(U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7) Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel
while on Philippine waters is triable before our court.
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels.
There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels while in the territorial waters of another country.
French Rule. Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered.
English Rule. Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect
things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. In this
country, we observe the English Rule.
Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of homicide committed on board a
foreign merchant vessel by a member of the crew against another?
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt
with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb
the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the
proper authorities of the local jurisdiction.
All must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction (Mali
and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the Common Jail, 120 U.S. 1, cited in People vs. Wong
Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 731-732)
Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel
in transit not triable by our courts.
Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in
Philippine courts, because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public
order. The courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the
vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the laws of
the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573, 577-578)
When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its
terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable,
because he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36
Phil. 978, 981-982)
Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.
Smoking opium aboard an English vessel while anchored two and one-half miles in
Manila Bay constitutes a breach of public order, because the primary object of the
law in punishing the use of opium is to protect the inhabitants of this country against
the disastrous effects entailed by the use of such drug. And to smoke opium within
our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a
breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce
its pernicious effects within our territory. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over
crimes constituting a breach of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in
Philippine jurisdictional waters. (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters.
In case vessels are in the ports or territorial waters of a foreign country, a distinction
must be made between merchant ships and warships; the former are more or less
subjected to the territorial laws. (See U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7; U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18
Phil. 573; and People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729)
Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong
and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. A United States Army transport
is considered a warship. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Title One: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL
LIABILITY - Art. 3. Definition.
Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
Elements of felonies.
1. That there must be an act or omission.
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
(People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309, 324)
Meaning of the word "act." = any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in
the external world
> as constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external
act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. (See Art.
6)
Example of felony by performing an act.
A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of the latter. The
act of taking the watch of B, with intent to gain, constitutes the crime of theft.
Only external act is punished.
a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may
be, will never constitute a felony.
Thus, even if A entertains the idea of killing B, as long as he does not commence the
commission of the crime directly by overt act, A is not criminally liable.
Meaning of the word "omission." = inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do.
In felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the
person required to do the act fails to perform it.
The omission must be punishable by law.
Because there is no law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorities
the commission of a crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony.
(People vs. Silvestre and Atienza; 56 Phil. 353)
"Punishable by law."
> This is the other element of a felony. This is based upon the maxim, "nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege," - there is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
> "punished by the Revised Penal Code" and not by a special law.
> "felony" = acts and omissions punished in the Revised Penal Code
> "crime" and "offense" = which are applied to infractions of the law punished by
special statutes.
Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed:
(1) Intentional felonies
Felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice. the act or omission of the
offender is malicious; act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice);has the
intention to cause an injury to another.
Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another.
(2) In culpable felonies
Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa. the act or omission of the offender is
not malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional,
it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice."
Few felonies committed by means of fault or culpa. Art. 217 punishes malversation
through negligence. Art. 224 punishes evasion through negligence
Art. 365 punishes (an intermediate act) acts by imprudence or negligence, which,
had they been intentional, would constitute grave, less grave or light felonies in a
lesser degree and with an equal result
A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for
culpable felony. (U.S. vs. Divino, 12 Phil. 175, 190)
Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action, usually involves lack of skill.
Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception, usually involves lack of foresight
Reason for punishing acts of negligence (culpa).
His own person, rights and property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be
exposed to all manner of danger and injury.
Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary. Mistake of fact.
While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia
1. The Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the Classical Theory, according
legis non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal
to which the basis of criminal liability is human free will.
liability (ignorantia facti excusat).
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a
Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
rational being. One must prove that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act
injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with
or omission is not voluntary.
criminal intent.
3. In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate intent which must
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
necessarily be voluntary; and in felonies by culpa, the imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
injury results. believed them to be.

Requisites of dolo or malice. 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. (the act
done would not constitute a felony had the facts been as the accused believed them to be)
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act; (2) He must
have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act; (3) He must have 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
Ah Chong case and Oanis case distinguished
All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present,
In the Ah Chong case, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or
because "a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act." (U.S. vs. Ah
carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to
Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495)
make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately,
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and
such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.
One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another.
One who acts without intelligence has no such intent. In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever which would press
them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the accused
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that
part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary
end had been made, as the victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate
shall appear.
course of action for the accused to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as
But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest, and to get him dead or
act which is not unlawful. alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.
The maxim is: actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the
Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault when they shot the victim in
mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent. There is no felony by dolo if
violation of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying
there is no intent. The presumption of criminal intent from the commission of an
first the identity of the victim.
unlawful act may be rebutted by proof of lack of such intent.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve
the accused from criminal responsibility.
Mala in se and mala prohibita, distinguished.
In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact crimes mala in se (wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc.,);
does not apply. those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members; the intent governs; refers generally to felonies denned
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact.
and penalized by the Revised Penal Code
The defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is charged with a culpable felony.
In felonies committed through negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is mala prohibita (wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such as illegal
replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. possession of firearms); violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society; has the law been violated?; refers
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the
generally to acts made criminal by special laws
legal maxims
Intent distinguished from motive.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so." Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is
the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Motive is not an essential
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, "an act done by me against my will is not my
element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction.
act."

Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of

culpa.

culpa may be considered voluntary, if:

(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act; (2) He must
have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;(3) He is
IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or
omitting to do the act

The third class of crimes are those punished by special laws.

Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.

> When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime
is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act
prohibited by the special law.

Intent to commit the crime = there must be criminal intent

Intent to perpetrate the act = it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously