SirJim Notes

Criminal Law 1 - NOTES 9/13/14
_Discussion on Article 3 of the RPC_
"Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent, and there is fault
when the wrongful act resorts from negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or
lack of skill."
1) Physical element (actus reus), also known as the objective element = can be proven
directly
2) Mental element (mens rea), also known as the subjective element = [INTENT/state of
mind] we need the mental element to establish liability; different from the motive (why the
person acts)
-There are 2 forms of mens rea under Article 3

1) DOLO (malicious intent)
[Requisites/Elements of Dolo]
a. Voluntariness/Freedom = a person had a choice, act done is a
consequence of free will
*Our law on criminal liability assumes that man has free will.
b. Intelligence = determine morality of the act; must be complete
>insanity/legally insane (re: Aaron's question; killing a baby you believe to be Satan)
c. Intent = intent to commit act with malice, purely mental process and
it is PRESUMED, presumption arises from the proof of the
commission of an unlawful act
>sane (re: Aaron's question)
*You don't go to intent kaagad if freedom or intelligence are missing,
you have to determine each element individually
> Dolo is at the heart of criminal liability since it is the subjective element
-Many felonies will have the same objective element, but it is the mens rea
that will be the determining factor
-You infer the mens rea from what is observable (physical acts and circumstances)
-When you examine the question of mens rea, the assumptions are the person has
met the elements of dolo
-The question of involuntariness or lack of intelligence is a defense, the question of

evil intent is a matter for the prosecution
-In Case # 19, People vs. Puno:

DOCTRINE: general or specific intent
ISSUE: simple robbery, kidnapping with ransom or highway robbery of Socorro
HELD: crime committed is simple robbery
> We need to determine the specific intent of the accused in order to define
which crime they would be penalized for.
> Specific intent is required to be proven for kidnapping with ransom is intent
to deprive the person of her liberty
> In the Puno case, the deprivation of liberty is INCIDENTAL. The SPECIFIC
intent was to just take the money of Socorro, kaya simple robbery
Alex A. | D2018
-In Case # 20, Padilla vs. Dizon:
DOCTRINE: malum prohibitum - exception to the requirement of mens rea
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross incompetence and
gross ignorance of the law in setting free Lo Chi Fai in the People vs. Lo Chi Fai case
of smuggling dollars in violation of Central Bank Circular 960
HELD: Judge Dizon is guilty and dismissed from service
>Malum prohibitum is an exception to mens rea, there is NO EVIL intent, but
there is STILL the mental element and concurrence of dolo.
>Special laws do not necessarily equate to being punished under malum
prohibitum, because when acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se,
even if they are punished under a special law
>It is well settled that criminal intent need not proved in the
prosecution of acts mala prohibita. A person may not have consciously
intended to commit a crime; but if he did intend to commit an act, and that act
is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself, then he can be held liable for
the malum prohibitum. Intent to commit the crime is not necessary, but intent
to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law must be shown.
> The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal intent, but in
mala prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.
> "Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent
to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act." (US vs. Go Chico)
2) CULPA (fault)
[Requisites/Elements of Dolo]
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. *Negligence = results from a deficiency/lack in/of perception
d. *Imprudence =results from a deficiency/lack in/of action
*what is punished is the result through simple imprudence or general negligence
(generic result of killing or damage to property)
e. Lack of foresight =synonymous w/ negligence
f. Lack of skill =synonymous w/ imprudence
-There are only two talaga: negligence (lack of foresight) or imprudence (lack
of skill)
- Imprudent person has the higher penalty because he freely and
knowingly places another person at risk of harm.
- In negligence, he has unconsciously or has not foreseen that he has put the
person in harm's way.
-In Case # 22, People vs. Pugay

DOCTRINE: constructive intent - negligence or lack of foresight
ISSUE:
HELD: Pugay and Samson are guilty of reckless imprudence and negligence
resulting in homicide, you are penalizing the reckless imprudence and negligence,
you are penalized FOR the result BY YOUR ACTION.
>The imprudence is in the fact that Pugay poured gasoline on Miranda,
knowing that it was dangerous.
>Pugay was imprudent.
> The wrongful act is not synonymous with the imprudent act.
>The wrongful act results from the imprudent or negligent act.
>Here, we hold Pugay imprudent because of the risk he
exposed others to.
Alex A. | D2018
>Samson was charged with intentional felony of homicide because even if he
did not intend to kill Miranda, because he said that he only intended to burn
Miranda's clothes. Burning someone else's clothes is already a felony.
> If you intend a crime, you are responsible for all the natural, logical and
reasonable consequences of your criminal act. So if you intend to burn his
clothes and he dies, you are liable for his death. You are liable for homicide
(NOT negligently) because he knew exactly what he was doing. Samson
intended to burn the clothes, that's his fault. So he is liable for Miranda's
death.
>There CAN be dolo and culpa for the SAME result. (Dolo kay Samson,
Culpa kay Pugay.)
>There CANNOT be both dolo and culpa for THE SAME
PERSON. BUT 2 different people can entertain 2 different mental states that
can bring about the same crime and result.
-Between culpa and dolo, DOLO has the HIGHER penalty. The fault is that he
intentionally, freely and knowingly caused another person harm.
>Exception: Malversation committed by public officials (intentional
malversation is higher than negligent malversation)
3) Concurrence
_________
4) Result
5) Causation
"Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent, and there is fault
when the wrongful act results from negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or
lack of skill."
Where does mistake of fact come in?

-How is a situation covered by mistake of fact? (Variation of the rule on mens rea, why
is it the exception to the mens rea requirement on criminal liability?)
-In Case # 23, US vs. Ah Chong:

DOCTRINE: mistake of fact
ISSUE: WON Ah Chong acted in lawful self-defense?
HELD: YES.
>Law in order to invoke self-defense (Art. 11 of RPC) person must have
been acting in actual or imminent harm
>If you look at the facts of Ah Chong, he was never in any danger.
>Strictly speaking, Ah Chong shouldn't have been entitled to self-defense
because he was never in danger.
> Principle of mistake of fact: The law requires a MENTAL element (dolo) in
order to make Ah Chong liable. He should've intended to kill in a malicious or
evil way.
>POINT TO CONSIDER: What was Ah Chong's state of mind at the time?
Alex A. | D2018
-Did he believe he was in danger? That's what the SC laid down for us
in this case. (Mistake of fact wasn't decided before this case.)
>Mistake of fact was an honest one.
>SC believed that Ah Chong acted in honest mistake of fact, therefore
allowing him to invoke the rule of self-defense.
>SC needed to establish satisfaction of both requisites: 1) mistake of fact and
2) self-defense.
-Ah Chong met ALL of them.
-In Case # 24, People vs. Oanis:

DOCTRINE: mistake of fact
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in its judgment (convicting the appellants of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide).
HELD: YES.
>Defense said that they were acting in the performance of their duties.
>SC said that they can be held liable for their acts because unlike in the case
of Ah Chong, they were in a situation where they could've made a choice.
>Their mistake of fact was due to their own fault of carelessness.
_Discussion on Article 4, Par. 1 of the RPC_
"Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended."
What would make a person criminally liable?

-Article 4 paragraph 1 tell us that the wrongful result is different from what he intended.
-Unexpressed requirement: There will only be liability if the unintended consequences are
similar in nature with the intended consequences.
-Will not apply to situations where the injury requires specific intent to commit injury (e.g.
rape, malicious mischief and mutilation)
-fiction of intent must be anchored in the identity/gravity of the unintended consequences
(CRIMINAL LIABILITY only, not civil liability)
-By legal fiction, what we are transferring is the INTENT from one to another. The law cannot
make the similar jump to, for example, intent to kill to damage to a car.
-The nature of the injuries must NOT be a great difference. It should only be a matter of
identity of persons or gravity. Generally, you would exclude those that require specific intent,
dolo or liability for that.
-Remember that Art. 4, p.1 covers FELONIES only (acts punishable under the RPC)
*Remember Sir's suicide example--if you try to kill yourself while jumping off a
building, and kill a pedestrian in the process but you survive, you will NOT be
criminally liable for the death of the pedestrian because suicide is NOT punishable
under the RPC/Philippine penal law.
Transferred intent
Alex A. | D2018
-In Case # 25, People vs. Guillen:
DOCTRINE: transferred intent - abberatio ictus - MISTAKE IN BLOW
ISSUE: WON Guillen is liable for the death and injuries of the other victims even if it
was the President whom he intended to assassinate?
HELD: YES.
>Art. 4, p.1 (aka principle of transferred intent= the intention to bring about
harm is transferred to the actual harm caused) tells us that he is still at fault
for that unintended result.
>The deliberate intent to kill the President is transferred, by legal fiction, to
the resulting death of people other than President Roxas.
>3 diff. situations contemplated by Art. 4, p.1
1) Abberatio ictus (mistake in blow)
2) Error in personae (mistake in identity)
3) Praerter intentionem (result is greater than intent)
>In Guillen, the blow is tossing the grenade in the direction of Pres. Roxas
>Blow landed elsewhere, that's why it's mistake of blow.
-In Case # 26, People vs. Sabalones:

DOCTRINE: transferred intent - error in personae - MISTAKE IN IDENTITY
-In Case # 27, People vs. Albuquerque:

DOCTRINE: transferred intent - praeter intentionem - RESULT IS GREATER THAN INTENT
Concurrence
-Sir's example of Meann breaking into Alex's house and taking her stuff: No concurrence
between act of taking property and breaking the window - liability would only be for theft,
NOT robbery.
-There has to be concurrence between every physical element of the felony (at least sa
physical, mental and concurrence) for criminal liability to occur.
Resulting harm
-Some felonies will require a particular result for liability for the felony.
-Other felonies do not require this (e.g. rape=liability is complete upon the prohibited act)
Causation
-Where the law requires a result for liability for that felony, the additional element is
CAUSATION.
-Proximate cause: nearest or most probable cause
>refers to the act or circumstance that led to the felony
-You are referring to the result and the physical act in cause.
>The physical act/omission caused the result.
>There must be a direct connection with the result and physical act.
-In Case # 28, Bataclan vs. Medina

DOCTRINE: causation
ISSUE: Who should be liable for the death of Bataclan via burning bus?
(who/what IS liable for the cause is a factual question, who SHOULD BE liable for the
cause is a proximate cause/judgmental question)
HELD:
>Understand that because it is a question of SHOULD rather than IS, the conclusion
is on the application of very subjective measures.
Alex A. | D2018
>The question is, WHO SHOULD BE THE CAUSE?
>It's really a question of against whom or to whom is it fair to charge the
responsibility for the death.
-SUBJECTIVE TERM
>You have to rely on your own sense of what you feel is fair and just. In other words,
it's like asking "Is it fair to charge the driver/good samaritans/act of God for the death
of Bataclan?" --LEGAL QUESTION, not a question of fact.
*Sir's example: A bus was lodged in a rock for a year then it rolled down and killed
people because of an earthquake (after a year has passed):
-Point of apparent safety - once the chain of circumstances comes to rest at a point
of apparent safety, responsibility ceases. Anything that happens beyond that should
no longer be ascribed to any negligent act/omission prior to that point of apparent
safety.
*Rule applicable specifically for homicides:
-In the US, they have what is used as the "one year and one day rule", if you injure
somebody and he dies after a year and a day, you are no longer responsible for the
death of the victim. Ratio: People can be kept alive for more than a year and a day.
-Is the person who inflicted the injury to begin with responsible for the death?
There are some felonies that require a SIXTH element, CIRCUMSTANCE.

-e.g. seduction (victim under 18 years of age = circumstance)
-when we take up felonies in Crim 2, we will understand why some felonies require this sixth
element.
Attempted, frustrated and consummated felonies

-framework for stages: TIME. [attempted -> frustrated -> consummated] occurring over time.
HW: Plot a timeline to yourself where the attempted, frustrated and consummated felonies
are drawn in the timeline of a crime. (Up to what point in the timeline? Where does attempt
start, frustrated start?)
Incomplete elements
-Which elements are missing to decide if it's attempted or frustrated?
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies

as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly or overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
-Felonies are found and defined in the RPC Book 2 Provisions. Then you just extend the
elements of a felony to a specific provision.
Alex A. | D2018
There are 3 stages of execution of a crime under Art. 6 of the RPC:
o 1) A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
o 2) A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent from the will of the perpetrator. (In
short, pumalpak yung scheme ng perpetrator.)
o 3) A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of the execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. (In short, something messed up the perpetrator's
scheme.) So long as the offender fails to complete all the acts of execution despite
commencing the commission of a felony, the crime is attempted.
What is lacking in an attempted felony is the completion of the elements of a
felony.
[[MELA'S TIMELINE]]
*Subjective phase = a portion of the time continuum, ends when the offender loses control
over the acts he has committed. Offender can still change the course of events.
It is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender
begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts,
including their (acts') natural course. If between these two points the offender is stopped by
any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been
passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last
act, it is frustrated, provided the crime is not produced. The acts then of the offender
reached the objective phase of the crime.
>Acts of execution are performed during the subjective phase.
>So long as you're in control of your actions, the law will reward a person who
desists from committing a crime.
*The desistance does not distinguish the attempted felony from the frustrated felony. What
distinguishes them is the elements of the act of execution.
*Between attempted felony and frustrated felony, you have unperformed acts of execution.
*What do you mean by "direct" in Art. 6? The act is causal to the consequence.
-In Case # 30, People vs. Lamahang:

DOCTRINE: the word "directly" in Art. 6
ISSUE: WON it was attempted robbery?
HELD: NO. Lamahang should be convicted of attempted trespassing only. In
robbery, what has to be proven is the intention to take the possession.
>Robbery hasn't commenced yet because what he has attempted to do was
to break-in.
>Only one thing happened in this case.
>Mens rea is most of the time, inferred from the acts and the external
circumstances. You don't begin your analysis by saying what the mens rea is.
Begin by identifying acts and cricumstances in which the acts were performed
then you conclude or infer what the mesn rea was. Then you come to the
conclusion that this is the mens rea, these are the external acts, so this is the
liability.
>The moment he started taking out the wall boards, he did the external act.
He was not able to perform all and enter the store.
Alex A. | D2018
>The only reasonable inference was he wanted to enter the premises.
Therefore, that is the mens rea (he wanted to enter) inferred from his actions.
>However, at that point in time, would you infer that he did that because he
wanted to rob the store? Court said no. He could've wanted to enter for any
number of reasons. You cannot infer that.
>Taking out the wallboards alone for the purposes of robbery (is he liable for
robbery, murder, rape or any illegal act) is a PREPARATORY ACT for
robbery only.
>If you're thinking of robbery, he cannot incur liability because at the point in
time he was arrested, he was just preparing.
>Trespassing is the act that was executed. Taking out the wallboards is an
EXTERNAL ACT for trespassing.
>Nico's question: If he was carrying sacks, could he be convicted for
robbery? Sir said that you have to keep in mind "guilty beyond reasonable
doubt". Doubt is always in favor of the accused. Reasonable doubt is
engendered by another equally possible scenario.
>Aaron's question: What if he admits? YES. Only direct evidence of mens
rea is confession. A confession is the only direct evidence of mens rea.
>Stefan's question: In relation to Aaron's question, will he be held liable for
trespassing pa ba if it's just a preparatory act in attempted robbery? Acts are
preparatory only because the mens rea behind the act is uncertain. We're not
sure if the act being performed is in order to kill, rob, rape, trespass lang, etc.
The mens rea is indeterminate. If there's a confession, then the mens rea for
the act of taking out the wallboards already becomes an act of execution
because we are already certain of the mens rea. The characterization of the
act changes. In Lamahang, it was considered preparatory because it was
uncertain. But if nag-confess siya, attempted robbery na yung conviction niya.
*Don't take the cases as the final word. Ask questions!
-In Case # 31, People vs. Borinaga:

DOCTRINE: Essential to a frustrated crime: perform all the acts of execution.
Nothing remained to be done to accomplish the work of the assailant. The cause
resulting in the failure of the attack is by forces independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
ISSUE: WON Borinaga should be convicted for attempted murder OR frustrated
murder?
HELD: Borinaga is guilty of frustrated murder.
>External circumstances independent of Borinaga's will prevented Mooney's
death. So it's frustrated felony.
DISSENTING OPINION: The external act is not only the thrusting of the knife. Part of
the external act is that the stabbing must cause the mortal wound. If you stab/shoot a
person, it doesn't end with that. IF you miss, you do not perform all external acts.
Last act of execution is the infliction of a mortal wound. The chair prevented the last
act of execution (infliction of a mortal wound).
*Question is: Is it an attempt to kill or consummated injury case?

-For an injuries case, the result defines the felony. Mens rea should be intent to injure.
-In Case # 32, People vs. Kalalo:

*The dissenting opinion in Borinaga was adopted in this case.
-In Case # 35, Valenzuela vs. People:

> Was it consummated theft? Or merely frustrated theft?
Alex A. | D2018
> It lies in the act of "taking". That is all that is required of the act of theft.
(With intent to gain.) You don't need any result for theft.
> There is no such thing as frustrated theft.
> With intent to gain, the felony of theft is complete. The theft is
consummated the moment the last act to take the property has been
performed.
>There is no time difference anymore. You're not waiting for anything to
happen from the last moment of execution to the result.
-In Case # 38, Perez vs. CA:

>There is no such thing as frustrated rape. The act of execution is forcible
sexual intercourse.
>From the moment the act of execution (man penetrates woman;
penetration), rape is consummated. There is no event or further act that
needs to happen.
*For felonies that don't require any result, they can't be classified as "frustrated".
*RPC defines felonies in the consummated stage (usually). There are only some
provisions that provide for attempted or frustrated felonies.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are

punishable only when they have been consummated with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES- an impossible crime is a felony. It leads to liability, even if

there is an element that is not complete or present. There is still liability.
>Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
>Use of ineffectual or inadequate means.
> Evil intent in the commission of the act.
> The missing element (of a felony) in an impossible crime is the RESULT.
> Result does not occur because of one of those causes. (Legal impossibility OR
factual impossibility [inadequate])
>What we are punishing is the person's criminal propensity, the requirement being he
does not commit any other felony in the impossible crime.
>What is needed is the MENS REA. The intent is important -- what is your intent? ("If
you rightfully thought Risa's laptop was yours" example.)
>Standard for impossibility: Legal impossibility and factual impossibility.
-In Case #39, Intod vs. CA

> SIR'S RESERVATIONS: What is the standard the Court is expecting you to
use in cases like this? How far away is it? Is it merely a question of physical
space that the victim was not killed? What if she was in another house in the
same town? What if she was on the first floor and everyone thought in the
second floor? Is it still an impossible crime?
-In Case # 41, People vs. Saladino:
Alex A. | D2018
> Saladino would've been liable for murder, except the victim was already dead.
>No intent to kill the person because he was already dead. A person who did not
intend to commit homicide cannot be guilty of the impossible crime of homicide.
> Knew that the person was dead, so it can't be an impossible crime.
>His act should've constituted murder, but since he knew he was dead, his act
wouldn't have constituted murder in ANY event.
>NOT a case of impossible crime.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy

and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a
felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
_Discussion on Article 9 and 48 of the RPC_
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. Grave
felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art.
25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-
mentioned Article
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which which
a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is
provided.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
MULTIPLE CRIMES-if you have complete sets of multiple elements, then each
complete set will be a liability.
COMPLEX CRIMES-a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, where one offense is a necessary means to commit the other.
COMPOUND CRIMES
-In Case # 42, People vs. Guillen:

> A single act with a single mens rea produced multiple results.
>Punished for only one felony because all the results are merged in a single
mens rea.
-In Case # 43, People vs. Sanchez:

> Multiple acts yung shooting. They were convicted of multiple crimes and
liabilities.
>A complex crime is a provision in the law which is favorable to the accused.
Alex A. | D2018
>Penalty is lighter if convicted of a complex crime. There is only a SINGLE
liability, even if there are many grave or less grave felonies. If it results in
multiple liabilities, the penalty is higher. There are rare instances where complex
crime doctrine isn't applied because the penalty would be heavier.
>When confronted with a situation in determining whether multiple or complex,
so long as the doubt can equally go either way, rule in favor of the complex
crime, provided that it is clearly a NOT "one or the other" situation.
-In Case # 44, People vs. Abella:

> Doesn't strictly meet the definition of a complex crime.
-In Case # 45, People vs. Hernandez:

>Liability is only for rebellion (rebellion ONLY).
>Physical element of rebellion is killing (not murder). You kill to commit rebellion.
Since killing, arson, kidnapping and SPI are acts of rebellion, they are not
separate from rebellion. All the seeming "felonies" are absorbed in the crime of
rebellion, so there's only one liability for "simple rebellion". There are multiple
acts, but again, multiple acts are all merged into a single act of rebellion. These
acts are indispensable to the commission of rebellion.
-In Case # 42, Enrile vs. Salazar:

-Multiple liabilities result in a higher penalty rather than a single complex
crime.
>Why did the gov't charge Enrile with the complex crime of rebellion with murder,
arson etc.?
-Rebellion carried a very low penalty, 6-12 years. Murder was a capital
offense.
-If the penalties were complexed with rebellion, the penalty would've been
death and non-bailable.
-Charged in order to deny him bail.
10/11/14 CONTINUATION FROM 10/4/14 DISCUSSION

Article 48 does not apply to offenses punished under separate laws.
-if one is a felony, the other must also be a felony.
-Example: Estafa is a felony. Falsification is also a felony.
-One of the most common complex crimes proper is estafa; to commit falsification
first to defraud somebody = estafa. So that's two felonies already.
-Ordinarily, without Art. 48, he would be charged separately on falsification and
estafa. But if he committed one to do the means of the other, then he would be
charged with a complex crime proper.
COMPOUND CRIME: one act, multiple results = ONE LIABILITY BECAUSE ONE ACT
LANG
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER: ONE INTENT, MULTIPLE ACTS; mens rea of falsification is
absorbed by the mens rea in estafa. His intent is not to falsify for falsification's sake, it's to
commit estafa.
Alex A. | D2018
1) You cannot merge the mens rea of dolo with the mens rea of culpa. You can only
merge the two dolos into one if you falsify to do estafa. But if you do estafa, then
use falsification to conceal the estafa, (if the falsification of the felony is committed as a
means to conceal), that with still result into 2 distinct felonies because you have 2
complete sets of elements. The mens rea of one is distinct from the mens rea of the
other.
2)
3) 2nd paragraph of Art. 48 does not apply to culpa in terms of complex crimes.
Because you'd need malicious or deliberate intent, so it's incompatible with culpa.
-Complex crime proper, unlike compound crimes, does not apply to culpa. You need to
have intentionally committed both felonies. That is why the law merges the mens rea.
-If you commit one felony (through negligence; falsification), that cannot be the
necessary means to commit the estafa.
-"Where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other" = you need one
felony to commit the other felony
Art. 48 par. 2 does not apply to special complex crime. (Specifically defined by the RPC).
-You have several complex crimes defined by the RPC. They are complex crimes
because they consist of 2 distinct felonies which, by definition of law, are merged into
one so there's only a single liability. The most common are rape with homicide, rape
with serious physical injuries, robbery with injuries, etc. They are specifically defined.
When you see a special complex crime defined in the law, YOU DO NOT APPLY THE
RULES ON ART 48 (1-merged intent, 2-penalties and 3-culpa)
-Many of the special complex crimes are capital offenses. So do not apply the rule on
special complex crimes where one is a necessary means to commit another.
>Ex. robbery with homicide is a special complex crime. If robbery is committed
and the person does not die, it does not fall under the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. It will fall under another provision of robbery with
attempted/frustrated homicide.
>So when you say attempted robbery with homicide, the robbers were not able
to rob the bank but killed the guard, then that is the attempted special complex
crime of robbery with homicide. But if the robbery is consummated, and the
homicide is not, then it is attempted homicide.
CONTINUING CRIME
-What is the criminal liability for these several acts?
-Several acts deemed to be continuing (one continuing from the other) because they
are all animated by a SINGLE MENS REA.
-Even if you commit several acts (like for rebellion) committed at diff. points in time,
they are deemed continuing kasi they are all animated by a single intent. You don't
commit several felonies of rebellion or several crimes of subversion. There's only one
rebellion committed by the NPA, MNLF, etc. These acts are CONTINUING.
-Common crimes, for example. If a person boards a jeep and announced a hold-up,
he commits one crime of robbery. He does not commit multiple acts of robbery with
each person, each act is a continuity. (Deemed continuing only within the confines of
the jeepney. If he decides to board a 2nd jeepney, that's a second mens rea already.)
Alex A. | D2018
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given
by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that
the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are
present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or
other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose.
What is the difference between justifying circumstances (Art. 11) and circumstances
which exempt from criminal liability (Art. 12)?
[*PREMISE: Why do we deem an act a crime? Because it is WRONG, acts that society has
deemed to be harmful to us.]
-We accept it as a rightful occurrence (exempt from criminal liability) because there was
nothing wrong done. And if there was no wrong, therefore nobody should be punished.
-Persons who successfully invoke Art. 11 are not liable because the act in effect is justified.
-In Art. 12, you are exempting the person who committed the time. The act is wrong in itself,
except that in Art. 12, the person who committed the wrong IS NOT BLAME-WORTHY.
In Art. 11, what does "defense of self"? mean?

-It means your PERSON and your RIGHTS (such as property rights [People vs. Narvaez] -
what is reasonable to defend your life may not be reasonable to defend your property, honor
[People vs. Jaurigue]).
What is unlawful aggression?

-The attack must be without legal basis.
-Threat to your person and your rights must be imminent/inescapable. You need to fight or
flee, otherwise the threat will come to pass.
-Threat must be REAL or actual, not imagined or exaggerated. (reasonableness)
-Unlawful aggression applies to the first three paragraphs of Art. 11.
Art. 11 of the RPC requires the following for the defense of ones person is to be
appreciated:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent it
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Alex A. | D2018
-In Case #52, People vs. Dela Cruz:
-Aggression was not imminent.
The circumstances of Arts. 11 and 12 are invoked against a charge against you.
-So the general rule of "doubt is resolved in favor of the accused" is not easily invoked in
Arts. 11 and 12. When you invoke these circumstances such as self-defense, you are
admitting several things, like you killed the person (Ex. US vs. Ah Chong). Once you admit
that fact, the burden of proof has already shifted. The assumption is, you kill somebody with
a different intent. It is up to you to prove the circumstance, else you will be convicted.
-In Case #53, People vs. Genosa:

-SC was not convinced that Genosa's Battered Woman Syndrome was real.
-Law was changed after this case => RA 9262; if the abused person can establish
the syndrome, it's a valid defense against homicide etc., provided all the other
requisites are present.
-Ruling has already been rendered moot because of the change in the law. The law
recognizes Battered Woman Syndrome for valid invocation of self-defense.
Second requisite for self-defense is reasonable necessity of the means employed.
-In Case #55, People vs. Jaurige:

-SC said that Jaurige's fear of rape is not real. But reason would tell her that she
was not under threat of being raped in the chapel. Of course, there was a threat on
her honor.
-Unlawful aggression does not only mean an attempt on your life.
-Jaurige failed the 2nd requisite because it was not reasonable (killing someone for
making such an attack on you).
-Person acting in self-defense doesn't have the full exercise of his free will and
intelligence, and his intent is not malicious.
-Self-defense is understood as instinctive behavior. You think about the law without
Art. 11. Supposing there was no Art. 11 in the RPC, would people still kill in self-
defense? Yes. Not because it's in the law, but because that's how man behaves. We
place a premium on our own life before an aggressor's. The law recognizes that this
is instinctive behavior.
-While the requisite of mens rea exercise freedom, it doesn't mean that if the person
acts instinctively, these acts are not bereft of any intelligence.
-A person reacts instinctively on the basis of his level of intelligence, experience, and
it does not operate in a vacuuum. His freedom and intelligence are at their most
impaired.
-When a peson acts in self-defense, as well as in some of the other circumstances
that we will take up.
-He does not act fully/rationally; he does not have the luxury of calculating the
circumstances.
-But there is some rationality involved, such as what is being expected by the SC.
There has to be behavior that is although instinctive, reasonable with what the victim
has been confronted with.
-Are all the circumstances put together justified in killing the victim? (if you
were in her situation)
-It affects criminal liability in the sense that it would negate mens rea.
-Intelligence is impaired, and there is no malicious intent. Instinct does not operate in
a vacuum, it operates on human experience. It is learned by experience.
If the aggression is against property rights, what is the standard of reasonableness?

-You cannot take life in defense of your property.
Alex A. | D2018
-So long as the attack on property is accompanied by a threat to your personal safety, then
that is always an occasion of using force in self-defense.
-Any intruder inside your house is a threat to your life. As long as he is in your house, he is a
threat.
"The ruling in De La Cruz stretches the requirement for restraint a bit too far." -Sir Jim
-"Sufficient provocation" = sufficient to provoke the aggression. The rationale being, you're
not allowed to hide behind the law if the aggression is of your own making. Also, you won't
be caught by surprise if you caused the aggression. Sufficiency is between the provocation
and the aggression. In other words, if the prosecution says that you can't invoke self-defense
because you called him a liar. Calling somebody a liar, depending on the circumstances,
may or may not be sufficient to warrant a deadly attack. Throwing a punch is not sufficient
provocation for someone to attack you with a deadly weapon.
What are the the two other requisites in justifying circumstances?

-Brothers, sisters, ascendants, descendants, consanguinity within 4th civil degree, spouse,
relatives by affinity in the same degrees as the other relatives (brothers and sisters),
adopted, legitimate or natural brothers or sisters
-You don't count degrees as far as your spouse is concerned.
PAR. 3 ,ART. 11: How would you define strangers in the third paragraph of Article 11?
asdf
PAR. 4, ART. 11: What is a justifying circumstance in order to avoid an evil?

-Understand that for all of these circumstances, the person would be criminally liable IF NOT
FOR THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE.
-Under Par. 4 of Art. 11, he would be liable for a felony if not for his resistance of this
"greater evil"
-Greater evil is a threat to the person invoking the justifying circumstance, but is that always
the case? No, it could also be TO OTHER PERSONS. Based on that explanation, what are
the requisites for avoiding an evil?
1) The evil actually exists
2) The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it
3) There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
4) No fault in bringing about the greater evil = Learned that from People vs.
Ricohermoso
-The requisites are also that of self-defense. An act of self-defense would fit all of these
requisites, the "evil" here being the "aggression".
-Why would you not invoke Par. 4 here in the requisites for self-defense?
The difference between self-defense and necessity to avoid a greater evil is that in self-
defense, under Par. 4 the act for which you'd be held liable is not directed at the evil. The
source of the evil can be a third party and is not necessarily directed at you. It may be
situational. For necessary evil, the range of the variety for the situation is much more broad
than the first 3 paragraphs. The necessity of the evil you are contemplating is situational.
The act that he does is not directed at the evil he is trying to avoid, unlike in self-defense.
-In Case #57, People vs. Ricohermoso:

-Not really an evil, because they were also responsible for bringing about the
defense of the guy he was to assist.
-In Case #58, People vs. Norma Hernandez:
-SC allowed it. The situation called for did not direct it necessarily at the evil. The SC
is filled with romantics. :))
Alex A. | D2018
PAR. 4 ART. 11: The person who kills in self-defense is not obligated to compensate
the family of the victim civilly. (No civil liability in self-defense.)
-Exception: Although, as a rule there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances, it is only
in paragraph 4 of Art. 11 where there is civil liability, but the civil liability is borne by the
persons benefited. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose
benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which
they may have received. (Art. 101)
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. Art. 12. Circumstances
which exempt from criminal liability. The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80
of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the
care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said
Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.
*Insanity is a legal concept. It is different from the concept of psychiatrists or

psychologists.
*M'Naghaten Rule = must be clearly proven that at the time of committing the act, the party
accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to
know the nature and quality of the act he was doing OR if he did know it, that he did not
know that what he was doing was wrong
-first time na may scientific basis for insanity (introduced)
*History of insanity in the Philippines :
-first documented during the Spanish era
-American regime: First time mental illness was treated as a disease in the Phils.
goal was to manage and prepare patients for a life outside the facility
-Law on insanity in the Phils. = we got it from the Americans
*Psychology has evolved in dealing with mental illness, but the law isn't as fortunate in its
development.
-Closest thing psych has to law is the diagnosis in legal determination of insanity.
-Not all mental disorders count as insanity.
-
*Requisites of insanity:
As established in People vs. Formigones
1) no intelligence,
2) absence of discernment/capability to reason and
Alex A. | D2018
3) total deprivation of will
-"has to be SOOOO insane"
-Schizophrenia is the most successfully invoked as insanity in legal jurisprudence
People vs. Rafanan - test of cognition and test of volition (SC relies more on test of
cognition, meaning the intelligence of what you did in committing the crime. The SC puts
weight to the medical and clinical findings issued IMMEDIATELY after the commission of the
crime.)
*There is still no harmony in the understanding of insanity and mental disorders in

terms of science and in terms of the law, even if the SC takes into account the dev't of
psychosis and disorders.
*Delineation of science and law in psychosis and "lucid intervals" = SC uses it very
narrowly in jurisprudence. Lucid intervals are not calculated.
Sir's comment: Since 1843, the science has already matured. What were known as
diseases in 1843 have been refined to the present such that you have the American Law
Institute in 1962.
-Insanity as a defense is now grounded upon substantial capacity to conform his
conduct to the requirement.
-In the current legal definition of insanity, if you put a doctor in court, they'd have a
hard time declaring that person insane (Philippine courts)
AGE OF MINORITY
-RA 9344, Sec. 6
*Absolute irresponsibility = 15 y.o. and under
*A child 15 y.o or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from crim liability
*Intervention program under Sec. 20
-Basis of par. 2, Article 12 is COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENCE.
-Par. 3, Art. 12 is impliedly repealed by RA 9344.
-Children above 15 y.o. but below 18 y.o who acted without discernment are exempt from
crim. liability
*DAPAT MAY DISCERNMENT = mental capacity to understand the diff. b/n right and
wrong
*Discernment is diff. from intent.
>Discernment = moral significance that a person ascribes to the act.
*Discernment may be shown by 1) manner the crime was committed or 2) conduct of
the offender after its commission.
-PERIODS OF CRIM RESPONSIBILITY:
*Absolute irresponsibility = 9 y.o. pababa
*Conditional responsibility = 9-15 y.o.
*Full responsibility - 18 or over to 70
*Mitigated responsibility - over 9, under 15, offender acting with discernment; 15 y.o.
or over but less than 18; over 70 y.o. [senility only a mitigated responsibility, NOT
exempting]
-In People vs. Doquena:

-Took into consideration the intelligence of Valentin Doquena, so he had the right
state of mind to discern what is right or wrong.
-Doquena is NOT free from criminal liability.
ACCIDENT = something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly forseeable
consequences. Accident presupposes the lack of intention to commit the wrong done.
Alex A. | D2018
-If the consequences are plainly forseeable, it will be a case of negligence.
-Must be BOTH UNFORESEEN and UNAVOIDABLE
-Par. 4 of Art. 12 is based on the complete absence of intelligence.
-Elements:
1) Performing a lawful act,
2) with due care,
3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident,
4) w/o fault or intention by causing it
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. Art. 12. Circumstances
which exempt from criminal liability. The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When
the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80
of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the
care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said
Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.
[PAR. 5, ART. 12 DISCUSSION]

What does the law require that the force be deemed "irresistible"?
-it is in relation to, among other things (most important thing: what you are being compelled
to do), the fear must be less than of what you are being compelled to do.
-In US vs. Caballeros,

-Being hit in the back by rifle butts is already considered as irresistible force, because
what he was being asked to do is bury the corpses
-If he was being charged of the murder of schoolteachers, it should've taken more
than being hit by rifle butts.
-The other is fear of that force being applied to you.
-Depends on the circumstances, most important is the NATURE of the HARM you
were COMPELLED to CAUSE.
[PAR. 7, ART. 12 DISCUSSION]

-you are prevented from doing a certain act that is lawful because there was an insuperable
cause.
-In People vs. Bandian,

-dissent of J. Villareal:
WHAT WOULD PREVENT CONSENT FROM BEING AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE?
Alex A. | D2018
-depends on the violence of the act
-if there's a violation of the rules (in contact sports)
-there was no consent to the rules (in contact sports)
-consenting to submit to hazing will not be an exempting circumstance for the perpetrator of
the hazing.
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances:

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to
justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the
minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded
the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents,
or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 1 = not all the justifying circumstances are covered, such as
insanity, minority and accident.
-The only requisite present for self-defense is lawful aggression.
-But to be a mitigating circumstance, 2 out of 3 of the requisites of self-defense must
be present, namely: 1) incomplete self defense, 2) defense of relatives or 3) defense
of stranger.
>In all, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST BE PRESENT FOR IT TO BE A
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
-Privileged mitigating circumstance means that the penalty is reduced to 1 or 2
degrees lower than what was prescribed.
ON INSANITY: If your mental illness diminishes your ability, but not up to the requisite of
insanity, you will NOT BE EXEMPT but your circumstances CAN BE MITIGATED.
[SEE PAR. 9 OF ART. 13] and People vs. Formigones.
-Par. 9 may be invoked when the defendant pleads insanity
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 2 [MINORITY]

-if the minor acted with discernment, it is considered as a mitigating circumstance
ON ACCIDENT:
-Elements:
1) Performing a lawful act = cannot be mitigating if unlawful act ginawa
2) with due care, = will not be covered by Art. 13 if without due care.
Alex A. | D2018
[if w/o due care, art. 3, culpa or art. 365--you are punished w/o benefit of Art. 13]
3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident, = NO SITUATION OF
INCOMPLETE ACCIDENT UNDER ART. 13, PAR. 1
4) w/o fault or intention by causing it =
ON UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR/IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OF GREATER INJURY

-still entitled to mitigating circumstance
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 3 [LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG]

-There is no inconsistency between art. 4, par. 1 and art. 13, par. 3 because the former is a
general rule of crim liability and the latter is a rule on the penalties.
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 4 [SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION]
-In Urbano vs. People,

-Yes, it was a mitigating circumstance. Urbano was the one challenged by Tomelden
(deceased) to a fight by insulting him, etc. there was provocation. Urbano even
helped bring Tomelden to the hospital. (Urbano's "lucky punch" is what injured and
subsequently killed Tomelden.)
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 5 [VINDICATION OF A WRONG]

-Requisites:
1) there must be a wrong committed against defendant/defendant's family
2) felony committed was in vindication of a grave wrong
>lapse of time is allowed b/n vindication and the doing of the grave offense,
immediate and proximate to the commission of the crime
-NO STANDARD AMT. OF TIME RE: IMMEDIACY OF VINDICATION, it is subjective
and depends upon the interpretation of the court as to the effects of the damage
caused by the provocation to stir the vindication of the perpetrator.
>Some time is allowed to pass, but not an excessive amount.
>The sufficiency of the passage of time (such as in People vs. Benito) is
there to bring the person's emotions down.
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 6 [PASSION OR OBFUSCATION]

-Requirements:
1) Impulse
2) Impulse is so powerful that it naturally produced passion/obfuscation
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 7 [VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OR PLEA OF GUILT]
DISCUSSION OF PAR. 8 [DEAFNESS/MUTENESS/BLINDNESS/OTHER PHYSICAL

DEFECT W/C RESTRICTS THE OFFENDER'S MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE OR
COMMUNICATION]
-Why does physical disability entitle him to lower penalty?
>compensate for inability to act in retaliation (?)
-If a blind/crippled man rapes someone, is he still entitled to mitigating circumstances?
>NO. Voluntariness is a mental element, it's not part of the physical element.
Alex A. | D2018
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public
authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in
a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by
a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure
or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or
by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to
weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy
to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age
or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means.
(As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
What is an aggravating circumstance? (AC)

-Reflective of the offender's more evil mens rea ("greater perversity")
-Not so much as to the physical act itself. When we talk of wrongfulness or evil, we are not
talking about an act. We are talking about the person committing the act.
-There is greater evil or malice in the mind of the offender.
-What we have to understand is that we have to appreciate the AC in terms of the offender,
not so much the act itself. That is why the consequences will fall upon the offender.
How is AC different from mitigating circumstances?

-In the effect; MC diminishes penalty (-), AC increases it (+)
Alex A. | D2018
-There are no analogous circumstances in Art. 14; it is a FINITE list.
Ratio: the principle that laws are to be strictly construed in favor of the
accused; so you can't have a provision like analogous circumstances in Art.
14 that will allow the judges to circumvent the facts that will lead to a higher
penalty, which will be detrimental to the interest of the offender. The law
intentionally DOES NOT grant that discretion to judges. The list is
EXCLUSIVE.
Types of AC:
GENERIC = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; generally applies
to ALL crimes; all ACs under Art. 14 can be appreciated as generic AC.
SPECIAL = cannot be offset by OMCs; those that apply to particular crimes; made
aggravating only by a special provision of law.
QUALIFYING = e.g. murder is the qualified form of homicide; those that change the
nature of the crime from a lighter felony (homicide) to a greater one (murder)
INHERENT =
Palaganas vs. People = use of an unlicensed firearm is a special AC
1. Place of Commission (Art. 14, Par. 5)

Palace of the Chief Executive
-Disregard of the highest office of the land
Where public authorities are engaged in the performance of their duties
-There must be performance of public functions
Place dedicated to religious worship
-Must be done with the intent to commit the crime in that place
-Cemeteries not included
-Sir's question: What about the lobby in the Shangri-La mall that celebrates Mass
during Sundays?
>NO, because it is only TEMPORARILY used and is NOT identified and
known by all as a place of religious worship
People vs. Jaurigue = NO, because she did not choose the church as the place of
commission. REMEMBER: always understand the AC from the mindset of the
offender.
Uninhabited place
-Where there are no houses at all; place is a considerable distance from town; where
houses are scattered at a great distance
-Place where victim is unlikely to receive help
-Intent of the offender is to choose the uninhabited place so that there is a greater
chance of success in committing the crime, because no one will stop the crime from
taking place and he can escape; enhances chances of succeeding in the commission
of the felony
-Sir's question: E.g. Would the Sunken Garden at 2am would fit the definition of an
uninhabited place?... But Sunken Garden at 2pm would NOT be an uninhabited
place because witnesses will be around.
-So what is the operative circumstance in the Sunken Garden example? Place or
time? It would be the TIME. The SG is NOT an uninhabited place. So the more
relevant circumstance is NOCTURNITY.
People vs. Damaso = It is an uninhabited place because it is determined by WON
there was reasonable possibility of receiving help.
Dwelling
-Structure exclusively used for "rest and comfort"
-Basis: place where person feels more secure, so you violate that person's private
space and sanctity of the abode
Alex A. | D2018
-Sir's questions: Is a hotel room a dwelling? NO, because it's temporary.
What about jail cell? NO, you're surrounded by other inmates hehe.
What about people who set up shanties under flyovers? NO, because
you're in a public place so your sense of security does not compare to a
sense of security like in a house. What about Jolina Magdangal's trailer
during a concert? NO, because it's a temporary place, more of a mode
of transportation rather than a dwelling. (But in the US, mobile homes
are used as dwellings so under those circumstances, pwede.
DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE TALAGA TO UNDERSTAND
RATIONALE FOR AC.)
-Aaron's question: What if your roomie sa dorm attacked you? NOT CONSIDERED
DWELLING AC because you already expect that person to be there.
2. Time of Commission (Art. 14, Par. 6)

Nighttime/Nocturnity
-Definition: from sunset to sunrise (Sir: Parang series yan eh. Do you know that
series? Before Sunrise, Before Sunset...Before Breaking Dawn?)
-Basis: Considered aggravating because victim will have less chance to see the
offender approaching and will enhance the success the commission of the felony.
Also, at night people are less aware/alert because they're tired.
-Sir's question: Is it considered an AC when done in the cinema at night? NO.
Remember that the AC is NIGHTTIME, NOT DARKNESS. The applicable AC
would be treachery.
On the Occasion of a Calamity (Par. 7)
-Basis: Time of commission of crime
-Reason: In a time of calamity, instead of aiding people, the offender takes
advantage of the afflicted's misfortune to despoil them = shows a greater degree of
perversity.
-Chaotic conditions are considered, doesn't necessarily have to be a calamity.
3. Personal circumstances of offender

Recidivism (Par. 9)
-A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial (CONTROLLING FACTOR) for a
new crime, shall have previously been convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
-Basis: Greater perversity as shown by inclination to crimes
-Requisites: 1) On trial for an offense
2) Previously convicted by a final judgment of another crime
3) Both crimes are under the same RPC title
4) Offender is convicted of the 2nd crime
-Proves to us that when he committed the crime, he was guilty.
Reiteration / Habituality (Par. 10)
-That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
-Basis: Greater perversity as shown by inclination to crimes
-Requisites: 1) On trial for an offense
2) Previously served a sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty than that of the new offense
3) Convicted of a new offense
*So dapat you served out the first offense during the time of your trial for your 2nd
offense na.
-Sir's question: What is the ratio for reiteracion? Are we talking about the person's
mindset in reiteracion? Yes. It's because the criminal has already been sentenced
Alex A. | D2018
but he still did not reform. So you need to send him to jail for a longer period than an
ordinary criminal, because he has proven that he has not been rehabilitated / he is
resistant to reform for his first offense. That is why the requirement here is that he
served out the sentence for a period of time, so we can come to the conclusion on
his next period for rehabilitation. That is what the sentence is for.
RECIDIVISM REITERACION
-Final judgment for 1st offense is enough -Served out sentence for 1st offense
-Offenses should be in the same title of -1st and 2nd offenses MUST NOT be
the RPC embraced in same title of RPC
-Always taken into consideration in fixing -Not always an AC
penalty to be imposed upon accused
*Sir's question: Why should we not count "abuse of superior strength" and "taking advantage
of public office" under "Personal circumstances of offender"?
In "abuse of superior strength", it's because they are taking advantage of that
superior strength. The essence of the AC is not in the physical strength per se. It's in
the use of that strength.
In "taking advantage of public office", though it is a personal attribute of the
offender, it's because the essence of the aggravating circumstance is not in the office
per se, it's in the use/taking advantage of the office itself. It is the ADVANTAGE that
the holder takes of the powers of his office. Without proving that public office
facilitated the commission of the felony, or that he used the powers of his office to
commit the felony, it shouldn't be counted as AC. So if we speak of the essence of
the office, it's the UNDUE ADVANTAGE taken of the office, so it's under MEANS OF
COMMISSION, and NOT personal circumstances.
4. Motivation
Price, Promise or Reward (Par. 11)
-Basis: greater perversity of offender as shown by the motivating power itself
-Has 2 or more principals: 1) REWARDER/INDUCER and 2) REWARDEE/The one
who commits the crime
-Price/reward/promise must be for the purpose of inducing another to perform the
deed.
-Sir's question: Must there be a monetary/pecuniary consideration for the reward? Or
do we also consider virtuous rewards? Yes, we also consider virtuous rewards.
-If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the crime had been
committed, it is NOT aggravating.
5. Means of commission
Taking advantage of public office (Par.1)
-Basis: Greater perversity of offender, as shown by offender's personal circumstance
and means used to secure commission of the crime.
-NOT AC if it's an integral element or inherent in the offense (e.g. malversation of
public funds.)
-NOT AC if accused could've perpetrated the crime without occupying the position
-Sir's question: What's the diff. between abuse of a private office and abuse of a
public office? Why is public office an AC?
Insult to public authority (Par. 2)
-Public authority is NOT the victim/target of the felony. He is a person in authority
who is present when the felony was committed.
-Persons in authority are representations of the law and should be accorded with the
proper respect.
Alex A. | D2018
-Public authority = person/office with directly-vested jurisdiction; power to govern and
execute laws
-Special laws have been passed to define who persons in authority are.
>E.g. Teachers are persons in authority, and lawyers as well.
"That is why you have to think ten times before assaulting a teacher who is a lawyer."
-Sir Jimenez on insult to public authority
-Sir's question: What if you didn't know about this provision in the RPC?
> When we say that there should be KNOWLEDGE (requisite for this AC);
that is FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. E.g. You know that the mayor is present.
> Further or legal knowledge is NOT Required.
Disregard of rank, age or sex (Par. 3)
(Understand that this law was formulated when chivalry was still alive - Sir :)) )
-Underlying rationale is that persons of rank are entitled to some measure of respect.
-Sex must be indispensable in the commission of the crime.
-Age
-Sir's question: What about social or economic rank?
> If the person's rank is socially or generally acknowledged, it could be.
Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness (Par. 4)
-On "abuse of confidence":
Requirements for abuse of confidence:
1) Offended party trusted offender
2) offender abused trust by committing crime against the offended party
3) Abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
-Must establish that the confidence between offender and offended party must be
immediate and personal
>Underlying basis of the "trust in confidence"
-Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways
employed.
-Abuse of confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime,
the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not
abuse said confidence.
-On "obvious ungratefulness"
-Sir's question: Why "obvious"? What does the phrase mean?
-There is no such relationship that exists between offender and offending party.
-There is an expectation for the offender to return the favor given by the offended
party.
-Duty of gratefulness; perversity of ungratefulness may be applied but must be
OBVIOUS.
-e.g. of the hitchiker. SC ruled that there's no inherent relationship of trust and
confidence; the ungratefulness is NOT obvious, UNLIKE a situation where a
homeless person is invited to someone's home and the homeless person kills the
house's owner. There is OBVIOUS ungratefulness there. That is why the law requires
that the act of ungratefulness is OBVIOUS. So they're NOT independent
circumstances. Given a factual situation, you have to choose if there's such
relationship or if there's no such relationship, you have to establish the obviousness
of the felony.
Band; Aid of armed men (Par. 6)
-Sir's question: How do we determine that the person is considered "armed"?
> To be considered a "band", 4 persons must be armed (objects for killing;
intended to use as weapons) E.g. if a group of 8 men, at least 4 of them are
armed, that's considered a band already.
> Supposing that there were 4 people in a group, 3 were carrying guns and
the 4th was carrying a toy gun which looks super real. Would that be
considered a band? NO. They have to be armed with real weapons.
YES. Because the victim would act as if all 4 of them were carrying real guns.
Alex A. | D2018
> What about if all 4 guns were fake? NO. They don't count.
-Diff. of band from aid of armed men:
> BAND = ALL performed act of execution
> AID OF ARMED MEN = mere presence is relied for help, actual aid not
necessary, did not directly participate together
Inundation, fire, etc. (Par. 12)
-
Evident premeditation (Par. 13)
-
Craft, fraud, disguise (Par. 14)
-characterizes mental state of person; to lessen the suspicion of the victim, the
criminal employs cunning and trickery
-rationale almost the same as treachery: attack from behind; craft/fraud/disguise:
coming on to the victim in front
Treachery or alevosia (Par. 16)
-May absorb some of the other aggravating circumstances (nighttime, abuse of
superior strength, uninhabited place)
-Sir's question: When will you charge the offender with treachery? (and not
nocturnity, etc.) General rule: If the facts, like say nighttime alone, won't be enough
to aggravate the crime.
>If all the facts, taken together, make a strong charge for treachery
-The most an AC can do is to apply the penalty in the max. period. There's a limit to
how high the penalty can go with the number of circumstances.
-You make your strongest case to the prosecution.
>E.g. in superior strength, the strengths are not that disparent. Small
advantage, combined with nocturnity...so you put them all together and charge
treachery. All those circumstances together make a stronger case for treachery. But
if you charge treachery and support with those AC, you cannot charge them as
individual ACs anymore.
People vs. Arizobal = special complex crime of robbery with homicide (Remember
the felony committed: By reason of a robbery, a homicide is committed. Mens rea of
the offender is robbery. They will kill if necessary, but their primary intent is robbery.)
-Issue of the case: WON treachery could be an AC with robbery and homicide? Gen.
rule on treachery is that it can only be applied against crime against persons, and not
crimes against property.
-The jurisprudence up to People vs. Escote (including Arizobal) was that treachery
includes crimes against persons. Crimes covered under Title 8 of the RPC (Crimes
against persons) does not mean that there's a victim against the person. Kidnapping
is not a crime against persons. Generally, you think of killing, inflicting injuries and
rape. Those are the only crimes against persons.
-Court ruled in the case that it is NOT TREACHERY.
People vs. Escote = Court came to a different conclusion because there was a
constituent crime of homicide in the offense [We will consider treachery as far as it
applies to this crime of homicide, so it will be appreciated. It is unfair if it will be
disregarded.]
-Court seemed to be unwilling to disregard treachery. So they divided the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, applying the treachery (killing police with
own gun while police was begging for mercy) to homicide only. Applied treachery
(which was not charged in the information) in the decision, BUT THE RULING
IN THE CASE IS OBITER.
-After Escote, they cited that treachery can be appreciated in robbery with
homicide.
-Ruling jurisprudence started with this case, but the true jurisprudence is the ones
that come AFTER Escote.
-Argument for Arizobal ruling instead of Escote:
Alex A. | D2018
> We go against the concept of a complex crime by breaking it down
instead of a single intent.
> Penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused.
> Error in Escote is that there is only one felony, so dapat one penalty din.
> You cannot apply the AC to one part of the complex crime (robbery).
> If you separate the robbery with the AC and homicide, the penalty will be
enhanced.
> Escote ruling is absurd in the sense that if one person killed one person
for homicide, the treachery in that case will give a higher penalty as
compared to one person killing 10 persons in homicide as well.
> Sir disagrees with Escote, bec. it's not consistent with the general
principle of complex crimes. You cannot isolate a felony without
contradicting yourself with a special complex crime.
"That's what makes our lives interesting."
-Sir Jimenez on the flip-flopping of the SC's rulings
Ignominy (Par. 17)
-People vs. Torrefiel =the physical circumstance is not the factor in rape. The
ignominy here is in her humiliation when Torrefiel used the cogon grass.
-People vs. Jose = rape of Maggie de la Riva, ordered her to dance before raping
her
-People vs. Butler = raped in anus after person was already dead is considered
ignominy, even after dead na siya and will not suffer moral suffering, because of the
disgrace to the memory of the deceased and morals which will affect the family.
Unlawful entry (Par. 18)
-Defined as entry into a structure/building effected through means other than the
normal means of entry.
Breaking a wall, door, etc. (Par. 19)
-To gain entrance only; referring to EXTERNAL walls and doors. That is what
constitutes the AC. Does not cover, for example, a door to a bedroom, because you
are already INSIDE the premises.
With aid of persons under 15, or with motor vehicles, etc. (Par.20)
-Using somebody that the law cannot use against them; hiding behind the immunity
of the exempt minors.
-To be consistent with the law, should this have been amended?
-AC remains at 15 y.o.
-In the same paragraph, but entirely unrelated to minors: Use of motor vehicles
(result of amendments); getaway vehicle
Cruelty (Par. 21)
_Discussion on Special Aggravating, Qualifying and "Aggravating

Qualifying" Circumstances and Article 15 of the RPC_
(see annotations in Tiangco reviewer)
Alex A. | D2018
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally liable for grave
and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Who are proponents?

-For a person to be liable as a proponent, there should be no one else who agrees with him,
else it would be a conspiracy
What is a conspiracy?
-Proven when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it
General rule for proponents and conspirators: Only liable yung conspirators in only so
far as committing the crime of rebellion, treason and sedition; found in Titles 1 and 3, crimes
against national security and public order
-Law must specifically define the felony of conspiracy or proposal
Why does the law make an exception for treason, rebellion and sedition?
-In the planning stage pa lang, liable ka na for a felony -> because these crimes
-The moment the rebellion is successful, the stake will disappear; the government will
change and the criminal liability can no longer be exacted from the offenders
-Rebellion, by nature, is a failed offense
CONSPIRACY
-1st question: WON there was a conspiracy, because the rule is the liability of one is the
liability of all.
>How do you determine if there's a conspiracy?
a.
-No liability for merely being a conspirator
*The rule that doubts will be resolved in favor of the accused applies when the doubt
creates a choice that is more or less even.
Alex A. | D2018
_Discussion on Introduction to Penalties_
Penalties are germane to the purpose of criminal law. They help identify what is
socially wrongful behavior (purpose of crim. law)
-Criminal knows it's wrong to commit that wrong because this is the penalty, but still commits
it knowingly and willingly.
System of penalties has evolved throughout history.

-If you're alone, you don't need law...
>Adam and Eve's eating of the apple = first criminal act :)) Penalty = destierro
(banishment)
-Before, when people were living in tribes, the security of the tribe depended upon the
cooperation of all the members. Crim law was designed to defend one tribe against another.
-Collective responsibility; tribe imposed criminal penalties
-Eventually, societies were developed, city-states etc. so there were more formal forms of
legal systems.
-It started the concept of the "city-state", taking a monopoly on the imposition of penalties.
People couldn't exact revenge on their own.
>if a wrong is committed against you, the State alone could exact revenge.
-Penalties before were primarily the main purpose [CLASSICAL SCHOOL OF
PENALTIES]
>Crim penalty was an act of retribution by the State on behalf of the wronged citizen
>Penalty was mostly corporal punishment; "eye for an eye" line of thinking
>Extent of the wrong = extent of the penalty
>Graver the wrong, greater the physical suffering and pain suffered by offender
-As society became more sophisticated, we developed more humane forms of penalties.
-New school of thought [POSITIVIST SCHOOL]
>Penalties shouldn't be purely for retribution, but aside from it, the other primary
purpose was the prevention of crime through either
1) Direct prevention (e.g. death penalty)
2) Imprisonment (if he is imprisoned, taken out of society)
3) Rehabilitation (idea behind it was the penalty will now be ....
e.g. in imprisonment, exile the punishment is for the mind. Criminal liability = in the
mind)
-Today in Phil. crim law, we still take from the classical school of penalties/punishments.
(e.g. imprisonment)
>But we also have positivist school features (e.g. probation law~community service;
chances of rehab are better than imprisonment)
Alex A. | D2018

SirJim Notes

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SirJim Notes

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Criminal Law 1 - NOTES 9/13/14

_Discussion on Article 3 of the RPC_

-There are 2 forms of mens rea under Article 3

-The question of involuntariness or lack of intelligence is a defense, the question of

-In Case # 19, People vs. Puno:

-In Case # 22, People vs. Pugay

Criminal Law 1 - NOTES 9/27/14

_Discussion on Article 3 of the RPC_

Where does mistake of fact come in?

-In Case # 23, US vs. Ah Chong:

-In Case # 24, People vs. Oanis:

_Discussion on Article 4, Par. 1 of the RPC_

"Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

What would make a person criminally liable?

-In Case # 26, People vs. Sabalones:

-In Case # 27, People vs. Albuquerque:

-In Case # 28, Bataclan vs. Medina

There are some felonies that require a SIXTH element, CIRCUMSTANCE.

Attempted, frustrated and consummated felonies

Criminal Law 1 - NOTES 10/4/14

_Discussion on Article 6 of the RPC_

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies

-In Case # 30, People vs. Lamahang:

*Don't take the cases as the final word. Ask questions!

-In Case # 31, People vs. Borinaga:

*Question is: Is it an attempt to kill or consummated injury case?

-In Case # 32, People vs. Kalalo:

-In Case # 35, Valenzuela vs. People:

-In Case # 38, Perez vs. CA:

_Discussion on Article 7 of the RPC_

Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. Light felonies are

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES- an impossible crime is a felony. It leads to liability, even if

-In Case #39, Intod vs. CA

-In Case # 41, People vs. Saladino:

_Discussion on Article 8 of the RPC_

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy

_Discussion on Article 9 and 48 of the RPC_

-In Case # 42, People vs. Guillen:

-In Case # 43, People vs. Sanchez:

-In Case # 44, People vs. Abella:

-In Case # 45, People vs. Hernandez:

-In Case # 42, Enrile vs. Salazar:

10/11/14 CONTINUATION FROM 10/4/14 DISCUSSION

_Discussion on Article 11 of the RPC_

In Art. 11, what does "defense of self"? mean?

What is unlawful aggression?

-In Case #53, People vs. Genosa:

Second requisite for self-defense is reasonable necessity of the means employed.

-In Case #55, People vs. Jaurige:

If the aggression is against property rights, what is the standard of reasonableness?

What are the the two other requisites in justifying circumstances?

PAR. 4, ART. 11: What is a justifying circumstance in order to avoid an evil?

-In Case #57, People vs. Ricohermoso:

-In Case #58, People vs. Norma Hernandez:

Criminal Law 1 - NOTES 10/25/14

_Discussion on Article 12 of the RPC_

*Insanity is a legal concept. It is different from the concept of psychiatrists or

*There is still no harmony in the understanding of insanity and mental disorders in

-In People vs. Doquena:

Criminal Law 1 - NOTES 11/08/14

_Discussion on Article 12 of the RPC_

[PAR. 5, ART. 12 DISCUSSION]

-In US vs. Caballeros,

[PAR. 7, ART. 12 DISCUSSION]