Note: we follow classical school of thought.
Criminal Law Review
(Midterm Topics)
By: Boy_Tungkab
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Art. 1 – 20 of the RPC
Criminal Law – is that branch of public law
which defines crimes, treats of their nature,
and provide for their punishment.
Crime – is an act committed or omitted in
violation of public law forbidding or
commanding the same.
Felony – an act or omission punishable by law,
the RPC.
Offense – a crime committed under a special
law.
Theories in criminal law
1. Classical Theory – means that the basis of
criminal liability is human free will, and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution which
must be proportional to the gravity of the
offense.
2. Positivist Theory – considers man as a social
being and his acts are attributable not just to
his will but to other forces of society. As such,
punishment is not the solution, as he is not
entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence
should not be the yardstick in the imposition
of sanction, instead the underlying reasons
would be inquired into.
3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory – is a combination
of positivist and classical theories wherein
crimes that have economic and social causes
should be dealt with modicum of compassion.
Ideally, it applies to economic and social
crimes like theft and usurpation of real rights.
Mala in se and Mala Prohibita
1. Mala in se – a crime or an act that is
inherently immoral and evil.
2. Mala Prohibita – an act that is a crime
merely because it is prohibited by statute,
although the act itself is not necessarily
immoral.
(Prohibited Act)
Mayor who illegally used the public fund but
used the same for another public purpose for
which it is not primarily intended.
Criminal intent is not an element of technical
malversation or the illegal use of public funds.
The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that
the prohibited act is not inherently immoral
but becomes a criminal offense because
positive law forbids its commission based on
consideration of public policy, order and
convenience [Ysidro v. People].
(Suppletory Application of RPC to SPL)
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions
of this Code. Offenses which are or in the
future may be punishable under special laws
are not subject to the provisions of this Code.
This Code shall be supplementary to such laws,
unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary.
(Art. 10; BP 22)
As a rule, the provisions of the RPC are not
applicable to special laws, unless otherwise
provided by special laws.
B.P. Blg. 22 does not provide any prohibition
regarding the applicability in a suppletory
character of the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code to it [Ladonga v. People].
1
Governing Laws (RPC, PD, EO, SPL, CA)
1. Constitutional limitations in passing penal
legislation.
a. Ex post facto law;
b. Bill of Attainder;
c. Law that violates the equal protection
clause; and
d. Law which imposes cruel and unusual
punishment nor excessive fines.
(ex post facto law)
Authority of AMLC to inquire into bank
accounts – bank secrecy law.
The law defined an ex post facto law as one
which either:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punished
such an act;
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it
greater than it was, when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules on evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law
required at the time of the
commission of the offense;
(5) Assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, in effet imposes
penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was
lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime
of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty. [Republic v. Eugenio].
2. Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege.
There is no crime when there is no law
punishes the act.
Limitation: Not every law punishing an act
or omission may be valid as a criminal law.
If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it
is null and void.
3. Interpretation/construction of criminal law.
a. In dubio pro reo – When in doubt, rule
for the accused. This is in consonance
with the constitutional guarantee that
the accused ought to be presumed
innocent until and unless his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.
b. Rule of Lenity – is a judicial doctrine
requiring that those ambiguities in a
criminal statute relating to prohibition
and penalties be resolved in favor of
the defendant if it is not contrary to
legislative intent.
c. Ambiguity in the law – in case of
ambiguity, rule for the accused
because the State has all the tools to
prosecute the accused.
d. Equipoise Evidence Rules - When the
evidence of the prosecution and the
defense are equally balanced, the
scale should be tilted in favor of the
accused in obedience to the
constitutional presumption of
innocence.
Duty of the Court
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts
which should be repressed but which are not
covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge
of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall
render the proper decision, and shall report to
2
the Chief Executive, through the Department
of Justice, the reasons which induce the court
to believe that said act should be made the
subject of legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of
the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice
and the injury caused by the offense
1. Whenever act is not penalized –
Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege.
First paragraph.
2. Excessive penalty imposed – second
paragraph of Art. 5 requires that:
a. The court after trial finds the
accused guilty;
b. The penalty provided by law
and which the court imposes
for the crime committed
appears to be clearly
excessive, because – the
accused acted with lesser
degree of malice, and/or there
is no injury or the injury
caused is of lesser gravity;
c. The court should not suspend
the execution of the sentence;
d. The judge should submit a
statement to the Chief
Executive, through the Sec of
Justice, recommending
executive clemency.
(Injustice in Penalty)
The penalties/fines imposed under the RPC are
no longer applicable since the amount are so
small which will result to the deprivation of the
victim to recover from the accused.
It leads to the passage of new law that totally
revising the RPC [Corpuz v. People].
General characteristics of criminal law;
exemptions
THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
(1) General
(2) Territorial
(3) Prospective
GENERALITY
General rule: The penal law of the country is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of
public international law and to treaty
stipulations. [Art. 14, NCC]
Exceptions:
• Art. 2, RPC. “Except as provided in the
treaties or laws of preferential application xxx”
e.g. Members of Congress are not
liable for libel or slander for any
speech in Congress or in any
committee thereof.
• Art. 14, NCC. “xxx subject to the principles of
public international law and to treaty
stipulations.”
(Diplomatic Immunity)
The petitioner’s case is not covered by the
immunity. Courts cannot blindly adhere to the
communication from the DFA that the
petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has
no binding effect in courts. The court needs to
protect the right to due process not only of the
accused but also of the prosecution. Secondly,
the immunity under Section 45 of the
Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the
exception that the acts must be done in
“official capacity”. Hence, slandering a person
could not possibly be covered by the immunity
3
agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime, such as defamation, in
the name of official duty.
Here, the commission of a crime is not part of
official duty [Jeffrey Liang v. People].
(State Agent)
A foreign agent, operating within a territory,
can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long
as it can be established that he is acting within
the directives of the sending state.
In conducting surveillance activities on
Minucher, later acting as the poseur-buyer
during the buy-bust operation, and then
becoming a principal witness in the criminal
case against Minucher. Scalzo hardly can be
said to have acted beyond the scope of his
official function or duties. [Minucher v. CA].
(Preferential Application; Bigamy)
Under Art 349 of the RPC, the marriage is
bigamous and pursuant to Art 35 of the Family
Code, it is void ab initio. Nollora’s religious
affiliation is inapplicable here. Neither of his
marriages were solemnized under the Muslim
Law. The SC ruled that his two marriages were
not conducted according to the Code of
Muslim. Hence, his religious affiliation may not
be used as a defense. [Nollora v. People].
(Presidential Immunity)
The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in
character. They involve plunder, bribery and
graft and corruption. By no stretch of the
imagination can these crimes, especially
plunder which carries the death penalty, be
covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of
a non-sitting president. He cannot cite any
decision of this Court licensing the President to
commit criminal acts and wrapping him with
post-tenure immunity from liability. The rule is
that unlawful acts of public officials are not
acts of the State and the officer who acts
illegally is not acting as such but stands in the
same footing as any trespasser [Estrada v.
Desierto].
TERRITORIALITY
General rule: Penal laws of the country have
force and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed outside its
territory.
The national territory comprises the Philippine
Archipelago… [Art. I, 1987 Constitution].
The territory of the country is not limited to
the land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior waters
as well as its atmosphere. [Art. 2, RPC]
Exceptions:
Extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable
even if committed outside the Philippine
territory. [Art. 2, RPC]
Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard Philippine
ship or airship:
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading:
1. Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
2. The high seas i.e. waters NOT under
the jurisdiction of any State
(extraterritorial)
Requisites
(a) The ship or airship must not be within
the territorial jurisdiction of another
country
(b) The ship or airship must be registered
in the Philippines under Philippine
laws
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard merchant vessels while in
the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a
foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR
Philippine vessels treading foreign waters):
4
FRENCH RULE: It is the flag or nationality of the
vessel which determines jurisdiction UNLESS
the crime violates the peace and order of the
host country.
ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of the
crime determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime merely relates to internal management
of the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH
RULE.
When the crime is committed in a war vessel
of a foreign country, the nationality of the
vessel will always determine jurisdiction
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose naval
force they belong.
Note: The country of registry determines the
nationality of the vessel, not its ownership.
Thus, Filipino-owned vessel registered in China
must fly the Chinese flag.
International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting of Coins or
Currency Notes in the Philippines
Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or
bank note or any instrument payable to bearer
or to order the appearance of a true genuine
document or by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering, by any means, the
figures, letters, words, or signs contained
therein.
Forgery is committed abroad, and it refers only
to Philippine coin, currency note, obligations
and securities.
Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the
above-mentioned obligations and securities.
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 economic interest of the
country.
Those who introduced the counterfeit items
are criminally liable even if they were not the
ones who counterfeited the obligations and
securities. On the other hand, those who
counterfeited the items are criminally liable
even if they did not introduce the counterfeit
items.
Par. 4: When public officers or employees
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions.
A crime committed within the grounds of a
Philippine embassy on foreign soil shall be
subject to Philippine penal laws, although it
may or may not have been committed by a
public officer in relation to his official duties.
Embassy grounds are considered as extensions
of the sovereignty of the country occupying
them.
Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, (Title
One, Book 2, RPC) Crimes against national
security
PROSPECTIVITY
General rule: Acts or omissions will only be
subject to a penal law if they are committed
AFTER a penal law has taken effect. [Art. 21,
RPC]
Conversely, acts or omissions which have been
committed before the effectivity of a penal law
could not be penalized by such penal law.
Exception: Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of
a felony. [Art. 22, RPC]
Exception to the Exception:
The new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing cause of actions; or
5
The offender is a habitual criminal. [Art. 22, Classification of felonies.
RPC]
1. Intentional and Culpable; Elements
EFFECTS OF REPEAL/AMENDMENT
Intentional felonies – the act or omission of
If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the the offender is malicious or is performed or
new law: incurred with deliberate intent.
 The new law shall be applied,
 EXCEPT when the offender is a Culpable felonies – those resulting from
habitual delinquent or when the new negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
law is made not applicable to pending foresight or lack of skill; performed without
action or existing causes of action. malice.
If the new law imposes a heavier penalty:
 Law in force at the time of the a. Intelligence and freedom of action
commission of the offense shall be (voluntariness)
applied.
If the new law totally repeals the existing law Actus non facit reu, nisi mens sit rea – a
so that the act which was penalized under the crime is not committed if the mind of the
old law is no longer punishable: person performing to act complained be
innocent.
 The crime is obliterated.
 Pending cases are dismissed,
Requisites of DOLO or MALICE
regardless of whether the accused is a
(1) Freedom;
habitual criminal.
(2) Intelligence; and
 Unserved penalties imposed are
(3) Intent.
remitted.
 The offender already serving sentence
Voluntariness – a voluntary act is a free,
is entitled to be released unless the
intelligent, and intentional act.
repealing law is expressly made
inapplicable to those who are serving
Intelligence – capacity to know and
sentence at the time of repeal.
understand the consequences of one’s
act.
Note: Habitual criminals will continue serving
sentence
Freedom – voluntariness on the part of
the person who commits the act or
Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial
omission.
decisions, administrative rulings and circulars.
[Art. 8, Civil Code]
Note: even if there is lack of intent, it
does not automatically make it culpable
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the
[Mayor Ysidro v. People].
punishability of an act must be reasonably
known for the guidance of society.
b. Intent and negligence

Intentional felonies –The act or omission

is performed or incurred with deliberate
intent (with malice) to cause an injury to
another.

6
 Culpable felonies – those resulting from (Proof of intent to kill)
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill; performed Intent to kill may be proved by: (a) the means
without malice. used by the malefactors; (b) the nature,
location and number of wounds sustained by
INTENTIONAL CULPABLE the victim; (c) the conduct of the malefactors
Act is malicious. Not malicious. before, at the time, or immediately after the
With deliberate Injury caused is killing of the victim; (d) the circumstances
intent. unintentional, under which the crime was committed; and (e)
being just an the motives of the accused
incident of
another act Frustrated homicide only not murder for
performed failure to prove treachery and/or evident
without malice. premeditation [Nieva v. People].
Has intention to Wrongful act
(Quasi-offenses; Art. 365)
cause an injury. results from
imprudence, The doctrine that reckless imprudence under
negligence, lack of Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
foresight, or lack
and not merely a means to commit other
of skill.
crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such
quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for
(Factors to determine intent) the same quasi-offense, regardless of its
various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s
The following factors to determine the
unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double
presence of an intent to kill:
jeopardy as applied to Article 365 [Ivler v. Hon.
1. the means used by the malefactors; Modesto].
2. the nature, location, and number of
The Sandiganbayan designated the felony
wounds sustained by the victim;
committed as "falsification of public document
3. the conduct of the malefactors before, at
through reckless imprudence." The foregoing
the time, or immediately after the killing
designation implies that reckless imprudence
of the victim; and
is not a crime in itself but simply a modality of
4. the circumstances under which the crime
committing it. Quasi-offenses under Article
was committed and the motives of the
365 of the RPC are distinct and separate crimes
accused.
and not a mere modality in the commission of
This Court also considers motive and the words a crime.
uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted
To stress, reckless imprudence resulting to
injuries on the victim as additional
falsification of public documents is an offense
determinative factors. All of these, were
that is necessarily included in the willful act of
proven during the trial. Needless to say, with
falsification of public documents, the latter
or without the phrase, what is important is
being the greater offense. As such, he can be
that all the elements of attempted murder are
convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to
still alleged in the Information [Fantastico v.
falsification of public documents (PDS)
Malicsi].
notwithstanding that the Information only

7
charged the willful act of falsification of public
documents [Sevilla v. People].
The following are the elements of medical
negligence: (1) the duty owed by the physician
to the patient, as created by the physician-
patient relationship, to act in accordance with
the specific norms or standards established by
his profession; (2) the breach of the duty by
the physician failing to act in accordance with
the applicable standard of care; (3) the
causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably
close and causal connection between the
negligent act or omission and the resulting
injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the
patient.
In the case at bar, there were no witnesses
with special medical qualifications in
anesthesia presented. Hence, it is difficult to
assess whether the first three elements of
medical negligence were present [Solidum v.
People].
CRIMINAL LAW: subsidiary liability pursuant to
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code
Ospital ng Maynila could not be held civilly
liable because it was not a party to the case. To
hold it so would be to deny it due process of
law. Furthermore, before it can be held
subsidiary liable, the conditions therefor must
first be established:(1) it must be a corporation
engaged in any kind of industry; (2) defendant
must be shown to be an employee of the
corporation engaged in industry for profit; and
(3) defendant must be insolvent.
Applying the conditions in the case at bar,
Ospital ng Maynila cannot be held subsidiary
liable because: (1) Ospital ng Maynila, being a
public hospital, was not engaged in industry
conducted for profit but purely in charitable
and humanitarian work; (2) Dr. Solidumwas
not an employee of Ospital ng Maynila but a
consultant; and (3) Dr. Solidum was not
insolvent [Solidum v. People].
c. Intent and Motive (Variance in felony)
Intent – is the determination to do a
certain thing, an aim or purpose of the
mind. It establishes the nature and extent
of culpability in intentional felonies.
The purpose to use a particular means to
effect a definite result.
Motive – it is the moving power which
impels one to do an act for a definite
result (ex. vengeance). Generally, it is not
an essential element of a crime; hence, it
need not be proved for purposes of
conviction except when Motive becomes
material in determining criminal liability
d. Intelligence and Negligence
Intelligence – Capacity to know and
understand the consequences of one’s
act.
This power is necessary to determine the
morality of human acts, the lack of which
leads to non-existence of a crime.
If there is lack of intelligence, the
offender is exempt from liability. (i.e.,
offender is an imbecile, insane or under
15 years of age)
Discernment – is the mental capacity to
tell right from wrong. It is integral to the
element of intelligence, NOT intent.
Note: Discernment does not indicate the
presence of intent, merely intelligence.
Thus, discernment is necessary whether
the crime is dolo or culpa.
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
INTENDED – Art. 4. RPC. Criminal liability
shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.
xxx xxx xxx
8
 Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es
causa del mal causado (he who is the
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused).
2. Gravity (Art. 9, 25 and 26)
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 Art.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for
the commission of which a penalty of arrest
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or
both; is provided.
3. Stages of execution.
(Subjective and Objective Phase)
Subjective – frustrated and attempted stages.
Objective – consummated and frustrated
stages.
a. Consummated Felony – When all the
elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; the
felony is produced.
b. Frustrated Felony – 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.
c. Attempted Felony – When the
offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by 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 his own
spontaneous desistance
Note: intent is necessary if the victim did not
die (Variance of felony). Also, over act must be
directly connected to the crime involved.
(Overt Act; Vague Intent)
The accused was erroneously declared guilty
of attempted robbery. The accused is then
held guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling,
committed by means of force.
That his final objective, once he succeeded in
entering the store, was to rob, to cause
physical injury to the inmates, or to commit
any other offense, there is nothing in the
record to justify a concrete finding.
The overt act must be directly connected to
the crime intended, even though the intent
was to rob. [People v. Lamahang].
(Preparatory Acts; Attempted Rape)
The accused has commenced the commission
of rape by removing his clothes, undressing
and kissing his victim and lying on top of her.
However, he failed to perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the crime of
rape by reason of a cause other than his own
spontaneous desistance, i.e., by the timely
arrival of the victims brother. [People v.
Lizada].
4. Formal, material, and crimes without
frustrated stage.
Formal – without attempted nor frustrated
stage.
Material – has all the stages of crime.
9
 (Consummated rape)
The accused is guilty of attempted rape. Labia
majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated. Primo's kneeling position
rendered an unbridled observation impossible.
No medical basis to hold that there was sexual
contact between the accused and the
victim.[People v. Campuhan].
(Attempted Rape)
In the crime of rape, from the moment the
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he
actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Any
penetration of the female organ by the male
organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of
the female organ, without rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient
to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no penetration of the
female organ
The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the
accused may be convicted even on the sole
basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Dr.
Zamora did not rule out penetration of the
genital organ of the victim. [People v. Orita].
(Theft)
In the crime of theft, the following elements
should be present – (1) that there be taking of
personal property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done
with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done
without the consent of the owner; and (5) that
the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidating of persons or
force upon things. The court held that theft is
produced when there is deprivation of
personal property by one with intent to gain.
Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able
or unable to freely dispose the property stolen
since he has already committed all the acts of
execution and the deprivation from the owner
has already ensued from such acts. Therefore,
theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can
only be attempted or consummated
[Valenzuela v. People].
(Sale of Drugs)
The attempt to sell shabu was shown by the
overt act of the accused of showing the
substance to the poseur-buyer.
Malum prohibitum as a rule is always
consummated. Howvever, applying Sec. 26 of
RA 9165 – attempted or conspiracy [People v.
Figueroa].
(Frustrated Arson)
There is no consummated arson since no part
of the building had yet commenced to burn
[US v. Valdez].
(Consummated Arson)
Although the whole 2-storey wood and
galvanized iron house has not been completely
gutted by the fire, the crime committed is still
consummated arson. It is enough that a
portion thereof is shown to have been
destroyed [People v. Gutierrez].
Note: attempted arson – litting of fire;
frustrated – not touching; consummated –
blackened or charcoaled.
(Corruption of public official; no frustrated
stage)
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect
bribery because once the public officer accepts
the gifts, the crime of indirect bribery is
consummated. If he does not accept the gifts,
he does not commit the crime.
In direct bribery, the offender agrees to
perform or performs an act or refrains from
doing something, because of the gift or
promise; in indirect bribery, it is not necessary
10
that the officer should do any particular act or
even promise to do an act, as it is enough that
he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his
office. [Gregory James Pozar v. CA].
(Attempted corruption of public officials)
The crime committed is attempted corruption
of a public official. Assuming that the appellant
really offered and delivered the money to the
police officer, there is no question that the
latter refused to be corrupted [People v. Ng
Pek].
Note: Bribery is always consummated; if not
accepted – attempted. This is not applicable if
there is conspiracy (graft and corrupt).
5. Composite, compound, special complex and
continuing crimes.
COMPOSITE CRIME – A composite crime, also
known as a special complex crime, is
composed of two or more crimes that the law
treats as a single indivisible and unique offense
for being the product of a single criminal
impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific
penalty provided by law, and differs from a
compound or complex crime under Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code
Note: There are distinctions between a
composite crime, on the one hand, and a
complex or compound crime under Article
48, supra, on the other hand. In a
composite crime, the composition of the
offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or
compound crime, the combination of the
offenses is not specified but generalized,
that is, grave and/or less grave, or one
offense being the necessary means to
commit the other. For a composite crime,
the penalty for the specified combination
of crimes is specific; for a complex or
compound crime, the penalty is that
corresponding to the most serious
offense, to be imposed in the maximum
period. A light felony that accompanies a
composite crime is absorbed; a light felony
that accompanies the commission of a
complex or compound crime may be the
subject of a separate information.
COMPLEX CRIME – 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.
Note: Art. 48 requires the commission of at
least 2 crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or
LESS GRAVE felonies must be:
(1) the result of a single act, or
(2) an offense must be a necessary means
for committing the other.
Nature of COMPLEX CRIME
Although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime
in the eyes of the law, and in the
conscience of the offender.
Even in the case where an offense is a
necessary means for committing the
other, the evil intent of the offender is only
one. Hence, there is only one penalty
imposed for the commission of a complex
crime.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
1. Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
- A single act results in two or more
grave or less grave felonies.
Requisites:
(1) That only a single act is performed
by the offender
(2) That the single acts produces:
(a) 2 or more grave felonies, or
(b) 1 or more grave and 1 or more
less grave felonies, or
(c) 2 or more less grave felonies
11
 Single Act Several Acts
Throwing a Submachine gun
hand grenade – because of the
number of bullets
released
A single bullet Firing of the
killing two revolver twice in
person succession
 Light felonies produced by the same
act should be treated and punished as
separate offenses or may be absorbed
by the grave felony.
Illustration: When the crime is
committed by force or violence, slight
physical injuries are absorbed.
Reason: the slight physical injuries are
the necessary consequence of the
force or violence inherent in the crime.
So that when an offender performed
more than one act, although similar, if
they result in separate crimes,
o there is no complex crime at
all,
o instead, the offender shall be
prosecuted for as many crimes
as are committed under
separate information.
 Article 48 DOES NOT apply to acts
penalized under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code. Article 48 is a
procedural device allowing single
prosecution of multiple felonies falling
under either of two categories: (1)
when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies (thus
excluding from its operation light
felonies; and (2) when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the
other.
 In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive
rule penalizing not an act defined as a
felony but "the mental attitude behind
the act, the dangerous recklessness,
lack of care or foresight, a single
mental attitude regardless of the
resulting consequences. Thus, Article
365 was crafted as one quasi-crime
resulting in one or more
consequences.
 Example of a compound crime:
The victim was killed while discharging
his duty as barangay captain to protect
life and property and enforce law and
order in his barrio.
The crime is a complex crime of
homicide with assault upon a person
in authority.
When in obedience to an order several
accused simultaneously shot many
persons, without evidence how many
each killed, there is only a single
offense, there being a single criminal
impulse.
2. Complex Crime Proper (Delito
Complejo)
An offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.
In complex crime, when the offender
executes various acts, he must have a
single purpose.
But: When there are several acts
performed, the assumption is that
each act is impelled by a distinct
criminal impulse, hence each will have
a separate penalty.
Requisites:
(1) That at least two offenses are
committed
(2) That one or some of the offenses
must be necessary to commit the
other
(3) That both or all the offenses must
be punished under the same
statute.
12
(4) Note: The phrase “necessary
means” does not mean
“indispensable means”
No complex crime proper:
(1) Subsequent acts of intercourse,
after forcible abduction with rape,
are separate acts of rape.
(2) Not complex crime when trespass
to dwelling is a direct means to
commit a grave offense.
(3) No complex crime, when one
offense is committed to conceal
the other.
(4) When the offender already had in
his possession the funds which he
misappropriated, the subsequent
falsification of a public or official
document involving said offense is
a separate offense.
(5) No complex crime where one of
the offenses is penalized by a
special law.
(6) There is no complex crime of
rebellion with murder, arson,
robbery, or other common crimes
(7) In case of continuous crimes.
(8) When the other crime is an
indispensable element of the
other offense.
 SPECIAL
General rules in complexing crimes:
(1) When two crimes produced by a
single act are respectively within
the exclusive jurisdiction of two
courts of different jurisdiction, the
court of higher jurisdiction shall
try the complex crime.
(2) The penalty for complex crime is
the penalty for the most serious
crime, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
(3) When two felonies constituting a
complex crime are punishable by
imprisonment and fine,
respectively, only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed.
(4) Art. 48 applies only to cases where
the Code does not provide a
definite specific penalty for a
complex crime.
(5) One information should be filed
when a complex crime is
committed.
(6) When a complex crime is charged
and one offense is not proven, the
accused can be convicted of the
other.
Rules in Article 48 are NOT applicable:
(1) When the crimes subject of the
case have common elements;
(2) When the crimes involved are
subject to the rule of absorption of
one crime by the other;
(3) Where the two offenses resulting
from a single act are specifically
punished as a single crime, such as
less serious physical injuries with
serious slander of deed, since this
is punished under Article 265 par.
2, as the single crime of less
serious physical injuries with
ignominy;
(4) In special complex crimes or
composite crimes;
COMPLEX/COMPOSITE
CRIMES
The substance is made up of more
than one crime but which in the eyes
of the law is only:
(a) a single indivisible offense.
(b) all those acts done in pursuance of
the crime agreed upon are acts
which constitute a single crime.
Special Complex Crimes:
(1) Robbery with Homicide
(2) Robbery with Rape
(3) Robbery with Arson
(4) Kidnapping with serious physical
injuries
(5) Kidnapping with rape
(6) Rape with Homicide
13
 (7) Arson with homicide
Illustration:
(a) Robbery with homicide/ rape/
mutilation/ serious physical
injury/ arson (Art.294).
(b) Rape with homicide (Art.266 [b]).
(c) Kidnapping with homicide/ rape/
torture (SPI).
(d) Carnapping with homicide/ rape.
(e) Cattle rustling with homicide.
Note: SCC (SPL) – the penalty is
specifically provided by law. 1 crime =
1 penalty.
 CONTINUING CRIME (continuous or
continued) - A single crime, consisting
of a series of acts but all arising from
one criminal resolution.
Illustrations:
Estafa – single criminal impulse (place
and time); one modus, several victims.
Art. 297 – attempted robbery with
homicide.
Art. 266 [b] – Attempted rape with
homicide.
(Special Complex Crime)
The homicide may take place before, during or
after the robbery. Once a homicide is
committed by or on the occasion of the
robbery, the felony committed is robbery with
homicide. All the felonies committed by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are
integrated into one and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide. The word homicide is
used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus,
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
[People v. Marlon albert De leon].
(Counts of Rape)
The three (3) penetrations occurred one after
the other at an interval of five (5) minutes
wherein the [appellant] would rest after
satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he
has regained his strength, he would again rape
[AAA]. Hence, it can be clearly inferred from
the foregoing that when the [appellant]
decided to commit those separate and distinct
acts of sexual assault upon [AAA], he was not
motivated by a single impulse, but rather by
several criminal intent. Hence, his conviction
for three (3) counts of rape is indubitable.
[People v. Lucena].
(Counts of Rape)
The Court convicted the accused therein for
only one count of rape despite the three
successful penetrations because there is no
indication in the records from which it can be
inferred that the accused decided to commit
those separate and distinct acts of sexual
assault other than his lustful desire to change
positions inside the room where the crime was
committed. This Court, thus, viewed that the
three penetrations occurred during one
continuing act of rape in which the accused
was obviously motivated by a single criminal
intent [People v. Aaron].
(Armalite, counts as many as number of
victims)
It was ruled that several shots from a
Thompson sub-machinegun causing several
deaths, although caused by a single act of
pressing the trigger, are considered several
acts. Although each burst of shots was caused
by one single act of pressing the trigger of the
sub-machinegun, in view of its special
mechanism the person firing it has only to
keep pressing the trigger of the sub-
machinegun, with his finger and it would fire
continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing
14
the trigger which should be considered as
producing the several felonies, but the
number of bullets which actually produced
them [People v. Vargaz].
(Robbery with homice)
The victims died prior to the robbery. The
homicide may take place before, during or
after the robbery. [People v. Ladiana].
(Rape with homicide)
In rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the
person killed is someone other than the
woman victim [People v. Laog].
(Carnapping of tricycle with homicide)
The separate crime of carnapping AND
Robbery with homicide shall be instituted
since the victim and the tricycle were found in
separate places [People v. Calabroso].
(Kidnapping with homicide and rape)
Where the victim is killed or died as a
consequence of the detention, or is raped or
subjected to torture or dehumanization acts,
this gives rise to the special complex crime of
kidnapping with murder or homicide or rape
[People v. Larranaga].
(Kidnapping with murder)
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the
course of the detention, regardless of whether
the killing was purposely sought or was merely
an afterthought, the kidnapping, murder or
homicide can no longer be complex under art.
48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall
be punished as SCC [People v. Mercado].
(Murder; no kidnapping)
Where the evident purpose of taking the
victim was to kill him, and from the acts of the
accused it cannot be inferred that the latter’s
purpose was actually to detain or deprive the
victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of
the victim constitute the crime of murder – the
crime of kidnapping deos not exist [People v.
Estacio].
6. Habitual Offenders.
a. Recidivism – a recidivist is one who, at the
time of his trial fro one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of
the RPC [Art. 14 (9)].
b. Habituality/reiteracion – that the offender
has been previously punished for 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 [Art. 14 (10)].
Note: it may be violation of SPL.
c. Habitual delinquency – a person shall be
deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a
period of ten (10) years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes or
serious or less serious physical injurues, robo,
hurto, estafa, or falsificio, he is found guilty of
any of said crimes a third time or oftener [Art.
62].
d. Quasi-recidivisim – any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted
by final judgment, before beginning to serve
such sentence, or while serving the same, shall
be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony
[Art. 160].
Who incurs criminal liability (Art. 4 and 10)
Art. 4. Criminal liability – criminal liability shall
be incurred:
1. by any person committing felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.
2. by any person performing an act which
would be an offense were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its ccomplishment or
15
on account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.
el que es causa de la causa es case del mal
causado – he who is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the evil caused.
Paragraph 1:
a. Error in personae; mistake in identity – a
felony is intended, but there is a mistake in the
identity of the victim; injuring one person
mistaken for another.
b. Abberratio ictus; mistake in blow – when
offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another.
c. Praeter intentionem – no intention to
commit so grave a wrong.
1. Crime committed different from intention.
(Mistake in identity)
The elements of mistake of identity are: (1)
belief; (2) performance of duty; and (3) no
negligence [People v. Oanis].
(Mistake in blow)
Throwing a hand grenade although the
intention was only to kill the president [People
v. Guillen].
(Praeter intentionem)
Physical injury – according to the accused, he
does not intend to commit so grave a wrong
[US v. Marasigan].
Note: Art. 49 - Praeter intentionem is applicale
in murder where the accused killed his father,
parricide (error in personae).
2. Mistake of fact
Mistake of fact or an honest mistake, the
elements are: (1) belief; (2) lawful act; and (3)
no carelessness [Gaviola v. People].
3. Proximate cause and efficient intervening
cause.
(Tetanus)
[Urbano v. CA].
4. Impossible Crime
(Unfunded check)
(Firing at empty room)
Applicable only to crimes against person and
property.
(a) raping a dead person;
(b) shooting a 3 hour dead person.
Note: Art. 247 – killing of spouse; destierro:
Doctrine of lapse of 1 hour in killing the victim
who has adulterous relationship with his wife
[Abarta Cas].
5. Prohibited acts (SPL)
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.
Art. 8. 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.
Conspirators:
1. direct participation;
2. exert moral ascendancy; or
3. lends moral assistance.
16
WHEEL CONSPIRACY – Estrada plunder case.
CHAIN CONSPIRACY – drugs. Manufacture and
seller do not know each other.
(Conspiracy)
It is a settled rule that private persons, when
acting in conspiracy with public offiers, may be
indicted and, if found guilty, held liable under
RA 3019. The death of the public officer will
not extinguish the criminal liability of private
individual. In fact, the Office of the
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict
the accused before the latter’s death [People
v. Henry Go].
(Offender in VAWC; application of conspiracy
under RPC)
While the provision of sec. 3 or RA 9292
provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage or dating or sexual relationship, it
does no preclude the application of the
principle of conspiracy under the RPC. Indeed,
Sec. 47 of RA 9261 expressly provides for the
suppletory application of the RPC [Sharica Go-
Tan v. Sps. Tan].
(Conspiracy; SCC)
The driver of the vehicle in the alleged robbery
shall also be charged based on conspiracy. In
the principle of conspiracy, no need for
communication [People v. Marlon Albert De
leon].
Doctrine of disassociation – not applicable to
those present in the planning and also present
in the execution. It is also not applicable to
master mind who do not need to be present
during the execution.
Modifying circumstances affecting criminal
liability. (JEMAA)
Art. 11 – Justifying Circumstances;
Art. 12 – Exempting Circumstances;
Art. 13 – Mitigating Circumstances;
Art. 14 – Aggravating Circumstances; and
Art. 15 – Alternative Circumstances.
Sanity – volition test (total deprivation of
freedom of action); and cognition test (Total
deprivation of intelligence).
(IQ Range)
0 – 19: idiot (2 yrs old)
20 – 49: imbecile (7 yrs old)
50 – 69: moron/feable minded (12 yrs old)
70 – 79: borader line
The victim mental status is only for 7 years old
but her age is 29 yrs old. She is considered as
retardate [People v. Charlie Butiong].
Note: imbecile is exempt from criminal
liability. More so in case the offender is an
idiot.
(Treachery; Evident Premeditation)
To conditions in order for treachery to be
appreciated, namely:
(1) the assailant employed means,
methods or forms in execution of
criminal act which give the person
attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or retaliate; and
(2) said means, methods or forms of
execution were deliberately and
consciously adopted by the assailant
Treachery whenever alleged in the
information and clearly proved, qualifies
17
the killing and raises it to the category of
murder.
The requisites for the appreciation of
evident premeditation are:
(1) the time when the accused
determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination
to commit the crime; and
(3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time
between the determination to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act.
The lapsed of 3 mins; did not calm down
the accused; 3rd requisite is absent [People
v. Macaspac].
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
[RA No. 9344].
Deals with children at risk and children in
conflict with the law.
Sec. 6. Minimum age of criminal
responsibility – a child 15 yrs or under at
the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability –
subjected to intervention program.
A child above 15 but below 18 yrs of age
shall likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, UNLESS he/she
acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceeding in accordance
with this act.
The exemption from criminal liability does
not include exemption from civil liability.
Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of sentence
– a child who is under 18 yrs of age at the
time of the commission of the offense.
Sec. 40. If the he child in conflict with the
law has reached 18 years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall
determine whether to discharge the child
or to order execution of sentence, or to
extend the suspended sentence for a
specified period until the child reaches the
maximum age of 21 years.
Sec. 42. The child who has been found
guilty may apply probation at any time as
an alternative to imprisonment.
1. Exemption from criminal liability;
Exemption to the exemption.
(Age Determination)
In determining the age for purposes of
exemption from criminal liability, Sec. 6
clearly refers to the age as determined by
the anniversary of one’s birth date, and
not the mental age as argued by the
accused [People v. Milan Roxas].
2. Diversion and Intervention Programs.
Diversion – not more than 6 yrs –
mediation; victimless – not more than 6
yrs – diversion & rehabilitation; more than
6 yrs – diversion may only be resorted by
the court.
Intervention – above 15 but below 18 and
acted without discernment. Custody –
parents, nerarest relative, NGO or Reg or
Brgy council, DSWD.
3. Treatment of child in conflict with the
law.
(Claimed for lower penalty)
Serve to an agricultural camp or other
training facilities [Hubilla v. People].
18
Persons liable under penal laws (Art. 16-20)
1. Principal – the following are considered
principal:
a. Principal by direct participation;
b. Principal by inducement; and
c. Principal by cooperation [Art. 17].
Other kind:
d. Principal by conspiracy – communication is
not necessary.
2. Accomplice – are the persons who, not
being included in Art. 17 of the RPC, cooperate
in the execution of the offense y previous or
simultaneous acts.
Note: when there is no conspiracy but they
were animated by one and the same purpose.
In case of doubt, participation will be
considered accomplice.
(Accomplice; Hazing)
The information does not constitute a crime;
hence. School officials cannot be held liable as
accomplices [Bayabos v. People].
3. Accessories – are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated therein,
either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
a. by profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
b. by concealing or destroying the body of the
crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery; or
c. by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
escape of the principal of the crime, provided
the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime
is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
PD 1612 – ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 –
heavy penalties shall be imposed for
accessories in robbery and theft.
PD 1829 – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE – those
who assist the principal to escape may be
prosecuted under this law for obstruction of
justice not as an accessory but as a principal,
provided that a separate information shall be
prepared for the crime of obstruction.
Art. 20 – Accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability:
(a) spouses;
(b) ascendants;
(c) descendants;
(d) legitimate, natural, and adopted
brothers and sisters; or
(e) relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.
Exception: by profiting themselves or
assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
Note: The accused who cannot be charged
as an accessory may be charged for
violation of PD 1829.
(Accessory by removing evidence; illegal
possession of lumber)
The accused is liable under PD 1829 and
not as an accessory under Art. 19 of the
RPC since the body of the crime was
already in the custody of the authority
[Padiernos v. People].
ANTI – FENCING LAW [PD 1612].
Fencing – is the act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
buy, receive, posses, keep, acquire, conceal,
sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
19
other manner deal in any article, item, object
or anything of value which he knows or should
be known to him, to have been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Note: mere possession shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing.
(Fencing; Elements)
The elements are:
(a) the crime of robbery or theft has been
committed;
(b) the accused who is not principal or an
accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, posseses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes of, or buys
and sells, or in any other manner deal
in any article, item, object or anything
of value which have been derived from
the proceeds of the said crime;
(c) The accused knows or should be
known to him, to have been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and
(d) There is on the part of the accused,
intent to gain for himself or for
another.
Note: mere possession thereof is enough.
[Capili v. CA].
(Presumption of possession; when not
applied)
make a suspicion since it was only a one day
transaction and no permit to sell second hand
article [Ong v. People].
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE [PD 1829].
(PD 1829 absorbed in rebellion)
The independent prosecution under PD 1829
in Makati cannot prosper. Under the doctrine
of absorption, in the crime of rebellion,
obstruction of justice is thereby absorbed
[Enrile v. Judge Amin].
(No PD 1829; Illegal arrest)
No violation of PD 1829 if a person only act in
safeguarding the constitutional rights of the
accused [Posadas v. Ombudsman].
(PD 1829; persons liable)
The failure to show that the charges against
Mayor Soller were intimately connected with
the discharge of official functions. The RTC has
the jurisdiction and not Sandiganbayan [Soller
v. Sandiganbayan].
(No PD 1829; unserved warrant)
The failure to arrest makes the accused a
fugitive from justice. Any person who helps
said fugitive cannot be held liable for PD 1829
for an unserved warrant [Judge Adoracion
Angeles v. Gaite].

Possession was found not from the accused

who bought the said article but from other
person who do not know that the same article
has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft [Caoili v. CA].

(Proof of legitimate transaction)

The accused should know or should have

known it because he was engaged for such
business of buy and sell for 16 years. He shall

20
 PENALTIES; CLASSIFICATIONS;
APPLICATIONS; COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 21 – 83
PENALTIES
Death
RP – 20 yrs and 1 day to 40 yrs.
RT – 12 yrs and 1 day to 20 yrs.
PM – 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs.
PC – 6 mos and 1 day to 6 yrs.
A Mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 mos.
Supension
Destierro
A Menor – 1 day to 30 days.
Public Censure
Fine
Bond to keep the peace
Art. 64 only applies when the penalty has 3
periods.
Art. 65 does not compose of 3 periods.
COMPUTATIONS
Illustration: Has 3 periods
Prison mayor = 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs.
Max – Min : 12 yrs – 6 yrs = 6 yrs
Divide by 3: 6 divided by 3 = 2 yrs
Minimum: 6 yrs and 1 day to 8 yrs
Medium: 8 yrs and 1 day to 10 yrs
Maximum: 10 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs
Illustration: has no 3 periods
Pricion correctional = 6 mos and 1 day to 6 yrs.
6 divided by 6 mos = 5 yrs and 6 mos devided
by 3 = 1 year and 10 mos.
Min: 5 mos and 1 day to 2 years and 4 mos.
Med: 2 yrs , 4 mos and 1 day to 4 yrs and 2
mos.
Max: 4 yrs, 2 mos and 1 day to 6 yrs
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW [Act. 4103].
Gen. Rule: The imposition of an indeterminate
sentence with maximum and minimum
periods in criminal cases is mandatory.
Exceptions: it shall not apply to:
(a) Convicted by death or life
imprisonment;
(b) Convicted of treason;
(c) Convicted of rebellion;
(d) Convicted of sedition or espionage;
(e) Convicted of piracy;
(f) Those who are habitual delinquents;
(g) Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence;
(h) Violation of the conditional pardon;
(i) Those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one (1)
year, nor those already sentenced by
final judgment at the time of the
approval of this act.
Benefits of ISLAW: entitled to parole – upon
serving the minimum sentence and temporary
liberty.
(ISLAW mandatory; except in SPL not
favorable to the accused)
ISLAW shall not be applied since ISLAW will
impose a penalty of 5 yrs and not more than 10
years while the old illegal possession of firearm
imposes only 5 year and 1 day of
imprisonment. Moreover, no trial was
conducted since the accused pleaded guilty to
the crime charged [People v. Nang Kay].
21
(Nang Kay doctrine was not applied for lack of
justification)
The penalty imposed shall be an indeterminate
penalty and a fine – 2 years to 5 years and a
fine of 50 – 200k. The accused did not plead
guilty and there was no voluntary submission
on his part. Economic sabotage is mala in se
[Batistis v. People].
(ISLAW applicable to recidivist)
The accused shall be entitled to the application
of ISLAW since he was only a recidivist not a
habitual delinquent [People v. Jaranilla].
(ISLAW not applicable to escapee)
The accused shall not be entitled to the benefit
of ISLAW since he escaped from penal
institution [People v. Martinado].
(ISLAW; Reclusion Perpetua)
The accused shall not be entitled to parole;
ISLAW does not apply to persons sentenced to
Reclusion Perpetua [People v. Gadon].
(Penalties not composed of 3 periods)
The application of ISLAW shall be for the
penalty which is divisible which shall consist of
3 periods for 1 penalty [Zafra v. People].
(Minor Drug Offender)
Under Sec. 98 of RA 9165, if the offender is a
minor, life imprisonment to death shall be
converted to reclusion perpetua to death.
Since the offender is a minor, he shall be
entitled to one degree lower as privilege
mitigating circumstance (from RP to RT).
Applying ISLAW – PM as min and RT as max
[People v. Mantalaba].
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Art. 89 – 99
1. Total Extinction
Art. 89. Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
(1) By the death of the convict, as to
personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefore
is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final
judgment;
(2) By service of sentence (in full);
(3) By amnesty. Which completely
extinguishes the penalty and all its
effects;
(4) By absolute pardon;
(5) By prescription of the crime;
(6) By prescription of the penalty;
(7) By the marriage of the offended
woman in Rape case.
Note: pardon by the offended party in rape
case shall also benefit the con-accused
provided their participations are only
accomplice or accessories.
2. Partial Extinction
Art. 94 – Criminal liability is extinguished
partially:
(1) By conditional pardon;
(2) By commutation of the sentence; and
(3) For good conduct allowances which
the culprit may earn while he is
undergoing preventive imprisonment
or serving his sentence.
22

CIVIL LIABILITY
Art. 100 – 113
Who are liable – every person criminally liable
is also civilly liable.
(Civil Indemnity)
Award of damages [People v. Jugueta].
(Avoidance of greater evil, civil liability)
The person who benefited shall pay the civil
liability which was the rural transit in this case
[Tan v. Standard Vacuum and Rural Transit].
(Medical Negligence)
Employer and employee relationship must be
established in order that the hospital be held
subsidiarily liable if the the employee cannot
pay [Solidum v. People].
BOOK TWO
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE LAW OF THE NATIONS
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY
ELEMENTS OF FELONY: (a) elements must be
present; and (b) the accused must be the
perpetrator.
Treason – any Filipino citizen who levies war
against the Philippines or adheres to her
enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the
Philippines or elsewhere.
Note: Conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason are also punishable.
Misprision of treason – having knowledge of
nay conspiracy and does not disclose it may be
punished as an accessory to the crime of
treason.
Note: Art. 20 is not applicable.
Espionage – any person who:
(1) Without authority therefor, enters a
warship, fort, or naval military
establishment or reservation to obtain
information, plans, photographs or
other data of a confidential in nature
relative to the defense of the
Philippine Archipelago; or
(2) Being in possession, by reason of
public office he holds, of the articles,
data, or information referred to in the
preceding paragraph, discloses their
contents to a representative of a
foreign nation.
Note: war or peace time.
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAW OF THE STATE
Arbitrary Detention – any public officer or
employee who, without legal grounds, detains
a person.
Delay in the delivery – 12 hrs = light penalty;
18 hrs = correctional penalty; 36 hrs = afflictive
or capital penalty.
Violation of domicile – any public officer or
employee, not being authorized, entered a
dwelling.
23
 Note: There is not indirect assault without
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
direct assault.

Rebellion or Insurrection – it is committed by
rising publicly and taking arms against the
government for purposes of removing from
the allegiance to said government or its laws.
Note: there must be a multitude of people.
Insurrection may be sedition of no arms.
PUBLIC DISORDERS
Tumults and other disturbances of public
order – at least 3 persons.
Alarms and scandal – only one or several but
not tumultuous. Disturbance of public
tranquility.

Coup d’ etat – is a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth, directed against duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines,
for purpose of seizing or diminishing state
power.
Note: preparatory acts in rebellion,
insurrection or coup d’ etat are punishable
(conspiracy and proposal). It is public uprising
with the use of arms.
Sedition – committed by any person who rise
publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by
force, intimidation or by other means outside
of legal methods.
Note: if the gun is pointed to the person but
fired it elsewhere, he shall be liable for alarm
and scandal provided no intention to kill. If he
just pointed the gun and did not fire the same,
grave threat can be filed.
Delivering prisoners from jail – who does not
have custody. Art. 223 – Conniving or
consenting to evasion by public officer who
has custody over the detained prisoner.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Direct Bribery – there is an agreement.
Indirect Bribery – given by reason of his office.

Note: no arms. Only conspiracy is punishable.

Inciting to sedition – not actual participant –

clear and present danger rule; dangerous
tendency rule.

ASSAULT

Direct assault – any person who shall attack,

employ force, or seriously intimidate or resit
any person in authority or any of his agents,
while engaged in the performance of official
duties, or on occasion of such performance.

Note: the attack must be serious.

Indirect Assault – any person who shall make

use of force or intimidation upon any person
coming to the aid of the authorities or their
agents on occasion of the crimes.

24