CRIMINAL LAW I

Prescribed textbook/s:

Revised Penal Code Book I by Luis B. Reyes and/or

I GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

A. Nature and definition
Lent v. Tullett Prevon, G.R. No. 189158, 11 January 2017

i. Definition of Criminal Law

Definition of crime –an act committed or omitted in

violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it
Criminal Law vs. Criminal Procedure
Crime vs. offense vs. Infraction

ii. Power to define and punish crime

Theories in criminal law
a. Classical or juristic theory
b. Positivist or realistic theory (De Joya vs. Jail
Warden of Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-
19, December 10, 2003)
c. Eclectic theory
d. Utilitarian theory (Magno vs. CA, June 26,
1992)

iii. Constitutional rights of the accused (Art. III, 1987

Constitution)
iv. Statutory rights of the accused (Section 1, Rule 115
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure)
v. Rights which may be waived and may not be waived

B. Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. General (Art. 2, RPC)

Binding or obligatory to all persons who live or sojourn in

Phil. territory (Art. 14 of the Civil Code) irrespective of age,
sex, color, creed or personal circumstances

EXCEPTIONS (Art. 14 of the Civil Code)

(a) Treaties (ex. VFA,

Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, 28 January 2000

Bayan vs. Zamora, G,R, No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000
WHO vs. Aquino
 (b) law of preferential application

RA No. 75 in favor of diplomatic representatives and

their domestic servants

(does not apply to any case where the person against

whom the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of
the Republic of the Phil. in the service of an
ambassador or a public minister and the process is
founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon
such service;

before the issuance of the process, the name of the

servant must be registered in the DFA and transmitted
by the Secretary of DFA to the Chief of Police of the
City of Manila who shall post the same in a public
place in his office)
)
(does not apply when the foreign country adversely
affected does not provide similar protection to our
diplomatic represenatives)

CA No. 408 (Article of War) – excludes members of

the AFP from the operation of the RPC and special
criminal laws if the crimes committed by the are
service-connected as defined by RA No. 7055 except
the President, may in the interest of justice, order or
direct at any time before arraignment that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil court

Service connected crimes or offenses shall be limited

to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92
and Article 95 to 97 of CA No. 408.

The prosecution before court-martial is a bar to another

prosecution for the same offense – double jeopardy
(Marcos and Concordia vs. Chief of Staff, AFP, 89
Phil. 246)

Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-

martial over soldier of the AFP

The RPC or other penal law is not applicable when a military

court takes cognizance of the case – the Articles of War
 (c) public international law – (1) sovereign or head of
states, (2) ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary and
ministers-residents, charges d’affaires and attaches are
exempt from criminal prosecution (Schneckenburger vs.
Moran, 63 Phil. 250).

Art. 43 of the Convention on Consular Relation provides

that consular officers and employees shall enjoy immunity
from criminal prosecution, cannot be sued, arrested or
punished

A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an

ambassador or minister EXCEPT there is a treaty to the
contrary

Minucher v. Scalzo, G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003

But note:

Presidential immunity from suits

Sitting President - Absolute immunity
Soliven vs. Makasiar
Lourdes Rubrico et. al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
et. al. (G.R. No. 183871, 2010).
David et. al. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo et. al., G.R. No.
171396, 2006),

During his incumbency, President Carlos shot to death one of

his advisers during a heated argument over a game of golf that
they were playing. The deceased adviser’s family filed a case
of homicide against President Carlos before the city
prosecutor’s office. He moved to dismiss the case, invoking
presidential immunity from suit. Should the case be
dismissed?”

Possible answers (multiple choice):

“A. Yes, his immunity covers his interactions with his official
family, including the deceased adviser.”

“B. No, his immunity covers only work-related crimes.”

“C. Yes, his immunity holds for the whole duration of his
tenure.”

“D. No, his immunity does not cover crimes involving moral
turpitude.”
The Supreme Court’s answer is “C.” Those who answered “C”
were given full credit for that number.

Immunity of members of the Congress

Members of the Congress are not liable for libel or slander

or slander un connection with any speech delivered on the
floor of the house during regular or special session (Art. IV,
Section 11, 1987 Const)

The purpose of parliamentary immunities is not for the

benefit of the officials; rather, it is to protect and support the
rights of the people by ensuring that their representatives are
doing their jobs according to the dictates of their conscience.
It is indispensable no matter how powerful the offended party
is.

Thus, congressman who committed an offense punishable for

not more than 6 years, but is not attending session, cannot be
arrested so long as he is an incumbent congressman, and so
long as Congress is in session, whether or not he is attending
it, he shall be immune from arrest. (People of the Philippines
v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875‐76, February 3, 2000).

Moreover, a senator‐lawyer cannot be disbarred or

disciplined by the Supreme Court for statements made
during a privilege speech. The senator‐lawyer’s
privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. The
Court, however, would be remiss in its duty if it let the
Senator’s offensive and disrespectful language that
definitely tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It
is imperative on the Court’s part to re‐instill in
Senator/Atty. Santiago her duty to respect courts of
justice, especially this Tribunal, and remind her anew
that parliamentary non‐accountability thus granted to
members of Congress is not to protect them against
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them,
as the people’s representatives, to perform the
functions of their office without fear of being made
responsible before the courts or other forums outside
the congressional hall. It is intended to protect
members of congress against government pressure and
intimidation aimed at influencing the decision‐making
prerogatives of Congress and its members. (Pobre v.
Sen. Defensor‐Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, Aug. 25,
2009)
Congress is not considered in session during
a recess. During a recess, a congressman who has
committed an offense punishable by not more than 6
years imprisonment may be arrested.

he Constitution provides only a privilege from arrest in

order to ensure the attendance of Congressmen. It does
not provide immunity from searches

Legislative privilege provides that no member shall be

questioned or held liable in any forum other than
his/her respective Congressional body for any debate
or speech in Congress or in any committee thereof.
(Sec. 11, Article VI; Pobre v. Sen. Santiago, A.C. No,
7399, August 25, 2009
However, legislative privilege is subject to the
following limitations:
1. Protection is only against forum other than Congress
itself. Thus, for defamatory remarks, which are
otherwise privileged, a member may be sanctioned by
either the Senate or the House as the case may be.
2. The “speech or debate” must be made in performance
of their duties as members of Congress.

In Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,

where Sandiganbayan order the preventive
suspension of a Member of the HoR being prosecuted
criminally for the violation of the Anti‐Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, the Court held that the accused
cannot validly argue that only his peers in the House of
Representatives can suspend him because the co urt‐
ordered suspension is a preventive measure that is
different and distinct from the suspension ordered by
his peers for disorderly behavior which is a penalty.
(Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, GR 118354, August 8,
1995)

To avail the Privilege of Speech and Debate, the

following requirements must be observed:
1. That the remarks must be made while the legislature
or the legislative committee is functioning, that is in
session
2. That they must be made in connection with the
discharge of official duties.

To invoke the privilege of speech, the matter must be

oral and must be proven to be indeed privileged.
 Speech or debate includes a vote or passage of a
resolution, all the utterances made by Congressmen in
the performance of their functions such as speeches
delivered, statements made, or votes casts in the halls
of Congress. It also includes bills introduced in
Congress (whether or not it is in session) and all the
other utterances (made outside or inside the premises
of Congress) provided they are made in accordance
with a legislative function. (Jimenez, v. Cabangbang,
G.R. No. L‐15905, August 3, 1966)

Publication does not at all times fall under the scope

of speech. The same shall be made while Congress is in
session and not during its recess. However, if
publication is made when Congress is not in session, it
is not privileged because Congressman is said to be not
acting as congressman. (Jimenez, v. Cabangbang, G.R.
No. L‐15905, August 3, 1966)

It must be noted that the purpose of the privilege is to

insure the effective discharge of functions of Congress.
The privilege may be abused but it is said that such is
not so damaging or detrimental as compared to the
denial or withdrawal of such privilege.

2. Territorial (Art. 2, RPC)

The law is applicable to all crimes committed within the

limits of Phil. territory, which includes its atmosphere,
interior waters and maritime zones (Art. 2, RPC)

The law is enforceable only within Phil. territory (Art. I

of the Constitution)

French rule vs. English Rule – People vs. Wong Chen

EXCEPTIONS

People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, 30 August 2001, 364

SCRA 10

People vs. Lollo,

Bar Question:

Art. 2 of the RPC states that the provisions of he

said Code shall be applicable to crimes committed not only
 within the territorial jurisdiction of the Phil. but also
outside thereof, in the five (5) instances mentioned therein.
What are the underlying reasons behind, or rationale for
each of the five instances?

While his wife is still living, A married C, single in HK.

After living there for a couple of years, A and C returned
and settled in Manila. (a) Can A be prosecuted for
bigamy? Why? (b) Can A be prosecuted for any other
crime? If so, what? How about C?

After drinking one case of SMB and taking two plates of

pulutan, Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death, Sio
My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard the M/V Princess of
the Pacific, an overseas vessel which was sailing in the
South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino
businessman. When the vessel reached a Phil. Port at
Cebu City, the Captain turned over Binoy to the Phil.
authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against
Binoy in the RTC Cebu City. He moved to quash the
Information for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Prospective (Article 21 and 22, RPC)

The law does not have any retroactive effect, EXCEPT if

it favors the offender UNLESS he is a habitual delinquent
(Art. 22 RPC) or the law otherwise provide

a. Effects of repeal

C. Sources of Criminal Law

1. Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Code
3. Penal presidential decrees issued during martial law

D. Constitutional Limitations on the power of the legislature to enact

penal legislation

1. Due process and Equal protection (Art. 3, Sec. 1, 1987

Constitution)
Criminal law must be of general application and must
clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crime

White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846

20 January 2009
Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013
2. Freedom of Expression (Art. 3 Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution)
Guingguing vs. People, G.R. No. 128959, 30 Sep. 2005

3. Freedom of Religion (Art. 3, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution)

Estrada vs. Escitor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, 22 June 2006,
492 SCRA 1
4. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhumane
punishment Freedom of Expression (Art. 3 Sec. 19, 1987
Constitution)
People vs. Echagaray, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014
Corpuz vs.People, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014

5. Non-imprisonment for debt of non-payment of poll tax

(Art. 3, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution)

6. Bill of attainder (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution)

People vs. Ferrer, L-32613-14, 27 Dec. 1972, 48 SCRA
382

An legislative act which would inflict punishment without

judicial trial

7. Ex-post facto laws (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution)

US vs. Diaz Conde, L-18208, 14 Feb. 1922

An Ex-post facto law is one which:

i. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the and

which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act

ii. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when

committed

vi. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater

punishment than the law annexed to crime when
committed

vii. alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes

conviction upon less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the
offense
viii. assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
ix. deprives a person accused of crime some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
 proclamation of amnesty (In re: Kay Villegas Kami,
Inc.. 35 SCRA 429)

The test whether a penal runs afoul of the ex-post facto

clause is: Does the law sought to be applied retroactively
take “from an accused any right that was regarded at the
time of the adoption of the constitution as vital for the
protection of life and liberty and which he enjoyed at the
time of the commission of the offense charged against
him?”

Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera vs. The Court

of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001

E. Construction and Interpretation

1. Liberally in favour of the accused

2. Spanish text of the RPC prevails over the English text
People v. Abilong, L-1960, 26 November 1948

3. Retroactive application when favourable to the accused

4. Prescribed but undeserved penalties (Art. 54, RPC)
People vs. Formigones, L-3246, 29 Nov. 1950

5. Suppletory application of RPC to Special Penal Laws

(Art. 10, RPC)
Ladonga v. Peoeple, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February 2005
People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994

II. General Principles of Criminal Liability

A. Felony, defined (Art. 3, RPC)

B. Elements of criminal liability

1. Physical element (Actus reus)
a. Act
b. Omission
People v. Sylvester and Atienza, G.R. No.
35748, 14 December 1931, 56 Phil. 353

People v. Talingdan, L-32126, 6 July 1978,

84 SCRA 19

2.Mental element (Mens rea)

a. Deliberate intent (Dolo)

 Manuel v. People, G.R. No. 165842, 29
November 2005
i.Elements of dolo
ii General and specific intent
People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471,17
February 1993, 219 SCRA 85

People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, 28

January 2003

iii Mistake of fact

US v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 52772, 19

March 1910, 15 Phil 488

iv. Malum prohibition as exception to the

requirement of mens rea

Padilla v. Dizon, AC No. 3086, 23

February 1988, 158 SCRA 127

Magno v. CA, G.R. No. 96132, 26

June 1992, 210 SCRA 475

v Intent distinguished from motive

b Constructive intent (Culpa) Art 3 and 365

i. Elements

ii. Imprudence or lack of skill

iiis. Negligence or lack of foresight

People v. Pugay, L-74324, 17

November 1988, 167 SCRA 439

Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,

17 ovember 2010

c. Transferred intent (Art. 4, par. 1)

i. Aberratio ictus

People v. Guillen, L-1477, 18 January

1950, 85 Phil. 307

ii. Error in personae

 People v. Sabalones, G.R. No.
123485, 31 August 1998, 294 SCRA
751

iii. Praeter intentionem

People vs. Albuquerque, G.R.

No. 38773, 19 December 1933,
59 hil. 150

3.Concurrence
4.Resulting harm
5 Causation
Bataclan v. Medina, L-10126, 22 October 1957
102 Phil. 181

People v. Iligan, G.R. No. 75369, 26 November

1990

Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.

72964, 7 January 1988

C. Impossible Crimes (Art. 4, Par. 2)

Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992,

215 SCRA 52

People v. Saladino, L-3634, 30 May 1951, 89 Phil. 807

Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009

III. Stages of execution

A. Attempted Stage
B. Frustrated Stage
C. Consummated crimes
US v. Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, 2 February 1917, 36 Phil. 209
Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006, 480
SCRA 188
Baleros v. People, G.R. No. 138033, 22 February 2006, 483
SCRA 10
D.Stages of execution in relation to specific felonies

1. Theft

Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007

 2.Illegal Trespass

People v. Lamahang, L-43530, 3 August 1935, 61 Phil.

703

3.Physical Injuries, Homicide, and Murder

People v. Borinaga, G.R. No. 33463, 18 December 1930,

55 Phil. 433

People v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 39303-05, 17 March 1934, 59

Phil. 715

People v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 79123-25, 9 January 1989,

169 SCRA 51

Martinez v. CA ,G.R. No. 168827, 13 April 2007

Mondragon v. People, L-17666, 30 June 1966, 17 SCRA

476

People v. Sy Pio, L-5848, 30 April 1954, 94 Phil. 885

4.Robbery

People v. Dio, L-36461, 29 June 1984, 130 SCRA 151

People v. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163, 26 April 1990

5.Rape

People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, 3 April 1990, 184

SCRA 105

People v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, 30 March 2000

6.Arson

US v. Valdes, L-14128, 10 December 1918.

E.Conspiracy and proposals to commit a felony (Art. 8)

1. Conspiracy and proposal, when punished?

2. As a manner of incurring criminal liability
People v. Aguilos, G.R. No.121828, 28 June 2003

IV. Circumstances that affect criminal liability

A. Justifying circumstances

1.Defense of self, relatives, and strangers

Manahan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July

2006.

Senoja v. People, G.R. No. 160341, 19 October 2004.

People v. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, 4 August 1994, 235

SCRA 67

People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 128359, 6 December

2000, 347 SCRA 100

People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 384, 21 February 1946, 76

Phil. 174

People v. Narvaez, L-33466-67, 20 April 1983, 121

SCRA 389 (see also dissents of J. Abad Santos and J.
Gutierrez, Jr.)

Sabang v. People, G.R. No. 168818, 9 March 2007, 518

SCRA 35
People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006,
499 SCRA 64

Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, 12 September

2006, 501 SCRA 533

2.Avoidance of greater evil

People v. Ricohermoso, L-30527-28, 29 March 1974, 56

SCRA 431

People v. Norma Hernandez, CA-G.R. No. 22553-R, 14

April 1959, 55 OG 8465

3.Fulfillment of duty

People v. Delima, L-18660, 22 December 1922, 46 Phil.

738

People v. Lagata, L-1940-42, 24 March 1949, 83 Phil.

150

Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152, 2 February

 2007

People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006,

499 SCRA 64

4.Obedience to a lawful order of a superior

People v. Beronilla, L-4445, 28 February 1955, 96 Phil.

566

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103501-03, 17

February 1997, 268 SCRA 332

B.Exempting Circumstances

1. Insanity

People v. Taneo, L-37673, 31 March 1933, 58 Phil. 255

People v. Bonoan, L-45130, 17 February 1937, 64 Phil.

87

People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 31 July 1991, 199

SCRA 860

People v. Rafanan, L-54135, 21 November 1991, 204

SCRA 65

People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, 12 May 2000,

332 SCRA 99

People v. Robios, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002, 382

SCRA 581

People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674075, 17 March 2004,

425 SCRA 654

Verdadero v. People, G.R. No. 216021, 2 March 2016

People v. Genosa, 341 SCRA 493, 419 SCRA 537

RA 9262 (Re: Battered Woman Syndrome)

See also: Maria Diory F. Rabajante, The Privilege of

Being Insane: An Examination of, and a Saner
Alternative to the Insane Rule on Insanity Defense, 49
San Beda L.J.1 (March 2012)
 2.Minority

RA 9344 as amended by RA 10630.

People v. Doqueña, G.R. No. 46539, 27 September 1939,

68 Phil. 580

Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008

People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011

3.Accident

US v. Tañedo, L-5418, 12 February 1910, 15 Phil. 196

People v. Castillo. G.R. No. 172695, 29 June 2007, 526

SCRA 215

People v. Retubado, G.R. No. 124058, 10 December

2003

Pomoy v. People, G.R. No. 150647, 29 September 2004,

439 SCRA 439

4.Irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of a greater injury

US v. Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, 29 March 1905

4 Phil. 350

People v. Loreno, L-54414, 9 July 1984, 130 SCRA 311

People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, 14 April 1999,

305 SCRA 740

5.Insuperable cause

People v. Bandian, G.R. No. 45186, 30 September 1936,

63 hil. 530 (see also: separate opinion of J. Villareal)

C.Other exculpatory causes

1. Instigation

People v. Lua Chu, G.R. No. 34917, 7 September 1931,

56 Phil. 44
 People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999, 301
SCRA 668

2.Pardon (Art. 266-C and Art. 344)

3.Absolutory circumstances

a. Art. 6 (3)
b. Art. 20
c. Art. 247
d. Art. 280*
e. Art. 332

Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales v.

People, G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010.

D.Mitigating Circumstances

1.Classes of Mitigating Circumstances

a. Privileged

i. Art. 13 (2) and Art. 68

ii. Art. 13 (1) and Art. 69

People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 384, 21

February 1946, 76 Phil. 174

People v. Narvaez, L-33466-67, 20

April 1983, 121 SCRA 389

People v. Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, 20

September 2000

Guillermo v. People, G.R. No.

153287, 20 January 2009.

b.Ordinary

i. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

People v. Ural, L-30901, 27 March 1974,

56 SCRA 138

People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 139542,

21 June 2001, 359 SCRA 352
 ii Sufficient provocation

People v. Pagal, L-32040, 25 October

` 1977, 79 SCRA 570

Urbano v. People, G.R. No. 182750,

20 January 2009

iii Vindication of a wrong

People v. Benito, L-32042, 13

February 1975, 74 SCRA 271

Bacabac v. People, G.R. No. 149372,

September 2007

iv Passion or obfuscation

US v. Hicks, G.R. No. 4971, 23

September 1909, 14 Phil. 217

US v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 7094, 29

March 1912, 22 Phil. 429

People v. Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, 9

June 1993, 223 SCRA 310

People v. Bello, L-18792, 28 February

1964.

v. Voluntary surrender or plea of guilt

People v. Amaguin, G.R. Nos. 54344-

45, 10 January 1994, 229 SCRA 166

People v. Dela Cruz, L-45284, 29

December 1936, 63 Phil. 874

vi. Deafness, muteness, blindness, or other physical defect

which restricts the offender’s means of action, defense,
or communication

vii. Illness as would diminish the exercise of will-power

without depriving the offender of consciousness
of his acts.
 viii. Analogous circumstances

Canta v. People, G.R. No. 140937, 28

February 2001

E.Aggravating Circumstances

Art. 14 and 62 of the RPC.

People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 136164-65, 20 April 2001

1. Classes of Aggravatng Circumstance

a. Generic
b. Qualifying
c. Specific
d. Inherent
e.