CRIMINAL LAW– that branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, Primary purpose: Protection of society from
ciety from actual or potential wrongdoers.
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
(1) The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) – Created pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 94; enacted January 1, 1932; based on the Spanish
Penal Code, US Penal Code, and Phil. Supreme Court decisions.
(2) Special penal laws and penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial
Law.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
Strict construction against the State and liberally in favor of the accused
Pro Reo Doctrine – Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and
the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one
strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the
accused and presumption of innocence of the accused.
Spanish text of the RPC prevails overs its English translation
In the construction or interpretation of the provision of the RPC, the Spanish
text is controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its
Spanish text. [People v. Manaba (58 Phil 665. 668)]
There are incorrect translations of the Spanish text into the English text in the
RPC.
Retroactive application if favorable to the accused
See Characteristics of Criminal Law, Prospectivity and Art. 22, RPC.
Prescribed, but undeserved penalties
In case of excessive penalties, the court shall not suspend the execution of
the sentence [par. 2, Art. 5,
RPC]
Theories of Criminal Law
PENAL LEGISLATION
Schools of Thought (PUCE)
(1) Utilitarian Theory
(2) Classical Theory
(a) Primary purpose: Retribution.
(b) Basis of criminal liability: Human free will.
(c) Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between
crime and penalty; there is scant regard to human element.
(3) Positivist Theory
(a) Primary purpose: Reformation; prevention/correction.
(b) Basis of criminal liability: The sum of the social, natural and economic
phenomena to which the actor is exposed.
(4) Eclectic/Mixed
(a) Combines both positivist and classical thinking.
(b) Crimes that are economic and social by nature should be dealt with ina
positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate.
(c) Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital
punishment.
Note: The Revised Penal Code today follows the mixed or eclectic
philosophy.
Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: (PGT)
(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]
Exception:
Art. 2, RPC. “Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential
application xxx”.
Art. 14, NCC. “xxx subject to the principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations.”
(1) Treaty Stipulations
Examples:
(a) Bases Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US on Mar. 14,
1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
(b) Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is an agreement between the Philippine
and US Government regarding the treatment of US Armed Forces visiting the
Philippines. It was signed on Feb. 10, 1998.
Art. V, VFA, which defines criminal jurisdiction over United States military and
civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities
approved by the Philippine Government.
The US and Philippines agreed that:
(a) US shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the US over
US personnel in RP;
(b) US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the US
punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP;
(c) US military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction
over US personnel subject to the military law of the US in relation to:
(i) Offenses solely against the property or security of the US or offenses
solely against the property or person of US personnel; and
(ii) Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official
duty. [Reyes, the RPC]
Rule on Jurisdiction under the VFA:
(a) If the crime is punishable under Philippine laws but not under US laws
then Philippines has exclusive jurisdiction.
(b) If the crime is punishable under US laws but not under Philippine laws
then US has exclusive jurisdiction.
(c) If the crime is punishable under the US and Philippine laws then there is
concurrent jurisdiction but the Philippines has the right to primary jurisdiction.
(d) If the crime is committed by a US personnel against the security and
property of the US alone then US has exclusive jurisdiction.
(2) Laws of Preferential Application
Examples:
(a) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in
Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
(b) Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and
received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of
any such ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment
and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment.
(R.A. No. 75)
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the
Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and
privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the
Philippines.
Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even though docked in the
Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its respective
country. This also applies to embassies.
(3) Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC:
(1) Sovereigns and other heads of state
(2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d’
affaires. (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local prosecution.
[See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]
(a) Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local
jurisdiction.
(b) Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
TERRITORIALITY
Art. 2, RPC embraces two scopes of applications:
(1) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine
territory (land, air and water).
(2) Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code
outside the Philippine territory.
General rule: Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its
territory.
(a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its territory.
(b) The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago… [Art. I, 1987
Constitution].
(c) 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]
(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.
(2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior
waters.
(3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.
Exception:
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:
(a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
(b) The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction of any State
(extraterritorial)
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):
(1) 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.
(2) English Rule: the location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of the vessel.
(a) The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
(b) However, these rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas
when the crime was committed. In these cases, the laws of the nationality of
the ship will always apply.
(c) 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. A Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the
Chinese flag.
International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
(1) Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of
the subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public
order.
(2) Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the
extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof.
(3) Absolute Theory
The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it
subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country.
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high,
as long as it can be established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere,
Philippine criminal law (See Anti-Hijacking Law) will govern.
Note: The Philippines adopts the Absolute Theory.
Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting and Coins or Currency Notes in the Philippines
Forgery is committed abroad, and it refers only to Philippine coin, currency
note, obligations and securities.
Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the abovementioned 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.
Par. 4: When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise
of their functions.
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions:
The crimes which may be committed are:
(i) Direct bribery (A.210)
(ii) Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A)
(iii) Indirect bribery (A.211)
(iv) Corruption (A.212)
(v) Frauds against the public treasury (A.213)
(vi) Possession of prohibited interest (A.216)
(vii) Malversation of public funds or property (A. 217)
(viii) Failure to render accounts (A.218)
(ix) Illegal use of public funds or property (A.220)
(x) Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (A.221)
(xi) Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his
official position (A.171)
(xii) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.
The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law:
(a) to be performed by the public officer;
(b) in the foreign service of the Phil. government;
(c) in a foreign country.
Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, (Title One, Book 2, RPC)
Crimes against national security:
(i) Treason (A.114)
(ii) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (A.115)
(iii) Misprision of treason (A.116)
(iv) Espionage (A.117)
Crimes against the law of nations:
(i) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
(A.118)
(ii) Violation of neutrality (A.119)
(iii) Correspondence with hostile country (A.120)
(iv) Flight to enemy’s country (A.121)
(v) Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters
(A.122)
Note: Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion, coup d’etat, sedition)
committed abroad is under the jurisdiction of the host country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against national security and the law of
nations. (See R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007).
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.
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:
(1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
cause of actions; or
(2) The offender is a habitual criminal. [Art. 22, RPC]
Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law,
(a) The new law shall be applied,
(b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law
is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.
(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty
(a) Law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied.
(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was
penalized under the old law is no longer punishable,
(a) The crime is obliterated.
(b) Pending cases are dismissed.
(c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
(4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions, administrative
rulings and circulars.[Art. 8, Civil Code]
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability of an act must be
reasonably known for the guidance of society [Peo v. Jabinal].
LEGALITY
Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege –There is no crime when there is no
law punishing the same.
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
EQUAL PROTECTION
Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
DUE PROCESS
Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
OR EXCESSIVE FINES
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall
be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines (RA 9346)
Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A. 8177) and the law imposing
the death penalty (R.A. 7659) (Sec. 1)
This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion perpetua for offenses
under any act using the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the
punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under any act which does not
use the nomenclature of the
RPC (Sec. 2(b))
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.
Bill of Attainder- a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its
essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of
guilt.
EX POST FACTO LAW
Ex Post Facto Law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act.
(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 when committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes
penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful;
and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty.[Reyes, The Revised Penal Code citing
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.]
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
(a) Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax. [1987
Const. Art. III, Sec. 19 (1)]
(b) Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms, e.g. due process, religion,
free speech, and assembly.
Felonies
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
FELONY – refers only to violations of the Revised As to nature Wrong from its very nature. Wrong because it is prohibited by law.
Penal Code. As to use of good GF a valid defense, unless the GF is not a defense.
(a) A crime punishable under a special law is not referred to as a felony. faith as defense crime is the result of culpa
“Crime” or “offense” is the proper term. As to WON Criminal intent is an element. Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT
(b) Importance: There are certain provisions in the RPC where the term criminal intent is still requires intelligence &
an element voluntariness
“felony” is used, which means that the provision is not extended to crimes
As to degree of Degree of The act gives rise to a crime only when
under special laws. accomplishment accomplishment is taken consummated.
of crime into account for the
OFFENSE – A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory punishment.
offense. As to mitigating They are taken into account in They are not taken into account.
and aggravating imposing penalty
circumstances
MISDEMEANOR –A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an
As to degree of When there is more than one Degree of participation is generally not
ordinance. participation offender, the degree of taken into account. All who
participation of each in the participated in the act are punished to
CRIME –Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code commission is taken into the same extent.
or under a special law, the generic word “crime” can be used. account.
As to stages of There are three stages: No such stages of execution
execution attempted, frustrated &
FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED consummated
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). As to persons The principal, accomplice & Generally, only the principal is liable.
criminally liable accessory. Penalty of offenders is same
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is Penalty is computed on the basis whether they acted as mere
of whether he is a principal accomplices or accessories
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of offender or merely an
foresight, or lack of skill. [Art. 3, RPC] accomplice or accessory
As to what laws Generally, the Generally, special laws.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA are violated RPC.
Mala in se(“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such
as murder, arson or rape.
As to division of Penalties may be divided into There is no such division of penalties.
penalties degrees and periods.
Mala prohibita(“prohibited evil”) – An act that is a crime merely because it
is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES (b) This power is necessary to determine the morality of human acts,
Felonies are classified as follows: (MSG) the lack of which leads to non-existence of a crime.
(1) According to the manner of their commission (c) If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability. (i.e.,
(2) According to the stages of their execution offender is an imbecile, insane or under 15 years of age)
(3) According to their gravity
(3) Criminal Intent
(1) According to the Manner of Their Commission Under Art. 3, they are (a) The purpose to use a particular means to effect a result.
classified as: (b) The intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental state, is
(a) Intentional felonies – those committed with deliberate intent; and presumed (but only if the act committed is unlawful).Such
(b) Culpable felonies – those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act.
lack of foresight or lack of skill. (c) However, in some crimes, intent cannot be presumed being an integral
element thereof; so it has to be proven.
Intentional Culpable (d) Example: In frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not
Act is malicious. Not malicious. presumed but must be proven; otherwise it is merely physical injuries.
With deliberate intent. Injury caused is unintentional, being just an incident of
another act performed without malice. (e) Intent which is a mental process presupposes the exercise of freedom
Has intention to cause an injury. Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
and the use of intelligence.
foresight, or lack of skill.
(f) If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent
will be presumed prima facie. [U.S. v. Apostol] (g) An honest mistake of
DOLO
fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises from the
Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as criminal intent, and must be
commission of a felonious act.
coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the offender as
[People v. Oanis]
to the act done by him.
(h) Mens rea: "A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889]
Intentional Felonies – The act or omission is performed or incurred with
deliberate intent (with malice) to cause an injury to another.
Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo,
there could be no intentional felony. [Visbal vs. Buban (2003)]
Requisites: (FII)
(1) Freedom
LIABILITY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT Exception to the
(a) Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits the act or
requirement of criminal intent: (a) Felonies committed by CULPA.
omission.
(b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA.
(b) If there is lack of freedom, the offender is
exempt from liability (i.e., presence of irresistible force or
MISTAKE OF FACT
uncontrollable fear)
Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia Facti Excusat) – It is a reasonable
misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another.
(2) Intelligence
Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent.
(a) Capacity to know and understand the
(a) Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of intent on the part of the
consequences of one’s act.
accused. Therefore, the defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense in
culpable felonies, where there is no intent to consider.
(b) An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal
intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.

Requisites:
(1) That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be;
(2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
(3) That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the
part of the accused. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a
defense. [People v. Oanis (1993)]

However, mistake of fact is NOT availing in People v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257),
because the police officers were at fault when they shot the escaped convict
who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his identity. (It is only when the
fugitive is determined to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that killing
the former would be justified)

US v. Ah Chong (1910): A cook who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly
mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the
area, and after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself to be
under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for homicide.

(1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were really what the houseboy
believed? Yes. If it was really the robber and not the roommate then the
houseboy was justified.
(2) Was the houseboy’s intention lawful? Yes. He was acting out of self-
preservation.
(3) Was the houseboy without fault or negligence?
Yes. His deliberate intent to defend himself with the knife can be determined
by the fact that he cried out sufficient warnings prior to the act.

Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be an intruder showed a

mistake of fact on his part which led him to take the facts as they appear to
him and was pressed to take immediate action.