ROVEN Notes in b. Presidential Decrees – enacted during 2.

Prospective Application – applies only to

CRIMINAL LAW the Marcos regime by Marcos when he acts done after the enactment of the law
Lecturer: PROS. ELMER MANUEL SAGSAGO was the Executive, Legislative, and 3. Spanish v. English
Judiciary  Applicable to RPC ONLY
c. Implementing Rules and Regulations,  SPANISH  language of the drafters of
CRIMINAL LAW Circulars–issued by Administrative the law  expresses the intention of the
 Human conduct evil/bad act, omission, or agencies drafters
negligent act  DOLE Labor Code IRR
 Branch of municipal substantive law which: Central Bank CB Circulars KINDS OF REPEAL
 Defines crime – specifies the conduct Securities and Exchange 1. Total/Absolute – as if the old law did not
that is prohibited Commission SEC Rules and exist and has the effect of decriminalizing
 Defines the terms of its nature – Regulations the act
identifies the circumstances and  Act punished must be punished by 2. Partial/Relative – only a part/an aspect of
conditions under which such conduct is the basic law (e.g. acts punished the old law is repealed
punishable (i.e. elements) under the Labor Code IRR should a. Express – there is a specific provision in
 Provides for penalty – if not, the law is be prohibited under the Labor Code the new law that the old law is repealed
merely advisory itself) b. Implied
 Should comply with the publicity i. Repeal by failure to include in the
Principles in Criminal Prosecution requirement codification consolidation of 2
1. Principle of Legality – any human conduct laws into a new law/code
can never be a subject of criminal Local Application must be issued in ii. Inconsistency – the new law cannot
prosecution unless there is a law punishing accordance with the Local Government be harmonized with the old law
that conduct Code EFFECTS OF REPEAL
 v. Common Law – if according to the 1. Pending Prosecution
view of the judge the act is wrong, the Power to Enact Laws Absolute: DISMISSED although habitual
act will be punishable  Essentially legislative delinquent because of the presumption
 Statutory Origin – should exist to be  Plenary – the right to choose which of innocence until proven guilty.
punishable particular conduct is reprehensible and Partial:REPEALING LAW will be APPLIED if
punishable, even to make presumption (e.g. favourable to the accused although
!! Article 5, RPC–if there is no law the presumption of guilt in a crime of theft habitual delinquent UNLESS there is a
punishing a wrongful act committed by the when the goods are found in the possession saving clause.
accused; the judge must dismiss the case of the accused) 2. On Appeal
and submit a proposal to the Congress to  NOT absolute Absolute:ACQUIT = reverse judgment of
enact a law punishing such wrongful act. Constitutional Limitations conviction
a. Due process 3. Decided Case
2. Principle of Publicity – the existence and b. Equality in the application of laws Absolute:NOT HABITUAL DELINQUENTS are
provisions of the law must be made known c. Must not be an ex post facto law entitled to a release UNLESS there is a
to the public Ex Post Facto Laws: saving clause; however, their release is
 Publicity – may involve means other  Criminalizes an act which was not automaticthey need to file a writ
than publication for fair play and innocent at the time it was of habeas corpus because they are still
requirement of due process committed accountabilities of the government 
 In the Philippines – the only mode  The act is aggravated to a greater prisoner may still be charged with
acknowledged is through publication in crime than when it was committed evasion of sentence if they escape.
the Official Gazette and newspaper of  Inflicts graver punishment than HABITUAL DELINQUENTS will
general circulation when the act was committed continue serving their sentence because
 Properly Publicized–every  Alters Rules of Evidence and retroactive application of a penal law is
person/subject of such law is presumed makes the accused easier to only for those who are not habitual
to have knowledge (constructive) of the convict delinquents.
law  Assumes to regulate civil rights 4. Serving Sentence
and remedies only in effect Absolute:The convict has the choice
!! Ignoratia legis non excusat– imposes penalty or deprivation of a whether he would STILL SERVE the sentence
ignorance of the law does not right for something which was or NOTPetition for the Issuance of Writ of
excuse lawful when done Habeas Corpus.
 The law deprives the accused of Partial: NOT HABITUAL DELINQUENTS will
ACT NO. 3815 legal protection to which he has benefit from the repealing law if it is more
 Revised Penal Code become entitled favourable to them.
 mere revision of the Spanish Penal Code d. Must not be a bill of attainder
used during the Spanish and American legislative determination of guilt without !! If a law expressly repealing a prior law is itself
eras judicial trial repealed, the prior repeal will cease unless
 Effective January 1, 1932 e. Must not have excessive, cruel/unusual otherwise provided by the last repeal.
 Majority of crimes are Spanish concepts punishment
 Some crimes that are from American !! In partial repeal, if what is repealed is the
concept: perjury, libel INTERPRETATION MODE of commission of the crime, the case
 Book 1 – General principle 1. Pro Reo Principle will be dismissed if the new law decriminalizes
Book 2 – specific crimes and penalties  In dubio pro reo (in case of doubt, the act. If the repeal has the effect on the
resolve in favor of the accused)  PENALTY, the applicability of the new law
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS liberal application in favor of the depends on whichever is more favourable to
 Penal laws other than RPC accused and strictly against the the accused.
 General Application government
a. Penal laws enacted by Legislative a. Doubt whether the conduct is THEORIES/PHILOSOPHIES IN CRIMINAL
within the coverage of the penal LAW
Philippine law  NOT WITHIN THE 1. Classical/Juristic
Act No. American regime
Assemble COVERAGE OF PENAL LAW Basis of Criminal Responsibility: human free
Commonwealth b. Doubt on the criminal liability  in will
Common- period – trial
wealth period for Congress
favor of the LESSER CRIME  Man has intellect to know what is good
Act No. independence  Nature of the criminal penalty  and what is bad
(1936-46) deprives a person life, liberty, or  Man has the freedom to choose whether
Republic Full independence property (essential the being a human) or not to obey the law
Congress
Act No. (June 12, 1946)  the guilt should be beyond Purpose of Penalty: retribution
Batas reasonable doubt before there could be  Direct mechanical proportion between
Marcos Regime Batasang
Pambansa conviction crime and penalty
(martial law) Pambansa
Blg.
  A certain gravity of crime has a
corresponding gravity of penalty
 Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (Oculo
pro oculo, dente pro dente)
Emphasis: act itself
2. Positivist/Realistic
Basis of Criminal Responsibility: influence on
the actor
 Influence is the sum of the social,
natural, and economic phenomena to
which actor is exposed
 Man is essentially good, but he is
influenced to do wrong
Purpose of Penalty: reformation
 Offender is regarded as socially sick
who needs treatment, not punishment
 Imposed upon recommendation of
social scientists, psychologists, and
experts
 Case-to-case imposition of penalty
Emphasis: individual
3. Eclectic/Mixed
Treatment: combination of classical and
positivist theories
 Crimes that are social and economic in
nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner
 Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a
classical manner
Penalty: depends on the nature of the crime
 Social and economic crimes have
considerate penalties
 Heinous crimes receive capital
punishments
Emphasis: depends on the nature of the
crime
4. Utilitarian/Protective
Basis of Criminal Responsibility: the actual
or potential danger brought to society
Purpose of Penalty: protect the society
Emphasis: potential threat to society
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
 Revision of Spanish Codigo Penal which was
copied from French Code of 1810 which was
classical in character
 Book II provides for the direct and
mechanical proportion of penalty 2.
 Article 13, 14, etc. are positivist in nature
Special Penal Laws
 Heinous crimes punished by laws such as
Unlicensed Firearms Law, Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Law are penalized with capital
punishment and are from classical point of
view
 Indeterminate Sentence Law, Law on
Children in Conflict with the Law are from
positivist point of view
 BP Blg. 22 is from utilitarian point of view
insofar as in one decision of the SC. One
who issued a bouncing check due to
economic reverses was only fined
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. Generality
 It does not apply to specific persons
only
 Article 14, NCC: applies to all who live
(permanent) or sojourn
(temporary/visiting) in the Philippines
 Exemptions:
a. Public International Law
diplomatic immunity
i. Functional foreign official
performing state
functions/political acts
ii. Personal  peculiar
personality/office
iii. Resident Diplomatic Officers 
ambassadors
!! Sovereigns and heads of foreign
states, whether on official or
personal visit, include in their
immunity their personal family
(spouse, children) and official
family (those who accompany
them)
!! Consuls are not diplomatic
officers
b. Treaty Stipulation
Bilateral/Multilateral
 Grants exemptions
 RP-US Balikatan  bilateral
 Convention of the Heads of
the States  multilateral
 Convention on the Privileges
and Immunities of Specialized
Agencies of the UN
c. Laws of Preferential
Application grants partial/total
exemption
i. Constitution  presidential
immunity
ii. Constitution  parliamentary
immunity
iii. RA 75  members of
household of resident
diplomatic officers provided
they were registered with DFA
and reported to the Chief of
Police of Metro Manila
iv. Code of Muslim Personal Law
 Bigamy
v. Laws concerning CICL  no
perjury if the CICL denies
having committed a crime
vi. 2012 Anti-Human Trafficking
in Persons Law  the law
enforcement, social worker, or
any persons acting under
them are immune from suit
that may arise from the
investigation and
apprehension of the trafficker
Territoriality
 Law must be applicable within the
specific territory/jurisdiction of the
authority enacting the law
 Intraterritorial Application refers to
the applicability of RPC to crimes
committed, in whole or one of the
elements, in the Philippines
a. Terrestrial – within the bodies of
land
b. Fluvial/Maritime – within the
territorial waters described in the
constitution
Archipelagic Doctrine – connect the
dots of the outermost points of the
outermost islands and the waters
enclosed therein would be the
internal waters of the Philippines.
The archipelago will be regarded as
one integrated unit instead of
fragmented islands
Within 12 Nautical Miles from the
Baseline – territorial sea
Within 12 Nautical Miles from the
Territorial Sea – for enforcement of
Tariff and Customs Law
Within 200 Nautical Miles from the
Baseline – exclusive economic zone
for the protection of economic
wealth
c. Areal–over the atmosphere
Theories:
i. Open Space –the atmosphere
over the country is free and
not subject to jurisdiction
unless for its national security
ii. Relative – subjacent state may
exercise jurisdiction only to
the extent that it can
effectively exercise control
thereof
iii. Absolute – the subjacent state
has complete jurisdiction over
the atmosphere above it
subject only to innocent
passage by aircraft of foreign
country
 GR: if the crime is entirely committed
outside the Philippine territory  not
punishable in the Philippines even if the
effect is in the Philippines
e.g. a married man got married again in
Hawaii with another woman and
lived in Baguio as husband and
wife
 they cannot be charged with
bigamy because the second
marriage was done outside the
Philippines
 but they could be charged with
adultery/concubinage
 Exceptions (Extended Territory by Legal
Fiction):
a. Ex Territorial – embassies and
warships
b. Extra Territorial – commercial ships
registered under the laws of the
Philippines
GR: The nationality of a
commercial ship is based on
its registration  regardless of
the nationality of the owner
Exp’n: In determining enemy ship
during war  nationality is
based on the nationality of the
owner
!!! RAEGAN v. CIR
Raegan provides technical assistance for
US military. He sold an automobile to a
member of the military corps in Clark
Field during the effectivity of the Military
Bases Agreement. Tax was assessed
against the sale. He contended that the
sale was not done within the Philippine
territory/jurisdiction.
SC: The contention of Raegan is
untenable. By the principle of
Inviolability of Diplomatic Premises,
premises for diplomatic missions are part
of the territory of the country. Hence,
permission of foreign diplomatic
representative is needed before taking
jurisdiction over the crime.
Principles why States are Allowed
to Extend Jurisdiction
1. Passive Personality
Principlenationality of the victim
 to protect their own people
2. Protective Principle based on
national security  acts of
overthrowing the State
Government
3. Affects Doctrine the act affects
the commerce/harms the citizens
4. Universality Principleinternational
crimes  crimes against humanity
  first to apprehend acquires 1. Genocide – destruction of any group in another, acts against drugs, possession of
jurisdiction whole or in part by reason of its chastity, deception, false keys
ethnicity, religion, belief, etc. sex crimes,
3. Prospectivity 2. Crimes against Humanity – part of disenfranchising a
 Applies to acts committed after the wide-spread and systematic attack voter, destroying
effectivity of the law against civilians (e.g. two countries are property of others
 An act is punished under the law in at war and one of them attacked the
effect when it was committed civilians of the other in violation of the !!Criminal Intent – malice taken into account
 EXCEPT: Geneva Convention on engagement in in mala in se
a. Habitual delinquent war)
b. Saving clause 3. War Crimes – violation of Geneva Intent to Violate the Law–the specific
Convention providing the rules on intention to do the act prohibited by the
ARTICLE 2 warfare special law despite knowledge of such
1. On Board Philippine Ship/Airship prohibition such as the animus
should be non-military, registered with !! Pirates are universal criminals over whom possidendi (intent to possess) for theft
proper Philippine government agency  any state may exercise jurisdiction
seeking the protection of Philippine law provided that such state was the first to 2. As to Commission (Article 3):
a. High sea ship acquire jurisdiction over them although a. Intentional
International air airship the crime was not committed in its  Conscious/deliberate performance
b. Territory of another country principle jurisdiction of an act/omission with intent or
of comity  can be prosecuted by the malice (dolo) to do an injury
Philippines upon refusal of the foreign !! The state which arrested pirates may:  Performed consciously with full
country to prosecute 1. Prosecute them under their senses with purpose of causing
(arresting state’s) own law harm/injury
!! English v. French Rule 2. Turn them over to the state where  Positive – doing an act
English territory the pirates committed a crime (written/verbal) prohibited
French nationality 3. Turn them over to the International Negative – omission/failing to do
Court of Justice an act mandated by law such as
!!Foreign Ship in Philippine Waters abandonment of a dying person in
Warship? YES  never !! Enforced disappearance – government an inhabited place
 NO takes people and do not tell where they  Elements:
Pirate ship?YES  Public are i. Criminal intent
International - Purpose to use a particular
Law  first to !!Special Laws: means to effect a result
acquire RA 9851 – Philippine Law on Crimes - Mental process
jurisdiction against International Humanitarian Law, - Presumed upon proof of
Merchant ship? YES Genocide, and other Crimes against commission of an unlawful
Port of destination? English Rule Humanity act/omission
Travelling in Transit? UNCLOS RA 9372 – Human Security Act of 2007  - Shown by overt acts
Criminal jurisdiction of the Antiterrorism Law - Defense: proof of irresistible
coastal state should not be RA 9208 – Anti Trafficking in Persons Act force or uncontrollable fear
exercised on the ship in transit - 4 Kinds according to
except: FELONY – crimes defined and punished by the American Model Penal Code
a. Consequence extends to Revised Penal Code  Purposeful – desire to
coastal state cause the result;
b. Crime disturbs peace of CLASSIFICATIONS OF FELONIES: synonymous with specific
country/good order of the 1. As to Nature: criminal intent
sea  Knowing – knowledge of
c. Assistance of local Mala in Se Mala Prohibita what is being done and of
authority has been Not inherently wrong the possible results;
requested by the master Inherently wrong with
but were made similar to general criminal
of the ship/diplomatic or without a law
crimes only by the intent
agent/consular punishing the act
law prohibiting it  Reckless – indifference to
representative of the flag Intent (criminal) is the result of the act
state Intent is an element immaterial but intent  Negligent –
d. If applying Philippine laws to violate the law is inattentiveness/failure to
is necessary in Good faith is a do what a reasonable
suppressing illicit traffic Good faith is not a man would
defense except in
of narcotic drugs defense ii. Freedom of action
culpable felony
Acknowledge Do not acknowledge - Voluntariness in committing
2. Forging/counterfeiting any coin or mitigating or mitigating or the act/omission
currency note of the Philippines or aggravating aggravating - Absence makes the person a
obligations and securities issued by the circumstances circumstances mere tool
Government of the Philippines to Do not take into - Defense: proof of insanity or
protect the monetarial system of the country account the extent of infancy
 protect economy and commerce  Affects Take into account the iii.Intelligence
participation and
Doctrine extent of participation - Capacity to know and
degree/stage of
3. Introduction in the Philippines of the and degree/stage of understand the consequences
consummation unless
counterfeit obligations and securities consummation of one’s act
the law expressly
Affects Doctrine provides so - Necessary to determine
4. While being public officers or Generally crimes morality of human acts
employees, an offense is committed in punished under RPC - Proof of good faith or that the
the exercise of their functions affects Crimes punished accused acted under a state of
integrity of Philippine administration and mistake of fact
under special laws
public trust must be conserved Generally crimes
that are:
5. Crimes against national security and the punished by special Mistake of Fact Mistake of Identity
a. Derivatives under
law of nations universality principle laws No criminal intent With criminal intent
RPC
b. Committed by 1. The act was 1. The accused
Crimes against Law of Nations lawful had the intends to commit
acts that are
(according to Rome Statute of the facts been what a crime against his
inherently wrong
International Criminal Court): the accused intended victim
Taking of life and Possession of fire
property, injuring arms, possession of believed them to 2. The accused
 be mistook another b. Simple imprudence – the away of properties and
2. The intention of person for his injury/harm could not be persons
the accused is intended victim foreseen  Applicable to special laws
lawful 3. The injury landed e.g. While speeding in NLEX at  Robbery of different
3. The mistake is on the unintended 1:00 am, a drunk man walked buildings as part of an
without fault or victim across and was hit by the intent to commit a
carelessness on accused general robbery within a
the part of the specific area is only one
accused !! If a man contracted another marriage robbery
Special in the Philippines on the belief that
Exempting his divorce in Nevada with his first v. Absorption – a crime is
mitigating/extenuating
circumstance wife, whom he married in the considered part of another
circumstance
Philippines, is recognized in the  The offense absorbed
 Crimes that are always intentional Philippines is held to be guilty of loses its identity as
are those that require a state of bigamy through reckless distinct offense
mind which is with malice, deceit, imprudence according to the  The higher offense
or specific intent, and will arise Supreme Court absorbs the lower EXCEPT
only if intended in rebellion
i. Mutilation – the purpose is to  Lower penalty than intentional  Felony does not absorb
deprive a person of an organ crimes EXCEPT malversation violations of special law
to inhibit the person from where the penalty is the same and vice versa EXCEPT
using the same  Included in intentional felony  political crimes
ii. Murder – particular mind to when charged in an Information
use a particular means to with intentional felony and only 5. As to Time Frame of Commission
commit the crime culpable felony is proven, a. Instantaneous
iii. Sex crimes – rape, acts of conviction for culpable felony can  Arises at the very moment and
lasciviousness be had without amending the place of execution
iv. Crimes of deceit – estafa Information b. Continued
v. Crimes against National  Elements:  Refer to previous discussion
Security and Law of Nations – i. Voluntariness  the accused  Always instantaneous
treason, espionage, piracy in is not forced/intimidated into c. Continuing
the high sea doing the act  Several acts executed within a
vi. Political crimes – sedition, ii. Intelligence  the accused is span of time = 1 offense
coup d’état aware of the nature and  Localized or transitory
vii. Against public morals – consequences of his act  Several acts involving illegal
gambling, prostitution, grave iii. Lack of Foresight  instead of recruitment committed within a
misconduct malice (intentional) year is one offense of Estafa by
viii. Against honor – defamation, Deceit
slander by deed, libel 3. As to Resulting Material Injuries (Article  Kidnapping that lasted for a month
ix. Other crimes – kidnapping, 4)
abduction, threat, coercion a. Real Crime 6. As to Commission
 Produces actual damage or injury a. Formal Crimes
b. Culpable to life, security, or property  Committed in one instance
 Acts which are due to lack of skill b. Material Crimes
(imprudence) or lack of foresight b. Impossible Crime  With at least 2 stages  attempted
(negligence proper)  Does not produce any actual and consummated
 What is punished is the state of damage or injury
mind (uncaring, indifferent to 7. As to Stages of Execution
danger) and not the act 4. As to Number of Violations a. Attempted
 Penalized under Article 365 a. Single b. Frustrated
 If results in light felony and less  One crime, one penalty c. Consummated
grave/grave felony, the light felony
will be filed separately b. Plural 8. As to Gravity
 2 or more crimes, one penalty  Basis is the penalty of imprisonment
!!! JASON IVLER CASE  Principles: unless fine is the only penalty
Driving accident involving Ivler i. Complex Crime Proper (delito  Purposes of Classification:
resulted in physical injuries. A compuesto) one act = 2 or  Determine prescription of offenses
charge for reckless imprudence more grave/less grave  Determine if capable of complexing
resulting in slight physical injury ii. Compound Crime (delito  Determine subsidiary penalty
was filed with the MTC where he complejo) one offense is a a. Light
pleaded guilty. Upon finality of the necessary means to commit  Arresto Menor or a fine of not
MTC decision, he was charged with the other exceeding P200
reckless imprudence resulting in iii. Special Complex/Composite –  Cannot be complexed  charged
serious physical injury with the RTC. 2 or more offenses considered separately
Motion to quash was filed on the as one b. Less Grave
ground of double jeopardy. iv. Continued (delito  Correctional penalty (1 month and
continuado)–committing a 1 day to 6 years) or a fine of P201
SC: Reckless imprudence is a crime series of overt acts violating to P6000
in itself. The resulting injuries are one and the same penal c. Grave
factors to determine the penalty. provision committed at the  More than 6 years imprisonment or
The highest penalty being same place and about the a fine of more than P6000
cognizable by the RTC, the case same time for the same d. Heinous
should have been filed with the RTC. criminal purpose = one  Capital punishment
offense
 2 Kinds: 9. As to Complaint Requirement
a. Reckless imprudence – the Single Larceny Doctrine a. Private
injury/harm could be foreseen taking 2/more properties  Instituted through private offended
e.g. Speeding in a street belonging to 2/more persons party’s complaint
frequented by many children = 1 crime of theft  Crimes against chastity, adultery,
concubinage
 Applies to crimes against b. Public
properties and taking
  Instituted without a prior complaint
by the offended party
 Crimes against persons, theft,
murder
10. As to Place of Commission
a. Localized
 Elements of the offense took place
in one territorial jurisdiction and
could be tried in such jurisdiction
b. Transitory
 Elements of the offense took place
in 2/more jurisdictions and can be
tried in any of such jurisdictions
11. As to Injury
a. Victimless
 No injury to a private person
 Gambling, prostitution, violations
of special laws
b. With Private Victim/Offended Party
 There is injury or damage to a
private person
12. As to Motive and Goal
a. Ordinary or Common Crime
 Committed for private/personal
reasons
b. Political
 Creation, maintenance, or
enhancement of the power,
interests, ideology of a group,
organization or institution to the
detriment of or destruction of other
rival groups
 Absorbs ordinary crimes if done in
its furtherance
 Often continuing and transitory
i. Domination and Oppression or
State Crimes – committed by a
powerful institution or the State
ii. Group Conflicts, Hate Crimes, or
Bias Crimes–committed by rival
groups
iii. Rebellion, Sedition, Coup d’état –
committed by groups against the
existing social and political order
iv. Political Coloration – ordinary
crimes committed in furtherance of
political crimes
13. As to Magnitude
a. Crimes against Nations
 Can be tried by any state
b. Crimes against a Particular State
 Defined by domestic law of a state
and tried in the same state
14. As to the Accused
a. Status Crimes
 An act is a crime if committed by
an adult, but not if by a child
b. Street Crimes
 Committed by anybody in the
street 3.
c. Blue Collar Crimes
 Committed by a person holding a
position by using such position
CRIMES
Elements: CRIMINAL
1. Physical Act (Actus Reus) (Article 4)
 May be positive act, omission, or  Possible Consequences Of Committing A
negligent act; oral or verbal Felony:
 Human conduct of a person  No injury to a private person 
 Overt act capable of being perceived
by senses  Intended injury is not produced
 Bodily movement capable of having  The actual attack is the factual cause
effect on the outside world
2. Mental Act (Mens Rea)
1. Real Crime
 State of mind of a person which makes
him criminally liable
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
(the act cannot be criminal where the
mind is not criminal)
 Intentional = malice
Culpable = indifference, uncaring mind
 Guilty mind, evil mind, evil purpose
 v. INTENT purpose to use a particular
means to commit a crime; for
intentional offense only
a. General Criminal Intent – evil/bad
purpose presumed whenever a
crime is committed
b. Specific Criminal Intent – specific
harm/injury the accused wants to
inflict by using a particular means;
may be proven by SCIENTER
(knowledge of a particular fact)
where it is one of the element of
the crime, such as adultery
(knowledge that the woman is
married), direct assault (knowledge
that the victim is a person in
authority/an agent of a PIA), or
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
(knowledge that the article is
stolen)
!! If victim dies general intent to kill
the victim is
presumed
If victim lives specific intent to kill
the victim should be
proven to know if the
crime is merely
physical injuries or
homicide/murder or
incidental to some
other crimes like
robbery or rape
 v. DISCERNMENT mental capacity to
tell right from wrong
 v. MOTIVEpersonal reason/moving
power that impels one to commit an act
for a definite result
GR: Not necessary for conviction
Exp’ns:
a. Element of the crime
b. Purely circumstantial evidence
c. Doubt in the identity of the
accused
d. Act produces several crimes
e. 2 antagonistic theories/versions of
the crime
f. Unreliable, inconclusive, and
doubtful testimonyidentifyingthe
accused
g. No eyewitness to the crime and
there is a number of suspects
h. Accused puts up the defense of
stranger
Law Punishing the Crime
 Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
 Principle of Legality
 The source of crime is the law punishing
it
RESPONSIBILITY/LIABILITY
victimless crime
(actual result is also the intended
result) or proximate cause
 Accused is liable for the actual felony
although he intended to commit another
felony
 “He who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused.”
 REQUISITES:
a. Intentional Felony
 DEFENSES:
 Good faith
 Not punishable by RPC
 Justifying circumstances
 Mistake of Fact
!! Mistake of Fact
No criminal liability
(ignoratia facti excusat)
!! Elements of Mistake of Fact:
- Act would have been
lawful had the facts were
what he believed them to
be
- Lawful intention
- No negligence
!!v. Mistake of Law
When a person acts under a
repealed law, it does not
free the person from
criminal liability because of
the presumption of
constructive knowledge of
laws (ignoratia legis non
excusat)
 SUICIDE and GETTING BACK
ONE’S OWN PROPERTY are not
felonies resulting injury to
other persons will not give rise
to criminal liability, but only
civil liability
b. Proximate Cause
 That cause which in the
natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any
efficient supervening cause,
produces a felony, without
which such felony could not
have resulted
 El que es causa dela causa es
causa del mal causado
 Injury/death may be produced
instantly or after a reasonable
lapse of time  as long as the
injury/death can be traced
back to the act
 In damage to property,
negligent act may be the
proximate cause
 A person, even without bodily
contact, will be held liable for
the injury of another person in
whom he instilled fear of
imminent danger
 DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION
proximate/factual cause
 Death of the person
injured  the person who
died should be the same
person who was injured
 The injury should be
capable of producing
death
 DEATH is presumed to be the
natural consequences of the
physical injuries if:
 Victim at the time the
physical injuries were
inflicted was in normal
health
  Death may be expected a. Legal – due to the legal nature of
from the physical injuries the offense, the intended crime 1. Internal Stage (Mens Rea)
inflicted cannot be produced  Mental acts
 Death ensued within a  Not punishable
reasonable time e.g. shooting a dead person,
 Slight physical injury stealing own property 2. External Stage (Actus Reus)
aggravated by improper a. Preparatory Acts
treatment resulting in death b. Physical – intended crime is not  GR: Not punishable
still renders the offender liable produced because of a factor e.g. Buying poison, gun, or bolo
for death for without such beyond the control of accused/the even if the purpose is to
injury, there is no need for means is ineffectual commit a crim
treatment Conspiracies and proposals
 DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING e.g. pickpocketing an empty
CAUSE cause that pocket, which was due to the hole Exp’n: Expressly punished by laws
intervenes between the act of in such pocket, chemical mixed e.g. Total stranger loitering and
the accused and the expected with the intended victim’s food is looking at a private place
injury breaking the connection not enough to kill him without justifiable cause
of the act and injury and = vagrancy
becomes the proximate cause  Only if intended crime would have been Possession of picklocks/false
of the injury against persons and properties keys
 Act of the victim himself  Accused should not be aware of the Conspiracy and proposal to
 Act of a 3rd person impossibility to be liable commit Rebellion,
 External factors   Crime of last resort  charged only Sedition, treason, and
epidemic, nature, insect, when there is no other crime in the RPC coup d'état
etc. or special law chargeable
 No impossible crime of robbery with  Not yet a crime but may lead to a
2. Wrongful Act Done be Different from violence  coercion  crime, although not certain
What was Intended (Crimes against threat/intimidation to do what you don’t  Equivocal  susceptible to different
Persons ONLY) want to do interpretations  may or may not
a. MISTAKE IN THE BLOW (Aberratio  Punished due to the criminal tendencies develop into a crime
Ictus) of the offender
 At least 2 people were injured b. Acts of Execution
 Injury intended is grave/less grave CRIMINALIZATION AND EXCESSIVE Attempted
 A person directed the blow at an PENALTY (Article 5)  The offender commences the
intended victim but due to external 1. Principle of Legality commission of a felony directly by
circumstances beyond the control  There should be a law punishing an overt acts, and does not perform
of the perpetrator, such blow act/omission/negligence all the acts of execution which
landed on an unintended victim  Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege should produce the felony by
 Generally gives rise to complex  If an act is not punished by any law but reason of some cause other than
crimes the court thinks that such act should be his own spontaneous desistance
 Light felonies are charged repressed, the court should:  ELEMENTS:
separately a. Render the proper decision  Overt acts
 DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED dismiss the case  Failure to perform all acts of
INTENT  the intent behind the act b. Report the matter to the Chief execution of the felony
directed at a particular victim will Executive  through the  Such failure was due to any
be applied to the unintended victim Department of Justice  for the cause other than his own
passage of an appropriate law spontaneous desistance
b. MISTAKE IN IDENTITY (Error in c. Report should contain  Overt act  capable of producing
Personae) explanation on why the court an effect in the outside world
 The intended victim was not at the believes that the act should be perceptible by the senses and
scene of the crime repressed directly related to the felony he
 The actual victim is not the ought to commit
intended victim 2. Principle of Justice Tempered with  The accused has not yet passed
 The actual victim was mistaken for Mercy the subjective phase he still has
the intended victim so the blow  If the court finds the penalty to be the control over his actions and he
was directed to the former excessive/harsh, the court should: may/not commit the crime
 Special extenuating circumstance a. Render the proper decision  Voluntary Desistanceabsolutory
 Art. 49  penalty for the less convict the accused and impose cause when the accused decided
crime in maximum penalty will be penalty as provided by the law not to continue with the
imposed if: b. Submit statement of report to the commission of the crime due to his
 Actual crime is DIFFERENT Chief Executive through DOJ conscience or any other reason
from that intended c. Recommend to Chief Executive the which is not external to him
 Actual crime is MORE grant of executive clemency spontaneous desistance
SERIOUS than the intended  Does not apply to crimes punishable by EXCEPT:
crime special laws  no executive clemency  The act already performed
constitutes the attempted
c. CONSEQUENCE WENT BEYOND THE STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF FELONY stage
INTENTION (Praeter Intentionem) (Article 6)  If the crime intended already
 Intended victim = Actual victim  Not applicable to: arose (factual desistance)
 Actual injury > Intended injury  Formal crimes  Another crime was already
 Mitigating under par.3, Article 13,  Felonies by omission produced
RPC  Culpable felonies KINDS:
 There should be GREAT DISPARITY  Impossible crimes  Legal made during the
between the means employed and  Violations of special laws, unless attempted stage which would
the resulting injury otherwise provided by the special law obviate criminal liability
 At least 2 stages  attempted and subject to the exceptions
3. Impossible Crime consummated  Factual made after the
 Fixed penalty of ArrestoMayor  FACTORS IN DETERMINING STAGE OF attempted stage which does
 “Impossible crime of _____.” EXECUTION not obviate criminal liability
 2 Kinds of Impossibility  Manner of committing a crime
 Elements of the crime Frustrated
 Nature of the crime
  The offender performs all the acts CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT 2. Criminal liability
of execution which would produce FELONY (Article 8) In re: Article 16
the felony as a consequence but  Mere preparatory acts Light felonies  principal and
which, nevertheless, failed to  GR: not punishable accomplice
produce it due to causes Exp’n: expressly provided by law only
independent of the will of the Less/Grave  includes accessories
offender/outside factors Conspiracy
 ELEMENTS:  Two/more persons come into an agreement 3. Stage of execution
 Performance of all acts of concerning the commission of a crime and In re: Article 6
execution decide to commit it Light felony  consummated only
 All acts of execution would  REQUISITES: except against
have produced the felony 1. 2/more persons coming to an persons and
 Felony is not produced agreement properties
 Reason of failure to produce 2. Such agreement is to commit a felony
felony is independent of the 3. Actual decision to commit the felony 4. Complex crimes
will of the perpetrator  Should be alleged in the Information Light felonies cannot be complexed
 Accused is already in the objective  PUNISHABLE CONSPIRACIES: charged separately
phase  he has no more control 1. Treason
over the consequence of his act 2. Rebellion 5. Period for delivery of detained persons
 RULE: Accused injured a person 3. Sedition to judicial authorities
with intent to kill 4. Highway robbery 12 hours  light felony
 Nature of injury should be 5. Espionage 18 hours  less grave felony
mortal/life threatening  should be 6. Arson 36 hours  grave felony
testified to by an expert OVERT ACTS OF CONSPIRACY:
(physician) 1. Active participation in the actual 6. Imposition of subsidiary penalty
 If injury is not mortal  attempted commission of the crime
 If the accused himself prevented 2. Moral assistance by mere presence a. Grave Felonies
death  serious physical injury during the commission of the crime  Capital punishment or penalties which
 CRIMES WITHOUT FRUSTRATED 3. Moral ascendance over the co- in any of their periods are afflictive (6
STAGE: conspirators by moving them to years and 1 day to reclusion
 Rape execute/implement the criminal plan perpetua)in re: Art. 25 important
 Arson  KINDS: phrase!
 Indirect bribery 1. As a Felony  mere conspiracy of  Fine of more than P6,000
 Corruption of public officers certain crimes is expressly punished by  Heinous  more than 12 years
 Adultery law Non-Heinous  6 years and 1 day to 12
 Physical injury 2. As a Manner of Incurring Criminal years
 Theft/robbery Liability legal justification in holding
 Bigamy 2/more people criminally liable b. Less Grave Felonies
 Concubinage equally(for more discussions refer to  Prision correccional (1 month and 1 day
Degree of Participation – Principals) to 6 years) in re: Art. 25  maximum
Consummated  2/more persons conspire to commit arson = period
 All the necessary elements for the conspiracy to commit arson as a felony  Fine of more than P200 but not more
execution and accomplishment of IF arson is actually committed = arson than P6,000
the felony are present conspiracy becomes a mode
 CONSUMMATION: c. Light Felonies
 Rape  carnal Proposal  Arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) in re:
knowledge/penetration, no  A person has decided to commit a felony but Art. 25
matter how slight proposes its execution to some other  Fine not exceeding P200 in re: Art. 9
 Arson  burning of the person/persons  If fine of P200 = alternative/single
house/building no matter how  A man decided to commit a felony but he penalty  correctional penalty under
small turns over the commission to another Art. 26  prescribes in 10 years, not 2
 Theft  accused has  Inducement months
constructive/actual control  REQUISITES:
over the articles 1. A person decided to commit a felony OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO RPC
 Robbery  theft + violence 2. Proposes its execution to some other PROVISIONS (Article 10)
 Estafa  damage to victim person/persons agreement is not  Special laws  governed by special law itself
 Consummated by at least 2 necessary  GR: RPC provisions are supplementary to
persons:  PUNISHABLE PROPOSALS: special laws
 Adultery 1. Treason Exp’n:
 Concubinage 2. Rebellion 1. Special law provides otherwise
 Bigamy  with reckless 3. Insurrection 2. RPC provisions are impossible of
imprudence  when the 4. Coup d’état application, by express
Filipino husband married for  NO PROPOSAL WHEN: provision/necessary implication
the second time in the 1. Lack of determination to commit the  RPC PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO
Philippines believing that the felony  one who proposes SPECIAL LAWS:
divorce he had with his Filipino 2. Lack of decided, concrete, and formal 1. Article 3 on criminal intent
wife was valid proposal 2. Article 6 on stages of execution UNLESS
3. Not the execution of felony is proposed special law punishes an attempted or
LIGHT FELONIES (Article 7) frustrated violation
GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they GRAVITY OF FELONIES (Article 9) 3. Article 11 on justifying circumstances
have been consummated insignificant  Basis is imprisonment UNLESS only fine is 4. Articles 13, 14, 15 on modifying
result the imposed penalty circumstances
Exp’n: Those committed against persons or  In re: Article 25 5. Articles 17, 18, 19 on degree of
property if attempted or frustrated  Not applicable to special laws participation
 Those infractions of law for the commission  PURPOSES: 6. Accessory penalties
of which the penalty of arresto menor or a 1. Prescription of the crime 7. Article 48 on complexing of crimes
fine not exceeding P200 or both is provided Light felonies  2 months 8. Graduation of penalties
 Only principals and accomplices are liable Less grave  correctionalcrime except  RPC PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL
 Slight physical injury  only light felony arresto mayor 10 years LAWS:
against persons Arresto Mayor5 years 1. To prevent injustice
Grave more than 20 years a. Article 100 on civil liability
b. conspiracy
 must necessarily guess at its  No injury to the State and no legal injury to
2. Adoption of BOTH nomenclature and meaning and differ as to its private persons
range of penalty application  If principal’s defense  acquits accomplice
 RPC provisions in re: penalty will  Courts cannot determine, within and accessory as well
be applied any reasonable degree of certainty,  No civil liability EXCEPT in State of Necessity
what the legislature intended (paragraph 4)
3. Mala in se in nature  Includes Use-of-Force Defenses
 Lack of intent and good faith are 2. Void for Over Breadth Principle 1. Deadly force
valid defenses  Only to cases where accused is 2. Reasonable force
charged with a crime in relation to  Exclusive enumeration
4. Derivative of an act punished under RPC freedom of expression and
 Car napping and cattle rustling are association 1. Self Defense
derivatives of theft/robbery  Inhibits the exercise of individual  Natural right to protect one’s own self,
freedoms guaranteed by the property, honor/reputation, chastity,
5. Exempting circumstances Constitution rights protected by law
6. Participation of accomplices  Language is so broad that it  The state cannot protect its citizens at
7. Retroactivity of penal laws if favourable unnecessarily interferes with the all times  given the right to defend
to the accused exercise of constitutional rights themselves
8. Preventive imprisonment  Must be asserted promptly
 Imprisonment while case is 3. Void for Lack Of Publicity  Elements:
pending  Publication in a newspaper of a. Unlawful aggression
general circulation/Official Gazette  Actual (happening already or
 PUNISHABLE BY BOTH RPC AND SPECIAL  No constructive notice to the public actually producing harm
LAW  Ignoratia legis nemenem excusat already) physical or at least
1. Felony absorbs the offense will not apply threatened assault of
2. Offense aggravates felony immediate and
3. Two separate charges 4. Violation of Equal Protection imminent(happening at any
4. Punished under either RPC or special  Discriminatory and selective moment) kind which is
law otherwise, there would be double application offensive and positively
jeopardy  Generality characteristic  must strong, showing the wrongful
apply to all persons in similar intent to cause injury
IMPUTABILITY situation  Conduct/action intended to
 Quality by which an act may be ascribed to a  A prima facie fair and impartial harm/damage
person as its author or owner law, if applied by a public authority  v. Lawful aggression either
 Implies that an act committed has been with an evil eye and unequal hand in the exercise of a right or
freely and consciously done and may so as to make unjust and illegal fulfilment of a duty
therefore be put down to the doer as his discriminations between persons in  Indispensable requisite
very own similar circumstances, material to  Comes from the victim
their rights, violates equal  Still continuing/in existence
RESPONSIBILITY protection during the time of defense
 Obligation of suffering the consequences of  There must be a clear and  Still existing when the
crimepenal and civil intentional/purposeful aggressor momentarily left to
discrimination on the part of the get a more advantageous
GUILT prosecuting officials weapon
 Element of responsibility  Cease when aggressor flees
 A man cannot be made to answer for the 5. Double Jeopardy  Absent when there is
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty  Prosecuting the same individual for agreement to fight (e.g. duel)
the same act after his acquittal or EXCEPT when there is a
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL conviction violation of the agreement
LIABILITY  Not mere threatening attitude
 EFFECTS:  Defender is not expected to
DEFENSES 1. Total/Perfect/Complete control his blow
 Result in acquittal/reduction of criminal  Totally exonerates the accused  Aggressor cannot claim
liability a. Failure to prove the essential complete self defense
 FORMS: element of the crime
1. Positive/Affirmative b. Justifying circumstances !! RETREAT-TO-THE-WALL
 “admission and avoidance” c. Exempting circumstances DOCTRINE
 Accused admits authorship of the d. Absolutory causes First attempt to withdraw from
crime but puts up matters to avoid e. Failure to establish guilt beyond the encounter and it is only
criminal liability/conviction reasonable doubt when there is nowhere to retreat
 Reverse trial  defense will first f. Prescription of crimes that force may be used to defend
present evidence  burden of one’s self  impractical 
proof is shifted to the defense 2. Partial abandoned
 Defense must be proven by clear,  Accused will still be liable but will
positive, and convincing evidence lessen his liability !! STAND-YOUR-GROUND-
 Justifying, exempting, absolutory WHEN-IN-THE-RIGHT
 SOURCES: DOCTRINE
2. Negative 1. Legal When attacked in a place where
 Accused denies authorship of the  Those provided by the RPC, one has the right to be, he may
act/omission imputed to him Constitution, or any other law immediately use force to defend
 Denial, alibi, mistaken identity himself  prevailing doctrine
2. Factual
 CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES  Those based on the circumstances !! CASTLE DOCTRINE
1. Void for Vagueness Principle of the commission of the crime A man’s home is his own castle
 Too much discretion is left with the relating to the time, place, manner  he may immediately use force
judge/law enforcers in the statute of commission, identification of the to defend himself if attacked in
 Due Process  penal statute must accused, reasons for the his own home
be sufficiently explicit to inform its commission
subject what conduct would render b. Reasonable necessity of the means
them liable Justifying Circumstances (Article 11) employed to repel it
 Lacks comprehensible standards  For intentional felonies only  Defense should be
that men of common intelligence  Lawful act commensurate to the type,
 degree, and intensity of the  There should at least be two cycles to
aggression taking into c. Lack of sufficient provocation from avail of this self-defense
consideration the place, the accused  No need for imminent or actual
occasion, and surrounding  PROVOCATION: any conduct danger/aggression  enough that the
circumstances of the which excites, incites, or woman believes that the aggressor
aggression induces a person to react and poses probable harm
 TEST OF REASONABLENESS vexes or annoys, irritates, or  Proven by expert testimonies from
 Weapon used by the angers another psychologists
aggressor  WHEN THERE IS NO  PROPONENT:PP v. Genosa, Jan. 15,
 Physical condition, SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION: 2004
character, size, and other  None at all  Gives rise to mitigating circumstances
circumstances of the  Provocation is not of psychological paralysis and passion
aggressor sufficient and obfuscation if invocation of BWS
 Physical condition,  There is sufficient fails
character, size, and other provocation but not
circumstances of the immediate to the attack 2. Defense of Relative
person defending himself  WHEN SUFFICIENT  RELATIVE:
 Place and occasion PROVOCATION IS PRESENT a. Legitimate spouse
 Perfect equality between  Utterance of vulgar b. Ascendants
weapons or perfect language by the attacker c. Descendants
commensurability in the directed to the victim d. Brothers and sisters
means employed are not  Trespassing by the e. Relative by affinity in the same
required because the person aggressor into the degree
assaulted does not have time property of the victim f. Relatives by consanguinity within
to think and calculate  Jokes made in poor taste the 4th civil degree
 TWO ASPECTS: or bad mouthing the  Elements:
 Mode of defense victim a. Unlawful aggression
 Choice of weapon  Destroying the property b. Reasonable necessity of the means
 Rational necessity and rational of the victim employed to repel unlawful
equivalence of weapons, and aggression
not factual equality, are !! BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME c. No provocation from defender
required  Psychological condition  Even if the relative being
 Determined by considering  Woman commits physical violence defended gave provocation,
both the subjective and against her aggressor due to the the one defending should not
objective aspects: continued physical and mental abuse be aware of such fact or
 Imminence of danger as her aggressor inflicted on her should not have participated
it appeared to the  BATTERED WOMAN: Repeatedly therein either actually or
accused + instinct for subjected to any forceful physical or morally by encouragement
self-preservation psychological behaviour by a man in  Still available even if the defender acted
 Armed attacker’s order to coerce her to do something out of evil motive
instrument of aggression he wants her to do without concern  In recognition of the strong ties of blood
v. means of defense most for her rights
readily and immediately  Available to ANY WOMAN with any 3. Defense of Stranger
available to the person form of intimate relationship with  STRANGER: Those not included in the
attacked men  not limited to wives enumeration of relatives
 Physique, size, age, sex,  CYCLE OF VIOLENCE:  Elements:
knowledge of martial a. Tension-Building Phase 1. Unlawful aggression
arts, reputation as a  Minor battering 2. Reasonable necessity of the means
person of violence of  Verbal, physical abuse or employed to repel the unlawful
attacker and of the other form of hostile aggression
person attacked behaviour 3. Defender should not be induced by
 Whether immediate  The woman tries to pacify evil motive
assistance is available to the batterer but his  v. Defense of Relative
the person attacked placatory/passive behaviour  Defender must prove an
during attack legitimizes her belief that honest desire to save the
 Number of attackers the man has the right to life/limb or property of the
 USE OF DEADLY FORCE abuse her stranger
 Attack on a person’s  At some point, violence  The defender should not have
life/limbs  either get spirals out of control and participated in case the
killed/get seriously leads to acute battering stranger gave provocation
injured incident  What a man can do in his defense,
 Attack upon property + another can do for him
attack on person’s b. Acute Battering Incident
life/limbs if absent  Characterized by brutality, 4. State of Necessity
reasonable force only destructiveness, and, at  Elements:
 Attack on chastity + clear times, death a. Evil sought to be avoided actually
intent to rape  Deemed by battered woman exists
 Attack on honor or as unpredictable, yet b. Injury feared is greater than that
reputation = similar libel inevitable done to avoid it
or defamation to the  She has a sense of c. No other practical or less harmful
extent necessary to free detachment from the attack means of preventing it
himself of the effects of and the terrible pain  The greater evil sought to be avoided
the attack Doctrine of  Often very savage and out should not be brought about by the
Justified Libel or The of control negligence or imprudence of the
Privilege of a Reply actor/his violation of a law
Doctrinephysical force c. Tranquil, Loving Phase  Only justifying circumstance with civil
is never justified  The couple experience liability NOT derived from the
 Not justified in injuries profound relief commission of a crime BUT from the
caused by the installation  The batterer may show a benefit derived
of protective devises or tender and nurturing
attack of loose dogs even behaviour towards his e.g. The crew members in a sinking
in one’s own yard partner vessel jettisoned (act of throwing
 cargoes into the sea) some cargos  The duty to issue a warning is NOT
belonging to A to save the vessel ABSOLUTELY MANDATED AT ALL
and the other cargoes. The owners TIMES and AT ALL COST to the
of the cargoes saved and of the detriment of the life of law
vessel are civilly liable to A as they enforcers
are the ones who benefited from  Mandate to issue a warning 
jettisoning. several options are still available to
the law enforcers
A bride who intentionally
absconded during her wedding was 6. Obedience to a Lawful Order of a
sued for slander by deed. It was Superior
held that she was under the state  Elements:
of necessity in that a slander by a. Order was issued by a superior
deed is less evil than a loveless within the sphere of his lawful
marriage, which she sought to rights
avoid. She was still civilly liable to b. Order is for some lawful purpose
the groom. c. The means to carry out the order is
lawful
Therapeutic abortion, where the  SUPERIOR: Any person higher in rank
life of the mother is in danger, is to the accused and who is entitled to
the only instance in the Philippines demand obedience from the accused
that a person’s life can be  Patently Illegal:
sacrificed for another’s life. GR: Cannot invoke this circumstance
Exp’n: Not aware of the illegality of the
5. Fulfilment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of order good faith and honest
Right/Office belief of legality of order 
 Elements: defense
a. Accused acted in the performance
of a duty or in the lawful exercise Exempting Circumstances (Article 12)
of a right or office  There is a crime committed
b. Injury caused or the offense There is injury to State
committed by the necessary There is injury to private person
consequence of due performance of There is civil liability
duty or the lawful exercise of such There is NO criminal liability  lack of
right or office voluntariness, intelligence, malice,
c. Accused was not negligent or that negligence
there was no abuse or excess or  Personal defense  applies only to the
oppression on the part of the person invoking it
accused  Applies to intentional, by omission, culpable,
special laws
!!! PP v OANIS  Exclusive enumeration
The police were sent out to
arrest a notorious bandit with 1. Imbecility/Insanity
order to kill him should he 2. Under 9 Years Old
resist arrest. At the house of 3. Over 9 Years Old but Under 15 Years
the bandit’s girlfriend, they saw Acting Without Discernment
a man sleeping, who resembled 4. Accident
the physique of the bandit, on a 5. Irresistible Force
bamboo bed facing away from 6. Uncontrollable Fear
the police. The accused started 7. Insuperable Cause
firing at the man who turned
out to be not the bandit. Absolutory Causes
 Same effect as exempting
The accused were negligent.  No criminal liability  public policy
There was also nothing that  There are more important things than
prevented them from checking prosecuting accused
the identity of the man.  Found in jurisprudence

 Committed by ANY PERSON and not MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

limited to public officials  Either increase or decrease penalty
 The duty must be moral/legal
 Right = exercise of profession/ Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13)
occupation  Lessens penalty
 Office = private employment/public
office Aggravating Circumstances
 In re: LAW ENFORCERS Alternative Circumstances
 A policeman in the performance of Extenuating Circumstances
duty is justified in using FORCE as
is REASONABLY NECESSARY to:
 Secure and detain the
offender
 Overcome his resistance
 Prevent escape
 Recapture him if necessary
 Protect himself from bodily
injury
 Resulting injury or death 
justified as long as with reasonably
necessary force
 Policeman’s duty  overcome
offender