Criminal Law:

THE REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK 1

Prepared By:
Prof. K. Calleja-Mojica

1
CRIMINAL LAW, defined.
It is that branch or division of municipal law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for
their punishment.
A crime is an act or omission which is punishable under
the law.
If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code, it is
called a felony.
If it is a violation of a Special Law, it is called an
offense.
If it is punished by an Ordinance, it is referred to as
an Infraction of an Ordinance.
2
Nature of Criminal Law:
1.SUBSTANTIVE LAW : It defines the State’s right
to inflict punishment and the liability of the
offenders.
Under its police power, the State is justified in
punishing crimes in order to administer justice.
The State has an existence of its own to maintain,
a conscience to assert, and moral principles to be
vindicated. Penal justice rests primarily on the
moral rightfulness of the punishment imposed.
2. PUBLIC LAW: It deals with the relation of the
individual with the state.
3
GENERAL RULE: The power to define and punish an
act as a crime is vested with the legislative body of
government.

By way of exception to the principle of non-delegation of

legislative powers, the power may be delegated to the
Chief Executive in cases of extreme national emergency,
as provided under Section 23, par. 2, Article VI of the
1987 Philippine Constitution.

4
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS on the passage of
PENAL LAWS
1. That Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law or a
bill of attainder. (Section 22, Article III, 1987
Philippine Constitution)
An ex post facto law is one which:
• Makes criminal an act done before the passage of
the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act.
• Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was, when committed.
• Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed.
• Alters the legal rules on evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the 5

offense.
 • Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only but in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of
a right for something which when done was lawful
• Deprives a person accused of a crime of some
lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a proclamation of
amnesty.
BILL OF ATTAINDER. It is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without the benefit of a judicial trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a
judicial determination of guilt. (Section 14, Art. III,
1987 Philippine Constitution) 6
Penal laws must be general in application. Otherwise,
it would violate the equal protection clause of the
constitution.
Congress cannot provide for a cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment nor can it impose excessive
fines. (Section 19, Art. III, 1987 Philippine
Constitution)

7
 CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
I. GENERALITY:
 Penal laws and those of public security and safety
shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law.” (Article 14, New Civil Code).
 Enforceable upon everyone who resides or visits or
sojourns in the country. The emphasis is on the
offender , the person who commits the crime, whether
he is a resident alien or not, tourist or citizen.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. It does NOT apply to cases covered by the principles
of public international law. 8
Members of the diplomatic corps of a country
who enjoy criminal immunity:
 Sovereigns and other chiefs/ heads of state.
 Ambassadors,
 Diplomat of a nation
 ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident,
 charges d’ affaires and
 attaches
2. Cases covered by virtue of treaty stipulations
 Example: US-RP Military Bases Agreement and
Visiting Forces Agreement

9
 3. Cases covered by Laws of Preferential Application
Examples:
 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).
 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.3 (R.A. No. 75)
• 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
10
also applies to embassies.
II. TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws take effect only within the limits of Philippine
territory. It cannot penalize a crime committed outside
the country, even if the same be committed by any of its
citizens. The Philippine Territory is encompassed by the
provisions of Article I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
defining the National Territory.

In this view, the Philippines adopts the Archipelagic

Doctrine – which mandates the outlining of imaginary
lines starting from the lowest water mark and connecting
the outermost portions of the territory – in defining the
limits of the National Territory. The entire archipelago is
regarded as one integrated unit instead of being
fragmented into so many islands.
11
 Composition of the National Territory:
1. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: The jurisdiction
exercised by a country over bodies of land, as
defined in the constitution.
2. FLUVIAL JURISDICTION: The jurisdiction over
maritime and interior or internal waters.
3. AERIAL JURISDICTION: The jurisdiction over the
atmosphere.

12
 Article 2: Application of its provisions. Our Penal
Laws may also apply outside of Philippine Territory
Against those who:
(a.) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship; If a crime is committed on board a foreign vessel and it is a
merchant vessel, there are two rules as to jurisdiction:

1. The FRENCH RULE which states that crimes committed on

board a foreign merchant vessel while on the waters of another
country are not triable in that country unless these affect the
peace and security or the safety of the state is endangered;

2.The ENGLISH RULE which provides that such crimes are triable
in that country unless they merely affect the internal
management of the vessel. Our country adheres to the English
13
Rule.
(b) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines;
(c) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the preceding number;
(d) While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
(e) Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book two of
the revised Penal Code.
The underlying reasons behind these five (5) instances
are:
(a) To preserve the territorial integrity of the
Philippines; (b) To preserve the economic integrity of
the country; (c) To preserve the integrity of Philippine
public administration and (d) To maintain the continuity
14

& integrity of the State.

Nonetheless, we must also consider the provisions of Section 15, Rule
110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides:
a. The criminal action is instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any of its
essential ingredients occurred;
b. Where the crime is committed in a train, aircraft or other private or
public vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action is instituted at
the municipality or territory where the same passed during its trip,
including the place of departure and arrival;
c. Where the crime is committed on board a vessel while in the
course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted in the
Court of first port of entry or of any municipality or territory where the
vessel passed during the voyage, subject to the generally accepted
principles of international law and
d. Crimes under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code are cognizable
by the Court where the criminal action is filed.
15
III. PROSPECTIVITY
“Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
contrary is provided”. (Article 4, New Civil Code).
This characteristic provides that the law does not have
any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender,
unless he is a habitual delinquent. (Article 22, Revised
Penal Code). This rule also applies to administrative
rulings and circulars (ABS CBN vs CTA 108 SCRA 142).
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
16
be penalized by such penal law.
EXCEPTION: Penal laws may be given retroactive effect if
favorable to the accused.

EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION::

 Whenever a new statute dealing with the crime
establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.
 Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing causes of action.
 Where the offender is a habitual delinquent.
 A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period of ten
years from the date of his last conviction or last release
of any of the following crimes: robbery (robo), theft
(hurto), estafa or swindling, falsification, serious and
less serious physical injuries, is found guilty of any of
the said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62, par. 175,
RPC)
HOW PENAL LAWS ARE CONSTRUED:
Penal Laws are liberally construed in favor of the
offender.
Penal laws are construed strictly against the state, but
only when the law is ambiguous and there are doubts
as to its proper interpretation (People vs. Gatchalian,
104 Phil 664)
In case of conflict between the English Text and the
Spanish Text in the construction, the latter text prevails
EQUIPOISE RULE: When the evidence presented in
court is susceptible of two interpretations, one
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the
same should be resolved in favor of the accused.
(Corpus vs. People, 194 SCRA 73).

18
 THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
CLASSICAL THEORY:
This is also called the traditional theory.
The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution.
That man is essentially a moral creature with an
absolute free will to choose between good and evil,
thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of
the felonious act, than upon the man, the criminal
himself.
Man is a rational being, he can distinguish right from
wrong.
19
POSITIVIST THEORY:
That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do
wrong in spite of, or contrary to his volition.
 That crime is essentially a social and natural
phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and
checked by the application of abstract principles of
law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a
punishment.
The purposes of penalty are prevention and
correction.
Positivists advocate that we cannot simply consider
a crime as permanently governed or continuously
governed by laws. It has to take into considerations20
the environment , the social conditioning of a person.
FELONIES
Art. 3. Definitions. – Acts and omissions punishable
by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.

21
Elements of Felonies:, in general:
There must be an act or omission.
An ACT is a bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world.
An OMISSION purports inaction – the failure to perform a
positive duty which one is obliged by law to do.
To be considered as a felony there must be an act or
omission; a mere imagination no matter how wrong
does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of
body movement that produces change in the outside
world.
The act or omission is punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
It is committed by means of dolo or culpa.
22
Classification of felonies according to the means
they are committed:
1. INTENTIONAL FELONIES:
In this class of felony, the offender has the intention to
do or cause an injury to another. Felonies by dolo are
thus characterized by the presence of malice in its
commission.
2. CULPABLE FELONIES:
In this class, a person causes an injury, without intent to
cause an evil. Felonies by culpa are characterized by
the absence of malice.

23
Culpa can either arise from:

a. IMPRUDENCE: This imports a deficiency of action –

that a person fails to take the necessary precaution to
avoid injury or damage. It arises because of one’s
lack of skill.
b. NEGLIGENCE: This imports a deficiency of perception
– there is a failure to pay proper attention and to use
diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused. It arises because of a lack
of foresight.
Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the
Revised Penal Code
Offense- crimes punished under special law
Misdemeanor- minor infraction of law, such as
violation of ordinance
Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law 24
REQUISITES OF DOLO :
1. FREEDOM of action in doing the act on the part of the
offender.
One who acts without freedom is no longer a human
being but a tool. Thus, if one acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force or because of an
uncontrollable fear is criminally exempt under Art. 12,
Section 5.
2. INTELLIGENCE on the part of the offender in doing
the act.
One without intelligence necessarily does not have the
capability to determine the morality of his acts.
3. Criminal INTENT on the part of the offender.
INTENT is the purpose to use a particular means to
effect a result. Generally, Intent is presumed from the
commission of an unlawful act.
25
 Criminal intent is presumed from the commission
of an unlawful act, but not from the proof of the
commission of an act which is not unlawful.

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”.

The act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so.
“Actus me invito factus non est meus actus”.
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

26
 Criminal Intent can be categorized into two:

General Criminal Intent:

This is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong
act. So this does not require proof, the burden is
upon the wrongdoer to prove that he acted without
such criminal intent.
 Specific Criminal Intent:
This is not presumed because it is an ingredient or
element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of
attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder or
intent to gain in Robbery or Theft. The prosecution
has the onus probandi.
27
VOLUNTARINESS
It comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action,
intelligence and the fact that the act was intentional. In
culpable felonies, there is no voluntariness if either
freedom, intelligence or imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill is lacking. Without
voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa, hence,
there is no felony.

28
 INTENT distinguished from MOTIVE:
intent motive
 Purpose to use a  Reason/ moving
particular means to bring power which impels
about a desired result one to action for a
(not a state of mind, not definite result
a reason for committing
a crime)
 If intentional, a crime  When there is motive
cannot be committed in the commission of a
without intent. Intent is crime, it always
sometimes manifested comes before intent.
by the instrument used But it is not an
by the offender. essential element of a
crime. 29
 Motive, when relevant:
1. When the identity of the accused is in dispute
2. For purposes of defense
3. In determining the sanity of the accused
4. In indirect assault (Art. 249)
5. When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion is
likely to fall on a number of suspects
6. In defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3)
7. When the evidence is circumstantial.
8. When there are two antagonistic versions of the
killing.
When motive not necessary:
1. The identity is known/ positive identification.
2. Where the accused admits the crime. 30
 MISTAKE OF FACT:
Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable because
he did not act with criminal intent.
Ignorantia facti excusat.

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:

a. The act done would have been lawful had the facts
been as the accused believed them to be.
b. The intention of the accused in performing the act
is lawful.
c. The mistake was without fault or carelessness on
the part of the accused.

Case: People vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488.

Contrasted with People vs. Oanis 74 Phil 257: 31
 MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA,
distinguished:
MALA IN SE:
Criminal liability is based on the moral trait of the offender,
thus, liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in
the commission of the punishable act.
Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense,
unless the crime is the result of culpa
The degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into
account in punishing the offender. Thus, there are
attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the
commission of a crime.
When there is more than one offender, the degree of
participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken
into account in imposing the penalty. Thus offenders are 32
classified as principals, accomplice, and accessory.
MALA PROHIBITA:
The moral trait of the offender is not considered. It is
enough that the prohibited act be voluntarily done.
Good faith is not a defense.
The act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken
into account in imposing the penalty, because the moral
trait of the offender is not considered.
The degree of participation of any offender is not
considered.
33
Requisites of Culpa:
Criminal NEGLIGENCE on the part of the offender —
The crime was the result of negligence, reckless
imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
FREEDOM of action in doing the act — He did not
act under duress.
INTELLIGENCE on the part of the offender in
performing the negligent act.

34
 HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS INCURRED

Article 4. Criminal liability is incurred:

a. any person committing a felony, although the wrongful
act be different from that intended;
b. by any person committing any act which would be an
offense against persons or property were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate means.

35
 Three situations covered by Article 4, paragraph 1
How can a person commit a felony and the wrongful act
done is different from that which he intended?

ABERRATIO ICTUS (Mistake in the Blow):

The intended victim and the actual victim are both in the
scene of the crime. There is a faulty aim , that the intended
victim is not the person hit.
 PRAETER INTENTIONEM (The Blow went beyond the
intent):
The injury is on the victim but the resulting consequence is
so grave a wrong than what was intended.
ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in the Identity of the
Victim):
There is a correct aim , but the actual victim turned out to be
a person different from the intended victim. 36
 DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient supervening
cause, produces the injury and without which the
result would not have occurred.
A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate
cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote
from the consequence which sets into motion other
causes which resulted in the felony.
Requisites:
a. the direct, natural, and logical cause
b. produces the injury or damage
c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
37
d. without which the result would not have occurred
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE:
Is something absolutely foreign and totally unexpected
which intervened and which broke the relation of the
cause and effect, between the original felonious act and
the result.
There are some cases where the factor that intervened
between the criminal act and the resulting injury was
considered as an efficient intervening cause. So when
you are liable for a felony, you are liable up to a certain
point.

38
 The principle laid down by the Supreme Court
says: “He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused. The caused of death is actually the
caused of the evil caused”.

PROXIMATE CAUSE IMMEDIATE CAUSE EFFECT

IMMEDIATE CAUSE EFFECT

HEAD HITS VICTIM

PUNCH VICTIM
ROCK DIES


39
 When is death presumed to be the natural
consequence of the physical injuries that had been
inflicted:
1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted
was in good health
2. Death may be expected because of the physical injuries
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time
However, the injury is NOT the DIRECT, NATURAL and
LOGICAL consequence of the felony committed (or
proximate cause)
If the consequences produced have resulted from a
DISTINCT ACT or FACT ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN from
the criminal act.

40
Paragraph 2, Article 4:
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME, defined.
It is an act which would be an offense against person or
property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
Requisites of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
1. The act performed would be an offense against persons
or property;
2. The act was done with evil intent;
3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual;
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of
another provision of the Revised Penal Code. 41
Nature of Impossibility:
The inherent impossibility contemplated under Article 4,
paragraph 2 is either legal, factual or physical
impossibility.
Legal Impossibility
There is legal impossibility if the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a felony.
 Factual or Physical Impossibility
There is factual or physical impossibility where
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
intended felony.

42
Is an Impossible Crime really a crime?
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only
so-called an Impossible Crime because the act gives
rise to criminal liability. But, no felony committed.
Can a person be penalized for committing an
Impossible Crime?
Yes. The accused is to be punished for his criminal
tendency or propensity although no crime was
committed.

43
 Examples:
 If a person holds a cashier at a gun point not knowing that
the cash register is empty, he/she just committed an
Impossible Crime.
 If a person shoots someone without knowing that the gun
was not loaded, he/she just committed an Impossible Crime.
 Four culprits armed with firearms and with the intent to kill
Palangpanan went to the house of the latter . After having
pinpointed his house, all four fired their guns and riddled the
house with bullets. It so happened that Palangpanan was not
home that night.
The accused intended to commit murder but there was an
inherent impossibility of committing murder because
Palangpanan was not at home. The court imposed penalty of
six (6) month imprisonment. (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R
No. 103119, Oct. 21, 1992.
44
EXAMPLE:
Suppose Jake wants to kill Gretchen, and Jake plan to stab
her in her room in the middle of the night while she is
sleeping. So Jake went to her room, Jake saw her there
lying. Then Jake start stabbing her to death, but without
knowing that she is already dead because one to two hours
earlier she dies in her sleep.
Q: Are you liable for murder?
A: No, Murder is impossible because you cannot kill
somebody who is already dead. There is a physical
impossibility , you cannot kill a cadaver. But instead you will
be liable for an impossible crime because of the physical
impossibility of killing somebody who is dead.

45
EXAMPLE:
Dora wants to steal your mont blanc sign pen. That pen
is likely the same pen which Dora lost. Dora cannot buy
another one, so she steal yours. So Dora steal your
mont blanc sign pen , and upon looking, Dora realized
that it was hers. It was the mont blanc pen that she lost
almost three days ago.
Q: Did she commit the crime of theft?
A: No. There is legal impossibility. One of the elements
of theft is that the personal property taken by the
offender belongs to another . If it belongs to the
offender, it cannot be theft. It is impossible for the
offender to be at the same time the victim of his own act
. One cannot steal from himself.
46
Inadequate means
I placed a small quantity of poison in the food of James.
James took the food but he did not die because the
dosage placed was not sufficient to kill a person. I am
liable for committing an IMPOSIBLE CRIME.

Ineffectual means
I placed a poison in Nadine’s coffee believing it was
poison, but without realizing it, I placed a salt or sugar
by mistake . Nadine could not have been killed
because the poison that I placed there tuned out to be
sugar or salt. But because I believe that I could have
killed Nadine were it not for the ineffectual means, I am
liable for an impossible crime.
47
 How a felony develops?
 Mental Process/Internal Acts – Not punishable
 External /Physical Acts:
(a.) Preparatory Acts: General Rule- Not
punishable
Exception- If the RPC penalizes
(b.) Acts of execution:
 Attempted
 Frustrated
 Consummated

48
Preparatory External Acts or Preparation for the
commission of a Felony
This stage of execution are not punishable , except
when the law specifically provides for a penalty for such
preparatory acts.
EXAMPLE: Article 304, possession of picklocks and
similar tools. Picklocks and similar tools are usually
objects or gadgets which are owned by robbers. They
use it to open doors , windows, etc. It is considered to
be preparation of robbery.

49
 Acts of execution
After the preparatory acts comes the acts of execution
where A, now proceeds to implement his plan. A now
executes the commission of the act and there are 3
possibilities, which the RPC calls as the attempted,
frustrated and consummated stages of execution.

50
Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which
should be repressed but which are not covered by law,
and cases of excessive penalties.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may
deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by
law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe that said
act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement or report as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this code would result in
the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused
by the offense.
51
 STAGES OF EXECUTION

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.

– Consummated, as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present;
and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempted when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. 52
 Stages in the development of a crime:
1. Internal Acts:
“Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur”. – No man deserves
a punishment for a thought.
2. External Acts: Included in external acts are:
a. Preparatory Acts:
These are ordinarily NOT punishable, except when the
law provides for their punishment in certain cases.
b. Acts of execution:
These are already punishable under the Revised Penal
Code.

53
I. ATTEMPTED STAGE: There is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.

OVERT ACTS: These refer to some physical activity or

deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which
if carried to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles or
by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically
and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
54
To determine whether the crime is only attempted,
frustrated or consummated, we should consider:
A: THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
B. THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING THE FELONY
C: THE MANNER OF COMMITTING THE SAME
1. FORMAL CRIMES: These are consummated in
one instant.
2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal
by overt act
3. Felony by omission
4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to
commit them are consummated by mere agreement,
5. MATERIAL CRIMES: These have three stages of
execution 55
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE: One where the purpose of
the offender in performing an act is NOT certain. Its
nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.

Important phrases in the Attempted Stage of a

felony:
1. Directly by overt acts: The term comprehends the
fact that the offender MUST PERSONALLY EXECUTE
the felony.
2. Does not perform all the acts of execution
3. By reason of a CAUSE or ACCIDENT
4. Other than his own spontaneous desistance

56
 By reason of a CAUSE

Example:
Julia was trying to pick the pocket of Bea. Julia was
trying to lift the wallet inside the pocket of the bag. Bea
detected the action and held the hands of Julia. So, Julia
failed to take the wallet.
There was the act of taking but Julia failed to complete
the possession of the wallet. The reason here why , Julia
failed to perform all the acts of execution was because
Bea prevented her. That is the CAUSE OTHER THAN
HIS/HER OWN SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE.

57
 By reason of ACCIDENT
Example:
Coco wants to kill Martin. Coco aims the gun. Coco
fired, but the gun jammed. It did not explode. So , with
that Coco failed to kill Martin.
When Coco pointed his gun at Martin, Coco already
commenced the act of trying to kill. The jamming, of the
gun was an accident which prevented the performance
of all the acts of execution. The crime was not
consummated, not because Coco stopped from
proceeding, but because of something else.

58
 OTHER THAN HIS OWN SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
If Roberto commences the commission of a felony, but
did not complete it because of his own spontaneous
desistance, there is no criminal liability. He is not even
guilty of attempted felony on the theory that a person
who is already on the verge of committing crime but
desists or decides not to pursue because his
conscience bothers hi, such person should not be
penalized.

59
EXAMPLE:
Suppose Daniella would like to kill Romina. As a matter
of fact, she already commenced the commission of the
felony, and then realized that there are many
eyewitnesses. So she desisted . Can Daniella be
liable?

The motive for not continuing is not important. What is

important is that she did not continue with the crime,
she desisted herself voluntarily. It don’t matter whether
her desistance was based on a noble reason , remorse
or out of fear of being caught. What is important is her
desistance. When she tries again, that will be another
story. But for such moment, she will not be held
criminally liable.
60
 SUBJECTIVE PHASE: That portion of the acts constituting
the crime, starting from the point where the offender
BEGINS the commission of the crime to that point where
he has still control over his acts, including their natural
course.

II. FRUSTRATED FELONY: The felony is frustrated when

the offender performs all the acts of execution that
would produce the felony as a consequence but the
felony is nevertheless not produced by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Requisites of frustrated felony:
1. The offender performs all acts of execution
2. All acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence
3. But the felony is not produced
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
61

perpetrator.
 IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
The crime to be committed
was inherently impossible of
the commission
It is one where the purpose of
the offender in performing an
act is not certain. Its nature in
relation to its objective is
ambiguous. The intention of the
accused must be viewed from
the nature of the acts executed
by him, and not from his
admission.
ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED
The crime is possible of
accomplishment but it
was produced because of
a cause or an accident
other than the offender’s
desistance, or because of
independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
62
63
Crimes which do not admit of
frustrated stage
Rape:
 The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge.
 No matter what the offender may do to accomplish
a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it
cannot be said that the offender has performed all
the acts of execution.
 We can only say that the offender in rape has
performed all the acts of execution when he has
effected a penetration.
 Once there is penetration, no matter how slight it is,
the offense is consummated. 64
 People v. Orita (1990): For this reason, rape admits
only of the attempted and consummated stages, no
frustrated stage. (see the previously cited case of People
v. Campuhan for the most recent doctrine on
penetration).
Arson
 One cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson,
has already performed all the acts of execution which
could produce the destruction of the premises through
the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun
to burn.
 The crime of arson is therefore consummated even if
only a portion of the wall or any part of the house is
burned. The consummation of the crime of arson does
not depend upon the extent of the damage caused. 65

(People v. Hernandez)
Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
 The manner of committing the crime requires the
meeting of the minds between the giver and the
receiver.
 If there is a meeting of the minds, there is
consummated bribery or consummated corruption.
 If there is none, it is only attempted.
Adultery
 This requires the sexual contact between two
participants.
 If that link is present, the crime is consummated;
66
Physical Injuries
 Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries
is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries.There is
no simple crime of physical injuries. There is the need to
categorize because there are specific articles that apply
whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or
slight.
 Thus, one could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage
because one does not know what degree of physical injury
was committed unless it is consummated.
• Illustration: When Bert lost his left eye, Ernie‘s liability was
automatically for serious physical injuries. He would have no
liability if the eye was intact. If the eye suffered damage due
to the impact, the crime would not be frustrated nor
attempted physical injuries because the RPC still considers
this as a consummated physical injury, its gravity depending
67
on the duration that it took for the damage to heal.
Theft
 Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated.
 Either the thing was taken or not.
 Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of thef
under the RPC.

Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a

Felony:
a. The manner of committing the crime;
b. The elements of the crime; and
c. The nature of the crime itself.
68
EXAMPLE:
Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they met a
group composed of men who blocked their path and attacked
them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. One stabbed
Jeonito from behind. Jeonito‘s brother, Marlon, was hit on the
head. People v. Listerio (2000)

Held:
The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony not an
attempted offense considering that after being stabbed and
clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost
consciousness and fell. Marlon's attackers apparently thought
he was already dead and fled. A crime cannot be held to be
attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission
of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by
some outside cause from performing all of the acts which 69
should produce the crime.
In other words, to be an attempted crime, the purpose
of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or
agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior
to the moment when he has performed all of the acts
which should produce the crime as a consequence,
which acts it is his intention to perform.
If he has performed all the acts which should result in
the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists
from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.

70
III. CONSUMMATED FELONY: When all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.
EXAMPLE: With intent to kill, A shot B and died. That is
consummated homicide or murder.
When not all the elements are proved, the consequences are:
1. The felony is NOT consummated.
2. The felony is not committed.
3. Another felony is committed.

71
Article 7. When light felonies are
punishable. – Light felonies are punishable
only when they have been consummated, with
the exception of those committed against
persons or property.
The provisions of Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code
must be discussed and interrelated with the following
other provisions of the Revised Penal Code, viz:
Article 9 – On the Classification of Felonies according to
Gravity
Article 16 – On Persons who are criminally liable for
felonies
Article 25 – On Classification of Penalties
Article 26 – On Classification of Fines
Article 27 – On Duration of Penalties
72
Article 71 – The Scale for Graduating Penalties by
Degrees
General Rule: Light felonies are only punishable when
they are consummated.
• Attempted light felonies are not punishable
• Frustrated light felonies are not punishable
EXCEPTION: If the light felony is committed against
person or property, it is punishable even when merely
attempted or frustrated or consummated.

A light felony is merely a minor infraction of the law. As

a matter of fact, even if a light felony is consummated,
the penalty is only arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding P200. Damage or injury to society or to the
public order is very negligible. 73
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony are punishable only in the cases in which the
law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit.
There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes it’s execution
to some other person or persons.

74
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are not punishable.
EXCEPTION: They are
punishable only in the
cases in which the law
specially provides a
penalty therefore.
Conspiracy to commit
(1) Treason (Art. 115)
(2) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(3) Insurrection (Art. 136)
(4) Coup d’état, (Art. 136)
(5) Sedition (Art. 141)
(6) Monopolies and combinations
in restraint of trade, espionage
(Art. 186)
(7) Illegal association (Art. 147)
(8) Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)
(9) Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616)
(10) Selected acts under the
Dangerous Drugs Acts
(11) Arson
75
(12) Terrorism (R.A. 9372)
 Proposal to commit
(1) Treason (Art. 115)
(2) Coup d’ etat (Art. 136)
(3) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(4) Inducement not to answer summons, appear or be
sworn in Congress, etc. (Art. 150)

Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime

are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible except in rare and
exceptional cases.

76
Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
Requisites of Conspiracy:
(1.)Two or more persons come to an agreement.
 Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two
or more persons
(2) The agreement pertains to a commission of a
felony.
 Agreement to effect what has been conceived and
determined.
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. 77
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy
as a manner of incurring criminal liability:
 As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually
commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it being
sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide
to commit it.
 As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they
commit treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held liable
for it, and the conspiracy which they had before
committing the crime is only a manner of incurring
criminal liability, not a separate offense.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
78
GENERAL RULE: When the conspiracy is established, all
who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or
quality of his participation is liable equally, whether
conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.

EXCEPTION: Unless one or some of the conspirators

committed some other crime which is not part of the
conspiracy.

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: When the act constitutes

a ―single indivisible offense.
79
Proposal to commit a felony - when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons. (Art. 8, RPC)
Examples: Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115) and
proposal to commit coup d‘état, rebellion or insurrection
(Art. 136).
Requisites of Proposal to commit a Felony:
(1) That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
(2) That he proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
There is no criminal proposal when:
(1) The person who proposes is not determined to commit
the felony;
(2) There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; 80

(3) It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.

Example:
People v. Comadre (2004):
To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal
act is required. Conspiracy is never presumed; it must
be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a
person at the scene of the crime does not make him a
conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship.

81
82
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave
felonies, and light felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above-mentioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.

83
Grave Felony – one that is punishable by death or any
penalty which the Penal Code classified as an afflictive.

AFFLICTIVE FELONIES ( Art.25)

1.Reclusion Perpetua
2. Reclusion Temporal
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
5. Prision Mayor
Less Grave Felony – One, which in its maximum period
is punishable by a penalty classified as correctional.
Light Felony – Infractions or violations of the RPC where
the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of arresto menor, or a
fine not exceeding P200 or both. 84
ARTICLE 10: Offenses not subject to the provision
of this Code. Offenses which are or in the future
may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws unless the
latter should specifically provides the contrary.
Sources of Criminal Law:

 RPC
 Special Penal Laws
- A law which punishes acts or omissions NOT
defined and penalized under the RPC.
- Special law is a statute enacted by the Legislative
branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment of the
Revised Penal Code.
Example: Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 85
86
Distinction between justifying and
exempting circumstance:
a. Exempting – there is a crime but there is no
criminal. Act is not justified but the actor is not
criminally liable. There is civil liability. There is a crime
but there is no criminal, the actor is exempted from liability
of his act.
Exception: Par 4 (causing an injury by mere accident)
and Par 7 (lawful cause).
b. Justifying – person does not transgress the law,
does not commit any crime because there is nothing
unlawful in the act as well as the intention of the actor.
There is no crime, the act is justified.
87
 Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
1. Justifying – those where the act of a person is said
to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is
free from both criminal and civil liability, except in
paragraph 4 (state of necessity/emergency rule)
where the civil liability is borne by the person
benefited by the act.
2. Exempting (Non-imputability) – are those grounds
for exemptions from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which make the act voluntary, or
negligent, such as intelligence, freedom of action,
intent or negligence.
88
3. Mitigating – those which, if present in the
commission of a crime do not entirely free the actor
from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty.
4. Aggravating - those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty
without however, exceeding the maximum penalty
provided by law for the offense.
5. Alternative – those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to
the nature and effects of the crime and file other
conditions attending the commission.

89
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not
incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in
case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the 90

one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone, who acts in a defense of a stranger, provided that the
1st and 2nd element mentioned in the first circumstance of this
article are present and that the person defending be not induced
by revenge, resentment or evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoidedactually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by91 a
superior for some lawful purpose.
SIX TYPES of justifying circumstances:
1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of a greater evil
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful
purpose
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE:
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from
criminal liability, although not from civil liability.
92
1.Self Defense
Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the
one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of
which is protected by law. It includes:

a. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is

considered as unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs, People)

b. The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is

an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with
an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All
the elements for justification must however be present.
(People v. Narvaez)
93
Lawful Aggression: Aggression by a public officer who is
acting in the fulfillment of a duty to effect an arrest.

Example: Suppose, Carlo is a thief running with his stolen

items. The police went after him. Carlo hits back at the
policeman . Now, the police sues him for direct assault.
Carlo invokes self-defense. Carlo’s defense is that the police
was the aggressor. If the police did not try to arrest him, he
would not hurt the police.

There is aggression, but it is LAWFUL aggression. That is

the duty of the policeman, so his aggression is lawful in
nature.
94
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
a right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment or disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent
an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.

When the aggressors runs away, the one making a

defense has no more right to invoke self-defense.
(People vs. Alconga)

95
1st. Elements:

a. Unlawful aggression
(1) Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR
threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind
which is offensive and positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent to cause harm.

(2) The aggression must constitute a violation of the

law. When the aggression ceased to exist, there is no
longer a necessity to defend one‘s self. EXCEPT: when
the aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous
position to ensure the success of the initial attack,
unlawful aggression is deemed to continue.

96
3) Must come from the person attacked by the accused.

(4) Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing

circumstance or must have been existing at the time the
defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression is found
to have ceased, the one making the defense of a
stranger would likewise cease to have any justification
for killing, or even just wounding, the former
aggressor.[People vs. Dijan (2002)

Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an

agreement to fight and the challenge to fight was
accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of an agreed
time or place is unlawful aggression. 97
 Example: Unlawful Aggression

If you are walking on the street peacefully and here comes

Cardo with a knife, Cardo tries to stab you with it. That is
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, unless Cardo can point to a
law which authorizes him to approach anybody and stab
him.

98
Aggression can either be:
1. actual
2. immenent

Actual/real aggression - Real aggression

presupposes an act positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely
threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material
attack. There must be real danger to life a personal
safety.

Imminent unlawful aggression - it is an attack that is

impending or on the point of happening. It must not
consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude must be
offensive and positively strong. 99
Example: A started to insult B, uttering derogatory
remarks against B. B hit back and injured A. For the
injury sustained by A, B pleads self-defense.

Question: Can B invoke self-defense?

Answer: No, because the aggression attributed to A is

verbal. What the law contemplates is physical attack.
Insulting words, no matter how slanderous cannot
cause death or physical injuries.

100
Can someone still be justified in killing his
assailant/attacker even if the latter flees after
failing to kill his would-be victim?

No. When unlawful aggression which has begun no

longer exists, because the aggressor ran away, the one
making a defense has no more right to kill or even to
wound the former aggressor (PP vs Alconga)

101
Burden of Proof : The circumstances mentioned in
Article 11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent
upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to
prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the
satisfaction of the court.

Self- Defense : When the accused invoked self-

defense , it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution.
It must be proved with certainty by sufficient ,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any
vestige of criminal aggression on part of person
invoking it. 102
2nd. Element: Reasonable necessity of means employed
to prevent or repel it.

Test of reasonableness The means employed

depends upon:
(1) nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor

(2) aggressor‘s physical condition, character, size, and

other circumstances

(3) and those of the person defending himself

(4) the place and occasion of the assault.

103
 REASONABLE OF THE COURSE OF ACTION:
Example: Mimiyuuuh was walking in a very dark street
which is a very dangerous area, and all of a sudden
Roberto, in the dark held Mimiyuuuh tightly at the back
, and Mimiyuuuh responded by hitting Roberto, could
you say that the reaction of Mimiyuuuh is reasonable?

104
Reasonable means refer two things:
• The course of action taken is reasonable
• The weapon used to defend is also reasonable.

SIZE : If A attacks you with a knife, and you defend also

with a knife , you cannot say that the means is
reasonable because he is larger, and yours is shorter.

POWER: The law says the means is reasonable if a gun

is used to defend yourself from somebody who attacks
you with a knife. It is unreasonable because a gun is
more powerful against a knife. No, all things being equal ,
a knife can also kill especially if the assailants succeed.
105
3rd. Element : Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.

When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by

the person defending himself.

Example: Elsa, a landowner saw Bogart trespassing on his

land. One day, Elsa watched out for Bogart to pass by.
When Elsa saw Bogart, she asked,” why are you passing
through my property? Who gave you the permission ?”
Bogart did not answer, but instead killed her.

106
Question: Was there a provocation?
Answer: Maybe Yes. If Elsa did not ask Bogart, she
would not have killed.

Question: Does this mean that the landowner has no

right to ask question to a trespasser?
Answer: Elsa could have given the provocation , but
that is not sufficient for Bogart to kill Elsa. Bogart was
only asked and Elsa has the right to ask him.

Rationale: I gave a provocation now, sufficient

provocation and you attack me and I kill you , there is
no self-defense because there is absence of 3rd
element. But if I gave a provocation now, and then
attacked me one year from now and I kill you, I can
claim self-defense.
107
 3rd. Element : Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
If you are a victim of unlawful aggression, even if you defend
yourself reasonably, still you cannot claim self-defense if you were
the cause of the aggression , because you gave sufficient
provocation. You are also at fault. You are partly to blame for the
other party’s reaction. So if I provoked you, and because of the
provocation you attack me and I have to defend myself with
reasonable means, I cannot claim self-defense because I am also
at fault.

108
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of defender
(1) In case there was a provocation on the part of the person
attacked, the attack should not immediately precede the
provocation for defense to be valid.

(2) Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation.

(3) Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real and

imminent. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite.

(4) If there is unlawful aggression but one of the other

requisites is lacking, it is considered an incomplete self-
defense which mitigates liability.

(5) Self-defense includes the defense of one‘s rights, that is,

those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.
109

(6) Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense.

 Principles in the 3rd. Element of
Self-Defense:
1. There was no provocation at all on the part of the
person defending himself.

2. The person defending himself might have given

some provocation but it is not sufficient . In this case,
the law allows him to plead self-defense because even
if, he gave provocation, it is not commensurate with the
reaction on the attacker.

110
Requisites of Self- Defense:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.

Battered Woman Syndrome as a DEFENSE:

Victim survivors who are found by the courts to be

suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. 111
Who can avail of the Battered Woman Syndrome as
a DEFENSE?

1. Wife
2. Former Wife
3. Against a woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual relationship or dating relationship.
“Dating relationship” exist even without sexual intercourse
taking place between the two involved.
4. With whom he has a common child or against her child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without family
abode.

112
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)

113
 Who is Battered Woman Syndrome?
She is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in
order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
without concern for her rights.
In order to be classified a BATTERED WOMAN, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice.
Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship
with a man once. If it occurs a second time , and she
remains in the situation , she is defined as a battered
woman.
“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering
114
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
 In People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981 January 15,
2004, the Philippine Supreme Court, for the first time,
elucidated on the concept of the BWS.
In this case, a woman shot her husband because her
husband was beating her. She was not only defending
herself, but also her fetus, since she was 8 months
pregnant. In this case, the woman was raising the
defense of BWS. Thus, the Supreme Court defined a
battered woman as a woman “who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something
he wants her to do without concern for her rights.

115
 Can a woman justify the killing of her husband by
claiming she is suffering from BWS after the husband
inflicted physical harm on her only once?

• Answer: No. A battered

woman claiming self-
defense under RA 9262
must prove that the final
acute battering episode
was preceded by two (2)
battering episodes.

116
Rights included in self-defense:
1. Defense of person
2. Defense of rights protected by law
3. Defense of property:
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment or disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property. (Art. 429, New Civil Code)
4. Defense of chastity

117
2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the person making the
defense
had no part in such provocation.

118
Relatives entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters
5. relatives by affinity in the same degree
(2nd degree)
6. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th
civil degree.

119
Example:
If your brother has not provoked anybody and is
attacked, you can legally defend him , better that your
brother has not provoked anybody and is attacked , you
can defend him. However, if your brother provoked
somebody, and your brother attacks , he cannot invoke
complete self- defense because his complete will
prejudice him. However it will not prejudice you. While
cannot invoke complete self-defense, you may still act
in lawful self-defense of relative , as long as you have
no part in the provocation.

120
3. DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Elements:

1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.

Stranger – he is a person who is not among the

relatives in paragraph 2 of Article 11 (RPC)

Noble Principle behind Defense of Stranger:

Humanitarian reasons. What you can do for yourself,
the law allows you to do it for others. My fellowman,
121
my keeper.
What differs is the third element. It means that you are
motivated by your humanitarian sentiment. You really
did the act in defense of a stranger. You were not
induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive.

Example : I am looking for my enemy, Mikael because

I want to kill him. And then I saw him, he was attacking
somebody so I entered the scene and killed him. Am I
entitled to a complete self-defense?
Answer: No, because it was just a coincidence that my
enemy Mikael was attacking a stranger . And since the
aggressor was my long time enemy, it is apparent that I
was induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
122
4. STATE NECESSITY
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually

exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that

done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful

means of preventing it.

123
Examples:
1.If the injury is greater than that done---injury
feared is death.
2.To save more properties from fire, a property
will sacrificed --- destroy three (3) or more
houses to save fifty (50) houses.
3.To save a vessel and people’s lives , the
cargoes will be jettisoned.

124
EXAMPLE:
You are driving your latest BMW car in the highway together
with your family , observing traffic rules and regulations.
Then all of a sudden in front of you is an overspeeding 6x6
truck loaded with perishable goods straight to your direction.
What will you do? If you drive on, you will be squashed to
death including the passengers with you. If you stop all of
you will be killed as well. Your only recourse is to turn left or
right to avoid collision. But if you turn left, the BMW car will
fall into a cliff and surely all of you will die. The only
alternative is to turn right, by turning right, there are people
who will surely be ran over. Since you have no choice, you
have to adopt the only remaining alternative through which
you can save your life and your family. And for the death or
injury to those people that you would ran over, you can
invoke EMERGENCY RULE or STATE OF NECESSITY.
125
5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF
A RIGHT OR OFFICE
Elements:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty,
or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office;
2. That the injury caused or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.

126
Arresting officers, who are authorized to employ
reasonable force sometimes injure, and then the
person arrested sues the policeman for physical injury
or homicide. However, in order to avail this justifying
circumstance, it must be established that it is a proper
fulfillment of duty. A policeman cannot simply commit
homicide when there is no need for him to kill the
person to be arrested , in that case fulfillment of his
duty would be improper.
EXAMPLE:
Obet is surrendering, there is no need to use force. And
if Obet sues the policeman for using force against him,
then the police cannot claim that it is a fulfillment of a
duty because his act is improper. The rules of court
requires that the use of force must be reasonable. 127
 6. OBEDIENCE TO A SUPERIOR ORDER

Elements:
1. There is an order that has been issued by a superior;
2. The order is for a legal purpose or some lawful
purposes;
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out
said order is lawful.
The person giving the order must act within the
limitations prescribed by law. The subordinate taking
the order must likewise act within the bounds of law.
(People vs.Oanis)
128
The order must be lawful or least prima facie lawful and the
means to carry out the order must be lawful. If you are a
subordinate, you were ordered by a superior, you followed
the order and it turned out to be illegal. Consequently, you
are being sued . If your defense is that, you are just
following the orders of your superior, then it is not a valid
defense. The condition is that the order must be lawful.

EXAMPLE:

Even if the order is illegal, if it is patently legal and the

subordinate is not aware of it’s illegality, then the
subordinate is not liable. This is due to mistake of fact
committed in good faith.
129
 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
are those grounds for exemptions from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any
of the conditions which make the act voluntary, or
negligent, such as intelligence, freedom of action, intent
or negligence.
He is not criminally liable for the crime committed
because when he committed the felony, he acted
without intelligence or without freedom, or without intent
or negligence. The felony was committed without
voluntariness,

130
 EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• Insanity/Imbecility
• Minority
• Accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
• Compulsion of irresistible
force
• Uncontrollable fear
• Prevented by some lawful
or insuperable cause
BASIS
• Lack of intelligence
• Lack of intelligence
• Lack of criminal intent
• Lack of freedom
• Lack of freedom
• Lack of criminal intent
131
Art. 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has

acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an
insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not
be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

132
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of this Code. When such minor is
adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his
family who shall be charged with his surveillance and
education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of
some institution or person
mentioned in said Article 80.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due

care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
133
5. Any person who act under the compulsion
of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.

134
 Justifying vs. Exempting
In justifying circumstances – In exempting circumstances –
(1) The circumstance affects the (1) The circumstances affect the actor, not
act, not the actor; the act;
(2) The act complained of is (2) The act complained of is actually
considered to have been done wrongful, but the actor acted without
within the bounds of law; hence, it is voluntariness. He is a mere
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of tool or instrument of the crime;
the law;
(3) Since the act complained of is actually
(3) Since the act is considered wrongful, there is a crime. But because the
lawful, there is no crime, and actor acted without voluntariness, there is
because there is no crime, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no
no criminal;
criminal; (4) Since there is a crime committed but
(4) Since there is no crime or there is no criminal, there is civil liability for
criminal, there is no criminal liability the wrong done. But there is no criminal
as well as civil liability. liability. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of
Article 12, there is neither criminal nor civil
135
liability.
1. AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed
an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
court shall order his confinement on one of the hospital
or asylums established for persons thus afflicted. He
shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining
the permission of the same court.
Requisites:
a. Offender is an imbecile
b. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of
the crime
136
Imbecility
It is the condition of the mind where the offender
might be advance in age, but the mental development
is comparable to that of a child between two (2) and
seven (7) years old.
Insanity
The inability to distinguish what is right from what is
wrong. There are types of insanity where there is
some period of time when he is normal. And if the
person committed a crime, when he is normal, then
he is liable.
One who acts with complete deprivation of
intelligence/reason or without the least discernment
or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.
137
The two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity:
(1) The test of cognition, or whether the accused acted
with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
said crime; and
(2) The test of volition, or whether the accused acted in
total deprivation of freedom of will.
Presumption is always in favor of sanity.
The defense has the burden to prove that the accused
was insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
For the ascertainment such mental condition of the
accused, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
condition of his mind during a reasonable period both
before and after that time. Circumstantial evidence
which is clear and convincing will suffice. 138
EFFECTS OF THE INSANITY OF THE ACCUSED

1. Atthe time of the commission of the crime –

EXEMPT
2. During trial - proceedings suspended, accused
committed to a hospital
3. After judgement or while serving the sentence –
execution of judgement is suspended, the
accused is committed to a hospital. The period of
confinement in the hospital is counted for the
purpose of the prescription of the penalty.

139
Instances of Insanity:
a. Dementia praecox (Schizoprenia) is covered by the
term insanity because homicidal attack is common in such
form of psychosis. It is characterized by delusions that he is
being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being
taken, thus the person has no control over his acts.
b. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse
or tendency to steal, to be considered exempting, will still
have to be investigated by competent psychiatrist to
determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse
produced by his mental defect, thus loss of will-power. If
such mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his
willpower and did not deprive him of the consciousness of
his acts, it is only mitigating. 140
c. Epilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease
characterized by convulsive motions of the
muscles and loss of consciousness may be covered by
the term insanity. However, it
must be shown that commission of the offense is during
one of those epileptic attacks.
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the
offender can distinguish right from
wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be exempted must
not be able to distinguish right from
wrong.

141
In case of SOMNAMBULISM or one who acts while
sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without
freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he
is asleep. He is moving like a robot, unaware of what
he is doing. So the element of voluntariness which is
necessary in dolo and culpa is not present.
Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. If element of
voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability,
although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is
not among those enumerated in Article 12, refer to the
circumstance as an absolutory cause.

142
 2. A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE.
MINORITY
a. Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time
of the commission of the crime. There is absolute criminal
irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9-years of age.
b. Basis: complete absence of intelligence.

143
Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as “Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006” raised the age of
absolute irresponsibility from nine years old to fifteen
years of age . Children above fifteen but below
eighteen years of age who acted without discernment
are exempt from criminal liability.

144
3. A PERSON OVER NINE YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER
FIFTEEN, UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this
Code.

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally

irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who
shall be charged with his surveillance and education;
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said article 80.
145
Discernment means the mental capacity of a minor
between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act and the mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong.
Such is shown by:
 manner the crime was committed (i.e. commission of
the crime during nighttime to avoid detection; taking
the loot to another town to avoid discovery), or
 the conduct of the offender after its commission (i.e.
elation of satisfaction upon the commission of his
criminal act as shown by the accused cursing at the
victim).
146
How does the minority of the offender affect his criminal
liability?
• If the offender is within the bracket of nine years
old exactly or less, he is exempt from criminal liability
but not from civil liability. This type of offenders are
absolutely exempt. Even if the offender nine years or
below acted with discernment, this should not be taken
against him because in this age bracket, the exemption
is absolute.
• If over nine but below 15, a distinction has to be made
whether the offender acted with or without
discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to
prove that the offender acted with discernment. It is not
for the minor to prove that he acted without
discernment. All that the minor has to show is that he is
147
within the age bracket.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
or intention of causing it.

ACCIDENT (DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA): Basis:

lack of negligence and intent.
The law requires that there be no FAULT or
NEGLIGENCE.
Elements:
 A person is performing a lawful act
 Exercise of due care
 Causes injury to another by mere accident
 Without fault or intention of causing it 148
Mistake of fact is an absolutory cause . The offender is
acting without criminal intent. So in mistake of fact, it is
necessary that had the facts been true as the accused
believed them to be, this act is justified. If not, there is
criminal liability, because there is no mistake of fact
anymore. The offender must believe he is performing a
lawful act.

149
What is an ACCIDENT?
It is something that happens outside the sway of our
will , and although it comes about through some of our
will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences. It presupposes a lack of intention to
commit the wrong done.
Discharge of a firearm in a thickly populated place in
the City of Manila being prohibited by Art. 155 of the
RPC is not a performance of a lawful act when such led
to the accidental hitting and wounding of 2 persons.
Drawing a weapon/gun in the course of self-defense
even if such fired and seriously injured the assailant is
a lawful act and can be considered as done with due
care since it could not have been done in any other
150
manner.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of
an irresistible force.

Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of

voluntariness
Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of physical force
b. That the physical force must be irresistible.
c. That the physical force must come from a third
person

151
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Basis: complete absence of freedom

Elements:
a. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil
greater than, or at least equal to that which he is
required to commit
b. that it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
Duress, to be a valid defense, should be based on real,
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It
should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote
152
fear.
 IRRESISTABLE FORCE VS. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
IRRESISTABLE FORCE
The offender was compelled to
commit a crime through the use
of physical force, like torture.
He was tortured until he had no
more choice but to commit the
crime.
UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR
The manner by which he
was compelled to commit
a crime was not through
force, but through threat
or intimidation
153
 EXAMPLE:

Question: Justine alleged that when he committed the

crime, he was possessed by the demon. Was there an
irresistible force that compel him to do it?
Answer: No, it is not covered. It may be insanity, but
definitely Justine cannot invoke irresistible force in the
case.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR is more common. The
offender is compelled to commit a crime against his will
by means of threats.

154
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required
by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.

Basis: acts without intent, the third condition of

voluntariness in intentional felony.
Elements:
a. That an act is required by law to be done
b. That a person fails to perform such act
c. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause

155
INSTIGATION - the criminal plan or design exists in the
mind of the law enforcer with whom the person
instigated cooperated so it is said that the person
instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of
the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. The
element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is
the lack of criminal intent as an element of
voluntariness.
ENTRAPMENT- The ways and means are resorted to
for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
Entrapment involves only ways and means which are
laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of
the culprit.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in
entrapment, the offender is already committing a crime.156
If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated
cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law
enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to
commit the crime, without which he would not have
been a criminal. If the instigator is not a law enforcer,
both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of
instigation.

In instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with

the law enforcer to a point when the
private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer
incriminates himself. It would be contrary to public
policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with
the law enforcer. The private citizen believes that
he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law
enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to
157

cooperate.