1. Felony - a crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as felony.

2. Offense- a crime punished under special law is called statutory offense.

3. Crime- whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under special law. The
generic word crime can use.

4. Misdemeanour – a minor infraction of the law such as a violation of an ordinance is referred to as

misdemeanour.

Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate intent

Culpa or those committed by means of fault

Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to achieve the desired result; while motive is the
moving power which impels a person to act for a definite result. Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice
and thus an element of deliberate felonies; while motive is not an element of a crime but only
considered when the identity of the offender is in doubt.

MOTIVE VS INTENT

1. "Motive" is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result; while "intent"
is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired result. Motive is not an element of a
crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the
intent.

Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to the identity of the offender or when the act
committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine the proper crime to be
imputed to the offender.

It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or the criminal act did not
give rise to variant crimes.

how motive is proved?

-Motive can be proved by the admission of evidence.

A remote cause is one that is removed or separate from the proximate cause of an injury. If the injuries
suffered by a person admitted to a hospital after being hit by a truck are aggravated by Malpractice, the
malpractice is a remote cause of injury to that person.
1. When Penal Law may be given retroactive application.

GENERAL RULE: Penal laws are applied prospectively.

EXCEPTION: When retrospective application will be favorable

to the person guilty of a felony; Provided that:

1. The offender is NOT a habitual criminal (delinquent)

under Art. 62(5);

2. The new or amendatory law does NOT provide against its

retrospective application.

The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the defendant in one of the 3 situations:

The crime has been committed and the prosecution begins;

The sentence has been passed but service has not begun;and

The sentence is being carried out

2. Differentiate Felony, offense, crime, misdemeanor

A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which a
punishment is imposed upon conviction whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal
Code or under special law.

As to degree of accomplishment of the crime, In felony, 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 the crime. In crimes punished under special laws or Offense, the act gives
rise to a crime only when it is consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the
special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime while misdemeanor is a
minor infraction of the law such as a violation of an ordinance.

3. Differentiate Dolo from Culpa

There is deceit (dolo) when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault (Culpa)when
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

4. Differentiate motive from intent

Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result while intent is the
purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired result. Motive is not an element of a
crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the
intent.

5. When does motive become material in determining liability?

Motive becomes relevant and may assume determinative significance when the accused has not been
positively identified, and proof thereof becomes essential only when evidence of the commission of the
crime is purely circumstantial or is inconclusive.
PEOPLE vs. HASSAN GR No. 68969 January 22, 1988

Facts: In this case, the accused-appellant, an illiterate 15-year-old pushcart cargador, Usman Hassan,
was accused of murder for stabbing to death Ramon Pichel, Jr. y Uro, 24,single, and a resident of
Zamboanga City. At the time of his death on July 23,1981, the deceased was employed as the
manager of the sand and gravel business of his father. During the investigation of the case, the
examining officer brought Hassan to the stand to be the only eyewitness for identification. Accused-
appellant was later convicted of murder based only on his own testimony.

Issue: Whether or not the rights of the accused was violated in the case at hand.

Ruling: YES. The accused-appellant was presented alone. Such procedure is as tainted as an
uncounselled confession and hence falls within the same ambit of the constitutionally entrenched
protection.

Decision is REVERSED and the accused Hassan is ACQUITTED.

PEOPLE vs. TEMBLOR G.R. No. 105964 November 4, 1992

Facts: That about 6 in the afternoon of January 1, 1988, Carlito Mendoza was on his way to the house of
his mother-in-law at de las (Alas) St., Pasay. That they did not reached his mother-in-law's house as on
the way a group of men armed with bolo, ice pick and other blunt instruments blocked their way and
someone even threw stone on him. They run for cover but the men in the group identified as Rizalito de
Guzman, Ysmael Sembrero, Arturo de Guzman, Christopher Silva and Virgilio Pupulangas chased and
caught up with them in the alley and Carlito Mendoza was attacked and stabbed first by Rizalito de
Guzman, then Ysmael Sembrero and finally by Virgilio Pupulangas and afterwards, all the
assailants run towards F. Victor St., (TSN, Dec. 16/88). Carlito Mendoza died upon arrival at the
Manila Sanitarium Hospital where he was brought on the same day. He sustained body mortal wounds .
The respondents were charged with the crime of murder with a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Rizalito de Guzman denies having participated in the senseless killing of Mendoza by interposing
the defense of alibi. he claims that he eloped with his girlfriend to Imus, Cavite, on the night of
December 31, 1987 and stayed there in his uncle's house until January 26, 1987. He petitioned to
be acquitted from the case.

Issue: Whether or not the alibi of Rizalito de Guzman is sufficient to acquit his from the crime of murder

Ruling: No, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere other than the site of the commission of the crime. More importantly, he must also prove
that physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the places of crime.Here, the time of
travel between the locus crimini which is Pasay City, Metro Manila and Imus Cavite where
appellant alleged he was at the time of the commission of the crime is merely a 30-45 minute ride by
bus, as found by the trial court. In other words, it was not physically impossible for appellant to have
been at the situs of the crime at the time of the commission thereof. Accused/appellant was
positively identified by prosecution witness Cora Mendoza as the one who first stabbed the
deceased from behind. It has

been invariably ruled that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused.
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez[G.R. No. L-1278; January 21, 1949]

FACTS:

Jimenez and Barrioquinto were charged for murder for the killings they made during the war.

The case was proceeded against Jimenez because Barrioquinto was nowhere to be found. Jimenez was
then sentenced tolife imprisonment.

Before the period for perfecting an appeal had expired, the defendant Jimenez became aware of
Proclamation No. 8, whichgrants amnesty in favor of all persons who may be charged with an act
penalized under the RPC in furtherance of theresistance to the enemy or against persons aiding in the
war efforts of the enemy. He decided to submit is case to theGuerrilla Amnesty Comission.

Barrioquinto learned about the proclamation and he surfaced in order to invoke amnesty as well.
However, CommissionerFernandez of the 14th Amnesty Commission refused to process the amnesty
request of the two accused because the tworefused to admit to the crime as charged. They claim that a
certain Tolentino was the one who committed the crime beingcharged to them.

ISSUE(S)

: WON admission of guilt is necessary in amnesty

HELD:

NO, such admission is not a condition precedent for amnesty. The respondents are ordered to
immediately proceed to hearand decide the application for amnesty of petitioners Barrioquinto and
Jimenez

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,appellee,vs. DANNY DELOS SANTOS appellant.G.R. No. 135919 May 9, 2003

Facts: November 6, 1997 in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, Rod Flores was in drinking spree with Narciso
Salvador, Marvin Tablate and Jayvee Rainier, when suddenly, appellant, Danny Delos Santos emerged
from the back of Flores and stabbed him to death with knife. Fearful for their lives after witnessing the
gruesome killing, witnesses De Leon and Tablate only testified two months after the incident happened.

RTC found him guilty of murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Issue:1.WON the testimonies of the witnesses arecredible even after two month period

2.WON proof of motive to kill is indispensable for conviction

HELD: 1.Yes. The court ruled that the two-month delay is hardly an indicium of a concocted story. It is
but natural for witnesses to avoid being involved in a criminal proceeding particularly when the crime
committed is gruesome showing the cruelty of the perpetrator. The fear of retaliation can have a
paralyzing effect to the witnesses. Thus, the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information
about a criminal case is of common knowledge and has been judicially declared as insufficient to affect
credibility, especially when a valid reason exists for such hesitance.

2.No. Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively
identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. In the crime of murder,
motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it.

2022-08-08 02:31 Assignment

Differentiate the Theories Underlying the Criminal Law System

1. Classical or Juristic Theory
the Classical Theory, which simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human
free will, and the purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the
gravity of the offense
2.Positivist or Realistic Theory
the Positivist Theory, which considers man as a social being and his acts are
attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not
the solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the
yardstick in the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired
into.

To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?

We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently  
positivist in tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances,
are incorporated in our code.

3.Eclectic or Mixed Theory

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
capital punishment.
4. Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for
the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers,
since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not
approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an
offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply the full
harshness of the special law.
2022-08-08 02:38 Assignment
1. DIFFERENTIATE: MALA EN SE FROM MALA PROHIBITA
In "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are inherently evil, bad or wrong,
and hence involves the moral traits of the offender; while in "mala prohibita', the
acts constituting the crimes are not inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited
and made punishable only for public good. And because the moral trait of the
offender is involved in "mala in se", modifying circumstances, the offender's
extent of participation in the crime, and the degree of accomplishment of the
crime are taken into account in imposing the penalty; these are not so in "mala
prohibita" where criminal liability arises only when the acts are consummated.

2. DIFFERENTIATE : ERROR IN PERSONAE ,ABERRATIO ICTUS, PRAETER

INTENTIONEM

ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow
at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended
victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended
victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty
for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is
only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the
penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.

ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the
victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake
in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in
which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed
shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).

PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the consequence went beyond that intended or

expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when there is a
notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the
resulting felony, i,e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen
by the of fender from the act or means employed by him.