Criminal Law I – Fundamentals

Definition.
Criminal Law - is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature, and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc. 129)
Crime - is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or
commanding it. (I Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, 729)

Sources of Philippine Criminal law.

a) Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
b) Special Laws passed by the legislature.
c) Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
 De Joya vs. Warden of Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, Dec 10, 2003

The State; police power; authority to define and punish crimes.

 Pp vs. Santiago, GR No. L-17584, 8 Mar 1922: “The State has the authority, under
its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of
criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure
of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses.”
 People v. Siton y Sacil, G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009.: “The municipal trial
court also declared that the law on vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the State's
police power and justified by the Latin maxim "salus populi est suprem(a) lex",
which calls for the subordination of individual benefit to the interest of the
greater number”
Inherent right - The power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding
penalties is legislative in nature and inherent in the sovereign power of the state
to maintain social order as an aspect of police power.

Characteristics of Criminal Law.

General, in in that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory. (Art. 14, new Civil Code)
 Gonzales vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, August 10, 2006
Territorial, in that criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within
Philippine territory.
  Art. 2 of the RPC: “Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
provisions of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.”
The same Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that its provisions shall be
enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. 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.
Prospective, in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it
was not punishable when committed. As provided in Article 366 of the Revised Penal
Code, crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission.

Art. 2. Applications of its provisions

The felony committed outside of the Philippines are applicable in the following
cases:
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship. But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country,
the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign
country. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on
the high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines.
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government.
3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited
obligations and securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
counterfeiting of the same, to the economic interest of the country.
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an
offense in the exercise of his functions. When any of the felonies is committed abroad by
any of our public officers or employees while in the exercise of his functions, he can be
prosecuted here.
5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security
and the law of nations.

Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel while on Philippine waters is triable

before our court.
 US vs. H. N. BULL, G.R. No. 5270, January 15, 1910:
The offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing animals while
transporting them on a (foreign) ship from a foreign port to a port of the
Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines when the
forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial
waters, regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship
sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. Since the
Philippine territory extends to three miles from the headlands, when a foreign
merchant vessel enters this three-mile limit, the ship's officers and crew become
subject to the jurisdiction of our courts. The space within 3 miles of a line drawn
from the headlands which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay is within
territorial waters.

Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels.

French Rule – Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory, or the safety of the state is
endangered.
English Rule - Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things
within the vessel, or they refer to the internal management thereof.
 US vs. H. N. BULL, G.R. No. 5270, January 15, 1910:

 Pp vs. WONG CHENG, G.R. No. L-18924 October 19, 1922

 US vs. LOOK CHAW, G.R. No. L-5887, December 16, 1911,
 US vs. AH SING, G.R. No. 13005, October 10, 1917

Art. 3. Felonies (Delitos).

Dolo – felonies are committed by means of deceit. There is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent
Culpa – felonies are committed by means of fault. There is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies – are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Elements of felonies.
The elements of felonies in general are:
1. That there must be an act or omission.
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
3. That the act is performed, or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

Act
By act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world, it being unnecessary that the same be produced, as the possibility of its
production is sufficient. (See PP vs. GONZALES, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990). But
the act must be one which is defined by the Revised Penal Code as constituting a felony;
or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external act which has direct
connection with the felony intended to be committed. (See Art. 6)
The act must be external because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
Hence, a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it
may be, will never constitute a felony.

Omission
By omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is
bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.
Examples of felony by omission:
1. Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person whom he finds in an
uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, is liable for abandonment of
persons in danger. (Art. 275, par. 1)
2. An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a
receipt as provided by law, is guilty of illegal exaction. (Art. 213, par. 2[b])
3. Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and
having knowledge of any conspiracy against the government, who does not
disclose and make known the same to the proper authority, is liable for
misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
 PP vs. SILVESTRE, G.R. No. 35748, December 14, 1931

Dolo or Malice.
Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another. When the
offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the intention to do an
injury to the person, property, or right of another, such offender acts with malice. If the
act or omission is punished by the Revised Penal Code, he is liable for intentional
felony. There are crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or
negligence, such as, murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief.
Requisites of dolo or malice:
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
a. Freedom - When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human
being but a tool; Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 5) So also,
a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 6)
2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
a. Intelligence - Without this power, necessary to determine the morality of
human acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the imbecile or the insane, and the
infant under nine years of age as, well as the minor over nine but less than
fifteen years old and acting without discernment, have no criminal
liability, because they act without intelligence. (Art. 12, pars. 1, 2 and 3)
3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
a. Intent - Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental
process, is presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the
commission of an unlawful act.

Mistake of Fact.
While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia legis
non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability
(ignorantia facti excusat).
Mistake of fact - is a 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.
In mistake of fact, the act done by the accused would have constituted (1) a justifying
circumstance under Art. 11, (2) an absolutory cause, such as that contemplated in Art.
247, par. 2, or (3) an involuntary act.
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
  U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, March 19, 1910
 Pp vs. Oanis, July 27, 1943, G.R. No. 47722
 People v. Gervero, G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018.
Mistake of Fact vs Mistake of Law.
 DIEGO vs CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, Aug 11, 2004)

Culpa or fault.
Culpa - performed without malice, but at the same time punishable, though in a lesser
degree and with an equal result, an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as
imprudence or negligence.
Imprudence - indicates a deficiency of action. It usually involves a lack of skill.
Negligence - indicates a deficiency of perception. It usually involves lack of foresight.
A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty
to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring
punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for his acts
which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon.
 Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, December 1, 2014.

Offenses Punished by Special Laws.

There are three classes of crimes. The Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the first
two classes of crimes, (1) the intentional felonies, and (2) the culpable felonies. The third
class of crimes are those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes
punished by municipal or city ordinances.
 Matalam v. People, G.R. Nos. 221849-50 (Resolution), April 4, 2016.

Motive and Intent.

Criminal intent – is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by
means of culpa. It is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the
legal maxims:
- 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." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)
Intent - is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
Motive - is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. It is not
an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for purposes of
conviction. An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a
real motive but just for the sake of committing it. Or, the apparent lack of a motive for
committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there is none, but that simply
it is not known to us, for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where it
may be found, hidden away and inaccessible to our observation.

Distinction between general intent and specific intent:

In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent;
whereas, in some particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required. Thus,
in certain crimes against property, there must be the intent to gain (Art. 293 — robbery;
Art. 308 — theft). Intent to kill is essential in frustrated or attempted homicide (Art. 6 in
relation to Art. 249); in forcible abduction (Art. 342), the specific intent of lewd designs
must be proved.

 People v. Arpon y Ponferrada, G.R. No. 229859, June 10, 2019.

Art. 4. Criminal Liability

 Pp vs. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15
 Pp vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil 524
 Pp vs. Illustre, 54 Phil 594
 Pp vs Rodriguez, 23 Phil 22
 Pp vs Reyes, 61 Phil341
 US vs. Marasigan, 27 Phil 504
 PP vs. MOLDES, En BancG.R. No. 42122, December 01, 1934
Doctrine of Proximate Cause
 Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil 181
 Urbano vs. Pp, GR No. 182750, Jan 20, 2009
 Seguritan vs Pp, GR No. 172896, April 19, 2010
 PP vs. MARCO, G.R. Nos. L-28324-5, May 19, 1978
 Pp vs Villacorta, GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011
Impossible Crimes.
 PP vs. DOMASIAN, G.R. No. 95322, Mar 1, 1993
 Intod vs. Pp, GR No. 103119, Oct. 21, 1992
 Pp vs Enoja, G.R. No. 102596, Dec 17, 1999
 People v. Callao y Marcelino, G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018.

Art. 5.
Judges may not impose penalties in the alternative.
 Abellana vs Pp, GR No. 174654, August 17, 2011

Art. 6. Stages of Execution

Attempted Stage.
 Pp v. Lamahang, 61 Phil 703
 PP vs. LIZADA, G.R. No. 143468-71, Jan 24, 2003
 Rivera v Pp, GR No. 166326, 25 Jan 2006
 Araneta v. CA, July 3, 1990
 Baleros v. People, 22 Feb 2006
Frustrated Stage.
 Pp vs Sy Pio 94 Phil 885
 Eduave, 36 Phil 210
 Dagman, 47 Phil 770
 Beler y Sualivido v. People, G.R. No. 244191 (Notice), June 3, 2019.
Consummated Stage.
 Valenzuela vs. Pp, GR No. 1160188, June 21, 2007
 Colinares vs Pp, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011
 Roque vs Pp, GR No. 193169, 6 Apr 2015
 People v. Pacaña, G.R. Nos. 97472-73, November 20, 2000.
 People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019.
 Cruz y Bartolome v. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014.

Art. 8.
Conspiracy and Proposal
 Pp vs Aleta, GR No. 179708, Apr 16, 2009
 Pp vs Lopez, GR No. 177302, Apr 16, 2009
Direct proof of conspiracy is not required.
 Pp vs. Amodia, GR No. 173791, Apr 7, 2009
 Pp vs Lagat, GR No. 187044, September 14, 2011
 Pp vs Muit, GR No. 181043, Oct 8, 2008
 Pp vs Agacer, GR No. 177751, December 14, 2011
 Pp vs Reyes, GR No. 178300, Mar 17, 2009
 Pp vs Malibiran, GR No. 178301, Apr 24, 2009
 Pp vs Reyes, GR No. 178300, March 17, 2009
 Pp vs Evangelio, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011
 Pp vs Lagat, GR No. 187044, September 14, 2011
  Quidet vs Pp, GR No. 170289, April 8, 2010
 Pp vs Bokingo, GR No. 187536, August 10, 2011

Art. 10.
 Go-Tan vs Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008.