Criminal Law I Reviewer

Full text

(1)( °□°. !. ! !. !. TABLE! TURNERS!. ! ! Reminders:! • Use!at!your!own!risk.!Although!it!is!made!with! the!best!effort,!we!cannot!guarantee!its! accuracy.! • We’d!appreciate!it!if!you!could!please!keep!this! within!the!block!!!. !. ! PREPARED!BY:! JOEL!ARZAGA! KAYE!BALDONADO! AILEEN!CRUZ! IJ!CHAN3GONZAGA,!S.J.! PHILIP!EVARDONE! GELO!GENER! RACHELLE!GUTIERREZ! PONCE!LOPEZ! ALYSSA!MICLAT! IJJI!PARAS! RAIZA!RADOC! ADRIAN!TAN! ERIKA!VALDEZ! ! !. ( °□° !. !.

(2) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Criminal Law in General . Bill of Attainder  a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. Cannot enact laws that punish people without due process. o. POINTS I. Definitions  What is criminal law?   o Branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.  What is crime? o An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. II. Sources of Criminal Law  Revised Penal Code  Special Penal Laws passed by the Legislative  Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law III. Common Law Crimes  Crimes not written in the law but are understood as all to be offenses.  The Philippines does not have common law crimes. Thus, even if the act be socially or morally wrong, its commission incurs no criminal liability if the act is not punishable by a particular provision in penal law or special penal law. IV. Power to Define and Punish Crimes  The state, as part of its police power, has a large measure of discretion and possesses the authority to define and punish crimes and lay down the rules of criminal procedure.  This power is given to the state by its people in order for the former to be able to look after the rights of the latter. V. Limits to the Power of Law‐Making Bodies  No ex post facto law or a Bill of Attainder. . ┻━┻. . VI. Why Ex Post Facto Laws are Prejudicial to the Accused   1. Makes criminal an act, which before the law’s passage was innocent. 2. Aggravates a crime. 3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than the law annexed to the crime when committed. 4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. 5. Imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. 6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection which he was entitled to, such as the protection from a former conviction or acquittal. VII. Constitutional and Statutory Rights  Constitutional Rights (Article III, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution) o Bill of Rights states that the accused has the right to speedy trial, due process, right against self incrimination, free access to the courts, etc.  Statutory Rights are found in and created by statutes o Section 1 Rule 115 of the Revised Rules in Criminal Procedure states that the accused have the right to be informed of accusations against him, confront and cross‐examine witnesses, make appeals, etc. VIII. Can an Accused Waive his Rights?  YES but only those that affect only him and not society . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(3) Criminal Law I o. .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . He can waive his right to cross‐examine but he cannot waive his right to be informed of the crime . IX. Characteristics of Criminal Law  General o Binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines.  Territorial o Criminal Law undertakes to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory  Prospective o Forward Looking and never retroactive   X. The Military  General Rule: Jurisdiction of civil court over a case is not affected by the military character of the accused. o When the military courts takes cognizance of a case involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply. The Revised Penal code and other penal law is not applicable.  Members of the military can be tried under civil court because military courts and civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction. o This is true even in times of war provided that (a) the crime was not committed where hostilities are in progress, and (b) the civil courts are functioning.   o US v. Sweet  Sweet was a member of the US military. He claimed that because of this, our courts had no jurisdiction over him and the case filed against him.  The fact that he was a member of the US military did not affect the jurisdiction of the civil courts unless special legislation said otherwise . ┻━┻. . .  . For a member of the military to be tried in military court, his offense must be service‐ oriented (Articles of War). o Article 63  Disrespect toward the President o Article 64  Disrespect toward superior court o Article 67  Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman. o Article 97  General Article. The Revised Penal Code is not applicable when the Military Court is in charge of the case though the said court can refer to the RPC when considering what penalty to give. Once tried in a military court, that same case cannot be tried in a civil court and vice versa. War criminals are triable by Military Commission. . XI. Exceptions to the applicability of the RPC  Laws and Treaties of preferential application o Bases Agreement  March 14, 1947 o RP‐US Visiting Forces Agreement February 10, 1998 o Republic Act 75  October 21, 1946 Republic Act No. 75  RA No. 75 works in favor of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants (Section 4).  Exception: When the process against servant (who is a citizen of the Philippines) is founded on debt contracted before he entered such service (Section 5).  Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives. Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public international law  II Hyde International Law: as a principle of international law, the following are not subject to the operation of our criminal laws: o Sovereigns and other chiefs of state. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(4) Criminal Law I o. .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires. . XII. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws: New Statutes that are more lenient or favorable to the accused  Must be favorable to the accused in order for it to be followed as long as (a) accused committed act before the new statute came out, and (b) he is not a habitual criminal. XIII. Different Effects of Repeals on Penal Law  If the penalty in the repeal is lighter, it shall be applied to the case except if accused is a habitual criminal.  If the penalty in the repeal is heavier, the law in force when the offense was committed shall be applied.  If the new law totally repeals the old law, the crime is obliterated. o People v. Tamayo  While the case was pending, the ordinance violated was repealed.  The accused was acquitted.  If the new law simply reenacts the old law, criminal liability is not destroyed. o US v. Cuna  Accused was charged with selling opium  While the case was pending, a new law against opium was passed which still included the act done by the accused  The new law does not take away the criminal liability of the accused  If both old law and new law punish the same offense, offender can be tried in the law which is more favorable to him – provided that the old law was still in place when he committed the offense. . ┻━┻. . . . If the new law fails to penalize an act (punishable under the old law), it is no longer punishable. o Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex  The reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases. o People v. Sindiong and Pastor  Accused was prosecuted from neglecting to make a return of the sales of newspapers and magazines within time prescribed as stated in law.  While case was pending, a new law was passed wherein the act of the accused was no longer included as punishable.  The accused were acquitted. If someone is mistakenly accused and convicted under a repealed law, he may be tried again under the new law as long as such an offense still exists in the law. Self repealing laws (laws with expiry dates) are self executing. . XIV. Construction of Penal Laws  Penal Laws are strictly construed against government and liberally in favor of the accused. o This does not apply if the law is clear and unambiguous. o People v. Garcia  Respondent accused of violating a law prohibiting the selling of PCSO tickets without being authorized  Accused claims he sold llave tickets  Respondent is acquitted because the law does not expressly prohibit the selling of llave tickets  The Spanish text is superior to the English text. o People v. Mangulabnan  Respondent fires a gun upwards while committing a robbery. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(5) Criminal Law I .  .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Respondent ends up killing the owner of the house who was situated on the floor above him Respondent is accused of robbery with. homicide because though the English text says that the killing should be intentional for it to be homicide, the Spanish text says that homicide can take place even by mere accident. . The Revised Penal Code I. History    September 4, 1884  Royal Decree ordering penal code in the Peninsula to be published and applied in the Philippines  December 17, 1886  Royal Order directed the execution of the September 4, 1984 decree  March 13 & 14, 1887  Penal Code published in the Official Gazette of Manila  July 14, 1897  Penal Code takes effect  October 18, 1927  A committee was created by Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 94 to revise the penal code, taking into consideration the existing conditions and the special laws and ruling laid down by the Supreme Court. o Anacleto Diaz as chairman, Quintin Paredes, Guillermo Guevara, Alex Reyes and Mariano H. De Joya. o The RPC does not embody the latest progress of criminal science, as the results of the application of advanced and radical theories “still remains to be seen.”  December 8, 1930  draft of the Revised Penal Code approved.  January 1, 1932  RPC takes effect. o Felonies and misdemeanors committed prior this were punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission, as directed by Article 366. . ┻━┻. II. Content  Book I o Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Art. 1‐20) o Provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Art. 21‐113)  Book II o Definition of felonies with the corresponding penalties (art. 114‐365) III. Theories that guided the RPC  Classical o The basis of criminal liability is free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. o Man is seen as an essentially moral creature. Thus, more emphasis on the act and its effect rather than on the person who committed the act. o Establishment of a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and punishment.  Positivist o Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition. o Crime is a natural and social phenomenon; each case is different.  The RPC is guided primarily by the Classical theory though it is also partly influenced by the Positivist Theory. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ . .

(6) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . PRELIMINARY TITLE – DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS Article 1. This code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty two. Article 2. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its internal waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, 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 Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the government of the Philippine Islands; (3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; (4) While being a public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or (5) Should commit any of the acts against national security and the law of nations, defined in title one of book two of this code. POINTS I. Important Phrases  Its atmosphere o Penal laws extend to all their air space which covers the territory, subject to the right of way or easement in favor of foreign aircrafts.  Interior Waters o Bodies of water within the 3 mile limit  Maritime Zone . ┻━┻. o o. 3 miles from the coastline starting from the low water mark 12 miles measured in a straight line from headland to headland Established through international treaties . o II. Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372)  Has provisions providing for extra‐territorial application subject to existing treaties and laws of preferential application  The Act shall apply to: o Persons committing a crime within the Philippine territory o Persons involved in a crime within the Philippine territory despite being physically outside of the territory o Persons who commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship o Persons who commit crimes within our embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic premises occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity o Any person committing a hate crime against Filipinos o Any person committing a crime directly against the Philippine government PAR. 1: The RPC with regards offenses on a Philippine ship or airship  Does not apply when the ship or airship is within foreign territory.  Does not apply if ship or airship is not properly registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs even if owner is Filipino.  Does not apply if the crime is committed in high seas (i.e. areas of the seas not belonging to any one country), BUT the vessel is not registered or licensed in the Philippines. I. The RPC and Foreign ships or airships  Continuing offense: . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(7) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Defined as forbidden conditions existing while the ship or airship was in our territory even if such conditions already existed prior to its entry into our territory. o Continuing offense is punishable by our courts. When a foreign merchant vessel enters the 3‐mile limit, the ship’s officers and crew are subject to the jurisdiction of our courts. o Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship. o Disturbances which may affect public peace of the Philippines may be suppressed and the offenders may be punished by Philippine authorities. With regards foreign ships, the Philippines follows the English Rule: o French Rule – crimes are not triable unless they affect the peace and security of the territory and safety of the state. o English Rule – crimes are triable unless they only involve matters within the vessel. Absolutely no jurisdiction over foreign war ships. o. . . . II. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit are not triable by our courts  Carrying opium on a ship which is in transit is not triable in our courts. BUT, when the opium is landed, it is within our jurisdiction because such act is an open violation of the laws of the Philippines (US v. Look Chaw).  Smoking opium on a ship while it is in transit is triable because it affects our territory (atmosphere) (People v. Wong Cheng).  A person who is carrying opium and who is on board a foreign merchant ship may be liable for illegal importation of opium (US v. Ah Sing). ____________________ . ┻━┻. PAR. 2: SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. “AND” PAR. 3: SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING NUMBER. I. Why are people who introduce forged or counterfeit obligations and securities being punished?  They are being punished because such acts have an effect on our economy  Thus, any person who makes counterfeits in a foreign country may be prosecuted before our courts for violation of Article 163 (coins or currency counterfeit) OR Article 166 (forging securities or obligations) of the RPC. ____________________ PAR. 4: WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS I. Does the RPC apply to public servants and employees who commit their offenses abroad?  Yes as long as it was during the exercise of their functions. ____________________ PAR. 5: SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE, BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE. I. Examples of offenses against national security and the law of nations  Treason, conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, espionage, inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals, violation of neutrality, correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy’s territory, piracy and mutiny on the high seas. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(8) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . TITLE ONE – FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER 1: FELONIES Article 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. 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 act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. POINTS I. Elements of Felonies 1. There must be an act or omission. 2. Said act or omission must be punishable by RPC. 3. Said act or omission must be performed by means of deceit or fault. II. FIRST Requisite: There must be an act or omission Important words and phrases  “Act” o Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.    No need for it to actually be produced. Possibility of its production suffices. o Must be defined as a felony in the RPC  At least an overt act  an act which has direct connection with the felony to be committed.  “Omission” o Failure to perform a positive duty that one is bound to do . ┻━┻. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act o Examples  Article 275, par. 1  Abandonment of persons in danger.  Article 213, par. 2[b]  Failure to issue receipts  Article 116  Misprision of Treason. Are internal acts covered by the RPC?  No because they are beyond the sphere of penal law. Thinking of committing a felony does not constitute a felony unless you act on it.  Thus, only external act is punished. III. SECOND Requisite: Said act or omission must be punishable by RPC  Punishable by law o Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege  There is no crime when there is no law punishing it  Case: People v. Silvestre and Atienza o Atienza threatens to burn down a house; Silvestre is standing right beside him. o Silvestre does nothing as Atienza commits the crime. o Court ruled that Silvestre is not criminally liable because mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere silence, and a failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable IV. THIRD Requisite: Said act or omission performed by means of deceit or fault Classification of Felonies: Intentional v. Culpable 1. Intentional Felonies o Act is performed with deliberate intent (malice). o Offender has the intention to cause an injury to the person, property or right of another. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(9) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence such as murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief. o Requisites of dolo (malice)  Freedom • Without freedom, a person is no longer a human being, but a tool. • There is no freedom if the offender is under the compulsion of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.  Intelligence • Intelligence is necessary to determine the morality of human acts. Without this, no crime can exist. • The imbecile, insane, infant under 9 years of age, and minor between 9‐15 years of age have no criminal liability.  Intent • This is presumed from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act 2. Culpable Felonies o The injury caused is unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.  People v. Guillen • Accused threw a grenade at the president in an attempt to kill him and ended up killing other people • Accused did not commit a culpable felony because deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence o Acts resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. o. ┻━┻. Reason for punishing acts of negligence:  A man must use his common sense and exercise due reflection in all his actions.  He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for his acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. o Examples  US v. Divina • Defendant who is not a medical practitioner ties up a girl and sets her on fire. He claims he is trying to cure her ulcer and that he acted in good faith. • Defendant is guilty of physical injury through imprudence  People v. Lopez • A man runs over a girl with his truck despite him not intending to do so. • Man convicted of reckless imprudence • The driver should have taken the precaution necessary to avoid injury to persons because he was neither compelled to refrain from or prevented from doing so. o Definition of reckless imprudence  consists in voluntarily but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results. Both Intentional and Culpable Felonies are Voluntary  Reasons o Man has free will. o Man is a rational being who can distinguish between good and evil. o. (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(10) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Intentional felonies were intended while culpable felonies resulted from acts, which were voluntary but not intended as felonies. Acts cease to be voluntary when there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation o. . V. Intent  Intent is a mental state manifested through the overt acts of people. o A person who causes an injury by mere accident does not have intent therefore is not criminally liable.  When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are slow in concluding that some other result was intended o People v. Sia Teh Ban  Respondent stole a watch therefore showing intent to gain.  Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear  Lack of intent to kill the deceased because offender meant to kill another person does not clear the offender of criminal liability.  Lack of intent may be inferred from the facts of the case. Presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful.  US v. Catolico o Judge orders money deposited by the defendants as a bond to be given to the plaintiff. Judge is subsequently accused of malversation. o It was ruled that his original act was not unlawful therefore there was no criminal liability. o Actus non facit reum, nisi mens set rea . ┻━┻. The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo  There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.  Actus me invito factus non est meus actus o An act done by me against my will is not my act. o Example  People who commit crimes while sleepwalking do not incur criminal liability because there was no intent (People v. Taneo). Distinction between general intent and specific intent  Some felonies necessitate specific types of intent. o Robbery necessitates intent to gain. o Frustrated homicide necessitates intent to kill.  When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a plausible defense. o If there is only error on the part of the accused, he does not act with malice and as such, he cannot be liable for intentional felony.  Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa. VI. Mistake of Fact  Ignorantia facti excusat o Ignorance of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability.  Mistake of fact  is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who injury to another. He is not criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.  An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a defense: 1. Act would have been lawful is facts were as the accused believed them to be. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(11) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . US v. Ah Chong  Accused killed a man because after taking all of the necessary precautions, he thought that he was being attacked by a robber  Acquitted by mistake of fact because had the facts been as the accused thought, his actions would have constituted self defense. Also, the circumstances pressed him for immediate and decisive action o People v. Oanis  Killed a sleeping man because he was mistaken for an escaped felon.  Accused was convicted because he did not take all the necessary precautions needed to verify the identity of the person and the accused had no authority to shoot a sleeping man even if he was the escaped felon. Lastly, the circumstances did not press him for immediate and decisive action. 2. Intention of the accused must be lawful. o When an unlawful act is done willfully, mistake of the identity of an intended victim does not relieve the accused of criminal responsibility (People v. Gona). o Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence (People v. Guillen). 3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused o People v. De Fernando  Accused shot a man going up the stairs because he thought he was an escaped felon  Accused is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence because he failed to take all the necessary precautions to ensure the identity of the man he eventually shot . . o. ┻━┻. The act done by the accused would have constituted: o A justifying circumstance (Article 11) o Absolutory clause (Article 247) o An involuntary act Resisting arrest is not a crime when there is a mistake of fact .  VII. Crimes Punishable by Special Laws  Includes crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances.  Dolo is not required. o It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. o The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.  People v. Bayona • Unwittingly but voluntarily brought a gun into a polling place • Convicted because no matter what his intentions were, the act prohibited by the special laws was committed  Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetuate the act must be distinguished o If there is no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited, there is no criminal liability Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made by statutory enactment  The act in itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is the evil. o Example: Law Prohibiting display of revolutionary flags  The evil to society and to the government does not depend upon the state of mind of the one who displays the banner, but upon the effect which that display has upon the public mind.  The public is not affected by the intention of the offender but by the act itself. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(12) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself. Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws  Since the offense is malam prohibitum, the performance of the act itself will constitute the offense.  Exceptions: o People v. Landicho  If it is done in order to comply with government policies.  When there is a law prohibiting the carrying of loose firearms in relation to a man who was authorized to buy and collect guns to be sold to the authorities later on, that individual is not criminally liable.  This is not the same if the man held on to the firearms for a undue length of time when he had all the chances to surrender it to the proper authorities. o People v. Asa & US v. Samson  Civilian guards who acted in good faith and never had any intention of committing an offense against the law prohibiting the carrying of loose firearms because they believed their position in the civilian guard association warranted the carrying of such firearms. o Peope v. Mallari  When the accused has a pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm and whose possession in not unknown to the authorities who actually advised him to keep his firearm for the meantime. o People v. Lucero  When accused was given authority to carry a revolver in order to capture or kill a wanted person. . ┻━┻. . In all cases mentioned, the absence of intent to violate the law was considered in favor of the accused. . VIII. Mala in se and Mala prohibita distinguished  General rule: Acts in mala in se, there must be a criminal intent; but those in mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.  Mala in se o Wrongful from its nature. o Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation from its members. o Punishable by RPC.  Mala Prohibita o Wrongful because it is prohibited by a statute. o Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society o Found in special laws. o Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws. When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se even if punished under special law  People v. Sunico et al. o Voters names were omitted from the list. o The act was mala in se because the omission and failure to include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited, it is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his fundamental rights. o For such an act to be punished, it must be shown that said act was committed with malice. IX. Intent distinguished from motive  Motive  The moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(13) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . Intent  The purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Motive: when relevant and when not need to be established  Not an essential element of a crime; need not be proven for purposes of a conviction. o Even a strong motive cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Good motives do not prevent an act from becoming a crime o Example: Mercy Killing  Relevance: o When the identity of the perpetrator is being disputed, the motive is very relevant (People v. Murray).  Not applicable if perpetrator has been positively identified (People v. Gadiana).  Not applicable if perpetrator admits to crime (People v. Arcilla). o When ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing (People v. Boholst‐ Caballero; People v. Lim; People v. Tabije) o Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary (People v. Beltran). o When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion falls on a lot of people (People v. Melgar). o When evidence is merely circumstantial (People v. Oquiño).  Not applicable if guilt is established by sufficient evidence (People v. Corpuz). o When there is no doubt that the accused committed the crime, his motives are unimportant (People v. Feliciano). How motive is proved . ┻━┻. .   . Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense. Establishment through the evidence presented. Lack of motive may be aid in showing innocence. Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction. It cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient to overthrow presumption of innocence. . Article 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended. 2. By an person performing an 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 or ineffectual means. POINTS I. The manner of incurring criminal liability under the RPC is stated in Article 3  This article has not reference to the manner criminal liability is incurred. II. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not  One is not relieved from the criminal liability for the natural consequence of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences. o Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although the one who fired the gun had no intention to injure C. . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(14) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . III. Rationale of Article 4  El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado o He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. IV. Important words  “Committing a felony” o Act or omission has to be punishable by the RPC. o Necessitates malice because of the phrase “that which he intended”. o Cannot therefore be an act or omission punished by a special law because the offender violating such a law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.  US v. Divino • Defendant who is not a medical practitioner ties up a girl and sets her on fire. He claims he is trying to cure her ulcer and that he acted in good faith. • He is not guilty of a felony because he had no intent to harm. He is however guilty of physical injury through imprudence and/or illegal practice of medicine.  “Although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended” o Causes  Mistaken identity (error in personae)  A shoots B because he thinks he is C.  Mistaken blow (aberration ictus)  A tries to shoot B but accidentally shoots C.  The act exceeds the intent (praeter intentionem)  A only intends to injure B but ends up killing him. . ┻━┻. o. Examples  People v. Mabugat • Accused and B were sweethearts. They got into a fight and one night, accused, with revolver in hand, waited for B and her niece C to leave the house of D and head home. As they reached the house, accused aimed and fired a shot at B but instead hit C. • Accused is criminally liable (frustrated murder)  People v. Tomotorgo • Accused, incensed by his wife, beats her until she falls to the ground and complains of chest pains. Accused proceeds to take his wife home and take care of her. Wife dies. • Accused is guilty of parricide. • SC ruled that the fact that the accused intended to maltreat his wife only or inflict physical injuries does not exempt him from liability for the resulting and more serious crime of parricide • Maltreatment inflicted by the accused was the proximate cause of wife’s death . V. When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended    US v. Villanueva o Accused, out of curiosity, snatched a bolo carried by the victim in his belt. The victim was subsequently injured. o Accused is not criminally liable because there is no provision punishing the act of snatching the property of another just to satisfy curiosity.  . (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

(15) Criminal Law I . .   Atty. Giovanni Vallente . People v. Bindoy o Accused, carrying a bolo in one hand, got into a heated altercation with Pacas’ wife. Pacas attempted to take away the bolo from the accused and during the scuffle, an innocent bystander was injured. o Accused is not criminally liable because the law permits him to use necessary force to retain what belongs to him. o If accused had been trying to strike Pacas and instead hit someone else, he would be criminally liable.   PAR. 1: BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY (DELITO), ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED. I. Requisites of Article 4 paragraph 1  In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit: 1. Intentional felony was committed 2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender II. FIRST Requisite: Intentional felony was committed No felony is committed when:  The act or omission is not punishable under RPC. o Suicide is not punishable under the RPC (Article 253)  If A jumps off the building and lands on B, he is not criminally liable for intentional homicide.  When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Article 11 o Self defense, fulfillment of duty, etc. o These acts must still be exercised with due care otherwise the accused will be liable for culpable felony. . ┻━┻. Example: People v. Salinas  Accused, along with B, go to the house of C and D. Accused enters the house, B stays outside. B challenges C to a fight and accused holds on to C to prevent him from going outside. A struggle ensues and D, while holding a baby, attempts to free C from the accused. D ends up falling down the stairs, baby in hand. The baby eventually dies.  Accused cannot be criminally liable for holding on to C and preventing him from engaging in what would have been a bloody encounter with B because such an act is not punishable.  Similarly, accused is not guilty of the death of the baby because the death was not the direct consequence of a crime seeing as how accused did not committing any crime. Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries  People v. Toling o Accused proceeds to commit robbery aboard a jeepney. Accused threatens the passengers and subsequently, B jumps out of the jeepney in order to escape. B ends up hitting her head on the pavement and eventually dies. o It was held that accused is guilty for the death of B because he created an immediate sense of danger that prompted B to try and escape.   o Similarly, if a person believing himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm jumps into the water and drowns, the person who caused him to believe he was in danger is criminally liable for his death o. (°□°) ╯. ┻━┻ .

No results found