CRIMINAL LAW 1 June 17, 2011
Introduction to Criminal Law
Q: What is criminal law?
CRIMINAL LAW – branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment
Q: Suppose Congress enacted a piece of legislation, and any violation of that law, penalty will be payment of damages, is that criminal law?
Q: Suppose the form of penalty will be confiscation of license, is that criminal law? Q: How will you define a crime?
*what particular act constitutes the crime *what are the elements of the acts Q: What is criminal procedure?
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – body of rules that enforces or regulates criminal law, provides for the steps in the prosecution and/or conviction of an accused.
Q: Is there any difference between criminal law and criminal procedure? Yes.
Q: What are the differences?
CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
*substantive *procedural/remedial
*GENERALLY prospective, *prospective, BUT CAN BE applied RETROACTIVE unless favorable to the accused,
provided accused is not a habitual delinquent
*only comes from the legislative *can be promulgated by the judiciary or law-making body; never from
the executive or judiciary
*in favor of the ends of substantial justice Q: who is a habitual delinquent?
A person who within a period of 10 years from the date of his last release or conviction of the crimes of 1) serious or less serious physical injuries, 2) robo, 3)hurto 4)estafa or 5) falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener (Art 62, rpc)
Q: Is criminal law the same as the RPC? Yes
Q: What is a crime?
Generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either in RPC or under a special law Q: Who has the power to enact laws?
Congress (Legislative)
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?
No. There are limitations. It should not violate the constitution
Q: We call our penal code, the REVISED PENAL CODE, why, which penal code was revised? The Spanish Penal Code
Q: How was it revised?
*A committee was formed pursuant to Administrative Order No. 94 by the Department of Justice.
*The committee was formed on Oct 18, 1827
*The committee was composed of Anacleto Diaz (head); Quintin Paredes; Alex Reyes and Mariano De Joya
Q: How did the revision come about?
*the RPC contains provisions of the Spanish penal code, US Penal Code and SC decisions of the Philippines before the creation of the RPC
Q: What are the sources of criminal law? *Revised Penal Code
*Special Penal Laws enacted or passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, Batasang Pambansa, Congress of the Philippines *Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law (only because the President at that time had legislative power, but generally, the Executive branch cannot issue EO or PP that are penal in nature)
*Spanish Penal Code
*US Penal Code (we copied the ff crimes from the US Penal Code: estafa, malversation, etc) Q: Who has the power to define crimes?
The State
Q: Why does the State has the power to define crimes?
Because of its police power. The right to prosecute and punish crimes is vested in the sovereign power, which is the Filipino people.
Q: When did the RPC took effect? Jan 1, 1932
So that PH will be familiarized with the new provisions of the RPC Q: Who approved the RPC?
US President
Q: What are the theories in criminal law? Classical, Positivist, Mixed CLASSICAL
-the objective is retribution - the emphasis is on the crime
-consistent with the saying “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” - man has free will to do or not to do
- the criminal liability arises from knowledge and freedom -man is a rational being
-example: RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007) POSITIVIST
-the objective is reformation -the emphasis is on the criminal
-believes that crime is a social phenomenon -sees man as a moral/human being
-man by nature is good
-man is exposed to environment where man is compelled to do a crime -example: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
Probation Law of 1976 Indeterminate Sentence Law MIXED
-combines the classical and the positivist -applied classical theory for heinous crimes
-applies the positivist for economic and social crimes Q: What do we apply in the Philippines?
Mixed. Our system is a little bit of classical and a little bit of positivist. The RPC is classical and recent laws enacted by the legislature are positivist in nature.
Q: What is the degree of proof needed to convict an accused of a criminal charge? Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Q: Is this absolute? No.
In the crime of treason, PBRD is not the only requirement. There is a requirement of the 2 witness rule
No. Only by the language of the law. It should be clear and in case of doubt, it should be favorable to the accused.
June 21, 2011
Q: What are the kinds of repeals? 1. Absolute or Express
-the effect is decriminalization -the obliteration of a crime
-for pending cases, the case shall be dismissed
-for those serving sentence, they shall be released because there is no more reason for the accused to serve sentence
2. Partial or Implied
-the crime is still punishable, but modified (in terms of penalty)
-example: the case of Robin Padilla, PD 1866 was partially repealed by RA 8294, which reduced the sentence for illegal possession of firearms, thus qualifying Robin Padilla for parole
3. Self-repealing
-deemed repealed upon the expiration of the date specified by the law -the law dies a natural death
-example: RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law) and Rent Control Law Q: What is the general characteristic of criminal law?
Criminal Law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, regardless of race, nationality, political affiliation.
Q: Is this rule absolute?
No. The exceptions are: 1. Treaties
2. Laws of preferential application Q: What is the territorial characteristic of criminal law?
Only crimes committed within the Philippine territory may be prosecuted before Ph court Q: What is the rationale behind this?
A crime is an offense against the dignity, authority and sovereignty of the Ph territory; and only the state in which the dignity, authority and sovereignty has been offended has the right to punish the offender.
Q: Is the territoriality absolute?
No. The exceptions are: 1. Treaties
2. Laws of preferential application Q: Other characteristic of criminal law?
Exception: favorable to the accused
Exception to the exception: accused is a habitual delinquent
Q: Can you give an example of a treaty that is an exception to the generality & territoriality principles of criminal law?
VFA
Q: Why is VFA an exception?
Generality – because even if the accused sojourn in the Philippines, the accused will not be prosecuted in ph courts
Territoriality – because even if the accused committed the crime in the Philippines, the accused will not be prosecuted in ph courts
Q: Who are the parties to VFA? US and PH
Q: who are covered by the VFA? US military personnel
US civilian personnel connected to the US military operations in the Philippines Q: Who is a US military personnel?
military members of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard Q: Is the American Red Cross personnel covered by the VFA?
Yes. Is he is part of the US personnel Q: What are the types of jurisdiction in VFA?
Exclusive and Concurrent
Q: What do you mean by exclusive & concurrent jurisdiction?
Exclusive – exclusive of other courts; vests jurisdiction on one court Concurrent – both countries have jurisdiction
Q: When is it exclusive?
PH have exclusive jurisdiction – crimes punishable under PH laws but not punishable under US laws.
US have exclusive jurisdiction - crimes punishable under US laws but not punishable under PH laws.
Q: When is it concurrent?
Crimes punishable both under PH and US laws.
Q: But, even if jurisdiction is concurrent, when will PH have primary jurisdiction?
*Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses *Especially, when it is a threat to the security of the Philippines,
EXCEPT:
*crime committed by a US personnel against the property and security of the US – Ph has no jurisdiction, these includes:
1. against the property of the US 2. against the security of the US
3. against the property of another military personnel 4. against the security of another military personnel 5. committed in the performance of official duties
Q: Suppose US military personnel was driving at Roxas Blvd to deliver a confidential letter to the US embassy, while driving, he run over a pedestrian, which court has jurisdiction?
US. Committed in the performance of official duties.
Q: Suppose one night US military personnel went to the bar, after drinking and being so tipsy, raped a woman, which court has jurisdiction?
PH. Not in the performance of official duties
Q: Suppose 2 Filipino citizens working as US military personnel in the PH had a quarrel. Filipino 1 shoots Filipino 2. Who has jurisdiction?
US. Citizenship is immaterial. What is important is attachment to the US military Q: Suppose the one who was injured filed a civil case for damages, will it prosper?
No. VFA covers only criminal aspect
Q: 1 US marine stole the wallet of another US marine, who has jurisdiction? US. Property of another military personnel
Q: Suppose you are a judge, the US wrote a letter for you to waive jurisdiction, what will you do?
Generally, the PH has to waive jurisdiction upon request of US. The request for waiver cannot be rejected.
Q: Is this rule absolute?
No. The request for waiver may be rejected if the crime is of particular importance RA 9659 (heinous crime)
RA 7610 (child abuse cases) RA 9165 (dangerous drugs)
Q: Suppose US military personnel committed kidnapping, who has jurisdiction? PH courts. This is a crime against personal security
Q: Give an example of Laws of Preferential Application that is local in nature? Constitution
*immunity suit of president
*absolute immunity of Congress for privilege speeches *Congress immune from libel
NOTE: Art 6, Sec 11, 1987 Consti is not an exception. BECAUSE Congress is only immune from arrest not from prosecution
Q: What else?
RA 75 – Public International Law
Diplomatic immunity and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of the country where they are officially assigned:
Ambassadors
Sovereign or other chief of State
Ministers plenipotentiary or minister residents Charge d’affairs
Domestic Servants of persons mentioned
NOTE: Consuls and other consular officials are not exempt from criminal liability because they represent the business, commercial mercantile of their country; while, ambassadors, chiefs of State, etc. represent the political interests of their country of origin.
WARSHIP RULE
-warship of another country, even though docked in the PH is considered an extension of the territory of that country
Q: suppose the warship of US is docked at Subic, one day, you went to Subic with your gf, brought her to the ship, and then raped her. Will you be prosecuted?
No. Warship is an extension US territory
Q: suppose after raping her, you brought your gf to her parents, will you be prosecuted? No. Warship rule
Embassy Rule – same as warship rule
Q: Suppose one day, you shut a person at Roxas Blvd, when the police officers were running after you, you jumped over the fence of US embassy. May the officers arrest you, while you are inside the US embassy?
No.
Q: What is then the remedy of the officers (Ph government)? Extradition
Q: suppose a Filipina legally married had sexual intercourse with an American at the Ph embassy. Is there any crime committed?
Yes. The crime of adultery, but she cannot be prosecuted under Ph courts because of the embassy rule.
Q: who else is exempt/immune from criminal prosecution? Executive directors of WHO
Members of the Constitutional Commission Justices of Supreme Court
Q: How about consular officials?
They are not covered. They are not exempt from criminal liability because they represent the business, commercial mercantile interests of their country of origin.
Q: Suppose Ambassador of Japan to the US committed a crime in the Philippines, may he be prosecuted?
Yes, because he is not a recognized diplomatic representative of his country to the Philippines.
Article 2
^par 1-5 of Art 2 is not an exemption to the territoriality principle, it is EXTRATERRITORIALITY! Q: The first instance in Art 2?
Should commit an offense while on Ph ship or airship Q: What is Ph ship or airship?
Ship registered with MARINA
Airship registered with Civil Aeronautics Board
Q: What are the requirements in order a ship/airship be a Ph ship? It must be registered in accordance with Ph laws
Q: Why not register in Bureau of Customs?
The law requiring registration in Bureau of Customs had been repealed. Now its Marina and CAB Q: Does PH include warship?
No. Warship has different rule
Q: Suppose a cargo ship in Quezon going to Malaysia, within Ph territory, 1 crew committed homicide against another crew, who has jurisdiction?
PH. The crime is committed in PH territory
It is not important whether cargo ship is registered or not, because crime committed in Ph territory. (Territoriality principle)
Q: Suppose that cargo ship traversed through international waters then reached the waters of Malaysia, 1 crew member committed homicide against another. Which court?
Malaysia. Because the crime is committed in Malaysian waters ^Art 2, par 1 ceases to apply if the ship is in the territory of foreign country ^Art 2, par 1 applies only if the ship is in international waters
Q: Suppose you live in a coastal town, then you hired an unregistered motorboat, then you went to int’l waters, then you shoot your gf because you are so depressed because of recitations in criminal law review, will you be liable?
No. unregistered motorboat
Q: suppose in the same motorboat, a married man with his new gf went on high seas, and there got married. Is the man liable for any crime?
Yes. He is liable for bigamy. (because he contracted a second marriage)
BUT he cannot be prosecuted because of the territoriality principle. The crime was committed outside Ph territory.
Q: suppose after the wedding ceremony, you went to a resort, where there is a big reception. In that resort, you had your honeymoon; will you (married man) be liable for any crime?
No. Not concubinage because mere sexual intercourse not punishable, it must be under scandalous manner
Q: suppose after your honeymoon, you live together in a condo in Manila, will you be liable? Yes. Concubinage
Cohabitation; living in a separate home as husband and wife Q: What are the 2 rules?
English Rule – vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed in that area are triable in that other country, unless the crimes committed involve purely internal matters within the vessel; the emphasis is on the territoriality of the vessel; where the vessel is found
French Rule – vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed in that area are not triable in that country, unless the crimes committed have endangered the peace and security of that country; the emphasis is on the nationality of the vessel; jurisdiction lies where the merchant vessel is registered.
^The PH adheres to the English rule
Q: Cargo ship, registered in Panama while in Manila, 1 crew member shoot the other crew member, who has jurisdiction?
Ph courts. Crime committed in manila
Q: Cargo ship, registered in Panama, carried shabu, which court has jurisdiction? Ph courts.
Q: Second instance in Art 2? Art 2 par 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
Any coin, Currency Note, obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands
Q: Suppose you have a printing press in Taiwan, and you printed Bagong Lipunan notes (martial law), liable?
No. Because Bagong Lipunan notes are not legal tender Q: Suppose coins withdrawn from circulation, liable?
Yes. The law does not distinguish. It says ANY COIN Q: Suppose in you tampered a lotto ticket, liable?
Yes. Lotto ticket is obligations and securities issued by the GPI Q: give examples of obligations and securities of GPI
Treasury bills, lotto tickets, bonds of the BSP
^Obligations and Securities of GSIS, SSS, Landbank are not of the GPI because they have their own charter
Q: any other instance?
Art 2, par 3
Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number
^those who introduced the counterfeited items are criminally liable, even if they were not the ones who counterfeited the obligations & securities
^on the other hand, those who counterfeited the items are criminally liable even if they did not introduce the counterfeit items
Q: any other instance?
Art 2, par. 4
While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
Q: who is a public officer? (see Art 203)
*taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or performing in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
*that his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be –
a. by direct provision of the law, or b. by popular election, or
Q: Suppose PH ambassador to Germany was given USD 200,000 as a fund to renovate the PH embassy building in Germany. He used only USD 50,000 for the renovation, and gave the USG 150,000 to his number 2 in Germany. Is he (ambassador) liable?
Yes. He is liable for malversation of public funds. He may be prosecuted in Ph courts. He was in custody of the money by reason of his official functions
Q: Suppose our AFP high officials were tasked to scout for firearms abroad, and while they are negotiating with foreign companies abroad, these companies inserted USD1000 in the proposal folder in anticipation that their company will be chosen by AFP to be the supplier of our firearms. May these AFP officials be liable?
Yes. They are liable for bribery.
Q: (follow-up) Even if the act of accepting the bribe was committed abroad, will they still be liable? Yes, because the act was committed in relation or while the AFP are in discharge of their official functions.
Q: Suppose Chairman Abalos (comelec) while playing golf in Shanghai, China received USD50,000 in relation to the ZTE? Is there a crime committed? May he be liable?
Crime – anti graft & corrupt practices act
BUT, he cannot be liable/prosecuted before Ph courts because Abalos has nothing to do with ZTE (paki alamera lang siya). Therefore, he received the money not in connection with his official function.
Q: Suppose the PH ambassador to Australia is legally married. Can he be prosecuted for concubinage? No. Crime was committed outside PH
Crime was not in relation to official functions
Elements of concubinage:
1. That the man must be married.
2. That he committed any of the following acts: a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife.
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
3. That as regards the woman she must know him to be married Q: Can the PH ambassador use immunity from suit as a defense against PH courts?
No
Q: PH ambassador, married, had sexual intercourse with her American boyfriend in the comfort room of PH embassy. May he be prosecuted?
Yes. Ph embassy is an extension of Ph territory
For what crime – adultery
Q: may the American citizen bf be liable for any crime? Yes. Adultery
Elements:
*That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.
*That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourses, he must know her to be married.
Q: Last instance?
Art 2, par 5
Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Q: Give example of crimes against national security? Treason, espionage, conspiracy to commit treason Q: How about rebellion?
No. rebellion is crimes against public order Q: crimes committed by the MILF?
No. Crime against public order
Q: example of violation of the law of nations? Anti – terror law
Crimes against humanity Genocide
Q: what are the 2 kinds of piracy? Piracy under the RPC Piracy under PD 532 Q: what does Art 2 covers?
Piracy under RPC only. Because piracy under PD532 is committed within PH waters
Article 3
Q: What are felonies?
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Q: What do you mean by “punishable by law”
Punishable by the RPC Q: how felonies are committed?
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). Q: What is dolo? What is 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.
^Violations of RPC – felony
^Violations of special penal law – offenses
^violations of ordinance – misdemeanor (minor infraction of the law) Q: What are the requisites of felony?
1. Act or omission 2. RPC 3. Voluntary a. Freedom b. Intelligence c. Intent
^ALL MUST BE PRESENT IN ORDER TO INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY Q: Is illegal possession of bladed weapon a felony?
No. It is not under the Revised Penal Code Atty. Amurao Lecture Highlights:
*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. For example, if you have in your mind that you will rape this beautiful lady, but you did not rape her, you will not be liable.
*Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (an act of a criminal should be coupled by a criminal mind)
*It does not mean that if an act or omission is punished under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is already committed. To be considered a felony, it must also be done with dolo or culpa.
*If you do not have freedom, the act is not voluntary; the act is not a felony *These are amplified in the some provisions of the RPC, like…
Intelligence – art 12 – insanity, imbecility, minority
Freedom – art 12 – under compulsion of some irresistible force; fear of greater injury Intent – art 12 – by mere accident w/out fault or intent to cause harm
*Mistake of fact is a valid defense
Q: What are the differences between MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
*intent is essential *intent is not essential *good faith is a valid defense *good faith is not a valid
*honest mistake of fact is a defense
*honest mistake of fact is not a defense
*punishable under RPC *punishable under special laws *condemned by society *injurious to public welfare *act done must be criminal
intent
*it is sufficient that the prohibited act was done Q: give examples of Mala In se?
RPC – homicide, murder, parricide, arson … and so on… Q: give examples of Mala prohibita
Anti Fencing Law Bouncing Check Law
Illegal Possession of Firearms Anti Human Trafficking Law Anti Hijacking Lack
Q: Suppose your bf is a police officer, 1 day while you were having your date in Luneta Park, your bf had to answer the call of nature, so he handed to you his pistol, while you were holding it, the officers arrested you, may you be liable for illegal possession of firearms?
No. Transient Possession not liable
Although I was in possession, although I have no license to posses, Still not liable because I have no intent, and this is an exception to mala prohibita
Q: Suppose the police officers are running after a man, then the man throw his .45 caliber, you were around the corner and you extended your arms, then the firearm fell on your hands, may you be liable for illegal possession?
No. Transient possession
Q: Suppose I (atty. Amurao) mortaged my firearm to you for 30 days, and on the 20th day, there was a raid in your house, may you be liable for illegal possession?
Yes. There is animus possendi
an act or omission
Act – any physical movement of the body (Amurao); any bodily movement
tending to produce some effect in the external world (Reyes)
Omission – means inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty which one is
bound to do; there must be a law requiring the performance of an act and punishing the omission; eg. arbitrary detention; misprision of treason
punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Code, in terms of the application of penalties, what to follow?
^What is important is the definition and the classification of the act (whether it is an offense or a felony)
Special Penal Laws = penalties are stated in terms of years, months, days Revised Penal Code = penalties are stated in terms of degrees, with death as the highest penalty; classified as indivisible or divisible
a. indivisible = death and public censure
b. divisible (has 3 periods; what period to apply is dependent on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in the case)
Penalties under the RPC (in descending order in terms of degree)
Death or Capital Punishment - indivisible Reclusion Perpetua (20yrs & 1day – 40yrs) Reclusion Temporal (12yrs & 1day – 20yrs) Prision Mayor (6yrs & 1day – 12yrs)
Prision Correccional divisible
or Destierro (6mos&1day – 6yrs) Arresto Mayor (1mo & 1day – 6mos) Arresto Menor (1day – 30days) Fine
Public Censure – indivisible
the acts done should be voluntary (Amurao)
voluntary - the concurrence of intelligence, freedom, intent (Ortega) ^all should be present in order to incur criminal liability
(a) intelligence – no intelligence, no criminal liability; eg. children 15 yrs old & below are exempt from criminal liability (RA 9344)
(b) freedom – no freedom, act is not voluntary, no criminal liability (c) intent – essential to a felony; prosecution has to prove intent; good
faith is a defense
Article 12 of the RPC (Exempting Circumstances) is amplified by the importance
of the element of voluntariness:
(a) intelligence – insanity/imbecility [Art.12(1)]; minority [Art.12(2&3)]
(b) freedom – under the compulsion of some irresistible force [Art.12(5)]; fear of greater injury [Art.12(6)]; failure to perform an act required by law when
(c) intent – by mere accident w/o fault or intent to cause harm [Art.12(4)]
Alibi – used in defense saying that the act or omission was not done at all; intends to disprove the existence of an act or omission; weakest defense; can easily be fabricated;
eg. Vizconde case – Webb’s alibi = he argued that he was in the US when the crime happened, therefore, he could not have killed the victims, claiming that he is innocent Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – an act of a criminal should be coupled by a criminal mind
the defense of honest mistake of fact
- the act done by the accused would have constituted: (a) a justifying circumstance (Art.11, RPC)
- in all instances = no criminal liability; no civil liability (b) an absolutory cause [Art.247(2)]
(c) an involuntary act
Requisites for honest 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 negligence/carelessness on the part
of the accused
Cases on honest mistake of fact:
1. US v. Ah Chong (landmark case)
- Ah Chong killed friend Pascual thinking he was a thief/ladron
- there was sufficient warning on the part of accused; accused was acquitted 2. US v. Apego
- accused killed her brother-in-law in fear of being raped; guilty of homicide 3. People v. Oanis
- policemen killed the wrong person w/o warning; guilty of murder 4. People v. Bayambao
- accused killed his brother-in-law thinking he was an outlaw
- brother-in-law acted as if he going to attack; accused was acquitted
Motive
- special reasons that impel the accused to act (Amurao)
- the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (Reyes) - not an essential element of a felony
- evidence of motive is necessary only in case of: (1) doubt in the identity of the accused (Amurao), (2) two conflicting versions of the crime
- motive is established by the testimony of the witness - lack of motive may be an aid in showing innocence
Discernment – ability of the accused to determine right from wrong
Exceptions to the general rule on malum prohibitum crimes (PLEASE REFER TO REYES BOOK) 1. Cuenca v. People
- Cuenca was acquitted by the SC from the crime of illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm; it is said that the SC erred in its decision (Amurao)
2. People v. Landicho
- convicted by the trial court; decision reversed by the Court of Appeals
- the CA held that convicting the accused would be sacrificing substantial justice for mere technicality
3. People v. Mallare
- case was about the delay of the issuance of the license
- the accused convicted by the trial court; decision reversed by the CA
- the CA held that the blame should be put on the government not on the applicant of the license
4. mere transient possession of unlicensed firearm
- not criminally liable
- in the crime of illegal possession of unlicensed firearm, for an accused to be criminally liable, there should be animus posidendi or “intent to possess”
Article 4
Concept of proximate cause – injury inflicted Q: What is proximate cause?
Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any
efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted
As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony.
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.
Q: What is efficient intervening cause?
Efficient Intervening Cause – interrupted the natural flow of events leading to one’s death *Victim is under no obligation to submit to medical treatment to reduce or mitigate the liability of the accused.
Q: A, B, C hold up a bus, a passenger ran away, hit by the car, passenger died. Who is liable? ABC
Q: Hold up in a nearby grocery store, old man suddenly collapsed seeing the commotion, old man eventually died, who is liable?
Robbers
Immediate cause – heart failure
Q: Suppose Atty Amurao during recit, you collapsed, hit the table and massive bleeding, dead on arrival, is amurao liable?
No. Recit is not a crime
Q: suppose because of your wrong answers, amurao shouted defamatory words, liable? Yes. Amurao committed slander
Q: Is it wrong to love a married person?
No. As long as it does not go beyond that point
Q: Sexual intercourse with a married woman, while doing the act, the woman had heart attack, will you be liable?
Yes. You committed adultery
Q: Man married, had a sexual intercourse with a single woman, the woman had heart attack, died. Will you be liable?
No. Concubinage is not committed Q: If under a tree in Luneta?
Yes. Liable for concubinage, under a scandalous manner Q: both single, man is a teacher, woman is a student, liable?
No. There is no crime
Q: If the student is under 18 years old, will your answer be the same?
No. This time there is a crime. Qualified seduction or rape by grave abuse of authority Q: What is an impossible crime?
Q: Give the elements of impossible crime vis-à-vis facts of Intod Q: Give the case of PP v Jacinto?
Q: do you agree with the decision? Q: How is theft committed?
Q: Is it an element that the accused should make or actually profit? No
Q: May a person be liable if he did not commit a crime?
Yes. Impossible crime. Technically no crime, subjectively – there is a crime Q: What is the penalty?
Arresto Mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 ^Urbano case
Q: what is the negligence committed by Javier?
Causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended, as contemplated in Art. 4 (1)
1. there is a mistake in the identity of the victim
- also known as error in personae; or napagkamalan
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
2. there is a mistake in the blow
- also known as aberration ictus
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
3. the injurious result is greater than that intended
- also known as praeter intentionem
Article 4(1) contemplates that there should be a felony being committed - emphasis is not on the mere wrongful act; it should constitute a felony
- eg. the act of committing suicide results to others being injured = punishable under Art.4(1) because although not intended, the injury was caused by means of culpa, which can constitute a felony Article 4(1) does not apply if the act committed constitutes a crime punishable by special law
Concubinage - instances
- a husband bringing home a woman, that is not his wife, to the conjugal dwelling - having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances
- cohabitation; living in a separate home as husband and wife
- there is a chain of causes from an original act that results to an injury
- if the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the original act can be held liable
Efficient Intervening Cause – interrupted the natural flow of events leading to one’s death
Q: What is impossible crime? What is the reason for punishing? Suppress criminal propensity
Q: Suppose son forged signature of his father in a check, the deposited the check, but was dishonored, is this impossible crime?
No. Falsification of commercial document. Forgery is a crime against public interest Give the elements of forgery
Q: Your room mate kukunin yung jewelry na nasa cabinet na naka-lock, tapos wala pala yung jewelry dun sa cabinet, impossible crime?
No. Theft of key ung tamang sagot
^woman lang ang pwede for forcible abduction
Instances when there is a proximate cause and when there is none When there is an intervening disease and the disease is:
(a) closely related to the wound(s) = accused is criminally liable (b) unrelated to the wound(s) = accused is not criminally liable,
because the disease not associated with the wound(s), eg. brain tumor
(c) a combined force with the wound(s) = accused is criminally liable,
because the mortal wound is a contributing factor to
the victim’s death
A mortal wound is a contributing factor when:
i. the wound(s) is/are sufficient to cause victim’s death along with the disease ii. the mortal wound was caused by actions committed by the accused
2. When the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the unskilled medical treatment
from the doctors:
(a) if the wound is mortal = accused is criminally liable, because the unskilled treatment
mortal wound + unskilled medical treatment only = accused is criminally liable because
the mortal wound naturally led to the death of the victim
(b) if the wound is slight = accused is not criminally liable, because the unskilled
treatment + infection are efficient intervening causes
*In Urbano v. IAC, the wound caused by accused Urbano was already treated and was in the normal
process of healing which is in approximately 4weeks; but because deceased Javier did not wait for the
wound to heal and still worked by fishing, his wound got infected with tetanus which caused his death. The actions of the deceased when he still worked without waiting for his wound to heal was an efficient
intervening cause, thus the accused is not liable for his death anymore.
Q: What is the purpose for punishing an impossible crime?
The purpose of punishing an impossible crime is to prevent or suppress the criminal tendency of the accused
Persons found guilty of impossible crimes are sentenced to arrestor mayor (1mo.1day to 6mos.) pursuant to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code
Objectively, there is no crime Subjectively, the crime is present
Should there be a crime committed, in order to be held liable for an impossible crime? YES; the act(s) should constitute a crime against persons or property
Requisites for an impossible crime under Article 4(2)
1. that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property 2. that the act was done with evil intent
3. that its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
4. that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised
Penal Code
Rape used to be a crime against chastity; but because of RA 8353, rape was reclassified as a crime against persons, therefore, one can now be held liable for the impossible crime of rape In People v. Intod, the Court erred in its decision of considering the acts of the accused as an impossible crime under Art.4(2) of the RPC because the 4th element/requisite was not satisfied. The acts of the accused of shooting at the house and damaging the same, can constitute as malicious mischief, which is
a crime against property. Therefore, the accused should have been charged with the latter instead of finding them guilty only of the impossible crime of murder.
July 4, 2011
Q: What is a proximate cause?
Q: if there is a crime intended and a crime committed is different, what is the extent of criminal liability? The lesser penalty will be imposed.
If the crime intended has a lesser penalty, then that will be charged If the crime committed has a lesser penalty, then that will be charged
Q: Suppose you will rob a jeepney, because of fear, the passenger jumped of and died, will be liable? Yes. Because I am committing a felony, and I am liable for its effects.
Q: Suppose Amurao during your recit, pointed a gun at you because of your wrong answers, then you collapsed and died. is amurao liable?
Yes. There is grave threat
Q: Suppose the gun was a toy gun, liable? Yes, still liable. There is still threat
Q: Suppose because of your low grade in criminal law review, you break up with your boyfriend being so sad, your bf collapsed and died, liable?
No. Breaking up is not a felony
Q: Suppose while you and your boyfriend is doing the act itself (do I need to elaborate—alam mo na yan), your bf collapsed and died, will you be liable?
No. The act of having sex is not a felony. Q: even if you are not married to each other?
Yes sir
Q: suppose your bf is married, are you liable? Yes. Concubinage
Q: Suppose man had sexual intercourse with married woman, but the woman consented, crime? Adultery
Article 5
Article 5(1) Requirements:
1. the act committed by the accused appears to be not punishable by law 2. but the court deems it proper to repress such act
3. in that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused
4. the judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice
stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of
penal legislation
Basis for Article 5(1):
“Nullem crimen, nulla poena sine lege.”- There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act Why dismiss? In the absence of a law that will punish the accused, the judge cannot impose a penalty because the duty of the judge is only to interpret or apply the law; the judge cannot reprimand or curse
the accused because it would equate to public censure; the reprimand would be inconsistent with the acquittal
Article 5(2) – Excessive Penalties
Q: What are the requirements?
1. the court after trial finds the accused guilty
2. the penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because:
(a) the accused acted with lesser degree of malice and/or (b) there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
3. the court should not suspend the execution of the sentence
4. the judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency
The President has the power to grant executive clemency, through pardon, parole, commutation (reduction of sentence), reprieve or amnesty
Article 5(2) may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita because said article only applies to acts mala in se because the ruling is based on the phrase in the provision, takes into consideration the degree of malice
Article 6
Q: What are the stages in the commission of a felony?
Consummated – a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
Frustrated - it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts for execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
Attempted – there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts for execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
NOTE: Available only in RPC.
Q: Give example of each (consummated, frustrated, attempted) Q: What are the phases?
Subjective phase – from the time the offender commences the commission up to the
performance of the last act where he still has control; an attempted felony is committed within
the subjective phase and does not go beyond this phase
Objective phase – frustrated and consummated felonies are within the objective phase
(a) frustrated – the felony is complete but still is still not produced as far as the offender is concerned
(b) consummated – when all the elements under the Revised Penal Code are present REMEMBER: in Arson
(a) consummated = so long as a part of the building is burned, no matter how small (b) frustrated = if only the contents of the building (eg. chairs and tables) are burned (c) attempted = contents haven’t been burned
^Intent is always established. Kahit pa apprehended at the time ot in the act of bringing/getting gasoline – attempted pa din
^Indeterminate stage – intent is not yet established
Q: Suppose built in cabinets, burned the clothes in the cabinet, including the cabinet? Consummated arson, deemed part of the bldg
Q: Supposing, the accused brought gasoline into a building, with the intent to burn the building, but was apprehended by the security guard; did the crime of arson commence?
YES, thus the accused is liable for attempted arson, because the bringing of gasoline was already an overt act while the apprehension was the reason other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Q: Supposing, using the same set of facts above, but without the intent to burn the building, is there criminal liability?
NO, in fact there is no crime, because the acts were only in an indeterminate stage.
Q: Suppose the white board was burned? White board not an integral part
Q: when is the crime in the attempted stage?
Indeterminate Stage – we do not know what crime is in the mind of the offender; the crime has not
yet been determined; there are still two possibilities when the accused was caught
According to Prof. Amurao, when a person is accused of committing a felony, we have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to establish the commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise, the situation when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage, wherein the crime
that the accused intended to do could not be determined Theft/Robbery
- both these crimes are committed by taking the personal property of another and, with the intent to gain
- the difference is that in robbery, there is the use of force or violence - so long as the act stated in the RPC is done, the crime is consummated
- it does not matter how long the property was in the possession of the accused; it does not matter whether the property was disposed or not; what matters is whether or not there was “asportacion” = unlawful taking
- momentary possession consummates the crime of theft or robbery - returning the item to the owner is immaterial; has no effect to the crime - upon consummation of the crime, criminal liability automatically attaches Q: you are walking in recto, cellphone was snatched, but it was return to you. What stage?
Consummated
Q: suppose in a private subdivision, with intent to commit robbery, you are tinkering with the lock of a gate, the security guard apprehended you. Liable?
Yes. Attempted robbery
Q: suppose you intent to commit robbery, then you place a ladder at the wall of the house, when you place the ladder, you were apprehended. Liable?
Yes. Attempted robbery Q: if no intent?
Not liable
Q: accused trying to open your car, problem is silent with the intent, may you be liable for attempted theft?
No.
Opening the door of the car – only indeterminate stage
Q: Supposing, the accused was tinkering with the lock of the gate of a neighbor’s house, without the
intent to commit a felony; is he liable for anything?
NO, because the situation was in an indeterminate stage wherein it could not be determined what the accused intended to do
Q: Supposing, the accused jumped over the fence into another person’s house without the intent to commit robbery, is he liable for attempted robbery?
NO, but he is liable for the crime of trespassing
^Same with arson, when a person is accused of committing a felony, we have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to establish the commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise, the situation when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage,
wherein the crime that the accused intended to do could not be determined
In People v. Lamahang, the accused was able to open one board of the door to private respondent Tan Yu’s store, when the police caught him. The SC ruled that the accused is not liable for attempted
robbery because the intent to rob Tan Yu’s store was not established, thus when accused was caught,
it was in an indeterminate stage. But the Court held him liable for attempted trespass to dwelling
In People v. Salvilla, the accused were held liable for the crime of robbery with serious illegal detention
and serious physical injuries, and not frustrated robbery, even without physical taking or possession of
the money they demanded because the money was within the dominion, which the accused had
control over and it was where the crime was being committed. During whole time when negotiations went on between the accused and the police, the crime of robbery was deemed consummated
Q: suppose hold up in a grocery store, hold uppers asked the cashier to place the money inside a bag, no one hold the money. Is the crime consummated?
Yes. There is constructive control
July 5, 2011
Crimes involving the taking of human life/ Crimes against persons - these crimes are committed by killing a person (MHPI):
i. Murder – killing a person with attending or aggravating circumstances ii. Homicide – killing a person without attending circumstances
iii. Parricide – killing a relative, i.e. spouse, parent, child, sibling, etc. iv. Infanticide – killing a child less than three (3) days old
- even without intent, the moment the victim dies, intent is presumed by operation of law and the crime is consummated
- if the victim doesn’t die but the wound inflicted is mortal, it is frustrated
- if the there is no intent to kill, but the wound inflicted is mortal or fatal, the crime is not either
MHPI but serious physical injuries
Mortal – when the wound inflicted can cause the death of the victim; when death will follow
- for frustrated & attempted cases, it is important to determine intent to kill
Q: Supposing, in a car accident, the accused hits a person causing mortal wounds, but the victim does
not die, is the driver-accused liable for frustrated homicide? NO, he is only liable for serious physical injuries
Rules on crimes against persons (MHPI) and the stages of execution
1. victim dies, with or without the intention to kill, intent is conclusively presumed by operation of law, the crime is consummated MHPI
2. victim does not die, with the intent to kill, mortal wounds were inflicted, the crime is frustrated MHPI
3. victim does not die, with the intent to kill, non-mortal wounds were inflicted, the crime is attempted MHPI
4. victim does not die because there was only an overt act and no wound was inflicted, but there
was intent to kill, the crime is attempted MHPI
5. victim does not die, without the intent to kill, mortal wounds were inflicted, the crime is serious physical injuries
6. victim does not die, without the intent to kill, non-mortal wounds were inflicted, the crime is less serious or slight physical injuries
Illustration:
Death Intent Gravity of the wound Crime
(1) YES presumed of course mortal! Consummated MHPI
(2) NO YES mortal wounds Frustrated MHPI
(3) NO YES non-mortal wounds Attempted MHPI
(5) NO NO mortal wounds Serious physical injuries
(6) NO NO non-mortal wounds Less serious/Slight physical injuries
In People v. Trinidad, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of two counts of murder (for killing Soriano and Laroa) and frustrated murder (for shooting at Tan). The SC modified the decision by ruling that the accused was liable for two counts of murder and attempted murder, not frustrated, because the wound inflicted on Tan was not mortal or fatal
In People v. Lim San, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of attempted murder for stabbing Keng Kin in the left eye. The SC modified the decision by ruling that the accused should be liable of
frustrated murder because not only was it established that there was intent to kill, but also the wound inflicted was mortal. It just so happened that the victim did not die because of the prompt and efficient
medical assistance given to the victim. The treatment was the cause independent of the will of the accused.
In Mondragon v. People, the SC held that the accused was only guilty of less serious physical injuries because when the accused and the victim were hacking each other with their bolos, there was no intent
to kill on neither party; and also because the victim did not die since the wounds were not mortal RAPE
- the crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ, no matter how slight
Q: Supposing, the penetration was only 2 millimeters deep, consummated? YES, no matter how slight the penetration is, it is still consummated
Q: Supposing, the rape was consummated because there was penetration, but according to the medical
examination, the victim was still a virgin, can the accused still be held liable for consummated rape? YES, as long as there is penetration, the rape is consummated.
In People v. Orita, the medical examiner testified that the victim was still a virgin therefore the rape may not have been consummated. But the SC ruled that the testimony of the victim herself should be given
greater weight because she herself can feel whether or not there was penetration.
Instances of attempted rape:
- when the skirt of the victim has been lifted, no matter what position - when the accused mounted on the body of the victim
- when there is epidermal touching of the genital organs of the accused and the victim
The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is that with the former, there is carnal knowledge or the intent to have sexual intercourse is established
There is no such thing as frustrated rape; the only exception was when the SC ruled in People v. Eriña that the accused was guilty of frustrated rape. Thereafter, no one has since been held guilty of frustrated rape.
ESTAFA
- the elements for the crime of estafa are (1) deceit, and (2) damage - without one of the two elements, estafa would not be consummated
In US v. Dominguez, the SC ruled that the accused was guilty of frustrated estafa because before accused could cause damage by disposing of the money that he deceitfully took, he was apprehended by their store’s supervisor, which was the cause independent of the will of the accused.
OTHER INSTANCES FOR HOMICIDE AND OTHER CRIMES
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused pulls out a gun then points it at someone, what crime is
the accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone but misses, what crime is the
accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Q: Supposing, using the same set of facts, but without the intent to kill, what crime is the accused
liable for?
- for pulling out the gun and pointing it = grave threat
- for firing the gun = illegal discharge of firearm (obsolete; must be deleted)
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The accused did not know that he missed because the victim played dead.
What crime is the accused liable for? Attempted homicide, attempted because there was no wound, but there was still intent to kill. What is important is that there was no wound
Q: Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The victim is hit but it is not fatal or mortal. What crime is the accused liable
for? Still Attempted homicide, because what is important is the extent or gravity of the wound. (People v. Orinaga)
Q: suppose a sales lady in the department store, place the jewelry inside her bag, but the jewelry was recovered by the security guard, crime?
Consummated qualified theft
Q: will recovery affect the stage of the commission? No
Q: Suppose the sales lady, voluntarily returned, crime? Still qualified theft.
Taking consummates the crime
Q: suppose the sales lady, sold the jewelry and used the money, crime? Estafa
Q: suppose the sales lady, sold the jewelry and returned the money at 6pm? Frustrated Estafa
Q: suppose 2 crew members discovered the presence of a stow away and they want to eliminate the stow away, so they decided throw the stow away in the sea, where there is sharp object, but after you leave, a fishing vessel was there to help the stow away, there was no wound, crime?
Frustrated murder
INTENT TO KILL
Q: 3 armarlite shots neighbor but did not hit? Attempted
Q: distinguish from illegal discharge of firearm No intent to kill
Q: distinguish from grave threat? There is intent to kill
Q: suppose there are 99 wounds, but none was mortal? Attempted
Q: what is an overt act?
Something you see, feel, touch (do not relate to criminal offense at first)
Article 7
Q: What are light felonies?
Light felonies are infractions of law which have the punishment of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated
Reason: involves insignificant moral and material injuries; if not consummated, the wrong done is so
slight that a penalty is unnecessary
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property are punishable even if in the attempted or frustrated stage
Reason: presupposes moral depravity
For grave or less grave felonies, those who can be held liable are principals, accomplices and even
accessories, because the degree of the penalty to be imposed depends on 3 factors: (1) stages of execution
(2) the degree of participation
(3) the presence of attending circumstances
Q: When punishable?
Only when consummated Q: Is this absolute?
No. If against persons or property Q: Reason….
Q: Who shall be criminally liable? Principals
Accomplices NOT ACCESSORIES
^Penalty for accomplices -- one degree lower (censure)
^Penalty for accessories – two degrees lower (WALA NANG LOWE PA. KAYA NGA HINDI LIABLE ANG ACCESSORIES)
Q: Who is a principal? An Accomplices? An Accessories?
Article 8
Q: what is conspiracy?
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
- Proposal exists when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable Reason: because they are mere preparatory acts (Reyes)
Exception: Conspiracy and proposal are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty thereof
Q: give an example of conspiracy & proposal Q: the effects of conspiracy
There will be collective responsibility Q: effect of non-establishment of conspiracy?
Accused will be liable only to the extent of participation Q: if established?
Collective responsibility – act of one, act of all Q: degree of evidence needed to prove conspiracy?
NOT beyond reasonable doubt
Sufficient that the act is closely related to the crime/felony intended to commit Q: is it necessary that each participate?
No. They must have common criminal design Q: what do you mean by common criminal design? Q: what is implied conspiracy?
Q: from what factors may you imply conspiracy?
Acts and words before and after the commission of the felony Q: is it enough that there is an agreement to commit felony?
No. they must execute the overt act
Q: how would you know if community of purpose exists? From the acts and remarks of the accused There must be unity of criminal though
BEFORE, DURING, AFTER -- acts of each of the accused may be separate, independent of each other but must show close personal association; closely related to each other, there is
coordination.
Q: A B C D E (robbers) agreed and decided to commit bank robbery. A stayed in the getaway car 100 meters from the bank; B look-out C disarm the security guard D & E commit robbery. E shot to death the bank manager. Will A be liable for the death?
YES. There is conspiracy. Act of 1, act of all
Q: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 met in safe house discussed, agreed and decided to commit robbery. When they were about to rob the bank, they saw the police around the bank. Liable?
No. Mere conspiracy not punishable
Q: 5 members of army decided to commit coup d etat, met in safe house to discuss plan, liable? Yes. Conspiracy to commit coup d etat is punishable
Q: distinguish conspiracy as a felony and as manner of incurring criminal liability. FELONY – RPC punishes mere conspiracy
LIABILITY – There must be over act
Q: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, agreed to commit a felony when about to meet the next morning. 5 did not arrive for emergency purposes. 1, 2, 3, 4 commit the felony and was caught. Is number 5 liable?
No. He is not a conspirator.
A conspirator must agree, decide and execute the over act 5 was not present
Q: suppose 5 drove for 1, 2, 3, 4 but went home early. Liable? Yes. Driving already an overt act
Q: suppose 5 was not the driver, but he was sittig in front of the van, then after alighting went home, liable?
No. There is no overt act (pasahero lang siya sa van)
^General Rule – if not present in the scene of the crime – NO liability
^Exceptions – presence is to provide for moral support or to ensure commission of the felony
Cases of conspiracy punishable by law
(i) Article 115 of the RPC – Conspiracy to commit treason
(ii) Article 136 – Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection (iii) Article 141 – Conspiracy to commit sedition
(iv) Article 186 – Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
(v) Conspiracy to commit terrorism - under the Human Security Act (RA9372)
(vi) Conspiracy to commit crimes under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165)
Cases of proposal punishable by law
(i) Proposal to commit treason
(ii) Proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection - there is no crime of proposal to commit sedition
Q: What is the legal effect of the presence of conspiracy?
- “the act of one is the act of all”, meaning everyone who participated is equally liable; there is
collective responsibility
For conspiracy, take note of the word agreement
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the existence of conspiracy through circumstantial evidence unless there is a confession or written agreement, which is seldom because criminals will usually deny their participation or the commission of the crime
Q: What is Implied Conspiracy?
- Implied conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the perpetrators/accused before, during or after the commission of the crime
Q: How about the use of words, remarks or language of the perpetrators, can conspiracy still be ascertained or established? YES
Q: May there be conspiracy when the perpetrators perform separate, distinct and independent acts in the commission of a crime? YES
Q:May there be conspiracy even if other conspirators do not know who the other conspirators are? YES *In People v. Manlolo, it was held that there was implied conspiracy on the part of the accused because they were acting in concert, one performing an act, the other doing another act, all aimed at the same
object
Rule on determining whether there is conspiracy
- based on the (1) acts done before, during or after the commission of the crime, or, based on the (2) words, remarks or language used before, during or after the commission of the crime, it is necessary to determine after these acts were done whether the conspirators had the
following:
1. concerted action 3. community of purpose
2. common criminal design 4. joint criminal objective
- all of which are geared towards the attainment of the felony or crime
Suggested cases for conspiracy on this rule
- People v. Salcedo; People v. Briones; Medija, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan Q: Supposing, only minor acts were done, will the actor still be liable? YES
Q: Supposing, there was no conspiracy, what will happen? The perpetrators of the crime will be
individually liable depending the extent of the degree of each one’s participation
In People v. Agapinay, the SC ruled that there was no conspiracy in commission of the murder because the incident was only a spur of the moment or in this case, a “chance stabbing”, which cannot be considered conspiracy, thus they were held individually liable, some as principals and some as accomplices only
