crim1 law notes
Post on 03-Apr-2018
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 1/29
Criminal Law 1 Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
Felony is committed although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
A. WHEN DEATH (OF THE VICTIM) IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL
CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
Facts that must be established:
o Victim must be in normal health when the injury was inflicted
o Death maybe expected from the physical injuries
o Death ensued within a reasonable time
Jurisprudence: People VS Tammang (Jundam Case)
o Facts:
Jundam who was in good health on the morning of the incident,
was whipped, spanked, and threw against the post by his teacher,
thereby his breast hitting it.
Victim complained to his mother about the oppressive pain. He
then found two suspicious bluish spots- one on his breast and
another one in his upper left arm. He vomited blood until HE DIED
3 DAYS AFTER .
o Held:
No proof of any intervening cause. Defendant is liable for homicide.
B. NOT DIRECT, NATURAL AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE FELONY
COMMITTED
Consequences produced have resulted FROM A DISTINCT ACT OR FACT
ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN from the criminal act OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE.
Person is not criminally liable FOR ALL POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES which MAY
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW HIS FELONIOUS ACT.
o Jurisprudence: People VS Rockwell (Felonious Horse)
Facts:
Person struck another with his fist and knocked him down.
Horse near them jumped upon him and killed him.
Held:
Assailant was not responsible for the death of that other
person.
o People vs Rockwell VS People vs Cagoco
Cagoco case, here no active force that intervened between the
felonious act and the result.
Rockwell case, There was an active force, which produced the
result.
INJURY CAUSED is not the direct, logical, and necessary consequence of the
felony committed, because the felony committed IS NOT THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY.
o Related Jurispridence
U.S. VS De los Santos (Cesspool)
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 2/29
Held: B’s deliberate act of immersing himself in the cesspool
was the proximate cause of the serious physical injuries.
NOT THE SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSE BY A.
Therefore A is NOT LIABLE for serious physical injuries.
People VS Palalon (Like who dies with a sampal?)
Facts: Accused struck a boy on the mouth with the back of
his hand. Later, the boy died.
Held: Death must have been caused by the fever that is
prevalent in the area. Accused was not liable for the death
of the deceased
U.S. VS Embate (Bantay Bata Case #1)
Facts: A child who was seriously ill with fever for three
weeks was struck by the accused upon the thighs, pushed
and dragged him, threw him heavily on the floor. Child dies
two days after.
Held: Cause of the child’s death was not ascertained and
proved. Accused was convicted of physical injuries ONLY.
Urbano VS IAC (Tetanus as cause of death)
Facts: A distinct possibility that the infection of the wound
by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time the deceased was wounded to the time of
his death.
Held: Accused must be acquitted of the crim of homicide
C. FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING
INJURY WHEN-
There is an ACTIVE FORCE that intervened between the felony committed and
the resulting injury.
o Active force must be a distinct act OR absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused.
o Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
If there is a neglect of or an improper treatment of the wound, would the accused
be liable?
o YES! Neglect of or improper treatment of wound are consequences of
the criminal act and which might naturally follow. Must be deemed to
have been among the consequences which were in contemplation of the
guilty party.
o Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active force, but not a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act.
Would the accused be liable for the consequences which originated from the
fault or carelessness of the injured person?
o It was held in U.S. VS Monasterial that persons responsible for an act
constituting a crime ARE LIABLE FOR ALL THE CONSEQUENCES
ARISING THEREFROM and INHERENT THEREIN. EXCEPT those due to
incidents ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THE ACT EXECUTED, or which
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 3/29
THE DEATH OF THE LATTER . Even if there are chances that the victim
would survive if he had taken proper care of himself.
o The fault or carelessness of the injured party, which would break the
relation of the felony committed and the resulting injury, MUST HAVE ITS
ORIGIN FROM HIS MALICIOUS ACT OR OMMISSION.
D. A SUPERVENING EVENT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL
INFORMATION OR OF A NEW CHARGE WITHOUT DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Illustrative Example: People VS Petilla
o Facts:
Charge contained in the original information was for slight physical
injuries, because at that time, the fiscal believed that the victim’s
wound needs at 8 days of medical attendance to heal.
During the preliminary investigations, the justice of the peace
found out that the wound inflicted REALLY NEEDS 30 days of
medical attendance to heal.
o Held:
The act which converted the crime into a more serious one HAD
SUPERVENED after the filinf of the original information.
THIS SUPERVENING CAN STILL BE THE SUBJECT OF
AMENDMENT OR OF A NEW CHARGE without necessarily placing
the accused in double jeopardy.
E. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Commission of an impossible crime:
o Indicative of criminal propensity or tendency on the part of the actor
o Person committing impossible crime is a potential criminal.
Why are we punishing impossible crimes?
o Protect the community from anti-social activities of the morbid type of
person AKA socially dangerous person.
Requisites of impossible crimes:
o Act performed would be an offense against persons or property
The offender intends to commit a felony against persons or
properties
Act performed would have been an offense against persons or
property
THE FELONY MUST NOT BE COMITTED, OTHERWISE, THE PERSON
WOULD BE LIABLE FOR THAT FELONY.
What are crimes against persons?
HIMPA-DRP: Homicide, Infanticide, Murder, Paricide,
Abortion, Duel, R ape, Physical Injuries
What are crimes against properties?
BRUCT-SCAM: Brigandage, R obbery, Usurpation, Culpable
Insolvency, Theft, Swindling, Chattel Mortgage, Arson,
Malicious Mischief
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 4/29
o (1) Accomplishment of the act is INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE, the
(2) means employed is either INADEQUATE or INEFFECTUAL
Inherent Impossibility:
“Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment ”
Act intended by the offender is by its nature ONE OF
IMPOSSIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT:
o Legal Impossibility: Intended acts, even if
consummated would not amount to a crime
o Physical Impossibility: Extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation
of the intended crime.
In People VS Balmores, the court enumerated
examples of Impossible Crimes which are punishable
under RPC, viz: 1) Putting poison on another soup,
BUT what was actually mixed was a not-so-
poisonous substance, 2) Murdering a corpse.
Jurisprudence: Jacinto VS People
o Facts: A collector for a company did not remit
the customer’s check payment to the
company but instead appropriated it for
herself by depositing it in the bank of a
relative. The check bounced.
Impossible Crime:
With evil intent: YES- intent to
gain or be unjustly rich
Crime against property/person:
YES- theft, one of the crimes
against property
Consummation of the act is
inherently impossible: YES –
there’s nothing to steal because
the check was unfunded.
Example of offense against persons:
Murdering a corpse of a dead person. In crimes
against person, it is necessary that the victim could
be injured or killed.
Jurisprudence: Intod VS C.A.
o Facts: Accused with intent to kill a person,
peppered the latter’s bedroom with bullets.
Intended victim was not at home, and was
therefore not hurt.
Impossible Crime:
With evil intent: YES- Intent to
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 5/29
Consummation of the act is
inherently impossible: YES-
there’s no one to kill because
the intended victim is not there
Example of offense against properties:
A person took the watch of another. When the
former had possession of the watch, he found out
that it was the watch he had lost a week before. In
crimes against property, the property taken must
belong to another.
An employee who knows the combination of the safe,
opens it with the purpose of stealing money, but said
safe was empty. No personal property could be
taken, hence impossible.
Employment of inadequate means: The means to consummate the
felony is insufficient (E.G. Small Quantity of Poison)
The means were adequate BUT expected result was not
produced - NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME but a
FRUSTRATED FELONY
Employment of ineffectual means: The means employed did not
produce the expected result (E.G. Pressed the trigger of the gun,
not knowing that it is empty)
o Act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the RPC.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 6/29
Criminal Law 1 Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
A. IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT WHICH
ARE NOT COVERED BY THE LAW
The aforestated provision of Art. 5 contemplates a trial of a criminal case:
o Act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law;
o Court deems it proper to repress such act;
o Court must dismiss the case and acquit the accused
o Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Sec. of
Justice, stating the reasons on why he/she believe that the unpunished
act should be made a subject of penal legislation .
B. IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES
Court after trial finds the accused guilty
Penalty prescribed by law and which was imposed by court appears to be
clearly excessive because:
o Accused acted with lesser degree of malice
o No injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
Court should not suspend the execution of the sentence
Judge should submit a statement to the C.E. through the S.J. recommending
executive clemency
o Examples of the accused acting with lesser degree of malice:
People VS Monleon
Facts: Accused maltreated is wife in his inebriated state,
because the latter prevented the former from whipping
their child. The maltreatment inflicted on the victim is
the proximate cause of her death. Accused was
sentenced with reclusion perpetua
Held: Court held that assuming the accused did not have
intent to kill his wife, and the death might have been
hastened because of lack of proper medical intention,
reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.
People VS Espino, Et. Al.
Facts: Father and son were convicted of qualified theft
for stealing 10 coconut fruits from two coconut trees in a
coconut plantation, for the family’s consumption. Court
sentenced each of them to an intermediate penalty of 4
mos. and 1 day of arresto mayor TO 3 years, 6 mos,
and 21 days of prision correccional.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 7/29
Held: C.A. believes that the degree of malice behind the
appellant’s felonious act does not warrant the imposition
of so stiff a penalty. Hence they were recommended for
pardon after serving 4 months of the penalty imposed.
o Example of total absence of injury
People VS Cabagsan
C. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY RECOMMENDED FOR THE WIFE WHO KILLED HER
CRUEL HUSBAND
People VS Canja
o Facts: The accused apparently killed her husband and was convicted
for the said act. On the day she killed her husband, victim came home
drunk and struck him on the stomach until she fainted. When she
recovered and asked her husband on why he did the foregoing, he
threatened to renew the beating. During supper, instead of eating the
meal set before him, he threw the rice from his plate. He left the
house, and upon his return, she boxed his wife again. Thus prompted
accused to kill her husband.
o Held: Because of the circumstances, the provocations, and the fact
that her conviction was based on her confession, court finds her
deserving of executive clemency. Not full pardon but only a substantialreduction or commutation to her life sentence
C. PENALTIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WBE INTENDED TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC
POLICY
People VS Estoista: Promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons (May
cause rampant lawlessness against property, person, and the very security of
the government) justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances may
appear excessive
Peope VS Tiu Ua: Profiteering justifies a heavy fine to prevent dealers from
taking advantage of critical conditions to make unusual profits (In this case,
the accused was meted with a fine of 5,000 pesos for selling a can of
powdered Klim milk for 2.20 pesos when the SRP should be 1.80 pesos0.
D. COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW
Well settled rule: Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or
mortality of laws. The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws
and apply it if it’s not in disharmony with the constitution.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 8/29
In short, regardless of the opinion of the judge regarding a certain penalty
prescribed by law, if it is not deemed unconstitutional, he/she must apply it.
People VS Olaes
o Facts: A trial court judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment
although the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide was
attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and in band,
in view of the attitude of the C.E. on death penalty.
o Held: Court MUST interpret and apply the laws as they find them on
the statute books. Regardless of the manner their judgement are
executed and implemented by the executive departments.
E. JUDGE HAS THE DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE
SUPREME COURT
People VS Santos: Notwithstanding his own opinion of the matter, it is the
duty of the judge to apply the law as interpreted by the highest court of the
land. The judge must think that any deviation from a principle laid down by
him/her would apparently cause unnecessary, inconveniences, delays and
expenses to the litigants.
People VS Amigo: Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is too cruel and harsh a penalty and pleads for sympathy. COURTS
ARE NOT THE FORUM TO PLEAD FOR SYMPATHY. THEIR DUTY IS TO ENFORCETHE LAW REGARDLESS OF THEIR FEELING OF SYMPATHY OR PITY OF AN
ACCUSED. DURA LEX SED LEX.
F. WHEN A STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
Second paragraph of article 5 implies that:
o Article 5 is not applicable to the offenses defined and penalized by a
special law (People VS Salazar/Codal Provision itself. After the 4th
comma of 2nd paragraph).
o Article 5 may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita,
because said article only applies to acts male in se (People VS
Quebral/Codal provision itself after the last comma of the 2nd
paragraph)
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 9/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
A. CONSUMMATED FELONY: All the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present.
B. FRUSTRATED FELONY: The (1) offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence BUT
which, nevertheless, (2) do not produce it by (3)reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
C. ATTEMPTED FELONY:
Elements:
o Offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts.o Does not perform all the acts of execution that will
consummate the felony
o Offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance
o Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to CAUE
or ACCIDENT other than his spontaneous desistance
“Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts
o When is the commission of a felony deemed commenceddirectly by OVERT ACTS?:
There be external acts
External acts have direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed
o EXTERNAL ACTS must be RELATED TO THE OVERT
ACTS OF THE CRIME THE OFFENDER INTENDED TO
COMMIT
Such act must not be mere preparatory acts,
BECAUSE preparatory acts do not have direct
connection with the crime which the offender
intends to commit.
“Overt Acts” defined:
Some physical activity or deed, indicating
intention to commit a particular crime.
MORE THAN A MERE PLANNING OR
PREPARATION, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course,
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 10/29
without being frustrated by external obstacles,
nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator
will logically ripen into a concrete offense.
Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts
when the following crime intended to be
committed:
Preparatory Acts VS Overt Acts
D. DEVELOPMENT OF CRIME:
1. Internal Acts: Mere ideas in the mind of a person. Not punishable,
even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime.
Intent and effect must concur: Suppose A intended to commit treason and joined a body of armed men believing they were
makapilis, when in fact they were guerilleros, A cannot be liable
for treason though there was intent.
2. External Acts
Preparatory Acts: Generally, not punishable,
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 11/29
Criminal Law 1 Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
ARTICLE 7: On light felonies
Light Felonies: Those infraction of law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor OR a fine not exceeding 200
pesos or both is provided.
L.F. punished by the RPC: (TAMIS)- Theft, Alteration of
boundaries, Malicious mischief, Intriguing against honor, Slight
Physical injuries
As mentioned above, penalties are: Arresto Menor (1-30 days of
imprisonment) or a fine not exceeding Php 200.00
IMPORTANT WORDS/PHRASES
What is the meaning of exception of those committed against
persons or property:o General Rule: L.F. punishable only when they have been
consummated
Ratio: L.F. produces light and inisignificant moral and
material injuries THAT PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IS
SATISFIED WITH PROVIDING A LIGHT PENALTY FOR
THEIR CONSUMMATION
o Exception: L.F. committed against persons/property are
punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Ratio: Felonies against persons or property
presupposes in the offender moral depravity. Hence,
even attempted or frustrated light felonies against
persons or property are punishable.
EXAMPLE OF L.F. AGAINST PERONS:
Theft by hunting/gathering in an inclosed property/field where
the value of the thing stolen doesn't exceed 5.00 pesos
Theft where the value of the stolen property does not exceed 5
pesos. Offender prompted inter alia by hunger, poverty, etc…
Alteration or boundaries
Malicious mischief where damage is not more 200.00 pesos.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 12/29
Criminal Law I Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
ARTICLE 8: On conspiracy and proposal to commit felony:
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES:
What is the meaning of “conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony”?
o Indicates that conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
are two different acts or felonies- conspiracy to commit a
felony and proposal to commit a felony
What is meaning of “Only in the cases which the law sprecially
provides a penalty therefore”
o Mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony. UNLESS there
is a specific revision in the RPC that provides a penalty forconspiracy or proposal to commit a felony.
Conspiracy is not a crime EXCEPT WHEN THE LAW
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR:
Conspiracy- exist when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.
Felonies where conspiracy is penalized:Treason, Rebellion, Sedition.
o General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
are not punishable
Ratio: Conspiracy and proposal are only preparatory
acts. The law regards them innocent or at least
permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in:
o Art. 115 (Conspiracy
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 13/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 14/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 15/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 16/29
Criminal Law 1 Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
ARTICLE 9: On classifications of felonies:
Article 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity.
o Gravity of the felonies is determined by the penalties
attached to them by law.
What is the meaning of “To which the law attaches the capital
punishment”?
o It means that grave felonies are those which are
punishable by the capital punishment, it being DEATH
PENALTY.
What is the meaning of “Or penalties in any of their periods are
afflictive”?o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of
two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest of the
penalties MUST BE AN INFLICTIVE PENALTY.
Ex: Felony punishable by prision correctional to
prision mayor is a grave felony. The higher penalties
prescribed, that is, the latter, is an afflictive penalty.
o Penalty prescribed is composed of 2 or more periods
corresponding to different divisible penalties, higher ormaximum period MUST BE THAT OF AN AFFLICTIVE
PENALTY
Ex: Felony punishable by prision correctional in its
maximum period to minimum period of prision mayor
is a grave felony. The higher period, i.e. minimum
period of prision mayor is an afflictive penalty.
What are the afflictive penalties in enumerated in Art. 25 of the
RPC:
o Reclusion perpetua
o Reclusion temporal
o Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
o Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
o Prision mayor
What is the meaning of “penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional”
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 17/29
o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of
two or more distinct penalties, higher or highest penalties
must be a correctional penalties.
Felony punishable by arresto menor to destierro is a
less grave felony, higher of the two penalties
prescribed which is destierro is a correctional
penalty.
o Penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or
maximum period must be that of correctional penalty
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 18/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
ARTICLE 10:
Offenses punishable under special laws are subject to the provisions of
the RPC?
Special laws are not under penal laws
RPC is supplementary to special laws
Penal code is not intended to supersede special penal laws.
o Statcon: Special legal provisions prevail over general ones.
2nd clause provides that RPC is supplementary to special laws
unless the latter should provide the contrary.
What is a special law? Not defined in the RPC
Statute enacted by congress, that is penal in character, and does
not amend the RPC.
Provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses
punishable under special laws:
Reason: S.L. do not provide for a scale of penalties as that in
Art. 71 of the RPC. Where given period provided by the speciallaws does not contain 3 period.
o Imprisonment should be used in reference to the penalty
for the crime of illegal possession of firearms. P.
Correcional and Mayor and Arresto Mayor are peculiar for
crimes under RPC.
Where the special law adopted penalties from the revised penal code, THE
RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES BY DEGREES OR DETERMINING THE
PROPER PERIOD SHOULD BE APPLIED.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 19/29
Criminal Law I Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
Imputability: The quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner.
Implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done. Therefore it can be
attributed as his/her very own.
Responsibility: Obligation of suffering the penal and civil consequences of a crime.
Imputability VS Responsibility
Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person
Responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed
Guilt: Element of responsibility
Justifying Circumstances:
Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law. The person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
Basis of Justifying Circumstances: Non existences of a crime and the person do not incur
any criminal liability.
ARTICLE 11
- NO CRIME COMMITTED, THE ACT BEING JUSTIFIED
BURDEN OF PROOF: Circumstances mentioned in article 11 are matters of defense.
Incumbent upon the accused to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him IN
ORDER TO AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
SELF DEFENSE:
When the accused invokes self defense, HE/SHE HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE BY CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HE INDEED ACTED IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF.
Plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained WHERE IT IS NOT
UNCORROBORATED BY ANY SEPARATE COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE (PPHR): Person, Property, Honor, R ights
WHY PENAL LAW MAKES SELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL:
Man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person or rights from an impending
peril.
Classicists in penal law:
o Quite impossible for the state in all cases prevent aggression upon its citizens
o Quite impossible for state to offer protection to the person unjustly attacked
o Hard to conceive THAT a person should succumb to an unlawful aggression
WITHOUT OFFERING RESISTANCE
Positivists in penal law: An exercise of right, an act of social justice done to repel the
attack of an aggression.
REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE:
Unlawful aggression
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 20/29
o For right to self defense to exist: We be assaulted/attacked OR at least we be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner.
o AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL
Two kinds of aggression:
Lawful: Exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner.
PEOPLE VS GAYRAMA:
Facts: Chief of police threw stoned at the accused when the latter
was running away from him to elude arrest for a crime committed
in his presence.
Held: Action of the chief of police is not an unlawful aggression
because the purpose of the peace officer is to apprehend the
criminal and put him under arrest.
VALCORZA VS PEOPLE :
Facts: A policeman fired five cautionary shots into the air, aimed
directly at the escaping detainee when said accused already had
reasons to fear that the latter would be able to elude him and his
pursuing companions.
A person may use force as may be reasonably necessary to repel
or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation
of his property.
A person who had killed his wife and/or the paramour exercised a
lawful right, because by the said act, he was merely defending his
honor and rights (US VS. MERCED)
Unlawful: An attack that has actually broken out or materialized
or at the very least is clearly imminent.
Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an
immediate and imminent kind.
There is unlawful aggression when there is peril to one’s
life, limb, or right is actual or imminent.
Can be actual physical assault or at least a threat
(offensive and positively strong)
US VS PADILLA
Facts: Deceased was kidding the accused that the latter
had no voice for singing. After an exchange of words and
while still in the spirit of fun, the victim seized the accused
by the throat. Said accused killed the victim with his riffle.
Held: The fact that the deceased seized the accused by the
throat and exerted pressure, and in spite of the opposition
of the accused, it cannot be considered as an illegal
aggression.
PEOPLE VS YNCIERTO
Facts: The son of the accused was in possession of a knife.
The deceased held the hands of the accused and requested
him to release the knife, but to no avail. In order to
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 21/29
Held: Father of the deceased is not justified in killing the
deceased because there was not unlawful aggression on
the part of the latter.
PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE
Actual: Danger must be present
US VS. JOSE LAUREL
Facts: Concepcion Lat and several young people was
walking on their way from the house of Exequiel Castillo in
Tanauan, Batangas. On that night, Lat was approached by
Jose Laurel who suddenly kissed her and immediately ran
off. Laurel was pursued by Lat’s companions by they were
not able to catch Laurel. Several days after the incident,
Laurel and some young people attended an entertainment
in the parochial school. Laurel was then approached by
three of Castillo’s friend telling him that the latter wanted
to see him. On the third summon, he already ascertained
what Castillo wanted. When the two met, Castillo asked
Laurel why he kissed Lat. When the latter gave the reason
of his kissing Lat, Castillo struck him with a cane on the
head which made him dizzy. Afraid that his aggressor
would continue to assault him, he took hold his pocketknife
and stabbed Exequiel. Castillo did not die though because
of the timely medical aid rendered to him.
Held: The act of Laurel was justified because it was
attended by the three requisites necessary for him to make
a self-defense- there was a lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of Laurel and Laurel in defending himself with a
pocketknife against the assault made upon him with a
cane, employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the
same.
Imminent: Danger is on the point of happening. Not
necessary that attack already begins.
PEOPLE VS CABUNGCAL
Facts: The accused invited several persons to a picnic in a
fishery in his property in Tayabas. After spending the
whole day in the property, they returned in two boats- one
being steered by the accused. The boat of the accused was
carrying his wife, his son, and a nursing child of a married
couple. The deceased was apparently a passenger of the
accused’s boat. When the boat reached an area of great
depth, the deceased rocked the boat which started it to
take water. With the fear that the boat might capsize,
accused asked the deceased to stop, but when the
deceased seemed not to listen, the accused struck him on
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 22/29
more with the oar, thereby causing him to submerge and
die as a consequence thereof.
Held: The actions of the accused was actually justified.
When the deceased was first warned to stop rocking the
boat for it might upturn it, and did not listen, the accused
thought that hitting him with the oar would be the only
way of separate the deceased from the boat. Obviously
there was a need for him to be disabled momentarily so
and giving him a blow on the forehead was the least that
could reasonably have been done. This consideration
militates the second blow given in his neck, because then
the danger was greater, especially the deceased had
expressed his intention to upset it.
THERE MUST BE ACTUL PHYSICAL FORCE OR ACTUAL USE OF
WEAPON.
Person defending himself must have been attacked with actual
physical force OR with actual use of weapon.
Insulting words addressed to the accused does not constitute
unlawful aggression.
Light push or a mere push or shove, not followed by other acts
does not constitute unlawful aggression.
Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. WHY? Because the face
represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious
personal attack.
MERE BELIEF OF AN IMPENDING ATTACK IS NOT SUFFICIENT
Mere belief of an impending attack, intimidating or threatening
attitude, a mere push or shove is not an unlawful aggression.
FOOT KICK IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
PEOPLE VS. SABIO
Facts: Sabio was squatting in a plaza with a friend. Romeo
Bacobo and his friends approached Sabio et. al. Apparently
all of them are close and old friends. Then Bacobo asked
Sabio where he spent the holy week. And while asking he
gave Sabio a foot kick greeting. Sabio thereupon stoop up
and dealt Romeo Bacobo with a fist blow causing Bacobo
to have a lacerated wound which took 11 to 12 days to
heal. It also prevented Bacobo from working.
Held: Foot kick greeting between friends may be a
practical joke, and may even hurt. BUT IT IS NOT A
SERIOUS OR REAL ATTACK ON A PERSON’S SAFETY.
RETALIATION IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE
Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense.
RETALIATION: aggression given by the injured party ALREADY
CEASED TO EXIST.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 23/29
WHY? Because it is a settled rule in jurisprudence that WHEN
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION CEASES, THE DEFENDER NO LONGER
HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL OR EVEN WOUND THE FORMER
AGGRESSOR.
A PUBLIC OFFICER EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY MAY BECOME AN
UNLAWFUL
NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION, AND EXTENT OF WOUND OF THE
ACCUSED ALLEGEDLT INFLICTED BY THE INJURED PARTY MAY
BELIE CLAIM ON SELF-DEFENSE
Accused claiming self-defense, exhibited a small scar caused by an
instrument on his head.
Location, number, and seriousness of the stab wounds inflicted on
the victims belie the claim of self-defense.
Nature, character, location, and extend of the wounds suffered by
the deceased belie any supposition that it was the deceased who
was the unlawful aggressor.
Appellant’s theory of self -defense is negative by the nature and
location of the victim’s wounds which, having a right-to left
direction could not have possibly been inflicted by a right-handed
person in front of the victim with a two-feet long bolo.
In the view of the number of wounds of the deceased, 19 in
number, the plea of self-defense cannot be seriously entertained.
IMPROBABILITY OF THE DECEASED BEING THE AGGRESSOR
BELIES ON CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE.
PHYSICAL FACT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACCUSED ACTED
IN SELF-DEFENSE
WHEN THE AGGRESSOR FLEES, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION NO
LONGER EXIST.
PEOPLE VS ALCONGA
Facts: Deceased was the banker in a game of black jack.
On the other hand the accused posted himself behind the
deceased acting as a spotter thereby communicating the
deceased’s cards to his partner by signs. When the
deceased discovered the trick, a fight ensued between the
him and the accused. Both of them engaged in a hand
fight wherein the accused and the deceased used a bolo
and a dagger respectively. When the deceased sustained
several wounds, he ran away, but was followed by the
accused. Unsurprisingly, another fight ensued, this time,
the accused caused slashed the cranium of the deceased.
Held: 2 stages in the fight that ensued. 1st stage. Accused
was acting in self-defense because then the deceased who
had attacked the accused with repeated blows was the
unlawful aggressor. The 2nd stage the accused now
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 24/29
WOUNDING HIM, ALCONGA WAS NO LONGER ACTING IN
SELF-DEFENSE.
NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN THERE IS AGREEMENT TO
FIGHT.
REASON: When parties mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial
who attacks or receives the wound first, for the first act of force is
an incident of the fight itself. Attacks that would be given by either
of the two parties IS NOT AN UNWARRANTED AND UNEXPECTED
AGGRESSION which alone cannot legalize self-defense.
AGGRESSION WHICH IS AHEAD OF THE STIPULATED TIME AND
PLACE IS UNLAWFUL.
ONE WHO VOLUNTARILY JOINED A FIGHT CANNOT CLAIM SELF-
DEFENSE. (REFER TO PEOPLE VS KRUSE)
THE RULE NOW IS STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT
If one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked
in the back by the aggressor.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR:
In the absence of direct evidence, 1.) The person who was deeply
insulted and was apparently in the proper position to demand for
an explanation from the perpetrator of said insult. 2.) The one who
also struck the first blow when he/she was not satisfied with the
explanation.
o UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS
Attempt to rape a woman- defense of right to chastity
Defense of property
Defense of home
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ
Facts: The accused is a woman who was walking with a
certain Francisco Rivera on the night the incident
happened. It was already dark and they were passing
through a narrow path. When the others were far ahead,
the deceased threw his arms around the accused from
behind, caught hold of her breasts, kissed her, and
TOUCHED HER HOOHAH! When could not do anything
more against the strength of her aggressor, she got a knife
from her pocket and stabbed him.
Held: She was justified in making use of the knife to
protect her from the attack against her honor.
PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE
Facts: The deceased was courting the accused in vain.
When on the time the accused confessed his love for the
accused, the latter turned him down, after that the
deceased embraced and kissed. After that encounter, the
accused started to bring a knife whenever she would leave
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 25/29
part of her thigh. Accused pulled out her fan knife and with
it stabbed the deceased inflicting a mortal wound.
Held: Means employed by the accused in the defense of
her honor was evidently excessive. With the circumstances
surrounding the crime scene- well-lighted area, with many
people in there- the father of the deceased and the barrio
lieutenant included, it was impossible for a rape to ensue.
PEOPLE VS APOLINAR
Facts: The accused armed with a shotgun was looking over
his land. He then noticed a man carrying a bundle on his
should which he believe was palay stolen from his land.
The accused shouted at the deceased and demanded him
to stop, but to no avail. The accused then fired at him
causing his death.
Held: Killing of the ostensible burglar was unjustified.
Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance ONLY when it is couple with an attack on the
person who is at the possession of the said property.
o BELIEF OF THE ACCUSED MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE
EXISTENCE OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
o THERE IS SELF-DEFENSE EVEN IF THE AGGRESSOR USED A TOR PISTOL
PROVIDED THE ACCUSED BELIEVED IT WAS REAL GUN.
o PEOPLE VS. CALIP- Forcibly pushing picketers to let company trucks enter
the compound is not unlawful aggression against the rights of the
picketers.
o MERE THREATENING ATTITUDE IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
US VS GUY-SAYCO
Facts: Accused decided to go to the town where her husband was.
After preparing her things and some of her husband’s as well, he
hired a carromata that will bring her to the camarin of her
husband. Upon arriving, she saw her husband’s horse, and upon
entering she saw her husband eating supper with the deceased
and the ownders of the house. Because of jealousy she rushed at
Lorenza Estrada, attacked her with a pen knife and inflicted 5
wounds upon her, thereby causing her death.
Held: No unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. Mere
asking of why accused was there does not constitute an unlawful
aggression
o EXAMPLES OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL INJURY
One aims a revolver at another with intention to shoot him
Opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack
Above cases are threatening attitude. Both are offensive and
positively strong
o AGGRESSION MUST BE REAL NOT MERELY IMAGINARY (PEOPLE VS DE LA
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 26/29
WE repel the aggression that places us in actual danger
“The law protects not only the person who repels BUT EVEN the person
who tries to prevent the aggression that is expected.
o NECESSITY TO TAKE A COURSE OF ACTION:
While the danger to his person or life subsists, HE HAS A PERFECT AND
INDISPUTABLE RIGHT TO REPEL SUCH DANGER BY WOUNDING HIS
ADVERSARY / DISABLE HIM COMPLETELY
o REASONABLENESS OF THE NECESSITY DEPENDS UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE VS OCAÑA AND C.A.
Facts: Accused who was then unarmed who was being mauled with
fistic blows by the deceased and his companions picked up a lead
pipe and struck the deceased on the forehead thereby causing his
death.
Held: The use by the accused of such lead pipe under the
circumstances is reasonable. The accused did not select a lesser
vital portion of the body of deceased to hit is reasonably to be
expected. In that situation, accused must move in split-second OR
else his life would be endangered.
Necessity of the course of action taken
o Necessity of the course of action taken: Necessity
of the course of action taken depends on the
existence of unlawful aggression.
o In determining the existence of unlawful
aggression that induced a person to take a course
of action, place and occasion of the assault and the
other circumstances MUST BE CONSIDERED
PLACE AND OCCASION OF THE ASSAULT
CONSIDERED
DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT AND THE
SURPRISE WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE
ASSAULT CONSIDERED
NO NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN
On the case of Alconga, the course of action taken by the latter is
not necessary anymore because the deceased already ran away.
If the danger or risk on his part disappeared, stabbing the
aggressor while defending himself should have stopped.
U.S. VS Rivera: FACTS: Deceased endeavor to set fire to the house
of the accused wherein two small children of the accused were
sleeping. HELD: The fact that the deceased was already outside of
the house and prostrate on the ground because she was boloed by
the accused, ther e’s no necessity of killing her already.
U.S. VS Pacsa: FACTS: Accused picked up a bamboo pole to keep
his adversary at bay, then struck the deceased on the head with it.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 27/29
it. He should’ve limited his assault to an attempt to push the
accused back to the shallow pool.
THE PERSON DEFENDING IS NOT EXPECTED TO CONTROL HIS
BLOW
Person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as
to control his blow.
Killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified AS LONG AS
THE MORTAL WOUNDS ARE INFLICTED AT A TIME WHEN THE
ELEMENTS OF COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE ARE STILL PRESENT.
Aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one
making a defense to determine what course of action to take.
PEOPLE VS PANTE
o Facts: When the deceased was about to stab the
superior officer of the accused, the latter hit the
deceased with a palma brava. Trial court believed
that accused should have only struck his hand to
disable it, or only hit him in a less vulnerable part
of the body.
o Held: It can be deduced that the court finds the
accused’s actions as justified. It held that the trial
court demanded too much of the accused’s
wisdom, judgement, and discretion during the split
second he had to think and act to save his
superior.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 28/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 29/29
7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM
top related