crimlaw1 reviewer - esguerra notes.pdf

8/20/2019 CRIMLAW1 Reviewer - Esguerra Notes.pdf

1/130

CRIMINAL LAW 1 UPCollege of LawESGUERRA NOTES2004-2005

CRIMINAL LAW ICRIMINAL LAW I

I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES

A. DEFINITION

Criminal law is that branch or division of lawwhich defines crimes, treats of their nature, andprovides for their punishment.

B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES

1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW(REYES)

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 31!" and itsamendments

2. #pecial penal laws passed b$ the PhilippineCommission, Philippine Assembl$, Philippine%e&islature, National Assembl$, the Con&ressof the Philippines, and the 'atasan&Pambansa.

3. Penal Presidential ecrees issued durin&)artial %aw.

¤ 1987 Cons!"!on A#!$%& II' S&$!on Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The

maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,libert$ and propert$, and the promotion of the &eneralwelfare are essential for the en*o$ment b$ all the peopleof the blessin&s of democrac$.

¤ 1987 Cons!"!on A#!$%& I' S&$!on 1The le&islative power shall be vested in the

Con&ress of the Philippines which shall consist of a#enate and a +ouse of Representatives, ecept to the

etent reserved to the people b$ the provision oninitiative and referendum.

P&o*%& +. S,n!,-o (19)Facts- #antia&o was drivin& an automobile at a

hi&h speed notwithstandin& the fact that he had to passa narrow space between a wa&on standin& on one sideof the road and a heap of stones on the other side wherethere were two bo$s standin&. +e ran over Parondo whowas instantl$ illed as a result of the accident. #antia&owas convicted b$ the lower court of the crime ofhomicide b$ recless imprudence. The accused appealedchallen&in& the validit$ of Act No. /0 which amendedeneral 2rder no. ! (which provides that allprosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name ofthe nited #tates a&ainst the persons char&ed with the

offenses", claimin& that the le&islature is not authori4edto amend the latter because its provisions have thecharacter of Constitutional %aw. #ec. / of Act No. /00contains that 5all prosecutions for public offenses shallbe in the name of the People of the Philippine 6slandsa&ainst the person char&ed with the offense.7

Held - The procedure in criminal matters is notincorporated in the Constitution of the #tates, but is leftin the hands of the le&islature, so it that it falls withinthe realm of public statutor$ law.

The states, as part of its police power, have alar&e measure of discretion in creatin& and definin&

criminal offenses. 6t is ur&ed that the ri&ht to prosecuteand punish crimes is an attribute of soverei&nt$, but b$reason of the principle of territorialit$ as applied in thesuppression of crimes, such power is dele&ated tosubordinate &overnment subdivisions such as territories.The Philippine %e&islature b$ virtue of the 8ones %aw,

lie other territories of the #, has the power to defineand punish crimes. The present &overnment of thePhilippines created b$ the # Con&ress is autonomous.6t is within the power of the le&islature to prescribe theform of the criminal complaint as lon& as theconstitutional provision of the accused to be informed ofthe nature of the accusation is not violated.

US +. P,/%o (1910)Facts: Pablo, a policeman, arrested ato who

was found in a vacant lot where a *ueten& &ame wasconducted. +e presented a memorandum to his chiefclaimin& that he saw )alicsi and Rodri&o leavin& thearea. +owever, durin& the trial, he chan&ed hisstatement and claimed that he did not see )alicsi norRodri&o leavin& the area. As a result, the two accusedwere ac9uitted. Pablo was char&ed with the crime of

per*ur$ and was convicted under Act. No. 10:;. 6t wasclaimed that the Act repealed the provisions of the PenalCode relative to per*ur$, and the last provision of theAdministrative Code repealed the Act, thus, there is nopenal sanction for the crime of false testimon$ orper*ur$.

Held: Notwithstandin& that the Act no. 10:;has been interpreted b$ this court in its decisions tohave repealed provisions of the Penal Code relatin& tofalse testimon$, it did not epressl$ repeal the pertinentprovisions of the RPC. Also, the Administrative Code, intotall$ repealin& Act no. 10:;, did not epressl$ repealthe said articles of the Penal Code. +ence, the provisionsof the Penal Code relative to per*ur$ remain in force.The reason behind such interpretation is that crimesshould not &o unpunished or be freel$ committedwithout punishment of an$ ind.

. LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISHCRIMES

1987 Cons!"!on' A#. IIIS&$. 1. No person shall be deprived of life,

libert$ or propert$ without due process of law, nor shallan$ person be denied the e9ual protection of the laws.

S&$. 1. No person shall be held to answer fora criminal offense without due process of law.

6n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shallbe presumed innocent until the contrar$ is proved, andshall en*o$ the ri&ht to be heard b$ himself and counsel,to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusationa&ainst him, to have a speed$, impartial and public trial,to meet the witnesses face to face, and to &avecompulsor$ process to secure the attendance ofwitnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.+owever, after arrai&nment, trial ma$ proceednotwithstandin& the absence of the accused providedthat he has been dul$ notified and his failure to appearis un*ustifiable.

S&$. 18. No person shall be detained solel$ b$reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

No involuntar$ servitude in an$ form shall eistecept as a punishment for a crime whereof the part$shall have been dul$ convicted.

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 1 /


2/130


S&$. 19. ?cessive fines shall not be imposed,nor cruel de&radin& or inhuman punishment inflicted.Neither shall death penalt$ be imposed, unless, forcompellin& reasons involvin& heinous crimes, theCon&ress hereafter provides for it. An$ death penalt$alread$ imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

The emplo$ment of ph$sical, ps$cholo&ical, orde&radin& punishment a&ainst an$ prisoner or detaineeor the use of substandard or inade9uate penal facilitiesunder subhuman conditions shall be dealt with b$ law.

S&$. 2. No person shall be imprisoned fordebt or non>pa$ment of a poll ta.

S&$. . No ex post facto law or bill ofattainder shall be enacted.

198 R"%&s on C#!3!n,% P#o$&4"#&' R"%& 11 S&$!on 1. Rights of accused at trial. @ 6n allcriminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled tothe followin& ri&hts-

(a" To be presumed innocent until the contrar$is proved be$ond reasonable doubt.

(b" To be informed of the nature and cause ofthe accusation a&ainst him.

(c" To be present and defend in person and b$counsel at ever$ sta&e of the proceedin&s, fromarrai&nment to promul&ation of the *ud&ment. Theaccused ma$, however, waive his presence at the trialpursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unlesshis presence is specificall$ ordered b$ the court forpurposes of identification. The absence of the accusedwithout *ustifiable cause at the trial of which he hadnotice shall be considered a waiver of his ri&ht to bepresent thereat. hen an accused under custod$escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his ri&ht tobe present on all subse9uent trial dates until custod$over him is re&ained. pon motion, the accused ma$ beallowed to defend himself in person when it sufficientl$appears to the court that he can properl$ protect hisri&hts without the assistance of counsel.

(d" To testif$ as a witness in his own behalf butsub*ect to cross>eamination on matters covered b$direct eamination. +is silence shall not in an$ mannerpre*udice him.

(e" To be eempt from bein& compelled to be awitness a&ainst himself.

(f" To confront and cross>eamine thewitnesses a&ainst him at the trial. ?ither part$ ma$utili4e as part of its evidence the testimon$ of a witnesswho is deceased, out of or can not with due dili&ence befound in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwiseunable to testif$, &iven in another case or proceedin&,

*udicial or administrative, involvin& the same parties andsub*ect matter, the adverse part$ havin& theopportunit$ to cross>eamine him.

(&" To have compulsor$ process issued tosecure the attendance of witnesses and production of

other evidence in his behalf.(h" To have speed$, impartial and public trial.(i" To appeal in all cases allowed and in the

manner prescribed b$ law.

C!+!% Co4&' A#!$%& Penal laws and those of public securit$ and

safet$ shall be obli&ator$ upon all who live or so*ourn inthe Philippine territor$, sub*ect to the principles of publicinternational law and to treat$ stipulations.

P&s!-,n +. An-&%&s (198)Facts: Anselmo and )arcelo Pesi&an were

transportin& carabaos in the evenin& of April /, 1:/from Camarines #ur to 'atan&as when the carabaoswere confiscated purportedl$ in accordance with ?.2.No. 0/0>A which prohibits transportation of carabao and

carabeef from one province to another.Held: The ?.2. should not be enforced a&ainstthe Pesi&ans because it is a penal re&ulation (because ofits confiscation and forfeiture provision" and waspublished onl$ in the 2fficial a4ette on 8une 1=, 1:/.8ustice and fairness dictate that the public must beinformed of that provision b$ means of publication in thea4ette before violators of the eecutive order can bebound thereb$. The summar$ confiscation was not inorder. The carabaos must be returned. +owever, thePesi&ans cannot transport the carabaos to 'atan&asbecause the$ are now bound b$ the said ?.2.

T,5,4, +. T"+, (198)Facts: The petitioners see a writ of

mandamus to compel respondent public officials topublish or cause the publication of various PBs, ?2Bs,

%26Bs etc. invoin& the Constitutional ri&ht of the peopleto information on matters of public concern.Held: The publication of all presidential

issuances of a public nature or of &eneral applicabilit$ ismandated b$ law. 6t is a re9uirement of due process. 6tis a rule of law that before a person ma$ be bound b$law, he must first be officiall$ and specificall$ informedof its contents. The Court therefore declares thatpresidential issuances of &eneral application which havenot been published shall have no force and effect.+owever, the implementation of the Ps prior to itspublication is an operative fact which ma$ haveconse9uences which cannot be *ustl$ i&nored. The pastcannot alwa$s be erased b$ a new *udicial declaration.rom the report submitted b$ the cler of court, it isundisputed that none of these unpublished Ps has everbeen implemented b$ the &overnment.

PENOLO6ICAL OBECTIESa. Prevention @ This assumes that man has a

tendenc$ to commit crime and punishin& offenders willprevent them from doin& so a&ain. #uppression can onl$be made possible throu&h penal *urisprudence.

b. Deterrence/Exemplarity @ This assumesthat man is endowed with free will and of his awarenessof the sanctions a&ainst crimes and his fear of such.?speciall$ if there is-

1. Certaint$> that all crimes will be punished.

/. Celerit$@ that punishment will come swiftl$

3. #everit$@ that punishment is proportionateto his crime.

6t is also assumed that punishin& the offenderwith cruel and conspicuous penalties will mae aneample of him to deter others from doin& the same inthe future.

c. Self-Defense @ This is probabl$ aconclusion reached b$ the social contract theorists whohold that there is an unwritten contract between menand their societ$ where individuals a&ree to &ive upcertain ri&hts in echan&e for the protection and benefitsoffered b$ a communit$. 6f individuals violate this

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e / /


3/130


contract, then the societ$, throu&h the #tate, has theri&ht to enforce its laws and protect its own eistence.

d. Reformation @ This assumes thatpunishment is capable of chan&in&Drehabilitatin&individuals.

e. Retribution @ This rests on the basic

premise that *ustice must be done- the offender shallnot &o unpunished. This belon&s to that which maintainsthat punishment is inherent in the ver$ nature of acrime and is thus its necessar$ conse9uence.

C. BASIC PRINCIPLES

Criminal law has three main characteristics-1" &eneral, /" territorial, and 3" prospective.

1. 6ENERALITY o C#!3!n,% L,

¤ 1987 Cons!"!on' A#!$%& I' S&$!on 11A #enator or )ember of the +ouse of

Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable b$ notmore than si $ears imprisonment, be privile&ed fromarrest while the Con&ress is in session. No )ember shall

be 9uestioned nor be held liable in an$ other place foran$ speech or debate in the Con&ress or in an$committee thereof.

¤ C!+!% Co4&' A#!$%& 1Penal laws and those of public securit$ and

safet$ shall be obli&ator$ upon all those who live orso*ourn in the Philippine territor$, sub*ect to theprinciples of public international law and to treat$stipulations.

6&n,% R"%&- The *urisdiction of the civil courts is notaffected b$ the militar$ character of the accused.

Civil courts have concurrent *urisdiction with &eneral

court>martial over soldiers of the Armed orces of thePhilippines even in times of war, provided that in theplace of the commission of the crime no hostilities are inpro&ress and civil courts are functionin&.

hen the militar$ court taes co&ni4ance of the caseinvolvin& a person sub*ect to militar$ law, the Articles ofar appl$, not the RPC or other penal laws.

The prosecution of an accused before a court>martialis a bar to another prosecution of the accused for thesame offense.

2ffenders accused of war crimes are triable b$militar$ commission. A militar$ commission has

*urisdiction even if actual hostilities have ceased as lon&as a technical state of war continues.

E:$&*!ons o ;& -&n,% ,**%!$,!on o $#!3!n,%%,

Art. /, RPC, 5?cept as provided in the treatiseor laws of preferential applicationE7

Art. 1=, Civil Code, 5Esub*ect to the principlesof public international law and to treat$ stipulations.7

An eample of a treat$ or treat stipulation is theB,s&s A-#&&3&n entered into b$ the Philippines andthe # on )ar. 1=, 1:=; and epired on #ept. 10, 1::1.

Another eample would be the FA si&ned on eb.1


4/130


its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain includin& theterritorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insularshelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,between, and connectin& the islands of the archipela&ore&ardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part ofthe internal waters of the Philippines.

The provisions of the RPC are enforceable to allcrimes committed within the limits of Philippine territor$but it ma$ also appl$ outside of the Philippine

*urisdiction a&ainst who-1. should commit an offense while on a Philippine

ship or airshipF

2. should for&e or counterfeit an coin or currenc$note of the Philippines or obli&ations andsecurities issued b$ the Philippine &overnmentF

3. should be liable for acts connected with theintroduction into the countr$ of the obli&ationsand securities aforestatedF

=. while bein& public officers or emplo$ees,should commit an offense in the eercise oftheir functionsF and

!. should commit an$ of the crimes a&ainstnational securit$ and the law of nations definedin Title 6, 'oo 66 of the Code.

The RPC has therefore territorial and etraterritorialapplication. The maritime 4one etends to three milesfrom the outermost coastline. 'e$ond that is the 5hi&hseas7 which is outside the territorial waters of thePhilippines.

There are two rules as to *urisdiction over crimescommitted aboard merchant vessels while in theterritorial waters of another countr$.

rench rule @ #uch crimes are not triable in thecourts of that countr$ unless their commission affectsthe peace and securit$ of the territor$ or the safet$ ofthe state is endan&ered.

?n&lish rule @ #uch crimes are triable in thatcountr$ unless the$ merel$ affect thin&s within thevessel or the$ refer to the internal mana&ement thereof.

• e observe the ?n&lish Rule.

isorders which disturb onl$ the peace of the ship orthose on board are to be dealt with eclusivel$ b$ thesoverei&nt$ of the home of the ship, but those whichdisturb the public peace ma$ be suppressed, and, ifneed be, the offenders punished b$ the properauthorities of the local *urisdiction.

#moin& opium aboard a forei&n vessel in Philippinewaters constitutes a breach of public order because itcauses such dru& to produce its pernicious effects withinour territor$.

Philippine courts have no *urisdiction over offensescommitted on board forei&n warships in territorialwaters. arships are alwa$s reputed to be the territor$of the countr$ to which the$ belon& and cannot besub*ected to the laws of another state.

US +. A; S!n- (1917)Facts: efendant is a sub*ect of China who

bou&ht ei&ht cans of opium in #ai&on and brou&ht themon board the steamship Shun Chang durin& the trip toCebu. hen the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu,

the authorities in main& the search found the cans ofopium. efendant admitted bein& the owner but did notconfess as to his purpose in bu$in& the opium.

Held: 'rin&in& opium in local territor$ even if itis merel$ for personal use and does not leave theforei&n merchant vessel anchored in Philippine waters is

sub*ect to local laws particularl$ under #ec. = Act. No./31 a..a. 2pium %aw. nder the said law, importationincludes merel$ brin&in& the dru& from a forei&n countr$to Philippine port even if not landed.

M!


5/130


2. 6f the new law imposes a hea!ier penalty , thelaw in force at the time of the commission ofthe offense shall be applied.

3. 6f the new law totall$ repeals the eistin& lawso that the act which was penali4ed under the

old law is no lon&er punishable, the crime isobliterated.

hen the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to becriminal. hen the new law and the old law penali4e the same

offense, the offender can be tried under the old law. hen the repealin& law fails to penali4e the offense

under the old law, the accused cannot be convictedunder the new law. A person erroneousl$ accused and convicted under a

repealed statute ma$ be punished under the repealin&statute.

6"3,/on +. D!#&$o# o P#!sons (1971)Facts: Petitioners who were servin& their

sentence of life imprisonment for the comple crime of

rebellion with murder and other crimes see theretroactive application of the +ernande4 doctrine whichwas promul&ated after their conviction. The +ernande4rulin& ne&ated the eistence of the crime char&edstatin& that rebellion cannot be compleed with othercrimes. Thus, the accused in the +ernande4 case wassentenced onl$ to 1< $ears of imprisonment.

Held: 'oth RPC and the Civil Code allow for theretroactive application of *udicial decisions. hilereference in Art. // of the Civil Code is made tole&islative acts, it would be merel$ an ealtation of theliteral to den$ its application to a case lie the present.The Civil Code provides that *udicial decisions appl$in&or interpretin& the constitution, as well as le&islationform part of our le&al s$stem.

. Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege

A#. @. Definitions. I Acts and omissionspunishable b$ law are felonies (delitos".

A#. 1. Penalties that may be impose! INo felon$ shall be punishable b$ an$ penalt$ notprescribed b$ law prior to its commission.

There is no crime when where is no law punishin& it.

The phrase 5punished b$ law7 should be understoodto mean 5punished b$ the Revised Penal Code7, and notb$ special law.

Bn,#4o +. P&o*%& (198@)

Facts: The accused were char&ed andconvicted for violatin& P No. ;;/ for possessin& ands9uattin& on a parcel of land owned b$ Cru4.

Held: Conviction is null and void. P No. ;;/does not appl$ to pasture lands because its preambleshows that it was intended to appl$ to s9uattin& inurban communities. 6t is a basic principle of criminal lawthat no person should be brou&ht within the terms of apenal statute who is not clearl$ within them nor shouldan$ act be pronounced criminal which is not clearl$made so b$ the statute.

P&o*%& +. P!3&n&% (1998)Facts: Respondent Tu*an was char&ed with

subversion under RA 1;incriminatin& clause, compelthe person proceeded a&ainst to tae the witness standwithout his consent. A proceedin& for malpracticepossesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense thatthe respondent would suffer the revocation of his licenseas a medical practitioner which is even a &reater form ofdeprivation than forfeiture of propert$.

hile crime should not &o unpunished and thatthe truth must be revealed, such desirable ob*ectiveshould not be accomplished accordin& to meansoffensive to hi&h sense of respect accorded to humanpersonalit$. )ore and more in line with the democraticcreed, the deference accorded to an individual eventhose suspected of the most heinous crimes is &iven duewei&ht.

D. 6ENERAL PROISIONS

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e ! /


6/130


A#. 1 "ime #hen $ct ta%es effect . This code shalltae effect on the first da$ of 8anuar$, nineteen hundredand thirt$.

♣ The RPC consists of two boos- 'oo 2ne consists of

1" basic principles affectin& criminal liabilit$ and /" theprovisions on penalties includin& criminal and civilliabilit$F 'oo Two defines felonies with thecorrespondin& penalties.

Two theories in criminal lawa. C%A##6CA%b. P2#6T6J6#T

The RPC is based mainl$ on principles of old orclassical school.♣ C;,#,$!s!$s o ;& $%,ss!$,% ;&o#>

1. The basis of criminal liabilit$ is human free willand the purpose of the penalt$ is retribution.

2. That man is essentiall$ a moral creature withan absolutel$ free will to choose between &ood

and evil thereb$ placin& more stress upon theeffect or result of the felonious act than uponthe man, the criminal himself.

3. 6t has endeavored to establish a mechanicaland direct proportion between crime andpenalt$.

=. There is a scant re&ard to the human element.

♣ C;,#,$!s!$s o ;& *os!!+!s ;&o#>

1. That man is subdued occasionall$ b$ astran&e and morbid phenomenon whichconstrains him to do wron&, inspite of orcontrar$ to his volition.

2. That crime is essentiall$ a social andnatural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot betreated and checed b$ the application of

abstract principles of law and *urisprudence norb$ the imposition of a punishment which isfied and determined a prioriF but ratherthrou&h the enforcement of individualmeasures in each particular case after athorou&h, personal and individual investi&ationconducted b$ a competent bod$ ofps$chiatrists and social scientists.

A#. . $pplication of its provisions. I ?cept asprovided in the treaties and laws of preferentialapplication, the provisions of this Code shall be enforcednot onl$ within the Philippine Archipela&o, includin& itsatmosphere, its interior waters and maritime 4one, butalso outside of its *urisdiction, a&ainst those who-

1. #hould commit an offense while on aPhilippine ship or airship

/. #hould for&e or counterfeit an$ coin orcurrenc$ note of the Philippine 6slands or obli&ations andsecurities issued b$ the overnment of the Philippine6slandsF

3. #hould be liable for acts connected with theintroduction into these islands of the obli&ations andsecurities mentioned in the presidin& numberF

=. hile bein& public officers or emplo$ees,should commit an offense in the eercise of theirfunctionsF or

!. #hould commit an$ of the crimes a&ainstnational securit$ and the law of nations, defined in Title2ne of 'oo Two of this Code.

♣ This has been discussed in the Territorialit$principle of criminal law.

♣ E:*%,n,!on o ;& &:$&*!ons1. The Philippine ship or airship must be dul$

re&istered under the Philippine laws with the Philippine'ureau of Customs. #uch vessel when be$ond the 3>mile limit is considered and etension of Philippinenational territor$. 'T if said Philippine vessel or aircraftis within the territor$ of a forei&n countr$ when thecrime is committed, the laws of that countr$ will appl$as a rule.

The Philippine court has no *urisdiction overthe crime of theft committed on the hi&h seas on boarda vessel not re&istered or licensed in the Philippines.

/. An$ person who maes false or counterfeitcoins or for&es treasur$ or ban notes or otherobli&ations and securities in a forei&n countr$ ma$ beprosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art.

103 or Art. 100 of the RPC.3. The reason for the eceptions in para&raph

(b" and (c" is to maintain and preserve the financialcredit and stabilit$ of the state.

=. The offense committed b$ a public officerabroad, lie a consular official, must refer to thedischar&e of his functions i.e. briber$, malversation orfalsification.

!. The reason for the eception re&ardin&crimes a&ainst national securit$ and the law of nations isto safe&uard the eistence of the state. Pirac$ is triablean$where. Pirac$ and mutin$ are crimes a&ainst the lawof nations while treason and espiona&e are crimesa&ainst national securit$.

II. FELONIES

Art. 3. Definitions. I Acts and omissionspunishable b$ law are felonies (delitos".

elonies are committed not onl$ be means ofdeceit (dolo" but also b$ means of fault (culpa".

There is deceit when the act is performed withdeliberate intent and there is fault when the wron&fulact results from imprudence, ne&li&ence, lac offoresi&ht, or lac of sill.

♣ elonies are acts and omissions punishable b$ theRevised Penal Code.

♣ E%&3&ns o F&%on!&s1. There must be an act or omission/. That the act or omission must be

punishable b$ the RPC

3. That the act is performed or the omissionincurred b$ means of dolo or culpa.

♣ efinition of termsACT @ must be overt or eternal (mere

criminal thou&ht or intent is not punishable"OMISSION @ failure to perform a dut$

re9uired b$ law e. ailure to render assistance, failureto issue receipt, non>disclosure of nowled&e ofconspirac$ a&ainst the &overnment.

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 0 /


7/130


A. HOWCOMMITTED

♣ Classification of felonies accordin& to the means b$ which the$ are committed (6N ?N?RA% 2N%K"

1. INTENTIONAL DOLO(by means of deceit# malice$

> the offender in performin& the act or incurrin& theomission, has the intention to cause an in*ur$ toanother

the word 5deceit7 in par. / of Art. 3 is not theproper translation of the word 5dolo7. Dolus isactuall$ e9uivalent to malice which is the intentto do an in%ury to another.

. CULPABLE(by means of fault or culpa$

> an act performed without malice but at the sametime punishable thou&h in a lesser de&ree and with

an e9ual result

impruence lac of precaution to avoid in*ur$,usuall$ involves lac of sillnegligence > failure to foresee impendin&dan&er, usuall$ involves lac& of foresight

1. DOLO

REUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

1. freeom @ that the act or omission wasvoluntar$ and without eternalcompulsion.

2. intelligence @ nowled&e needed todetermine the moralit$ and conse9uencesof an act. The imbecile, insane and minors

have no criminal liabilit$.

3. intent @ intent to commit the act withmalice, bein& purel$ a mental process, ispresumed and the presumption arisesfrom the proof of the commission of theunlawful act .

♣ 6ntent presupposes the eercise of freedom and theuse of intelli&ence♣ The eistence of intent is shown b$ the overt acts ofa person♣ Criminal intent is presumed from the commission ofan unlawful act 'T the presumption of criminalintent does not arise from the proof of the commissionof an act which is not unlawful.

$ctus non facit reum& nisi mens sit rea 5the act itself does not mae a man &uilt$

unless his intention were so7 A crime is not committed if the mind of

the person performin& to act complained beinnocent.

6t must be borne in mind that the act fromwhich the presumption of eistence of criminalintent sprin&s must be a criminal act.

$ctus me invito factus non est meus actus

5an act done b$ me a&ainst m$ will is not m$act7

INTENT . MOTIE

MOTIE is the movin& power which impels

one to action for a define result.INTENT is the purpose to use a particularmeans to effect such result.

♣ )otive is not an essential element of acrime, and, hence need not be proved for purposes ofconviction.

♣ )otive is essential onl$ when there is doubtas to the identit$ of the assailant. 6t is immaterial whenthe accused has been positivel$ identified.

♣ Proof of motive alone is not sufficient tosupport a conviction but lac of motive ma$ be an aid inshowin& the innocence of the accused.

♣ There is no felon$ b$ dolo if there is nointent

P&o*%& +. T&3/%o# (1988)

Facts: Ca&ampan& and his wife wereconversin& in the store ad*acent to their house whenTemblor arrived and ased to bu$ ci&arettes. Temblor,then, shot Ca&ampan& and demanded the wife to brin&out her husbandBs firearm. )onths after, the wife wassummoned to the police station and there she identifiedthe accused. The accusedBs defense was alibi and lac ofmotive.

Held - The nowled&e of the accused thatCa&ampan& possessed a firearm was enou&h motive toill him as illin&s were perpetrated b$ members of theNPA for the sole purpose of ac9uirin& more arms andammunition. Their &roup is prevalent not onl$ in A&usandel Norte but elsewhere in the countr$. 6t is nown asthe NPABs 5a&aw armas7 campai&n. )oreover, proof ofmotive is not essential when the culprit has beenpositivel$ identified.

P&o*%& +. H,ss,n (1988)Facts: The accused, an illiterate, 1!>$ear>old

pushcart car&ador, was convicted of the crime of murderfor the death of Ramon. The lone e$ewitness claimed hesaw the accused stab Ramon onl$ once at the bac. +eidentified the accused alone at the funeral parlor withoutbein& placed in a police line>up.

Held - The testimon$ of witness was wea. 6tconflicted with the findin&s of the )edico>le&al officerwho identified / stab wounds which were inflicted whileassailant was in front of the victim. The manner b$which the witness was made to identif$ the accused waspointedl$ su&&estive and activated visual ima&inationwhen there was none. The method of identificationbecame *ust a confrontation and was made in violationof the constitutional ri&ht of the accused.

The court noted the total absence of motiveascribed to the accused for stabbin& Ramon who is acomplete stran&er to him. hile as a &eneral rule,motive is not essential for purposes of compl$in& withthe re9uirement that a *ud&ment of &uilt$ must stemfrom proof be$ond reasonable doubt, the lac of motiveon the part of the accused pla$s a pivotal role towardshis ac9uittal. This is especiall$ true where there is doubtas to the identit$ of the culprit as when the identificationis etremel$ tenuous as in this case.

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e ; /


8/130


P&o*%& +. D&%os S,nos (22@)Facts: elos #antos stab lores with a itchen

nife hittin& him on the different parts of his bod$,inflictin& upon him mortal wounds which directl$ causedhis death. elos #antos then ar&ues that since the

prosecution witnesses testified that there was noaltercation between him and lores, it follows that nomotive to ill can be attributed to him.

Held: The court held that the ar&ument ofelos #antos is inconse9uential. Proof of motive is notindispensable for a conviction, particularl$ where theaccused is positivel$ identified b$ an e$ewitness and hisparticipation is ade9uatel$ established. 6n People vs.alano, the court ruled that in the crime of murder,motive is not an element of the offense, it becomesmaterial onl$ when the evidence is circumstantial orinconclusive and there is some doubt on whether theaccused had committed it. 6n this case, the court findsthat no such doubt eits as witnesses, e %eon andTablate positivel$ identified elos #antos.

MISTAE OF FACT

6t is a misapprehension of fact on the part ofthe person who caused in*ur$ to another. +e is not,however, criminall$ liable, because he did not act withcriminal intent.

♣ R&


9/130


♣ olo is not re9uired in crimes punished b$ special lawsbecause these crimes are mala prohibita.♣ 6n those crimes punished b$ special laws, the actalone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.♣ ood faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid

defenses in crimes punished b$ special laws

)$L$ *N SE an )$L$ PR'+*,*"$)ala in se an act, b$ its ver$ nature, is

inherentl$ and morall$ wron&F it should be done withcriminal intent

)alum prohibitum @ an act is wron& onl$because there is a law punishin& it. 6t is enou&h that theprohibited act was voluntaril$ committed and need notbe committed with malice or criminal intent to bepunishable.

Es#,4, +. S,n4!-,n/,>,n (221)Facts: ?strada is challen&in& the plunder law.

2ne of the issues he raised is whether plunder is amalum prohibitum or malum in se.

Held: Plunder is a malum in se which re9uires

proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisel$ because theconstitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mensrea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. 6t isnoteworth$ that the amended information alle&es thatthe crime of plunder was committed 5willfull$, unlawfull$and criminall$.7 6t thus alle&es &uilt nowled&e on thepart of the petitioner.

RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS

RPC' A#. 12. 'ffenses not sub%ect to the pro!isions of this Code. I 2ffenses which are or in thefuture ma$ be punishable under special laws are notsub*ect to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall besupplementar$ to such laws, unless the latter shouldspeciall$ provide the contrar$.

P,4!%%, +. D!on (1988)Facts: Padilla filed an administrative complaint

a&ainst RTC 8ud&e i4on for renderin& a manifestl$erroneous decision ac9uittin& %o Chi ai of the offensechar&ed for smu&&lin& forei&n currenc$ out of thecountr$ in violation of Central 'an Circular No. :0


10/130


applied for probation while the wife appealed ar&uin&that the RTC erred in findin& her criminall$ liable forconspirin& with her husband as the principle ofconspirac$ is inapplicable to 'P 'l&. // which is a speciallaw. Held: '.P. 'l&. // does not epressl$ prescribe

the suppletor$ application of the provisions of the RPC.Thus, in the absence of contrar$ provision in '.P. 'l&.//, the &eneral provisions of the RPC which, b$ theirnature, are necessaril$ applicable, ma$ be appliedsuppletoril$. The court cited the case of Ku vs. People,where the provisions on subsidiar$ imprisonment underArticle 3: 3/ of the RPC to '.P. 'l&. // was appliedsuppletoril$.

The suppletor$ application of the principle ofconspirac$ in this case is analo&ous to the application ofthe provision on principals under Article 1; in .#. vs.Ponte. or once conspirac$ or action in concert toachieve a criminal desi&n is shown, the act of one is theact of all the conspirators, and the precise etent ormodalit$ of participation of each of them becomessecondar$, since all the conspirators are principals.

The Court in this case however ruled in favor

of %adon&a(wife" as the prosecution failed to prove thatshe performed an$ overt act in furtherance of thealle&ed conspirac$.

P&o*%& +. B"s!n, (22)Facts- 'ustinera was convicted b$ the trial

Court for 9ualified theft under Article 31< of the RevisedPenal Code for the unlawful tain& of the tai cab drivenb$ him which is owned and operated b$ Cipriano andwas sentenced to suffer the penalt$ of reclusionperpetua.

Held: The unlawful tain& of motor vehicles isnow covered b$ the anti>carnappin& law (RA No. 0!3:"and not b$ the provisions on 9ualified theft or robber$.The trial court havin& convicted 'ustinera of 9ualifiedtheft instead of carnappin&, erred in the imposition ofthe penalt$. hile the information alle&es that the crime

was attended with &rave abuse of confidence, the samecannot be appreciated as the suppletor$ effect of theRevised Penal Code to special laws, as provided inArticle 1< of said Code, cannot be invoed when there isa le&al impossibilit$ of application, either b$ epressprovision or b$ necessar$ implication.

)oreover, when the penalties under the speciallaw are different from and are without reference orrelation to those under the Revised Penal Code, therecan be no suppletor$ effect of the rules, for theapplication of penalties under the said Code or b$ otherrelevant statutor$ provisions are based on or applicableonl$ to said rules for felonies under the Code.

The court cited the case of People v. Panidawhich involved the crime of carnappin& and the penalt$imposed was the indeterminate sentence of 1= $earsand months, as minimum, to 1; $ears and = months,

as maimum, this Court did not appl$ the provisions ofthe Revised Penal Code suppletoril$ as the anti>carnappin& law provides for its own penalties which aredistinct and without reference to the said Code.

'ustinera was sentenced to an indeterminatepenalt$ of 1= $ears and months as minimum, to 1;$ears and = months, as maimum for the crime ofcarnappin& under RA 0!3:, as amended.

A#. . C#!3!n,% %!,/!%!>. I Criminal liabilit$ shall beincurred-

1. '$ an$ person committin& a felon$ (delito"althou&h the wron&ful act done be different from thatwhich he intended.

/. '$ an$ person performin& an act whichwould be an offense a&ainst persons or propert$, were itnot for the inherent impossibilit$ of its accomplishment

or an account of the emplo$ment of inade9uate orineffectual means.

B. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT

1. WRON6FUL ACTDIFFERENTFROM THATINTENDED

♠ 2ne who commits an intentional felon$ isresponsible for all the conse9uences which ma$ naturall$and lo&icall$ result therefrom, whether foreseen orintended or not.

♠ Rationale- &%


11/130


Facts: Two vehicles proceeded to the house of#tephen %im when #abalones et. al. fired towards thevehicles illin& / of the passen&ers and seriousl$ in*urin&3 others. The lower court convicted the accused.Appellants accuse the trial court of en&a&in& incon*ecture in rulin& that there was aberratio ictus in this

case. Held: The alle&ation does not advance thecause of the appellants. 6t must be stressed that thetrial court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus toeplain wh$ the appellants sta&ed the ambush, not toprove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. 6nan$ event, the lower court was not en&a&in& incon*ecture because the conclusion that the appellantsilled the wron& persons was based on the etra*udicialstatement of appellant 'eron&a and the testimon$ ofone witness. Nonetheless, the fact that the$ weremistaen does not diminish their culpabilit$. )istae inthe identit$ of the victim carries the same &ravit$ aswhen the accused 4eroes in on his intended victim.

OMISSION

A#. 110. )isprision of treason. I ?ver$ personowin& alle&iance to (the nited #tates" the overnmentof the Philippine 6slands, without bein& a forei&ner, andhavin& nowled&e of an$ conspirac$ a&ainst them,conceals or does not disclose and mae nown thesame, as soon as possible to the &overnor or fiscal ofthe province, or the ma$or or fiscal of the cit$ in whichhe resides, as the case ma$ be, shall be punished as anaccessor$ to the crime of treason.

A#. 1@7. Disloyalty of public officers oremployees! I The penalt$ of prision correccional in itsminimum period shall be imposed upon public officers oremplo$ees who have failed to resist a rebellion b$ all themeans in their power, or shall continue to dischar&e theduties of their offices under the control of the rebels orshall accept appointment to office under them.

A#. 28. Prosecution of offenses negligence antolerance. I The penalt$ of prision correccional in itsminimum period and suspension shall be imposed uponan$ public officer, or officer of the law, who, indereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciousl$refrain from institutin& prosecution for the punishmentof violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commissionof offenses.

A#. @. Conniving #ith or consenting to evasion.I An$ public officer who shall consent to the escape of aprisoner in his custod$ or char&e, shall be punished-

1. '$ prision correccional in its medium andmaimum periods and temporar$ special dis9ualificationin its maimum period to perpetual special

dis9ualification, if the fu&itive shall have been sentencedb$ final *ud&ment to an$ penalt$.

/. '$ prision correccional in its minimumperiod and temporar$ special dis9ualification, in case thefu&itive shall not have been finall$ convicted but onl$held as a detention prisoner for an$ crime or violation oflaw or municipal ordinance.

A#. @. Refusal to ischarge elective office. IThe penalt$ of arresto mayor or a fine not eceedin&1,


12/130


b$ means of force and violence, the$ shall be deemedhi&hwa$ robbers or bri&ands.

Persons found &uilt$ of this offense shall bepunished b$ prision mayor in its medium period toreclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act oracts committed b$ them are not punishable b$ hi&her

penalties, in which case, the$ shall suffer such hi&hpenalties.6f an$ of the arms carried b$ an$ of said

persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumedthat said persons are hi&hwa$ robbers or bri&ands, andin case of convictions the penalt$ shall be imposed inthe maimum period.

A#. @2. Corruption of minors. An$ person whoshall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruptionof persons undera&e to satisf$ the lust of another, shallbe punished b$ prision mayor , and if the culprit is apubic officer or emplo$ee, includin& those in&overnment>owned or controlled corporations, he shallalso suffer the penalt$ of temporar$ absolutedis9ualification.

♠ Conspirac$ and proposal to commit a felon$ are twodifferent acts or felonies- (1" conspirac$ to commit afelon$, and (/" proposal to commit a felon$.

6ENERAL RULE Conspirac$ and proposal to commit afelon$ are not punishableEGCEPTION The$ are punishable onl$ in the cases inwhich the law speciall$ provides a penalt$ therefore.RATIONALE- Conspirac$ and proposal to commit acrime are onl$ preparatory acts and the law re&ardsthem as innocent or at least permissible ecept in rareand eceptional cases.

CONSPIRACY > eists when two or more persons come to an

a&reement concernin& the commission of a felon and

decide to commit it.

♠ The RPC speciall$ provides a penalt$ for mereconspirac$ in treason, coup dBetat, rebellion or sedition.Treason, coup dBetat, rebellion or sedition must notactuall$ be committed or else conspirac$ shall no lon&erbe punishable because it is not a separate offense fromthe felon$ itself.

♠INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY> for a collective responsibilit$ amon& the

accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the timeof the a&&ression, all of them acted in concert, eachdoin& his part to fulfill their common desi&n to committhe felon$.

♠ REUISITES OF CONSPIRACY

a. T;, o o# 3o#& *sons $,3& o ,n,-#&&3&n> a&reement presupposes meetin& of the mindsof two or more persons

b. T;, ;& ,-#&&3&n $on$n&4 ;&commission o , &%on> ,n4> the a&reement must refer to the commissionof a crime. 6t must be an a&reement to act, toeffect, to brin& about what has alread$ beenconceived and determined

c. T;, ;& &:&$"!on o ;& &%on> /&4&$!4&4 "*on.

> the conspirators have made up their mindsto commit the crime. There must be a determination tocommit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.

PROPOSAL

R&


13/130


behind. The brother of the victim also testified that hepositivel$ identified Jalde4 as the one carr$in& the &unand that it was 2rodio who was runnin& with him.

Held: 6f conspirac$ is proved to eist in thecommission of the felon$, it is not necessar$ to provethat participation of each conspirator of all are liable as

an$ act of a co>conspirator becomes the act of the otherre&ardless of the precise de&ree of participation in theact. The evidence is more than ade9uate to showconspirac$ between two accused even if prosecutionfailed to show who actuall$ pulled the tri&&er of theshot&unF the act of one is the act of all.

P&o*%& +. Es$o/ (1988)Facts: Alorte, ?scober and Pun4alan were

convicted of havin& illed the children of spouses Chuawhile robbin& 'ee #en& ?lectrical #uppl$ owned b$ thespouses. Abu$en was the former securit$ &uard of thestore while ?scober was the present one. Pun4alan is afriend of Abu$en. ?scober and Pun4alan were char&ed asprincipals b$ indispensable cooperation.

Held: ?scober was ac9uitted. ?scober bein& ondut$ that fateful ni&ht and openin& the &ate to persons

who turned out to be robbers and illers mae him aneas$ suspect. +owever, the fact that accused was at thescene of the crime is not b$ itself sufficient to establishhis criminal liabilit$. To hold the accused as co>principalin the crime char&ed, the eistence of conspirac$between the accused and the actual illers must beshown and the same de&ree of proof re9uired forestablishin& the crime is re9uired to support a findin& ofthe presence of the conspirac$.

Pun4alan, on the other hand, is &uilt$ asprincipal. +is participation is to act as a loo>out andeven if he did not participate in the actual illin&, hecannot evade responsibilit$ for the crime.

P&o*%& +. E%!Jo#4& (22@)Facts: +ierro and Jisbal went to the sari>sari

store where the$ encountered ?li*orde, Pun4alan and

)enes. )enes reacted to a comment made b$ +ierro b$punchin& him in the face followed b$ ?li*orde who alsoboed him, and Pun4alan who iced him in the bac.The two victims ran awa$. Another confrontationensued. Pun4alan iced +ierro at the bac and thelatter ran awa$ but pursued b$ ?li*orde. ?li*orde, then.#tabbed +ierro at the bac with a nife resultin& to hisdeath. ?li*orde and Pun4alan were char&ed with murder.

Held: No conspirac$ between the / becausethere is no evidence to show unit$ of purpose anddesi&n in the eecution of the illin&. Pun4alan onl$iced +ierro twice after which he did not cooperate with?li*orde in pursuin& and illin& the victim. )ere icin&does not necessaril$ prove intent to ill. Thus, each ofthe accused is liable onl$ for his own acts. Pun4alan isac9uitted.

P&o*%& +. F,/#o (222) Facts- Petitioner abro to&ether with hercommon>law husband Pila$ and 6rene )artin waschar&ed with the crime of Mviolation of #ection /1 (b"Art. 6J, in relation to #ection =, Art. 66 of Republic ActNo. 0=/! as amended, for sellin& to P2/ Apduhan, whoacted as poseur bu$er, one ilo of dried mari*uanaleaves. abro contends that her &uilt was not provenbe$ond reasonable doubt as based on the testimon$ ofthe N'6, the real possessor of the confiscated propertieswas her co>accused )artin.

Held - abroBs contention that )artin was thereal curlprit bein& the source of the contraband does notin an$ wa$ absolve her of the crime of sellin& mari*uana.hile it is true that it was )artin who too the mone$, itwas abro who ne&otiated with the poseur bu$ers,fetched her co>accusedF and carried and handed over

the mari*uana to Apduhan. The acts of )artin and abroclearl$ show a unit$ of purpose in the consummation ofthe sale of mari*uana.

6t is clear that #ection /1 (b" of R.A. 0=/!punishes the mere conspirac$ to commit the offense ofsellin&, deliverin&, distributin& and transportin& ofdan&erous dru&s. Conspirac$ herein refers to the merea&reement to commit the said acts and not the actualeecution thereof. hile the rule is that a mereconspirac$ to commit a crime without doin& an$ overtact is not punishable, the eception is when such isspecificall$ penali4ed b$ law, as in the case of #ection /1of Republic Act 0=/!. Conspirac$ as crime should bedistin&uished from conspirac$ as a manner of incurrin&criminal liabilit$ the latter bein& applicable to the case.

P&o*%& +. B&%%o (22)

Facts- Accused 'ello et. al. mapped out a planto rob a mone$chan&er. Callin& the mone$chan&er froma motel room, 'ello misrepresented that she came from8apan and would lie to convert her =< pieces of $en topesos. #he re9uested that the currenc$ conversion bemade in her room as she did not want to carr$ around ahu&e sum of mone$. urin& the occasion of the robber$,Andasan, the messen&er who brou&ht the mone$ to'ello was illed. The trial court ruled that 'ello conspiredwith the other accused and was found &uilt$ as principalfor the crime of robber$ with homicide.

'ello, ar&ued that her alle&ed conspirac$ withthe other accused was not sufficientl$ established b$circumstantial evidence as there was no showin& thatshe had the same purpose and united with the otheraccused in the eecution of the crime. #he alle&ed thather mere presence in the crime scene is not per se a

sufficient indi9ium of conspirac$. #he insists that sheacted a&ainst her will due to the irresistible forceemplo$ed b$ her co>accused.

Held: The Court held that 'ello conspired withher co>accused to commit the crime. Records clearl$reveal that 'ello was part of the plan to rob themone$chan&er. The chain of events and the conduct of'ello lead to no other conclusion than that she conspiredwith her co>accused to commit the crime.

Conspirac$ eists where the plotters a&ree,epressl$ or impliedl$, to commit the crime and decideto pursue it. Conspirac$ is predominantl$ a state of mindas it involves the meetin& of the minds and intent of themalefactors. Conse9uentl$, direct proof is not essentialto establish it. The eistence of the assent of minds ofthe co>conspirators ma$ be inferred from proof of factsand circumstances which, taen to&ether, indicate that

the$ are parts of the complete plan to commit the crime.

L! +. P&o*%& (221)Facts- 'ecause of an altercation between

Aru&a$ and %i, %i armed himself with a baseball bat andused the same to hit Aru&a$ on the arm. Aru&a$ armedwith a bolo, retaliated b$ hacin& %i on the head causin&the bat to fall from his hand and leavin& himunconscious or semi>unconsious. At this point in time,#an&alan&, who was also present stabbed Aru&a$several times which resulted to the latterBs death. The

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 13 /


14/130


lower court held that there was conspirac$ in thepresent case

Held: The eistence of conspirac$ should beruled out. #an&alan& was the main actor in stabbin&Aru&a$ to death. As %i was incapacitated or probabl$unconscious at the time #an&alan& stabbed Aru&a$, it

cannot be assumed that #an&alan& did what he hasdone with the nowled&e or assent of %i, much more incoordination with each other. 'ased on thecircumstances, the Court is hard put to conclude that#an&alan& and %i had acted in concert to commit theoffense. 6n fact, the stabbin& of Aru&a$ could ver$ wellbe construed as a spur>of>the>moment reaction b$#an&alan& upon seein& that his friend %i was struc onthe head b$ Aru&a$. rom such a spontaneous reaction,a findin& of conspirac$ cannot arise.

Provin& conspirac$ is a dice$ matter, especiall$difficult in cases such as the present wherein thecriminal acts arose spontaneousl$, as opposed toinstances wherein the participants would have theopportunit$ to orchestrate a more deliberate plan.#pontaneit$ alone does not preclude the establishmentof conspirac$, which after all, can be consummated in a

momentBs notice I throu&h a sin&le word of assent to aproposal or an unambi&uous handshae. Ket it is moredifficult to presume conspirac$ in etemporaneousoutbursts of violenceF hence, the demand that it beestablished b$ positive evidence. A conviction premisedon a findin& of conspirac$ must be founded on facts, noton mere inferences and presumption.

P&o*%& +. B,-,no (22)Facts- 8eremias and his wife )erlinda were

sleepin& in their home when the$ were awaened b$someone repeatedl$ callin& 8eremias name. 8eremiaswent to the window to see who it was and thereafter lefttheir room to &o outside. )erlinda remained in theirroom, but peerin& throu&h the window she saw CaOetesuddenl$ embrace 8eremias as the latter was openin&the &ate. Thereupon, 'a&ano with ice pic in hand

stabbed 8eremias on the chest. 8eremias stru&&led tofree himself from CaOetes clasp and ran, but 'a&ano&ave chase. 8eremias died upon arrival at the hospital.

Held: Conspirac$ is attendant in thecommission of the crime. or conspirac$ to eist, it issufficient that at the time of the commission of theoffense the accused had the same purpose and wereunited in its eecution. Proof of an actual plannin& ofthe perpetuation of the crime is not a conditionprecedent. rom the mode and manner in which theoffense was perpetrated, and as can be inferred fromtheir acts, it is evident that 'a&ano and CaOete wereone in their intention to ill 8eremias. +ence, inaccordance with the principle that in conspirac$ the actof one is the act of all, the fact that it was 'a&ano whodelivered the fatal blow on 8eremias and CaOetesparticipation was limited to a mere embrace is

immaterial. Conspirac$ bestows upon them e9ualliabilit$F hence, the$ shall suffer the same fate for theiracts.

P&o*%& +. B,n-$,4o (222)Facts- #P21 'an&cado to&ether with #P21

'anisa frised and searched Co&asi, Clemente, Adawanand %ino to see if the$ were concealin& an$ weapons.After main& sure that the victims were unarmed,

'an&cado directed the victims to form a line a&ainst aord ierra. 'ecause 'an&cado and 'anisa were holdin&hand&uns, Co&asi and his friends did as the$ were toldand were cau&ht unaware when the$ were shot b$'an&cado. Adawan and %ino died of &unshot wounds inthe head, while Co&asi and Clemente sustained head

wounds. The lower court convicted both 'an&cado and'anisa for / counts of murder and / counts of frustratedmurder.

Held: There bein& no findin& of Conspirac$with 'an&cado, the Court ac9uitted 'anisa of all thechar&es a&ainst him. 6n the absence of an$ previousplan or a&reement to commit a crime, the criminalresponsibilit$ arisin& from different acts directed a&ainstone and the same person is individual and not collective,and that each of the participants is liable onl$ for hisown acts. Conse9uentl$, 'anisa must be absolved fromcriminal responsibilit$ for the assault on the victims. 6t isclear that neither the victims nor 'anisa could haveanticipated 'an&cados act of shootin& the victims sincethe attac was sudden and without an$ reason orpurpose. Thus, the criminal desi&n of 'an&cado had not$et been revealed prior to the illin&s.

P&o*%& +. R,3os (22)Facts- The trial court found appellant ?ulalia

#an Ro9ue &uilt$ for conspirin& and confederatin& withher co>accused for the murder of her live>in>partner%omida. %omida was stabbed, shot and burned resultin&to his death. Appellant ar&ues that the fact of suchconspirac$ has not been satisfactoril$ proven durin& thetrial of the case. #he vi&orousl$ contends that she didnot participate in the illin& of the victim.

Held: 6n determinin& the eistence ofconspirac$, it is not necessar$ to show that all theconspirators actuall$ hit and illed the victim. Thepresence of conspirac$ amon& the accused can beproven b$ their conduct before, durin& or after thecommission of the crime showin& that the$ acted inunison with each other, evincin& a common purpose or

desi&n. There must be a showin& that appellantcooperated in the commission of the offense, eithermorall$, throu&h advice, encoura&ement or a&reementor materiall$ throu&h eternal acts indicatin& a manifestintent of suppl$in& aid in the perpetration of the crime inan efficacious wa$. 6n such case, the act of one becomesthe act of all, and each of the accused will thereb$ bedeemed e9uall$ &uilt$ of the crime committed.

The series of events in this case convincin&l$show that appellant and her co>accused acted in unisonand cooperated with each other in illin& %omida.Appellant was the one who opened the door and allowedthe other accused to enter the house. #he *oined themin brin&in& the victim to the residence of Ramos, herbrother>in>law. hile her co>accused dra&&ed thehelpless victim, tied him to a santol tree, stabbed himtwice b$ a bladed nife, and shot him ! to ; times,

appellant merel$ watched intensel$. #he even 5turnedher bac7 as the lifeless bod$ of the victim was bein&burned. And after attainin& their purpose, she fled withthe other accused.

The above circumstances clearl$ show thecommon purpose and concerted efforts on the part ofappellant and her co>accused.

STA6ES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 1= /


15/130


A#. 0. Consummate& frustrate& an attemptefelonies! I Consummated felonies as well as thosewhich are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felon$ is consummated when all theelements necessar$ for its eecution andaccomplishment are presentF and it is frustrated when

the offender performs all the acts of eecution whichwould produce the felon$ as a conse9uence but which,nevertheless, do not produce it b$ reason of causesindependent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offendercommences the commission of a felon$ directl$ or overacts, and does not perform all the acts of eecutionwhich should produce the felon$ b$ reason of somecause or accident other than this own spontaneousdesistance.

DEELOPMENT OF A CRIME

a. internal acts @ such as mereideas in the mind of a person, are notpunishable even if, had the$ been carried out,

the$ would constitute a crime b. external acts @ cover a"preparator$ and b" acts of eecution

c. preparatory @ acts tendin&toward the crimeF ordinaril$ not punishableunless specificall$ provided forF these acts donot $et constitute even the first sta&e of theacts of eecutionF intent not $et disclosed

d. acts of execution @ actsdirectl$ connected to the intended crimeFvaries with the crime and is punishable underthe codeF usuall$ overt acts with a lo&icalrelation to a particular concrete offense

STA6ES OF COMMISSION

1. $ttempte @ there is an attempt when theoffender performs all the acts of eecutionwhich would produce the felon$ as aconse9uence but which, nevertheless, do notproduce it b$ reason of causes independent ofthe will of the perpetrator.

2. 0rustrate @ it is frustrated when the offenderperforms all the acts of eecution which wouldproduce the felon$ as a conse9uence but whichnevertheless, do not produce it b$ reason ofsome cause or accident other than his ownspontaneous desistance.

3. Consummate @ a felon$ is consummatedwhen all the elements necessar$ for itseecution and accomplishment are present.

ATTEMPTED FELONY

E%&3&ns1. The offender commences the commission of the

felon$ directl$ b$ overt actsF/.+e does not perform all the acts of eecution

which should produce the felon$F3.The offenderBs act is not stopped b$ his own

spontaneous desistanceF

=. The non>performance of all acts of eecution wasdue to cause or accident other than his ownspontaneous desistance.

The commission of the felon$ is deemed commenceddirectl$ b$ overt acts when 1" there be eternal actsF /"

such eternal acts have direct connection with the crimeintended to be committed. '1ER" $C" @ some ph$sical activit$ or deed, indicatin&the intention to commit a particular crime, more than amere plannin& or preparation, which if carried to itscomplete termination followin& its natural curse, withoutbein& frustrated b$ eternal obstacles nor b$ voluntar$desistance of the perpetrator, will lo&icall$ andnecessaril$ ripen into a concrete offense.

♠ rawin& or tr$in& to draw a pistol or raisin& a bolo asif to strie the offended part$ with it is not an overt actof homicide.

*NDE"ER)*N$"E '00ENSE @ 6t is one where thepurpose of the offender in performin& an act is not

certain. 6ts nature in relation to its ob*ective isambi&uous.

♠ The intention of the accused must be viewed from thenature of the acts eecuted b$ him, and not from hisadmission.

S2,3EC"*1E $ND ',3EC"*1E P+$SES '0 $0EL'N4

1. SUBECTIE PHASE> That portion of the eecution of the

crime startin& from the point where the offenderstill has control over his acts.

> 6f the offender reaches the pointwhere he has no more control over is acts, thesub*ective phase is passed.

> 6f it is alread$ passed but the felon$ is

not produced, it is frustrated.

. OBECTIE PHASE> the result of the acts of eecution,

that is, the accomplishment of the crime.> 6f the sub*ective and ob*ective phases

are present, there is consummated felon$.

P&o*%& +. L,3,;,n- (19@)Facts: The accused was cau&ht in the act of

main& an openin& with an iron bar on the wall of astore where the owner was sleepin&. The accused hadonl$ succeeded in breain& one board and inunfastenin& another from the wall, when the policemanshowed up, who instantl$ arrested him. The trial courtconvicted him of attempted robber$.

Held - The conviction is erroneous. 6t is the

opinion of the #C that the attempt to commit an offensewhich the Penal code punishes is that which has a lo&icalrelation to a particular, concrete offenseF that, which isthe be&innin& of the eecution of the offense b$ overtacts of the perpetrator, leadin& directl$ to its reali4ationand consummation. hat we have here is an attempt tocommit an indeterminate offense.

There is no doubt that it was the intention ofthe accused to enter the store b$ means of violence,passin& throu&h the openin& which he had started tomae on the wall, but it is not sufficient, for the purpose

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 1! /


16/130


of imposin& penal sanction to mae an assumption thatthe act was in preparation for the commission ofrobber$. There is no lo&ical and natural relation betweenthe act of enterin& and robber$. Thus, he should be&uilt$ of attempted trespass to dwellin&.

P&o*%& +. D!o (198)Facts: The appellant and his companion triedto divest Crispulo of his #eio wrist watch but Crispuloresisted their attempt and fou&ht the robbers. Thevictim was stabbed and later died. The #eio watch wasstill strapped to his wrist. The lower court convicted theappellant of the special comple crime of robber$ withhomicide.

Held: The decision of the lower court waserroneous. The accused were unsuccessful in theircriminal venture since the watch was still securel$strapped to the victimBs wrist. The crime of robber$ wastherefore not consummated. The illin& ma$ beconsidered as merel$ incidental to the plan to carr$ outthe robber$. The accused must be convicted ofattempted robber$ with homicide.

P&o*%& +. T#!n!4,4 (1989)Facts: eceased #oriano and %aroa to&etherwith Tan were inside a ord ierra Trinidad ased for aride. The accused shot the two deceased. Tan &ot off theierra and rode a *eepne$ which *ust passed b$. henhe saw the accused ridin& at the bac of the *eep, hetried to run but when the *eep started drivin& awa$, heclun& to its side. The accused fired two shots at Tan, onehittin& him on his thi&h. The lower court convicted himof frustrated murder.

Held: The accused can onl$ be convicted ofAttempted )urder because the accused was unable toperform all acts of eecution which would have producedthe murder. The victimBs wound in the ri&ht thi&h wasnot fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the woundis inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause hisdeath, the crime is onl$ attempted murder.

P&o*%& +. C,3*";,n (222)Facts: The mother of the =>$ear>old victim

cau&ht the housebo$ Campuhan in the act of almostrapin& her dau&hter. The h$men of the victim was stillintact but since in previous 2rita rulin&, entr$ into labiais considered rape even without rupture of h$men andfull penetration is not necessar$, 9uestion ariseswhether what transpired was attempted orconsummated rape.

Held - Attempted rape onl$. )ere touchin& ofeternal &enitalia b$ the penis is alread$ rape. +owever,touchin& should be understood as inherentl$ part ofentr$ of penis into labia and not mere touchin& of thepudendum. There must be clear and convincin& proofthat the penis indeed touched the labia and slid into thefemale or&an and N2T )?R?%K #TR2L? T+?

?HT?RNA% #RAC?. #ome de&ree of penetrationbeneath the surface must be achieved and the labiama*or must be entered. Prosecution did not prove thatthe CampuhanBs penis was able to penetrate victimBsva&ina because the neelin& position of the accusedobstructed the motherBs view of the alle&ed seualcontact. The testimon$ of the victim herself claimed thatpenis &ra4ed but did not penetrate her or&an.

There was onl$ a shelling of the castle but nobombardment of the drawbridge yet.

P&o*%& +. L!s!o (222)Facts: 'rothers 8eonito and )arlon were

passin& b$ Tramo, )untinlupa when a &roup composed

of A&apito %isterio, #amson, eor&e, and )arlon, allsurnamed ela Torre and 'onifacio 'anca$a blocedtheir path and attaced them with lead pipes and bladedweapons. %isterio, )arlon and eor&e, who were armedwith bladed weapons, stabbed 8eonito from behind.8eonitoBs brother, )arlon, was hit on the head b$#amson and 'anca$a with lead pipes and momentaril$lost consciousness. hen he re&ained his senses, hesaw that 8eonito was alread$ dead. Their assailants thenfled after the incident. )arlon who sustained in*uries inthe arm and bac, was thereafter brou&ht to a hospitalfor treatment. The lower court found %isterio &uilt$ forthe 5attempt7 to ill )arlon.

Held: The #C held that the crime is afrustrated felon$ not an attempted offense considerin&that after bein& stabbed and clubbed twice in the headas a result of which he lost consciousness and fell,

)arlons attacers apparentl$ thou&ht he was alread$dead and fled.A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless

the offender, after be&innin& the commission of thecrime b$ overt acts, is prevented, a&ainst his will, b$some outside cause from performin& all of the actswhich should produce the crime. 6n other words, to bean attempted crime the purpose of the offender must bethwarted b$ a forei&n force or a&enc$ which intervenesand compels him to stop prior to the moment when hehas performed all of the acts which should produce thecrime as a conse9uence, which acts it is his intention toperform. 6f he has performed all the acts which shouldresult in the consummation of the crime and voluntaril$desists from proceedin& further, it cannot be anattempt.

FRUSTRATED FELONY

E%&3&ns1. The offender performs all the acts of

eecutionF/. All the acts performed would produce the

felon$ as a conse9uenceF3. 'ut the felon$ is not producedF=. '$ reason of causes independent of the

will of the perpetrator.

♠ 6n frustrated felon$, the offender must perform all theacts of eecution. Nothin& more is left to be done b$ theoffender, because he has performed the last actnecessar$ to produce the crime.

FRUSTRATED FELONY S. ATTEMPTED FELONY1. 6n both, the offender has not accomplished his

criminal purpose.

2. hile in frustrated felon$, the offenderhas performed all the acts of eecution whichwould produce the felon$ as a conse9uence, inattempted felon$, the offender merel$commences the commission of a felon$ directl$b$ overt acts and does not perform all the acts ofeecution.

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 10 /


17/130


ATTEMPTED ORFRUSTRATED

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished

The evil intent of the

offender is possible ofaccomplishment

The evil intent of the

offender cannot beaccomplished

The evil intent cannot beaccomplished because ofthe intervention of certaincause or accident in whichthe offender had no part

The evil intent of theoffender cannot beaccomplished because it isinherently impossible ofaccomplishment orbecause the meansemployed by the offenderis inade*uate orineffectual

P&o*%& +. E#!5, (197)Facts: The victim of the crime was a child of 3

$ears and 11 months. There are doubts whether theaccused succeeded in penetratin& the va&ina beforebein& disturbed in the timel$ intervention of the mother

and sister. The ph$sician found a sli&ht inflammation ofthe eterior parts of the or&an, indicatin& an effort hadbeen made to enter the va&ina but it is doubtful whetherthe entr$ had been effected.

Held: Thou&h complete penetration is notnecessar$, penetration of the labia is sufficient.+owever, since there is no sufficient evidence of suchpenetration, the act is merel$ frustrated.

Dissent - 6t is consummated rape.

P&o*%& +. O#!, (1992)Facts: The victim was a 1:>$ear old colle&e

student. #he arrived at her boardin& house earl$mornin& comin& from a late>ni&ht part$. The accusedsuddenl$ held her and poed a nife to her nec. The$entered a room and the victim was ordered to lie down.The accused made the victim hold his penis and insert it

in her va&ina. 'ecause of their position, the accusedcannot full$ penetrate her. 2nl$ a small part of his penisinserted her va&ina. The victim was able to escape andreport to the police what happened. The lower courtconvicted the accused of frustrated rape.

Held: Perfect penetration is not essential forthe consummation of rape. ?ntr$ of the labia or lips ofthe female or&an without rupture of the h$men orlaceration of the va&ina is sufficient to warrantconviction. Clearl$, in the crime of rape, from themoment the offender has carnal nowled&e of his victim,he actuall$ attains his purpose and, from that momentalso all the essential elements of the offense have beenaccomplished. Nothin& more is left to be done b$ theoffender, because he has performed the last actnecessar$ to produce the crime. Thus, the felon$ isconsummated rape.

Tain& into account the nature, elements andmanner of eecution of the crime of rape and

*urisprudence on the matter, it is hardl$ conceivable howthe frustrated sta&e in rape can ever be consummated.

P&o*%& +. C,/,%%o (22@)Facts- As ?u&ene waled b$ the &ate of the

)ondra&on Compound, Armando Caballero suddenl$&rabbed ?u&ene towards the compound. ?u&eneresisted. #pontaneousl$, ArmandoBs brothers Ricardo,)arciano, 8r. and Robito *oined Armando and assaulted

?u&ene. Armando too the wooden pole supportin& theclothesline and hit ?u&ene with it. ?u&eneBs sister,)$rna, saw the Caballero brothers assaultin& ?u&eneand shouted for help. Arnold saw the commotion andrushed to the scene to pacif$ the prota&onists. +owever,Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the

left side of his bod$. orthwith, Robito, )arciano, 8r. andArmando &an&ed up on Arnold. Two of them stabbedArnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hidunder the house of a nei&hbor. %eonilo, who liewiserushed to the scene was stabbed b$ Robito. ?u&ene and%eonilo eventuall$ died from the stab wounds the$sustained. r. uisumbin&, who attended to andoperated on Arnold, testified that the stab woundsustained b$ Arnold on the left side of his bod$ wasmortal and could have caused his death were it not forthe timel$ and effective medical intervention-

Held: A crime is frustrated when the offenderhas performed all the acts of eecution which shouldresult in the consummation of the crime. The offenderhas passed the sub*ective phase in the commission ofthe crime. #ub*ectivel$, the crime is complete. Nothin&interrupted the offender while passin& throu&h the

sub*ective phase. +e did all that is necessar$ toconsummate the crime. +owever, the crime is notconsummated b$ reason of the intervention of causesindependent of the will of the offender. 6n homicidecases, the offender is said to have performed all the actsof eecution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortaland could cause the death of the victim barrin& medicalintervention or attendance.

CONSUMMATED FELONY

R&


18/130


b. crimes consummate by mere attempt

(e. Attempt to flee to an enem$ countr$,treason"• There is not ATT?)PT? crime because theovert act in itself consummates the crime.

c! felonies by omission• There can be no attempted sta&e because theoffender does not eecute acts. +e omits toperform an act which the law re9uires him to do.

d. crimes committe by mere agreement

> The offer made b$ one of the parties to the otherconstitutes attempted felon$, if the offer isre*ected.

> 6n view of this rule, it would seem that there isno frustrated briber$ but in People v. ie&o uin,#C ruled that if the public officer returned themone$ &iven b$ the defendant, there isfrustrated briber$.

e! material crimes

> There are three sta&es of consummation-attempted, frustrated and consummated.

US +. A4!,o (19)Facts: Adiao is a customs inspector. +e

abstracted a leather belt from the lu&&a&e of a 8apaneseand secreted the belt under his des in the Customs+ouse where it was found b$ other customs emplo$ees.Adiao was convicted of frustrated theft.

Held: #ince the defendant performed all theacts of eecution necessar$ for the accomplishment ofthe felon$, he is &uilt$ of consummated crime of theft.The fact that he was under observation durin& the entiretransaction and was unable to &et the merchandise outof the Customs +ouse is not decisiveF all the elements ofthe completed crime of theft are present.

P&o*%& +. Hn,n4& (19)Facts: The accused, a ;$ear>old man was

convicted b$ the trial court of frustrated rape for havin&intercourse with his &randdau&hter who was at that timeonl$ : $ears of a&e. The lower court claimed that therecan be no consummated rape without a completepenetration of the h$men.

Held: indin& the h$men intact is not alwa$sproof that no rape has been committed. The law ma$now indeed be considered as settled that while therupturin& of the h$men is not indispensable to aconviction, there must be proof of some de&ree ofentrance of the male or&an within the labia ofpudendum. 6n the present case, the ph$sician found thelabia and the openin& of the va&ina inflamed to&etherwith an abundance of semen. Child even testified thatdefendant succeeded partial penetration. The accused is&uilt$ of consummated rape.

D. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

A#. 9. 8rave felonies& less grave felonies an lightfelonies. I rave felonies are those to which the lawattaches the capital punishment or penalties which inan$ of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art./! of this Code.

%ess &rave felonies are those which the lawpunishes with penalties which in their maimum periodare correctional, in accordance with the above>mentioned Art.

♠ Art. : classifies felonies accordin& to their &ravit$.

a.6RAE FELONIES @ those in which the lawattaches a capital punishment or afflictivepenalt$.

♠ Capital punishment is death penalt$

♠ The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art./! of this code are-

reclusion perpetuareclusion temporal perpetual or temporar$ absolute

dis9ualificationperpetual or temporar$ special

dis9ualification prision mayor

b. LESS 6RAE FELONIES @ those in whichtheir maimum period are correctional

♠ hen the penalt$ prescribed for the offense iscomposed of two or more distinct penalties, thehi&her or hi&hest of the penalties must be acorrectional penalt$.

♠ The followin& are correctional penalties prision correccional

arresto mayor suspensiondestierro

c.LI6HT FELONIES @ those infractions of law inwhich the penalt$ is arresto menor or a fine not

eceedin& P/


19/130


li&ht felonies which are not consummated and to mereaccomplices.

III. CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. HOW INCURRED

A#. . Criminal liability! I Criminal liabilit$ shall beincurred-

1. '$ an$ person committin& a felon$ (delito"althou&h the wron&ful act done be different from thatwhich he intended.

/. '$ an$ person performin& an act whichwould be an offense a&ainst persons or propert$, were itnot for the inherent impossibilit$ of its accomplishmentor an account of the emplo$ment of inade9uate orineffectual means.

♣ This article has no reference to the manner criminalliabilit$ is incurred. The manner incurrin& criminalliabilit$ under the RPC is stated under Art. 3, that is,performin& or failin& to do an act, when either ispunished b law, b$ means of deceit or fault.

♣ Art. = merel$ states that criminal liabilit$ is incurredb$ those mentioned b$ the said article.

5! ,y any person committing a felony although the#rongful act one be ifferent from that #hich heintene

REUISITES

a. That an intentional felony has beencommittedF and

b. That the wron& done to the a&&rievedpart$ be the direct and natural and logicalconse9uence of the felon$.

♣ An$ person who creates in anotherBs mind animmediate sense of dan&er, which causes the latter todo somethin& resultin& in the latterBs in*uries, is liablefor the resultin& in*uries.

♣ ron& done must be the direct, natural and lo&icalconse9uence of the felon$ committed.

> where it clearl$ appears that the in*ur$ wouldnot have cased death, in the ordinar$ course of events,but would have healed in so man$ da$s and where it isshown be$ond all doubt that the death was due to themalicious or careless acts of the in*ured person or athird person, the accused is not liable for homicide.

♣ The offended part$ is not obli&ed to submit to asur&ical operation to relieve the accused from the

natural and ordinar$ results of his crime.♣ The felon$ committed must be the proimate cause ofthe resultin& in*ur$.

♠ The causes which ma$ produce a result different fromthat which the offender intended are-

a. ERROR IN PERSONAE > mistae in theidentit$ of the victimF in*urin& one personmistaen for another (this is a complecrime under Art. =:"

b. ABERRATIO ICTUS > mistae in theblow, that is, when the offender intendin&to do an in*ur$ to one person actuall$inflicts it on anotherF and

c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM @ the act

eceeds the intent, that is, the in*uriousresult is &reater than that intended.

G RPC, Art. 13 +itigating circumstance @3" That the offender had no intention tocommit so &rave a wron& as that committed.

6! ,y any person performing an act #hich #oulbe an offense against persons or property& #ere itnot for the inherent impossibility of itsaccomplishment or an account of the employmentof inae9uate or ineffectual means!

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

REUISITES

1. T;, ;& ,$ *o#3&4 o"%4 /& ,no&ns& ,-,!ns persons o# property!

FELONIES A6AINST PERSONS AREa. Parricideb. )urderc. +omicided. 6nfanticidee. Abortionf. uel&. Ph$sical 6n*uriesh. Rape

FELONIES A6AINST PROPERTY AREa. Robber$b. 'ri&anda&ec. Theftd. surpatione. Culpable 6nsolvenc$f. #windlin& and other deceits&. Chattel )ort&a&eh. Arson and other crimes involvin&

destructioni. )alicious )ischief

2. T;, ;& ,$ ,s 4on& !; evil intent!

The offender must have intent to do in*ur$ toanother.

3. T;, !s ,$$o3*%!s;3&n !s inherently !3*oss!/%&' o# ;, ;& 3&,ns &3*%o>&4 !s&!; inae9uate o# ineffectual .

6n impossible crime, the act performed b$ theoffender cannot produce an offense a&ainst personsor propert$ because-

,. the commission of the offense isinherently impossible of accomplishment

> The act intended b$ the offender is b$ itsnature one of impossible accomplishment.

> There must either 1" %?A% 6)P2##6'6%6TK,or /" P+K#6CA% 6)P2##6'6%6TK

> eamples- 1" when one tries to ill anotherb$ puttin& in his substance which he believes to bearsenic when in fact it is common saltF /" when onetries to murder a corpse.

/li!/ "i" # Pa&e 1: /


20/130


b. the means employe is either inae9uateor ineffectual

> eample- when one tries to poison another butthe 9uantit$ of arsenic added in his substance wasnot sufficient to ill a person

> but where the means emplo$ed is ade9uate

and the result epected is not produced, it is not animpossible crime, but a frustrated felon$.

.T;, ;& ,$ *o#3&4 s;o"%4 no$ons!"& , +!o%,!on o ,no; *#o+!s!on o;& RPC> eample- A pointed a &un at ' to rob the latterof a watch but ' was not wearin& a watch. 6t isnot an impossible crime because ABs pointin& his&un at ' alread$ constituted at least the crime of&rave threats.

hy is an impossible crime punishable:

6t is punishable in order to suppress criminaltendencies. 2b*ectivel$, the offender has not committeda felon$, but sub*ectivel$, he is a criminal.

U#/,no +. IAC (1988)Facts: rbano went to his rice field and found

his pala$ flooded with water. rbano found out that itwas 8avier who was responsible for the openin& of theirri&ation canal. +e &ot an&r$ and tried to hac 8avierbut the latter tried to parr$ the attac and in theprocess, a two>inch incised wound was inflicted on theri&ht palm of 8avierBs hand. The wound was treated andincapacitation was dia&nosed to be from ;>: da$s. //da$s after, 8avier was rushed to the hospital in a ver$serious condition caused b$ tetanus toin. 8avier diedthe net da$. rbano was convicted of homicide.

Held: rbano is ac9uitted because the infectionwas distinct and forei&n to the crime. The proimatecause of 8avierBs death was due to his own ne&li&ence ashe went bac to wor even if his wound had not $et

healed properl$. The evidence on record also shows thatthe wound inflicted b$ rbano did not ehibit an$ si&nsof bein& infected with tetanusF at most, it was onl$infected with a mild form of tetanus and not the severeform that illed him.

Ino4 +. CA (199)Facts: 6ntod et al. went to Palan&pan&anBs

house, all armed with firearms. The$ went the bedroomand be&an firin& their weapons. +owever, Palan&pan&anwas in another cit$ and her home was occupied b$ herson>in>law and his famil$. No one was in the room whenthe accused fired their weapons. RTC convicted theaccused of attempted murder.

Held - The accused is &uilt$ of an impossiblecrime. The factual situation in the case presents aph$sical impossibilit$ which rendered the intended crime

impossible of performance.

"!no +. An4#&s (22) Facts: arcia, a rade = elementar$ schoolpupil, and

crimlaw1 reviewer - esguerra notes.pdf

Documents