Criminal Law

7/18/2019 Criminal Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-law-56918411c1d48 1/18

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their

punishment.

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON)

1. Must be general in application.

2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.

3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.

4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

Characteristics of Criminal Law:1. General the law is binding to all persons who reside in the !hilippines

2. Territorial the law is binding to all crimes committed within the "ational #erritor$ of the !hilippines

Exception to Territorial Application% &nstances enumerated under Article 2.

3. Prospective the law does not have an$ retroactive effect.

Exception to Prospective Application% when new statute is favorable to the accused.

Effect of repeal of penal law to liabilit of offen!er

Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. — As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability

of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is

partial or relative only.

A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalied by

the repeal. !ecause of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An

example is "epublic Act #o. $%&%, which decriminalied subversion.

A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime

inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime

under the repealed law. The modification may be pre'udicial or beneficial to the offender. (ence, the

following rule)

Conse"#ences if repeal of penal law is total or absol#te

*+ &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be

dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.

*- &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final 'udgment, if the

convict is not a habitual delin(uent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation

clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. )ut if

there is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their

sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.

&f the$ are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the

legality of their continued confinement in 'ail.

&f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin(uent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite of

the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so

because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitualdelinquents.

Conse"#ences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative

*+ &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is

more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. o whether he is a habitual delinquent

or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a

saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action.

*2+ &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final 'udgment, even if

the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. #hose who are not habitual

delin(uents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be

the repealing law that will henceforth appl$ to them.



/nder Article --, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is beneficial

shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with "ule 0 of Article &-.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied

*+ &f a penal law is impliedl$ repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the

original law. o the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived

and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be

punishable.

*- &f the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so the act or

omission will no longer be penalied.These effects of repeal do not apply to self1repealing laws or those which have automatic termination. An

example is the "ent 2ontrol 3aw which is revived by 2ongress every two years.

Theories of Criminal Law1. Classical Theor Man is essentiall$ a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and

evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.

1. Positivist Theor Man is subdued occasionall$ b$ a strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him to

do wrong in spite of or contrar$ to his volition.

Eclectic or $i%e! Philosoph

This combines both positivist and classical thin4ing. 2rimes that are economic and social and nature should

be dealt with in a positivist manner5 thus, the law is more compassionate. (einous crimes should be dealt

with in a classical manner5 thus, capital punishmen

&'C $'*$ N C+$N'L L',

-octrine of Pro +eo

6henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations 7 one lenient

to the offender and one strict to the offender 7 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the

offender will be adopted.

N#ll#m crimen. n#lla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to

common law countries.!ecause of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. #o matter how wrongful, evil or

bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.

'ct#s non facit re#m. nisi mens sit rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characteried by dolo,

but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to

culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.

/tilitarian Theor or Protective Theor

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and

potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct

the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions

which the society does not approve. 2onsistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilied to apply the full

harshness of the special law.

o#rces of Criminal Law1. #he evised !enal -ode

2. pecial !enal /aws Acts enacted of the !hilippine /egislature punishing offenses or omissions.

Constr#ction of Penal Laws1. -riminal tatutes are liberall$ construed in favor of the offender. #his means that no person shall be brought

within their terms who is not clearl$ within them, nor should an$ act be pronounced criminal which is not clearl$

made so b$ statute.

2. #he original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official translation.



3. &nterpretation b$ analog$ has no place in criminal law

$'L' N E 'N- $'L' P+O0&T'

8iolations of the "evised Penal 2ode are referred to as malum in se, which literall$ means, that the act is

inherentl$ evil or bad or per se wrongful. 0n the other hand, violations of special laws are generall$

referred to as malum prohibitum.

"ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. hile intentional felonies are

alwa$s mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are alwa$s mala

prohibita. ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherentl$wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid

defense unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

/ikewise when the special laws re(uires that the punished act be committed knowingl$ and willfull$,

criminal intent is re(uired to be proved before criminal liabilit$ ma$ arise.

hen the act penalied is not inherentl$ wrong, it is wrong onl$ because a law punishes the same.

-istinction between crimes p#nishe! #n!er the +evise! Penal Co!e an! crimes p#nishe! #n!er special

laws

12 As to moral trait of the offender

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, the moral trait of the offender is considered. #his is wh$

liabilit$ would onl$ arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered it is enough that

the prohibited act was voluntaril$ done.

32 As to use of good faith as defense

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense

unless the crime is the result of culpa

&n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

42 As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into

account in punishing the offender thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the

commission of the crime.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl$ when it is consummated there are

no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressl$ penalie the mere attempt or frustration

of the crime.

52 As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into

account in imposing the penalt$ since the moral trait of the offender is considered.

&n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account

in imposing the penalt$.

62 As to degree of participation



&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, when there is more than one offender, the degree of

participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalt$ thus,

offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessor$.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All

who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalied to the same extent. #here is no principal or accomplice

or accessor$ to consider.

Test to !etermine if violation of special law is mal#m prohibit#m or mal#m in se Analye the violation) 9s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such: 9f you

remove the law, will the act still be wrong:

9f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word ;willfully<, then malice must be proven.

6here malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

9n violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis

of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission.

6hen given a problem, ta4e note if the crime is a violation of the "evised Penal 2ode or a special law.

'rt2 12 This Co!e shall ta7e effect on 8an#ar 1. 19432'rt2 32 E%cept as provi!e! in the treaties an! laws of preferential application.the provisions of this Co!e shall be enforce! not onl within the Philippine'rchipelago incl#!ing its atmosphere. its interior waters an! $aritime one. b#talso o#tsi!e of its ;#ris!iction. against those who:12 ho#l! commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship<32 ho#l! forge or co#nterfeit an coin or c#rrenc note of the Philippine slan!sor obligations an! sec#rities iss#e! b the Government of the Philippine slan!s<42 ho#l! be liable for acts connecte! with the intro!#ction into these islan!s ofthe obligations an! sec#rities mentione! in the prece!ing n#mber<52 ,hile being p#blic officers or emploees. sho#l! commit an offense in thee%ercise of their f#nctions< or *ome of these crimes are bribery, fraud against

national treasury, malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds5 e.g., A 'udge who accepts a bribe while in =apan. 62 ho#l! commit an crimes against the national sec#rit an! the law ofnations. !efine! in Title One of &oo7 Two of this Co!e2 *These crimes includetreason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of neutrality

• Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels%

1. =rench +#le uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that countr$, unless their commission affects the

peace and securit$ of the territor$ or the safet$ of the state is endangered.

1. English +#le uch crimes are triable in that countr$, unless the$ merel$ affect things within the vessel or the$

refer to the internal management thereof. *#his is applicable in the !hilippines+

two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on

board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are)

*+ 6hen the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part

of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong5

*- 6hen the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts

the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the

national security or public order of such foreign country.• Requirements of “an offense committed while on a hilippine !hip or Airship5

1. egistered with the !hilippine )ureau of -ustoms

2. hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace.



/nder international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is

considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever the

pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.

/ v2 &#ll

A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territor$

and continued when it entered into !hilippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. 6ence within the

'urisdiction of the local courts.

As a general rule, the "evised Penal 2ode governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise

of the public official>s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.

The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in

the ?oreign ervice of the Philippine government in a foreign country.

Exception) The "evised Penal 2ode governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or

within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an

extension of sovereignty.

Paragraph 0 of Article -, use the phrase ;as defined in Title @ne of !oo4 Two of this 2ode.<

This is a very important part of the exception, because Title 9 of !oo4 - *crimes against national

security does not include rebellion.'rt 42 'cts an! omissions p#nishable b law are felonies2

• Acts an overt or external act

• "mission failure to perform a dut$ re(uired b$ law. Example of an omission% failure to render assistance to

an$one who is in danger of d$ing or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded abandonment.

• Felonies acts and omissions punishable b$ the evised !enal -ode

• Crime acts and omissions punishable b$ an$ law

hat re(uisites must concur before a felon$ ma$ be committed7

There must be *+ an act or omission5 *- punishable by the "evised Penal 2ode5 and *% the act is

performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.• #ow felonies are committed %

1. b means of !eceit (dolo) #here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.

Requisites$1. freedom

2. intelligence

3. intent

Examples% murder, treason, and robber$

Criminal intent is not necessar% in these cases$

*+ 6hen the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or

lac4 of s4ill5

*- 6hen the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum.

&n criminal law, intent is categori'ed into two$

*+ eneral criminal intent5 and

*- pecific criminal intent.

(eneral criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof.

The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.

!pecific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, li4e intent to

4ill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicideBparricideBmurder. The prosecution has the burden

of proving the same.

)istinction between intent and discernment



&ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. 9t is the design to resolve

or determination by which a person acts.

@n the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 9t relates to the moral

significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct

from intent.

)istinction between intent and motive

&ntent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result 7 it is not a state of

mind or a reason for committing a crime.

@n the other hand, motive implies motion. 9t is the moving power which impels one to do an act. 6henthere is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. !ut a crime may be

committed without motive.

9f the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. 9ntent is manifested by the instrument

used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished

from the attempted or frustrated stage.1. b% means of fault *culpa+ #here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of

foresight, or lack of skill.

1. &mprudence deficienc$ of action e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. 6e hit ) because it was raining

reckless imprudence.

2. egligence - deficienc$ of perception failure to foresee impending danger, usuall$ involves lack of foresight

3. c. Requisites$1. 8reedom

2. &ntelligence

3. &mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight

4. /ack of intent

The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac4 of precaution on the part of the person

performing or failing to perform an act. 9f the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest,

you have a case of recless imprudence. !ut if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not

clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence.• $ista7e of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in'ur$ to another. 6e is not

criminall$ liable.

a. Requisites%

1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be

2. intention of the accused is lawful

3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.

E%ample$ /nited !tates v. Ah Chong.

Ah -hong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room b$ placing a chair against the door. After

having gone to bed, he was awakened b$ somebod$ who was tr$ing to open the door. 6e asked the identit$

of the person, but he did not receive a response. 8earing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of

bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck

him. )elieving that he was attacked, he seied a knife and fatall$ wounded the intruder.

Cista4e of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, butnot when the felony is a result of culpa. 6hen the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mista4e of

fact.

'rt2 52 Criminal liabilit shall be inc#rre!: 12 & an person committing a felon. altho#gh the wrongf#l act !one be!ifferent from that which he inten!e!2

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felon$. &t must

be the direct, natural, and logical conse(uence of the felonious act.



• Ca#ses which pro!#ce a !ifferent res#lt:

1. 0istae in identit% of the victim in'uring one person who is mistaken for another *this is a complex crime

under Art. 49+ e.g., A intended to shoot ), but he instead shot - because he *A+ mistook - for ).

9n error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. 9t was the actual victim

upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim.

(ow does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender:

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. 9f the

crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal

liability of the offender.9n mista4e of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different

victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. !ut if the crime committed

was different from the crime intended, Article D will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be

applied. 9n a way, mista4e in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article D applies. 6here the

crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating

circumstance

2. 0istae in blow hitting somebod$ other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances *this is a

complex crime under Art. 49+ e.g., ) and - were walking together. A wanted to shoot ), but he instead in'ured

-.

9n aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that

blow landed on somebody else. 9n aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim areboth at the scene of the crime.

aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more

serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.

3. &n1urious result is greater than that intended causing in'ur$ graver than intended or expected *this is a

mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13+ e.g., A wanted to in'ure

). 6owever, ) died.

praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph % of Article +%. 9n order

however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between

the means employed and the resulting felony • &n all these instances the offender can still be held criminall$ liable, since he is motivated b$ criminal intent.

Requisites%1. the felon$ was intentionall$ committed

2. the felon$ is the proximate cause of the wrong done

• )octrine of roximate Cause such ade(uate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under

the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessaril$ produce the event.

Requisites%

1. the direct, natural, and logical cause

2. produces the in'ur$ or damage

3. unbroken b$ an$ sufficient intervening cause

4. without which the result would not have occurred

• roximate Cause is negated b%$

1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel$ foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a

sufficient intervening cause.2. esulting in'ur$ or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended

party. 9t is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him

ris4 himself.• "equisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death here there has been an in'ur$ inflicted sufficient to

produce death followed b$ the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the in'ur$ was the cause of the

death. !rovided%

1. victim was in normal health

2. death ensued within a reasonable time



The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause

is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.

32 & an person performing an act which wo#l! be an offense against persons or propert. were it not

for the inherent impossibilit of its accomplishment or on acco#nt of the emploment of ina!e"#ate or

ineffect#al means2• +e"#isites: ($PO&LE C+$E)

1. Act would have been an offense against persons or propert$

2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the -ode or of a special penal law

3. #here was criminal intent4. Accomplishment was inherentl$ impossible or inade(uate or ineffectual means were emplo$ed.

• Notes:

1. 0ffender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was

alread$ dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.

2. #he law intends to punish the criminal intent.

3. #here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

• ?elonies against persons% parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph$sical in'uries, etc.

• ?elonies against property) robber$, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.

• 9nherent impossibility % A thought that ) was 'ust sleeping. ) was alread$ dead. A shot ). A is liable. &f A knew

that ) is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.

6hen we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not

have materialied. 9f the crime could have materialied under a different set of facts, employing the same

mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime5 it would be an attempted felony.• Employment of inadequate means% A used poison to kill ). 6owever, ) survived because A used small (uantities

of poison frustrated murder.

• 9neffectual means% A aimed his gun at ). hen he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was

empt$. A is liable.

6henever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was

committed, be careful about the question as4ed. 9f the question as4ed is) ;9s an impossible crime

committed:<, then you 'udge that question on the basis of the facts. 9f really the facts constitute an

impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for

the inherent impossibility.

9f the question as4ed is ;9s he liable for an impossible crime:<, this is a catching question. Eventhough the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other

crimes under the "evised Penal 2ode, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. (e will be prosecuted

for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him.

this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, 'ust to teach the offender a lesson because of

his criminal perversity. 9f he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime

constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. 9f you want to play safe, you state there that

although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be

penalied for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the "evised

Penal 2ode.

Art :. henever a court has knowledge of an$ act which it ma$ deem proper torepress and which is not punishable b$ law, it shall render the proper decision andshall report to the -hief xecutive, through the ;epartment of <ustice, the reasonswhich induce the court to believe that said act should be made sub'ect of legislation.

n the same wa the co#rt shall s#bmit to the Chief E%ec#tive. thro#gh the-epartment of 8#stice. s#ch statement as ma be !eeme! proper. witho#ts#spen!ing the e%ec#tion of the sentence. when a strict enforcement of theprovisions of this Co!e wo#l! res#lt in the imposition of a clearl e%cessive



penalt. ta7ing into consi!eration the !egree of malice an! the in;#r ca#se! bthe offense2 6hen a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court

will acquit the accused and the 'udge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.• !aragraph 2 does not appl$ to crimes punishable b$ special law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of

firearms or drugs. #here can be no executive clemenc$ for these crimes.

Art. =. -onsummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted,are punishable.

' felon is cons#mmate! when all the elements necessar for its e%ec#tion an! accomplishment are

present< an! it is fr#strate! when the offen!er performs all the acts of e%ec#tion which wo#l! pro!#ce

the felon as a conse"#ence b#t which. nevertheless. !o not pro!#ce it b reason of ca#ses

in!epen!ent of the will of the perpetrator2

There is an attempt when the offen!er commences the commission of a felon !irectl b overt acts.

an! !oes not perform all the acts of e%ec#tion which sho#l! pro!#ce the felon b reason of some

ca#se or acci!ent other than his own spontaneo#s !esistance2• )evelopment of a crime

1. &nternal acts intent and plans usuall$ not punishable

2. xternal acts

1. !reparator$ Acts acts tending toward the crime

2. Acts of xecution acts directl$ connected the crime

!tages of Commission of a Crime

Attempt Frustrated Consummated

• 0vert acts of

execution are started

• "ot all acts of

execution are present

• ;ue to reasons other

than the spontaneous

desistance of the

perpetrator

• All acts of execution

are present

• -rime sought to be

committed is not

achieved

• ;ue to intervening

causes independent of

the will of theperpetrator

• All the acts of

execution are present

• #he result sought is

achieved

• !tages of a Crime does not appl% in:

1. 0ffenses punishable b$ pecial !enal /aws, unless the otherwise is provided for.

2. 8ormal crimes *e.g., slander, adulter$, etc.+

3. &mpossible -rimes



4. -rimes consummated b$ mere attempt. Examples) attempt to flee to an enem$ countr$, treason, corruption of

minors.

:. 8elonies b$ omission

=. -rimes committed b$ mere agreement. Examples) betting in sports *endings in basketball+, corruption of

public officers.

-esistance

Fesistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Fesistance

is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. 9f under the definition of the felony, the act done is

already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all

criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was

made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for

the felony brought about his act

9n deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria

involved)

*+ The manner of committing the crime5

*- The elements of the crime5 and

*% The nature of the crime itself.• Applications$

1. A put poison in )>s food. ) threw awa$ his food. A is liable attempted murder .?1@2. A stole )>s car, but he returned it. A is liable *consummated theft.

3. A aimed his gun at ). - held A>s hand and prevented him from shooting ) attempted murder .

4. A inflicted a mortal wound on ). ) managed to survive frustrated murder .

:. A intended to kill ) b$ shooting him. A missed attempted murder .

=. A doused )>s house with kerosene. )ut before he could light the match, he was caught attempted arson.

. A cause a blae, but did not burn the house of ) frustrated arson.

9. )>s house was set on fire b$ A *consummated arson.

B. A tried to rape ). ) managed to escape. #here was no penetration attempted rape.

1C. A got hold of )>s painting. A was caught before he could leave )>s house frustrated robbery.234

The attempted stage is said to be within the sub'ective phase of execution of a felony. @n the

sub'ective phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until

that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. 9f he has reached that pointwhere he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the sub'ective

phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone

to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or

consummated. 9f the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. 9f the felony

follows as a consequence, it is consummated.

although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he

could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he

had done enough to consummate the crime, upreme 2ourt said the sub'ective phase has passed

"T5! " AR!"6

The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage.

The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of

execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn.

@n the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blac4ened, in law, arson is

consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be

burned. 9t is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn.

5!TAFA 7!. T#5FT

9n estafa, the offender receives the property5 he does not ta4e it. !ut in receiving the property, the

recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or

material possession of the ob'ect. 9t can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material

or physical possession but 'uridical possession as well.

https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-law-book-1-articles-1-10/#_ftn1






6hen you are discussing estafa, do not tal4 about intent to gain. 9n the same manner that when you

are discussing the crime of theft, do not tal4 of damage.

Nat#re of the crime itself

9n crimes involving the ta4ing of human life 7 parricide, homicide, and murder 7 in the definition of

the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. /nder the definition of the

frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already

done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that

there must be a fatal in'ury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.

9f the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted isnot capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence5 it

cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide,

homicide or murder as a result.

An exception to the general rule is the so1called sub'ective phase. The upreme 2ourt has decided

cases which applied the sub'ective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had

performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the

frustrated stage.

The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as

principals. This notion is no longer absolute. 9n the case of eople v. ierra,the upreme 2ourt ruled that

even though there was conspiracy, if a co1conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime

with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carried out

as well, such co1conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only.

Art. . /ight felonies are punishable onl$ when the$ have been consummated withthe exception of those committed against persons or propert$.

• Examples of light felonies% slight ph$sical in'uries theft alteration of boundar$ marks malicious mischief

and intriguing against honor.

• &n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever$ stage of execution is punishable but onl$ the

principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not.

Art. 9. -onspirac$ and proposal to commit felon$ are punishable onl$ in the cases inwhich the law speciall$ provides a penalt$ therefore.

' conspirac e%ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a

felon an! !eci!e to commit it2

There is proposal when the person who has !eci!e! to commit a felon proposes its e%ec#tion to some

other person or persons2• 2onspiracy is punishable in the following cases% treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies

and combinations in restraint of trade.

• 2onspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a crime. &n both

cases there is an agreement but mere conspirac$ to commit a crime is not punished D-!# in treason,

rebellion, or sedition. ven then, if the treason is actuall$ committed, the conspirac$ will be considered as ameans of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspirac$ to commit

treason.

Conspirac an! Proposal to Commit a Crime

Conspirac Proposal

lements

• Agreement among 2 or

more persons to commit a

crime



• #he$ decide to commit it

• A person has decided to

commit a crime

• 6e proposes its commission

to another

-rimes

1. -onspirac$ to commit

sedition

2. -onspirac$ to commitrebellion

3. -onspirac$ to commit

treason

4. !roposal to commit treason

:. !roposal to commit

rebellion

• Mere conspirac$ in combination in restraint of trade *Art. 19=+, and brigandage *Art. 3C=+.

Two wa%s for conspirac% to exist$

*+ There is an agreement.

*- The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds

towards a common criminal goal or criminal ob'ective. 6hen several offenders act in a synchronied,coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the

minds. There is an implied agreement.

Two inds of conspirac%$

*+ 2onspiracy as a crime5 and

*- 2onspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

6hen conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The

mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy5

otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an

overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d>etat are the only crimes

where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.

6hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act donebefore the co1conspirators become criminally liable. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed

an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held

liable, unless a co1conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to

prevent the commission of the crime.

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who

did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not

appear was the mastermind.

?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when

one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co1conspirator was absent

from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who

did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not

appear was the mastermind.

6hen the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt

act. All that there is the agreement. @n the other hand, if the co1conspirator or any of them would

execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.

conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must

be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by

con'ectures or speculations.



6hen the conspiracy is 'ust a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced

or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence

of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show

a common pursuit of the criminal ob'ective.

mere 4nowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement

to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the

crime with a view to further the common felonious ob'ective.

6hen several persons who do not 4now each other simultaneously attac4 the victim, the act of one is

the act of all, regardless of the degree of in'ury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for theconsequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not 4nown to each other. Fo not thin4

that participants are always 4nown to each other.

Conspirac% is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court

will not consider the same.

roposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet

accepted the proposal. @nce the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one

party ma4es a proposition to the other5 conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.

E-TON<

Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. !ut if /nion ! accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to

commit sedition which is a crime under the "evised Penal 2ode.

Composite crimes

2omposite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of

the law, there is only one crime. ?or example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape,

robbery with physical in'uries.

9n case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts

committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all

those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime.

As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This

principle applies only to the crime agreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co1conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens

when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co1conspirators are distinct crimes.

Exception to the exception) 9n acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co1

conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such crime.

They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the

particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act.

Art. B. Erave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishmentor penalties which in an$ of their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 2: of this-ode.

Less grave felonies are those which the law p#nishes with penalties which in their ma%im#m perio! are

correctional. in accor!ance with the above>mentione! article2Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalt of arresto ma%or or a

fine not e%cee!ing 3?? pesos. or both is provi!e!2• -apital punishment death penalt$.

• !enalties *imprisonment+% Erave six $ears and one da$ to reclusion perpetua *life+ /ess grave one month

and one da$ to six $ears /ight arresto menor *one da$ to 3C da$s+.

CL'=C'TON O= =ELONE

This question was as4ed in the bar examination) (ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified:

6hat the examiner had in mind was Articles %, & and . Fo not write the classification of felonies under

!oo4 - of the "evised Penal 2ode. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question does



not require the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore, the examiner was after the

classifications under Articles %, & and .

=elonies are classifie! as follows:

(1) According to the manner of their commission

/nder Article %, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent5 and

culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or lac4 of s4ill.

*3+ According to the stages of their execution

/nder Article &., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission

of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance5 frustrated felony

when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the

felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent

of the perpetrator5 and, consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are

present.

(4) According to their gravit%

/nder Article , felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment

or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive5 less grave felonies or those to which the law

punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional5 and light felonies or those

infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.

6hy is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light:

To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the

crime and the prescription of the penalty. 9n other words, these are felonies classified according to their

gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Ta4e note that when the "evised Penal 2ode spea4s of

grave and less grave felonies, the definition ma4es a reference specifically to Article -0 of the "evised

Penal 2ode. Fo not omit the phrase ;9n accordance with Article -0< because there is also a classification of

penalties under Article -& that was not applied.

9f the penalty is fine and exactly P-GG.GG, it is only considered a light felony under Article .

9f the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P-GG.GG is considered a

correctional penalty under Article -&.

9f the penalty is exactly P-GG.GG, apply Article -&. 9t is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes

in +G years. 9f the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the

fine.

This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription

of crimes.

9n the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. 9f the crime is correctional, it prescribes in

ten years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.

'rt2 1?2 Offenses which are or in the f#t#re ma be p#nishable #n!er speciallaws are not s#b;ect to the provisions of this Co!e2 This Co!e shall bes#pplementar to s#ch laws. #nless the latter sho#l! speciall provi!e thecontrar2

• 8or pecial /aws% !enalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc.• 0ffenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated.

• !lea of guilt$ is not mitigating for offenses punishable b$ special laws.

• "o minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties.

• "o penalt$ for an accessor$ or accomplice, unless otherwise stated.

• rovisions of RC applicable to special laws$

1. Art. 1= !articipation of Accomplices

2. Art. 22 etroactivit$ of !enal laws if favorable to the accused

3. Art. 4: -onfiscation of instruments used in the crime

/PPLETO+@ 'PPLC'TON O= T0E +EAE- PEN'L CO-E



9n Article +G, there is a reservation ;provision of the "evised Penal 2ode may be applied suppletorily to

special laws<. Hou will only apply the provisions of the "evised Penal 2ode as a supplement to the special

law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an in'ustice. 9f no 'ustice would

result, do not give suppletorily application of the "evised Penal 2ode to that of special law.

?or example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil

liability of one who violates the same. (ere is a person who violated the special law and he was

prosecuted. (is violation caused damage or in'ury to a private party. Cay the court pronounce that he is

civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point: Hes, because

Article +GG of the "evised Penal 2ode may be given suppletory application to prevent an in'ustice frombeing done to the offended party. Article +GG states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also

civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in'ustice that would be caused to the

private offended party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages or in'uries sustained by him.

9n eople v. Rodrigue', it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be

further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime

punishable under the "evised Penal 2ode, because violations of the "evised Penal 2ode are more serious

than a violation of a special law. !ut a crime in the "evised Penal 2ode can absorb a crime punishable by a

special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the "evised Penal 2ode

9n the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. (ence, two prosecutions can

be had) *+ sedition5 and *- illegal possession of firearms.

!ut do not thin4 that when a crime is punished outside of the "evised Penal 2ode, it is already a special

law. ?or example, the crime of cattle1rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime

theft of large cattle. o Presidential Fecree #o. 0%%, punishing cattle1rustling, is not a special law. 9t can

absorb the crime of murder. 9f in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender

cannot be prosecuted for murder. Curder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified

cattle rustling. This was the ruling in eople v. 0artinada.

The amendments of Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 *The Fangerous Frugs Act of +$- by "epublic Act #o.

$&0, which adopted the scale of penalties in the "evised Penal 2ode, means that mitigating and

aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 does

not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the "evised Penal 2ode. The stages of the commission

of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.

Circ#mstances affecting criminal liabilit

#here are five circumstances affecting criminal liabilit$%

*1+ <ustif$ing circumstances

*2+ xempting circumstances

*3+ Mitigating circumstances

*4+ Aggravating circumstances and

*:+ Alternative circumstances.

There are two others which are fo#n! elsewhere in the provisions of the +evise! Penal Co!e:

*1+ Absolutor$ cause and

*2+ xtenuating circumstances.

9n 'ustifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. 6hen an accused invo4es them, he

in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him



to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to 'ustify or exempt his acts from criminal

liability. 6hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.

=ustifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting

circumstances may be invo4ed in culpable felonies.

'bsol#tor ca#se

The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. 9t has

the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with

the circumstances under Article +-.

Article -G provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who aresuch with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and

sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited

themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

Then, Article I provides how criminal liability is extinguished)

Feath of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is

extinguished if death occurs before final 'udgment5

ervice of the sentence5

Amnesty5

Absolute pardon5

Prescription of the crime5

Prescription of the penalty5 and

Carriage of the offended woman as provided in Article %DD.

/nder Article -D$, a legally married person who 4ills or inflicts physical in'uries upon his or her spouse

whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.

/nder Article -+, discovering secrets through seiure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is

not penalied.

/nder Article %%-, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but

only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant,

descendant, brother and sister1in1law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the

property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of

third parties.

/nder Article %DD, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the

offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.

Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lac4 of

voluntariness li4e instigation. 9nstigation is associated with criminal intent. Fo not consider culpa in

connection with instigation. 9f the crime is culpable, do not tal4 of instigation. 9n instigation, the crime is

committed with dolo. 9t is confused with entrapment.

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal

liability. !ut instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender

simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because

without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law

enforcers.

-ifference between instigation an! entrapment

9n instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person

instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of

the law enforcer in the performance of his duties.

@n the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. 9t did

not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means

which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.

The element which ma4es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac4 of criminal intent as an element of

voluntariness.



9f the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law

enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have

been a criminal. 9f the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a

case of instigation. 9n instigation, the private citien only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point

when the private citien upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. 9t would be contrary to

public policy to prosecute a citien who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citien

believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a

civil duty to cooperate.

9f the person instigated does not 4now that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he 4nows himto be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be

criminally liable.

9n entrapment, the person entrapped should not 4now that the person trying to entrap him was a law

enforcer. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is

actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have

evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is

actually engaged in a violation of the law.

9nstigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person

cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. @n the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory

cause. 9t is not even mitigating.

9n case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without

freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. (e is moving li4e a robot, unaware of

what he is doing. o the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present.

omnambulism is an absolutory cause. 9f element of voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability,

although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article +-, refer

to the circumstance as an absolutory cause.

Cista4e of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. o in mista4e of

fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is 'ustified.

9f not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mista4e of fact anymore. The offender must believe

he is performing a lawful act.

xtenuating circumstances

The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. 9n other words, this has the same

effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article +%.

&llustrations$

An unwed mother 4illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an

extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not

insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Cother 4illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor,

penalty is lowered by two degrees. ince there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the

penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance.The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in

the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above.

9n the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, at the time she was

abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to see4 the company of another man. Abandonment by

the husband does not 'ustify the act of the woman. 9t only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. 6hen

the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.

A 4leptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This

is not exempting. @ne who is a 4leptomaniac and who would steal ob'ects of his desire is criminally liable.

!ut he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph of Article +%, that



of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving

him of the consciousness of his act. o this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the

criminal liability.

-istinctions between ;#stifing circ#mstances an! e%empting circ#mstances

&n 1ustif%ing circumstances -

*+ The circumstance affects the act, not the actor5

*- The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law5 hence, it is

legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law5

*% ince the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there isno criminal5

*D ince there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.

&n exempting circumstances -

*+ The circumstances affect the actor, not the act5

*- The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness. (e is

a mere tool or instrument of the crime5

*% ince the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. !ut because the actor

acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal5

*D ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the

wrong done. !ut there is no criminal liability. (owever, in paragraphs D and $ of Article +-, there is

neither criminal nor civil liability.

6hen you apply for 'ustifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of

proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea4ness of prosecution>s evidence.

?1@#he difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in -riminal /aw &&. #hese

crimes are found in Articles 249 and 24B, )ook && of the evised !enal -ode.

?2@ #he difference between theft and robber$ will be discussed in -riminal /aw &&. #hese crimes

are found in #itle #en, -hapters 0ne and #hree, )ook && of the evised !enal -ode.

Documents

Criminal Law