Transcript CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I

GOOD MORNING
CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I
CRIMINAL LAW
ONE
DEFINITIONS
• Crime: A transgression done in violation of a rule
of conduct which specifically requires its
performance or non-performance.
• Law: Sanchez Roman defines law as a rule of
conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by
competent authority and of common observance
& benefit.
• Criminal Law: Criminal law is a substantive and
public law which defines crimes, classifies its
nature and prescribes a penalty therefore.
No Common Law Crimes in the Philippines
– Common law crimes are bodies of legal rules and
principles which are not based on statute but on
usages and traditions.
– There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
No act shall constitute as a crime unless it is made so
by law (U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil 599).
– nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege
– Art 5 RPC: if there is no law punishing the act or
omission, the court must dismiss the case no matter
how wicked the act may seem.
– PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA (GR No. 117033, Feb. 15, 2001)
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
• Classical or Juristic Theory – Existence of the
offender’s free will, or a person’s freedom to do an act.
Under this theory, the penalty for one’s criminal act is
imposed by way of social retribution.
• Positivist School of Thought – Crime is a natural social
phenomenon to which the actor was exposed; cannot
be treated by the blanket application of abstract legal
principles; man is a social being and his acts are not
only attributable to his own free will but to other
forces of society
– Under this theory, the penalty has a corrective purpose
and is imposed by way of prevention or deterrence
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIM LAW
• Generality
• Territoriality
• Prospectivity
GENERALITY: General Application of Criminal Laws:
• Art 14, Civil Code –
• On all: military and PNP: Sec 46, RA 6975 (PNP); Sec 1,
RA 7055 (AFP and Cafgu, Articles of War – Waiver by
President)
EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY
• Laws of preferential application –
RA 75, subject to
reciprocity and Parliamentary Immunities
• Generally accepted principles of public international
law – Diplomatic Convention and Doctrine of Sovereign
Immunity
• Treaty Stipulations – Lance Corporal Smith
General Rule: TERRITORIALITY (Art 2)
EXCEPTIONS:
• Art 1 Constitution and the Archipelagic theory
• Baselines – connect outermost points from
low watermark
• UNCLOS, Art 3 – 12 NA mile territorial sea
• UNCLOS, Art 33 – contiguo zone
• Exclusive Economic Zone – 200 nautical mile
Baselines of Internal
waters
12 mile limit
12 mile cont. zone
EXCEPTIONS TO TERRITORIALITY
1. Philippine ship or airship – place of registry
–
–
French and English Rules – foreign merchant ships
RA 6235
2. 2000 BAR, No. 1
3. Offenses related to forgery and counterfeiting Philippine
coins or currency and in the importation, uttering and
distribution in the Philippines
4. Offenses committed by public officers or employees while
performing their functions
5. Offenses against national security and the law of nations
–
–
–
People vs. Lol-lo and Sarao
2008 Bar
High seas
PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVITY
• Ex post facto laws
• Art 22, penal laws favorable to the accused
• PEOPLE vs. AVECILLA (GR No. 117033, Feb. 15,
2001)
FELONIES: Acts or omissions
punishable by the RPC (Art 3)
THREE KINDS OF CRIMES:
• felonies: dolo or culpa
• offenses: special laws (General Rule: Penalties)
• infraction or misdemeanors: violations of
municipal ordinances
Two Modes of Committing Felonies
(Art 3)
• Dolo or Malice: with deliberate intent.
• Culpa or Fault: imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill.
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
• There is an act or omission
• Act or omission is punishable by the RPC
(PEOPLE vs. SILVESTRE & ATIENZA and PEOPLE
vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, 153 SCRA 735)
• Act or omission is incurred by dolo or culpa –
all done with freedom
FELONIES BY DOLO
• REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE:
– Freedom –
– Intelligence – People vs. Taneo, lack of intelligence
and intent
– Intent –
• No criminal intent, no crime, justified, No civil
liabilities, except in Art 11, par. 4 when a person
commits an act to avoid a greater evil or injury
(see Art 432 of the Civil Code)
• No freedom or intelligence – exempting, civilly
liable
MISTAKE OF FACT
• Act should have been lawful and actor is not
negligent
• US vs. AH CHONG
• People vs. Oanis
FELONIES BY CULPA
• Freely and intelligently but with negligence
• People vs. Guillen
OFFENSES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
• Dolo or criminal intent or mens rea not required
• Good faith is not a defense
• But there must be intent to perpetuate the
prohibited act
– People vs. Asa and Balbastro – firearms/civilian guards
– People vs. Landicho – firearm for turn-over to Mayor
– People vs. Lucero – confidential agent
MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
• Intent and good faith
• Inherently immoral vs. wrongful by statutory
policy
• RPC vs. SPL – Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
148560, November 19, 2001 and Illegal
Exactions under the RPC
MOTIVE
• Motive is the moving power which impels one
to action while intent is the purpose to use a
particular means
• Latter is not essential except:
– Questions as to identity
– Conflicting versions
• People vs. Taneo, somnambulism
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Art 4)
• Any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act is different from what is intended
• Impossible crimes
REQUIREMENT UNDER PAR. 1
• Intentional felony
• wrong done is direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed
– el que es causa de la cause el que es causa del mal
causado
– PEOPLE vs. FRANCIS ABARCA, supra (resulting
crime is different from what is intended)
ERROR IN PERSONAE (PP v. Oanis)
Actual victim mistaken as intended
victim
ABERRATIO ICTUS (PP v. MABUG-AT)
Intended victim
Actual victim
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
(People vs. Cagoco)
Intended victim same as actual victim
But a more serious crime is produced
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
• 2000 Bar, impossible crime is not a crime but
with a penalty; person punished for his
criminal tendencies
• Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52
MANNER OF COMMITTING CRIMES
1. FORMAL CRIMES (offenses under special laws,
Pecho vs. SB)
2. CRIMES BY OMISSION (no attempted stage)
3. MATERIAL CRIMES (3 stages of execution)
STAGES OF EXECUTION
1. ATTEMPTED
2. FRUSTRATED STAGES
3. CONSUMMATED STAGES
SUBJECTIVE PHASE
• PHASE WHEREIN THE ACTOR CONCEIVES THE
IDEA OF COMMITTING A CRIME
• Internal Acts – not penalized
• Preparatory Acts to a particular crime – not
penalized for as long as they, in themselves,
do not constitute an offense
• ACTOR HAS CONTROL OVER HIS ACTIONS
• SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE – no liability
provided no other crime is committed
OBJECTIVE STAGE
• State wherein the offender performed all the
acts of execution needed for the crime
• No more control
• Crime is either frustrated or consummated
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
• MORTALITY OF WOUND: Borinaga and Kalalo
rulings
• When the wound inflicted is not fatal,
homicide or murder is only attempted
(Velasco vs. People, GR 166479, February 28,
2006, 433 SCRA 649 and People vs. Dela Cruz,
GR 154348, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 388)
RAPE
• ORITA ruling
• People vs. Efren Valez (GR 136738, March 12, 2001)
– child, ½ inch penetration
• People vs. Campuhan (GR 129433, March 30, 2000)
– epidermal contact
• PEOPLE vs. MONTERON (G.R. No. 130709, March 6,
2002) – adult/ on top of female orgn
• PEOPLE vs. MARIÑO (G. R. No. 132550, February 19,
2001) – cannot recall (woke up/wet-sticky substance)
• PEOPLE vs. COLLADO (G.R. Nos. 135667-70[1],
March 1, 2001) no intent to penetrate
THEFT AND ROBBERY
1. VALENZUELA VS. PEOPLE (GR No. 160188, June 21,
2007) – Theft is a formal crime. It can only be
attempted or consummated and there can be no
frustrated stage in the crime of theft. Unlawful
taking complete when offender gains possession,
even if no opportunity to dispose
2. PP v. LEOPOLDO SALVILLA (184 SCRA 671) – control
and dominion even if no asportation or no
opportunity to dispose
CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL
• When proposal is accepted, there is conspiracy
• Act of one is the act of all
• PEOPLE vs. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET. AL. (GR 78853; November 9,
1991) – A co-conspirator is liable for such other crimes which
could be foreseen and which are the natural and logical
consequences of the conspiracy
• PEOPLE vs. RICARDO LASCUNA, ET. AL. (GR 90626; August
18, 1993) – time of commission; liable for graver offense
unless he performed overt acts to prevent the graver
offense
• PEOPLE vs. DE LA CERNA, ET. AL. (GR L-20911, October
30, 1967) – If the conspirators select a particular
individual or group of individuals to be their victim and
another person was killed by some, only those who
actually participated in the killing are liable
TWO FACETS OF CONSPIRACY
1. CONSPIRACY AS A MODE OF INCURRING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (needs an overt act)
2. CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
– Crimes against National Security
– Anti-Terrorism Law – conspiracy to commit
murder, etc
ART 10
• GEN RULE: RPC principles not applicable to
offenses under special laws:
– Penalties
– Stages of execution
– Degrees of participation
– graduation
• Exception: Suppletory application when
applicable
• MARTIN SIMON RULING