GOOD MORNING CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW

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