REYES NOTES

Criminal Law – branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment

Crime – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law

1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the :
a. Philippine Commission
b. Philippine Assembly
c. Philippines Legislature
d. National Assembly
e. Congress of the Philippines
f. Batasang Pambansa
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

NO COMMON LAW CRIMES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Common law crimes

o Known in the United States and England as the body of principles, usages and rules of
action, which DO NOT REST for their authority upon ANY express and positive
declaration of the will of the legislature, ARE NOT recognized in this country.

UNLESS

o There be a PARTICULAR PROVISION in the penal code or special penal law that
defines and punishes the act, EVEN If it be socially or morally wrong, NO CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IS INCURRED BY ITS COMMISSION.
o Court decisions ARE NOT sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the
meaning of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government

POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES

- STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY, under its police power, to DEFINE AND PUNISH
CRIMES and to LAY DOWN the rules and criminal procedure.

- States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and
defining criminal offenses (People v. Santiago)

- The right of PROSECUTION and PUNISHMENT for a crime is one of the attributes that
by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctively charges by the COMMON
WILL of the members of society to LOOK AFTER,GUARD and DEFEND the interests of

1
 the community, the individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the
guaranty of the exercise of his rights. (US v. Pablo)

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT PENAL

LEGISLATION

The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations :

1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art III, Sec 22)

a. Prohibits the passage of retroactive laws which are prejudicial to the accused.

An ex post facto law is one which :

(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punished such an act

(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed

(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed

(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense

(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful

(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.

 CONGRESS is also prohibited from passing an act which would inflict punishment
without judicial trial, for that will constitute a bill of attainder
o Bill of attainder – a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.
 Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial
determination of guilt
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Art.
III, Sec 14 [1])
a. Requires that criminal laws MUST BE OF GENERAL APPLICATION and MUST
CLEARLY define acts and omissions punished as crimes.

2
TO GIVE A LAW RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
ACCUSED IS TO MAKE IT AN EX POST FACTO LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Article III, Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution provides for the following rights :

1. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies (Sec16)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law (Sec
14 [1])
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
a. The right to bail shall not be impaired even whn the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended
b. Excessive bail shall not be required (Sec. 13)
4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be PRESUMED INNOCENT until the
contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right to:
a. To be heard by himself and counsel
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
c. To have speedy, impartial, and public trial
d. To meet the witnesses face to face
e. To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.

HOWEVER, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notifies and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(Sec. 14 [2])

5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (Sec 17)

Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice.

If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.

These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel (Sec. 12
[1])

No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec. 12 [2])

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be

inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec 12 [3])

3
 6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
nflicted (Sec 19[1])
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
ounished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
bar to another prosecution for the same act. (sec 21)
8. Free access to the courts and quasi – judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty (Sec 11)

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED

Section 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled :

1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt

2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
from arraignment to promulgation of the judgement.
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross – examination on matters
covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED WHICH MAY BE WAIVED AND RIGHTS WHICH MAY NOT BE
WAIVED

Rights which may be waived : (Personal)

1. The right of the accused to confrontation and cross- examination.

Right which may NOT be waived : (Involve public interest which may be affected)

1. The right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

I. General
a. Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory
(Art. 14, new Civil Code)
b. GENERAL RULE : Jurisdiction of civil courts is NOT AFFECTED by the military
character of the accused

CIVIL COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

OVER SOLDIERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES

4
-Civil courts HAVE JURISDICTION over murder cases committed by persons subject to military
law.

- Civil courts HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION with the military courts or general courts –
martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

- Civil courts HAVE JURISDICTION over the offense of malversation (Art. 217) committed by an
army finance officer

- In times of war, civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or general
courts – marial over soldiers of the Philippine Army, PROVIDED that in the place of the
commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning

THE REVISED PENAL CODE OR OTHER PENAL LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN A
MILITARY COURT TAKES COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE

When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law,
the ARTICLES OF WAR apply, not the Revised Penal Code or other penal law.

JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS

THE PROSECUTION OF AN ACCUSED BEFORE A COURT-MARTIAL IS A BAR TO

ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME OFFENCE.

- A court – martial is a court, and the prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal, not
an administrative case, and therefore it would be, under certain conditions, a bar to
another prosecution of the accused for the same offense, because the latter would place
the accused in double jeopardy (Marcos and Concordia v. Chief of Staff)

OFFENDERS ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES ARE TRIABLE BY MILITARY COMMISSION

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

o Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code

“The provisions of this Cofe shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, “except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application”

o Article 14 of the New Civil Code

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations.

Example of treaties and treaty stipulation (As an exception to the general application of our
criminal law) – Signed on February 10, 1998 (“RP – US Visiting Forces Accord)

5
 1. Bases Agreement entered into by and between the Republic of the Philippines and the
United States of America on March 14, 1947(which expired on September 16, 1991),
stipulating that “THE PHILIPPINES CONSENTS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAVE
THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES :
a. Any offense committed by any person within any base, EXCEPT where the
offender and the offended party are both Philippines citizens (not members of the
armed forces of the United States on active duty) or the offense is against the
security of the Philippines.
b. Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of
the United States in which the offended party is also a member of the armed
forces of the United States
c. Any offense committed outside the bases by an member of the armed forces of
the United States against the security of the United States

The Philippines agreed that :

1. US military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines ALL
CRIMINAL and DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION conferred on them by the military law of
the US over US personnel in RP;
2. US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to
offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the US punishable under the law
of the US, but not under the laws of RP
3. US military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US
personnel subject to the military law of the US in relation to :
a. Offenses solely against the property or security of the US of offenses solely
against the property or person of US personnel
b. Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty

LAW OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION

Republic Act No. 75

PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR CRIMINAL LAWS BY VIRTUE OF

THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal laws :

1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state

2. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES (Possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the

country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by law of that country)

1. Ambassadors or public ministers

2. Their official retinue

6
A CONSUL IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF AN
AMBASSADOR OR MINISTER

- But subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited
- In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is NOT exempt from criminal
prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides

DO NOT POSSESS THE STATUS OF, AND CANNOT CLAIM THE PRIVELEGES AND
IMMUNITIES ACCORDED TO AMBASSADORS AND MINISTERS :

1. Consuls
2. Vice Consuls
3. Other Commercial representatives of foreign nations

II. TERRITORIAL
- Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory.
- Principle of territoriality – as a rule, PENAL LAWS of the Philippines are enforceable
ONLY WIHTIN ITS TERRITORY.

EXTENT OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code

“The provisions of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone”

Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article 2 of the RPC provides that its provisions shall be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of
the Philippines against those who :

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations
and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the
bligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number

7
 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.

III. PROSPECTIVE

- A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable
when committed.

- Article 366 of RPC – Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their
commission

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAWS

- Whenever anew statute dealing with crime established conditions more lenient or
favourable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect

1. But this effect has NO application:

1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action

2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 63, RPC (Art 22, RPC)

DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW

1. If the repeal makes the PENALTY LIGHTER in the new law

a. GENERAL RULE : The new law shall be applied

b. EXCEPTION : When the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is
made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action

2. If the new law imposes a HEAVIER PENALTY

a. GENERAL RULE : the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be applied

3. If the new law TOTALLY REPEALS the existing law so that the act which was penalized
under the old law is no longer punishable

a. GENERAL RULE : Crime is obliterated

WHEN THE REPEAL IS ABSOLUTE, THE OFFENSE CEASES TO BE CRIMINAL

GENERAL RULE : Where the repeal is absolute, and not a re-enactment or repeal by
implication, the offense ceases to be criminal. The accused must be acquitted.

8
EXCEPTION : Repeal of a penal law by its re-enactment, even without a saving clause, would
not destroy criminal liability (US v Cuna)

WHEN THE NEW LAW AND THE OLD LAW PENALIZE THE SAME OFFENSE, THE
OFFENDER CAN BE TRIED UNDER THE OLD LAW

GENERAL RULE : Where an Act of the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former
Act which penalized the same offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter
depriving the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders charged with violations
of the old law prior to its repeal.

WHEN THE REPEALING LAW FAILS TO PENALIZE THE OFFENSE UNDER THE OLD
LAW, THE ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED UNDER THE NEW LAW

GENERAL RULE : The court loses jurisdiction where the repealing law wholly fails to penalize
the act defines and penalized as an offense in the old law. The accused, charged with violation
of the old law prior to the repeal, cannot be legally prosecuted after such repeal.

A PERSON ERRONEOUSLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED UNDER A REPEALED STATUTE

MAY BE PUNISHED UNDER THE REPEALING statute

The fact that the offender was erroneously accused and convicted under a statute which had
already been repealed and therefore no longer existed at the time the act complained of was
committed des not prevent conviction under the repealing statute which punished the same act,
provided the accused had an opportunity to defend himself against the charge brought against
him (People v Baesa)

A NEW LAW WHICH OMITS ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE OLD LAW DEALING ON THE
SAME SUBJECT, OPERATES AS A REPEAL OF ANYTHING NOT SO INCLUDED IN THE
AMENDATORY ACT

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favour of the
accused.

a. May be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its
interpretation.

b. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is NO room for the application of
the rule

2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, the
Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its
Spanish text

No person should be brought within the terms of criminal statutes who is not clearly within them,
nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute. (US v
Abad Santos)

9
HISTORY OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

- “Revised Penal Code”

- The committee which was created by Administrative Order No. 94 of the Department of
Justice, dated October 18, 1927, composed of :

1. Anacleto Diaz, chariman

2. Quintin Paredes

3. Guillermo Guevara

4. Alex Reyes

5. Mariano H. de Joya

- CONDITIONS : Special penal laws and the rulings laid down by the SC

- Merely revised the old Penal Code and to include in the draft the other penal laws
related to it.

- Old Penal Code :took effect in the Philippines on July 14, 1887 and was in force up to
December 31, 1931

- Revised Penal Code : approved in December 8, 1930

1. Took effect on January 1, 1932

2. Felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to January 1, 1932, were

punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their
commission, as directed by Article 366 of the RPC.

o THE REVISED PENAL CODE CONSISTS OF TWO BOOKS

- Consists of two books :

1. 1. Book One

 Consist of two parts

o The basic principles affecting criminal liability (arts 1-20)

o The provisions on penalties including criminal and civil

liability (Arts. 21 – 113)

2. 2. Book Two

10
  Defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and
grouped under fourteen different titles (Arts. 114-365)

DATE EFFECTIVENESS

Article 1 : Time when Act takes effect – This Code shall take effect on the first day of
January, nineteen hundred and thirty – two.

THE REVISED PENAL CODE IS BASED MAINLY ON PRINCIPLES OF THE CLASSICAL

SCHOOL

- Based on the principles of the old or classical school

- Although some provisions of eminently positivistic tendencies (those having reference to

the punishment of impossible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incorporated in the
present code.

TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Classical Theory

Characteristics of the classical theory :

1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is
retribution.

2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose
between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the
felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself

3. It has endeavoured to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between a crime

and penalty.

4. There is a scant regard to the human element

2. Positivist Theory

Characteristics of the positivist theory :

1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which

constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.

2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon

a. Cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law

and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and
determined a priori

11
 b. BUT though the enforcement of individual measure in each particular case
after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a
competent body od psychiatrists and social scientists.

Article 2 : Application of its provisions – Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone,
but also outside of it jurisdiction, against who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Island or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number

4. While being public officers or employees, shouls commit an offense in the

exercise of their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

- The provisions of the RPC shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
but also OUTSIDE of its jurisdiction in certain cases

- Acts committed in the:

1. Air

2. at sea

3. even in a foreign country-- when such acts affect the political or

economic life of the nation.

IN WHAT CASES ARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE APPLICABLE
EVEN IF THE FELONY IS COMMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES?

Applicable in the following cases :

1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

12
 a. A Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is
considered part of the national territory

b. Any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship or airship while
the same is outside of the Philippine territory can be tried before our civil courts
for violation of the Penal Code

c. BUT when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country,
the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that
foreign country

d. PHILIPPINE VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT MUST BE REGISTERED IN THE

PHILIPPINE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

i. It is the registration not the citizenship of its owner which makes it a

Philippine ship or airship.

ii. A vessel or aircraft which is UNREGISTERED or UNLICENSED DOES

NOT come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 of Article 2

iii. The Philippine court has NO JURISDICTION over the crime of theft
committed on the high seas on board a vessel NOT REGISTERED OR
LICENSED IN THE PHILIPPINES

2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government.

a. Any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (article 163) or forges treasury
or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art 166) IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY may be prosecuted before our courts for violation of Art 163. Or Art
166 of the RPC

3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
Philippines of the “Obligations and securities” mentioned in the “preceding number”

a. The introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into the

Philippines is a dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the
economical interest of the country.

4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense
in the exercise of his functions

a. Crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are:

i. Direct bribery (art 210)

ii. Indirect bribery (art 211)

iii. Frauds against the public treasury (art 213)

13
 iv. Possession of prohibited interest (Art 216)

v. Malversation of public funds or property (Art 217)

vi. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art 218)

vii. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art 220)

viii. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221)

ix. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his

official position (Art 171)

When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our public officers or employees
while in the exercise of his functions, he can be prosecuted here.

5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the
law of nations

a. Treason (Art 114)

b. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (art 115)

c. Espionage (Art 117)

d. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art 118)

e. Violation of neutrality (Art 119)

f. Correspondence with hostile country (Art 120)

g. Flight to enemy’s country (Art 121)

h. Piracy and Mutiny on the high seas (Art 122)

CRIMES PUNISHABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES UNDER ARTICLE 2 ARE COGNIZABLE BY

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN WHICH THE CHARGE IS FILED

RTC (formerly CFI) have original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses commited on the high
seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or warcraft of any kind registered
or licensed in the Philippines in accordance with its laws.

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ARTICLE 2

1. “Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application”

a. While the general rules is that the provisions of the RPC shall be enforced
against any person

14
 b. Who violates any of its provisions while living or sojourning in the Philippines, the
exceptions to that rule may be provided by the treaties and laws of preferential
applications, like

i. RP-US Visiting Forces Accord

ii. The Military Bases Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines
and the United States of America

iii. Provisions of RA No. 75

2. “It’s atmosphere”

a. The sovereignty of the subjacent State, and therefore its penal laws EXTEND TO
ALL THE AIR SPACE WHICH COVERS ITS TERRITORY, SUBJECT TO THE
RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF FOREIGN AIRCRAFTS.

3. “Interior waters”

a. Includes :

i. Creeks

ii. Rivers

iii. Lakes

iv. Bays

v. Gulfs

vi. Straits

vii. Coves

viii. Inlets

ix. Roadsteads lying wholly within the THREE-MILE LIMIT

4. “maritime zone”

a. Three-miles from the coastline, starting from the low water mark

b. Includes :

i. Bays

ii. Gulfs

15
 iii. Adjacent parts of the sea or recesses in the coastline

1. Whose width at their entrance is NOT MORE THAN twelve miles

measured in a straight line FROM HEADLAND to HEADLAND,
and ALL straits of LESS THAN six miles wide

c. For those straits having more than that width, the space in the centre outside of
the marine league limits is considered as open sea.

CRIMES COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIP OR AIRSHIP

- Foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of the territory of the country to which
it belings

- An offense committed on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is not triable
by our courts

OFFENSES COMMITED ON BOARD A FOREGIN MERCHANT VESSEL WHILE ON

PHILIPPINE WATERS IS TRIABLE BEFORE OUR COURT

- When a foreign merchant vessel enters this three-mile limit, the ship;s officers and crew
become subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.

- The space within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands which embrace the
entrance to Manila Bay is within territorial waters

RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMIITTED ABOARD FOREIGN

MERCHANT VESSELS

o French Rule

o GENERAL RULE : Such crimes are NOT TRIABLE in the courts of that country

o EXCEPTION : Their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or
the safety of the state is endangered

o Matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tanquility
of the port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiceable only by the courts of the
country to which the vessel belongs.

o English Rule (We observe this rule in our country)

o GENERAL RULE : Such crimes ARE TRIABLE in that country

o EXCEPTION : They merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the
internal management thereof.

16
DO THE PHILIPPINE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE
COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL BY A MEMBER OF THE CREW
AGAINST ANOTHER?

GENERAL RULE : Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to
be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship

EXCEPTION : Those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and if need be, the
offenders punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction.

CRIMES NOT INVOLVING A BREACH OF PUBLIC ORDER COMMITTED ON BOARD A

FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL IN TRANSIT NOT TRIABLE BY OUR COURTS

PHILIPPINE COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES COMMITTED ON

BOARD FOREIGN WARSHIPS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS

Merchant ships – more or less subjected to the territorial laws

Warships – always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and CANNOT
be subjected to the laws of another state

EXTRA – TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372

- Otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007”

- Was passed into law on March 6, 2007, has extra – territorial application

Section 58 of RA No. 9372 – provides that subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which
the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application,
the provisions of the Act shall apply :

1. To individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and

punished in the Act within the terrestrial domain, interior water,
maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines

2. To individual persons who, although physically outside the

territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire of plot any of
the crimes defines and punished in the Act inside the territorial
limits of the Philippines

3. To individual persons who, although physically outside the

territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes
on board Philippine ship or airdhip

4. To individual persons who commit any of said criems within any

embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises belonging to or
occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity

17
 5. To individual persons who, although physically outside the
territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against
Philippines citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime

6. To individual persons who, although physically outside the

territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly
against the Philippine government.

Article 3 : Definition – Acts and ommissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos)

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa)

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill

Felonies – are acts and ommissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Elements of felonies

1. There must be an act or omission

2. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC

3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ARTICLE 3

Act – any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world

- It being necessary that the same be actually produced as the possibility of its production
is sufficient

- - must be one which is defined by the Revised Penal Code as CONSTITUTING

FELONY, or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an EXTERNAL ACT which has
direct connection with the felony intended to be committed.

Act must be external

REASON : internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law

- A CRIMINAL THOUGHT or a MERE INTENTION no matter how immoral or improper it

may be, WILL NEVER CONSTITUTE FELONY.

Omission

- Inaction

18
 - Failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.

- There must be a law requiring the edoing or performance of an act

NOTE : In felonies by omission, there is a law reuiring a certain act to be performed and the
person required to do the act fails to perform it.

THE OMISSION MUST BE PUNISHABLE BY LAW

REASON : THERE IS NO LAW that punishes a person who DOES NOT REPORT to the
authorities the commission of a crime which he witnessed

- The omission TO DO DO is NOT a felony.

“PUNISHABLE BY LAW”

- Other element of a felony.

- Based on the maxim “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” – There is no crime where
there is no law punishing it.

- Meaning : “punished by the Revised Penal Code” and NOT by special law

- Felony – acts and omissions punished in the REVISED PENAL CODE

- “Crime” and “offense” – applied to infractions of the law punished by special statutes.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE

COMMITTED

1. Intentional Felonies

1. The act or omission of the offender is MALICIOUS

2. Act is performed in deliberate intent

3. The offender, in performing the act or in incurring the omission, HAS THE
INTENTION TO CAUSE AN INJURY TO ANOTHER.

2. Culpable Felonies

4. Act or omission of the offender is NOT MALICIOUS

5. The injury caused by the offender to another person is

“UNINTENTIONAL, it being simply the INCIDENT OF ANOTHER ACT
PERFORMED WITHOUT MALICE”

6. Wrongful act results from :

19
  Imprudence

 Negligence

 Lack of foresight

 Lack of skill

FELONIES COMITTED BY MEANS OF DOLO OR WITH MALICE

Dolus – equivalent to malice

- Intent to do an injury to another

- If the act or omission is punished by the RPC, he is LIABLE for intentional felony

- Crimes which cannot be committed through imprudenceor negligence:

1. Treason

2. Murder

3. Roberry

4. Malicious mischief

- Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa

1. Art 217 Malversation through negligence

2. Art 224 Evasion through negligence

3. Article 365 Acts by imprudence or negligence

 Which had they been intentional, would CONSTITUTE GRAVE,

LESS, GRAVE OR LIGHT FELONIES

FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF FAULT OR CULPA

- Performed WITHOUT malice, but PUNISHABLE

- PUNISHMENT : Lesser degree and with an equal result

- An intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence

A PERSON WHO CAUSED AN INJURY, WITHOUT INTENTION TO CAUSE AN EVIL, MAY

BE HELD LIABLE FOR CULPABLE FELONY

20
IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT OR LACK OF SKILL

Imprudence – indicates a deficiency of action

- If a person FAILS to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage
to property, there is IMPRUDENCE

- Involves lack of skill

Negligence – indicates a deficiency of perception

- If a person FAILS to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the
injury or damage impending to be caused, there is NEGLIGENCE

- Involves lack of foresight

REASON FOR PUNISHING ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE (CULPA)

- A man MUST USE common sense and EXERCISE due reflection in all his acts

- It is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, If not from instinct, then through fear of
incurring punishment

- He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee

- For his acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon

IF FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF DOLO OR WITH MALICE AND IN FELONIES

COMMITTED BY MEANS OF FAULT OR CULPA, THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS ARE
VOLUNTARY

The adjective VOLUNTARY

- The omission DOES NOT mean that an involuntary act may constitute a felony

- Example : Article 365 – RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE consists in voluntarily but WITHOUT

MALICE, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results

A CRIMINAL ACT is PRESUMED to be VOLUNTARY

Facts prevails over assumption, and in the absence of indubitable explanation, the act must be
declared voluntary and punishable

ACTS EXECUTED NEGLIGENTLY ARE VOLUNTARY

When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is NO voluntariness in the

act

21
THREE REASONS WHY THE ACT OR OMISSION IN FELONIES MUST BE VOLUNTARY

1. The Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the CLASSICAL THEORY,

according to which basis of criminal liability is HUMAN FREE WILL

2. Acts or omissions punished by law ARE ALWAYS deemed voluntary, since man is a
RATIONAL BEING

a. One must prove that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act or omission
is NOT VOLUNTARY

3. In felonies by DOLO

a. Act is performed WITH DELIBERATE INTENT which MUST NECESSARILY BE

VOLUNTARY

b. Felonies by culpa – The imprudence consists in voluntarily, BUT WITHOUT

MALICE, doing or failing to do an act from which material injury results

REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

1. Must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act

2. Must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do an act

3. Must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act

Freedom – When a person acts without freedom, he is NO LONGER A HUMAN BEING but a
TOOL

- A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is EXEMPT from criminal
liability

- A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury is exempt from criminal liability

Intelligence – Without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, NO
CRIME CAN EXIST

- The imbecile or the insane, and the infant UNDER nine years of age, as well as the
minor OVER NINE but LESS THAN FIFTEEN YEARS OLD and acting without
discernment, HAVE NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY, because they are WITHOUT intelligence

Intent – Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is PRESUMED and
the presumption arises from the proof of the COMMISSION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT

INTENT PRESUPPOSES THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM AND THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE

One who acts without freedom necessarily HAS NO INTENT to do an injury to another.

22
One who acts without intelligence HAS NO SUCH INTENT

A person who acts with freedom and with intelligence MAY NOT HAVE THE INTENT to do an
injury to another

NOTE : A person who caused an injury by mere accident had freedom and intelligence, BUT
since he had no fault or intention of causing it, he is not criminally liable

THE EXISTENCE OF INTENT IS SHOWN BY THE OVERT ACTS OF A PERSON

Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the overt acts of a person.

CRIMINAL INTENT IS PRESUMED FROM THE COMMISSION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT

Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are ALWAYS presumed to exist on the part of the
person who executes an act which the law punishes, UNLESS the contrary shall appear

THE PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE PROOF OF THE
COMMISSION OF AN ACT WHICH IS NOT UNLAWFUL

The maxim :

“Actus non facit reum, nisi means sit rea”

– A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be
innocent.

GENERAL RULE : It is is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be
presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this
presumption

BUT it must be borne in mind that the act which such presumption springs must be a criminal
act. CASE AT BAR : ACT WAS NOT CRIMINAL

Where the facts proven are accompanied by other facts which show that the act complained of
was not unlawful, the presumption of criminal intent DOES NOT ARISE

MISTAKE OF FACT

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia legis no excusat)

Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability (ignorantia facti excusat)

Mistake of fact – a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another

HE IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE because he DID NOT ACT with criminal intent

23
An honest mistake of fact DESTROYS the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act

REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENSE:

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

2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful

3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE FACTS OF THE
CASE

IN MISTAKE OF FACT, THE ACT DONE WOULD HAVE BEEN LAWFUL, HAD THE
FACTSBEEN AS THE ACCUSED BELIEVED THEM TO BE

- The act would not constitute a felony has the facts been as the accused believed them
to be

- IN MISTAKE OF FACT, the act done by the accused would have constituted

1. A justifying circumstance under Article 11

2. An absolutory cause such as that contemplated in Article 247, par 2 or

3. An involuntary act

THE MISTAKE MUST BE WITHOUT FAULT OR CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE

ACCUSED

LACK OF INTENT TO KILL THE DECEASED, BECAUSE HIS INTENTION WAS TO KILL
ANOTHER, DOES NOT RELIEVE THE ACCUSED FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

That the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead of another cannot relieve him from
criminal responsibility, he hacing acted maliciously and wilfully

IN MISTAKE OF FACT, THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED IN PERFORMING THE ACT

SHOULD BE LAWFUL

The ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of
fact DOES NOT APPLY

NO CRIME OF RESTANCE WHEN THERE IS A MISTAKE OF FACT

WHEN THE ACCUSED IS NEGLIGENT, MISTAKE OF FACT IS NOT A DEFENSE

24
CRIMINAL INTENT IS NECESSARY IN FELONIES COMMITTED BY MEANS OF DOLO

Criminal Intent is NECESSARY in felonies committed by means of DOLO because of the legal
maxims :

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intention were so

Actus me invite factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act

WHEN THE ACCUSSED IS CHARGED WITH INTENTIONAL FELONY, ABSENCE OF

CRIMINAL INTENT IS A DEFENSE

In the absence of criminal intent, there is NO LIABILITY for intentional felony

All reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error and not crime SHOULD be indulged in for
the benefit of the accused

If there is ONLY ERROR on the part of the person doing the act, HE DOES NOT ACT WITH
MALICE, and for that reason he is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR INENTIONAL FELONY.

CRIMINAL INTENT IS REPLACED BY NEGLIGENCE AND IMPRUDENCE IN FELONIES

COMMITTED BY MEANS OF CULPA

Requisites for a culpa be considered voluntary

1. Must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act

2. Must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act

3. He is IMPURDENT, NEGLIGENT, or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL, while doing the act

or omitting to do the act.

IN CULPABLE FELONIES, THE INJURY CAUSED TO ANOTHER SHOULD BE

UNINTENTIONAL, IT BEING SIMPLY THE INCIDENt OF ANOTHER ACT PERFORMED
WITHOUT MALICE

MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY OF THE INTENDED VICTIM IS NOT RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

- A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of

reckless imprudence

- An unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be
considered as reckless imprudence

A PERSON CAUSING DAMAGE OR INJURY TO ANOTHER, WITHOUT MALICE OR FAULT,

IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE

25
 - He is exempt from criminal liability, because he casuse an injury by mere accident,
without fault or intention of causing it.

THE ACT PERFORMED MUST BE LAWFUL

THE THIRD CLASS OF CRIMES ARE THOSE PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS

Three classes of crimes

1. Intentional felonies – RPC defines and penalizes this

2. Culpable felonies – RPC defines and penalizes this

3. Those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by
municipal or city ordinances

DOLO IT NOT REQUIRED IN CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS

-When the crimes is punished by a special law, as a rule, INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME IS
NOT NECESSARY

- it is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law

- Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished

Male in se – there must be a criminal intent

Mala prohibita – it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done

IN THOSE CRIMES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS, THE ACT ALONE, IRRESPECTIVE OF

ITS MOTIVES, CONSTITUTES THE OFFENSE

GOOD FAITH AND ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT NOT VALID DEFENSES IN CRIMES
PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Mala in se – or wrongful from their nature, such as:

o Theft

o Rape

o Homicide

- Are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members

26
 - Felonies defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code

- When the acts are inherently immoral, they are MALA IN SE,, even if punished by
special laws.

1. Examples :

 Possession and use of opium

 Malversation

 Brigandage

 Libel

Mala Prohibita – wrong merely because prohibited by statute such as : Illegal possession of
firearms

- Are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation
of the affairs of society

- Acts made criminal by special laws

WHEN THE ACTS ARE INHERENTLY IMMORAL, THEY ARE MALA IN SE, EVEN IF
PUNISHED UNDER SPECIAL LAW

-The Revised Election Code , as far as its penal provisions are concerned, is a SPECIAL LAW,
it being NOT A PART of the RPC or its amendments

INTENT DISTINGUISHED FROM MOTIVE

Motive – moving power which impels one to action for a definite result

- Not an essential element of a crime, and , hence, need not be proved for purposes of
conviction

- Is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant

- It is immaterial when the accused has been positively identifies

- Important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the
killing

27
 - When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons, motive is relevant and significant

- If the evidence is merely circumstantial, PROOF of motive is ESSENTIAL

- Proof of motive is NOT INDISPENSABLE where guilt is otherwise established by

sufficient evidence

HOW MOTIVE IS PROVED

GENERAL RULE : The motive is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense

DISCLOSURE OF THE MOTIVE ISAN AID IN COMPLETING THE PROOD OF THE

COMMISSION OF THE CRIME

BUT PROOF OF MOTIVE ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION –

The existence of a motive, though perhaps an important consideration, is NOT SUFFICIENT
PROOF OF GUILT

Even a strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, sufficient to overthrow the presumption of innocence.

LACK OF MOTIVE MAY BE AN AID IN SHOWING THE INNOCE OF THE ACCUSED

Intent – purpose to use a particular means to effect such result

28