Transcription
Criminal Law 1Case Digests
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWUniversity of Santo TomasFaculty of Civil LawEspaña, ManilaCriminal Law 1(Revised Penal Code and Related Laws)By Judge OSCAR B. PIMENTEL (Ret.)Preliminaries:Definition and Meaning of Terms and .12.13.14.15.Criminal LawCrimesFeloniesOffensesInfraction of the LawsOrdinancesActOmissionMala en SeMolum PrositumVenueJurisdictionContinuous CrimeContinuing CrimeImpossible CrimeDifferent Terms and Phrases and their Meaning:1.2.3.4.Due ProcessEx Post Facto LawBill of AttainderProhibition against Excessive Penalty of Imprisonment and FinesPrincipal parts of Criminal Law under the Revised Penal Code:1. Arts. 1-20 Basic Principles Affecting Criminal liability2. Article 21 to 113 – Provisions on Penalties including Criminal and Civil liabilities3. Articles 114-365 – Felonies defined under 14 different titles.The Fourteen (14) Different Titles are:1.2.3.4.5.Arts. 114-123 – Crimes against National Security and the law of Nations –Arts. 124-133 – Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the StateArticles 134-160 – Crimes against Public OrderArticles 161-189 – Crimes against Public InterestArticles 190-194 – Repealed by Republic Act 6425, 7659 and 9165 as - Lawon Opium and Prohibited drugs (New Special Penal Law)1
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.Articles 195-202 – Crimes against Public MoralsArticles 203-245 – Crimes committed by Public Officers - - A, B, C and DArticles 246-266 – Crimes against PersonsArticles 267-292 – Crimes against Personal Liberty and SecurityArticles 293-332 – Crimes against PropertyArticles 333-346 – Crimes against ChastityArticles 347-352 – Crimes against Civil Status of PersonsArticles 353-364 – Crimes against HonorArticle 365 – Quasi offensesCharacteristics of Criminal Law1. General2. Territorial3. ProspectiveException to Generality(a) Treaty Stipulations(b) Laws Preferential ApplicationsExceptions to Territorialitya) Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code1. Rules on Philippine Vessel or Airship2. Foreign Vessel(a) French Rule(b) English RuleException to Exception(a) When the New Law is Expressly made in applicable(b) Offender is habitual CriminalThe Three (3) Theories of Criminal Law1. Classical Theory2. Positivist Theory3. Mixed or Ecclectric TheoryConstitutional limitation on Power of Congress in enacting Penal or Criminal LawsPenal Laws that cannot be passed:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)Ex Post Facto LawBill of AttainderEqual Protection ClauseCruel, Unlawful and Unusual PunishmentsExcessive finesDue Process2
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWHow Penal Laws are to be construed(1) It should be liberally construe in favor of the accused and strictly against the stateas long as:(a) The offender must clearly fall under the term of the law(b) An Act or Ommission is only criminal when provided by a statute(2) In cases of conflict with the official translation, the original Spanish Text iscontrolling over the English translation(3) No interpretation by AnalogyArticle 1 – Effectivity of the Revised Penal Code – (Act No. 3815 as Amended)History of the Revise Penal Code – (US vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321-323)(see also Sayo vs. Chief of Police of Manila, 80 Philippines 859)The Code Committee that Revised the Penal Code. –The Code Commission which Revised the Penal CodeThe code commission was created by Executive Order No. 48, dated March 20,1947, prepared the Code of Crimes, which has not been enacted to law which states thatcriminality depends mostly on Social factors, environmental, education, economicconditions or inborn or hereditary character of the criminal himself. The Classical Theorystresses the objective standard of crime, and imposes a proportionate punishmenttherefore, but the positivist school considers the deed as secondary and the offender asprimary, and the means of repression to protect the society from the actor – to fonstallthe social defense because it takes the view that crime is essentially a social and naturalphenomena.The Code CommitteeThe Code Committee which revised the Penal Code was created by Administration OrderNo. 94 of the Department of Justice dated October 18, 1927, and was composed of JusticeAnacleto Diaz, as Chairman and as members, Messrs. Quintin Paredes, Guillermo B.Guevarra, Alex Reyes and Mariano H. de Joya. The Committee was entrusted with thepreparation of a revised draft of the Penal Code, taking into consideration (1) PenalLegislation found in our statute books, (2) the rulings laid down by the Supreme Courtand (3) the present conditions of these Islands. Various Penal Acts which were enactedduring the early years of the American Administration were incorporated into the RevisedPenal Code, among them are the Malversation, Opium, Brigandage, Libel, Treason andSedition Laws. The Revised Penal Code was approved as Act No. 3815, of the PhilippineLegislature on December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1, 1932.Felonies:a)b)c)d)e)f)g)ClassificationCriminal LiabilityImpossible CrimesStages of ExecutionConspiracies and ProposalsMultiple OffendersComplex and Special Complex Crimes3
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWClassifications:(1) Article 3 – Definition(a) Delito(1) Dolo/Desit(2) Culpa/fault(b) Ommissions –Classification of Felonies(a) Intentional(b) Culpable#Accident#Mistake of factUS vs. Ah Chong - 15 Phil. 488 People vs. Bayambao – 52 Phil. 309US vs. Peñalosa, et al, 1 Phil. 109US vs. Apego 23 Phil 391#Mistake in Identity/factPeople vs. Gana, 54 Phil. 603People vs. Oanis, et al.People vs. 74 Phil 257People vs. Monasalapa, et al 92 Phil. 639#Mistake in the blow. – (Aberratio Ictus) – While acting in self defense, but hit a thirdperson is justified if the elements of self defense are present.Characteristics of a Felony(a) There must be an act or omission(b) That is punishable by law(c) The act is done by means of dolo or culpaRequisite of Dolo/Intentional felonies(a) Freedom(b) Intelligence(c) IntentCulpable egligence (lack of foresight)Imprudence (lack of skill4
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWArticle 4 – Criminal Liability(a) Praeter Intentionem(b) Impossible crimesWhere there is malice there is no negligence –People vs. Guillen 85 Phil 302US vs. Ah Chong 15 Phil. 488US vs. Bautista 11 Phil. 308Calderon vs. People 96 Phil. 216People vs. Guevarra – 23 SCRA 58Dolo distinguished from CulpaPeople vs. de Fernando – 49 Phil. 75People vs. Aguilar and Oliveros 109 Phil 847People vs. Lingad 103 Phil. 980People vs. Ramirez – 46 Phil. 204Motive –People vs. Dorico, et al 54 SCRA 172People vs. Herilla 51 SCRA 31People vs. Murray 105 Phil. 591Presumptions –People vs. Marco 83 SCRA 338People vs. Panasa – 47 Phil. 48People vs. Reloj – 43 SCRA 526Exempting Circumstances because of lack of intelligence.1. Mentally, unbalanced person (insane, intelcille, etc. Article 12 par. 1)2. Children who are 15 years old and below (par. 2 Article 12 as Amended by RA10630)3. Children who are over 15 but below 18 years old who did not act 2withdiscernment (par. 2, Article 12)4. Those who act under mistake of factExempting circumstance because freedom is absent1. Compulsion of an irresistable force (Art. 12 par. 5)2. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear and equal or greater injury (Art. 12 par. 6)Art. 4 – Criminal Liability –1. Praeter Intentionem2. Impossible crimes5
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWBoxing bout resulting to the death of one of the boxers is not unlawful.Liable for direct, natural and logical consequences of one’s actPeople vs. Cardenas 36 SCRA 631People vs. Toling 62 SCRA 17People vs. Monleon 74 SCRA 263Proximate CauseVillanueva vs. Medina 102 Phil. 102 Phil. 181-86Vda de Bataclan, et al vs. Medina 102 Phil. 181People vs. Reyes 81 Phil 341People vs. Piamonte, et al – 94 Phil. 293People vs. Lacson, et al 111 Phil 1People vs. Ural, 56 SCRA 138People vs. Martin 89 Phil. 18US vs. Valdez – 41 Phil. 497People vs. Dominguez – 61 Phil. 617People vs. Palalon – 49 Phil. 177People vs. Moldez 61 Phil. 1US vs. Bayutas – 31 Phil. 584People vs. Quanzon – 62 Phil. 162People vs. Cornel – 78 Phil. 458Effect of ConspiracyUS vs. Bondol, et al – 3 Phil. 89US vs. Remiego, et al – 37 Phil. 599People vs. Tamayo 44 Phil. 38People vs. Quirosay – 103 Phil. 1160Impossible crime –(a) Inherent impossibility(b) Employment of Inadequate means(c) Employment of ineffectual meansOnly applicable to crimes against persons and property –Employment of inadequate means not punishable.People vs. Intod - SCRACarreon vs. Flores – 64 SCRA 238Art. 5 – Duty of the Court in connection with acts which should be repressed but whichare not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.- Read – Republic Act 10951People vs. Limaco – 88 Phil. 35People vs. Santos, et al 104 Phil 551People vs. Olaes 105 Phil. 502oSee – Sec. 21 of Art. IV of 1973 Constitution6
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWPeople vs. dela Cruz – 92 Phil. 906US vs. Valera Ang Y, 26 Phil. 598People vs. Cabral and Jaula 113 Phil 297People vs. Monleon – 74 SCRA 263People vs. Castañeda – 60 Phil. 604People vs. Tia Ua 96 Phil 138People vs. Orifon – 57 Phil. 594People vs. Estoesta – 93 Phil. 647Article 6 – Stages of the Commission of the CrimeCrimes of Murder, Homicide, and othersAttempted – Frustrated – ConsumatedAttempted HomicideUS vs. Bien – 20 Phil. 354People vs. David – 60 Phil. 93People vs. Kolalo, et al – 59 Phil. 715People vs. Borinaga – 55 Phil. 433US vs. Lim San – 17 Phil. 273US vs. Edrade – 36 Phil. 209People vs. Samera, et al – 83 Phil. 548Colinares vs. People – G.R. No. 182748 Dec. 13, 2011Theft –People vs. Villanueva – G.R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007US vs. Sobrevilla – 53 Phil. 226US vs. Adiao – 38 Phil. 754Estafa –US vs. Villanueva – 1 Phil. 370US vs. Dominguez – 41 Phil. 209Juridical Possession and Physical PossessionArson –People vs. Hernandez – 54 Phil. 122US vs. Valdez – 39 Phil. 240Rape –US vs. Hernandez – 49 Phil. 980People vs. Velasco – 73 SCRA 574People vs. Pastores – 40 SCRA 498People vs. Velasco – 73 SCRA 574People vs. Erina – 50 Phil. 908People vs. CampuhanPeople vs. Dadulla – G.R. No. 172321 Feb. 9, 2011People vs. Victorino Reyes – G.R. No. 170462 Feb. 5, 2014US vs. Tayaba – 62 Phil. 559Robbery –US vs. Simeon – 3 Phil. 688People vs. Lomahang – 61 Phil. 7037
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWArt. 7 – Light Felonies when PunishableArt. 8 – Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a FelonyCases to ReadPeople vs. Peralta – 23 SCRA 759People vs. Yu, et al - 80 SCRA 382People vs. Malilay – 63 SCRA 423People vs. Pagaduan – 29 SCRA 172People vs. Paz, et al – 11 SCRA 667People vs. Catao, et al – 107 Phil. 861People vs. Cruz, et al – 114 Phil. 1055People vs. Pedro, et al – 16 SCRA 57People vs. Cariño, et al – 55 SCRA 516 –People vs. Indic – 10 SCRA 130People vs. Puno – 56 SCRA 659People vs. Bautista – 28 SCRA 239People vs. Rosario – 68 Phil 720People vs. Mori – 55 SCRA 382People vs. Asaad – 55 Phil. 697People vs. Villacorte – 55 SCRA 640People vs. Sandiganbayan, et al – G.R. No. 158754 Aug. 10, 2007 (pp. vs.Castelo)Preferred Home Specialists, Inc. and Edwin Yu vs. CA and Hailey Sy – G.R. No. 163593 Dec.16, 2005US vs. Gloria – 4 Phil. 341People vs. Garillo – 84 SCRA 537People vs. Basco, et al – G.R. No. 189820 Oct. 10, 2012Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan –Art. 9 – Grave Felonies, Less grave-Felonies and light feloniesPeople vs. Yu Hai alias Hoya – 99 Phil. 775Art. 10 – Offenses Not Subject to the Provisions of the Revised Penal CodePeople vs. Posadas – 64 Phil. 353People vs. Carbelo – 106 Phil. 496People vs. Respicio, et al – 107 Phil. 995People vs. delos Reyes – G.R. No. 177457 Oct. 10, 2012Article 11 – Justifying Circumstances1.2.3.4.5.Self defenseDefense of RelativesDefense of StrangersAvoidance of Greater Evil or InjuryFulfillment of a duty or Lawful exercise of a Right or Office8
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW6. Obedience to a Lawful Order issued for some Lawful purpose7. Battered Woman Syndrome1. Self defense –Sabang vs. People – G.R. No. 168818 March 9, 2007People vs. Tokuelog – G.R. No. 178059, January 22, 2008Sanchez vs. People – G.R. No. 167007 Dec. 8, 2006People vs. Reyes – G.R. No. 153875 Aug. 16, 2006People vs. Gonzales – G.R. No. 195534 June 13, 2012People vs. Campos. G.R. No. 176061 July 4, 2011Razon vs. People – G.R. No. 158053 June 21, 2007Defense of Person or Rights – HonorPeople vs. Judge et al, 62 Phil 504People vs. dela Cruz, 61Phil. 144People vs. Jaurique – 76 Phil 174People vs. Perlito Abemalez – G.R. No. 167934 – Jan. 31, 2009People vs. Ramon Regalado – G.R. No. 171483 3/31/09Manaban vs. CA – G.R. No. 150723 – 7/11/2000Simon Flores vs. People – G.R. No. 181354, Feb. 27, 2013People vs. Gary Vergara et al – G.R. No. 177763 7/3/13People vs. Antero Samez – G.R. No. 202847 Oct. 23, 2013People vs. Bautista, et al 116 Phil 830People vs. Balansag – 60 Phil 266People vs. Alconga et al – 78 Phil 366US vs. Carrero 9 Phil 544People vs. Macaso – 64 SCRA 639People vs. Sabio – 19 SCRA 903People vs. Jamero 73 OG 4297People vs. Yuman - 61 Phil. 786US vs. Navarro 7 Phil 713People vs. Bauden – 77 Phil 107People vs. Gundayao 30 SCRA 226People vs. LaurelPeople vs. Boholtz – Caballero 61 SCRA 180People vs. Encomienda - 46 SCRA 522People vs. Roxas – 58 Phil. 7332. Defense of Relative –Ricardo Medina, Jr. versus People – G.R. No. 167308 – 1/15/14People vs. Esmedia 17 Phil. 260People vs. Cabungcal – 51 Phil. 802US vs. Rivera, et al – 26 Phil. 138US vs. Batongbakal 37 Phil 382People vs. Mangantilao – 33 Phil 2179
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW3. Defense of StrangerUS vs. Subingasubing – 31 Phil 376People vs. Valdez – 58 Phil 31US vs. Aviado – 38 Phil 10People vs. Ancheta, et al - 66 Phil. 6384. Avoidance of a Greater Evil or Injury –People vs. Ayaya – 52 Phil 354Tan vs. Standard Vacuum del Co., et al – 91 Phil 672People vs. Ricohermoso, et a
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 3 How Penal Laws are to be construed (1) It should be liberally construe in favor of the accused and strictly against the state as long as: (a) The offender must clearly fall under the term of the law (b) An Act or Ommission is only criminal when provided by a statute
