Criminal Law 1 Flashcards by Migs V2

based on Reyes 2026

Define Criminal Law.

Criminal law is that branch or division of law which: 1. Defines crimes; 2. Treats of their nature; and 3. Provides for their punishment.

Define Crime (as a general concept).

A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it; a generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either under the RPC or special laws.

What are the sources of Philippine Criminal Law?

1. Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments 2. Special Penal Laws 3. Penal Presidential Decrees

Define Common Law Crimes and state the rule on their applicability in the Philippines.

• Definition: 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. • Rule: Common law crimes are not recognized in Philippine jurisdiction. Unless there is a provision in the penal code or special penal law that defines and punishes the act, no criminal liability is incurred by its commission.

What are the constitutional limitations on enacting penal laws?

1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

What are the 6 kinds of Ex Post Facto Law?

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 punishes 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 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; and 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.

Define Bill of Attainder.

A legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial; the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination.

What are the Constitutional Rights of the Accused under the Bill of Rights?

1. Right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies (Sec. 16). 2. Not to be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law (Sec. 14(1)). 3. Right to bail by sufficient sureties or release on recognizance before conviction, except those charged with reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong; non-impairment of bail even when privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended; prohibition against excessive bail (Sec. 13). 4. Presumption of innocence; right to be heard by himself and counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation; to have speedy, impartial, and public trial; to meet witnesses face to face; to have compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of evidence (Sec. 14(2)). 5. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17); right under custodial investigation to be informed of right to remain silent and to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice; prohibition against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or secret/solitary/incommunicado detention; inadmissibility of confessions obtained in violation thereof (Sec. 12(1)-(3)). 6. Prohibition against excessive fines, and cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment (Sec. 19(1)). 7. Right against double jeopardy (Sec. 21). 8. Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied by reason of poverty.

What are the Statutory Rights of an Accused under Sec. 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure?

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 judgment. 4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-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 a 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.

Distinguish between rights of the accused which may be waived and those which may not be waived.

• Rights which may be waived: Those that are personal in nature (e.g., right to confrontation and cross-examination). • Rights which may NOT be waived: Those that involve public interest which may be affected (e.g., right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation).

What are the three (3) main characteristics of Criminal Law?

1. General 2. Territorial 3. Prospective

Explain the General characteristic of Criminal Law and its exceptions.

• General Rule: Criminal law is binding on all persons who live and sojourn in Philippine territory (Art. 14, NCC). • Exceptions: 1. Treaties or treaty stipulations 2. Laws of preferential application 3. Principles of public international law

What are the jurisdictional rules under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) as an exception to the Generality principle?

Note: Membership in the US Armed Forces, not citizenship, is material. 1. The US has the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred by US military law over US personnel in the Philippines. 2. The US exercises exclusive jurisdiction over US military personnel with regard to offenses relating to the security of the US punishable under US law, but not under Philippine law. 3. The US has primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US military in relation to: • Offenses solely against the property or security of the US, or solely against the property or person of US personnel; • Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. 4. The Philippines cannot refuse a US request for waiver of jurisdiction EXCEPT if the crime is of national importance: • Heinous Crimes (RA 7659) • Child Abuse cases (RA 7610) • Dangerous Drugs cases (RA 9165)

Who are exempt from arrest and imprisonment under RA 75 (Law of Preferential Application), and what are the exceptions?

• Exempted Persons (including exemption of their goods/chattels from distraint, seizure, and attachment): 1. Public Ministers; 2. Ambassadors; and 3. Domestic Servants of Ambassadors and Public Ministers. • Exceptions (When exemption does NOT apply): 1. Citizen or inhabitant of the Philippines in the service of an ambassador or public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; 2. Domestic servant of an ambassador or public minister who is not registered with the DFA; 3. Where the country of the diplomatic representative affected does not provide similar protection to diplomatic representatives of the Philippines.

What is the Warship Rule?

A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its respective country. The same applies to foreign embassies in the Philippines. Conversely, Philippine warships and embassies abroad are deemed extra-territories of the Philippines.

Who are exempted from Philippine criminal jurisdiction under Principles of Public International Law, and what is the exception?

• Exempted Persons: 1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state 2. Charges d'affaires 3. Ambassadors 4. Ministers plenipotentiary 5. Ministers resident • Exception: The doctrine of immunity does not apply where the public official is sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.

Explain the Prospective characteristic of Criminal Law and its exception (and exceptions to the exception).

• General Rule: A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission (Art. 366, RPC). • Exception: Applied retroactively whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused (Art. 22, RPC). • Exceptions to the Exception (No retroactive application even if favorable): 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 (habitual delinquent).

What is the effect of the repeal of a penal law on criminal liability?

1. Absolute Repeal (Decriminalization): If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated and the offense ceases to be criminal. 2. Repeal by Reenactment or Implication: When the repeal of a penal law is by reenactment or repeal by implication, criminal liability is NOT destroyed. 3. Failure to Penalize under New Law: When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law.

Define Habitual Delinquent.

A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten (10) years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, or theft (robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion), he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

What are the rules on the Construction of Penal Laws and the doctrine of In Dubio Pro Reo?

1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused. 2. In Dubio Pro Reo: Whenever a penal law admits of two interpretations, that which is more lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. 3. Controlling Text: The Spanish text is controlling because the RPC was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.

When was the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) approved, and when did it take effect (Art. 1)?

• Approved: December 8, 1930 • Took Effect: January 1, 1932 (Art. 1, RPC)

What are the two (2) books of the Revised Penal Code and their respective scopes?

1. Book One (Arts. 1–113): • Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1–20) • Provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21–113) 2. Book Two (Arts. 114–365): • Defines felonies with corresponding penalties classified and grouped under 14 different titles.

Distinguish the Classical Theory from the Positivist Theory in Criminal Law.

1. Basis of Criminal Liability: • Classical: Basis is human free will. • Positivist: 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. Purpose of Penalty / Treatment: • Classical: Purpose of penalty is retribution; establishes a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. • Positivist: Crime cannot be treated and checked by abstract principles of law or punishment fixed and determined a priori. 3. Focus: • Classical: Places more stress on the effect or result of the felonious act upon the man; scant regard to the human element. • Positivist: Enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation by psychiatrists and social scientists.

What are the five (5) instances where the Revised Penal Code has extraterritorial application under Article 2?

Except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential application, the RPC shall be enforced outside of Philippine jurisdiction 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 Philippine Islands 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, should 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.

What are the rules on jurisdiction for offenses committed on board a Philippine Ship or Airship?

1. Merchant Ship of Philippine Nationality (registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs): • Within Philippine territory: Philippines has jurisdiction. • On the high seas: Philippines has jurisdiction (no other country has jurisdiction). • Within the territory of another country: The foreign country has jurisdiction, BUT if that foreign country will not take cognizance of the issue, the Philippines can assume jurisdiction. 2. Warship or Official Vessel of the President of the Philippines: • Considered an extension of the Philippines and its sovereignty; the RPC applies wherever it may be.

What are the rules on jurisdiction for offenses committed on board a Foreign Merchant Ship or Airship?

1. On the High Seas: • Considered an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs; hence, an offense committed on board on the high seas is NOT triable by Philippine courts. • Exception (Continuing Crimes): Triable in the Philippines when the forbidden conditions continued or existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters of the Philippines. 2. Within Philippine Territorial Waters: • Follows the English Rule.

Distinguish the English Rule from the French Rule regarding crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels.

• English Rule (followed in the Philippines): Crimes committed on board a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial waters of a country are triable in that country, UNLESS they merely affect things within the vessel or refer to the internal management thereof (e.g., mere possession of opium without using it is not triable in Philippine courts). • French Rule: Crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country are NOT triable in the courts of that country, UNLESS their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.

What offenses may be committed by public officers or employees in the exercise of their functions under Art. 2, par. 4 of the RPC?

1. Direct and indirect bribery 2. Frauds against the public treasury 3. Possession of prohibited interest 4. Malversation of public funds or property 5. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts 6. Illegal use of public funds or property 7. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property 8. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position

What are the Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations under Art. 2, par. 5 of the RPC?

1. Treason 2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason 3. Espionage 4. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals 5. Violation of neutrality 6. Correspondence with hostile country 7. Flight to enemy's country 8. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas

Distinguish Felony, Offense, Misdemeanor, and Crime.

• Felony (Delito): An act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code. • Offense: An act or omission that violates a special penal law. • Misdemeanor: A minor infraction of law. • Crime: A generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either under the RPC or special laws; an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

What are the elements of Felonies under Article 3?

1. There must be an act or omission; 2. The act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and 3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa).

"Define ""Act"" and ""Omission"" in Criminal Law."

• Act: Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. It must be an external act which has a direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. • Omission: Inaction, or the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do as required by law.

"What is the meaning of the maxim ""Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege""?"

There is no crime where there is no law punishing it.

Distinguish Intentional Felonies (Dolo) from Culpable Felonies (Culpa) and list their respective requisites.

1. Intentional Felonies (Dolo): • Nature: The act or omission is malicious and performed with deliberate intent (intent to cause injury to another). • Requisites: a. Freedom (voluntariness to commit the act or omission; lack of freedom exempts from liability); b. Intelligence (capacity to determine the morality of human acts); and c. Intent (criminal intent and will to commit, shown by overt acts). 2. Culpable Felonies (Culpa): • Nature: The act or omission is not malicious; the injury is unintentional and simply an incident of another act performed without malice. • Requisites: a. Freedom; b. Intelligence; and c. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill while doing or omitting to do the act.

Distinguish Imprudence from Negligence.

• Imprudence: Indicates a deficiency of action or lack of skill; occurs when a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property. • Negligence: Indicates a deficiency in perception or lack of foresight; occurs when a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused.

"What is the meaning of the maxim ""Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea"" and the rule on presumption of criminal intent?"

• Maxim: A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. • Presumption of Criminal Intent: If it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention, and it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. • Exception: The act from which the presumption springs must be an unlawful/criminal act; when the act complained of was not unlawful, the presumption of criminal intent does not arise.

"What is the doctrine of ""Ignorantia facti excusat"" (Mistake of Fact), its requisites, and when is it inapplicable?"

"• Doctrine: Ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability because an honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent. • Requisites of Mistake of Fact: 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; and 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. • When Inapplicable: 1. Not a valid defense in Culpable Felonies (since requirement #3 is absent). 2. Does not apply in error in personae (mistake in identity)."

Distinguish Mala in Se from Mala Prohibita.

1. Nature: Mala in se is wrong from its very nature or inherently evil; Mala prohibita is wrong or evil only because there is a law prohibiting it. 2. Governing Law: Mala in se is generally punishable under the RPC; Mala prohibita is generally punishable under special laws (except when the special law amends the RPC or the act is inherently immoral). 3. Basis of Liability: Mala in se is based on the offender's moral trait; Mala prohibita is based on the offender's voluntariness. 4. Good Faith / Criminal Intent: Valid defense in mala in se; NOT a defense in mala prohibita unless intent is an express element of the crime. 5. Modifying Circumstances: Taken into account in mala in se; not considered in mala prohibita. 6. Degree of Participation: Determines the imposable penalty in mala in se; does not affect liability in mala prohibita (principals, accomplices, and accessories have the same penalty). 7. Stage of Accomplishment: Affects the penalty in mala in se (attempted, frustrated, consummated); penalized only when consummated in mala prohibita (unless the special law provides otherwise). 8. Moral Turpitude: Mala in se generally involves moral turpitude; Mala prohibita generally does not. 9. Division of Penalties: Penalties may be divided into degrees and periods in mala in se; no such division in mala prohibita.

Distinguish Intent from Motive.

1. Definition: • Intent: The purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. • Motive: The moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. 2. As an Element: • Intent: An element of the crime (except in unintentional/culpable felonies). • Motive: Not an element of the crime and need not be proved. 3. Necessity: • Intent: Essential in all intentional felonies. • Motive: Essential only when the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt.

When is Motive relevant or essential in a criminal prosecution?

1. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant (immaterial when the accused has been positively identified); 2. Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt; 3. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories; 4. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons; 5. If the evidence is merely circumstantial. (Note: Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction, but lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.)

"How is criminal liability incurred under Article 4 of the RPC, and what is the meaning of ""El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado""?"

"• Under Art. 4, criminal liability is incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended; 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Impossible Crime). • Maxim: ""El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado"" — He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused."

What are the requisites of Article 4, Paragraph 1 (wrongful act different from that intended)?

1. That an intentional felony has been committed; • Exceptions (No liability under Art. 4, par. 1): a. When the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC; b. When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances under Art. 11. 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender (i.e., the felony committed is the proximate cause of the resulting injury).

Distinguish Error in Personae, Aberratio Ictus, and Praeter Intentionem.

These are the three causes which may produce a result different from what the offender intended under Art. 4, par. 1: 1. Error in Personae: Mistake in the identity of the victim. 2. Aberratio Ictus: Mistake in the blow (when the offender intends the injury on one person, delivers the blow, but hits another). 3. Praeter Intentionem: The injurious result is greater than that intended (lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong).

Define Proximate Cause and state when a felony is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury.

• Definition: Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. • When Felony is NOT the Proximate Cause: 1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or 2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

What are the requisites for death to be presumed a natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted?

1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health; 2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted; and 3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.

What are the requisites of an Impossible Crime (Art. 4, par. 2)?

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; 2. That the act was done with evil intent; 3. That its accomplishment is: • Inherently impossible (legal or physical impossibility), or • The means employed is inadequate (e.g., insufficient amount of poison), or • The means employed is ineffectual (e.g., used salt instead of arsenic); and 4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code.

What are the Felonies Against Persons and Felonies Against Property relevant to Impossible Crimes (Art. 4, par. 2)?

• Felonies Against Persons: 1. Parricide 2. Murder 3. Homicide 4. Infanticide 5. Abortion 6. Duel 7. Physical injuries 8. Rape • Felonies Against Property: 1. Robbery 2. Brigandage 3. Theft 4. Usurpation 5. Culpable insolvency 6. Swindling and other deceits 7. Chattel mortgage 8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction 9. Malicious mischief

Distinguish Paragraph 1 from Paragraph 2 of Article 5 (Duty of the Court in acts not covered by law and in cases of excessive penalties).

1. Article 5, Paragraph 1 (Acts not covered by law): • The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by law, but the court deems it proper to repress such act. • Duty of Court: Must dismiss the case and acquit the accused, then report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice (DOJ), the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. 2. Article 5, Paragraph 2 (Clearly excessive penalties): • The court finds the accused guilty, but a strict enforcement of the RPC results in a clearly excessive penalty because the accused acted with a lesser degree of malice and/or there is no injury or the injury is of lesser gravity. • Duty of Court: Must NOT suspend the execution of the sentence, and shall submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice (DOJ), recommending executive clemency.

What are the Stages of Committing a Crime (Internal vs. External Acts)?

1. Internal Acts: Mere ideas in the mind of a person; they are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. 2. External Acts: • Preparatory Acts: Ordinarily not punishable, EXCEPT when the law expressly provides for their punishment in independent crimes (e.g., conspiracy/proposal where specially penalized). • Acts of Execution: Punishable under the RPC as Attempted, Frustrated, or Consummated felonies (Art. 6).

Define Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Felonies under Article 6, and list the elements of Attempted and Frustrated Felonies.

1. Attempted Felony: • Definition: 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 desistance. • Elements: a. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; b. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; c. The offender's act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; and d. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. 2. Frustrated Felony: • Definition: When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. • Elements: a. The offender performs all the acts of execution; b. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; c. But the felony is not produced; and d. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 3. Consummated Felony: • Definition: When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.

"Define ""Overt Acts"" and ""Indeterminate Offense"" in relation to Article 6."

• Overt Acts: Some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense (e.g., mixing poison into food, as opposed to merely buying poison). • Indeterminate Offense: One where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain; its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.

Distinguish the Subjective Phase from the Objective Phase of a felony.

• Subjective Phase: That portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts, including their natural course. In an attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase. • Objective Phase: Reached after the offender has performed all the acts of execution (no longer in control of the natural course of his acts). In a frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase, though the crime is not produced.

When are Light Felonies punishable under Article 7, and what are the Light Felonies under the RPC?

• General Rule: Light felonies are punishable ONLY when they have been consummated. • Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. • Light Felonies under the RPC: 1. Against Persons: Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. 2. Against Property: • Theft by hunting, fishing, or gathering fruits, cereals, or other forest/farm products upon an enclosed estate/field where trespass is forbidden and the value does not exceed P5.00; • Theft where the value of stolen property does not exceed P5.00 and the offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or difficulty of earning a livelihood; • Alteration of boundary marks; • Malicious mischief where the damage is not more than P200.00 or if it cannot be estimated.

Define Conspiracy and Proposal to commit a felony under Article 8, and list their respective requisites.

• General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are NOT punishable, except in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. (When the crime is actually committed, conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a separate offense.)

What are the requisites of Conspiracy and Proposal under Article 8, and when is there NO criminal proposal?

1. Requisites of Conspiracy: • Two or more persons came to an agreement (meeting of the minds); • The agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and • The execution of the felony is decided upon. 2. Requisites of Proposal: • That a person has decided to commit a felony; and • That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons. (Note: It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees; if he agrees, it becomes a conspiracy.) 3. No Criminal Proposal When: • The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony; • There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal; or • It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.

What are the instances of mere Conspiracy and mere Proposal specially punished by the RPC?

• Mere Conspiracy Punished by the RPC: 1. Conspiracy to commit treason 2. Conspiracy to commit coup d'état, rebellion or insurrection 3. Conspiracy to commit sedition 4. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade: a. To restrain trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market; b. Making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price of any such merchandise. • Mere Proposal Punished by the RPC: 1. Proposal to commit treason 2. Proposal to commit coup d'état, rebellion or insurrection

Classify and distinguish Grave, Less Grave, and Light Felonies under Article 9 (as amended by RA 10951) and their corresponding penalties under Article 25.

1. Grave Felonies: • Definition: Those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25. • Corresponding Penalties: Death, Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. 2. Less Grave Felonies: • Definition: Those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25. • Corresponding Penalties: Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro. 3. Light Felonies: • Definition: Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000.00 (amended by RA 10951 from P200.00), or both, is provided. • Corresponding Penalties: Arresto menor, Public censure.

Define Special Law and state the rule on the supplementary application of the RPC under Article 10.

• Definition: A penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the Penal Code; a statute enacted by the legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. • Rule under Art. 10: Offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC, but the RPC shall be supplementary to such laws. • Exceptions (When RPC is NOT supplementary): 1. Where the special law specially provides the contrary; 2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication. • RPC Provisions NOT Applicable to Special Laws (unless provided otherwise): 1. Graduation of penalties into minimum, medium, and maximum periods; 2. Stages of execution under Art. 6 (no attempted or frustrated stage unless provided by the special law); 3. Mitigating or aggravating circumstances; 4. Accessory penalties.

What are Justifying Circumstances under Criminal Law?

"Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. • Non-existence of a crime: The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in Art. 11 that the persons therein mentioned ""do not incur any criminal liability."""

What are Exempting Circumstances (Non-imputability)?

Those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent. • Basis: Complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

What are Mitigating Circumstances?

Those which, if present in the commission of a crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. • Basis: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or lesser perversity of the offender.

What are Aggravating Circumstances?

Those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense. • Basis: Greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony.

Distinguish Imputability, Responsibility, and Guilt.

1. Imputability: The quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner; implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done and may therefore be put down to the doer as his very own. 2. Responsibility: The obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. 3. Guilt: An element of responsibility; a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.

What are the six (6) Justifying Circumstances enumerated under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code?

1. Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1) 2. Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2) 3. Defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3) 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury (State of necessity) (Art. 11, par. 4) 5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office (Art. 11, par. 5) 6. Obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose (Art. 11, par. 6)

What is the burden of proof when an accused invokes a justifying circumstance such as self-defense?

"• The burden of proof lies with the accused/person invoking self-defense. • Quantum of evidence: Accused must present ""clear and convincing evidence."" • Rule on evidence: Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution; having admitted the act, weakness of prosecution evidence cannot save him."

What are the underlying theoretical reasons for allowing self-defense?

1. Classicist: It is impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens and offer protection to the unjustly attacked; therefore, it is inconceivable for the State to require the innocent to succumb to an unlawful aggression without offering any resistance. 2. Positivist: Lawful defense is an exercise of right, an act of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggression. 3. Natural Law: Justified by man's natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person from impending danger and peril.

What rights are protected under Self-Defense (Art. 11, par. 1)?

1. Right to life and person/body 2. Right to property 3. Right to honor and chastity

What are the three (3) essential requisites of Self-Defense (Art. 11, par. 1)?

1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

What is Unlawful Aggression in self-defense, and what is its status among the requisites?

• Definition: An assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an offensive and positively strong manner, showing the wrongful intent to cause injury, putting one's life, limb, or right in actual or imminent peril. • Status: It is an indispensable requisite; a condition sine qua non. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

Distinguish Actual Unlawful Aggression from Imminent Unlawful Aggression.

1. Actual Unlawful Aggression: Equivalent to physical assault; the person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with the actual use of a weapon. 2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression: Threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing wrongful intent to cause injury; it is not required that the attack already begins, for defense might then come too late.

Distinguish Self-Defense from Retaliation.

1. Retaliation: The aggression begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. It is punitive, not defensive, and is NOT self-defense. 2. Self-Defense: The unlawful aggression was still existing and continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making the defense.

What are the specific requisites/characteristics of Unlawful Aggression?

1. Peril to one's life, limb, or right (actual or imminent). 2. Must be simultaneous with or immediately preceding the defensive act, without appreciable interval of time (no time or occasion for deliberation/cool thinking). 3. Must come directly from the person attacked/injured by the accused. 4. Must be real and not imaginary; not merely threats or intimidating stance/posture (mere belief without overt act is insufficient).

Give five (5) examples of acts constituting Unlawful Aggression under Reyes.

1. Aiming a revolver at another with the intention of shooting him. 2. Opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack. 3. Placing a hand in one's pocket with a motion indicating a purpose to assault with a weapon. 4. Picking up a weapon when the intent to attack is manifest. 5. Pursuing another without raising a hand to strike a blow (not necessary to wait until the blow is actually discharged).

Does lawful aggression give rise to the right of self-defense? What is the exception?

• General Rule: No. When a person is exercising lawful aggression (e.g., lawful arrest, lawful exercise of duty or right), there is no right to self-defense. • Exception: When the person exercising the duty or right acts ultra vires (beyond authority) or in an excessively violent manner (e.g., sheriff seizing sentimental property when generic property is available; peace officer seizing fishing net without court order).

When does the retreat or flight of an aggressor NOT terminate unlawful aggression?

• General Rule: When the aggressor runs away or flees, unlawful aggression ceases to exist. • Exception: When it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is merely to take a more advantageous position to ensure the success of the attack already begun by him; the unlawful aggression is then deemed continuing.

"What is the effect of an ""Agreement to Fight"" on the claim of self-defense, and what are its exceptions?"

• General Rule: There is no unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight; one who enters a mutual combat cannot claim self-defense. • Exceptions: 1. If a challenge to fight was not accepted, aggression by the challenger is unlawful. 2. An aggression launched ahead of the stipulated time and place agreed upon is unlawful.

How is the unlawful aggressor determined when there is no direct evidence?

• In the absence of direct evidence, it shall be presumed that the person who was deeply offended by an insult was the one who struck first (US v. Laurel). • The person with the greater motive for committing the crime is presumed to be the aggressor.

"Compare the doctrines: ""Stand Ground When in the Right"" vs. ""Retreat to the Wall."""

1. Stand Ground When in the Right (Accepted Rule in the Philippines): Where the accused is in a place where he has a right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when an assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon. Flight carries the risk of being attacked from behind. 2. Retreat to the Wall (Common Law rule): Requires the defender to retreat as far as he safely can before resorting to deadly force; this doctrine is not favored under Philippine law.

What are the requisites for self-defense of property to justify homicide or physical injuries?

1. The defense of property under Art. 429 of the New Civil Code allows reasonably necessary force to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation. 2. In prosecutions for homicide or murder, defense of property alone NEVER justifies killing; it must be coupled with an unlawful attack on the person entrusted with or defending the property (People v. Narvaez).

Is violent entry into another's house considered unlawful aggression?

• Yes. The violent entry of another into one's home is considered unlawful aggression in itself, and an attack on the person of the homeowner is not strictly necessary to justify defense of home (People v. Mirabiles). • Limitation: The defender is not required to retreat and may pursue the adversary until safe, but killing is not easily justified (e.g., no necessity to kill for mere attempted arson; US v. Rivera).

"What are the two (2) components of ""Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed""?"

1. Necessity of the course of action taken by the person making the defense; and 2. Necessity of the means used. • Both must be reasonable under the attendant circumstances.

"Does ""Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed"" require mathematical or perfect equality of weapons?"

"• No. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the defender and that of the aggressor is NOT required. • Rule: What the law requires is ""Rational Equivalence."" The assaulted person cannot be expected to possess tranquility of mind to calculate, weigh, and coolly choose which weapon to use in the heat of danger."

What factors determine the reasonableness of the necessity of the course of action and means used in self-defense?

1. Presence of imminent danger. 2. The defender being impelled by the instinct of self-preservation. 3. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the defender compared to that of the aggressor. 4. Emergency to which the defender was exposed. 5. Disparity in physical condition, size, age, character, and strength between aggressor and defender. 6. Place and occasion of the assault (e.g., darkness of night, surprise).

Is a defender required to control his blows or aim at less vital parts of the body?

• No. One defending himself is not required to draw fine distinctions or coolly calculate the extent of the injury to inflict. • He is not expected to wait after each blow to determine its effects, nor to aim at a less vulnerable part in the heat of an encounter (People v. Espina; US v. Domen). • Limitation: The measure of rational necessity is judged from the situation as it appeared to the defender at the time the blow was struck (Cano v. People), but blows must be aimed at the assailant and not indiscriminately.

What is the special rule regarding the reasonableness of means used by a peace officer repelling aggression?

• A police officer's duty requires him to overcome his opponent. • He is not required to afford an attacker an opportunity for a fair and equal struggle. • Even if equipped with a club or baton, he may use his firearm to subdue an attacker threatening his life (US v. Mojica).

"What are the four (4) situations where ""Lack of Sufficient Provocation"" is present in self-defense?"

"1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the defender. 2. When provocation was given, but it was not ""sufficient"" (not proportionate to the aggression nor adequate to stir it). 3. When provocation was sufficient, but it was not given by the defender (it came from a third person). 4. When provocation was given by the defender, but it was not proximate and immediate to the aggression (e.g., occurred days prior)."

"What constitutes ""Sufficient Provocation"" under Reyes?"

• Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission. • Mere verbal argument or replies that merely hurt one's pride do not constitute sufficient provocation.

"Define ""Battered Woman Syndrome"" (BWS) under R.A. No. 9262."

• Definition: A scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (R.A. 9262, Sec. 3). • Legal Effect (Sec. 26): Victim-survivors suffering from BWS do not incur criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.

What are the three (3) phases in the Cycle of Violence under the Battered Woman Syndrome doctrine?

1. Tension-Building Phase: Minor battering occurs (verbal or slight physical abuse); the woman tries to placate the batterer, leading to emotional withdrawal, which further angers him. 2. Acute Battering Incident: Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes death; the woman cannot control it, feels detached from the attack, and only the batterer can stop it. 3. Tranquil, Loving (or Non-Violent) Phase: Profound relief; batterer exhibits tender, remorseful behavior and promises change, leading the woman to believe the battery will not recur. • Note: The couple must go through this cycle at least twice to establish BWS.

What are the three (3) requisites of Defense of Relatives (Art. 11, par. 2)?

1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; 3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

Who are the relatives included under Defense of Relatives (Art. 11, par. 2)?

1. Spouse; 2. Ascendants (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents in direct line); 3. Descendants (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren in direct line); 4. Brothers and sisters (legitimate, natural, or adopted); 5. Relatives by affinity in the same degrees (spouse's ascendants, descendants, and siblings; survives death of spouse); 6. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree (up to first cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces).

What is the underlying basis or justification for Defense of Relatives?

• Founded not only upon humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on occasions of great peril, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.

In Defense of Relatives, what is the effect if the relative attacked gave sufficient provocation?

• It is immaterial and will still be a legitimate defense of relative, PROVIDED that the one making the defense had no part in the provocation. • Even if the defender harbored standing resentment or revenge, as long as all three requisites concur, defense of relative is fully justified.

Can unlawful aggression in Defense of Relatives be based on the honest belief of the defender?

• Yes. Unlawful aggression can depend upon the honest belief of the person making the defense. • If an accused acts in good faith and honest belief that his relative is the victim of an unlawful aggression, even if mistaken, the defense of relative is valid (e.g., Olbinar v. CA).

What are the three (3) requisites of Defense of Stranger (Art. 11, par. 3)?

1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; 3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

"Who is a ""Stranger"" under Article 11, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code?"

• Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under Art. 11, paragraph 2. • Rule: What one may do in his own defense, another may do for him.

In Defense of Stranger, does a prior grudge against the aggressor automatically disqualify the defender?

• No. Even if the defender had a standing grudge against the assailant, if he entered into the defense out of a generous and disinterested motive to save the stranger from harm or death, the third requisite is still present.

What are the three (3) requisites of State of Necessity / Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury (Art. 11, par. 4)?

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; 3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

What is the unique civil liability rule in Avoidance of Greater Evil (Art. 11, par. 4)?

• General Rule for Justifying Circumstances: The actor incurs neither criminal nor civil liability. • Exception: In Art. 11, par. 4 (State of Necessity), there IS civil liability, which is borne by the persons benefited by the act in proportion to the benefit received (Art. 101, RPC).

"What are the limitations and conditions regarding the ""evil"" under Art. 11, paragraph 4?"

1. The evil must actually exist (not merely expected, anticipated, or feared in the future). 2. The greater evil sought to be avoided must NOT result from a violation of law, negligence, or imprudence by the actor. 3. One cannot invoke this defense if he was not actually avoiding an evil, or if he was attempting to prevent a lawful act (People v. Ricohermoso).