The Revised Penal Code Study Notes

The Revised Penal Code

Preliminary Article

This law shall be known as "The Revised Penal Code."

Book One

General Provisions Regarding the Date of Enforcement and Application of the Provisions of This Code, and Regarding the Offenses, the Persons Liable and the Penalties.

Preliminary Title

Date of Effectiveness and Application of the Provisions of This Code

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 (RPC) took effect on January 1, 1932.

What is a Penal Law?

A penal provision or statute has been consistently defined by Jurisprudence as follows:

  • A penal provision defines a crime or provides a punishment for one. Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation. Properly speaking, a statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the State which, under the Constitution, the Executive has the power to pardon. In common use, however, this sense has been enlarged to include within the term "penal statutes" all statutes which command or prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violation, and even those which, without expressly prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty upon their commission.

Classes of Injuries

As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of injuries:

  1. Social Injury:
    The first is the social injury produced by the criminal act which is sought to be repaired through the imposition of the corresponding penalty.

  2. Personal Injury:
    The second is the personal injury caused to the victim of the crime which injury is sought to be compensated through indemnity, which is civil in nature.

Thus, "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." This is the law governing the recovery of civil liability arising from the commission of an offense. Civil liability includes restitution, reparation for damage caused, and indemnification of consequential damages.

The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising from the commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil action is either deemed instituted with the criminal action or is separately instituted.

When a person commits a crime they offend two entities:

  1. The society in which they live, or the political entity called the State whose law they have violated; and

  2. The individual member of the society whose person, right, honor, chastity, or property has been actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission.

An act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, and it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. Additionally, what gives rise to the civil liability is the obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by reason of their own act or omission, whether done intentionally or negligently. The indemnity which a person is sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by law for the commission of the crime. The civil action involves civil liability arising from the offense charged which includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.

In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken whenever legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect is concerned and may be made only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The private complainant or offended party may not undertake such motion for reconsideration or appeal on the criminal aspect of the case. However, the offended party or private complainant may file a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned. In so doing, the private complainant or offended party need not secure the conformity of the public prosecutor.

The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim.

Jurisprudence on Civil Liability

Jurisprudence has established that the interest of the private complainant is limited only to the civil liability arising from the crime. An important case is Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, where the Court ruled:
"Thus, the Court has definitively ruled that in a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the State through the Solicitor General. As a rule, only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not undertake such appeal."

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita

Criminal law differentiates crimes into two categories:

  1. Acts Mala in Se:
    These are acts wrong in themselves.

  2. Acts Mala Prohibita:
    These are acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them.

This distinction is important concerning the intent with which a wrongful act is committed. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs, but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is if the law has been violated. When an act is prohibited by law, its execution is considered injurious to public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself.

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are housed in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are defined by special penal laws. In practice, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.

Criteria for Distinguishing Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita

The distinguishing criterion is the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se. Conversely, if it is not immoral in itself but is prohibited by statute for public policy reasons, then it is mala prohibita. Ultimately, whether a crime involves moral turpitude is a question of fact and frequently depends on the circumstances surrounding the statute's violation.

Example of Mala Prohibita

The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is an example of a malum prohibitum.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and achieve absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required; that is, the degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. As stated in People v. Sitco, the imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt is crucial in our criminal justice system.

In Rabanal v. People, the Court further explained:
"Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution."

The prosecution must present its case with clarity and persuasion, ensuring that the conviction becomes the only logical conclusion with moral certainty. The Court elucidated further in People v. Berroya that the necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt stems from the inherent inequalities of position during a criminal prosecution.

Criminal Action vs. Civil Action

The primary purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender, deterring them and others from committing similar offenses, isolating them from society, or rehabilitating them to maintain social order. Conversely, the sole purpose of the civil action is restitution or reparation for the damage inflicted on the private offended party due to the felonious act of the accused.
While the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it must only prove the cause of action for damages or restitution in a civil action.

The extinction of the penal action does not lead to the extinction of the civil action. However, a civil action based on delict will be deemed extinguished if the final judgment in the civil case indicates that the act or omission giving rise to civil liability does not exist.

Ex Post Facto Law vs. Bill of Attainder

Article III, Section 22 of the Philippine Constitution states: "No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted."

Ex Post Facto Law

An ex post facto law is defined as one which:

  1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, punishing 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 that which the law annexed to the crime when committed;

  4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, authorizing conviction based on less or different testimony than was required at the time of the crime's commission;

  5. Regulates civil rights and remedies but, in effect, imposes a penalty for something which was lawful when committed;

  6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of lawful protections such as prior acquittal or amnesty.

No ex post facto law may be enacted, and no law may be construed to allow a criminal prosecution that violates the ex post facto clause.

Example: As applied to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), it is clear that no person may be prosecuted under the penal provisions of the AMLA for acts committed prior to the law's enactment on October 17, 2001.

Bill of Attainder

A bill of attainder is legislative action that inflicts punishment without trial, replacing judicial determination of guilt with legislative power. The constitutional ban against bills of attainder exists to implement the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rules and preventing legislative overreach.

Classical Theory (Classical School of Thought)

The basic principle in criminal law holds that a person is criminally liable for felonies committed by them. Under the classical theory, the basis of criminal liability is human free will. It posits that humans possess an innate moral compass, capable of choosing between right and wrong. When felonious acts occur, they are presumed voluntary, showing intent and freedom. Thus, individuals should be held accountable for wrongful acts if free will is evident.

The Revised Penal Code is anchored in the classical school of thought, focusing on mens rea, defined as guilty mind or criminal intent. It is insufficient to merely violate the law; it necessitates intention or "malice" for felonious acts to exist.

Positivist Theory

The positivist theory suggests that criminal liability arises from social and economic phenomena. The aspects adopted in Philippine penal law are illustrated by the indeterminate sentence law and certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding heinous crimes. This theory emphasizes viewing the convict as a societal member, requiring consideration of:

  1. Their relations toward dependents and family; and

  2. Their relationships toward society and the State at large.

The State's concern extends beyond merely punishing; it aims to utilize penalties to ensure justice and enable reform so that penalized individuals can reintegrate into society.

Utilitarian Theory (Protective Theory)

The utilitarian theory, known as the protective theory, states that the primary function of punishment is to protect society from actual and potential offenders. It highlights the moral disapprobation of actions harmful to the societal existence and progress. Punishment serves to underscore this moral disapproval, with the method's severity reflecting the broken societal contract.

Equipoise Doctrine or Equipoise Rule

The equipoise doctrine dictates that when the prosecution's and defense's evidence is balanced, the scales should tilt in favor of the accused. Thus, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.

Example: Case Analysis

M was accused of shooting P. The courts found M's self-defense claim insufficient, stating that M failed to prove all elements of self-defense. The reliance on the equipoise doctrine was misplaced as M admitted to shooting P, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. Thus, M was convicted of frustrated homicide.

In Dubio Pro Reo

This Latin maxim means "when in doubt, rule for the accused," emphasizing that interpretations of criminal laws must favor the accused when doubts exist.

Rule of Lenity

The rule of lenity holds that when faced with an ambiguous criminal statute, courts should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment.

Finality-of-Acquittal Doctrine

A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable to provide defendants with finality against double jeopardy. It protects individuals from harassment through repeated prosecutions. The rationale emphasizes the fairness of limiting government attempts to convict an individual for alleged offenses.
Previously adjudicated cases echo the tenets underpinning this doctrine.

Double Jeopardy

To invoke double jeopardy, the following elements must be present:

  1. Prior attachment of first jeopardy;

  2. Valid termination of the first jeopardy; and

  3. Second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first. The criteria outline that legal jeopardy attaches following a valid indictment before a competent court after arraignment and plea, and remains intact if finalized without the defendant's consent.

Elements for Double Jeopardy

For double jeopardy to attach, elements must concur relating to valid charges, competent jurisdiction, and final judgment or dismissal without consent.

Exceptions to Double Jeopardy

  1. Deprivation of due process;

  2. Mistrial findings;

  3. Grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.

Example: Case Analysis

Z, accused of rape, achieved an acquittal. However, the trial court recalled the judgment upon realizing oversight. The Supreme Court maintained acquittal due to the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Prosecution of Crimes

Except for specific crimes (e.g., adultery, seduction), a formal complaint by the offended party is not necessary for a criminal action to proceed. An information filed by a prosecutor suffices, as crime is against the State.
Crimes are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.

Article 2: Application of its Provisions

Except as provided in treaties and preferences, 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 its jurisdiction against those who commit offenses on Philippine vessels, forge currency, violate acts of public duties, or against national security.

Territoriality and Extraterritoriality Principles

The Revised Penal Code is applicable within the Philippine Archipelago and also extends beyond its jurisdiction regarding certain offenses.

Flag State Rule

The jurisdiction applies to ships registered in the Philippines, indicating that Philippine courts can prosecute crimes onboard such vessels.

Example of Forgery

Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code specifies forgery methods, clarifying what actions constitute forgery, including provision of false appearances to bearers or altering existing documents.

National Security Offenses

The Revised Penal Code also encompasses crimes against national security and the laws of nations such as treason, espionage, piracy, etc.