CRIMINAL LAW I

ARTICLE 1 – TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT.

The Revised Penal Code shall take effect on the First day of January, 1932

I. CRIMINAL LAW, Defined – is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.

II. CRIME, Defined – an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

III. TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Classical theory

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

That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute 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

It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty

There is a scant regard to the human element.

2. Positivist theory

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

That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it 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; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.

IV. POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES

The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure.

V. LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION

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.

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 that it was, when committed;

3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment that 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; 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.

NOTE:

Congress is also prohibited from passing an act which would inflict punishment without judicial trial, for that would constitute a bill of attainder.

To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused is to make it an ex post facto law.

BILL OF ATTAINDER is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.

VI. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (ART. III, BILL OF RIGHTS)

1. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.

2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

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.

4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and 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 the has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.

7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

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.

VII. STATUTORY RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED

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 judgment.

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.

NOTE:

A right which may be waived is the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination, considering that it is personal.

A right which may not be waived is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, considering that it involve public interest which may be affected.

ARTICLE 2 – APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS.

Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential applications, 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 its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Shall commit an offense 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 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 Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.

I. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. GENERAL – binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory

The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation and the right of every government to uphold its laws and maintain order within its domain, and with the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed within its territory, regardless of the nationality of the offender.

Exceptions to the general rule:

Art. 14 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.

Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the Principles of Public International Law

1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state

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

2. TERRITORIAL – undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory.

The principle of territoriality means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.

Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law

In what cases are the provisions of the RPC applicable even if the felony is committed outside of the Philippines?

Art. 2 provides that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who:

a. Shall commit an offense on a Philippine ship or airship;

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

c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;

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

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

3. PROSPECTIVE – a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. As provided in Art. 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission.

Exceptions to prospective effect of law:

1. Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

Exceptions to the exception of retroactive application of law:

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

2. Where the offender is a habitual delinquent or recidivist .

CHAPTER ONE

ARTICLE 3 – FELONIES (DELITOS)

Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. 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.

I. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

1. That there must be an act or omission

2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code

3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa)

II. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES/CRIMES

1. INTENTIONAL FELONIES – the act or omission of the offender is malicious. In the language of Art. 3, the act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice). The performer in performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another.

2. CULPABLE FELONIES – the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another person is unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. As stated in Art. 3, the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

IMPRUDENCE – indicates a deficiency of action, usually involves lack of skill

NEGLIGENCE – indicates a deficiency of perception, usually involves lack of foresight.

3. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY SPECIAL LAWS – include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinance. Deceit (dolo) is not required in crimes punished by special laws. When the crime 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.

III. REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

In order that an act or omission may be considered as having been performed or incurred with deliberate intent or malice, the following requisites must concur:

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

Exception:

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.

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

Exception:

An 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 act without intelligence.

3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do an act.

Exception:

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.

IV. MISTAKE OF FACT

While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia legis non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability (ignorantia facti excusat).

Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fat on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.

V. 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.

NOTES:

In mistake of fact, the act done by the accused would have constituted (1) a justifying circumstance under Art. 11, (2) absolutory

cause, such as that contemplated in Art. 247, par. 2, or (3) an involuntary act.

Mistake of fact would constitute a justifying circumstance under Art. 11, if there be (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

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.

In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply.

When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.

Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of deceit (dolo) because of the legal maxims – “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” or the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so; and “Actus me invite factus non est meus actus” or an act done by my against my will is not my act.

When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.

Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws.

VII. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA

MALA IN SE – wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc. Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members. The rule is that in acts mala in se , there must be a criminal intent. Mala in se refers generally to 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. On the other hand, there are crimes in the Revised Penal Code which were originally defined and penalized by special laws. Among them are possession and use of opium, malversation, brigandage, and libel.

MALA PROHIBITA – wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms. Crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. In mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated. It is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. The term mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.

VII. INTENT DISTINGUISHED FROM MOTIVE

While MOTIVE is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result, INTENT is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.

VIII. MOTIVE WHEN RELEVANT AND WHEN NOT RELEVANT

RELEVANT

1. Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute

2. When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant

3. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing

4. Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt

5. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons

6. If the evidence is merely circumstantial

NOT RELEVANT

1. If the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing

2. When the accused has been positively identified

3. Where the defendant/accused admits the killing

4. Where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence

NOTES:

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.

The existence of a motive, though perhaps an important consideration, is not sufficient proof of guilt.

Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor.

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

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system or criminal justice.

ARTICLE 4 – CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE 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.

NOTE:

The rationale of the rule in Article 4 is found in the doctrine that “el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado” or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.

I. PAR. 1 – A person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if:

There is a mistake in the identity of the victim (ERROR IN PERSONAE)

Ex: Where the defendant went out of the house with the intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the evening, defendant mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted upon him a mortal wound with a bolo. In this case, the defendant is criminally liable for the death of Mapudul.

There is a mistake in the blow (ABERRATIO ICTUS)

Ex: Where the accused, having discharged his firearm at Juana Buralo but because of lack of precision, hit and seriously wounded Perfecta Buralo, it was held that the accused was liable for the injury caused to the latter.

The injurious result is greater than that intended (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)

Ex: Where the accused, without intent to kill, struck the victim with his fist on the back part of the head from behind, causing the victim to fall down with his head hitting the asphalt pavement and resulting in the fracture of his head, it was held that the accused was liable for the death of the victim, although he had no intent to kill said victim.

REQUISITES OF PAR. 1 OF ARTICLE 4

In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, the following requisites must be present:

1. That an intentional felony has been committed

Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.

No felony is committed when the act or omission is not punishable by the Revised Penal Code, or when the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Article 11

2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.

It is an established rule that a person is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of the law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.

In the following cases, the wrong done is considered the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed –

a. The victim who was threatened or chased by the accused with a knife, jumped into the water and drowned because he did not know how to swim;

b. The victim removed the drainage from his wound which was caused by the accused, it appearing that the wound produced extreme pain and restlessness which made the victim removed it;

c. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life;

d. The victim was suffering from internal malady either because (1) the blow was efficient cause of death; (2) blow accelerated death; or (3) the blow was the proximate cause of death;

e. The offended party refused to submit to surgical operation;

f. The resulting injury was aggravated by infection.

II. PROXIMATE CAUSE, Defined – 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. Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while logical means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim. There must be a relation of cause and effect, the cause being the felonious act, the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim.

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:

a) 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;

b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

III. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

The second paragraph of Article 4 defines the so-called impossible crimes.

REQUISITES OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;

Felonies against Persons are: Parricide, Murder, Homicide, Infanticide, Abortion, Duel, Physical Injuries, Rape

Felonies against Properties are: Robbery, Brigandage, Theft, Usurpation, Culpable Insolvency, Swindling and Other Deceits, Chattel Mortgage, Arson and other crimes involving Destruction, Malicious Mischief

2. That the act was done with evil intent;

Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense against persons or against property, it must be shown that the actor performed the act with evil intent, that is, he must have the intent to do an injury to another.

3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or inefficient

“Inherent impossibility of the accomplishment” means that the act intended by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act.

“Employment of inadequate means”

Ex. A determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing that the quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed. The means employed (small quantity of poison) is inadequate to kill a person.

“Employment of ineffectual means”

Ex. A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter not knowing that it was empty. When he pressed the trigger it did not fire. The means used by A is ineffectual.

4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code

ARTICLE 6 – CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES

CONSUMMATED when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present

FRUSTRATED when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

ATTEMPT when the offender commences the commission of a felony direct 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

I. STAGES IN COMMITTING A CRIME

A. Internal acts

Internal acts such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime.

In internal acts, intention and effect must concur

B. External acts

Preparatory acts – ordinarily they are not punishable.

Acts of execution – they are punishable under the Revised Penal Code

II. ATTEMPTED FELONY

Elements of Attempted Felony

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;

2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;

3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;

4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance

Requisites of Attempted Felony

1. There must be external acts

2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed

OVERT ACTS, Defined – is 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.

III. FRUSTRATED FELONY

Elements of Frustrated Felony

1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;

2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;

3. But the felony is not produced;

4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

Requisites of Frustrated Felony

1. That the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony

2. That the felony is not produced due to caused independent of the perpetrator’s will

IV. ATTEMPTED - FRUSTRATED, Distinguished

1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose.

2. While in Frustrated, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence; in Attempted, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.

3. In Frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in Attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase.

4. In Frustrated felony, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the consummation of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime; while in Attempted felony, there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should produce the crime.

V. CONSUMMATED FELONY

In consummated, all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment must be present. Every crime has its own

elements which must all be present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of law.

VI. DETERMINATION OF A FELONY IF ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED OR CONSUMMATED

In determining whether the felony is only attempted or frustrated or it is consummated, the following must be considered:

1. The nature of the offense;

2. The elements constituting the felony; and

3. The manner of committing the felony

VII. MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

1. Formal crimes – consummated in one instant, no attempt.

There are crimes, like slander and false testimony, which are consummated in one instant, by a single act. These are formal crimes.

As a rule, there can be no attempt at a formal crime, because between the thought and the deed there is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link.

2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act.

Flight to enemy’s country, in this crime the mere attempt to flee to an enemy country is a consummated felony.

Corruption of minors, a mere proposal to the minor to satisfy the lust of another will consummate the offense.

There is no attempted crime of treason, because the overt act in itself consummates the crime.

3. Felony by omission

There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because in this kind of felony the offender does not execute acts. He omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do.

4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons although apparently by omission, is in fact by commission

In those crimes like betting in sport contests and corrupting of public officer, which require the intervention of two persons to commit them, the same are consummated by mere agreement.

5. Material crimes – there are three stages of execution, attempted, frustrated and consummated.

Thus, homicide, rape, etc., are not consummated in one instant or by a single act. These are material crimes.

ARTICLE 7 – LIGHT FELONIES

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding Php200, or both, is provided.

Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons or property.

The light felonies punished by the Revised Penal Code are:

a. Slight physical injuriesb. Theftc. Alteration of bou6ndary marksd. Malicious mischiefe. Intriguing against honor

The penalty for the above-mentioned crimes is arresto mayor (imprisonment from one day to thirty days), or a fine not exceeding Php200.00.

GENERAL RULE : Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. Reason: Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their commission. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.

EXCEPTION : Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Reason: The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity. For that reason, even attempted or frustrated light felonies against persons or property are punishable.

Light felonies against person – slight physical injuries and maltreatment

Light felonies against property – (1) Theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits or other forest or farm products upon an inclosed estate or field where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed Php5.00; (2) Theft were the value of the stolen property does not exceed Php5.00 and the offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood; (3) Alteration of boundary marks; (4) Malicious mischief where the damage is not more than Php200.00 or it if cannot be estimated.

ARTICLE 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the commission or a felony and decide therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

GENERAL RULE : Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable. Reason: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.

EXCEPTION : They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically provides a penalty therefor.

Elements of Conspiracy

1. Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons;

2. The agreement must refer to the commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring about what has already been conceived and determined;

3. The conspirators have made up their minds to commit the crime. There must be a determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.

Requisites of Conspiracy

1. That two or more persons came to an agreement;

2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and

3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.

Requisites of Proposal

1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and

2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

There is no criminal proposal when –

1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony;

2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal;

3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.

NOTES:

Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, and may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime.

Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests.

Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.

Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval on an illegal act is required.

A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. Quantum of proof is required to establish conspiracy.

ARTICLE 9 – GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES AND LIGHT FELONIES

GRAVE FELONIES are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.

LESS GRAVE FELONIES are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article.

LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.

CHAPTER TWO

I. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Justifying circumstances2. Exempting circumstances and other absolutory causes3. Mitigating circumstances4. Aggravating circumstances5. Alternative circumstances

IMPUTABILITY, Defined – is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner

RESPONSIBILITY, Defined – is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime.

IMPUTABILITY distinguished from RESPONSIBILITY – While imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such deed.

GUILT, Defined – is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.

ARTICLE 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed now to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.

I. BASIS FOR JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability.”

II. THE FOLLOWING DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances occur:

First, unlawful aggression;

Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and

Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself;

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree;

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger;

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:

First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second, that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third, that there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.