reyes 1968

BY

Luis B. Reyes (Iudfic, Court of Fint I t t a n c e of Mdniia) Profossar of Criminal Law and Criminal Law Review

Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law at the 6 ' Colle~eof Law. Ateneo de Manila University School of Law, Lyceum of the Philimines Institute of Law. Far Eastern University

Revised Second Edition

19F8

Distvibrited Exclusi.ueZy by

PHILAW PUBLISHING

. % , .

.

2103 C. M. Recto Ave., Manila, Philippinss

Philippines Copysight 1868,

" '~: '<

:i

i

by

"

LUIS B. REPES

Any copy of this book not bearingr tlie signalure of the author on this page shall be deemed as having proeieded from an illegal source.

All Rights Reserved

Piinted 1%

R. P. GARCIA PUBLISHING CO. ,311 Quezon Blvd. E*., Quezon City

''

...,*.'

'r

I

1. When did the Revised Penal Code take effect? The Revised Penal Code took effect on the of Ja. a r y , 1932 (Art. 1, R.P.C.).

./

2. B iefly, trace the history of the ILtvised On Sept,ember 4, 1864, by royal decree, Spain ordere that thcPenal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amende in accordance with the recommendation of the code corn mittee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands. The royal order, d?,ted December 17, 1886, directed ,execation of the royal decree of September 4, 1884. The Penal Code of Spain was published in Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, and be effective four months thereafter. The Penal Code of S took effect in the Philippines on July 14, 1887, and in force up t o December 31,. 1931. By Administrative Order No. 94 of the De Justice, dated October 18, 1927, p committee was cre composed of Aiiacleto Diaz, as chairman, and Qu Paredes, Guillermo Gnevara, ,Alex Ileyes and Maria de Joya, as members, to revise the old Penal Code, into consideration the existing conditions, the special laws, and the rulings laid down by the Supreme The Committee did not undertake the codification Philippines. What the Committee

e extent of the application of the provision the Revised Penal Code? Except as provided in the treaties and Iaws,.,o~fi.. ferential application, the provisions of the Revised”P

1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

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. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ;,;:~*,,.?< :>, ship or airship: ~. , -, 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin o r 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 intro:. '..'duction into these Islands of the obligations and securities .1., '~ mentioned in the preceding number; .," ..., ..,-' 4 . While being public officers or employees, should it an offense in the exercise of their functions; or Should comrpit any of tine crimes against national urity and the law of nations, defined in Title One of k Two of the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 2, R.P.C.) ''ti:--.

.

hat eases may the provisions of the Revised Penal 'be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philip. :pines? s provided in the treaties and laws of prelication, the provisions of the Revised Penal enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the ainst those who: '1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship

, .

committed, as well as the m describe the means. Acts and omissions' punishable by 1 (delitos). Felonies are committed not only, by means' of (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa)., There is deceit when the aet is performed erate intent; and there i s ,fault wben t h e W results from imprudence, negligence, lac

f3act done be klifferent 'from th

Bn impossible crime is one an act-which would be an offens

2. Should forge o r counterfeit any coin or currency te of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities sued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3 . Should be liable for acts connected with the introction into these Islands of the obligations and securities n the preceding number; being public officers or employees, should t. an offense in the exercise of their functions; or

2

What is the duty of the whieh should be repressed but which are Whenever a court has knowledife o f , a n may deem proper to repress and which .is

3

CRIMINAL LAW kEVlEWEE . .

/'

, it

shall render the proper decision, and shall rethe Ckief Executive, through the Department of the reasons which induce the court to believe act should be made the subject of penal legisrt. 6, par. 1, R.P.C.).

CRIMINAL LAW REVIETVER

felonies are punishable oiiIy' w h e n with the exception of those:c (Art. '7, R.P.C.). 12.

le duty of the court when a strict enforcement visions of the Revised Penal Code would result osition of a clearly excessive penalty? Irt shall submit to the Chief Executive, through

commit felony and pro mit felony. When are conspiracy and p felony pUni5hdble? A conspiracy exists when two or more p to .an agreement concerning the commi and decide to commit it (Art. E, par. 2, There i s proposal when the person. who h to commit a fdony proposes its execution to person or'.persons (Art. 8, par. 3, R.P.C.)." Conspiracy and proposa,l to comrpit felony die only in the cases in which the law speoifi Jides a penalty therefor (Art. 8, par. 1, R.P.

$2 i

felonies according to their

nd define the stages of execution of a felony. State ges of execution arr punishable.

They are grave felonies, less grave felonies. Grave felonies are those to which'the capital punishment or penalties which periods are afflictive, in accordance with Revised Penal Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law. witk genalkies which in their maximum period rectional, in accordance with the above Light felonies are those infractions of commission. of which the penalty of urresto fine! not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is pr

the elements neces-

e will of the per. . ,.

.

. , , ,;$,,There is an attempt when the offender eohmenees the '~~'compissionof 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 o r accident other than I.,:' .,his. own spontaneous desistance. .ib_ I:. .

. ,

"{

,'i

i*

.;&

~

(Art. 6, R.P.C.)

~

.,:<

..., , XI., . When , are light feldnies punishable? 'ception? .A<,+>,'.? .: , ., . .,.

4

What is the ex-

.i

!

offenses are not subject to the provisions. Offenses which are or in the f

5

I

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER


t way may the Revised Penal Code apply to crimes d by special laws? he Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to a1 laws, unless the latter should specially provide the ary (Art. 10, second clause, R.P.C.).

are the juqtifying circumstances?, self-defense, ( defense of relatives, cy are efense of stranger, (4) state of necessity, (6) ful.fillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or o€fice, , ,. and ( 6 ) obedience to a lawful order. ++.. q . ._. . ,., The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on justifying circumstances are, as follows : . . The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: . , . .First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent o repel it; T h i r c d a c k of sufficient provocation on the part of the pe on defending himself. A n y o n e who acts in defense of the person or rights his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natu, or adopted brothers o r sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinitY urth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumnce are present, aud the further requisite, in case the as given by the person attacked, that the fense had no part therein. Anyone who acts in defense of t,he person or rights rovided that the first and second requisites first circumstance of this article are the person defending be not induced ment or other evil motive. who, in order t o avoid an evil or inan act which causes damage to another, proowing requisites are present:

a-1/

(6

I

F_(,..

, ,;

,,,.

. .' j_

6

exists; Second. That the injury feare done to avoid it. Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

. Any

person who acts in obedience to an o

7. What are the requisites of self-defense?

The requisites of self-defense are: First. Unlawful aggression;

The exempting circum insanity, ( W 6 n o r i t y under (@--uncontrollable fear, and (7) failure to p act required by law because of lawful or insuper The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on ing circumstances are, as follows:' The following are exempt from criminal liabili 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless t has acted during a lucid intertal. an act which the law defines as a felony, court shall order his confinement in one of or asylums established for persons thus ',a?

.

e.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .,

CK-IMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,

.

1 not be permitted to leave without first obtaining e permission of the same court. 2 . A person under nine years of age, 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such hall be proceeded against in accordance with the ns of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.

,'T

3 . That the offender had no intention to commit grave a wrong as that committed. 4 . That sufficient provocation or threat o n of the offended party immediately preceded the 5. That the act wa cation of a grave offense to the one committing the,fel ( d e l i t o ) , his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitim natural, or adopted brothers or siaters, or .,relatives affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon as naturally to have produced passio 7. That the offend self to a person in authority or his agents, :or had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the.eou to the presentation of the evidence 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind; wise suffering some physical defect which thus his means of action, defense, or communication felIow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender 3s would d exercise of the will-power of the offender wi ever depri i6g him of consciousnes d, finally, any other ci natu and analogous to those ab0

court, in conformity with the provisions of this

I

..

mitted to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said article 80. 4. .Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without .fault or intention of causing it. 5 . Any person who acts under the compulsion of an .irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of a n uncontrollable fear o€ an equal o r greater injury. 7. .Any person who fails to perform an act required plflaw, when prevented by some lawful o r insuperable (Art. 12, B.P.C.)

Whijhaf nro the mllig?ifing circitnistances? The following are mitigating circumstances : 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter; when all, the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not That the offender is under eighteen years of age ' seventy years. I n the case of the minor, he shall ceeded against in accordance with the provisions , ,

.

r:

., ' . .~ .

e.,

. 8

. ,,

I'

.YY7' 2

. What are the aggravating circunistanees? The following are aggravating 1. That advantaae be taken by the offende public position. 2 . That the crime be committed in contemp with insult to the public authorities. 3 . That the act b regard of the respect due the offaided of his rank, age, or sex, or that i t be dwelling of the offended party, if provocation. .. .

e. .,., .,." c.

.. .,,,.

.

.

.1

. ,

.. ~

:,:.,,

.,,

.

~

,.,,.

..,,

.I

'

That the act be committed with abuse of confidence ungratefulness. 6, That the crime be committed in t'le palace of the ief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties or a place dedicated to religious worship. 6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, o r by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have a.cted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. 7. That the crime he committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calami1.y o r misfortune. 8. That the crime be committed with the @id of armed men or persons who inswe or afford impunity. 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, a t the time of his trial for '., . one crime, shall have been previously convictec! by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title . of the Revised Penal Code. 10. That the offender has been previously punished f a r an offense to which the law attaches an equal or more crimes to which it committed in eonsideratio11 of mitted by means of inundaranding of a vessel or inilment of a locomotive, or ice involving great waste

.!",.I '

.,..

' ~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIZWER


,

i . , ./=

I:

.,,

That the act be committed with evident premeditaThat craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior stren means be employed to weaken the defense. 16. That the act be committed with tre

.I

There is treachery when the offender commits any Of the crimes a,gainst the person, employing means, methods, o r forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and sneciallv t o insure its execution, without risk, t o .himself arising from the defense which the offended p a r t y , .;:.r ,; might make. 17. That mcans be employed or circumstances brought , ,.a about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the , ,::. .. act. . ,. .. ~ 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful ,,...;I entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected '. by a way not intended for the purpose. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime .a : wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime c deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not ecessazy for its commission.

'1

21. What circumstances are either Or, what are alternative circumstances A!ternetive circumstances are those which taken into consideration a s according t o the nature and e otlier conditions attending its relat!onsbip, intoxication, and the degree of i education of the offender (Art. 1

When shall the alternative e be taken into consideration?

11

I,


;,,A'

shall the intoxication of the offender be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance? When shall it be considered as an aggravating circumstance? . , The intoxication of the offender shall b e taken into mitigating circumstance when the ofted a felony in a state of intoxication, or subsequent to the plan en the intoxication is habitt shall be considered as an aggravating 15, par. 3, R.P.C.). liable for grave or less grave felonies? y liable for grave and less ,;:,:,," 1

grave felonies:

-

?

::-:<4

R.P.C.).

/

/

_

'

&cmihes are those who, having commission of the crime, and without h

g or destroying the body of the'crime

ing, concealing, or a of the principal of the crime, provided with abuse of his public functions crime is guilty of treason,

re the accessories exempt from crimi@, liability The penalties prescribed for access0

are considered principals? The :following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of

110

i

(:$< :,<"'* :-p..

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it. , . 3 . Those who cooperate in the commission of the of..~. .> ",,+ .fense by another act without which it would not have . ,*s..',~'%been accomplished. ,;&I &.+i ;&,..: hi*-!8'. > ,:,e<, (Art. 17, R.P.C.) .. ::. ,+,;

';?-

/' ^_j

,

12

-*,,z*,

?<.$",,

'

rt. 16, par. 2, R..P.C.).

i ,

.$

$;/.

,< .,~,. ,.~.~"., are a e / ,,~b.* Accomplices are those persons who, not being' included {:?$I in article 17 of the Revised Penal Code. coouerate'in ,the' * executiowof the offense E/y arevious or'sim&aneous actB i.:if:. ~

rt. 16, par. 1, R.P.C.). are criminally liable for light felonies? he following are criminally liable for light felonies:

,. ,

1

A *

.l The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be ~. '

into consideration when. the offended party is the , ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adoptbrother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same s of the offender (Art. 16, par. 2, R.P.C.).

, ,.I

., :::~1 +q&&&,, ,.?".$


As a general rule, no *felony shall be p,u any penalty not preserihed by law (Art. 21, R.P.C.).

13



But Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so

The penaltks which may be imposed, accordi Revised Penal Code, and their different classes,' included in the following:

pardon by the offended party does not extinguish erest of the injured party is extinguished by his ex-

to keep the peace.

ts and proceeds of the offense, and .(g

. The'commitment of

a minor to any of th

3 . Suspension irom the employment

07

public office

(Art. 24, R.P.C.)

and a light penalty? ipposed as a single or as an , b e considered an afflictive P pesos; a correctional .penalty, pesos but is not less than 200 f it be less than 200 pesos (A

I

I .


unless such person by reason of his conduct or other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief as unworthy of pardon. Reclusion temporal.-The penalty of reclusion temporal twelve years and one day t o twenty years. Prision mnyor nnd temporaw disquaZif$cation.-The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that o€ the principal penalty. Prision eorreceional, suspension, and destierro,-The duration of the penalties of prision correceional, suspension, and rlestierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall. be that of the principal penalty. Arresto mayor.-The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one da months. Arresto menor.-The duration of the penal .;rent0 menor shall be from one day to thirty Bond to keep the peace.-The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court ma,y determine. (Art. 27, R.P.C.) State the rules for the computation of the term of the duration of temporary penalties and the term of the duration of penalties consisting in deprivation of liber If the offender shall he in prison, the term duiation of the temporary penalties shall be com from the day on which the judgment of conviction have become final. If the offender be not in prison, the term of the dura. ’, ’, tion of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty “-‘Shall be computed from the day that the offender is laeed a t the disposal of the judicial authorities for the

16

enforcement of the penalty. The duration of ..the 0th penalties shall be computed only from the day on w$ic the defendant commences to serve his sentence. (Art. 28, R.P.C.):

3. I

37. In what cases shall the offenders who have undergone preventive iniprisonment not be credited in the service of their sentences with one-half of the time of their preventive imprisonment? Offenders who have undergone preventive imprison-. ment shall be credited in the service of their sentences consisting of deprivation of liberty, with one-half of the time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, except in the following cases: 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; 2 . When upon being summoned for the execution their sentence, they have failed to surrender voluntar 3. When they have been convicted of robh estafa, malversation of public funds, falsification, or prostitution.

,

/

What are the effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern porary absolute disqualification for The penalties of perpetual or temporary abs qualification for public office shall produce the e f f e z p r i v a t i o n of the public offices ments which the offender may have held, f e r i - ’ popular election. The deprivation of the right to vote in for any popular elective office or to be elec office. A d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n for the offices ployments and for the exercise of any of t tioned.

17,

CItIIMINAC LAW REVIEWSR

& case of temporary disqualification, such disqualifica-

such profession or calling o r right of suffrage during term of the sentence. The person suspended from holding public office s h not gold another having similar functions during the perio o p i s suspension.

n as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article 11 last during the term of the sentence. 4 . The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pensfon for any office formerly held.

he effects of the penalties of perpetual or ternial disqualification for pubJic office, profession, The Penalties of perpetual or temporary special disualification for public office, profession, or calling shall roduce the following effects: 1 . The deprivation of the office, employment, profeson or calling affected. 2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or kWnentS either perpetually or during the term of the e m , according to the extent of such disqualification. (Art. 31, R.P.C.) 40. '.What are the effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern*;. ,

, '

porary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage? The perpetual o r temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term o i the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to n any popular election for any public office or to be d to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not he tted to hold any public office durilig the period of isqualification (Art. 32, R.P.C.7.

What are the effects of the penalties of suspension from public office, profession, or calling, or the right of suf-

/

/

42.1 What are the effects of civil interdiction?

Civil interdiction shall deprive the o€fender during'the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, o r guardianship, either as to the verson or property' .of ny ward, of marital authority, of the right t o manage his property, and of the right t o dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance intar vivos (Art. 34, R.P;C:).

1

43. What are the effects of bond to keep the p It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to^ bond t o keep the peace, to present two suffic who shall undertake that such person the offense sought t o be prevented, and that offense be committed they will pay the amoun by the court in its judgment, or otherwise to deposit amount in the office of the clerk of the court to y a r said undertaking. The court shall determine, according t o its discreti the period of duration of the bond. Should the person sentenced fail to giie required he shall be detained for a period whi no case 'exceed six months, if he shall have been for a grave or' less grave felony, and shall not exce days, if for a light felony.

/

44. What are the effects of a pardon by t h

, . ., / ',

'.

The suspension from public office, profession, or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercisiw

upon the convict's right to hold public office suffrage? May a pardon exempt the cdlpri payment of civil indemnity?

19

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWIPR

pardon shall not work the restoration of the i+ght d public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the ent Of the Civil indemnity imposed upon him by the

(Art. 36, R.P.C.) included in costs? shall include fees and indemnities in the course judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed 01unle amounts previously determined by law or regularce, O r amounts not subject to schedule (Art.

t are the pecuniary liabilities of the nffender and order of their paynlent?

In case the property of the offender should not he sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liahilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. The 'reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of the consequent.ial damages. 3 . The fine. 4. The costs of the proceedings.

/'

..,,

(Art. 38, R.P.C.)

What are the rules relating to subsidiary penalty? If the convict has no property with which to meet the liabilities mentioned in paragraphs Ist, Znd, the next preceding article, he shall be subject personal liability at the rate of one day and 50 centavos, subject to the followina rules:

imprisonment shall not exceed one-thi the sentence, and in no case shall it than one year, and no fraction or par counted against the prisoner. 2 . When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,: the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months;. if the cuiprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave'or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days;;if for a light felons. 3 . Wheii the principal penalty i prision eorreccional, no subsidiary imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the pxincipal penalty imposed is not to be ex- ' ; ecuted by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to snffer tb.e same deprivations as those of which the' principal penalty consists. 5 . The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall n o t relieve him from xparation of the damage caused, nor fro1 indemnification for the consequential damages in c e his financial circumstances should improve; but he all be relieved f?om pecnniary liability as to the fine. (Art. 39, R.P.C.)

f

8. What are the accessory penalties of death? The death penalty, when it is not executed by of commutation or pardon, shall carry with it

and reelusion temsporal? The penalties of reclusion perpetua and porul shall carry with them that of civil i 20

21

I

CRIMINAL LAW

REVIEWER


Such proceeds and instruments o r tools shall be con: fixated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be th,e property of a third person not liable for the o€fenseybut those articles which are not subject of lawEo1 commerce shall be destroyed. (Art. 45, R.P.C.)

e accessory penalties of prision mayor? The penalty of prision mugor shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perdisqualification from the right of suffrage ender shall suffer although pardoned as t o penalty, unless the same shall have been tted in the pardon (Art. 42, R.P.C.).

.

hat are the accessory penalties of arresto? The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of susension of the right to hold office and the right of suf'age during the term of the sentence (Art. 44, R.P.C.). hat is the provision of the Revised Penal Code on conand forfeiture of the proceeds qr instruments of the crime? ,*A Every penalty imposed for the commissiort of a felony ry with i t the forfeiture of the proceeds of the rime and the instruments or tools with whlch it was

. ,:.

._

.of execution is it applicable? The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the cornmission of such felony. &henever the law prescrib idgeneral terms, it shall be un consummated felony.

a t is the penalty t o be imposed upon principals of ustrated crime? The penalty next lower in by lam for the consummated €el the principals in a frustrated 56. What is the penalty to be imposedl upon principal

attempted crimes? A penalty lower by two degrees than that pre by ;aw €or the consummated felony shall be impos principals in an attempt to commit a felony ( the penalty to be imposed upon accomplice consunxnated crime? The penalty next lower in degr by law for the consnnnnated felo the accomplices in the commission of a co ony (Art. 52, R.P.C.).

.

.

.

.

:

.

.".'

54. When the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in generd terms, upon whom is it to be imposed and t o what stage

33

22

?%..,*,

.

life or during the period of the sentence as the case may a t of perpetual absolute disqualification uThich r shall suffer even though pardoned as to the enalty, miless the same shall have been exitted in the pardon (Art. 41, R.P.C.).

accessory penalties of prision correccional? The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unsame shall have been expressly remitted in the rdon (Art. 43, R.P.C.).

_1

P

''

,,

48


<'?,Y

:?,& 3> ..

e.,&, .

. . " ,

.

'

..

t is the penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony? 'I!he penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon to the commission of a consummated felony

1.

'

The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony to he imposed upon accessories of a e r by two degrees than that prescribed strated felony shall be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony

'

.

,

,

. ,*, . , . ..

a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be i aceoroplices 31 accessories (Art. EO, R.P.C.)

( '

hat is the penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a ., .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

61. ,What is the penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime? The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt t o commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony (Art. 56, R.P.C.). 62. What is the penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted felony? y lower by two degrees than that prescribed e attempt shall be imposed upon the aecesttempt to commit a felony (Art. 57, R.P.C.). xceptions to the rules established in articles ns contained in articles 50 to 57, inclusive, d Penal Code shall not be applicable t o cases law expressly prescribes the penalty for

.-24

i

a

.

'.

64. What is the additional penalty to be imp0 accessories who should act viith abuse of the tions in harboring, concealing, or assisting of the principal of the crime? Those a.ccessor?es shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal dffender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony (Art. 58, R.P.C.). 65. In what cases is the death penalty not to be imposed? The death penalty shall be imposed, in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases: 1, When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age. 2 . When upon appeal or revision of the case b y ' t h e Supreme Court, eight justices are not unanimous in the?; voting as t o the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court impos: iug the death sentence, the its decisi 1 per cu iunt $.fiWA'

+J

j*

66. Define comples crimes and st When a single act constitutes two o r more grave less grave felonies, o r when an offense is a necessa means for committing the 0th serious crime shall be impos in its maximum period (Art. 48, R.P.C., as am Act No. 4000). F'i. What are the rules relative t upon the principals when the from that intended?

26

.

,.,


In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed: 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding t o the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the penalty prescribed €or the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if tlic lam prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated crime:! shall be imposed in the maximum period. (Art. 49, R.P.C.) What is the penalty to be imposed for the commission of an impossible crime? When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person zre essentially inadequate to pro.. duce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon hini the penalty of nrresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos (Art. 59, R.P.C.).

.:68.

'

~

,

I

..'. ..,.,

.,~ . . , ,.i,: .., ,,;..*, , * .. , ' 69.T':tWhat :ire {.he rules for graduating penalties? /

i

'%

I

I

:.,. ,',

~

,:. ,:

.;..;,

'

'.%:For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of articles fifty to fifty-seven, inclusive, of the Revised Penal Code, are to be imposed ,

.

,.

i . I .,',

CEIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or ; attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed: 1, When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately f o l l o - h g that indivisible penalty in t h e , respective graduated scale prescribed in article 71 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, o r of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately Eollowing the lesser of tho penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the max period of another divisib in degree shall be compo periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale. d.. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is com- ' posed of several pcriods, corresponding t o different divisib18 penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be; composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following which shall .be taken from the penalty prescribed if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale. 6 . When the law p in some manner not specially provided for in t h e , preceding rules, the courts, pro impose the corresponding penalties upon tho principals of the frustrated felony, or of atte mit the same, and upon acc I


.. ;:~:.,..'. .. ,,', ,', ,. ,

, .

70.' What are the effects of the attendance of mitigating or ,'I

!..i

.,

I

.''

aggrwating circumstances and of habitual delinquency? Mitigating 01- aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of. diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggpvating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law o r which are tuclcded %j the law in ddinmg a mime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall tlot be taken into account for t h e purpose of increasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3 . Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other .personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4 . The circumstances which consist in the ma.krial execution of the act, o r in the means emp:oyed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravgte 01" mitigate the liability of those persons only who had Icnawledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following ef-

(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall b'e sentenced to the penalty provided by law for. the last crime of which he be fonnd guilty and to the additional penalty .. of pr
28 ,5

CRIHINAL LAW REVIEWER

(e) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culp shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the la crime of aliich he be found guilty and to the additio penalty of vision mayor in its maximum period to elusion tempoml in its minimum period. Notwithstanding 'the provisions of this article, the to of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender '' conformity herewith, shall in no case /exceed 30 year (Art. 62, R.P

/

71. Who is a habitual delinquent? A person shall be deeaed to be habitual delinquent,

,.

if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious o r less serious physical injuries, mho, hurto, estafa, or faasificd tion, he i s fwiind gnilty of any of said crimes~a third time or oftener (Art. 62, last par., R.P.C., as amended by Republic Act No. 18).

'.

72. What are the rules for the application of indivisible pen-,. alties? In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, il shall 5e applied by the courts regard:, less of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that rnay have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall he observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is pref. sent only one aggravating circumstance, the greater pen- ~: aliy shall be applied. 2 . When there are ne&er mitigating nor aggravating ' ' circumstances in the commission of the deed, the,.lesser ... ..i penalty shall be applied. . ,., . 3. When the commission of the act is attended some mitigating circumstance and there is no:aggravating , -,:.,;: . , .I circumstance, the lesser penalty shall he applied. ., ,~ '_

.:by~~:~?,;i ~

29

, ..

. .. CRIAIINAL LAW REVIEWER

4 . When both mitigating and aggravating circumstlfnces attended the commission of the act, the courts s all reasonably allow them to offset one another in onsideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensa-

(Art. 63, R.P.C.)

/n.

73. "bat are the rules far the application of penalties whkh contain three,,periods? In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law con' , fain three periods, whether it be a single divisible pe.nalty ' ..: o r composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisioiis of articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating ci rcumstanees : I . When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed !, by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3 . When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according t o their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circum, stances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the .'.6 ."l+i.c ,.court shall impose the penalty next lower to that pre.'~ ' ' :.,scribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, ., ,.~ .,' ac$ording to the number and nature of such circumstances. ,. . "'6.. Whatever may be the number and nature of the agirrayating ,circumstances, the courts shall not impose a I

greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its paximum period.

(Art. 64, R.P.C.)

4. What is the rule in cases in which the penalty is not'

.

~

, .

,...

,.

,

30

'

In imposing fines the courts may fix any a in the limits established by law; in fixing

R.P.C.).

CkIfMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,'..

.76. What are the rules to be observed as to the penalty to be

.__,, , .. '.> :*

.y -

'

: ?

.

CkIMINAL LAW REY'IEWEB

i m w e d upon a person under eighteen years of age? m e n the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the parwraph next to the last of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees a t least than that prescribed by l a ~ vfor the crime which he committed. 2 . Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be immed, but always in the proper period. (Art. 68, R.P.C.)

,~,

redo

. . -. "',-77. ,.. ,What is the penalty to be imposed when the wime corn,<;~, ., mitted is not wholly excusable? ... , > .. A penalty lower by one o r two degrees than that prescribed hy law shall be imposed if t h e rleed is not wholly : ', excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required. to justify the same o r to exempt from criminal . liability in the several cases mentioned in articles 11 and ' . . 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be pre:I : sent.. !Che courts shall impose the penalty in the period ,' which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or laeking (Art. 69, R.P.C.). ;;

on

,?C,

78. What are the rules regarding successive service of sen1*

When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties e shall Serve them simultaneously if the nature of the rmit ; otherwise, the 2ollowing rules of the penalties, the order of their

11 be followed so th?,t they m y be

,

.'. .

,

. ,,

,, , . ,,, .

1 i

. . . ,

i .

mayor

disqualification disqualificatioll office, the right to v and be voted for, the right to fOh%' Profess1 or calling 12. Public censure Notwithstanding the provisions of the ing, the maxinrurn duration of the eonl.iet's sentence not be more than threefold the length Of time corres ingto the most severe of the aenalties imposed. N~ other penalty to which he may be liable shall be,', flitted after the sum of those imposed equals tbe"s maximum period. such maximum period shall in no case exceed years. applying the provisions of this of perpetual penalties ( p e m p e m t u a ) shall a t thirty years.

I,'

1

executed successively or a pardon have beezi granted as to the Penalty Or penalties first imposed, or should they have been sewed out.

., ~..

. .. . . ., CKIMINAI. LAW REVIZWIER

Ckl&INAL LAW REVIEWER ' .

;

.", . ... .

.'

79. What are the.graduated scales from which the lower or higher penalty is to be taken? In the cases in which the law prescribes a penalty .. lower 01 higher by one or more degrees than another enalty, the rules prescribed in article 61 shall be ed in graduating such penalty. he lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the ted scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales: Scale No. 1

. Beelusion

temporal

8. Arrest0 menor 9. Public censure

.

~

,.,

Scale No. 2 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification 2. Temporary absolute disqualification 3 . Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the riaht to follow x profession or calling 4. F'ublic censure 6. Fine (Art. 71, R.P.C.)

..

.:-,t~,;...,~.,80. ,. , . How art! the civil liabilities of a person puilty of two or more offemes satisfied?

The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two ore offenses shall be satisfied by following the nological order of the dates of the final judgments endered against him, beginning with the first in order f:,time (Art..,72, R.P.C.). i

.j

,

.:

,

..

'

.

34

81. What is the presumption in regard to th accessory penalties? Whenever the courts shall impose a penal provision of la-#, carries with it other pen ing $6 tbe provisions of articles 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, Revised Penal Code, it m ~ s tbe understo penalties are also imposed upon the-eo

2. What is the penalty higher than reclusion perpetua law does not prescribe the penalty of death? .. In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty hi than another given penalty, without. speeifi the name of the fonner, if such higher pen that of death, t h e same penalty and the accessory of article 40, shall be considered as the (Art. 74, R.P.C.!.

''

83. What are the rules as regards increasing or reducing penalty of fine by one or more d e ~ r e e s ? Whenever it may be necessary t o incr the penalty of fine by one or more d increased 01" reduced, respectively, for e one-fourth of the maximum amount pre without, however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be observed with regard t o fine / that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made pro-" portional.

/

84. What is a complex penalty? A complex penalty is one composed of three di penalties, each one forming a period; the lightest Of shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and t severe the maximum period. Whenever the penalty prescribed does n of the forms specially provided for in the R

... .

/


I

Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by 'analogy (Art. 77, R.P.C.) 85. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code as regards the execution and service of sentence in case the convict becomes insane o r imbecile? When a convict shall hecomeinsane or an'imbeeile after final :sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty. If a t any time the convict shall recqver his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have :prescribed in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. These provisions shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sen-

,::

1.

tence. (Art. 79, R.P.C.)

'I

86. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the suspension of sentence of minor delinquents? Whenever a minor of either sex, under sixteen years of age at the date of the commission of a grave or less .grave felony, is accused thereof, the court, after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead o f pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable - ' institution, established under the law for the care, cor.. rection, or education of orphaned, homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the custody or care of any other responsible person in any other place subject to visitation and supervision by the Director of Public Welfare or any , . , of his agents or representatives, if there be any, or otherwise hy the superintendent of public schools or his repre, ' sentatives, subject to such conditions as are prescribed . , until such minor shall have reached his majority or for ."".": such :less period as the court may deem proper, 36

df

the minor has been committed t o the custody o r care of any of the institutions mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of the Director of Public Welfare and xnbject to such conititions as this ? official in accordance with law may deem proper t o im;pose, such minor may be allowed to stay elsewhere under +he care of a responsible person. has behaved properly and has complied If the rnwith the conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same ,:a* may order his final release. In case the minor fails to behav with the regulations of the institution to which h% has been committed or with the conditions imposed upon him '. wheri he was committe son, or in case he should be fo eontinu& stay ir, such he shall be returned to may render the judg committed by him. (Art. 80, R.P.C., as amended ljy Com. Act No. 99 and Rep. Act No. 47)

i

the prescribed rules.

CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

...

l

7 . In what cases is the execution of the death senten suspended? The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a wo within the three years next following the date of the" tence or while she is pregnant, n o r upon any person seventy years of age. In this last ca,s shall be commuted to the penalty 0 with the accessory penalties provide 83, R.P.C.).

88. How is the penalty of destierro executed? Any person sentenced to destie mitted to enter the place o r places designated

~

i:


ce, nor within the radius therein specined, which shall be n o t more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated (Art. 87, R.P.C.). a t penalty may be served in the house of the defendant

The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory t o it (Art. 88, R.P.C.).

(Art. 91, R.P.C.) d woman, as pro-

(Art. 89, R.P.C.)

:,,

punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years: with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. '

38

. , CRIMINAL LAW REVIE

,

,

,

. .

,.

The period of ,prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sptence, and it shall be interrupted if the deieadant shou\d give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreig country with which this Government has no extradition treatv. or should commit another crime

I

'f

.

What are the causes of partial extineticn of criminal liaCiimirh liability is extinguished partially : 1. By conditional pardon:

/

(Art. 97, R

W at is special time allowance for loyalty? (Art. 94, R.P.C.)

A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentelice shall be granted t o any prisoner who, having evaded the. service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned ' in article 158 of the Revised Penal Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the ism-', ance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity o r catastrophe referred to in said article (Art. 98, R.P.C.). 100. Who grants time allowance? Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons

96, R"P.C.).

.. .

.

period of his sentence:

. , . , , :'

.

I

r

40 . . , ~ ,

,.

L.

.

,

,

,

.

.

J

I


CRIMLNAL LAW REVIEWER

The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of the Revised Penal Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First: In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such a person under their legal authority or control, unless i t appears that there was no fault or negli.gence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile, or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or control, oir if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance witii the civil law. Second: In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. Third: In cases falling - within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using violence or causing .the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there the act shall be~liable, that part of their property .,.:,. il, . .@g;J

nances or some general or special pulice regulation shall . ,, have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily Iiahle for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses .. i.'. from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the , :; value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified : in advance the innkeeper himself, or .the person represent- . lj ing him, of the deposit of such goods within t h e inn;;Fd .. ,'t" shall furthermore have followed the directions which such '.,<' innkeeper or his representative may have given them with,, ,;;;,& respect t o the care of and vigilance over such goods. NO liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence ,:$!h agiiliist or intimidation of persons unless committed by , > ' # .,g;'$ the innkeeper's employees, (Art. 102, R.P.C.) .:$& I

,

~

.,:A

-.x

144. What is the subsidiary civil liability of employers engag in any kind of iiidustry? The subsidiary liability established in the next preced- , ing article shall also apply to employers, teachers, per- '. sons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, ? apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. j& ,* ' (Art. 103, R.P.C.). .",&

~:

105.

103. What is the subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepern, and proprietors of establishments? In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, ", $' tavern-keepers, and any other persons or corporations shall .., . ...in' : ,~&,,;;,:., be civilly liable for crimes committed in their estabIish,. ' , , , . ', ~~. ' , > ~ ments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordi-

, , : E$.

?.,"

_-

...',70:.

...,',,.,

ibZlZi.d in civil iiaomty un The civil liability established in and 103 of the Revised Penal Cod 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3 . Indemnification for consequential damages.

(Art. 101, R.P.C.)

,

..I/;

.-r ,~,

106. How is restitution made?

The restitution of the thing itsel ever possible, with allowance for an diminution of value as determined. by the cour

~

,,,?

42

43 ?

i . .,.

i

. . .., , , .. . . ..

.

,,q-.;

"i:

CRIIWINAL LAW REVIEWER,


..

'

The/thing itself shall be restored, even though it be n the possession of a third person who has aeit by lawful means, saving to the latter his action the proper person who may be liable to him. plicable in cases in which the 'ng has been acquired by the third person in the manner d under the requirements which, by law, bar an action

(Art. 105, R.P.C.) court shall determine the amount of damage, taking ce of the thing, whenever posental value to the injured p+arty, made accordingly (Art. 106,

'khat are included in indemnification for consequential

.. ,',.

,

Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured ?arty, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime (Art. 107, R.P.C.). 109. Upon whom devolve the obligation to make restoration, m, or indemnification for consequential damages action to demand the same? The obligation to make restoration or reparation for mages and indemnifioation f o r consequential damages volves upon the heirs of the person liable. action to demand restoration, reparation and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person

(Art. 108, R.P.C.) the civil liability in solidum of two of a felony, without determining each must respond?

No. If there are two or more persons .civilly liable ',,' for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for',, whic each must respond (.Art. 109, R..P.C.). ' . .

/

11

State the several and subsidiary liabili1.y of principals, ac-complices. and accessories of felony and the preference in payment. The principals, accomplices, and accessories, each with; in their respective class, shall be liable severally (in soliduh) among themselves for their quotas, a sidiarily for those of the other persons liable. The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, firs the proper1.y of the principals; next, against that accomplices; and, lastly, against that of the acce Whenever the liability &z solidum or the s liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment, has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.. (Art. 110, R.P.C.). '

~

hat is the obligation of a pervon who participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony? Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall bo bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participa(Art. 111, R.P.C.).

f

How is the civil liability under the Revised Penal Cade extinguished? Civil liability established iu articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of the Revised Penal Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law (Art. 112, R.P.C.).

Does service of sentence or amnesty, pardon, or commuta-., tion of sentence extinguish civil liability under the Revised Penal Code?

45

. .


No. Except in case of extinction of his civil liability provided in the next preceding article, the offender all continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability from the crime committed by him, notwithstandfact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, o r has not been reqiiired to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other yeason (Art. 113,

115. How is the crime of treason Committed? Treason is committed by any person who, owing alleo the Government of the Philippines, not being a foreigner, levies war against it or adheres to the ,enemies, giving them aid or comfort witbin the Philippines or else-

(Art. 114, as amended by Executive Order No. 41, R.P.C.) ,e the crimes of conspiracy and proposal to commit

mmit treason is committed when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commis:rion of treason and decide to commit it.

(Ark 115, R.P.C.)

an accessory to the crime of tresson. (Art. 116, R.P.C.)

',

~

18. How is the crime of espionage cornmitt vised Penal Code? Espionage is committed by any person who: I . Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or o confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine ; or eing .in possession, by ?emon of the public office ds, of the articles, data, or information referred to the preceding paragraph, dificloses i.heir contents to a representative of a foreign nation. . , , (Art. 117, R.P.C.) ,

Philippines or exposes Filipino citizens t o persons or property (Art. 118, R.P.C.). of violation of neutrality Violation of neutrality is committed by anyone wh

't.

.;

,

.

..,

I

46

,

.

It is committed by any public officer or employee or private individ,oal who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts,

..,

~,.,"

'

(19. How is the crime of inciting t o war or givin$ motives for reprisals committed?

any regulation issued by

. .. . -5

'

47

,~

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .~ ,

It is committed by any person who, in time of war,

,

'

.,.

,

.

.

'

.,

122 How is the crime of flight to enemy's country committed?

,.

1 .

,,,

,

shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops, aad khe correspondence has been prohibited by the Government; or it is carried an in ciphers or conventional signs; or notice or informa'tion is given thereby which might be useful to the enemy (Art. 1.20, R.P.C.).

~

.z:,

It is comnitted by any person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts t o flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority (Art. . 121, R.P.C.).

..

123. IIoy iri the crime of piracy committed? 'Piracy is committed by any person who, on the high .. . seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member .of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers (Art. "" 122, R.P.C.). Not@: The mutiny which the Revised Pe~,zlW e punisha is that which is committed on the high seas.

124. When is the crime of piracy or mutiny on the high Seas qualified? The crime of piracy 01' mutiny on the high seas is '.",,T, qualified when it is committed under an> of the following circumstances : 1. When the offenders have seized a vessel by board, ing or firing upon the same: .r 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned, their victims withont means of saving themselves: or *. 3 . Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape. (Art. 123, R.P.C.)

.

,

.,

48

2.

4

125. How is the crime of arbitrary detention committed? It is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, R.P.C.). 126. How is the crime of delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities committed? It is committed by a public officer o r employee who, having detained any person for some legal gr fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial within the period of; six hours, if detained or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equi-:. valent; nine hours, for crimes or offenses punishable correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and eighte hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive^ capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, R.P.C

'427.

Row is the cyime of &laying relase committed?, . It is committed by any public officer or ,employee delays the performance of any judicial or executive of for the release of a prisoner o r detention prisoner,. unduly delays the service of the notice of such order said prisoner, or the proceedings upon any petition the liberation of such person (Art. 126, R.P.C.).

/

Note: The three farms of arbitrary detention are defined:' Arts. 124, 125, and 126.

28. How is the crime of expulsion Committed? It is committed by any public officer OT emvloyee not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel person from the Philippines or shall compel such person? to change his residence (Art. 127, I1.P.C.).

12s. How is the crime of violation of domicile committed? It is committed by any public officers or em who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall any dwelling again.st ihe will of the owner thereof, papers or other effects found therein without the consent of such owner, or, having surreptitious1 49

.,

.,

'.

,~

I

. ,. .

.

'..


said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so (Art. 128, R.P.C.).

~. ,, . . ,

..,

.,;:. ..

;~ ~

It is committed by any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies o r mjllifestations' of any religion (Art. 132, par. 1, R.P.C.).

/'

130. How is the crime of search warrants maUeiously obtained, , .

%

CRTXMINAL LAW REVIEWER

~,

..

.'

(2'' :'.,

and abuse in the service of those IegaUy obtained, committed? It is committed by any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause., or., having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same .(Art. 129, R.P.C.).

.. 131. How is the crime of searching domicile without witnesses '. committed? .*v . It is committed by any public officer or employee who, , in cases where a search is proper, shall search the douecile, papers, or other belongings of any person, in the absence of thc latter, any mcmber of his family, or in their de;. fault, without the presence of two witnesses i'efiiding in . ., &.$&,. the same locality (Art. 130, R.P,C.). ,, ..

Jdk. Hmitted? o:v is the crime of offending the religious feelings corn-

,

I

$.

.,' ~

,,(i_

'$

.

.

:,

.I

The three P o m s of violation of domicile are defined in Act& 128, 129 and 130. Note:

132. What are the acts punished in connection y i t h peaceful . meetings$, association, and petition? 1. By prohibiting o r by interrupting, without legal groaad, ike holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolv. ' ing the same, 9. .: 2. By hindering any person from joining any lawful ' ' association or from attending any of its meetings. ,. , . :. ,,.., 3. BY prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any peti. ~ ,'. tion to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances. . . 7, , (Art. 131, R.P.C.) ( .. ..<-;., '.::. 133. How is tbe crime of interruption of religious worships' . .. :, ., committed? .,.

. .%';

a

:'. "

. ,

,~

*

1. ''

-

,

60

---

134. When is the crime qualified? If the crime of interruption of religious ,committed with violmce o r threats (Art. , R.P.C.).

I

~

It is committed by anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (Art. 133, R.P.C.). Note: The crimes against religious worship are defined in. Arts. 152 and 133.

38. How is the crime of rebellion or insurrection committed? The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by

rising publicly and taking arms against the Government. for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws the territory of the Philippines o any part thereof or any body of land, naval, or other rmed forccs, o r of depriving the Chief Executive or the Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers o r : prerogatives (Art. "4, R.P.C.).

/

'

re liable for rebellion? e, following are liable for rebellion: Any person who (a) promotes, (b) m a i n & + eads a rebellion o r insurrection; or Any person who, while holding any or employment, takes part therein, (a) eng against the forces of the government, (b) de erty o r cominiMng serious vio'rence, and (c) tributions or diverting public funds from th pose for which they have been appropriat

37. Who

/ (W3;$

61

.

I


.

l.l

. .

.

A.ny person merely participating or executing the comman,ds of others in a rebellion. (Art. 135, R.P.C.)

h 8 . ' When is there conspiracy t o commit rebellion?

.

,'":

There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more persons come to a n agreement concerning the commission of rebellion and decide to commit i t (Arts. 8 and 136, R.P.C.).

;139., When is there proposal to commit rebellion?

~,. _ . . There is proposal to commit rebellion when a person .. .,'.~,.... : ..: ,. T?:;. who has decided to commit rebellion proposes its execu" ,j ,, .

I:

How is the crime of disloyalty of public officers or employees committed? ', It is committed by public officcrs or employees who .Xave failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power,, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their -:,offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them (Art. 137, R.P.C.). crime of inciting to sebellion or insurrection ~ ' .

It is committed by any person who, without taking ing in open hostility against the Government, others to the execution of any of the acts Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tendina to the same end

The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of t.he following objects:

52

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEFYER

1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any .'$: law or the holding of any popular election: 2. To prevent the National Government, or any pro-. vincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its os his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3 . T o inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the '.. ":, person or property of any public offices or employee; 4 . To commit, f o r a:ty political 01' xocial end, any act . of hate or revenge against private persons o class; and 5 . To despoil, Sor any political or social end, m y person, municipality or province, os the National Government of all its property o r any part thereof. (art. 139, as amended by Corn; Act No. 202, R.P.C.) 143. Who are liable for sedition?

The persons liable for sedition are : 1. The leader of the sedition; and 2 . Other persons participating in the sedition. 144. How is conspiracy t o commit sedition committ It is committed when two or more persons come a n agreement and a decision to rise public1 tuously to attain any of the objects of seditio B.F.C.). 145. How is the crime of inciting to sedition eo The crime of inciting t o sedition is committect in ferent ways, which are as follows: 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of an the acts which constitute sedition by means of spee proclamations, writings, emblems, etc. 2. Uttering seditions words or speeche to disturb the public peace.

53

3 . Writing, publishing, or circulatin scurrilous libels against the Government or any o f the duly constituted which tpnd to p t u r b the public peace. w61 au, (Art. 142, R.P.C.)

v(

146. Name t i e crimes against legislative bodies and similar bodies, and state how they are committed.

147. How is violation of parliamentary immunity committed? It i,s committed by any person who shall use force, ' '

intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent any member of the Congress of the Philippines from attending the meetings of Congress or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutiona1 commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his

54


;(>nd by any public officer or employees w e the Congress is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in cas ber has committed a crime punishable under Penal Code by a penalty higher than prision 145, as amended by Corn. Act No. 264, R.P

-

They are: 1. .Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies. 2 . Distukance OY proceedings. 3 . Violation of parliamentary immunity. The crime of acts tending to prevent the 'meeting of Congress and similar bodies is committee; by any person who, b,y force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the Congress of the Philippines or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commission., or conunittees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board o r city or municipal comcil or board. {Art. 143, as amended by Corn. Act No. 264, R.P.C.) The crime of disturbance of proceedings is committed by any person who disturbs the meetings 3f the Congress of the Philippines or of any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or &visioris thereof, 01' of any provincial board or city or municiixd council or hoard, o r in the presence of any such bodies should behave in such manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it (Art. 144, as amndcd by €om. A& No. 264, R.P.C.).

-

L.

/What are illegal assemblies? T ey are: Any meeting attended by armed persons for. purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable u the &sed Penal Code. Any meeting in which the audience, whether a or not, is incited t o the commission of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or hjs agents. (Art. 146, K.P.C.)

2

,?

I

I

149. What is the presumption of law against any person present at an iUe& assembly who w r i e s an unlicensed firearm? If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall he presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under the Revised Penal C shall be considered a leader or organizer of (Art. 146, par. 2, R.P.C.).

150. Who are the persons liable for illegal assembly? They are: 1. The organizers or leaders. I 2 . Persons merely present a t each meeting. .

I

151. What are illegal associations?

They are: 1. Associations totally or partially organized for t$e purpose of committing any of ths crimes punishable unde the Revised Penal Code. 5s


2. By refusing to be sworn o r placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or constitutional body o r of€icial. 8 . By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them t o do so in the exercise of their functions. 4 . By redraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body or official. 5 . By inducing disobedience t o a summons or refusal to be sworn by any sucb. body or official. (Art. 160, R.P.C:)

2 . Associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals. (Art. 147, R.P.C.)

152: Who are the persons liable for illeg.al associations? They are: i 1. Founders, directors and presidents. ,. .; 2 . Mere members. i

;5

153. How are direct assaults committed? Direct assaults are committed by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes ~, v,.. . enumerated in defining the c r i m s af rebellion and seaition, .,:, .,., ,. ' >;l> or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or ,<$: .. resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while ,A), engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occa.* >I sion of such performance (Art. 148, R.P.C.).

. .'. ... .' . ? ;>,

,.,,

, I ~

/

.

'156.

I",

154. How are indirect a s a u l t s committed? .

' _I..

.

Indirect assaults are committed by any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities 01' their agents on occasions of the commission of any of the crimes defined in Art. 148 (Art. 149, R.P.C.).

,

-;$ . ~e%, ,-

..! ,,

". , : >.,. , . ..

:':.,

,

.

155. How is the crime of disobedience to suntnton~ of the Congress of the Philippines, its committees, or of the Constitutional Commission committed? The crime is committed in several ways, which are as follo~vs: 1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of Cengngress, its special ur standing eommitkes and suhcommittees, the Constitutional Commission and its committees, subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission or committee chairman o r member authorized to summon witnesses. 56

/

How IS the crime of resistance and disobedience to a person in antiioriity o r the agents of such person committed? IC is committed by any person who, not being included in Arts. 148, 149, and 15.0, shall resist o r seriously disobey any pers,on in anthority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties (Art. 151, par. 1, R.P.C.). The penalty is lower when the disobedience to a n agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature (Art. 151, par. 2, R.P.C.).

4.

Who shall be deemed persons in auth persons in authority?

barrio councilman and barrio policemen,

I

* CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER 1

-7

.

'

'

.,,.

. .

CLLIMIIYAL LAW REVIEWER

who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a persoi~in autliorjky. In applying the provisions of 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of publk 01. duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, shall be deemed persons in authoritv. (Art. 152, as amended by Rep, Act No. 1978, R.P.C.)

3. By maliciously publishing or causing t o be published resoluiio~~ or document without proper authority, or before they have been published officially; 4 . By printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same) boolKs, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as nnonymolts. (Art. 154, R.P.C.) 160. What are t h e acts punished as alarms and scandals? They are:

158. What are tumults and other disturbances of public order? They are: I, Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment; 2. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act ' i s not included in Arts. 131 and 132; 3 . Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place: 4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturba.nce of public order in such place; I . 5 . Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed. (Art. 153, R.P.C.)

'

3

,:

159. What are the acts punished as unlawftil use of means of publication and unlawful utterances? They are: 1. By publishing or causing to be published, by means .. of print.ing, lithography o s any other mezns of publication, as news any false news which may endanger the public order, o r cause damage to the interest or credit of the State; 2. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances o r speeches.

161... How is the crime of delivering prisoners from jails C mitted? It is committed by any person who shall any jail or penal establishment any person co in or shall help the escape of such perso of violence, intimidation o r bribery, or other escape may take place outside of the penal establis by taking the guards by surprise (Art. 156, R.P.C.

j

,, ,

.,'

',.

.

'."

'

,:.,,.

'

1, Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or public place, (calculated to cause) which produces alarm or danger. 2. Instigating os taking an active part in any charivari ','. or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility. 3 . Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amuse .. ments. .. 4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places iuhi.!e intoxicated or othervise, provided Art. 153 js not applicable.

,,I

%

*, i.

my official

i

68

162. Mention the different forms of evasion of the service the sentence and state how each is committed. They are:

69

3

. ,*:. ..,. I.

.

.c.

,

.

. '

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE11

1. Evasion of service of sentence by escaping during the tern1 of sentence. . . 2 . Evasion on the occasion of disorder. 3 . Other cases of evasion by violating the condition . . of a conditional pardon. Evasion of service of sentence by escaping is committed by any convict who shall evade service of his sen,. . . tence by escaping during the term of his sentence by .. reason of final judgment (Art. 157, R.P.C.). Evasion on the occasion of disorders is c6mmitted by a convict who, having left the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder, resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has .. . not parlicipated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original ' sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give himself up t o the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation , . by the Chief Executive announcing the prssing away of ', .. such calamity (Art. 158, R.P.C.). ., Other cases of evasion is committed by a convict who, .,.: having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Ex,: ecutive, shall violate any of the conditions of such par,.
I .

'

,

_I

j

.

I

169. What is quasi-recidivism? There is quasi-recidivism wheu a person committed a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, be;: fore beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving &*. the same. He shall be punished by the maximum period ':$ of the uenaltv urescribed bv law for the new felonv

y

,'Lf.h34. ,

,__ ' ,.

,

How is the crime of counterfeiting the Great Seal of the the Philippines, or that of forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive, committed?

. Government. of

It is committed by any person who' shall forge .the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines-or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive (Art. 161, R.P.C.).

,,

165. How is the crime of using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamtp committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature. or stanq of the Chief Executive (Art. 162, R.P.C.); 166. What are the crimes relative to counterieiting coins? .,. and uttering false coins. and utterance of mutilated

'.,!.'

coins. 2.I Selling . of false or mutilated coin, without eon- '",? nivance. ( A r k . 163-165, R.P.C.)

4

~ " t ~ he : CO . l n.mitated ~ .

may be any ."in: silver coin, any

, ,:'$

of the minor coinage of the Philippines, or coin of .e foreid that are kcal tender, or those withdrawn from

,'

circulation. But the coins mutilated must be legal tender coins of the , Philippines, not foreign coins and not withdraam from cir* :.: 'ir ,..ai \ . . .Id!. dation.

,

.

.~.S'

167. How is the crime of sellinp of false or mutilated committed? It is committed by any person who knowingly, though without connivance, shall possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually u t k such coin (Art. 165, R.P.C.). 168. What are the acts punished in connection with treasur or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer They are: 1. Forging or falsifying treasury or ,bank notes other documents payable t o bearer.

, ,

60

61 ..,. ,

I -:,.

~*e%

,:., ,:


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER , ... .,~' '

,

.

..

1

,. ,. ..

.

172. %ow is the crime of falsification of legislative documents

Importation of such false or forged obligations or ,. . note$+pi: . 3 . Uttering such fZlse or forged obli@ons or notes' in connivance ivith' the forgers or importers, (Art. 166, R.P.C.)

._

2

._

'.~

,

Note: If the instrument forpad, imported or uttered is payable to order, the crime is pmished under Art. 167. The acts punishcd are the same a8 in Art. 166. .

,

. ,.<,. c

,,

i

.,. .\

, .L.

.

, . .

4 '

I '

committed? It is committed by any p a s o n who, without proper. authority thercfor, alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance . enacted 01' apprqved or pending approval by either House& of Congress or any provincial board or municipal council;i (Art. 170, R.P.C.).

What are the treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to hearer the fiirging or falsification of which is punishable? They are: 1. Obligation or security of the Philippines. 2 . Circulating note issued' by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same. 3 . *Document issued by a foreign government. 4 . Circulating note or. bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized to issue the same.

or imita,ting any handwriting, signaCausing it t o appear that persons have participakd they did not in fact so Attributing to persons who have partkip other than tho in a narration o f "

How is the crime of illega1:possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of cxedit committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use, any false or falsified instrument payable to bearer or payable ,? to order (Art. 168, R.P.C.).

tering true daten;

Issuing in an authent,icated form

How is forgery -~ committed? - Forgery is committed by any of the followin~g,.,meam: 1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument pa,yable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document ; &p , ,.d: .:. >,' 2 . By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering . by any means the figores, letters, words, or signs con, ,,, ' ., &! :, tained therein. ., ,,.,~ ,... * (Art. 169, R.P.C.) .. ,?.. '

LI

document

0.

9**,"

'. Intercalating any instrument o r note relat the issuance thereof in a protocol, I book.'

1 '

~i

174. Distinguish falsification by public of notary from falsification by private

,.

'.i

.'i

.'

173. What are the acts of falsifieat,ion that may be committed on any document?

,

.

,,

.

63

62

t

.

.

;

, ..

i

.

,

,

,

~

. ..'

.

'-


C~IMINALLAW REVIEWEE

The act of falsification committed in both crimes is any one of those enumerated in Art. 171 of the Revised :. ' Penal Code. , ., . . In falsification by public officer, employee or notary, . , .. ,, .,, , the offender must take advantage of his official position; .. +&: ." . in falsification by private individuals, in case the offender , . . is a public officer, employee or notary, he does not take advantage of his official position. . .. While in falsification by public officer, employee, or . '., . ' 6 notary the offender falsified a document, without specifyi .. ing the kind or nature thereof; in falsification by private individuals, the law states that a private individual should commit any falsification in any public or official docnment or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial :', :.. document. (Arts. 171 and 172, R.P.C.) I

cable, or telegraph, or telephone messlages fictitious wireless, telegraph, or telephone mes lsystem or falsifies the same (Art. 173, par.

. .,,.

4.

~

j_

!?%+l:

;,,e.:,.

. How is the crime of falsification of private document eom'

I.

Falsification of private document is committed by any 0, to the damage of a third party, or with the ause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 (Art. 172, par. 2, R.P.C.). '

How is the crime of use of falsified documents committed4 I t is committed by any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in Art. 171 or in subdivisions 1 and 2 of Art. 172 (Art. 172, last par., R.P.C.). ~

177. How is the crime of falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph, and telephone messages committed? It is committed by any officer or employee of the * Government or of any private corporation or concern engaged i n the service of sending or receiving wireless, ., 64

8. How is the crime of use of falsified wireless, cable, telegraph or lelephone messages committed? 4 s committed by any person who shall u cable! telegraph or telephone dispatch to the prej- .., a third party or with the intent to cause p c h ' . (Art. 173, par. 2, R.P.C.). crime of Ialsification of medical Certificates, f merit or service, and the like, committed?. who, in connection with the issued a false certificate. issued a false certi or similar circu a certificate ing in the classes mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2. /" (Art. 174, R.P.C.)

/' 180.

How is the crime of using false certificates committed? It is committed by any one who shall knowingly US any false medical certificates o r certificates of merit 0 service (Art. 175, R.P.C.).

AI. B o w are the crimes of manufacturing and pos instruments or implements for falsification committed? The crime of manufacturing instruments o r for falsification is committed hy any person who make or introduce into the Philippines any stamps, marks, or other instruments or implements i be used in the commission of the offenses feiting or falsification (Art. 176, par. 1, R.P.C.). The crime of possession of instruments or implements / for falsification is committed by any person who, with:

/

65

CBIMINAL LAW REVIEWEi? .'

the intention of using them, shall have them in his possession (Art. 176, par. 2, R.P.C.).

182. How is the crime of usurpation of anthority or official functions; committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent, o r representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, '. under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining t o any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, o r any agency thereof, without being lawfully en'titled to do so (Art. 177, as amended by Rep. Act 379, R.P.C.).

.

183. How are the crimes of using fictitious name and conceal, ing true name committed? The crime of using fictitious name is committed by any person who shall publicly use n fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution t, or causing damage (Art. 178, par. I ,

The crime of concealing truc name is committed by conceals his trnc namc and other personal (Art. 178, par. 2, R.P.C.). 184. How is the crime of ille~al use of uniform or insignia

committed? It is committed by any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniform, or dress pertaining t o a n office not held by such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a member (Art. 179, 85. What a r e the three forms o f false testimony?

66

CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER

d False

testimony in civil cases (Art. 162). &"False testimony in other cases (Art. 183). (People vs. Bautista, 39 O.G. 1272) 6 . h s t i n g u i s h false testimony against a defendant from false testimow favorable to the defendant. In both crimes, the witness who gave false testimony is liable even if his testimony was not considered by the court. The Code punishes false testimony 'gainst a defendant even if the latter is acquitted. e false testimony favorable to the defendant need not directly influence the decision of aequieal. It need not benefit the defendant. It is sufficient that the false testimony was given with intent to favor the defendant. As to the basis of the penalty, they differ in the sense that in false testimony against a defendant the penalty depends upon the sentence of the defendant against whom the false testimony was given, that is, whether he is convicted or acquit,ted; and in case of conviction, the penalty to which the defendant is sentenced. In false testimony favorable to the defendant, the penalty depends on whether the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an af€lictive peiialty o r it is for other classes of felony. A87. Distinguish false testimony in civil cases from false te mony in criminal cases. In & fw tcstimony in civil casetr, the testimony i' ; relate to the issues presented in. the case; wherea false testimony in criminal cases, it is not required the testimony be material. 188. How- is the crime of false testimony in other cases perjury in solemn affirmation committed? 'It is committed by any person who, knowingly m untruthful statements and not being included i visions relative to false testimony in crimin cases, shall testify under oath, or make a n affidayi

67

'1

.'

"

.i ,,j

.

. * ,.


. any material matter before a competent person authorized ,i: to administer a n oath in cases in which the law so re*'% quires (Art. 183, R.P.C.). ,

'

,189.. How is the crime of offering false testimony in evidence committed? It is committed by any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding (Art. 184, R.P.C.).

.

-190. Mention the crimes which are classified as frauds and , state the manner each is committed.

,

.'

I

7

.

-. ,

. ,

ao?:it:ns in public auctions. 2 Moaopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. Importation and disposition o€ falsely marked articles o r merchandise made of gold, silver or other pre-

d

'

..

eionsjpletals.

. . 4 Substituting and altering trade-marks and trade~. , n a m y or service marks.

. . ,

Unfair competition, fraudulent registration of trade-mark or trade-name, or service mark; fraudulent designation of origin and false description. The crime of machinations in public auLtions is committed by any person who shall solicit any gift or prom_' ise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, and any person who, shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, :"-gifts, promises, or any other artifice, w t h intent to 'cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned (Art. 185, R.P.C.). The crime of monopolies and combinatiors in restraint of trade is committed by: 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or com. bination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint , ,,. . , , i,i;. : of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means .' , free competition in the market.

68

/ .

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEVER

t Any persor, who sb!l monopulize any merchandise

or object of trade or commerce, 'or shall combine .m$h any other person or persons to monopolize said merchan-; dise or object in order t o alter the price thereof by. spreading b i s e rumors o r making use of any other art;; : fice to -estrain free competition in the market. "Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, o r processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any ioreign conntry, either as principal or agent,. wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged. in t h manufacture, production, processing:, assembling or importation of such merchandise or ohject of comm with any other persons not so similarly engaged f purpose of making. transactions prejudicial to commerce, or of increasing the market price in any pa of the Philippines, of any such merchandise ' or , obj of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assem bled in or imported into the Philippines, or of a n s a in the manufacture of which such manufactured, duced., orocessed. or imoorted merchandise or objec _ commerce is used.

1

/

d e crime of importation an6 disposition of fals marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, other precious metak is committed by any perso shall Bnowingly import or sell or dispose of a n y or merchandise made of gold, silver or other p metal, or their alloys, with stamps, brands o r marks w fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality. of metals o r alloys (Art. 187, R.P.C.). The crime of substituting and altering trade-m trade-names, or service-marks is committed by: 1. Any person W ~ Dshall substitute the trade-n trade-mark of some other manufacturer or dealer; colorable imitation thereof, for the trade-name or t mark of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any-articl of commerce and shall sell the same; :

,;I. . .~

,:_

69

::(

,2: I

..

,.G .,'

'5


GRIMINAL LA%’ REVIRWER

2. Any person who shall sell such articles of commerce or offer the same for sale, knowing that th.? trade-name nr trademark has he?. f r a d t l . J used such gads as described in the preceding subdivision,

.

~ . x.

.-.

3 . Any person who, in the sale o r advertising of his services, shall use or substitute the service mark of some other persons, or colorable imitation of s w h mark; or 4 . Any person who, knowing the purpuses for which the trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark of a person is to be used, prints, lithographs, or in any way 2.eproduces such trade-name, trade-mark, o r service mark or a colorable imitation thereof, for another person, to enable that other person to fraudulently use such trade-name, trademark, or service mark on his own goods o r in connectiun with the sale or advertising of his service. (Art. 188, R.P.C.) The crimes of unfair competition, fraudulent registration m€ tmde-nnme, trade-mark o r service mark, fraudulent designation of origin, and false description are committed ,by: 1. Any person who, in unfair competition and for the purpose of deceiving o r defrauding another of his legitimate trade or the public in general, shall sell his goods giving them the general appearance of the goo& of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves, or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, o r the device or words therein, or in any other Ieature of their appearance which would be likely t o induce tine public t o believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer o r dealer other than the actual manufacfmer or dealer, o r shall give other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose. 2. Any person who shall affix, apply, annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, and shall sell such goods or services.

70

I’

3. Any person who, by means of false or fraudulent representations or declarations, orally o r in writing, or hy other fraudulent means shall procure from the patent office or from any other office which may hereafter be established by law for the purposes, the registration of a’ trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark, or of himself as the owner of such trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark, or an entry respecting a trade-name, trade-mark, r service mark. (Art. 189, :is amended by Rep. Act No. 172, R.P.G.) 191. What are the crimes relative to opium and other pro-

and sale of prohibited drugs (Art. 192).; 4. I l l ~ g a ipossession of opium pipe o r other parapher-

nalia $dthe use of any prohibited drugs (Art. 193). Prescribing opium unnecessarily f o r patient (Ar 194).

d

192. Define “nrohibited drug”. “opium”, “inrlian hemp”, ~. ., ‘ I narcotic‘ drug”. / & g ” includes opium, cocaine, alfa and ~~

beta eucai.ne, Indian hemp, their derivatives, and all p rations made from them or any of them and such drugs, whether natural or synthetic, having physiol action as a narcotic drug. “Opium” embraces every kind, class, and character opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes or refu of the same; narcotic preparations thereof or therefro morphine o r alkaloid of opium; preparations in: ogium, morphine, 01’ alkaloid of opium mtcc 33,

71


gpedient, and also opium leaves or wrappings of opium Ieaves, whether prepared or not, for their use. “Indian hemp,” otherwise known as marihuana, cannabis Americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, cburruz, and ganjah, embraces every kind, class and character of Indian hemp, whether dried or fresh flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant cannabis satival, from which the resin has not been extracted, including all other geographic varieties whether used as reefers, resin, extract, tincture or in any other form wkatscver.. By “narcotic drug” is meant a drug that produces a condition of insensibility and melancholy dullness of mind with delusions and may be habit forming.

193. Enumerate the different acts relative to opium and other nrohibited drugs - which are punished under the Revised

preparing, administering or otherresort where any pro-

of a dive or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any manner By knowingly visiting any such dive or resort. By importing or bringing into the Philippines any selling or delivering to another any any opium pipe or other parapheradministering, or using opium m anv ixohibited drur, the uossessor not being authorized

n;rlia. f o ~ :smoking, injecting,

ribing opium for any person whose phyoes not require the use of the same, the nder being a physician or dentist.


194. What are the. crimes against public morals? They are: 1. Gambling. 2. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tick@ or advertisements. 3 . Betting in sports contest. 4. Illegal betting 011 horse races. 5. Illegal cockfighting. 6. Grave scandal. 7 , Immornl doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions. 8. Vagrancy and prostitution.

195. Wha.t acts are punishable in gambling? They are: 1. Taking part directly or indirectly ina . any game of monte, jueteng, or any other form of lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game, dog races, or any other game o r scheme the result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon chance hazard; or wherein wagers Consisti gf money, articles of value, or representat of value are made; or b . the exploitation or use of any other. invention or contrivance to determine the loser or winner of m or representative of value. 2. Knowingly permitting any f o place owned or controlled b 3 , Being maintainer, conductor of :iueteng. or similar game. 4 . Knowingly and without lawful piirpose lotte&ist which pertains t u or is used in of jueteny.

-2

73

..

.

.


.,,~ .

,

i

1%. What are the acts punished in Connection with lottery

J 4 . By organizing such cockfights at a phee other than //licensed cockpit. (Art. 199, R.P.C.)

,%+$I >,*,s 3 .>A*

;,$,Z __j

s !

00. What' are the crimes against decency and good customs?

,.

By selling or distributing the same without connivance with the importer. (Art. 196, R.P.C.)

.

197. How is the crime of betling in sports contests committed? It is committed by any person who shsll bet money or any object or article of value or representative of value ."-.-,: ,. upon f i e remlt of any boxing or other sports contest ., .. (Art. 197, R.P.C.). ,..

j

;:. i

. 8. What are the acts punishable in illegal betting on horse races?

.

, .

?&aziting on horse races during the periods not allowe by law. 2 B y maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on races or realizing profit therefrom, during the period not allowed by law. (Art. 198, R.P.C.)

P

,

What are the acts punishable in illegal cockfighting? money or other valuable things in cockother than .that permitted by law. cockfights at which bets are made, .,.~. , J, other than that permitted by law. By betting money or other valuable things in cockf + fights hdd at a place other than a licensed cockpit.

,~. . :..s

. *

74

Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions. g d a g r a n c y and prostitution. / 28i. How is the crime of grave scandal committed? It is committed by any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct ., not expressly falling within any other article of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 200, R.P.C.).

'How is the crime of immoral doctrines, obscene publications, exhibitions committed? d d m i t t e d by: p d o s e who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines cpenly contrary to public morals; authors of obscene literature, published with t h lr knowledge in any form, and the editors publishin such p f a t u r e ; A. Those who in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, 0 open to public view, shall exhibit inplays, scenes, acts, o r shows; and sell, give awa,y, or exhibit prink, engravings, sculptores, or literature which are offensive to morals. (Art. 201, R.P.C.) /

,'

200. who a m ,&rants?

following are vagrants: Any person having no apparent means of subs' ence, who has the physical ability to work and who negle to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;, '~.,

75 .,

'

I


2. Any person found loitering about public or semipublic buildings or places, o r tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support; 3 . Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitntes; . 4 . Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of the Revised Penal Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose. G. Prostitutes. (Art. 202, I1.P.C.)

, "

.. .

.?.

.


.

04. Who are prostitutes?

j$

Women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge sexual intercourse o r lascivious conduct, are deemed t o be prostitutes (Art. 202, R.P.C.).

' i.n

&..;

6,;

205.. Who are public officers for the purpose of applying eert~ ain provisions of the Revised Penal Code?

4.

,

. ,,.

.,

.,/

' <,

r:B,

.','

.

'+ . ,

I_

..

Any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election o r appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the .,. Government of the Philippines, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent; or subordinate official of any rank or class, 'shall be deemed to be a public officer (Art. 203, R.P.C.). ..

_%':

,

206. -Mention the crimes under dereliction of duty and state the manner each is committed. They are: , . 1. Ilnowingly rendering unjust judgment. 2. Rendering judgment through negligence. 3 1 Rendering unjust interlocutory order.

.

76 ,

,. .~..

, .

.

4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. 5 . Derelictiou of duty in prosecution of offenses. 6 . Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor-revela-

tion. of secrets. The crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgment is committed by any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted t o him for decision (Art. 204, R.P.C.). The crime of judgment rendered through negligence is committed by any judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall render a manifestly uiljuat judgment in any case submitted to him for decision (Art. 205, R.P.C.). The crime of unjust interlocutory order is committed by any judge who shall knowingly render a n unjust interlocutory order 01- decree; or by a judge who shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly nnjust (Art. 206, R.P.C.). The crime 01malicious delay in the administration of justice is committed by any judge who shall malicious19 delay the administration of justice (Art. 207, R.P.C.). The crime of negligence in the prosecution, or to1 of the commission, of oifenses officer or officer of the law duties of his office, shali malici ing prosecution for the punishment of violato law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses 208, R.P.C.). The crimes of betrayal of trust by an a solicitor and revelation of secrets are commi attorney-at-law o r solicitor who, by any mali of professional duty or inexcusable neglige ance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the latter learned by him in his professional cap or who, having undertaken the defense of a clie having received confidential information from said in a case, shall undertake the defense of ;

77

. -

'


party in the same case, without the consent of his first client (Art. 209, R.P.C.).

,

207; Mention the two forms of bribery and state the 'manner each is committed. They are (1) direct bribery and (2) indirect bribery. Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform a n act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties. in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present ,,., . received by such officer, personally or through the media. . tion of another; or by any public officer who shall accept ' ' gift in consideration 01the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said '. act, whether accomplished or not; or by any public.officer, if the object for which the gift was received or promised .was to make him refrain from doing something which s his official duty to do (Art. 210, R.P.C.). ...'.. &direct bribery is committed by any public officer ho shall accept gifts offered t o him by reason of his 2 6 ' '{Art. 211, R.P.C.). .

.

8. How is the crime of corruption of public officials com-

1

It is committed by any person who shall have made 1's or promises or given the gifts or presents under circumstances that will make the pnblic officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery (Art. 212, R.P.C.). How is the crime of frauds against the public treasury committed? It is committed by any public officer who, in his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into a n agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government (Art. 213, par. 1, R.P.C.).

78


.

210. How is the crime of illegal exactions committed? It is committed by any public officer who, being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts os ornissious : (a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law; (b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected brr him officially; (c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a n different from that provided by law. (Art. 213, par. 2, R.P.

211. What is the additional penalty for, and whe imposed upon, a public officer who commitq';~ The additional penalty is temporary speei tion in its maximum period to perpetual special d tion. It shall be imposed when the public officer6 any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in A to 315 of the Revised Penal Code, taking a his official position (Art. 214, R.P.C.). 212. What are prohibited transactions? The crime known as prohibited tiansactions' mitted by any appointive public officer who, dunng incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject t o his jurisdiction (Art. 215, R.P.C.). 213. How is the crime of possession of pmhibited interest a public officer committed? It is committed by: Any public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall come interested in any contract or business in which i his official duty to intervene;

79

.

.

:. ,

*

Q $


Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in 'he appraisal, ,.,;...,is ,. . : ~ . distribution, or adjudication of which they shall have acted; Guardians and executors with respect t o the property to their wards o r the estate. (Art. 216, R.P.C.) +

'~

. .

.

,,

..

or property?

?@

Malversation are: by appropriating, misappropriating or permit ng any other person t o take public funds or prop-

..

'

,..

'

. r t g

8"

ailure of accountable officer to render accounts. Failure of a responsible public officer to render before leaving the country. lXegal use of public funds or property. to make delivery of public funds or property.

215. How is malversation by appropriating, misappropriating,

$i

'~

k,, ..

.

or permitting any other person to take public funds OT property committed? It is committed by any puhlic officer who, being accountable for public funds o r property, by reason of the duties of his office, shall appropriate, or shali take or misappropriate the same, or shall consent or, through ahandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property (Art. 217, R.P.C.).

.~ 216. ffow is Uhe crime of failure of accountable officer to render .r":,! accounts committed? &;&; It is committed by any public officer, whether in the . ~. service or separated therefrom by resignation of any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render accounta to the Auditor General, or to a provincial auditor, ..., I

yt;

,

.

and who f d s t o do SO for a period of two months after such accwnts should be rendered (Art. 218, R.P.C.).

,

~

I

I

~

. '._

~:i

217. How is the crime of faihre of a responsible public officer

.214. What are the crimes called mahersation cf public funds

. ,. .

.


t o render accounts before leaving the wountry committed? ,. It is committed by any public officer who unlawfuuy. leaves or attempts to leave the Philippines without securing a certificate from the Auditor General, showing that his accounts have been finally settled {Art. 219, R2.C:).

:"

;

218. How is the crime of illegal use of public funds o r property committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall apply . any public funds or property under hi8 administration to * any public use other than that for which such funds or ' property were appropriated by law or ordinance (Art. 220, I1.P.c.). Nota: Darnage o r embarrassment to tlie public service is not necessary. It only increases the penalty.

219. HOT is the crime of failure to make delivery of public funds or property committed? It is committed by any public officer, under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his possession who shall fail t o make such payment; or by any pub officer who, being ordered by competent authority deliver any property in his custody or under his admimstration, shall refuse to make such delivery (Art. 221, R.P.C..).

220, May private individuals be held liable for malversation, under the Revised Penal Code? Yes, the provisions of the Revised 'Penal Code on ' versation shall apply t o private individuals who, in capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provin or municipal funds, revenues, or property or t o any a ministrator or depository of funds or property attache seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such pro erty belongs to a private individual (Art. 222, R.P.C.).

81 ..

CIIIMIKAL IAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER

officers:! They are: 1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners. 2. Infidelity in the custody of documents. 3 . Revelation of secrets.

. ,

i :J

/

'

_,., . ..

..i

/

,

227. How is the crime of officer breaking seal committed? It is committed by any puhlic officer, charged with t h e custody of papers or property sealed by proper autliority, who shall break the seals or permit them t u be broken (Art. 227, R.P.C.).

22. How is the crime of infidelity in the cnstody of prisonen by conniving with or consenting t o evasion committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall consent t o the escape of a prisoner, whether sentenced by final judgment or only held as a detention prisoner, in his custody or charge (Art. 223, R.P.C.).

,

is the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents by removal, concealment or destruction thereof committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall remove, ., destroy, or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, causing damage to a third party or t o the public. interest (Art. 226. R.P.C.). . . . .

&ow

221. What a.re the crimes classified under infidelity of public

/

HOW is

38. I

,

, .

'

the crime of opening of closed documents com-

. ,,

..,: mitted? It is committed by any public officer who, without'',,z proper authority, shall open o r shall peymit to be opened I- *' any closed papers, documents, or objects entrusted to his"Y custody, and t h e act does not constitute the crime of br king ,seal (Art. 228, R.P.C.). i s

,..I.

223. How is the crime of evasion through negligence committed? . It is committed by any public officer who, being ' qharged with the conveyance or custodv of a urisoner. his escape througJ1 negligence (Art. 224,'

:d

/"

, ~ ,

. May a private person be held liable for infidelity in the

How is the crime ,of revelation of secrets by an offizer ~I ...-i ,, >>;3g committed? It is committed by any public officer any secret known t o him by reason of his offi or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies which he may have charge and which s published (Art. 229, K.P.C.). ,

custody of prisoner? Yes. Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall consent to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or through his negligence make possible the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the public officer (Art.225, R.P.C.).

/

/'

230. How is the crime of public officer revealing. seer private individual oommitted? It is committed by any public officer t o wh crets of any private individual shall become reason of his office who shall reveal such 230, K.P.C.).

5. What a r k t h e crimes known a s infidelity in the custody of docykents?

emoval, concealment o r destruction of documents. fficer breaking seal. of closed documents.

82

~

231. How is the crime of open disobedience c o m d t t e

83 Y I

.,j

1

1 ,

CRIMINAL

'

' ~

:.

':'

..

LAW REVIEWER


It is committed by any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision, or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities (Art. 231, R.P.C.).

office committed? performance of the duties and powers of any public or employment without first being sworn in or h given the bond required by law (Art. 236, R.P.C.).

,232. How is the crime of disobedience to order of superior officer when said order was suspended by inferior officer ' . committed? It is Committed by any public officer who, havinq for any reason, suspended the execution of the orders of his . superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter ~*. have disapproved the suspemion (Art. 232, R.P.C.).

powers committed?

.

"

I

'

233. Row is the crime of refusal of assistance committed? It is committed by a public officer who, upon demand . , from cumpetent authority, shall fail t o lend his coopera, >$, . tion towards the administration of justice or other public ., ., ,.. , , '..., service, such failure resulting in damage to public in .: ." interest (Art. 233, R.P.C.).

.. ~ . .' ,." ... . :

ployment, or commission, beyond the period pro law, regulations, or special provisions applicabl ,&e (Art. 237, R.P.C.).

&

"~

~

..,,r > :+.:*,,.

,

:,,, .

.<,*

How is l.he crime of refusal to discharge elective office committesd? It is committed by any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or t o discharge the duties of said office (Art. 234, R.P.C.).

235. How is the crime of maltreatment of prisoners committed? "

. ,

,.

/,?;_

How is the crime of abandonment of office o committed? It is committed by any public acceptance of his resignation,

~

':7-%234.

'

',

It is committed by any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction o r handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner; or shall maltreat a prisoner for the purpose of extorting a confession or obtaining some information from him (Art. 235, R.P.C.).

&When is the offense of abandonment of office or position ; qualified? When the office is abandoned in order to evade the\ discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations or the crimes of rebellion o r sedition'. ,"'and allied offenses (Art. 238, par. 2, R.P.C.).

4'

..

b40. How is the crime of usurpation of legislative powers corn-;:@

,.d%*d mitted? > ,scrr It is committed by any public officer who shall croach upon the powers of the legislative branch of Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting t o repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof (A 239, R.P.C.).

*

84

86

I


941.~. Ho+ is the crime of usimpation of executive functions

-

c:;

committed? I t is committed by any judge who shall assume any power pertaining t o the executive authorities, 01" shall . obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers .'(Art. 240, R.P.C.).

.

<.".

,

.

...

$42.- How is i.he crime of usuppation of judicial functions com-

.:

1__

.

,-6. >~

',

, , ~ ..,:<. '

.

. ...~ '

mitted? It is committed by any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction (Ad. 241, R.P.C.).

&45; How is the crime of disobeying request for disqualification

committed? . , . " .+1 ,-.-' It is committed by any public officer who, .before the :c; question of jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any pro.(.,,ceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing (Art. 242, R.P.C.). .., CLT' 244. How is the crime of Qrders or requests by executive of.,& :I<, .ficers to any judicial authority committed? ,., , It is committed by any executive officer who shall . . address any order or suggestion t o any judicial authority . "-~ . , with reapect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice (Art. 243, R.P.C.,). ~

~

245. How is the crime of unlawful appointments Committed? It is committed by any public officer who shall know., 'c...: ingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person . .~ -. lacking the legal qualification therefor (Art. 244, R.P.C.). "'

'

. .

'

''

'

~236.How is the crime of abuses against chastity committed? It is committed by:

86


1. Any public officer who shall solicit o r make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before such officer for decision, o r with respect t o which he is required to submit a report to, or consult with, a superior officer: 2 . Any warden o r other public of:ficer directly charged with the care and custody of prisonisrs or persons under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances t o a woman under his custody. 3. Any warden or officer who +Ihall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances t o the wife, daughter, sister, or relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer. (Art.245, R.P.C.). 47. How is the crime of parricide committed? ," It is committed by any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants o r descendants, or his spouse (Art.. 246, R.P.C.) , 248. What is the liability, if any, of a legally married person or parent for death or ,physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances? Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them; in the act or immediatcly thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circu stances, to parents with respect to their daughters u eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate th tution of his wife or daughter, or shall o

87

,:

.~



of parricide, murder or homicide a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be im.posed under the provisions of article 50 (Art. 250, R.P.C.). Art. 50 provides . t h t a penalty one degree lower than that provided for the consummated felony shall be imposed for the commission of a frustrated felony. Hence, a penalty lower . by two degrees may be imposed upon the person guilty of frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide.

consented t o the infidelity of the other spouse, shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article. (Art. 247, R.P.C.)

249. What is murder?

',

252. May the courts reduce by three degrees the penalty to be imposed for an attempted fel'ony? Yes. The courts, considering the facts of the e y e , may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty whlc under article 51 should be imposed for an attemp mit any of the crimes of parricide, murder o r (Art. 250, pnr, 2, R.P.C.). Art. 51 provides that two degrees lower than that provided for the eonsu,?nm felony shall be imposed for the commission of an attempt felony. Hence, a penalty lower by .three degreei'inay imposed upon the person guilty of attempted p a r n u murder os homicide. 253. What is the criminal liability of a person or persons participated in a tumultuous affray for death caused t in? When, while several persons, not composing ganized for the common purpose of assaulting ing each other xciprocally, quarrel and assault ea in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the of the affray someone is killed, and i t cannot be asce who actually killed the deceased, but the person or p who inflicted serious physical injuries can be ide such person or persons shall be liable for death cau in a tumultous affray. If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serio physical injuries on the deceased, all those who s used violence upon the person of the victim shall therefor (Art. 251, R.P.C.) .

What is homicide? Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person, which is neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide (Art. 249, ..

.ii.

"'"I'

"

syi ' , ,251. May the courts impose a penalty lower by two degrees

_i

<,;*

.

:

.,

.,

,

.

for the commission of a frustrated felony? Yes. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime 88

.'

;:'

Murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246, shall kill another, with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3 . By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment of or assault upon a street car or Iocomotivc, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4 . On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing a t his person or corpse. (Art. 248, R.P.C.)

,.~ ,,

'

jl

83


': -258. .. What is {,he criminal liability of persons who participated ,

in a tumultuous affray for physical injuries i,lflicted there,.. in? .~ ' ., . When in a tumultuous affra,y only serious physical in' ' juries are inflicted upon t h e participants t k r e o f and the : person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those , '. who appear to have used violence upon the person of the . offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree , '"' than that provided for the physical injuries so inflicted. When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used any violence ..:. , ,~ upon the person of the offended party shall be punished by awesto from five to fifteen days. .:., (Art. 252, R.P.C.) ~

255. Is giving assistance to suicide punishable? If So, does the person giving assistance to suicide incur the same liability regardless of the nature and extent of the assistance given '., ' . b y him? ., ,. Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide ,.,, ", L .,,i, 1: shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor; if such person .~,.,,'<: lends his assistance t o another to the extent of doing the killing himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion t; ' temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, ,,, . . the penalby of arrest0 mayor in its medium and maximum .,~;**)(.i : periods shall be imposed (Art. 253, R.P.C.). ~

, .~..., .," ~' . , i'.yp256. r i ., When is a person criminally liable for discharging a fire.?

arm? Any person who shall shoot a t another with any f i r e arm is liable for discharge of firearm, provided that he has no intention to kill the offended party, or that the act cannot he held to constitute any other crime f o r which a higher penalty is prescribed by the Code (Art. 254, R.P.C.). If he had intention t o kill the offended party, he will be liable for frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, or homicide, as the case may be. 90

If the Cirearm was not discharged a t or person, but the firearm was discharged' wi or public place and the discharge produced ala? or danger, he is liable for the crime of alarms and scandals. 257. If a person Idled a child less than three what crime was mmmitted by him and what liability therefor? The crime committed was infanticide. The penalty provided for parricide or for murder shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age. If the crime of infanticide be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be eommitted for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either o€ them, the penalty be prision mugor.. (Art. 255, R.P.C.) 258. How is the crime of intentional abortion committed? It is committed by any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion, by using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman or, without using violence, by acting with 01' without the consent of the woman (Art. 266, R.P.C.). 259. What is unintentional abortion? It is a crime committed by any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally (Art. 257,

R.P.C.). 260. 1s the woman who suffered an abortio Yes, if the woman (1) practiced an abortion herself or (2) consented that any other person shou so (Art. 268, R.P.C.). , ' Otherwise, she ip, not liable.

91

:.

.

d",~ ,

,

.

,

. .I_

.


."

%;..261. When are physicians and midwives more severely punished #?&&. .v

for comimitting abortion? *:;.w . ,. ,.3,:> d , , , . The .penalties provided for intentional abortion shall il ., ,~\!.<"., . ~, ~. .,,*. . .. be imposed in their maximum period, respectively, upon . ., i.. ,~ . any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall came an abortion or ' assist in causing the same (Art. 259, R.P.C.). ,.

.<.

i _ ~

,~.?.

,

.

262. When is a pharmacist liable for dispensing any abortive? When the pharmacist, without the proper prescription ,, . . a physician, shall dispense any abortive (Art. 259, from , . . .., par. 2, :R.P.C.).

'i'

'.~.i:

. ,

263. What are the responsibilities of the participants and seeonds in a duel? '.:. *< The .penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed . . upon any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel. If he shaIl inflict upon the Iatter physical injuries only, ..,. , he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according , . to their nature. In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arrest0 mayor although no physical injuries , . . , have been inflicted. . .. . The seconds shall in all events be punished as acconi: plices. (Art. 260, R.P.C.) ,<.:

$:.&:e

.,, ., . ,

1

; ... $4. .,; ,

.; :

'

':.ii::.i'

,

'.,,:

,

;.'

, ' . *, . ..

..%

., .. ~..

I

'

,

What are the acts punished as challenging to a duel? . ' They are: 1. By challenging another to a duel. 2 . By inciting another to give or accept a challenge in a duel. 3. By scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel. (Art. 261, R.P.C.)

.,* , "265. ,~ What are the crimes of physical injuries?

92

CRlMINAL LAW REV'IEWBR

.!.. They are: 1. Nlntilation. 2 . Serious physical injuries. 3. Administering injurious substance or beverages. 4. Less serious physical injuries. 5. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.

>

. . ..

266. What are the two kinds of mutilation? They are: 1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally o r partially, of some essential organ . ' for reproduction. 2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, ! by depriving the offended party of any p a r t o f the human body, other than the essential organ for reproduction, ' ~ , (Art. 262, R.P.C.) 267. What are serious physical injuries? They are: 1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind, in consequence of .the physical injuries inflicted. 2. When the injured or the power to hear or a foot, an arm, or a leg, or (b) loses the us such member, or (e) becomes incapacitated f o r the in which he was theretofore habitually engaged, in sequence of the physical injuries inflicted. 3. Wheii the person injured (a) becomes ,deform or (b) loses any other member of his, body, or (c) I the use thereof, or (d) the performance of the engaged for more than 90 days, in consequence of physical injuries inflicted. 4. When the injured person becomes ill or inca for labor for more than 80 days (bul; must no

93

'.

I


CRININAL LAW REVIEWER.

..., . ...~ ,. h .;

than 90 days), as a result of the ph3sica1 injuries inflicted. (Art. 263, R.P.C.) 268. How is the crime of administering injurious substance or beverages committed? It i:r committed by any person who, without intent > , ~ ,,, . t o kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical in, ~. , . , jury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity (Art. 264, R.P.C.). '-"'

~

269. What are less serious physical injuries? .

Less serious physical injuries are committed by any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries, other than serious physical injuiies, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same eriod (Art. 265, R.P.C.).

,

I .

4 .,,

,~ . ,

,

. What are the three kinds :" '

of slight physical injuries? They are: ' 1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party for labor from one (1) t o nine (9) days, or required medical attendance during the same period. 2. 'Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical attendance. 3. Illtreatment of another by deed without causing

(Art. 266, R.P.C.)

71. How is the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention committed? It is committed by any private individual' who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, provided that any of the following circumstances is present in the co mission of the offense:

7-

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted

..:I-:* ..,,

. more than five days; ,... 2 . If it shall have been committed simulating authority ; 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have bgen .' inflicted upon the person kidnapped or d threats to kill him shall have been made; 4 . I€ the person kidcapped or detained shall be a . minor, female, or a public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none' of the circumstances above mentioned were p the conimission of the offense. (Art. 267, R.P.C.) /.I

272. What is slight illegal detention?

It is a crime committed by any private individual wh shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other d e deprive him of his liberty, without the atte any o€ the circumstances enumerated in the article fining the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal det tion (Art. 268, R.P.C.). 273, What is the participation of the person who furnished' the place for the perpetration of the crime of slight d e tention? The same penalty provided for the principal shall incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for perpetration of the crime (Art. 268, par. 2, R.P.C.). seems that while his participation is that plice he is pnnished as principal. l i 274. When is t.he penalty f o r slight illegal det by one degree? , J If the offender shall voluntarily release the per so kidnapped or detained within three days from the co

96

I ,

,



mencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him (Art. 268, par. 3, R.P.C.).

. ~. .

,

276. How is the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor committed? It is committed by any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail t o restore the latter t o his parents or guardians (Art. 270, R.P.C., as amended by Republic Act No. 18).

' 277. IIow is the crime of inducing a minor to abandon his home Committed? I t is committed by anyone who shall induce a minor to :rbandon the home of his parents or guardians or the

278. Is slavery punished under the Revised Penal Code? Yes. It is committed by anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap, or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him. If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party t o some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. (Art. 272, R.P.C.)

i... P.

279. HOWis the crime of exploitation of child labor committed? It is committed by anyone who, under the pretext of , p/,,,: g.:.. ".- ::,~ . \e,.,,, .._i reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, .y .. : .

1,'"'I ~;...a, *-..W~

.<

96

>.:

shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his seririee (Art. 273, R.F.G.) 280. How is the crime of services rendered under compulsion' in payment of debts committed? It is committed by any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work f o r him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, R.P.C.).

" .'

,

,*

I.

281. How is the crime of abaiidonment of persons in d a n g a and abaudcniuent of one's own victim committed? It is committed by: 1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment t o himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense; . 2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured; 3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under Seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child t o the authorities or t o his family, or shall fail to take him t o a safe place. (AI-$. 275, R.P.C.)

.

282. How is the crime of abandoning a minor committed? It is committed by anyone who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him. The same crime is committed even if the death of the minor shall have resulted or even if the life of the minor shall have been in danger, provided that the offender has " no intent to kill the minor. (Art. 276, R.P.C 283. How is the erinie of abandonment of minor by per entrusted with his custody commitl~ed?

97 .,

.

:I

.

.* ,-i

'1

...3

I


. .

It is committed by anyone who, having charge of the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or .other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to Itis care or, in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities (Art. 277, par. 1, R.P.C.).

284. IIoiv is the crime of indifference of parents Committed? It is committed by the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which their stal.ion in life requires and financial condition permits (Art. 277, par. 2, R.P.C.). 285. Wh80 are liable for exploitation of minors? They are: 1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or contortion. 2 . Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, ropewalker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager, or engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of t.hese kinds, children under sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants. 3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next preceding paragraph who shall em, ploy any descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions. 4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person entrmted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumer'ated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to Any habitual vagrant o r heggar. 5 . Any person whg shall induce any child under six. teen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers t o follow any person en98


gaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or t o accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar. (Art. 278, R.P.C.) 286. How is the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling committed? It is committed by any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will. It may be committed by means of violence or intimidation, in which case the penalty is higher.

''

i?

.

289. What are the three .forms of threats?

They are: 1. Grave threats.

!

-'-: ,...

287. What are the ahsolutory causes in trespass to dwelling? The penalty for trespass to dwelling shall not be im-. posed upon any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some r;erious harm to hi& self, the occupants of the dwelling, or a third person, nor shall it be imposed upon any person who aha11 enter 'a dweiling for the purpose of rendering some service @ humanity or justice, nor upon anyone who shall enter cafbs, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the sam,e are open (Art. 280, par. 3, 1L.P.C.). 288. What is other forms of trespass? It is a crime committed by any p,erson who shall e the clcsed premises or the fenced es either of them is uninhabited, if th be manifest and the trespasser has mission of the owner or the caretaker thereof (Art. R.P.C.).

~'

:

I


290. How is the crime of grave threats committed? I:t is committed1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his penon, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition, even tl,o?gh not unlawful, . and the offender attained his purposz; 2 . By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose. 3. By threatening another with t h t infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime which is not subject to a condition. (Art. 282, R..P.C.) 291. How is the crime of light threats committed? Tt is committed by making a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, the offender attaining or not attaining his purpose (Art. 283, R.P.C.). 292. What is bond for good behavior? In all cases of grave threats and light threats, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not t o molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro (Art. 284, R.P.C.). I,

293. What are other light threats? They are: I. By threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful selfdefense. r!. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea involved in his threat.

100

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWl3R

3 . By orally threatening t o do another any harm not constituting a felony. (Art. 285, R.P.C.) 294. How is the crime of grave coercion committed? It is committed by any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong (Art. 286, R.P.C.). 295, Mow is the crime of light coercion committed? It is committed by any person who, by means of viclence, shall ssize any thing belonging to his debtor for .,, the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the ~' debt (Art. 287, R.P.C.). 296. How is the crime of other similar coercions committed? It is committed by any person, agent, or officer of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation t o be forced or compelled, to purchase merchan. dise or commodities of any kind; or by any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the' legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by the laborer or employee (Art. 288, R.P.C.).

297. How is the crime of formation, maintenance, and prohid bition of combination of capital or labor through violence 0.r threats committed? It is committed by any person who, for the purpos of organizing, maintaining, or preventing coalitions o capital or labor, strike of laborers, or lockout of emplo shall employ violence or threats in such a degree compel or lorce the laborers o r employers in the f r e legal exercise of thei.1. industry or work, if the act

101 . .

.

I

I



E: .X,.

'?

not constitute a more serious o-Cfense in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 289,

R.P.C.)

:. ; 298.

Wha.t arc the three kinds of discovery and revelation of secrets? They are: 1. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. 2:. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. 3,. Revealing of industrial secrets.

299. How is the crime of discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence committed?

It is committed by any private individual who, in order to discover secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof (Art. 290, R.P.C.). Tba penalty is lower if the offender does not reveal the secrets. . 300. Who are not liable for discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence?

The parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors, with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or custody, and the spouses, with respect to the papers or letters of either of them (Art. 290, par. 3, R.P.C.). Row is the crime of revealing secrets with abuse of office committed? It is committed by any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets (Art. 291, R.P.C.) .

How is the crime of revelation of industrial secrets committ8ed?

?$\

s"

J

It is committed by the person in charge, employee, or workman of any manufaeturicg or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter (Art. 292, R.P.C.).

303. Who are guilty OP robbery? Any person who, wifn intent to gain, shall take any personal proverty belonging t o another, by means of violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery (Art. 293, R.P.C.).

.' -';

304. What are the two classes of robbery? .. . , They are: I 1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation o f . '

.,I

1

persons. 2. Robbery with force upon things. 305. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons? " Specifically, the acts punished as robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons are: 1. By committing homicide by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (taking personal property belonging' to another). 2. By committing rape or intentional mutilation accompanying the robbery; or by committing physical injuries by reason or on t'ne oc~zairmof the robbery, where th? offended party becomes insane, imbecile, impotent,'or blind (Subdivision 1 of Art. 263). 3. By inflicting physical injuries by reason or on. occasion vi the robbery, where the offended party lost use of speech or the power t o hear o r to smell, or an .eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg o r lost the. of any such member or became incapacitated f o r the in which he was theretofore habitually engaged division 2, Art. 263).

102

103 _.

.i

I

,a ..


". I

'

<.

, .

i

., '


(

.

4. By carrying the violence o r intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery to a degree clearly un.. ,. necessary for the commission of the crime; or by inflicting upon any person not responsible for the commission of the robbery in the course of its execution, auy of the physical injuries in consequence of which the person injured became deformed or lost any other member of his body or lost the use thereof or became ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for more than 90 days or that the person injured became ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (Subdivisions 3 and 4 of Art. 263). 5. By merely employing intimidatior. or violence which does not cause any of the serious physical injuries mentioned in Art. 263. The following are also the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons : When by reason or on occasion 09 an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is com.nitted (Art. 297, R.P.C.). A n y person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence o r intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or document, shall be guilty of robbery (Art. 298, R.P.C.).

5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearm. (Art. 295, R.P.C:)

' A

* . b ~ ~

;306. What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons?

.

When such robbery is committed1. In an uninhabited place. 2. By a hand. 3 . By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship. 4. BY entering the passengers' compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers thereof se in the respective conveyances.

104

Note: The qualifying circumstances are not applicable to robbery with hamioide, or robbery with rape or intentional mutilalation, qr robbery with serious physical injuries resulting in the insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness of the victim.

307. When is the robbery deemed to have been committed by a bend and what is the penalty incurred by the members thereof? When more than three armed, malefactors take pa$ in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the conimission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty t o be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum period of the corresponding penalty pro: vided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illeel possession of such unlicensed firearm. Any member of a band who is present a t the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the .band, unless it be shown that he attempted t o prevent the same.. (Art. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 12) 508. May robbery by the use of force upon things be committed in any place? No. Robbery by the use of force upon things may be committed only (1) in an inhabited house, public building, " o r edifice devoted to religious worship; or (2) in an un-' inhabited dace (which must be a building) or in a private building.

309. How is the crime of robbery with force upOn things in an inhabited house, or publie buildikzg or edifice devoted: , ~~. to religious worshiu Committed? . I

105

,

GRINJXAL LAW REWEWER

It is committed by any person who shall enter the house o r building, in which the personal property is taken by him, by any of the following means: 1. Through an opening not intended for entrance o r egress ; 2. By breaking any wall, roof, OT floor or byeaking any door or window; 3 . By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools; 4. B y using fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. O r ifThe robhery be committed under any of the following circumstances : 1. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any othei- kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; 2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the, robbery. (Art. 299, R.P.C.) What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of robbery with force upon things committed in inhabited house, public bnilding, or edifice devoted to religious worship? The robbery with force upon things in inhabited house, public building, or edifice deyioted to religious worship, if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall be ‘punished by the maximum period of the penalty providsd therefor (Art. 300, R.P.C.) .

For the purpose of the crime of robbery with force upon things, what is inhabited house, public building, or their dependencies? Inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even thowh the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed. 106

..

CRXMlWht LAW REVIEWER

A11 interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns, coachhouses, stables, or other departments, or inclosed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an intenor entrance connected therewith and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship. Orchards and other iands for cultivation or production are not ineluded in the t e r m of the next preceding paragrzph, even if closed, contiguous t o the building, and having direct connection therewith. The term “public building” includes every building owned by the Government o r belonging to a private person but used OY rented by the Chemment, although ternporarily unoccupied by the sam-e. (Art. 301, R.P.C.)

.

:y

’

,:

3 :,

:’:,

-

312. How is the crime of robbery with force upon things in an uninhabited place or in a privati: building c o r n m i t e ? It is robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in

a building other than an inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worshiy, provided that any of the following circumstances is present: 1, Tf the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress; 2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken; 3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picldoclcs, or other similar tools: 4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furnitnre or receptacle has been broken; 5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if t h same be broken open elsewhere. (Art. 302, R.P.G. 313. When shall the offender in robbery suffer the pe next higher in degree?

107

’

’

~

’

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,~,

I:n the cases specified in articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of the Revised Penal Code, when the property taken is mail matter or large cattle, the offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said articles (Art. 302, par. 3, R.P.C.).

b,

,~ :

~

When is the robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood to he punished with a penalty next lower in degree? When the robbery with force upon things in inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious worship, or in uninhabited place or private building, consists in t,he taking of c&s, fruits, or firewood, the cnlprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code (Art. 303, R.P.C.). Hour .is the crime of possession of or making picklocks or similar tools comniitted? :It is committed by any person who shall, without lawful cause, have in his possession picklocks or similar tools specially adopted to the commission of the crime robbery: or by any person who shall make such tools (Art. 304, R.P.C.). What are false keys? The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include: :L. The tools mentioned in the next preceding article; 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner; 3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for nse in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. (Art. 305, R.P.C.) * Who are brigands? When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to he attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands (Art. 306, R.P.C.) . 108


318. When are mined persons presumed to be highway roblfeers or brigands? If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers o r brigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed in the m a x i m m period (Art. 306, par. 3, R.P.C.). 319. How is the crime of aiding and abetting a hand of brigands committed? 'It is committed by any person knowingly and in any manner aiding, abetting, o r protecting a band of brigands, or giving them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the Governtnent, o r acquiring or rcceiving the property taken by such brigands (Art. 307, X.P.C.).

::

320. Who are liable far theft? Or, how is theft committed? Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of, perisons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of ,mother without the latter's consent. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shaU fail t o deliver the szme to the local authorities or t o ita ,:: :*, owner; 'c 2 . Any person who, after having maliciously damaged,,,.$ . the property of another, shall remove or make use of the".,+ fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and ,..,j 3 . Any person who shall enter an inclos;?d estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs t o another and, without the consent of its owner, shall hunt, ' 4 or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or ..? @9 other forest or farm products. . (Ark 308, R.P.C.) ':& , . I ~

.# $

%. .

i4

:.g

321. What are qualified thefts? 109

2,

..

&', '

"

A<,% de.:

.

..

.

1

.,.& ..: , >

.*

I .



.*j,

!Ute foIlowing are qual%d thefts: 1. If the theft is comn&ted by a domestic servant. 5!. If the theft is committed with grave.abuse of confidence. 3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter, (e) large cattle, or consists of (d) coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. 1. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. (Art. 310, R.P.C.)

'. 322. What are the crimes

of usurpation?

I.. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real right,s in property. 2!. Altering boundaries or landmarks. How is the crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property committed? .,'' It is committed by any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another (Art. 312, R.P.C.).

324. How is the crime of altering boundaries or landmarks comI t is cosmitted by any person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same (Art. 313, R.P.C.). 325. How is the crime of fraudulent insolvency committed? It is committed by any person who shall his property to the prejudice of his

110

<

. . .

,:*:~ '

r4 ;*

i

e-

It is committed by,any person who shall defraud other by any of the following means: 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall del by virtue of a n obligation to do :so, even though such obligation bc based on an immoral or illegal consideration; (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or m y other personal property received by the offender in trust o r on eommission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though such,.obligation be totally o r partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other Property; (c) By taking undue advantage of' the signature of the offended party jn blank, and by writing any document above such signature iu blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person. 2. By means of any of the following false pretellses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, os imaginary transactions; OT by means of other similar deceit$# (b) By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business. (e) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to thme action for calumny, which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty. (d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check.in payment of an obligation when the offender had n funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein wer not sufficient t o cover the amount of the check. The

111 , ,

,'

I

'2s ?! ?

' ',, I

?

,:r

,,

. ...'**

cmrmib ~.

,

LAW REVIEWER

CR17dIXA1, LAW REVIEWE13

the:honor

failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payce or holder- that said check has been dishonored for lack 01' insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967) ( e ) By obtaining any food, nefreshment or amommodation a t a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house ahd the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof. or by obtaining credit al. a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house by the use of any false pretenses, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, Iodging house, o r apartment house after obtain. ing credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment, or aecommodation. 3. Through any of the following fraudulent nleaus: (a) BY inducing another, by means of deceit, t o sign any document: (b) BY resorting to some fraudulent practice to ., , insure success in a gambling game; (C) BY removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole 01' in part, any court record, office files, docoment, o r any other papers. a (Art. 315, R.F.C.) 27. What =e other fornls of swindling? , , Other forms of swiudling are committed by1. .Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any ' real property, shall convey, sell, encumber, or mortgage

,.

'S

2. Any person who, knowing that real property is en. cumbered, shall dispose of the same, zlthough such encumbrance be not recorded; 3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, t o the prejudice of the latter or any third person;

112

or reputation of another person (Art. 364, I*. n

.-

,

, '.,,'

.. \

~ . , 379! What are thc quasi-offenses? They are the offenses committed by means of fault '.,., , or d p a , or ot'nerwise known as criminal negligence. . . The quasi-offenses are committed in four Ways: 1 . ~y committing through reckless imprudence any St ,':; which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave :,, or less grave felony o r light felony. \ , ,.,i 2. committing through simple imprudence or ne&'' .. gence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave si: .A or a less serious felony. ,:~:' 3 . B~ causing damage to the property of another .$%:a e, ,3 through reckless imprudence o r simple imprudence or ., -;i

__

nee or negligence which, if done maliciously, would have Constisorne tuted a light felony.

xn

/

'

the imposition of the penalties for criminal ne&:,:$

%enoe,the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, with-:; out. "-.revard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four 1. (Art. 365, par. 5, R.P.C.). _ . o

I 381. In

,'

,

what cases are the penalties prescribed for criminal negligence in Art. 365 not to be imposed? The provisions contained in Art. 365 of the Revis Penal Code shall not be applicable: '1. When the penalty provided for the offense is t o or lower than those provided in the first two p a r a s of that article, in which case the courts shall impose t penalty next lower in degree than that which should

129

'"

I

.">, . .. ,

,

_.."., ,:. ,

-;,.

*:,; q, .p

'

'


.,1v;

CRININAL LAW REVIEWER

, S i %c 3* ,I

imposed in the period which they may deem proper to : . i auply. .. . 2 . When, by imprudence or negligence and with viola,' tion of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall '.he caused, in which case the defendants shall be punisxed prision correccional in its medium and maximum (Art. 365, par. 6, R.P.C.) ,,,

Define reckless imp,rudence. R.eckless imprudence consists ip voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaut.ion on the part of the person performing or failin'g t o persuch act, taking into ,consideration his employment occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and ther circumtances regarding persons, time and place Art. 365, par. 7, R.P.C.). efine simple imprudence. Simple imprudence consists in the iack of precaution splayed in those cases in which the aamage impending caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly 'est (Art. 365, par. 8, R.B.C.).

. When is the penalty next higher

in degree to those pro. aided for in Art. 365 to be imposed? The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in Art. 365 shall he imposed upon the offender who 6 lend on the spot to the injured parties such help ay be in his hands to give (Art. 365, par. 9, R.P.C.).

and explain briefly the main characteristics o€ Criminal Lam and state the provisions of law based on those characteriqties. Criminal Law has three main characteristics: (1) gen2) territorial, and ( 3 ) prospective.

2

,,!2 binding on all persons who reside or Sojourn in ,?hiliPP@,,.,&a It has general application, because Criminal .Law,,is

., . .,+ territory. It is territorial, in that Criminal Law undertakes b,,,.?+ Dunish crimes committed within the Philippine territory: -;" ~ ',X,~ * It is prospective, in that a penal law carnot make act punishable in a manner in which i t was not punishable when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. A S to i t 4 geneVal application: Art. 2 of the Revisd: Penal Code states that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, interior waters and .maritime zone, with-, out reference to the person or persons who might viola+' any of its provisions. Art. 14 of the new- Civil Code provides that penal shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in P pine territory. As to its territorial application: The same. Art-.:+

an

of the Revised Penal Code states that the'provisions Of this Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archi; pelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and , maritime zone, which constitute the Philippine terr As to the prospectivitll of Criminal Law: Art. 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall ,be punishable 'oy any penalty not prescribed by law t o its commission. Art, 366 oC the same Code provides that felonies are punishable under the laws enforced at the time of their commission. . . ~ ~ ~ 386. In what cases is our Criminal Law mot applicable to per sons living or sojourning in this coantry? Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code in effect provides that the general a.nd territorial applications of its provisions are subject to the exceptions that may be provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application.

..

131


i-'

.i:


7

. . . L

..

Art. 14 of the new Civil Code provides that the general application of penal. laws is subject to. the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. Hence, the following persons are not subject to the operation of our Criminal Law: 1. Those who, according to the treaties between the Philippines and a foreign country, are not amenable to our penal laws. Thus, under the Base Agreement between the Philip pines and the Uhited States, our penal laws shall not apply when(a) The offense is committed by any person within any base, except (1) where the o€fender and the offended party are both Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty), o r ( 2 ) where the offense is a.gainst the security of the Philiunines:

387. An American soldier committed the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, begun in Angeles, Pampanga, and continued all the way to Clark Field, a r d i t a r y b m , where

1 1

i

I

I

the victim was raped. May the offender be tried by the Court of First Instance of PampangaP Under the Rules of Court (Rule 107, Set. 14), in all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the ofiense was Committed or anyone of the ingredients thereof took place. In the case of Pamlan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855, it was held that the offenders who kidnapped the victim from Menila and took him to a distant place in Bulacan, where the latter was killed, may be tried either by the Court of First Instance of Manila or by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, but whichever takes cognizance of the case first acquires exclusive jurisdiction. The aforementioned rule and ruling may be applied

.,

. ',' .:3

,:-.i

-.. .~~~

(e) The offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States is against the securi.ty of the United States. 2. Those who, by virtue of laws of preferential application, are not amenable t o our penal laws. Thus, under Rep. Act No. 75, it is even a crime t o arrest or imprison any ambassador o r public minister of any foreign State or their domestic servant whose name is registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and posted in some public place in the Office of the Chief of Police of Manila. 3 . Those who, under the principles of public international law, are not subject to the operation of our penal such as the sovereigns and other chiefs of States, :radars and ministers. 132

be tried either by the Court of First Instance of P a p ;$ panga, where the commission of the crime began, or by the military court of the armed forces of the United States , ',i$ in ... Clnrk Field. where it was continued and consummated. :;!g Hence, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga may try the case. . '...*. .*,

:,d

~~~

Is our Criminal Law applicable to crimes committed by a soldier? I t depends on whether the offender is a soldier of the., Philippine Army or he is a soldier of the armed forces: of the United States. If he is a soldier of the Phi A m y , our civil court has concurrent jurisdiction w military court. If the civil court takes cognizance case first, then it shall have exclusive jurisdictio , the offense committed by the soldier of the Philip 133

CRIMINAL LAW RWIEWER

Army and our Criminal Law will be applicable to him. But if the offender is a soldier of the United States Armed Forces, the stipulations in the Base Agreement will apply. May a Philippine citizen who committed a crime in this country be punished by a law of a foreign nation? Explain your answer. Yes, when the crime is committed by a Philippine citizen within a base, provided that the offended party is not a Philippine citizen or that the offense is not against the security of the Philippines. In such case, the Artides o€ War of the United States Armed Forces will apply. ~390. When is a soldier of the armed forces of the United States liable for violation of our Criminal Law? The Base Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America recognizes the authority of our civil courts t o exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the Philippines, except in certain cases specifically provided in the Agreement. Hence, a soldier of the armed forces of the United States is liable for violation of our penal law and triable .. by our civil court when the offense is committed (1) outside the bases and (2) the offended party is not a member of the armed forces of the United States or that the offense is not against the security of the United States. Not one of the exceptions provided in the Base Agreement is applicable to this case.

'

,.., . . . , . .,

"391. When may the United States exercise jurisdiction over a n offense committed outside the base by a member of its armed forces, even if the offended party is not a member ., thereof or the offense is not against the seeurity of the United States?

;

~

'

If any offense committed outside the base (the ofoffended party not being a member of the armed forces of the United States or the offense is not against the security of the United States) is committed by any mem-

134

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .

ber 01the armed forces of the United States (a) while engaged in the actual performance of a specific. military : duty, or (b) during a period of national emergency,. United States may exercise jurisdiction. 392. Do civil courts have jurisdiction during time of war over. a soldier who committed a crime? Notwithstanding the provision in the Articles of War requiring a soldier to be delivered to civil authorities for trial for an alleged crime except in time of war, the jurisdiction of military courts over x soldier is not ex-: clusive of the civil courts even during time of war, if .the soldier is stationed within the territory courts are functioning and where no actn in progress (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356). But under the Base Agreement, in time 0 United States shall have the right to exercise jurisdiction over any offenses which may be By members of the armed forces of the Unit in We Philippines. 393. A and B, Filipino citi'ens, went to €Ioi%!kong on a pleasure; trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the Philippines, B discovered that A sto!le her di worth P2,OOO while they were in Hongkong Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your an2 swec. No, because this is not one of the cases where provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enfor outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The of@ was not committed while on a Philippine shi the offense does not involve forgery or cou any coin or currency note of the Philippines, or obli and securities issued by the Government of the Phili the offense does not involve any act connected introduction into the Philippines of forged o securities; the offender is not a public officer or empl who committed an offense in the exercise of his funct'

135

.


. .,

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER ~~

or that the offense is not one of the ciimes against the natimonal security and the law of nations.

.

.394. Why are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable to crimes committed on board the Philippine ship or airship even if the Philippine ship cr airship is outside .>., ~~,,., the jurisdiction of the Philippines? The Philippine vessel o r aircraft, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered an extension of the national territory. E:ut when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreim

tion. Crimes against the law of nations, such as piracy and mutiny on the high seas, are against mankind and may he punished by any civilized government.

'

'

395. A, an employee of the Philippine Government, ivas assigned to Japan as a clerk of the Reparation Committee. While in Japan, A falsified the record prepared and kept by another employee of the Committee. .In case A returns or is brought back to the Philippines, may.he be prosecuted and punished for falsification committed by him in Japan? Explain your answer. No, because although A is a public officer or employee, he did not commit the offense in the exercise of his . . function. To commit an offense in the exercise of his .. functiou, the public officer or employee must have acted in his official capacity, or that the act committed must be related to or connected with the peiiformance of his official duty.

hr are the crimes under the circumstances mentioned '

i

Art. 2 made punishable by the Revised Penal Code .'..even if they are committed outside of the jurisdiction of

.

Because the commission of any of those crimes may affect the political or economic life of the nation. .The Crimes against national security may affect the existence of the State. The forging or counterfeiting of our coins

. .

or currency notes or obligations and securities issued by the Government may affect the economic life of the n e

I

397. When may our Criminal Law be given retroactive effect? Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as t h e y . favor a person guilty of a felony, who is not's habitual delinquent, and provided that the penal laws do not speeifically provide that the same shall not be applicable to ';r pending actions o r causes of actions. ., ." I*

398. A, who had been once punished for the crime of theft, was on trial for estafa punishable by paision correecional in view of the amount involved. Uefore the case was sub-

"

mitted for decision, Congress amended Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, reducing the penalty for estafa, corn- ". ', mitted by A, to arrest0 mayor. Is the new law applicable to A? Explain your answer. : On the basis of the facts given, A should be given the benefit of the new law, it being' favorable to him. Hence, ., the new law is applicable to him. A was only a recidivist, because a t the time of his trial for estafa he was convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. A new favorable statute dealing with crimes cannot be given retroactive effect only in two cases, namely: (1) where the new law is expressly made inapplicable t o pending actions or existing causes of action; and ( 2 ) where the offender is a habitual delinquent under Rule No. 5 of Art. 6% of the Revised Penal Code. A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period Of ten years from the date of his release or last convidion~ of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

CRIMINAL LAW RlGVIEWER

..

/

.

,. ,

I

. '. ..

.. I . .

_.

.

The three parts of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. Basic principles affecting crimina1 liability (Articles 1 to 20). 2 . Provisions on penalties, including criminal and civil liabilit,y (Articles '21 t o 113). 3. Felonies defined and penalized under fourteen (14) different titles (Articles I14 t o 365).

.,,

.400. Classify felonies according to their nature.

Felonies are classified according t o their nature, as follows: 1. Crimes against the national security and the law OI nations. 2 . Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. ..,,. , . . 3. Crimes against public order. . , . '' 4. Crimes against public interest. '.... 5 . Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs. 6. Crimes against public morals. 7. Crimes committed by public officers. 8. Crimes against persons. 9. Crimes against personal liberty and security. 10. Crimes against property. 11. Crimes against chastity. 12. Crimes against the civil status of persons. 13. Crimes against honor: ' 14. Quasi offenses. ~

'.

1

.,

@%+.!:

,

&&

2'

State the theories of penalogy and distinguish one from the other. There a r e two theories of penalogy, namely: ( 1 ) the classical theory and (2) the positivist theory. These two theories of penalogy may ba distinguished by their characteristics: .'

1. The basis of criminal liability ip human free the purpose of the penalty ia retribution.

will^ and

138

i

CRIMINAL LAW

REVIEWER

2 . That inan is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect o r result of the felonious act than upon the man, the crimlnal himself. 3. I t has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. 4. There is a scant regard to .the human' element." (Basic Principles, Eationale, p. 2, by the Code COPmittee on Code of Crimes)

:

,.

.

$3 I$

.:,? ..

Positivist theory 1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange: . ~ ' morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do .,~. .I;,. , , , p rnronx, in sDite of or contrary to his volition. . , 2 . 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 punish-;, i ment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through. .& the ellforcement of individual measures in each par tic-^ ii ular case after a thorough, perSona1 and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychia- ,; trists and social scientists. (Basic Principles, Rationale,; DD. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of. Crimes) \:

402. On what principles or theory of penalOgY is the Revised'

Penal Code based? The Revised Penal Code continues, like the old Coae, t o be based on the principles of the classical 8 although some provisions of eminel1tly positivistic encies (those having reference t o the punishment of 1 possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were inC 'uorated in the present Code. 403. Classify felonies according to the means by which

t

commit.ted and define each, and according to their and define each.

139

...

. . , ,

.I:

~. ..

.

I

:,,

-

I

.

.

I..:. , ,. i, . .,' .

. . .. , ;. . . .


CRIMINAL LAW XEVIXWER

. _

.

, .,

:. ..

.

Felonies are classified according to the means by which they are committed into (1) intentional felonies or felonies committed with malice or intent and (2) culpable felonies or those resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill (Art. 3, par. 2, R.P.C.). Felonies are classified according to their gravity into (1) grave felonies, (2) less grave felonies, and (3) light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctipnal. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arrest0 1)zeno~or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or both is provided (Art. 9, R.P.C.).

AI%?

j j

1

,':

'

1. There must be an act or omission.

2 . The act or omission must he punishable by law. 3 . That the act must be committed or the omission incurred by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault

. ., . . .+ ,.

,

(culpa). It is not necessary to state that the act or omission be voluntary, as it is presumed.

'1

-. 40

'"

.'

.

What i s the meaning of the term "dolo" as used in the -:/'definition of intentional felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised .. Penal Code. The term dolo has been improperly translated to "deceit". Dolo is equivalent to malice, which is the intent ,to do an injury to another;/It implies malicious intention.

140

407. What is mistake of fact and how does it affect~criminal liability? Mistake of f a d is a misapprehension of fact, showing lack of intent on the part of the person accused of - a felony. It exempts him from criminal liability, because intent, which is one of the conditions of voluntariness, iS 2ackir.g, 408 When is mistake of fact available as a defense? The rule is: that in mistake of fact, the act Of the,. '! '. accused would have been lawful had the facts been aS he believed them t o be. His intention in pel-foming the act ' ', should be lawful. He should not be a t fault or negligent.

. :404.. State t h e elements of felonies as t h q are &fined in the . .. Revised Penal Code. As the term is defined in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal . , Code, felonies have the following elemnts: . . '

When is an act or omission voluntary? A voluntary act is a free, +nteZZig& and ilttentiod act (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 3 1 Phil. 488). IIence, an omission must also be free, intelligent and intentional. This is the meaning of voluntariness in intentional felony. In culpable felony, the act or omission must also be free and int.dligent, hut instead of intent or malice, which is necessary in intentional felonies, there is only imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

!

409. ~~~sthe mere fact that a
1 I

;;

910. A wanted to kill B by shooting him. with a pistol. A, thinking that he was B, fired at a person who was walk- ~':;$ ing in a dark alley. It turned out that the person killed was C, the brother of A. A had no intention t o kill him. ,$ $ Considering that there was a mistake of fact in this case,., !;:.

..*y

141

CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

do you believe that A is exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. No, because A had intent to kill when he fired his pistol. He &d w j k m a l i c e , since he had the intent to do an injury to another. Even if the person whom he shot was really B, the act done by A would not have been lawful. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised P e n d Code, he is liable criminally for the death of his brother C, because when he fired his pistol with intent t o kill B, A was committing a felony and the death of C was the direct, natlrral and logical consequence of the felony com-

rgteea. 411. A was awakened by the barking of his dog. Be looked out of the window of his house and saw a man in his yard. A got his shot-gun and, believing that man to be When he went down to see the man he had killed, he found out that the man was his brother who wanted to spend the night in A's house. Can A successfully invoke mistake of fact as a, defense? Explain your answer. NQ,because even if the man was in fact a robber, not his brother, A would not have been bs6fied in shooting him to death. There was neither defense of A's person, defense of home nor defense of property in this case, because there was no~~unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased that might imperil the life or limb of A. Since the act done by A would noLhave been~lawfulhad the facts been as he believed them t o be, he is liable for the death of his brother. a. robber, shot and killed him in his yard.

'

412. May malice and negligence or imprudence co-exist in the commission of a felony? Explain your auswer. No, because in criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939). In order that an act may be qualified a s imprudence, it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause

CRIiMIN.41, LAW REVIEWER

371. What is th'e Yenue of action in libel? The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation shall be filed simultaneously or separately with t,he court of first instance of the province or city where the iibelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer mhose office is ,in the City of Manila a t the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first. published, and in case such , public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, : the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the provinre o r city where he held office,at the t i e of the commission of the offense o r where @e libelous article is printed and first published and in case one o€ the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First lnstance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, further- * more, That the conrt where the criminal action or ci$il action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdic. tion to the exclusion of other courts. (Grt. 360, par. 3, K.P.C.) 372. How shall the criminal action for d,efamation which .,ons?sstS in tlie impatation of a crime which can not be pro: secuted de oficio be '&ronght? -. It shall be brought at the instance of and upon plaint expressly filed by the offended party (Art. par. 5, R.P.C.). 373. What are the requisites f w acqkittal or of def

libel?

142

3.27 ,.

,.,;z

CRIMINAL LAW KEYIEWER

CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER

be given in evidence and if the matter charged as libelous ir, true, and, moreover, that it was published with good . .. motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall he acquitted (Art. 361, par. 1, R.P.C.).

~

i

,374. May proof aC the truth of an imputation of an act or om's-

sion not constituting a crime be admitted by the court? Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the dischargc of their dutjes. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. , . (Art. 361, pars. 2 8z 3, R.P.C.) -"375.. Is the auth,olr of the libelous remarks or comments wn' .. . . , nected with the matter privileged or the' editor or manag. ing editor of a newspaper in which they are published exempt from criminal liab:lity? Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matt e r privileged under the provisions of article 354, if madl with matice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor fhG: editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability (Art. 362, R.P.C.), 376. What a r e incriminatory machinations? They are : 1. IncQiinating innocent person. 2 . Intriguing against honor. 377.. How is the crime of incriminating innocent person com'. mitt&? It is committed by any person who, hy any act not constituliug perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime (Art 863, R.P.C.).

i 1

!

i_

*,

378. What is intriguing against honmr? It is a crime committed by 'any person who shall make

any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemiskr

:

the honor or reputation of another person (Art. 364, R.P.C.) .

In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may

~

379. What are the quasi-offenses? They are the offenses committed by means of fault or culpa, or otherwise known as criminal negligence. The quasi-offenses are committed i n four ways: 1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had i t been intentional, would constitute a grave, or less grave felony or light felony. 2, By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony. 3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence 01 negligence. 4. By causing through simple imprudence 'or some . m ~ n gwhich, if done maliciously, would h tuted a light felony.

.

380. Are the courts, in imposing the p a d t i e s for rriniind negligence, bound to apply the rules prescribed in Art. 64 of the Revised r e n d Code, for the application of penaltiwhich contain three periods? In the imposition of the penalties f o r criminal negligence, the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, with-, out regard to the rules prescribed in, Article sixty-four (Art. 365, par. 5, R.P.C.).

381.

what cases are the penalties prescribed for criminal.. negligence in Art. 365 not to be imposed? The provisions contained in Art. 865 of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applicable: 1. When the penalty provided for the offense to or lower than those provided in the first two Pa of that article, in which case the courts shall i penalty next lower in degree than that whi

129

128 ,.., , ..

'

I .&*xb:

,: ,<<;.&e:,.. . ,

, ~,..., . I

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER

:: . .

.. : ''.

'W

..

~

.

imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. ' 2 . When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendants shaJ be punished by p n s i o n covreccionat in its medium sild maximum periods. (Art. 365, par. 6, R.P.C.)

382. Define rekkiess imprudence.

-

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malke, doing or failing to do act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other' circumstances regarding persons, t:me and place (Art. 365, par. 7, R.P.C.).

383. Definc simple imprudence. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the dmger clearly manifest (Art. 3F5, par. 8, R.P.C.).

CRIMINAL LAM' REVIEWER

It has general application, because Criminal Law is. binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in Philipphie territory. It is territorial, in t h a t Criminal Law undertakes to punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory, It is prospective, in that 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 force at the t'me of their commission. As t o its general application: Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisiolls of this Code shall . be enforced within the Philippine Krchipelago, including ,,, its atmosphere, interior waters anc! maritime zone, with- ' i out reference t o the person o r persons who might violate m y of its provisions. Art. 1 4 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws ,~, , ', shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. A; to its terril&io,l application: The same Art. 2 ,; of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisions Of this Code shall be enforced wilhin the Philippine Archi- ,' pelego, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, which ccnstitute the Philippine territory. : As l o t h c pmspectivitg of C~nvinalLaw: Art. 21 o f the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not pi-escribed by law prior to its commission. Art. 366 uC the same Code provides punishable under the laws enforced at t commission. i

584. When is the penalty next higher in degree to those pro-

vided for in Art. 3G5 to be imposed? The. cnalty next higher in degree to tllose provided for in it,. 365 shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to..-lend on the spot to the injured parties such help be in h:s hands to give (Art. 365, par. 9, R.P.C.).

F

",

_*

,.,+385. .., . .

. , ,

.

, ~.

State and exp!ain briefly the main characteristics of Criminal L,nw and state the provisions of law based on thosc characteristics. Criminal t a w has three main characteristics: (1) general, ( 2 ) territorial, and (3) prospective.

130

-3%. In what eases is our Criminal Law not applicable to persans living or sojourning in this country? Art. 2 or the Revised Penal Code t,hat the general and territorial applicati sions arc subject to the cxoeptions that in the trcatics and laws of preferential

131


.,"

.. '.'

Art. 14 of the new Civil Godc provides that the general application of penal laws is subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. Hence, the following persons ale not subject to the operation of our Criminal Law : 1. Those who, according to the treaties between the Philippines and a foreign country, are not amenable to our penal laws. Thus, under the Base Agreement between the Philip pines and the United States, our penal laws shall not apply when( a ) The offense is committed by any person within any base, except (1) where the offender and the offended party are hoth Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty), or (2) where the offense is against the security of the Philippines; _, (b) The offense is committed outside the bases, but! the offender and the offended party are both members of the armed forces of the United States; and (e) The offense committed outside the bases hy any member of the armed forces of the United States is against the security of the United States. 2. Those who, by virtue of laws of preferential a p to our penal laws. under Rep. Act No. 75, it is even a crime t o imprison any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State or their domestic servant whose name is registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and posted in some public place in the Office of the Chief of Police of Manila. 3. Those who, under the principles of public Interto the operation of our penal s and other chiefs of States, 132

CKInlINAL LAW REVIEWER

387. An American soldier committed the complex crime of forc ble abduction with rape, begun in Angeles, Pampanga, and eontinned all the way to Clark Field, a military base, where the victim was raped. May the offender be tried by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga? Under the Rules of Court (Rule 107, Sec. 14), in all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court, of the municipality or province wherein the nf€ense was committed or anyone of the ingredients thereof tank place. In the case of Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855, it was held that the offendera who kidnapped the victim from Manila and took him t o a distant place in Bulacan, where, the latter was killed, may be tried either by the Cou of First Instance of Manila o r by the Court of F i r Instance of Bulacan, but whichever takes cognizance the case first acquires exclusive jurisdiction. The aforementioned rule and ruling may be appli in this case by analogy. The American soldier committed the complex crime offorcible abduction with rape. The complex crime of h1e abduction with rape, being a w n i h u i n w f f e n s e , be tried either by the Court of First Instance of panga, where the commission of the crime began, or b the military court of the armed forces of the United in Clark Field, where it was continued and consum Hence, the Court of First Instance of try the case. 388. Is 6ur Criminal Law applicable to crimes committed by a soldier? It depends on whether the offender is a soldier of the Philippine Army or he is a soldier of the armed forces: of the TJnited States. If he is a soldier of the Philippine: Army, our civil court has concurrent jurjsdiction with the; military court. If the civil court takes cognizance of the" ca,se first, then it shall have exclusive jurisdiction ovq; the offense committed by the soldier of the Philippine

133

.. -1

,'. .

2

I

... , d ,

" .'2,;

CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER


Army and our Criminal Law will be applicable to him -But if the offender is a soldier of the United States Armed Forces, the stipulations in the Base Agreement will apply.

.

. ,

389. May a Philippine citizen who committed a crime in this country he punished by a law of a foreign nation? Ex-

' ,

392. Do civil courts have jurisdiction during time a soldier who committed a crime? Notwithstanding the provision in the Articles of War requiring a soldier to he delivered to civil authorities for trial for an alleged crime except in time of war,,,the jurisdiction of military courts over a soldier is not erelusive of thc civil courts even during time of war, if the soldier is stationed within the territory where the c i s 1 courts are functioning and where no' actual h in progress (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356). But undei. the Base Agreement, in time United States shall have the right to exercis jurisdiction over any offenses which may be by members of the armed forces of the in the Philippines.

plain your answer. Yes, .when the crime is committed by a Philippine citizen within a base, provided that the offended party is not a Philippine citizen o r that the offense is not . .against the security of the Philippines. In such case, the .-< 'Articles of War of the United States Armea Forces will apply.

' .

'

.~ "

When is a soldier of the armed forces of the United Slates liable for violation of our Criminal Law? The Base Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America recognizes the authority of our civil courts to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the Philippines, except in certain cases specifically provided in the Agreement. Hence, a soldier of the armed forces of the United States is liable for violation of our penal law and triable by our civil court when the o€fense is committed (1) ontside the bases and ( 2 ) the offended party is not a member of the armed forces of the United Sta,tes or that the offense is not against the security of the United States. Not o&+of the exceptions provided in the Base Agreement is applicable to this case.

391. When may the United States exercise jurisdiction over an

offense committed outside the base by a member of its armed forces, even if the offended party is not a member thereof lor the offense is not against the security of the United States? any offense committed outside the base (the ofed party not being a member of the armed forces e 'United States or the offense is not against the h. Of the United States) is committed by any mem-

134

ber of the armed forces of the United States (a) engaged in the actual performance of a specific mi duty, or (b) during a period of national eme United States may exercise jurisdiction.

II i

and B, Filipino citizens, went to Hongkong on a pleasure trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the Philippines, €3 discovered that. A stole her diamond ring worth 82,000 while they were in 'Hongkong. May ow Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your an-' mer. rit No, because this is not one of the eases where the provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The offense was not committed while on a Philippine ship o r airship: the offense does not involve forgery or counterfeiting of any coin or currency note of the Philippines, o r obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines; the offense does not involve any act connected with the introduction into the Philippines of forged obligations and securities: the offender is not a public officer or employee who committed an offense in the exercise of his functions;

i

I $?

135

,

.

1 ,'


$

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWISR

,7/;

or that the offense is not one of the crimes against the national security and the law of nations. 394. Why are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable to crimes committed on board the Philippine ship or airship even if the Philippine ship or airship is outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines? The Philippine vessel or aircraft, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered an extension of the national territory. But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel o r aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country. 395. A. an employee of the Philippine Government, was assigned to Japan'-as a clerk of t h e Reparation Committee. While in Japan, A falsified the record prepared and kept by an. . other employee of the Comntittee. In case A returns or is brought back to the Philippines, may he he prosecuted and punished for falsification committed by him in Japan? Explain your answex. No, because although A is a public officer or employee, he did not commit the offense in the exercise of his function. l f o commit an offense in the exercise of his function, the public officer or employee must have acted in his official capacity, o r that the act committed must be rel.%d to or connected with the performance of his official duty. 396. Why are the crimes under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 2 made punishable by the Revised Penal. Code even if they are committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines? Because the commission of any of those crimes may a B c t tho p e l or economic life of the nation. The crimes against national security may affect the existence of the State. The forging or counterfeiting of our coins

136

11, 4

or currency notes or obligations and securities issued by the Government may affect the economic life of the nation. Crimes against the law of nations, such as piracy and mutiny on the high seas, are against mankind and may be punished by any civilized government. 397. When may our Criminal Law be given retroactive effect? Penal 1aw.s shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor a person guilty of a felony, v h o is not a habitual delinquent, and provided that the penal laws do not specifically provide that the same shall not be applicable to pending actions or causes of actions.

~

398. A, who had been once punished for the crime of theft, was on trial for estafa punishable by pirision correcdonal in ,' view of the amount involved. Before the case was sub,: mitted for decision, Congress amended Art. 315 of the ' :;i Revised Penal Ode, reducing the penalty for estaf'a, com- ' ; mitted hy A, to arrest0 mayor. Is the new law applicable to A? Explain your answer. On the basis of the facts given, .A should be given the ' ~;$ benefit of the new law, it being favorable t o him. Hence,' .: the new law is applicable to him. A was only a recidivist, ; because at tbe time of his trial for estafa he was convicted ,'., by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same : title of the Code. A new favorable statute dealing With * crimes cannot be given retroactive effect only in tw namely: (1) where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes o f and (2) where the offender is a habitual delinque Xule No. 5 of Art. 62 of the Revised Penal Code. A habitual delinquent is one who, within a per' ten years from the date of his release or last conv of the crimes of serious o r less serious robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is any of said crimes a third time or oftener, 399. What are the three parts of the Ileyised P

137

.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,!,

The three parts of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Articles 1 to 20). 2. Provisions on penalties, including criminal and civil liability (Articles 21 to 113). 3. Felonies defined and penalized under fourteen (14) different titles (Articles 114 to 365).

,

Y

400. Classify felonies according to their nature. '

.. ,

' .'

. . ,

-

. . ...

',,

Feloni,es are classified according to their nature, a q follows : . 1. Crimes against the national security and the law of nations. 2. Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. 3 . Crimes against public order. 4 . Crimes against public interest. 5. Crjmes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs. 6 . Crimes against public morals. 7. Crimes committed by pnbl:c officers. 8. Crimes against persons. 9. Crimes against personal liberty and s.x.urity.' 10. Crimes against property. 11. Crimes against chastity. 12. Crimes against the civil status of persons. 15. Crimes against honor. 14. Quasi offenses.

:;dol. State the theories of penalogy and distinguish one from : , tho other. . . There are two theories of penalogy, namely: (1) the - . ,- classical theory and (2) the positivist theory. .. These two theories of penalogy may be distinguished by their characteristics: Classical theory 1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and *e purpose of the penalty i3 retribution. I

_

-

138

.


2 . That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the €elonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself. 3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and Penalty. 4 . There is a scant regard to the huma (Basic Principles, Rationale, p. 2, by the mittee on Code of Crimes) Positivist theory 1. That man is subdued occ:tsionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary t o his volition. 2 . That crime is essentially a social and natU phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be 'checked by the application of abstract princ and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of . ment, 'iixed and determined a pn'ori; but rathe the enforcement of individual measures in ular case after a thorough, personal and indiv investigation conducted by a competent bod trists and social scientists. (Basic Principles, Rationale, pp. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes)

.-?'i' .

i

402. On what principles or theory of penalogy i Penal Code based? The R,evised Penal Code continues, like the old Code, to be based on the principles of the classical s although some provisions of eminently positivistic encies (those having reference to the punis possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incor porated in the present Code. -403. Classify felonies according to the means by which they

are

committed and define. each, and according tu their gravity and define each.

139

<'$

.,% 4"

. .li .:+

, ?$-

' ,I

.4,.

-

I

~.

' '

1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW%R

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .. .’

, ’..

.’

. ,

. I

‘

.

Felonies are classified according to the maans by which they are committed into (1) intentional felonles or felonies committed with malice or intent and (2) culpable felonies or those resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill (Art. 3, par. 2, R.P.C.). Felonies are classified according t o their gravity into (1) grave felonies, (2) less grave felonies, and (3) light felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto mmnor or a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or both is provided (Art. 9, 1I.P.C.).

404.’ State the elements of felonies as they are defined in the .. Revised P,enal Code. . . ”, As the term is defined in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal .. Code, felonies have the following elements: 1. There must be an act or omission. 2. T h e act or omission muvt be punishable by law. 3 . That the act must be committed o r the omission incurred by means of deceit (dolo) o r by means of fault

(culpa). It is not necessary to state that the act or omission be voluntaiy, as i t is presumed. 405. What is the meaning of the term “dolo” as used in the

,

,.

definiti,on of intentional felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. The term dolo has been improperly translated to “deceit”. Dolo is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury t o another. It implies malicious intention. 140

6 I

406. When is an act or omission voluntary? A voluntary act is A free, intelligent, and intentional act (US. vs. Ah Chong, 11 Phil. 488). Hence, a n omission must also be free, intelligent and intentional. This is the meaning of voluntariness in intentional felony. In culpable felony, the act or omission must also be free and intelljgent, but instead of intent o r malice, which is necessary in intentional felonies, there is only imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. 407. What is mistake of fact and how dues it affect criminal liability? Mistake of fact is a misapprehenision of fact, showing lack of intent on the part of the person accused of a felony. It exempts him from criminal liability, because intent, which is one of the conditions of voluntariness, is lacking.

~

,

I

408. When is mistake of fact avaikdble as a defense?

The rule is: that in mistake of fact, the act of the accused would have been lawful had the facts been as he believed them to be. His intention in performing the a& should be lawful. He should not be at fault or negligent. 409. Does the mere fact that a person has acted under a mistake of fact mean that he is exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. No, because it is required that the act and the intention of the accused must be lawful. Hence, if his act and intention are unlawful, the accused i s not exempt from criminal liability, notwithstanding a mistake of fact on his part.

410. A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol. A, thinking that he was B, fired a t a perso ing in a dark alley. It turned out tlhat was C , the brother of A. A had no inte Considering that there +vas a mistake of

141

’:.

iK/


CRIMINAL LAW RETIEWER

injury should intervene; where su intention exists, the act should be qualified by the felony i.t has produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced (Viada's comment on the Penal Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed., p. 7).

'.: . do yon believe that A is exempt from criminal liability?Explain YDW answer. 'No, because A had intent to kill when he fired his. pistol. H e acted with malice, since he had the intent .to do an injury to another. Even if the person whom he shot was really B, the act done by A would not have.been lawful. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penak Code, he Is'liable criminaily for the death of his brother C, because when he fired his pistol with intent to kill B,. A was committing a felony and the death of C was t h e '-direct, nat.ura1 and logical consequence of the felony committed.

,..

.~

, .i

.. ,

4t3:'^A, with n i&& to inflict physical injuries on B, threw a piece of stone at the latter. The stone d i c b o t hit B and ' instead hit and seriously injured C who was standing near. 13. The fiscai who investigated the case filed an informa- : tion against A for sPriousphysimtin,luries -ht re&Jessimprudence, with C as the offended party. Did the fiscai properly charge A with that offense? Explain your . answer. No, because when A threw the stone at B, he h&t& intention to cauge an injury to the latter. Hence, A acted w i t h a d i c e and his act was unlawful. .& order that a n act may be qualified as imprudence, i t is ncmsmy that neither malice nor illtPnllnn t oy- c should intenren Where an u&ayful act i s x 3 f d l y done, a mistake in the' blow or a mistake in the identity of the victim caanet-b cwskkred as r e d s k s d m d s u e (Pe@plevs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605). ~

r

4 l y d was awakened by the barking of his dog. He IookeS out of the window of his house and saw a man in his yard. A got his shot-gun and, believing that man to bea robber, shot and killed him in his yard. When he went down t o see the man he had killed, he found out that the man was his brother who wanted to spend the night ia . A's house. Can A successfully inwlce mistake of fact a s . , a defense? Explain your answer. No, because even if the man was in fact a robber, not .... his brother, A would not have been justified in shootinghim to death. There was neither defense of A's person, ' defense of home nor defense of property in this case, because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased that might imperil the life or limb of A. 'Since the act done by A would not have been lawful h a s the facts been as he believed them to be, he is liable for'. . the death of his brother. ~

i

xk

414. What are the conditions that make the act or omission

i

415. What are the conditions that make the act voluntary in culpable felonies? Thev are:

F.

May malice and negligence or imprudence co-exist in the commission of a felony? Explain your answer. No, because in criminal negligence, the injury caused ' to another should be unintentional, it being simply the '. . . incident of another act performed without mhliee (People , -.* ~ . . vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Sara, 66 Phil. 939). In order that an act may be qualified a s imprudence, it -.. is necessary that neither malice nor interition to cause

142

i

'voluntary in intentional felonies? In order that the act or omission in felonies by d d o t may be considered voluntary or performed with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur : 1. Freedom, . 2. Intelligence, and 3. Intent.

dr omission

1

.

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWICR


3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or 'lack of skill. As there is no intent or malice in culpable felonies, i d t is pat a rxxndith of voluntadness in that class Of-felo*-

Because the act does not make a person Criminal unless his mind be criminal. This is the meaning of the maXlm, actus non facit yeurn, nisi mens sit Tea (U.S. vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 507). 417. What are the three classes of crimes? They are: 1, Intentional felonies. 2. Culpable felonies. 3 . Crimes punished by special laws.

418. IIow is criminal liability determined in each class? I n intentional felony, whether or not the offender acted with dolo or malice. In culpable felony, whether or not the offender acted with imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. I n crimes punished by special laws, whether or not the offender executed the prohibited ,act freely and consciously. Malice or negligence is immaterial.

419. In what cases is malice or intent not necessary to hold a person criminally Iiable for the crime he committed? Explain your answer. In the following, criminal intent is not necessarY: 1. In acts mala prohibita, that is, crimes punishable by special law. 2. I n felonies committed through negligence or imprudence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

144

.

Malice or intent is not necessary i n these crimes, ,b ', cause in acts malo prohibita the mere execution of the prohibited act constitutes a crime; and i n culpable felonies, intent is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

420. When is intent necessary in crimes punishable by special laws? When the acts or omissions punishable by special law are inherently immoral, they are mala per 6e and, hence, for such acts to be punishable, it must be shown that they were committed with malice. Thus, if the poll cIerk and the election inspectors in transferring the names of .: certain vo1,ers from the old list o m k e d . some names '": *: of voters and failed to record them in the new list, an omission which is inherently immoral, resulting in the disenfranchisement of those voters, the poll clerk and t h e ' '~ inspectors are not criminally liable for violation of the Election Code, because the omission was not malicious . " (People YS. Sunico, et ai., C.A., 60 O.G. 6880).

:~. 0.

421. In the prosecution of the offender, must the fiscal prove that the act or omission of the offender was voluntary? Explain your answer. No, it is not necessary to prove that the act o r omission of the offender was voluntary as it is presumed.

,i 1:

9

.

d

422. How is the presumplion of voluntariness of the act or omission constituting a felony rebutted? It is rebutted by proof of the fact that the act or omission was committed or incurred without freedom, or without intelligence or without intent or negligence on the part of the accused. 423. In what cases may a person who mnmitted a felony be exempt from criminal liability becituse he acted v&'h& freedoql? They are: 146

,?

!

:

,

I

~


.. . . ”

i.

. .

1. When he acted under the cnmp&@n of an irresistible force; and 2. When he acted under the ig&ulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

24. In what cases may a person who committed a fdony be exempt from criminal liability because he acted without

. .

,..

.

iWir:enceL They are: 1. When the person who committed the felony was insane or imbecile; 2 . When he was a minor under nine years old; and . 3. When he was over nine but under fifteen years old and he acted without discernment.

c


421. What are acts mala in se? What are acts mala prohibita? Acts mala in se are those which are wrongful from their nature, such as acts constituting homicide, rape or theft. Acts mala prohibita are those which are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. They are wrong merely because they are prohibited by the statutes.

.,

., .^

.” :r

. .

428. How would you classify the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code? Generally, the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal .,, Code are classified as crimes mala in sa, because most of the acts defined as mimes in that Code are wrongful >.; , . from their nature.

’;‘

425. In what cases may a person who committed a felony be

.

;,.

.

,y ,*

’,

‘ I

, ~,,

426. Distinguish “intent to commit the crime” from “intent to

.

.

, ,

.

. ,

..

$$&

.,.‘f :’& ~ > .&,.,,

exempt from criminal liability because he acted without intent‘! They are: 1. When he had performcd a lawful act with due care and caused an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it; 2. When he failed t o perform an act required by law, because he was prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause; and 3 . When there is mistake of fact.

~’

perpetrate the act.” The term “intent to commit the crime” is used in relation to crimes Committed by means of dolo, which requires criminal intent. On the other hand, “intent to perpetrate the act” is a term used to determine criminal liability in crimes punishable by special law, where the doing of a prohibited act is a crime, as long as it is done freely and ‘consciously. Intent or malice i s not rewired (U.S. vs. Siy Cong Bieng, et al., 30 Phil. 577;. People vs. Eayona., 61 Phil. 181).

429. What is motive and how is i t distinguished from intent?

430. May a person be held criminally liable even if he has,.a good motive in perpetrating the act. Illustrate. ’ : . Yes, as in the case of mercy killing, the painless k&,. ing of a patient who has no chance of recovery. The.% is still punished as b m e , for which the killer criminally responsible, notwithstanding his good motive ’

is proof of motive relevant i n criminal eases? Where the i&&y of a person accused of having mitted a crime is iL-te, the mative that may imaelled its comrr,ission is very r e l t z n t (People vs Rosario-Murray, G. R. ‘No. L-4467, April 30, 1960) Motive is important in cases where there is as t o whether the defendant is or is not ‘the pe ,

&When

~

’

146

,

Motive is the moviug power which impeis one.to action for a definite result. Intent is the ‘purpose to use. a particular means to effect such result. While rn-otive is never an essential element of a crime,’. intent is an essential condition of voiuntariness in felonies 4 committed by means of dolo.

147

~

’

I

, .

:&.

-,:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,

' '

'.

.

~

'. ,

,,

,,

.,

committed the offense. But where the defendant admits the killing, it is not necessary to inquire into his motive for doing the act (People vs. Arcilla, G. R. No. L-11792, June SO, 1959). Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and a number d - l l a s O a S , where s u s m o n is likely to @.llupon motive is relevant and significant (People vs. Mario, GAG. R. No. 371-R,July 21, 1947).

432. Shall wiminal liability be incurred even if the wrongfu~ act done by the accused be different from that which he intended or the means employed or the aims sought by him '. are impossible? Yes. Criminal liability shall be h%med: 1. By %person cnmmitting a f e h y (delito) although the wrongful act m e be d m t from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an*which would be an offense agakst p g x s ~ ~OP+WPS&& s vere it not for the & 'Mity of its accomplishment or 0% a i n t of the employmat of in&u& or ineffectual m m - ( A r t . 4, R.P.C.). icle 4 of the Revised Penal Code prJvides-"Criminal

'-

apply to felonies committed by means of culpa? Explain. No, because paragraph 1 of Art. 4 speaks of wrnngful &different from that which the offenderIn culpable felony, the offender d p d b t e n d la_da. any yrongful act. The injury caused to another by the offender in culpable felony is simpjy the iwidenk.of_;tnather act wrfaaned w i d u j maliceorintent;Hence, the said provision agpliehoply to %Mescorn;

p-,


injury to another, but the result is different from that which he intended. a person acted under any of the justifying circumthe Revised Penal code,^ and in so doing caused a ' ' lo anather which waa _ not ---, intended, did that person incur criminal liability? Explain your answer. No. There are two requisites that must be present in order that a person may be held liable criminally for the -Aane-which is different from that intended, namely: (1) that a Scny H L ~ Scommitted; and (2) that the wyang.$ane the agguer . T e h p e m n be the direct,/natural and 1qg-1e of the felnny cammiited. i n justifying circumstances, there is LIQ&&UJY comthe mitted as thcre is & h i n g xnlaxf&l in the d-a person who aded under any of them is deemed nOtte h m t r a m c a s e d the-. Hence, the f i r s t r e w i s i t e is': l&&g and =-fon the first paragraph of Art. 4 . is not applicable. In such case, he is &&&e for the consequence& inieded b y h i w .

4" / I f

f l f stances mentioned in Art.&

435. One evening when A entered his house, he surprised B, a stranger, in the act of taking jewelry from an open,

wardrabe belonging to A. A approached B from behind and held the latter by his arms t o prevent him from carrying away his (A's) jewelry, but B struggled with A for the possession of the jewelry and in their scuffle A pushed B who fell through the window. B dropped to the ground below, resulting in B's death. A had no intent to kill B. The death of B was not intended by him. Is, A criminaliy liable for the death of B? Explain your answer. No. A was acting in the lawful exercise of a right (Art. II, par. 5, B.P.C.), because under the new Civil Code (Art. 429) the owner or lxwful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoy- , 149

'

~

. ..

,,


ment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use .. ... such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion . .. . or usurpation of his property. A then acted under a justifying circumstance. Such being the case, A was not committing a felony when he caused B to fall through the window to the ground below.Anly a person comfiib ting a Eelony may be held liable for the result different from that which he intended. A cannot be held liable for homicide through simple or reckless imprudence, because u . the~ cireumstances n he could n_atbe expedal t o take the t o m s i&rsin-B. b"i.~l ,

.,

-

436. What, in general, are the causes that may produce a result which is different from that intended by the offender? There are three hypotheses that may be considered in answering this question, namely: (1) Abernttio ictus o r mistake in the blow; (2) Ewer in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim; and (3) Praeter intentionem or that the injurious result is greater than that intended. In aberratio ictus, the offender i n k x x h g to cause an injury to one person actually inflicted it on another, a result which was not inteTided by him, For instance, A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol a t B; but he missed B and hit and seriously injured C who was standing Ije..hind B. Undoubtedly, A did not intend to cause an injury t o C and, therefore, the result was not intended by himkevertheless, A is criminally liable for the injury caused to 6, because when he fired his pistol at B with intent to kill, A . was wmnitting the felony of attempted homicide and the injury caused to C was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by him. The hypothesis of error in personae is illustrated in the case of People VS. Oanis, 74 Phil. 267. In this w e .

150 ..,*

. , '..,

"

the accused fired his gun a t a sleeping person, believing him to be the notorious criminal named Balagtas, because the person sleeping was lying on the floor and facing the wall of fne house with his back towards the door where the accused were. The person killed was not the notorious criminal, but an innocent person. When he fired and killed the sleeping person, the accused made a mistake in the identity of the victim. Although the wrong done was different from that intended by the accused, he was, nevertheless, liable for the death of that person, becauseaHen he fired at the sleeping person he w a s cammi&& a t l e a s t the felony of &ensatehmurder and the &e& of that innocent person w s the d w , -and -1 cgmeauenqe of the felnny cm&d 1ys-bim Praeter intenlionem is illustrated in the case of People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524. In this case, the accused did not have the intent to kill the deceased. He gave the deceased a fist blow on the back part of his head. When the deceased fell as a result of the blow, his head hit the pavement and as a result i t wax fmctured. He died as a consequence. In this case,/though the death of the deceased was LoLintended by the accused, he was nevertheless liable f o r tlle reason that v&a> hcxaye a f i s t h l w oj), the d$;gs.ed the accused was camI&hg the felanr of sl&hf-pbpicaljnjuries, a t a s t , and the death of the deceased was the &u?A and lnsical consequence Ob)& ofe felm-mmitted.

an&

437. When is the result deemed the direcit, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender? : The rc&f. is deemed the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender when the Wnw camraitted is the proximahe-cause of the result. A proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervenin cause, produces the injury, and With'out which the would not have occurred (38 Am. Jur. 605; cited case of 'Villanueva vs. Medina, G. 13. Wo. L-1012

zz,

i95n.

161 ,

.,

'.

1

' ,

:

,

:,. ~,,

':

I

'"Ita

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


. ,

438. Give instances where the felony committed is the proximate cause of the result. Th,e following cases may be cited: 1. When the offender w t e n e d and chased the deceased with a knife and when he was about to be overtalcen the deceased jumped into the water and a8 he did . not know how to swim he died of drowning. 4'he ammiLted, which is t-t, WAS. the .of death of the deceased (US. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497; People vs. Buhay, G. R. L-1003, Oct. 27, 1.947). , 2 . Giving fist blows or slightly injuring a person suffering from heart disease or other internal malady, resultinp in the death of the victim (People VS. Ilustre, 54 Phil. !j44; People vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil. 22; and People vs. Reyes, 61 Phil. 341). In these cases, the fist blows or the physical injuries inflicted were the causes for the acceleration of the death of the deceased.

...,

c

i.

' i.,, & : ,. i"

i

'. .

i_

. , ..

....~,

&!%~, ,:;

~439. A. an insane. with a bolo in hand came rushing towards B who retreated. Finding himself cornered in a place *;+;*i; . a' ;$*. , , ,;:*; without exit, B drew his pistol and fired a t A. B did not &~> hit A, but the slug fired from B's gun hit and killed C who was walking several meters behind A. Is B criminally liable for the death of C? Explain your answer. No. B was not committing a felony when he fired his gun at A, because there was unlawful aggression on the part of A and in view of the fact that there was an imminent peril to the life of B, the gun which B used was a reasonable means t o repel the aggression. And since B did not give any provocatim to A, B was

p .: ,*?.,, . ~

~

~

acting in complete self-defense, which is 8 justifying circumstance. A person who acts under a jcstifying circnmstance does not transgress the law. His act is just and in accordance with law. /It is true that B caused the death of C, an innocent bystander. But under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which makes a person criminally liable for the result which be never intended, t w m s must be pre162

*

440. A and B were standing on the bank of the river.

'.

A struck

B on the jaw with his fist, causing the latter to fall into the water. As the water was deep and B did not know how to swim, B sznk down and was drowned. Is A liable

, ,~, ,

for the death of B? Explain ynulr answer. Yes, A is liable, because when A boxed B on the face .. A was committing a felony, that is, slight physical injuries or at least ill-treatment under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Cocle. The felcny d-c by A W W the proximate cawsiegf B's death (U.S. vs. Valdez; People h+kvs. Buhay). A and B were fighting on a sidewalk of a street. WheR A hit B on the face, the latter fell on the street.& the moment a passing automobile was jn13ta meter from wh B fell. As a result, B was run over and was Billed. the time he boxed B, A did not see the automobile. Iia5le for the death of B? Explain your answer. .:.I No, because the blow given by A on the f ce of was &.the proximate cause of M's death. droxima cause is that cause, which, in natural and' continuous quence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, p duces the injury, and without whicb the result would n have occurred. In this case, there was an efficient inter vening cause that broke the rdaiic!p of cwS.e and that is, the running over of B by the pass1 mobile. Note: An intervening cause is said to be efficientbroke the relation of cause and effect, the unlawful the consequence. It is an aotivs ylwdcaZ force that in between the felony committed and the result.

153

'

.

, , ;

"

.

,.

,,

)

..

Does iuberratio ictus, error in personae, or praeter intentionem affect the criminal liability of the offender? Explain your answer. P m e t e r intentionem affects the criminal liability of the offender in the sense that it m i t i m a his criminal lizbility or lessens the penalty to be imposed on him. This is covered by paragraph 3 of Art. 13, which provides for 'the mitigating circumstance "that the,,offer.der had no .intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.". Error in personae may lessen the penalty to be imposed on the offender when the wrong kiefalls a person other than the intended victim and which, by reason of r w z s k i p or m k , c&ifiei the resulling crime. The penalty for the Issser offense is to be imposed, to be applied in the maximum-period (Art. 49, R.P.C.). But when the felony intended t o be committed and the one actually committed are e-d with the =epenalty, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. Aberratio ictus should result in a comolex crime. The p&Ao be imposed is that corresponding to the m r oJ&us% to be amlied in the maximum period (Art. 48, R.P.C.).

.'

2

,.:,

..

; . ,'..? , .,,

.., ,,. :. . . .

.

. ,... . .

;

,..

*'#.?.,.. $I p" i~ ;.~

,.,

%q$: ., , ,**~., ,.



'.

What then is the penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that for the lesser offense should be imposed, to be applied in its maximum period, if the crime intended to he committed and the crime actually committed are is punished with different penalties, hut0-a a*d by the commission of the unlawful act. Thus, if A wanted to kill B, a stranger, but when he shot a person whom he thought was B and killed him he found out that the person killed was his (A's) father, the crime -i to be committed being homicide punishable by reclusion temporal and the crime a m y committed being parricide punishable by reclusion perpetua

154

t o death, the penalty f o r the lesser offense, eide, should be imposed on A, but the same to i n its maximum period (Art. 49, B.P.C. the intended victim and the actual ,victim t o the offender so that whoever was killed b e homicide or murder qualified by treache stance, the mistake will not chance the pen 49 is not applicable. Hence, the penalty posed in the maximum period. But if tm-cxiB$F are actually committed, hecause pfz,w%are affected by the udaxfulact, and crimes a r e the r&t of ?Le- sg_le aci, the pma& for the -offense shall be imposed, to be applied in its maximum .i period (Art. 48, R.P.C.). / Thus, if both E and A's fathe~rwere standing ClWe * .! to each other on the street and A fired his pistol at B to kill him, hut because of poor aim he hit and killed, his father, t i e ~ e ~ a l t y _ f o r p a r r i c i dshould e be imposed in the maximum period. A is liable for theX - C crime of parricide with attempted homicide. ,1

..,>

444. What is an impossible crime?

An immsible crime is one where the act performed by the offender would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of t.he employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, R.P.C.). L_

for punishing a person who committed an impossible crime? /According to the positivist thegry, on which' the provision on impossible crime is based, the community must be protected from a d h n r ' m 'k, whether a.&ual PP 1-, of the m_erhid trrpe of man called socially dangerms person. It is also the u m e of the law t o suanr_ess criminal , fljectively, the offendez pujpeasiy or in impossihle crime goes not commit a felony, but sub~ : jectively he is a crimina!.

-,

,':

445. What is the

..

:.'

,:

';

'

._l

156

,

'



Using small quantity of arsenic to kill a person., The small quantity of poison is inadequate to kill a person. Rut the one who used i t to kill another, believing that it was wf€icient to kill the latter, is liable for impossible crime, because subjectively he is a criminal.

446. What is an example of an impossible crime, where the act.

performed by the offender would have been an offense. against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment? Stabbing a dead person on bed, the offender h a v i n g the intent to kill him and thinking that he was only sleeping. &e act performed by the offender would havebeen murder, an offense against persons, were it not for. the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, i t being. impossible t o Bill a person who is already dead.

4 0 . Give an e,xample of an impossible crime ‘where the means

employed is ineffectual. Believing that a certain white powder was arsenic, A mixed i t with the coffee intended for B. When B drank it he was not injured at all, because the white powder was sugar.

447. What is an example of an impossible crime, where the act:

performed by the offender would have been an offense against property were it not for the inherent impossibilitp. of its accomplishment? Picking the, pocket of another, without his knowledge and consent, t o take with intent to gain any personal property from that pocket which turned out to be empty. The act performed by the offender would have been theft, an offense against property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, since theft cannot be committed when there is no personal property that could: be taken.

d 5 1 . What is the penalty for impossible crime? What factors must be considered in determining the proper penalty for impossible crime? The lienalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from P200 to R O O . The fixtars that the court must consider in determining the proper penalty are (1) the Social danger and ( 2 ) the & r e e a i t y shown by the offender (Art. 59, R.P.C.).

/dZ. A fired his revolver

448. A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B’s

wallet. Once in possession of the wallet, A opened it, but finding it empty, he threw away the wallet. Is A guilty of an impossible crime? No, because the wallet has some value and the crime of theft is, consummated from the moment the offender has taken possession of the wallet with intent to gain. Hence, that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime,. but 01theft. dI,, impossible crime, the a-erformed ._ should natzonstitute another offense, specifically punished by law; 449. Give an example of an impossible crime where the means

employed is inadequate. , .

166

,

at B from a distance of one kilo. meter. Is A criminally liable? It is believ d that A shows stupidity rather than dangerousness. According to the msdkk&h?RW, A should @ be punished, because there is j&er “social danger” nor any “degree of criminality” shown by him. Even subjectively, a man with little common sense wilI know that he cannot hit a person by firing a revolver one.kilometer away.

P

:I

’

453. A kicked the Pace o€ B who was lying on the floor of the latter’s house, believed that he was only sleeping, not knowina that B was then already dead. The physical’injuries k l i c t e d by A on B’s face were punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exeee

157

~-

. . .,

. and the injury caused by the offense, the Court should

Do you believe that A is liable for impossible crime, considering that the penalty for that crime is arrest0 mayor or a fine from F200 to F500? It ia believed that the provisions on impossible crime are ugrnd t o those cases where the a d performed would have been a gpye._or less grave felony. Hence; A is not liable for impossible crime, because the act performed by him would have been a light felony only. f i o hold otherwise would be t o recognize the a b & r g y that to_~ill&t. sii-g&t-physieal~ injuries on a dead person is a g r a e r - o f fense than to inflict them on a living person.

,:'

,:'.:;

not suspend tge execution of the ser,tence. What.it shoufd do is to.~su&it to the Chief Executive, through the De;partment of Justice, a staiement of the reasws. which, induce-t~he-cgurt to believe that the ccrl&ict md%exe&&e clemency (A& 5 , R.P.C.). 456, What are the stages of the acts of execution in crime?, ''

Are they punishable? They are: (1) attempted, (2) frustrated, and (3) con: surmated stages. Ai+. 6, par. 1, .of the Revised .Penal Code provides that consummated felonies, as well as those which &e~ frustrated and attempted are punishable. & :'h'en the crime is punishable b y a special law, attempted and frustrated stages of the acts of execu are not punishable, unless the special law provides lb:,p aity. th,erefor. Thus, a councilor who offered to furnish sti-eet lamps t o the municipality is not liable for .violation of a special law prohibiting members of the m u n i c i d councils from acquiring any interest in contracts with the municipality, it appearing that his offer was not accepted (US. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89). But in the later case, it was held that the prohibition against interest in m u n b ipal contracts, includes all the steps .talcen to consummate'. the contract, that is, frustrated and attempted stages are included (ionteclaro vs. People, 51 O.G. 2392). '

It is a. rule in Criminal Law that there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code which is based on t h i s principle? Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it. may deem proper t o repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall r s d e r the groper.decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the ELepartxent of Justice, the reasons which induce the court t o believe that said actshould be made the subject of penal legislation (Art. 5, R.P.C.). , In such case, the proper decision that the court should render is to dismiss the case and the defendanf because the act is not punishable by Isw. ,455. May the court, after finding the accusdd guilty of the crime ,charged, refuse to impose the penalty provided by law when the strict enforcement of the provisions of t h e Revised Penal Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty? Explain your answer.

Court has to impose the penalty provided b y law X e d e s s of its opinian as t o the e t y of the

.~

CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWE:R


h o , the

. ,

,

i

When a strict enforcement of the provisions of t h e result in the imposition of a clearly excessiveenalty, taking into consideration the degree of inalice.

457. Define preparatory acts and distinguish them from at- :; tempted stage of the acts of execution. Give two examples., of preparatory acts. Are preparatory acts punishable? /Preparatory acts are those initial acts of a person who has c2LEived the idea of committinil a crime but which Gannot by themselves logically and peces.ga&y_ r i d into a cSr&e-Qffense. They are pot^ _oULert-gis. and, hence, the acts they do not constitute the a.!&tq&$-stage-of of execution. 159

158

4

.-.


The examples of preparatory acts are (1) conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony, and (2) buying or securing a weapon to commit murder. Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable, hecause the law regards~them as innocent or at least permissible, except in rare and exceptiona! cases. Preparatory. acts consisting in conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable in treason, rebellion and 3_edition, and pxoposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason and rebellion. Preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as ipdependent crimes are punishable, like POSsession of picIIocks which is preparatory to the commission of robbery with force upon things (Arts. 229 and 302, R.P.C.) Buying or securing a weapon, like a knife, is not punishable. But when one buys or secures a f i r e a m and he has no license to possess it, the mere possession of the same, although a preparatory act to the commission of murder, is punished by law. But note that i t in punished by law, . e Without not as preparatory act, but as a any relation t o another crime.

.

..

458. A and B, armed with a bolo and screw driver, respectively, went to the house of C. Once in the yard of C, they proceeded to open the back door of the house of C with

i

. ... .

.

the 1,001sthey were carrying. When they were thus breaking :and trying to open the back doos, C and t h e other perslms in the house were awakened. A and B, without succteeding in opening the door, ran away and tried to escape, but were arrested by the policeman who saw them rnnn#ingaway. When investigated, A and B admitted that they wanted to enter the house of C to take Rome property of C!. Are A and B liable for attempted robbery? Explain your answer. It i s submitted that A and B are not liable for attempted robbery.

160


The attempt to commit an offense which the Revis& Penal Code punishes is that which has a.lo&al relation t o a particular and concrete offenae. It is necessary that the beginning of execution, if casried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by an external obstacle nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripe? into a concrete offense. The acts of A and B, up to the time they tried t o escape, consisting merely in proceeding and trying to open the back .door of the house with tools that could break it open, do not have a logical relation to the crime of robbery with Eorce upon things. In robbery with force upon things, it is necessary that the offender, after entering the dwelling or any other building, shall commence to take, but without actually taking, personal prop:* belonging to another with intent to8 gain, in order that it may be considered as attempted robbery with force upon things. /ft is the nature of the external ;act, n o t the i&dQn alone, of the accused which should be considered in determining the question of whether o r not the commission of a particular crime is already commenced directly by overt acts.

. . ,'

.

,

'

:'

459. A was questioned by a policeman fur acting suspiciously

!

near the house of B. When searched, a pistol was found in the possession of A who had a license to possess it. When investigated, A admitted that he carried the pistol to kill B. May A be prosecuted and punished also for attempted homicide? Explain your answer. It is submitted that A cannot be prosecuted and punished for attempted homicide. While it is .true that there was the external act of carrying the pistol and that A. admitted his intention to kill B, at mast the carrying of the pistol was only, a t to carry out the iritention to kill B. :A dici & yet cgmmenceJhe commission of homicide, directl

~:,sj

161

;,i

CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER ,

<. . ...

~.. ,

'

'

'1 '

,

,. 1

..


by overt acts. Had A fired his pistol at E, without hitting the latter, or infllcting only a wound which is not mortal, he would have commenced the commission of homi. cide directly by overt acts. &e commission of a crime is deemed commenced directly by overt acts when (1) there is an e a l ~ a c and t (2) such external act has direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. ~

-460. A, for the purpose of raping B in a room occupied by her , ,

.s

.

.

.

Note: Desistance made after all the acts af execution have been perlormed, does not exempt the accused from criminal liability. Thus, the return of the stolen property after the taking was ' complete, anly-mitigates biliky under Art. 13, par. 10, in relation to its par. 7, Revised Penal Code.

. I

.

iU B, aimed his pistol at the latter and puilled the trigger. The bullet jammed and did not explode. For what crime must A be held liable? Explain

.

'

'

e for attempted bomicide, because he amenced the commission of the crime dirertly by ovtand if he did not perform all the acts of execution it was due t o a- c , other than his spontaneous desistance. When he aimed it a t B and pulled the trigger of his pistol, A performed the 4-rrertact of h&ide. The cause or accident which prevented. A from performing all the acts of execution was the fact that the bullet jammed and did not explode. Note: A is not liable for impoisible crime. because the employed in this case is bnih a w e and ,e-

152 ,,.~ ,

;:

the pistol was f m t @ i r L g and the hullet \vas &d&&ve. by a .'$ The ,lmlELiing of the bullet is an acddent, i d e r m t defect of the *or Met. In impossible crime, the means- employed by the offender . , /is either inadequate or ineffectual. The means is ineffectual cannot produce the . ' . ,/ when beenuse of its intendod result.

/"

462. What is an overt act? In what stage of the acts of execution is it important to determine the existence-af

.:;.:'.

, . tho overt act? "e.: :~; An m e r t act is a physical activiky, more than a mere planning or preparation, which ev&ee the intentiop of . , the offender to commit a particular felony. The existence of the overt act Is important only in ; the attempted stage of the acts of execution. It is not necessary to determine' the existence of overt ' .' act in the other stages of execution, because in frustrated stage, as well as in the consummated stage, of execution; the offender has performed all the ' acts ' of ' exec which necessarily implies that the offender has done than an overt act. . .~

exclusively a s a boarder, used a fake key with which he opened its door. Once inside, hut before be could touch I?, A (changed his mind and went out of 'the room. Is A criminally liable? Explain your answer. 6 e s , but not for attempted rape, for he desisted before he could perform all the acts of execution. He was, however, liable for consummated...trespass to.dwelling, bewhich exempts from criminal liability which the accused intended .to commit, and n!)tto .that. already~~committed wh_en_he-desisted.

.

. ,

.., .

~

/

463. Having been provoked to kill B, A drew his ,pistol fromhis waist, to wbieh it was tucked, but before he could aim the pistal at B, C held the w,rist of the hand of A holding the pistol and disarmed A. Is this attempted homicide? .No. The crime is other light threat in Art-285. In attempted homicide,, where the offender uses the overt act is the offender's &Qf..&Xh . . the opfended part.1 with &.&hinflicting a mortal wound on the latter (People vs. Tabago et al., C.A., 48 0. G. 3419). 464. A raised his bolo, as if to strike or stab B with

it.

blow was struck, because C. intervened and stopped' from striking or stabbing C. Is A liable for attemp homicide? No. A was liable only for t ~ t & & a % x 2 k b r , ~, .,~$' ~ ., a ;Ye_ilg_o_n_(U.S.vs. Simeon, 3 Phil. 688).

i.. i+

since B

163

I

,

.

'C

' '! . "F


.

,e.


where the offender uses a 6ple or a. knife, he must-be able to strike a blow with it, aiming at the offended party and with intent to kill him.. Note: In a-txd-homicide

.. J

with intent to kill, fired his revolver at B but did not hit him. B cried, asking A not to kill him. Ad-d and left B. Is A w e for attempted homicide Why?

No. A -tea exeukhn. A

.,

'. ,.,, .,

!

,

.,-.

,

$ :-:.

,

.. .

d t h d perfarming u

e &of cpnmenced the of the and, not h a v h g inflicted a f e h y dirrxik plortald 0 0 which would c a u s his a m i d [email protected]&mn a t h e a&& of executiop by of his ox,n montaneous desistance. Note: But if the question asked is, Is A orrminallv liable, the answer must be in the -tive, because although he is not liable f o r attempted homicide, A already committed t p b ,un? Art. 282, R.P.C. &s which enminal liability-to the crime which the accnsed intenl?e_d tn-wqmu't, and &-to t&t already committed w& .I

R.

66;' A fired his gun at B who was at a distance of 50 meters away firom A. B was hit, but was able to run away and to hide in a vacant house. A looked for B to finish him, thinking that he did not inflict a mortal wound on B. Not having found B, A left. But B was seriously.-wounded in the chest, perforating his right lung. C, who saw B wounded, took the latter to the hospital and due to surgical operation performed by a doctor, B did not die. What stage of execution was reached by A in the commission of crime of homicide? It is frustrated .homicide, because A perfowed.al1 the ~8. acts of execution which-would produce the felony of homicide as a consequence but did not produce it by reason of a cjias-eindependent of the will of the perpetrator. The wound inflicted being mortal, that is, sufficient to produce the death of B, A performed the 1.ast.act.neceswLt.o..pwduce homicide. If the crime is not produced .. it is because of the surgical operation performed by the . . ,. ~'. doctor. p d f a c t that A believed that he did not inflict

164

'

'

;-$ ...?

,

..::*3 .a,,

.,:;a

a mortal wound on B ig of no moment, because the law.:'. requiry only that the offender performed &the +:&$ of execution, r5gardless of his belief.

,,$

;,;:.x*$* J

Suppose after shooting B, A believed that he had inflicted a mortal wound and left B, when, as a matter of the wound inflicted was only sJght, can A be held 1 for frustrated homicide? . , . In some cases, the Supreme Court held .tkat~itis n o t necessary that the defendant a m g&oms all the acta of execution necessary to producs t h e death of his victim,

. . ,, -y, .L,,.';6

., ~.!?

,

.:? *!f

;.pj

was held that %e stage of execution was frustrated murder, becauss there was a full and cAmilete belief on the part of the assailant that he had performed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the death of the victim. ,It is submitted, however, that in defining frustrate'+ felony the law does not mention the &!kcof the o m % . , A, a doctor of medicine, shot B who wa!3 daUy-wounded. The intent to kill on the part of A is shown by the use of a revolver, a deadly weapon. Bul after having wounded B, A performed an operation on B and saved him from death. The injuries of B healed in lrwo months. What crime was committed by A? Why? A committed serious physical injuries, because as a " result of the woun$ inflicted by A, B became$for g.WX thsi&Llqs. ,-The i & e d d _ k i & which A e&xt&d at the beinning disappeared. when he pel.formed an operation 011 B to save his life. A is not IiabLe. f o r attempted homicide, because the wound inflicted was martaJ and, hence, he performed all 'i the acts of execution which would produce the crime of .$ homicide. A is not liable for frustrated homicide, because t h e was n o t produced by resson ..Of..h.&-~w ,: gis~e._o€~homicide will. In frustrated felony the crime is npt.p~&& by. : reason of causes@dSperi&&rof the wip of thUmE&zehtor.

~.::i

165 7.

,,,.,

.-..

.. ~


$69. Name some felonies which have no attempted and frus-

47,l.'HQW is consummated felony distinguished from the at,,., c' tempted or frustrated felony? . ..

.

.~ . .i

i.$ . 1

CRIMINAL LAW RRVIEWER

.

~* . .

", I.

,

.

trated stages of execution and explain why they do not have those stages of execution. They are: (1) flight t o enemy country, (2) corruption of minors, (3) formal felonies, like,slander and false testimony, (4) felonies by omission, like misprision of treason, and (5) treason. T'
-

a@

.4,70. What felonies do not have frustrated stage of execution? not have the frustrated stage of

*E'

. '

.

'

contest and .1 ' afnublic of.: &', &d.o not have frustrated s t a z c u t i o n . These . felonies which ethe i n k w ni h ~of &&.L persons to commit them, are r&mummated by s e r e agreement. . The inducement made by one of the parties to the other constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is rejected. If . . the offer is accepted, the felony is consummated. Thus if the ofEer of & is # by the public of'. . ficer, the person offering it is guilty of att.emuted corru tion of mbli W r . If it is auepted by the public Ge is of mmummated c&n of m c

&kr, &

166

In consummated felony, all the elemeztis. necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In attempted or frustrated felony, not all the elements of the felony. are present. Thus, in estafa with abuse of confidence, even if the ' element of abuse of confidence is present, but there is ~o actual damage caused to the offended party, the crime is not consummated, because the element of damage is of estafa ach r-e ' lackinff. Thes-e of confidence and ( 2 ) damagg.~or^ Dreiudice capable .of

',I :, ,'it

'.

of e.:is .Jacking, the crime ; of estafa is in its attempted or frustrated stage. ': A cut timber without L>ermitfrom the forestry. officer '. nnd used said timber for building a house. V approached $ him and, representing to be authorized by the forestry ,', officer. asked and demanded from him the sum of P6.00 "::; for the purpose of avoiding the payment of a fine and with a view t o preparing a petition for obtaining a free .,' ixrmit t o cut timber. A offered to pay only F3.00, but V refused to receive the
-

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWEX


,..

,

.i,.:~

i.:472.

'

'

In the case of U.S. vs. Dominguez, had the accused mi.sapprmp&ted the proceeds of the sale of the books which he sold, the crime of estafa would have been consummated, because there wouldbe &ual. .damage caused to the offended party. The element of damage would have been present. /When &&-the element of deceit or abuse of confidence a d that of damage are present, all the elements necwsary :for the execution and accomplishment of the crime of estafa are present.

~

~

Bat

Are light felonies punishable in d l the three stages of xplain your answer. As a general rule, &&&felonies are punishable only when they have been Under the general rule, attempted or frustrated light felonies are not puunish-

.

& e

But light felonies c = m &t are punishable even if they are o& S J o a x m .

or mm the a&@p&d (Art. 7, R.P.C.)

3. Give examples of light fetonies which are punishable only when consummated. They are: (1) betting in sports contests, (2) illegal cock-fighting, and (3) intriguing against honor. These light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated, because they are not against persons or property and, hence, they are covered by the general rule. Nota: Reason for the general rule: Light felonies produce EA& &At, such and ~ i n j m & that s && cg-e issatisfied with p m a lieht nenalt," far their consummation.JIi they are not consummated, the wrong done is 8LCght that there is need of providing B penalty at all. Reason for the exception: The commission of felonies aKains1 Drmerty ppsu~poscs in the offender s g ~ ~ ? m l

iracy. Distinguish conspirasy aa a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability. 168

'. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony 2nd decide to commit it (Art. 8, 3L.P.C.). ~~.~~ i:, esoecially orovides Consoiracv is a f & o u when the .'! a penalty therefoy. In such case, the mere agreement '. and decision to commit a particular felony is punished hv _" law. Thus. Art. 115 of the Revised Penal Code punishes conspiracy t o commit treason, Art. 136 punishes conspiracy ,. to commit rebellion, and Art. 141 punishes conspiracy to commit sedition. if the c?ns&Lcy the offenders m ~ . c o m m i t t e dtreason, rebellion or sedition, the ss m ceases to be a f e l o n ~ a n dk2-s only a manner o€ incurring d o i n a l liability, that is, the &of ,"B I conmiratar is the act of all the other conspirators. In other crimes, like murder or abduction, the mZ.C agreemenb and w n to commit them is not Dunishable, as there is n o i n the Revised Penal C& sconspiracy to commit m&?r o r ab conspirators become liable only when the crime, like mur- ; der or abduction, is actually committed. But they are liable for the crime actually committed, not for conspiracy to commit it. The conspiracy will be considered odY to make the offenders equally liable, that is, they are ,: liable in the same degree and to the same. extent.

G

4

475. What is proposal t o commit a felon:y? Is it p There is proposal when the person who has to commit, a felony proposes its execution to som person or persons (Art. 8, R.P.C.). It is punishable o a y in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. Thus, Art. 115 of, the Revised Penal Code punishes proposal t o commit treason and Art. 136 of the same Code punishes proposal to commit rebellion. The Revised Penal Code does not punishthe proposal to commit sedition or any other crime. '

~

476. May a person be held liable for proposal to commit rebellion, if the proposal is reiected by the person t o whom the propo%il is made? Why?

169

,I

...>*. ,

r,

. .

.,: . .< '.* , . , ._.,,,. ,...,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER %,'I

',

... .+>,. ....* ....

., %

% , ,.

+*:<.<,

_.,.

&:.

.r

I

.

'

.. .,. 477.

. .

Yes, because what the law nunishes is the mere~nroga2l to , m a n 3 rebellion. or treason & one wh? is data commit it. The acceutima of such nrang3al is not neceg,

--

s~cecy

478. What i s a soecial law7 Are the Drovisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable to offenses which are punishable under special laws? A : w i a l Inw is a statute euacted by Congress, & ju character, which is an mendmeht to the Rfx&& &&Code. As a general rule, offenses which are punishable by special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 10, R.P.C.). The Revised Penal Code is sunplementary to ylch laws, the - 1 should specially provide the ec&wy (Art. 10, R.P.C.).

a.

u-

Note: The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are plir;rble to the attempted or frustrated stage of execution of crimes punishable by special iaws and to mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the eomminsion of

crimes punishable by special iaws. 9nt when the special iaws & I provisions necessary for the proper aaministration of jnstice, h te-ns of the Iievified Penal Code are zmlementary t n the special laws, like the Motor Vehicles Law wsi!r.h does not provide for eivil liability

170 +.t+.:

.,

Vehicles Law.

State the reason why conspiracy and proposal is not punishable in common crimes. In ordinary crimes, the State survives the victim, and the culprit cannot find in the success of his work any impunif.y.+oreover, conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime 'are o2ly..-preparatory acts and the law regards them a.s iEoc$nt_ or a t least permissible except in ,rare and exceptional..cases. But in crimes against the intep-aL.security of the State, like rebellion and seditior,, or against the external of the State, like treason, if the culprit succeeds in his critninal enterprise, he would obtain the power and there€ore impunity for the crime committed.

., _*.. .:'.

of a person who kills another in violation of that Law aqd f o r subsidiary imprisonment in ease of insolvency of the pers m liable. The Supreme Court amplied Arts. 100 and 39 of Revised Penal Code to supplement the provisions of the Motor

,.:>v:

,.I

State the circumstances which affect criminal liability and ' ,,, state the basis of each. .; They are: (1) justifying circumstances, (2) exempting circumstances and other absolutory canses, (3) mitigating .,' circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and ( 5 ) alternative circumstances. In jyskifyinz ,circumstances, the Revised Penal Code recoenizes the non-existence of a *by exnresslv stat1, in the o M n g sentence of Art. 11'&reof +&$ , th =sons therein mentioned "do not incurcriminal liability." The act of a person under any of the justifying circum- . . stances is i m x e with lax, so that such person is deemed not to l m e transgressed-the law and is from. both r&minal and eivil 1iabiIi;y. Technically, one who &by virtue of any of the although by ' sxempting circumstances commits a &me, the CD ofW =of the conditions which %! or ill volnntariness of the a&, ne criminal sate of the liability a&%.,. .Hence, there is sn*.in the crime m L o f the conditions which make the act t s or negligent, There is, however, Mitigating circumstances are 0 of either the freedom of action, j n l l i g e ~ ,or or on the lesser~.pervers&y. of the odfadelel: on the _$Si?& Aggravating circumstances are perversiQ of the offender manifested in the commissiolr of the felony, as shown by (1) the self, (2) the-of commission, (2 employed, (4) theor ( 5 ) the of the offendexor of the offended par !&of the alternative-circumstances is the The and -of the crime and the other conditions ing its commission.

a

fa ':

-

171

I 1 .

1 .

.

.,q

1;

'


.

2.

4dO. A, who had entered his room, found B, a stranger, inside without any justifiable reason. A s B was reluctant to . .,. leave the room and was acting suspiciously, A drew h i s knife, brandished it, and approached B with intention to ;,

I

;

,. .

., < :~, , .. ,~

drive him away from the room. But B drew his pistol, the only weapon available to him and shot A, inflicting ;>ya;.: @ .; . serious physical injuries on the latter. When prosecuted ... for the crime of serious physical injuries, B claimed self,*<+W.;,f i defense. Did B act in self-defense? Explain your answer. & ..<,,;: ' . /It is submitted that B did not act in self-defense. A i-: had a ,right t o urotect his b e from a trespasser. " if the a 2 of A in drawing his knife, brmdishing it, and approaching B are considered as constituting Pmessip, a v e o n i s w s h d even if tho%'acts of A ' . constituted an unlawful aggression, B was &-iwtifid in injurinp - A,. because one defendinp himself from another's aggression can stand ground ;nlL when he iSin be in the room of A. B the rig.& __ - ~B had n-t-to should have l e ~ Xthe room when A was approaching him,

,,'

.:

-

4

.. I

hat requisite of defense is so ipdisDensabk that without p .". it there IS no justifying or mitigating eircumst.;dce of incomplele self-defense to speak of? Explain. g I t is the of vnlawful aemezion. The orinci& of % e l f - d e f m, &.€ense o b x h t i x e or -of m e r is ' y+Jthe mce&..~ sit of azo.&in^ t h e m to oRek life, limb o a t . Such u&l sxisis, s . n l ! L w b tilmis aril-ession. Bnhif there i u lanba€ul a mession, nothing tQ.@xwqt&r .to!. As was said by fhe Supreme Court in the case of PeoyJe vs. Yamang, if t a r e is no unlawful aggression, there i13 no occasion to speak of "reasonable necessity of the means employed" or of "sufficient provocation" on the part of one invoking legitimate self-defense, because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression.

e

-

482. What is the _nature of the act which may be considered an unlawful aggression?


The act, against which a person may make must be an a c t kokunjustified and sufficient his life, limb o r right or that, of another ,/?t must be unjustified, because the clolthe fulfillment of a duty o r in t of a risht or office. Thus, the a d of a peace officer in making an a r r e s t , g done in a violent manner because of the refusal of the..&j .:.i person t o be arrested to submit t o the arrest, is an .c bGt.i$. not unlawful (People vs. Gayrama-n,, cq the case of a husband who. having surprised his wife and another man in the act of sexual intercourse, attacked the ,< man with a knife, but the man was able to parry the blow and killed the husband, the act of the husband w u aggression, b&jugtLudwfful. The husband was t h e n i n !. the exercise of a lawful right and such act would have.,,':: fallen within the sanction of Art. 247 (U.S. vs. Merced). ." Afingerf;he Civil Code, a personmay force or v i o l g s to protect his from beinp: taken by another. His act, in 3 of protecting his property -i ' axression, but not- unlawful. " Thus, if A saw B inside his house taking his radio from the table and to prevent B from carrying it away A used violence and then and there B stabbed and killed A, R cannot successfully claim self-defense, because the act of A, although an aggression, is lawful. the life, limb o a t #L"USt h P su f f i c k t $0 of another or ofthe cne makin& a defense. D h u s , a- s on the head with the hand cannot i 9 a one's life, limb or-or even one's safety from physical injuries. /But a w o n the fixe m a y . ' m i l . om's honor or safety from physical injury, because if it ' ,,' is not repelled or prevented it waulQ r - t in &&r -or -i

-

':A I

j

+ .

. ,. 483. In what cases may unlawful aggression. be ' .>:>A a requisite of self-defense, defense of r e l a t z i n s e ? i' '!r ; of stranger? Explain. ...e

173 .

.

I



In the following eases: 1. When the unlawful aggression h a d a r l e a d y ceased t o exj&at the time the one allegedly making a defense injured or killed the former aggressor; 2 . When there was an agreement k f t between the accused and the injured party. In these cases, even if a person was an unlawful aggressor, because he began the attack er -c or kill another, the latter c w t claim lwitimate defense, if he injured or killed the former aLa.iime YdXP there was unlawful RepressiQn, &ha because the f.Q&L r n n t m o r already ran away or because he- m a refusal to f u m y IonR'er. The first is illustrated in the case of People vs. Alconga and the second is illustrated in the case of People vs. AIviar. In this last case, the Supreme Court stated: "In view of the fact that the deceased was then unarmed, from the loss of his bolo, the use made of the same weapon by the accused was .' unjustifiable."

..

N o t e : But if the aggressor w h o was disarmed by the person making a defense -and s & . ~led f ~ to-ain his weapon, disable its owner. the latter could use the ,-to In a fight which was acceptable to both combatants, the fact that it WBS the deceased who commenced the aggression is of no moment and, in such case, it cannot serve as a ground for the plea of legitimate self-defense. But an agreement to fight PIeSUDpOBeS a . & d k W S and-da Hence, if the challenge has r&.X?Lbeen a-W+Q.t& when the challenger commences the W k , there is utrlawf 1 n-4 and the person challenged will be $&kd *t 0.p prevent it L e . reasonable means. Again, if there i s an agreement to fight, but the aggression is made ahead of the stipulated time and place, sue11 aggression i s atently illegalThe acceptance of the challenge does not place; on the 0 en ed party the burden of preparing to meet any assault at any time even before reaching the appointed time and place.

+

484. For the existence of unlawful aggression, is it essential ' ' t h a t there should be ab_solute and positive d a n I r to the party malting the defense?

174 ..

No, it is not essential that there should be abs and positive danger to the party making the defens i s - e t that there was a well-grounded and -,on the part of the ?adit he was i ~ j n i m i n e n tdanger a hum-. Thus, the person making a defense, before shooting, is :: not obliged to wait until the aggressor has obtained corn-. . , j plete possession GI. control of' his weapon. Re i s not re- .. quired to do anything or refrain from doing something ..' which would increase the danger to his person or to the person of another or enhance the opportunity of the aggressor to accomplish his end.

a 0-

---_

-

-4

./

485. Is threat an unlawful aggression? ., Mere thre ening a.tt%iZ% &-.unlawful aggression. e that IS offensive-ppsitivelv strong, show-- .. Bu I t to cause an i n i u r j , that threat I ing the wroncful is unlawful aggression, .a Thus, even though it were true that when the accuSed . , :; appeared, the deceased ai-ose with a knife in her hand and ' . in a threatening manner asked the accused what had u m and materisl brought her there, w&& -a such asitti does not constitute unlawful aggression (U.S. vs. Guy-Sayco, 13 Phil. 292). ' ' '. . Rut drawing a weapon f o r the purpose of using it to attack another is an outward and material aggression. \

--

4 -

$,,

486. Is the art of taking another's property or of forcibly entering another's home an unlawful aggression? Explain y answer.

biles, C.A., 45 O.G., Sup: 5, 277)-.

175


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER B

.

487.

sufficient t r a ~ a u i l i tof ~ mind t o think, to c make eomparisAand t h o s e _ his weanon.@ emer-' gencies where the person orlife of another imperilled,' human nature does not act us2n m s e s . _ o f fg-n but in obedience to the instinct of self-nreservation. Usually, he grabs the first weapon he can reach for and uses it without regard to the weapon of his assailant. But is not without ouslification (~1' limita.n.@hus, it has. been held that although as a general rule a dagger or a knife is more dangerous than a club, the knife or dagger used by the person attacked by another with a club must , be- d that (1) had no otkr available m e a n p n d (2) couId not e@

an attack on the honor or chastity of a w o m q an un. lawful aggression? Yes. An attack upon a woman for the purpose of raping her or performing an act of lasciviousness on her person is an attack upon her honor and, therefore, an unlawful aggression (People vs. De la Cmz, 61 Phil. 344; People vs. Luague, 62 Phil. 604; and People -18. Jaungue, 76 Phil. 174).

- --

488. A boxed the face of B. The latter immediatdy drew out his knife a n d attacked A with it. A succeeded in disarming B, and as B was struggling to recover his weapon, A . . used it in killing B. Who is the unlawful aggressor? EX. plain your answer. B is the unlawful aggressor. When aDerso_n w m insulted, slightly i n i u r d or threatened mslies. stpng , , . , retaliation, he becomes a@, unlawfirl . ~. agl%SF& r -(tis. v s . ' Carrero, 9 Phil. 544).

I

9.:a:X'surprised a thief inside his house at late hour of the ,'' . evening when the latter was taking some personal ProPerW. X shot, the thief who was seriously injured. Is X criminal-

.,'

Since it does not appear that the thief was armed and ready to make an aggression upon being surprised, X was not justified in shooting him and, therefore, he is criminally

491. A was about to stab B with a knife.

C, who was near them and who saw the attack being mad,e by A against B, hit A on the head with a heavy piece of wood, causing: the latter's death. ConsLdering that C could have stNik+ the hand of A only, to prevent him from i n j u r h g B,. do you believe that there was a reason means used by C in defending B? Blxplain your answer. Yes. It is pot nroner to &EBUU

492. An ex.policeman, trained to use all kinds Qf weapon and to meet an attack with any kind of vveapon, was attacked by X with a club. The ex-policeman had a pistol and a clnh with him. In defending himself, the ex-policeman used his pistol, seriously wounding hrr assailant. Was the pistol a reasonable meaus to repel the aggression made by X? Explain your answer.

490. Does the second requisite of self-defense, defense of rela. tive or defense of stranger, that is, that there be reason. able n,ecessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, mean that the person making the defense should employ the same kind of weapon as that which is being used by the assailant? Explain your anNo. It is not the indispensable need, but the rational necessity, which the law requires.&&&@ updert&&Wis & @ i n g _ m d a of defendin= adoes n d h a v e

also armed. 177

176

I

. '

.

6

-;?v


is a policeman on active duty, would the answer be the same? No. His duty requires him to 0vercor.e his opponent. The force which the peace officer may exert and the weapon which he may use differ somewhat from those which a private individual may ordinarily offer in self-defense. a private individual can only repel or prevent an ~ ~ k aggression, i l a peace officer has t o overcome his opponent, because the latter represents the law he must uphold (US.vs. Mojica, 42 Phil. 784).

494. G was trying to cuddle his wife but she pushed him depreciatingly and avoided his demonstration of husbandly

affection. Thinking that the couple were quarrelling, S went upstairs and upon seeing the angry wife warding off G's advances to her, hit G twice on the forehead with au iron bar. Whereupon G drew his loaded revolver and began zihooting wildly, thus inflicting serious wounds on several relatives of his. Considering that there iyas unlawful aggression on the part of S, do you believe that G acted in self-defense? G's act of self-defense was not exerclsed with due-care, since he did not aim a t his assailant but instead indiscriminal.ely fired his deadly weapon at the risk of the lives and limbs of the innocent persons whom he knew were at the ~ilaceof the occurrence. But absence of intent to kill, although not mitigating circumstance, reduces the felony to a mere physical injury in crimes against persons who do not die 3s a result of the assault (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027).

arr ,

8 ,

,

.

495. A was living in the house of B.

One evening, A kissed the wife of B who saw them. B took a bolo and attacked A with it. A avoided the hlow, opened his nwn knife and "' . stabbed B to death. Prosecuted for homicide, A claimed . . self-defense. Did A act under the justifying circumstance of self-defense? t

. . "

c

CKIDIINAL LAW REVIEWEIR

..'+

.,

493. Supposc, the person defending in the preceding question

_s; .~,

..

,

178

:.

No, n . in~-plete self-deiense, & m e & gave suffi; The UiEd r$g&&~& cient provocation.de-t -4, was not mesent.

;.'

,,

~;':,,., $

.~

What circumstance affecting criminal liability is present in the preceding question? d Incomplete self-defense. UIlder Art. G9, A is e to a .penalty x r . two deprees.,lz!Z .~. than the penalty fw' homicide,

,,

/

497. Suppose, in the same ease, after kissing the wife of B, A ran away and, tho next day, B casually met A on the street and then and there attacked A. with a bolo, but A killed B with his knife, can A successfully claim selfdefense? Yes, m e & h ~ & A xave sufficient provocat&n to E, it^ mas (&oTFm->to the I_a!;ter's aggression, =e And suppose, A was surprised by B while making love t o the latter's wife, and then and there B attacked A with a IJOIO, but A killed B, did A act in self-defense? , Yes, because even if the act of A, making love to B'S .' wife, was provoking, it was not sufficient. Hence, all the three requisites of self-defense are present. --I ./' 4 9 d W h y is it that when the one defending himself gave suffi/ cient provocation to the aggressor, the former is not en-, .,;; titled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self- '(.?~: defense? ::* ,4&

7

2

If the one defending himself has given sufficient pro- :.; vocation to the aggressor, k,.kih t-bebl;tmed. & H ;? mt witlioa fault. That is why in such a case, he is :', liable for honiicide if he lrills the aggressor. The only B? :?a benefit he gets is, instead of being sentenced t o suffer, ; ; the penalty for homicide, he shall be sentenced to a a or two d e m e s Ipl?ler than the penalty for homicide. .%

$ ,:$

'

I

\.I

'V."

.~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWYER


*

501. A was a M to give a fist blow on B, when the latter retreated and picked up a piece of wood with which t o strike A. C, brother of A, held B by the hand as the latter was about to strike A with the piece of wood, disarmed B, and struck him with it on the face, inflicting serious physical injuries. Did C act in defense of a relative? Explain your answer. No. The act of A in commeucinr to give a f i nw $i o n B is not only a provocation to B. 2 k n unlawful aggression. When B picked up a piece of wood with yhich t o strike A, B was merelv trying t o d a d .... WLf. Such being the case, C was not acting in defense of a relative. Defense of relatives is a justifying circumstance, even if the relative defended gave provocation, hut not when he appears to he an unlawful aggressor. 502. But suppose A only

the face of B and the latter took qut his knife and was in the act of stabbing A when C, bmtlier of A, struck B with his bolo, resulting in the death of B, did C act in defense of his relative? Y I ? ~hecause , A in $lapping the face of B merely p c a t i e n t o the latter and C had no part therein. EIaving & a stronp retaliatbn, B h e c a e an u&w.ful a g g ~ m . The three requisites of defense of relatives are present.

-_

'''.

*" .+' , -ti d--

73%: ."$.

,.,

,

+y,..:; 2 L.

.,

I

They are: (1) the spouse, (2) ascendant, (3) descendant, (4) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother o r sister,. (5) relatives by affiaitjrin the -degree, and (6) those by consanguinity within the €uukh...civil degree.

500. A picked up a spear and with it tried to wound C, hut niisstd. C took out his knife and stabbed A fatally. At this moment, B, seeing his father A being stabbed by C, hit the latter with a bolo and, a s a consequence of which, the latter died. Did B act in defense of a relative? No, hecause A was the aggressor. T h e e bhg &fended should &be an unlawful ~ppresl(nr(People vs. Panuril, C.A., 40 0. G. 1477).

,

.

.'

1503. Who a t e the relatives referred to in the justifying circum-

.., ' '

stanco of defense of relatives?

180

A was in love with the wife of B. One day, A, at a distance of 50 yards, saw B in the act of stahbing c, a stranger, with a knife. A shot El who waa mortally wounded. Did A act in defense of a stranger? It depends. If A killed B only to save C from being killed by B, A was justified in doing so.' But if A killed B to enable him t o marry B's wi&, then the third reauisite of defense of stranger is k c k n g , A L b X h Z .hSn i d & k e y i l mutive. ._ / T h e third reouhite of defense of stranger is that the ;<;, ,/ oDe defending be not induced by resentment or :..,! . ..~ 2 other evil . m ~

i

505. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code under

which the killing of the foetus in the uterus .may be' justified because it is necessary to save the life of the mother? Any person who, in order t o g an evil or injury, does an @ which causes d m t o another, provided that: the following requisites are present: First. That the s_ousht t o be avoided actually' exjsts; Second. That the h&Q.&a& be &r than t h a t to avoid it. Third. That there be n o r p r a c t i d a&&sl harmful means of Q~X&L?XZA. This provision covers the so-called justifying circumstance of state of necessity (Art. l:L, par. 4, R.P.C.).

a

a

506. A, a married woman who had experienced difficult childbirth which almost cost her life, consulted a do,ctor. The

doctor after mature consideration advised her that it wo$d he better to remove her ovary. By agreement of A and 181

,'

,,~,~.

.;.., . *.


.j

.

'

.

the doctor, her ovary was removed by operation. Can A and the doctor escape criminal liability for mutilation under the justifying circumstance of state of necessity7 Emplain your answer. No, because the &sought to be ava e d did not a$tually exist, The -d that she mipht die of childbirth if she would be pregnant is a mere possibility. The first requisite is absent.

'507. The captain of the vessel loaded it with a quantity of cargoes beyond its ordinary capacity. While the vessel was in the sea, it met a storm. Sensin,? that the vessel '.,. wns going to sink because of the strong wind and big waws and due to its heavy load, the captain of the vessel ordered that part of the cargoes be jettisoned, which was done by the members of the crew. Can the captain successfully invoke the justifying circumstance of state of necesr;ity? Explain your answer. ut No, because the state of necessity was by- his nezlirrence. The .vil which brought about the state of necessity a of Am by the actor or must not result fsam a v from his nealieence or imarudence.

;

.~

~I

... ,, ,. ,

--

08

,$@ .'

f

. .

..

.

-

A policeman was trying to arrest a murderer who cmmmittell the crime within his hearing. Having gone immediately to the scene of the crime, the policeman asked the murderer to drop his bolo and to submit to the arrest being made. The murderer refused to drop his weapon and r,an away. The policeman shot him, inflicting a mortal wound which was the cause of death. Was the police man justified in shooting tlie murderer to death? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the policeman was completely justided, notwithstanding the fatal consequeme, because it was demanded by the circumstances. His refusal to drop his weapon and to sstbmit to the arrest being made by the policeman s j that the murderer was d a mined, t o for his liberty.

132

CRIiMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

. ',.

,,

I

When he shot the murderer, the policeman was &he fulfillment of his duty. The injury c:aused to the murderer s , ,of the due performance was the m of &isd & y . In the case of People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796, where the accused had slashed with a bolo the municipal president on his arm, the Supreme Court stated that if the chief of police had been armed with a revdlver and had used it against the accused, the act of the chief of police underthose c i r c u m - k w ~ o d w justified.

.'

: !:

Note: Rule i i 3 , Sectiom 1, Rules of Court, provides that, "No unnecessary or unreasonable farce shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shdl not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention."

.,), *i

The Supreme Court believes that shooting a person who .-efused l o part with his dangerous weapon and to surrender to s peace officer who was arresting him, after be had attacked another wjth that weapon, is a necessnm and reaaonable fcvee to effect his arrest, and the peace officer was juatificd in shooting him even if it resulkd in his death.

:. ,',

L

509. A picked the
looking at the pictures in front of a theater, and ran away with the wallet extracted from the pocket of B. A policeman who saw the stealing of the wallet of B b y A whistled at the latter, but A did not stop and continued running away. The policeman fired his gun twice in the ab. h A continued to rnn away with the wallet of I?, the poxceman shot him t o death. Is the policeman liable for killing A? Explain your answer. Yes. W m the policeman a m - i n the performance of his duty, he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty when he shot the deceased. He is guilty of homicide (People vs. Eentres, C.A., 49 0. G. 4919). N o t e : S m a thief who -h a danaerous weapon m or to make good he-, is & a t o intimidate a neand re-f t o effect his arrest.

510. Is the guard justified in shooting a prisoner who has e+ caped from jail? Explain your answer.

'

': "

2

,

,

'~:

I j i'

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CIZIMINAL LAW REYIEWXR

.,

Yes. In the cases of People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738, People vs. Lagata, 83 Phil. 159, and U.S.vs. Magno, et a]., 3 Phil. 314, the Supreme Court held that when the prisoner is escaping and in his &ez& t o escape and there was no other remedv but t o jh-aLhm ' in..mder t-mtihim f r-&bgA!za y, the guard in shooting the prisoner, even to the extent of killing him, acted in the fulfillment of his duty and, therefore, is not criminally liable. Note: This ruling applies -the

e-ine

less serious physical injuries. Is A criminally liable for. less serious physical injuries? Explain your answer. No. because A d i n the &&bxfxc%' o f a u t caused to B was a necessarv conseauence . and the af that righi (Art. 11, par. 6, of the lawful ex,, R.P.C.). Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code of the Philip pines, t.he or lawful possessor -of a thing has the r&.to &u& any person f-thi? eniovment and disposal thereof. cor this nurvose, he may u ~ s u c hforce. a&mity & w o n a b l y necessary to or prevent an . unlawful physical invasion or nsuruaactual ni. i!xei&& t i o n h i s Dropeqty. TJiider Art. 11, par. 5, in relation to said Art. I'L9 of the Civil Code, it is pot necessary that there be an altack on the person of the owner or on the 2 '7 person of the one charged with the protection of the property. Note: Jf the person takins the property is kUkd by the owner, .;

/

-

a

nr i m w is&-

r L L &

511. A prisoner succeeded in leaving the jail and in the yard of the iail the euard met him. The guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner, but the latter grabbed the muzzle of the gun and, in the struggle for the possession of the gun, the guard jerked away the gun from the hold of the prisoner, causing the latter to be thrown half-way around, and because of the force of the full, the guard squeezed . ., ,.the . trigger, causing it to fire, hitting and killing the pis. oner. Is the guard criminally liable for the death of the prisoner. Explain your answer. The guard is not criminaIly liable, because he acted in the fulfillment of a duty (People vs. Bisa, C.A., 51 O.G. 4091). When the guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner, f.he former was acting in the fulfillment of his duty, because it was his duty to prevent the escape of the prisoner. "?&-&&I of the prisoner was the -n c m s w e n c e of the due pwforman_ce of. It was the act of the prisoner in grabbing the muzzle of the gun which made the guard jerk it: away from his hold, thereby causing the latter's finger to squeeze the trigger.

I

I

,-.~'

.~

.,:

..

,.$?.,

'

'

.

A, while supervising the threshing of his palay in his rice , saw B carrying away a sack of palay. A shouted a t B to stop and return the sack of palay, hut B continued t o run away with it. A picked up a piece of hard. wood and threw i t at B who was hit on the right leg, causing

...~

184 .

~

y

$+

liable, because the force emnlove9 was r e a s o n a b l k r 3 . But if the deceased, after dropping sack of palay drew out his bolo and attacked the owner, the iattcr killed him, the provision of the Revised Penal ?de apR,lieable is Art. 11, par. 1. There is self-defense, which includes defense of right to property.

the not the and

l&r is criminal1

au -,l

sac.

..

,

> .:,

' ~

.~...

obedience t o that order is a

Note: Thus, the soldier who tortured to death a private individual in abedienw t o the order of his sergeant is criminally' liable. because the order to torture tlre deceased was not law-

the w n who & p m e e s s a r y severity -i at -8 l w y d by the court is under Art. 129 of the Revised Penal Code, because w v the search was ml,the p e a m use& to c m the -o&xLrs .order to unlawful. When the &.&im& does_notknow the-of order and e d it ,ha is not criminally lia because there is no criminal intent.

fk&n,

185 ,, ,

,. .

;

,

I

1 ~,

3

.,

513. When is obedience to an order of a superior a justifyjng circumstance?

,3;*>,'*:".?. ,.

"

:

I

-3; CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

514. A, employee of a prison during the Japanese Occupation, was ordered by the Japanese officer, in charge of the prison, to torture to death an incorrigible prisoner. As A 1was reluctant to do it, the Japanese officer threatened to shoot him if he would not d o so, A tortured the prisoner who died as a Consequence. Assuming that there was abuse of superior strength, do you believe that A was liable for murder? Explain your answer. No. While it is true that the order was illegal and that murder was committed, because the killing o f the prisoner was accomplished with abuse of superior strength, A is e x d from criminal liability as he acted under-the, i d of uncontrollable fear o h n 9U.d or &Ajxry. The & f that the & was1-d &r t w t h a t A h d without freedom and intent and u t from criminal I-i. is s u f f i c i a t to exempt there is a complete absence of freedom and there is a n exempting c i r c u m sce. Art. 12, uot Art. 11, of the Revised Penal Code is applicable.

. ..,

-

m j

~. ,

'-;

615. Mention all the persons who cannot be held criminally Iiable f o r whatever crimes they may have committed and

state the grounds for their exemption from punishment. They are: (1) the imbecile, (2) the insane, (3) the ,.

I< L

,,

,. ,i

2:

minor under nine years of age, (4) the minor over nine years of age and under fifteen, who actcd without discernment, (5) the person who, while perfofming a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it, (6) the person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, (7) the person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, and ( 8 ) the person who fails to perform an act required by law, when pi-evented by some lawful or insuperable cause. The grounds for exemption from punishment are (1) c o m u l e t f ! a G e of intelligence, (2) complete absence o f ,n-f or (3) complete absence of intent or that there is no f m l t or negligence on the part of the person who 186

..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEIL

committed the crime. In short,. their acts arc t s

'

:516. At the time of his trial for homicide, A was insane 88 shown by the report of a doctor of She National Mental HQspital. Must the court declare A ezempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. . . of the accused at the No, because the rn-dlh time of his trialt -d in anv wax affact his criminal It is the mental condition of the accused at the time of the c e a of the crime which the court has to consider for the purpose of deteImiIiing his criminal liability. If he was &an$ at the time of the c d i o n of the crime, he should be aeauitted regardless of the n-c of his mind at the time of his trial. If he is insane at the time of his trial so that even with the assibtance of counsel he may not h x e a fair trial, the court on1 m d the t a a n d -him to the National =Hospital u-he-1 haved- r his reason.

,

'.

31'7. If the court, after trial, finds the accused not crimina&' liable, because at the time of the cummission of the crime he was insane or imbecile, can the court in dismissing the case provide in the decision of acquittal that the offended uarty. should be indemnified? Why? Yes, because &exempting circumstances, like insanity , or imbecility, t m i s civil liability, which must be&.: the ~ e r hh-t~e ~ n insane or imbecile under his ; legal authority or control,,g&gs it appears that there was no fault or negligence on his part or that insolvent; in 'which case, the insane or imbecile s L U respond with his own property (Art. 101, R.P.C.).

' "

u,

~518. When may an insane who committed a crime be held criminally liable therefor? When he committed the crime during lucid interval. 519. May there be a case where an imbecile can be held e&. .! inally liable for the crime he Committed? Explain your I answer.

187


because an

imbecile

lucid interval.

Note: To he from criminal liability by reason of ina*&el.v & d sanity or imbecility the accused g&-he. of,= at the & t of the eomrnission of t4e crime. Thus, feeblemindedness, eccentricity (deviatien from ordinary conduct or manner),, mental weakness or mere depression resulting from physical ailment, PI' extreme anger, which makes a mrson act like a madman, -~ b t a n d a h a d d a9.L b% $sasidered embraced in the term insanit , because the person h x i : such mental condition i s ~ o n w l e t e l yd e n r h d of reason and freedom of the-. ~

520. What is somnambolism and h,ow does it affect the criminal liability of the person who committed a crime in state of somnambolism? It is sleep-walking. It is embraced in a plea.of insanity (People vs. Gimena, 55 Phil. 604; People vs. Taneo, 68 Phil. 255). 521. What is dementia praecox? It is mental illness otherwise called schizophrenia. When a person becomes affected by this kind of mental illness, -1 nrrrantral r -w of h is cats, (Legal Medicine and Toxicology the p e r i d . o f t by Pcterson, Haines and Webster, cited in the case of People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 94). This kind of mental illness gned-c embraced the t e w '&&any," -b the person affected h a completely lost the s r & of his will power.

?*,

,.

'"F

522. In the prosecution of the accused, a boy 13 years of age, the fiscal succeeded in proving the case of theft against the accused. There was no evidence that the accused, at the time of the commission of the crime, did not nnderstand the consequences of his act. If yon were the judge trying the case, would you acquit .or convict the accused. Explain your answer. ' ,b m the presumvtipZz The accused musthearqiutted -i a & m oyer 9 y e a s hut under '15 actep

'

CILIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

without discernmat,. The prosecution who has t h e m of proving the existence of discernment on the part of the accused failed toJmxe-&.

a r s old. During his 523. When A committed theft he was m t u f o r the crime be was 1 6 s old. Is A criminally sentence? Exliable? If so, can he he given a s-ded plain your answers. No. It appearing that at the time of the commission of the crime A was under fifteen p a r s - o f age and no fact is stated showing that he acted with' discernment, he is exempt from criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 3, R.P.C.). It is the age of the minor at the time of the commission of the crime, not his age a t the time of the trial, which determines whether or not he is exempt from criminal liability. fle m from criminal liability, A should be' acquitted and the case against him dismissed. The susuended -s contemnlakdin Art. 80, R.P.C., presupposes tkat is not exempLfam criminal liability. the f i v e n if he was @&y, A could :n&be given a upended sentence, because only minors under 1G years of a&at the h of the are e&i&d t o a susuended sentence, \

-

'

:! '

$:'

1 ,i ..

524. A girl 9: years of age pushed her p!aymate into a deep place of the river, with intent to Ell her. The ~&.L!L@ kill was -by the prosecution. Is she c r i m i n a liable for causing the death of her p!aymate who died of drowning? Explain your answer. Yes. The fact that the offender had the intent t o kiI1 the deceased when she pushed her into the river i sdence also of discernment, because her intent t o kill her , . .& playmate ,shows that she k n w whthe :' -s of her unlawful act of pushing her'victim into '! deep water and that she knew it t,o be wrong '(Peop!e ~?<

4

eon-

I

CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,., ..

vs. Nieto, G. R. No. L-11965, April 30, 1958). A minor, over nine but under fifteen years of age, who acted with discernment, is criminally liable.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER truck Lumped and killed him. In this case, the driver of the truck is crimir.ally liable for homicide through reckless imprudence. Tlle iniury causgd was clearlv foreS

525. I n determining the guilt of a minor under 9 years of agecharged with a crime, must the court determine whether or not such minor acted with discernment? Why? No, hecause a &or under 9 y 3 o f e -u-i Eively p r w u e d to have acted without disceYllnen t. Proof of discernme_nt is required only when the d-a is a minor over -- 9 but under 15 years ofe. c _

526. What is accident as an exempting circumstance and how

is it disltinguished from negligence? Give an example of ’accident causing injury or damage to another and an example of negligence causing injury or damage to the offended party. /An accident is something that m ~&%the s SwaY of our will, and although i t comes a b %t tlxawh some act of our dlJ,it lies beyond the of humanlv foreseeable consequences. @If the injury or damage caused is c&&foreseeable, it is a case of nexlipence. Example of accident: A man standing on the platform of a steam roller, which was moving on the street, suddenly jumped on the street a t the moment a truck was passing and landed right in front of the truck which was running on the proper sidc of the street and at moderate speed. The man was run over and was killed as a consequence. The injury caused was not clearlv foreseeable. Example of negligence: That same example may be. come a case of negligence, if the driver of the truck saw the man on the platform of the steam roller in the , act of jumping and that fact notwithstanding he dkl-nat slacken h w whkh was not authorized by the traffic regulation, and when the man dropped on the street the

--

,

190

a

527. A fired his pistol several times upward in the air on the eve of a new year here in Manila. One of the slugs fired by him fell on the head of a boy who was playing on the street. Is A criminally liable for the death of the boy? Exlilain your answer. of p.nre accident, which is Yes. This is a t a an exempting circumstance under Art. 12, par. 4, Revised Penal Code. The digcharpe of firearm in such a thickly populated ulace as the City of Manila beinp penalized by Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code as a.and m s , A_lras_notRerfomd%g a la&LacL (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Hence, the first element of accident is lacking. In fact, A was at fault. Hence, the fourth element of accident is also lacking. 528. If a person injured another or damaged the latter‘s prop

erty, because of pure accident, is he civilly liable for the injury or damage which resulted? Explain your answer. No, he is not civilly liable, because1 eR m _ E e n a i c o d e toes not mention paragrauh 4 .of which defines accident, in enumerating the exempting c i r c u m s t ; w where there is & L W t y . In other f the exempting ci~e&~.skmces whew words, this is w there i’s no civil liability. 529. Distinguish the exempting circumstance of irresistible force from the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear.’ When any of these exempting circumstances is present, how many pers’ons take part in the commission of the crime? Are all of them exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answers. In the exempting circumstance of kresistible force a person uses. physical forcp to make another commit a

191

. ..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEWEB.


A wounded her with the bolo in the abdomen. Is A cr&

crime: whereas, in that of uncontrollable fear, a person uses threat to make another c o w e.

i

In both circumstances, there are at least two persons who take part in the commission of the crime. l b u ? J X A who USJS the force or makes the is a grinciual by indiand the one who commits the crime because o f force or threat is a principal by direct participa& t But o&, the princiual hy indmtfp is criminally liable. The principal by direct participation is tfrom criminal liahil@y, b.s.ause he acts without freedomof the conditions that admi the a t vnlun t a p .

7

Explain your answer.

vx. Ianeo, 68 Phil. 255).

-

,

.io-.

532. T was prosecuted for selling a can of Mennen' Talcum' Powder for B1.OO when the ceiting price for said article was only P0.86, as fixed by Executive Order No. 6.2, series of 1945. The defense contended that the government agent who arrested T induced the latter to violate the Iavv by pnrcliasing from him the article and paying for it in an amount above the ceiling price. Is there instigation

EXPLANATION: But thc physical force must be irresistible, that is, sufficient t o control the will of the person againat whom the physical force is used. It must produce such an effect lipon tho individual that, in spite of all resistance, it redneed him to a mere instrument. If the force is not irresistible, there m a y be only a mitigating, not an exempting, circumstance. The threat which caused the fear must pmmise an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinaw man would have inent and reasonsuccumbed to it. The fear must be real, i able, not speculathe, fanciful or remote. fear is d a " d m orlimbis st. the point imminent when the &ugq to o Qf t a k i n e p k r e The fear of a person that he might be killed by another if he would not do as he was told t o do so, & geoeulatiw. fanciful o r a t e .

"'

41 this case?

No. The agent did not induce T t o violate the law. Ne simply discovered the violation committed by T when he purchased the article. It was 7.' who charged and collected the price of P1.00 (People vs. Tan Tiong, C A , 43 0. G. 1255).

2

533. A policeman saw another person actiing suspiciously inside the premises of X. The policeman covered himself behind the stone wall and watched the person as he was taking i some valuabl~personal property in the premises. The 8' policeman saw the person carrying away the property 'r and when h e w a s out of the premises, the policeman stopped and placed him under arrest and seized from him : the property stolen, When prosecuted, that person con. .. tended that since the policeman saw him even before he .' began to take the property and, thwefore, the policeman couId have prevented the commission of the crime, he should not be held liable for theft. If yon were the judge, would you acquit or would you convict the accused? Ex. plain your answer. If I were the judge, I would convict the accused. The fact that the policeman saw him even before he commenced . (' the commission of the crime and did not prevent him from committing the wime is not a defense. There is, in this .

530. A, ivbo was holding a lighted torch and standing close to B'B house made of nipa, threatened to burn that house if B would not stab and kill C who was in the place, and

afraid that his house might be burned, B stabbed and kill$ C. Is B exempt from criminal liability? Explain your answer. /No, because the first requisite of uncontrollable fear is that the tj.~&&wllich caused- the & a ~ w d an SyiL g r e a m , or at lea& ~ L Qthat , S B p i r e d to commit. The threat which caused the fear of B was of an eyll ' less than that which he was r e a u w . to commit.

531. A suddenly got up in his sleep, picked up a bolo, and left the room. Upon meeting his wXe who tried to stop him, ,

192

n

t No. A person who &d while in, a dream W have criminal intent. Hence, his a.& were not voluntaq a&hg&m he i s m k t fgom criminal liability- (People

I

193

,-.

% .

ease, entrapment which is&an e e p t i n g circumstance. In entrapment % Y are -0 by the '..r public officers for the w e of t@miU? and canturinx ., . . the lawbreaker in the e m n of his ~&& and.&,

3;..,,

..

.

.. .'$$,34. But suppose that in the preceding question the policeman A$. : .... . , toid the nian to enter the premises and get some valuable . . . property inside and promised that he would not arrest I

~

him and, because of the assurance thus given, the man committed theft then and there, and Iater the policeman . . . .: arrested the man with the stolen goods, can that man be punished for the crime he committed? Explain your .. . answer. .. No, because the man was %ed to commit the crime d'on and insticratiotlof a public of,.. .. by the active c Ticer. A sound uublic nolicv re&s that the court shall , ' condemn this practice by directinz an acauittal whenever i;:* ' ' 4,.. '. ' it appe:ars that the public authorities or private detectives "; . have taken active stem to &xLthe accused into the .Q?Qmission of the crime. Instigation is a j.xx to the convic,. f tion of the lawbreaker. a,. . ' 'I/\ . , Note: Would the result be lhe same if the instieator is a ... .. I

'.

--

~I

m i t e individual?

No, because the- j himself IE.Q!mes liable as rind ai by inductio In the ease of a public ofhe Lh - d to ~ r ~ e the u ~c&es&n of the &e, but only to&c a record of arrest u r n .

z;

.,- c

535. Define and give some examples of ahsolubry causes. Absolutory causes are W e where the ~&c&bd !., is a c&e but for re,ax).ris of public pnlie;r and sentiment there is n m imm%d. . . "/ . The examples are: : 1. Snontaneous desistame during the attempted stage of exccution of the act constituting the., crime. .,..', , ,- . . , . . , 2 . Light felonies are not punishable unless they are . I . . . consummated, except those committed against pWSonS o r . ... L L -property. . . z i,, ., 3: Accessories are-not liable for light felonies. '.

. *;..<. - _:i

4. Less serious or slight physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. 5. Exemption from criminal liability of certain re&tives in the crimes of theft, estafa and malicious Inischief. *

.,.

~.. '-:; L.

,

,.

. ..,.

I

.. .

, #

.'.~* . ..,



,

1-

j _ .

~

..", ..'

L..

6 . Marriage between the offended party and the offl fender in the crimes of rape, seduction, abduction or acts4 , of lasciviousness.

536. What are the defenses for acquittal o f the person charged with the conimission of a crime? A person accused of a crime may be acquitted on any of tiie following Rrounds: 1. That of the essential e m of the crime is notn2.oved by the prosecution. When the other elements proved established the com- ,..> mission oI another crime, necessarily included in the one '' ' -'' charged, the accused may be found guilty of the former. 2 . That the accused acted under any of the justifying r' *', ,. , circumstances. 3 . That the accused acted under any of the exempting &h&& i!.n &the public circumstances, o r that -lt :tc the crime. officer, which led the accused to & 4 . That the act for which the accused is prosecuted . . falls under any of the absolutorv causes especially prcvided by law. 5 . That. the ~ d ofh the accused is not established beyond reasonable-.

?.

~

837. When is an ineoniplete justifying circnnlslance or an incomplete exempting Circumstance an Ordillary mitiga circumstance and when is it a pTivileged mitigating 'cumstance? Explain your answer. In view of the provisions of Art. 69 of the Penal Code, it is a privileged mitigating eircu when the maj'ovity of the conditions required, to: ]u the act or to exempt from criminal liability is w e

I

194

,

195

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVZEWEII

CItIDlINAL LAW REVIEWER

Noto: Even as a privileged mitigating circumstance, an incomplete self-defense, or incomplete defense of relative, or incomplete defense of stranger must have the requisite of unlawf‘ul aggression. What is lacking is either the second or thirti requisite of self-defcnse, defense of relatives or defensa of ctranzer.

hen is the age “under eighteen years” an ordhasy “!tigating circumstance and when is it a privileged mitigating circumstance? Explain your answer. There are three ages contemplated in Art. 13, Par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) “under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempt from C r b inal liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment” (Art. 68, par. l), (2) ‘‘over fifteen” and “under sixteen years of age” (Art. 68, par. 2, and Art. BO), and ( 3 ) “under eighteen years of agb” (Art. 13, par. 2) but sixteen years or above. A c c o r d i n g to Art. 68, when the offender is a minor under 15 but over 9 years of age and h e @ @ &h-.dk~ e m a n t , a discretionary D e w shall be &I!Ji%ed,but always lower by two deuees at least than that presclebed b a m h e &e which be committ.?d. When the offender is a &or a d a n d years of age, there is no question that the penaltv “extl lower than that prescribed b y k w shall LejmDosed (Art. 68, par. 2). In these cases, the age under eighteen years (over 9 but under 15 years or over 15 but under 16 years) is a p ~ i ~ q & m & i g a l h gcircumstanc because the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. u t m view of the provision:; of Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime committed by the minor under 15 or 16 years of age must b6.3-or-m. When the crime committed

I

539. A, 15 years and 2 months old, inflicted on B u h t physical

injuries punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 8200. In case A is p m u t e d .for and found guilty:.’;; of slight 1)hysical injuries, must the court in the decision’ ’‘>? that. it will render impose a penalty one degree lower t h m , : that prescribed by law for slight physical injuries? Explain your answer. No. Art. 68, which &OE for privileped mitigating : y,tsays in its opening circumstances by reason of m sentence: “When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to last of Ai+. 80” of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty one or two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the crime shall be imposed. On the other hand, Art. 80 applies only when the &&n~ comlnitted by the minor is a grave or less grave felanu. Sinca the felony committed by A is o& a lipht felony, Art. 80 is not adplicable and t w no room far agwlication of Art. 65. i?.L,, H s e , the to b e a g d a n A must minimum.perio+ of-.the m t y fsr the crime b committed, n s t me degree ]ewer.

I i m

---

_._c

e

A ‘

196

_-

is & a 1-1( Art. 68 izi pot amlicable and m m is & an ordinary mitigating circumstance.. What is not settied is the question of whether the age under 18 years but 16 years or above is a privileged mitigating circumstance or it is an ordinary mitigating circumstance. In the case of People vs. Garcia, 85 PhiL“651, the Supreme Court held that the age under 18 years but 16 years or above is a privileged mitigating circumstance. But in the case of People vs. Perez, et al., G.R. No. L3513, Sept. 29, 1951, the Supreme Court considered it an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

The penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed. It il; an ordinary mitigating circumstance if the ?miority of :such conditions is not present, provided that in the three kinds of defense unlawful aggression is present.

540.

Is the age over seventy years a pr&legerlmitig.ating cumstance? Why? 197

cir-

/


*.

No. The @ article in the Revised Penal Code W L specifically urn far the privileged mikigating CirCUmby reason of age is Art. 68,which d o e s t DiWthe o s r seventy Years.

swe

.

CilIMINAL 4AW REVIEWER

.

6 That

d f i c i e n t . w v o cation_ar threat on the part immediately ureceded'.the & : ,. That the& was m d in the immediate en-..: . . -.-dicatipl?-of a prave offense to the one commitf.inr .~~~ ~~~.~~~~ .--..the"; -... "~ felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, IegitiGte, nat-,' ' \? urzl, o r adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affimty : w i t h i d h e same degrees. That of having acted UPO? aneso uowerfql or obfuscatien. as nat,urally to have pnduced aassion /---" ,

,

~~~~

~

..

d

swei'. -

-

-

yerL

Evident premeditation and t?&%&LY are h&3.@. h on t ' d and not upon the o-fs mind of the offender. On the other hand, the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no inten-

-

e

'

et al.,, 58 Phil. 536).

-#In

.

&laythe mitigating circumstance that the offender had no iritentjon to commit. so grave a wrong as that cornmittcd be appreciated in felonies committed by means of cul,pa or fault? Why? NO, because this mitigating circumstance is b & on the fiiminuh ' U f j n t e n t , whereas in felonies committed with negligence, imprudence or lack of foresight or skill, tHence, diminution of the offender a s.t-w intent is not possible in culpable felonies.

. . ,542. .

A

Note: This mitigating circumstance is not w be appreciated also in felonies where the il,tention of the offender is jm; 1-, like in unintentional abortion. ,

'. .. -..543.

Wh,& are the mitigating circumstances which are %the loss of r e a s w and s&.mUtd of the offender. . . e and as well as freedam

'

~.

~.

..

'Of*? (I

a, party attended by prominent persons, . A called B a swlndle~'. Being humiliated and Raving lost his rewon and self-control, B grabbed a chair and.struck A with. it, inflicting serious physical injuries on the latter. When prosecuted for the crime he committed, I? claimed the following mitigating circumstances: (1) that suffilient provocation or threat on the pnrt .of the offended party immediately preceded the act, (2) Chat the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to him, and (3) that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or ob-. fnscalion. Considering the meaning given to these mitigating circumstances, do yon believe that they should all be considered in favor of B? Explain your answer. In view of the occasion and peiisons present, the imputation made by A was a sufficient provocation to B. A provocation is "sufficient" when it is adequate to ex- , cite a person lo commit a wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil. 4341. Insults are held to be sufficient provocation (US. v Firmo, 37 Phil. 134; U.9. vs. Cortes, 36 Phil. 837). he ~ ~ f & i n n ,A ~that ~ By was a

They are:

193

. ,

198

'

,

CRIMINAL L A W REV1EW:ER


The act of ,E in attacking A hy ,striking him with a chair may alao be considered as having heen done in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to him. The remark of A under the circumstances in which he made if; was highly offensive to B and to any other person in his place. It is not strange that i t engendered obfuscalion i n him and impelled him to wt as he did, in the immediate vindication of a grave offense (People vs. Rosel, 66 Phil. 324). Note: In the case of People vs. Rosel, supra, it as held that there was B grave offense when the deceased said in tho presence of several persons that the accused was living a t the expense of his wife,

The same Cause may also give rise to passion or Obfuscation on the part of B who last his reason a.nd selfcontrol, because! of the imputation made hy A against. him in the presence of prominent persons. The application of the mitigatjng circumstance of passion or obfuscation is justified when the act of the person injured is the immediate cause of the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the persan making the attack (U.S. vs. Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260). This extenuating circumstance is present when the offense committed was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts (People vs. Noynay, 68 Phil. 395). The conduct of A was the natural cause of the indignation and anger against him which was aroused in the breast

B. /But h M - & n fssm o a a n d the same cause, the . -three n&k?.tiiIg cjrcumstances smmi.h cnnsidered as three distinct and sagapte circes, but should be 1-t a s s n l r n n e (People vs. De 10s Santos, 47 O.G. 5131; People vs. Yaon, 43 O.G. 4142). of

...

.-

545. A, a woman, gravely insulted B who immediately drew out a knif,e and a1.tacked A. C, the son of A, tried to protect .~' his mother, but was fatally wounded, and killed by B. In the prosecution of B for homicide, may the provocation made by A be taken into consideratior. as a mitigating circunistauce in favor of B? Why?

200

No. The provocatioa m a t orijrinate from , t h e offended party. In this case, the offended party or the victim was C, while the person mho pave the provocation W&.

546. Distinguish the mitigating circumstance of vindication of 8 grave o f f w e from the mitigating circumstances of pro-

vocation or threat and passion or pJ)fuscation. In vindication, there must be a =me offmse cpmmitted to the me committiw the felony, his s m s e , azendant, dscendant, brothers, sisters, or rehtives by affinity in the same degree. In Drovocatiw and uassion ar obfuscaEQJI, i t is p o t necessary that t b grave offense committed by the og.m&d party. The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense Concerns the honor of the person who c o w % t e d B the crime, o r the honor of any of his relatives mentioned in par. 6 of Art. 13. Provocation or threat and passion or obfuscation are & -Le& &t the one giving the provocation or threat or against the one whoso unjust or improper conduct produced in the offender t h e ' . passion or obfuscation. In bath the mitigating circumstances of provocation or ', threat and passion or obfuscation, the unjust o r improper, conduct of the offended party rnust immediately precede :', the commission of the crime by the defendant. In vindication of a grave offense, it is not necessary that the grave offense immediately precedes the commission of the crime by the defendant. 647. A had been fighting a losing battle in the courts with

respect to a coconut grove over which he had been asserting ownership. At one time he ;va9 prosecuted for stealing coconuts from the grove, but was acquitted beeawe the title was in dispute. In an earlier civil action was declared in default and lost the case by the negligence ' of his lawyer. Then, A was impleaded in a civil acti and an injunction was issued by the court restraining from molesting or obstructing plaiintiff in the exerc

201

* CRIMINAL . . LAW. REVIEWER ..

CKlMlNAL LAW REYIEWER , ..,,

. . ~ ~,of .the.. rights of ownership and possessi,on over said prop <: . ., ,, erty. ... A s a result of these events, &hIUld himself e.: ., r a t circ , the S deouxt. o f When'a temuer and rebellious ...- . policeman 'waS ..*

.

a m e f

detailed in the property as a precautionary measure, A and seriously injured the policemall. Is A ell.. titled .to the benefit of the mitigating circunlsence of passion or obfuscation? Explain your answer. No.. When the -entertained by the defendant . .had been d3liberately fomented by him m a considerable '.,:~. period of ti-, it is pot mitigatng (People vs. Hernandez, .. - ..43 Phil. 104; People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil, 283). The reason ..,. ... , ....for thjs ruling is that the &e committed must. be the natu_ral~uncontrollable of a sudden imnulse

. ... . .. . . attacked ,

e,

._,.

told that C, his' brother, was killed hy B in a fight. A beean to look for B. After one day, A Sound B in front ;+. _.. of a store and then and there killed the latter.. Can A ,.., . . .. ' properly invoke any of the. mitigating circumstances O f . . . brovoeation, vindication of a grave offense to his brother, and passion or obfuscation? Explain your answer. No, for the following reasons: (1) M g W t h e Billin. of A's brother is s j i e n k . 1)r ovocation.I it &-g& i E w e to the commission of these, hav. . . qne daysax i?g elapsed; (2) it cqu@Aot. be a , because a grave ofiense is gne. & w i&es : ' the G h o f a person; and (3) Jmsion or obfuscation he cannot be considered in favor of . . A, because the fact that the in the s&it of revenge,- i i , , c w y h i c h g i v e t o the obfuscation was not immediate t o the c o m n k s h of the &ne. .. onitEis not mitigating when it arises ,. , r from the spirit of .revenpe. irom the suirit of . . . It _ mnst c a a f r o m I s i t i m a t e ~feeling, ~?L&QDI a f m e or irnrnord. which is v&iom, u . , 549. A was maintaining illicit relations with a married woman. A and that woman went to a moviehouse. While seated

m,

1

,

.~

~

;: il'

I

~

~

.i

550. What are the mitigating circumstances which are &&bas4 o u h e diminution of any of the conditions which make the act voluntary? What then is their basis? They are: 1. That the offender had v a n t a r i l v surrendered himself t o a person in authority or his agent. 2. That he had voluntarilv conhis guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence f o r the prosecution. They are b x d on the lesser depree of criminal I W

v

e of the offender.

?.

,

~

~

' '

1

202

',,*,~..3. ,

there, E sat on the seat at the other-side of tlie,womy$$ and touched her breasts against her will. A, 'Seeing thats*:%3 B would repeat another act of 1aseivioubness.on~thepeIW$ of the woman, stabbed B who died. .as a consequent?: What mitigating circumstance do you find in. 'this e&?, , .. I.. Exohin vour answer. ,..\.,* Incomdete defense of stranger. The act of B in touch-',.; inrr tine breast of the woman against her will arid at&mL+@ -: & i to m t atlother act of7bv-S on her is&n, unlawful a g g E s a (People vs. Jaurigue). ; But. the -8,:,;;s de-e is not reasonage. It is submitted that A was I not induced hy ,ep' r resedtment 01 e J i t e , b-eml&Se his mnvose in stabbing B was to d&?d.the woman from . .~ .-~~ r an attack u r n her k&r. The mitigating circumstance' .' of passion or obfuscation c e b e consi-d in favor; : s nofo -A of A with .the woman 'were: .*.,ps ;,,e..:.,,, ::~. .i illegitimate (People vs. Holgado, et al., C.R. NO. L4406 . March 31, 1952). . .

sufficient irilelligence; (2 also affeet_s i n m e , o-rave offense, and defeet o r -of the o

203

CRIllIlNAL LAW REVIEWER

&-%

&@n,

or communication with his fellow beings or whick &e of his x u = , thereby a f k t i u g his

freedom of action. The mitieating circumstances of voluntary surrender and, voluntary plea of'guilty &wLinuaLue e t in t h e a d , the nerves, or tho moral faeudty of the 0-q. of the b& They are &d on ,mu&- which -a the conmission of the crime. The Isw ehooaes-to be jeuiei?t_to the offender -~ w&. voluntarilv surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent who voluntarily confessed his gUiltbefare the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, b m s e such an act &.Es -r and t& t & u i t indicates a moral d i s n a s i a in the offender farnra&le to his .

! i

1

&&=.

reform.

551. As X was a t large and could not be arrested because hi5

,+

'

Note: The low specifies tho public officers to whom the sur render should be made. If the public officer to whom the offender surrendered is not a person in authority or his agent,. it is not mitigating. I t is not necessary that the offender should look for a person in authority or his agent to surrender; i t is sufficient that as Soon as he meets a policeman, for instance, he gives himself up. to him. !Phe offender must surrender himself. Suppose that the offender never presented himsdf to the justice of the peace, hut only a bondsman with a hail bond for the offender went to the

204

justice of the pe6ce n-ho accepted and approved the same, filing of that hail bond tantamount to dolivering himself td authorities? In the case of Peaple 7s. Ye&, the aeeused' sented himself to post a hond. It seems that thia question' not settled. But the law requires that he must surrender him-.;. .,:*I self to a person in authority or his agent.

.'?% 552. A, who was %vag amtcncc by final judgment for homicide, g s m d from the prison. 'While a t large, A committed Later, A m m s e l f up to the authorities boxye the remaininp Deriod of his e c e for hommckle. Then, he was prosecuted for robbery which he committed after he had escaped from the prison. Is A entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? Why? No. A c m t successfdly &b the W t of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, because he did not surr&the authorities h y m ~ the f commission of the c h e for which he was nrosecuted, but €ahaving cv&& his w e for h d d e (see People vs. Semahda, G.R. No. L-11361, Oct. 26, 1958).

c _ -

whereabouts were unknown, the fiscal filed an information. against him for serious physical injuries. The court issued' a warrant for his arrest. Six months after the warrant was issued, A presented himself to the justice of the peace and posted a bond for his provisional release. Is this voluntary surrender, to be eonsidered as a mitigating circumstance? Explain your answer. Ye!;, the fact that the order of arrest had already beem issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstance, because the law does not require that the surrender of the accused be prior to the order of arrest. Moreover, the surrender of the accused to post a bond for his temporary release was in obedience to the order of arrest and was tantamount to the delivery of his person to the authorities to answer for the crime for which his arrest was or2ered.

CRl3IIXhL LAW REVIIEIYER

~

i

I

i

553. Can the circumstance that the accused did not resist arrest or did not struggle t o free himself after he was taken to custody by the authorities amount to voluntary surrender? No. While it is claimed that he intended to surrender, the fact remains t h a t the accused was arrested (People vs. Dimdiman, G.R. L-12622, Oct. 28, 1959). Note: The offender may have heen actually arrested, but if he (a) helped in carrying his victim to the hospital, or (a) remained a t the scene of the crime and readily gave himself up,' and handed to the poiiceman the weapon he used, he should be given the benefit af this mitigating circumstance (People VB. Bahiera, C.A., 45 0. G., Sup. 5, 3:U; People vs. Parana, 64 Phil. 331).

,554. In what cases is plea of guilty not a mitigating circumstance? 1. When the plea of guilty is made after the presents-.:, tion of any evidence by the prosecution.

205

I

CKIbIINAL LA\V RIWIEWER

. .

:. ,

.

EXF'LANATION: The benefit of that mitigating cimumstance is not deserved by the accused who submits to the law only after the of s a n e evidence for th9 prosecution, helictving that in the end the trial will result in his conviction. Iiut a chansc of plea, from "not guilty" to "guilty" is still mitigating, provided that the prosecution has not presented any evidence. When (he accused pleads guilty on appeal before the Court of First Instance, he wished neither to acknowledge his crime nor t o repent when his fizst opportunity came, that is, during the trial in the municipal o r justice of the peace Court. A plea of guilty to B lesser offense is not a spontaneous confession of guilt which the law requires. But when the information is amended so as to charge the lesser hut proper offense, the plea of guilty to the offense ck:irged in the amended information is mitigating.

.,'. ..

...555. A was on trial for malversation after a plea of not guilty. .

While the prosecution was presenting its evidence by Calling its first witness and before the direct testimony of that witness could be finished, A asked t h d the testimOnY . . of said witness be discontinued as he was willing to plead guilty to the offense charged. The court granted the motion of the defendant and ordered the first witness to with.'. 1 draw, ' A then withdrew his former plea of not guilty and r,.l .. pleaded guilty to the offense charged. Is A entitled to the - benefit of plea of guilty? Why? ,. . No. Such plea of guilty cannot be given consideration : . as mitigating circumstance'for it was a t e r e d after the ., prosecution had presented part of its evidence (People Vs. Lambino, 55 0. G. 1565). '

'.

'

. 55F. A

:'

'

required the prosecution to present evidence to prove t& qualifying circumstance. The. prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. Considering that the prosecution presented evidence. do you believe that A was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty? Explain.

2. CVhen the plea of guilty is made in the Court of First Instance in a case appealed from the municipal court. or justice of the peace court. 3. When the plea of guilty is t3 a lesser offense than that charged in the information.

.

.,.

CIUPlINAL LAW REVIEFVHR

~

prosecuted for murder qualified by evident premeditation. He pleaded guilty when he was arraigned, but manifested to tlce court t h i t evid,ent premeditation did not attend the commission of the crime. The court was

206

Yes, because although the confession was qualified and introduction of evidence became necessary, the qualification did not deny A's guilt and, what is more, was subsequently justified. It was n o t the fault of A~ that' a qualifying circumstance was erioneously allegecl in the information !People vs. Ytumiaga, 86 Phil. 534).

557. Why is it that when the offender is deaf and 'dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect, such circumstance is mitigating? ' Because such physical defect m e - his ,means of ' ' ' a &&, defense, or c.mmun'cation with his sellow beings, thereby diminishing his freedom of s n .

. . '

,

I

2

I ,

.

',

2

558. Distinguish insanity from illness of the offender. Insanity presupposB e&of - i a t the -of the eommiss:on of the crime. Illness of the offender only diminishes t h e w h of his;-w i t should not deprive him of e o n s c i n m s s of, Insanity is an gn-e circumstance. s-1 of the offender is only a mitigating circumstance.

u.

,. ..

Note: Examples of illness which are eonsidered mitigating circumstance are: (1) mild behavior disorder resulting from ill; ness which the offender had during'h,is early life; (2) acute neurosis which makes D person ill-tempered a n d . easily angered; (8) feeb!emindedness; ( 4 ) morbid infirmity, like that one which gives the offender the ohsession that the killing of a witch , . is f o r public good, because a person suffering from morbid infirmity does not have rea1 control over his wili, although he retains consciousness of his acts; and ( 6 ) . k m a n i a , which is an abnormal, persist.ent imdulse or' tendencv rtarl . , tn .~ ""ll.. When the illnesr,of the offender completely de~rivesb,. of the oefhis will nowe?, i t is embraced in the tm'.' '.' ''. insanity (People vs. Bonaan, 64 Phil. '87): ~~

ZOi

I

CRIMINAL WW REV~EIVER


559. May the court consider, as mitigating, n circumstance not

specifically provided by the Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer. Yes, because paragraph 10 of Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those” mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 9 of said Article, is also mitigating. Note: The other circumstances of similar nature and analogous ta those mentioned in mzrspraphs 1 to 9 of Art. 13 are: 1. Over 60 years old with Sailing sight, as similar to over 70 years of age. 2. -V restitutjon of stolen property, as -a to yoluntary surrender of the offender. 3. Extreme poverty and necessity, as s k i & to incomplete j3stifiention on state of news@. 4 . Any unjust or improper act or eonduct of the,offendad party which may affect the reason and self-control of the offender, like the act of tho debtor o f avoiding his oreditor, causing the latter to injure him, which is of similar nature and analogous to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.

660. Wiiat are the effects of the attendance of aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime upon the lia.

bility of the offender? They are: 1 , The specific and the generic aggravating c‘ wcumstances, tenby any mitigating circumstances, to i w e m the penalty w,thowever, exceeding the m A x a m of the penalty provided by law for the offense. $!. The i n h e r e d aggravating circumstances shall & be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 2, R.P.C.). 3. The qualifying aggravating circumstances the e&@ its and exclusivo name but also p&cg the thereof in such a situation as t o dewm m o t h e r penalty t h m t sQecifieallv mescribed by law fqf- said crime.

e,

208

I

4. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves e& stitute a crime specially punishable by law’or which are included hu the law in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 5. Awravnting circumstances which arise from the m.oral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause. ehall only serve t o aggravate the liability of the principals, accomnlices and accessories as t o whom such circumstances are attendant. 6 . The aggravating circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execut’on of the act or their cooperation therein (Art. 62, pars. 1, 3 and 4, R.P.C.).

Note: Examples: (1) generic - dwelling, recidivism, nighttime; (2) specific - ignominy in crime3 against chastity, cruelty or treachery in crimes against persons, disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of rank, age or sex, applies evident only to crimes against persons or honor: (3) inherent premeditation is inherent in robberJ; #ex is inherent in rape, seducticn o r abduction; (4) qualifuing - treachery, evident premeditation, or price which qualifies the killing of a persou to murder. Note that dwelling, which is generic in other crimes -like murder-is inherent in certain crimes, like trespass to dwelhnp;, where dwe!ling must of necessity accompany the eammissiorl of the erime of trespass. As murder can be eommitted outside t h e dwelling of the offcended party, dwelling is not inherent in such crime. The aggravating circumstance which in itself constitutes a crime specially punished by law is “That the crime be committed by means of fire.” I n the crime of arson, such eircumstance is not aggravating. The aggravating circumstance which is included by the law in defininit a crime is “dwelling” in the crime of robbery in inhabited house (Art. 299, R.P.C.). The aggravating circumstance whieh arises from the moral ’ attribute of the offender is evident premeditation. The aggravating circumstance nhich arises from the private relation of the offender with the offended party is the relation of the scrvant with his master.

-

209

CKlllIlNAL LAW IlEYIEiWER

CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWER The aggravating circumstance which arise3 fyom other personal cause is recidivism. The aggravating circumstance which consists in the material execution of the act o r in the incam ernliloycd to accomplish it is treachery 01. nighttime.

i. !

.,. ., “” penalty for simple theft, involving the amount of F’600,~’$$ . ~, only to the n w eriod. ,,,. . .....’ i ,. .,

,.L.
!

563. A policeman, upon seeing the offended party carrying an.:’? automobile tire, stopped the latter, charged him with hav- *, ing stolen it, and threatened him with arrest, unless he 1 would give 85.00, which the person gave to avoid being molested furt.her. The tire was the personal property of the offended party. The policeman, in taking the P5.00 from the, offended party with iintimidation, abused his public position. In case the policeman is charged with, prosecuted for, and convicted of robbery, must the aggravating circumstance “that advantage be taken by the offendex of his public position’’ be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. No, because in this particular form of robbery, the taking advantape of the public positio_n occupied by the offender is i w in the offense (People vs. Calderon, et al., G.R. No. 35889).

661. A is charged with murder in an information &??Zing tre-, ey -r as the qualifying aggravating circumstance. During the trial, where the prosecution established the conlmission of murder by A, the defense pgRed a grivilered mitigating that is, that A was, at the time circumstance of &rity, of the commission of the crime, over 15 F a r s but under 16 years of age. Can the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority offset the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery? Explain your answer. No, because notwithstanding the ixivileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the desim&ion &z u&lYLof the offense committed xemains.to be m m and the aualifying- a ’ e of treachery c a a o t the privileged mitigating circumstance of be &-by minority. The &&.&of that privileged mitigating circumstance is to -the penalty for murder by !?% d m z Note: A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset even by n privileged mitigating circumstance.

562. A is charged with sin~pleth,eft of a ring belonging to B and valued at E O O . During the trial, the prosecution p m d that A was a guest in the house of B at the time of the commission of the crime. Can the court convict A

.’

of qualified theft committed with -abuse of cunfidenee? Explain your answer. No, because grave abuse of confidence is a aualifying aggraxating circumstance which must be alleged in the infarmation. Since A was charged only w i t h x p l e theft, of grave abuse which i m d e s that there was &legation of confidence, the d o f abuse of confidence should establish o& a ge-ggravating circumstance which, if not offset by a mitigating circumstance, should r&e the

210

!,

I

,

Note:/hhen the threat or intimidation employed by the public officer to commit @b&ry, consists in threatening. the offended party with a r m t and prosecution, taking advantage of his puhlic position is intemal in the offense. Taking advantage of e b l i c Dosition ic’xso I-i in (1) bribery, (2) f a f-n i Art. 171, and (3) malversation. Hence, it does E have the ef&t uf increasing the penalty in those crimes. Taking advantage of public position is an aggravating circumstance and has the effect of increasing the penalty in the following cases: (1) il councilor who imposed and collected fines and misaypropriated the same (US. vs. Tornda, 23 Phil. 18S), (2) a goliceman. in miform who abducted a girl by availing himself of his position (U.S. YS. Yumul, 34 Phil. 169), and (8) the chief of police who duiing the search of a boat threatened the ere.,, with bodily ham snd demanded money, thereby committing robbery (People vs. Cerdena, et al., 51 Phil. 393).

564. A attacked the mayor of his town who was in the performance of his duty. Did A commit the crime with the aggravating circumstance of “in contempt of or with insult to the public authority”? Explain your answer. 211


CizInimAL LAW REVIEWER

No, because that aggravating Circumstance requires that h&&o is enpaped in the exercise of public fun&n is &mshould not b e t h e m n against whom the &e

.m -

cumstance would be to give i t double effect (US. vs. De la Torre. 3 Phil. 516). Note: The aceused must have w & l v intended to aftend or i?m& the s u a @ . o u a n k of the offended party (People Mangsant, 65 Phil. 648) ; othenviue, this aggravating eircumstance is not present.

1,s.

565. Classify the aggravating circumstance of “with insult or

in disregard” of rank, age or sex and explain your answer. It is a c-s aggravating circumstance, because it may be taken into account only in u $ - a 9 a i n s t . p l S or honor. It is not annlicahie to c-s~ a~g&&prK!Wty. Thus, s w %e p& of a w even with a etdmrpose of offending ber, is not appravating.

567. Explain why it is aggravating when the &me is epmn&ted in the &yelling of the offended party. There are two reasons why it is aggravating when the crime is committed in the &&ng of the offended party, namely: (I ) when the offender was w b e d in the home of the offended party and the former committed the crime .. - of c o n f L e ; and against the latter, t u a a s (2) when the offender forced his w-into the m g of the offended party to e& tke crime therein, there was violi&bn of the sanctitv 0 - w . ~. ~

666. In what cases is that aggravating circumstance not con.

sidered present, even if the offended party js a woman, an old man or a person of high rank? Explain your answer. In i.he following cases: 1. When the offender committed the crime with p-i-sion or obfuscation or because of pr-omcation by the offended party. A h e n a man is blinded by passion or obfuscation, or is provoked, he 1-s his rsason.~.and self-control, and this beinz a mental condition, he could n & b Y e h a taus t h t his a& was done with disrespect to the offended p-.

2 . When there exists a %elationship nbthe offended party and the offender. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender, there is norespect dus to the offended party, e& when the offended party is a relative of a hh&~$e.aee than the offender. 3 . When the cad&n of being a woman is in& @e in the commission of the crime, such as, in parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction. Thus, it was held that the only thing which makes the offense parricide is the fact that the deceased was the wife of the defendant. To allow it as an aggravating cir-

212

.Note: A combination house and store is not vs. Magnayc, G.R. L-3510, May 30, 1951),.

a

dwelling (People

568. In what cases is dwelling not aggravating?

In the following caseo:

1. When the o f f e n w party in his dwelling f w a n d immediate provocation to 2. When heboffender and are occupants of the same dwelling. 3 . When dwelling is inherent in .. in r - y wigl-arce upon thin= .-d

mfnf

the o m the offended party the crime. such as and in tresnass tQ

EXPLANATION: In the first case, the offended party right to.be respected in hisbecause he ro. v o e t o the o m . But the provocation contemplated has three repisites, nsmely: (1) i t must be given in dwellinp: (2) it must be s w n t ; and (3) i t must he hm m . If any a i these requisites is J t i n g , even if the offended party g a - p n a c a t i o n , the aggravating cireurnstanee of di&iig shall be t h into accoulG for the purpose of inereasins the pcnaliy l o be imposed on the offender. The provocation is disregarded. Thus, if A boxed the face of B 01: the road and immediately thereafter A ran into his house near-by and B followed A

h$

a

213

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEE

CRIMISAL LAW REVIEWER

I

.

570. Is it necessary for the application of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling that the offender should enter the dwelling of the offended party in committing the crime? Explain pour auswer. No, because the .liur m u i r e s only that the &e d- c in the d w e l l a o f the offended partxi, w e 1has not given provocation.’’ In committing the crime in the dwellinE of the offended party, it is not necessary that the offender enter it. Thus, the offender on the street who shot his victixn in the latter’s house committed the crime in the dwelling of the victim.

into the latter’s house wherc B killed him, dwelling is still aggravating in spite of the provocation, because it was not given by A in his house. Also, the provocation may be sufficient, like the illicit relations that the deceased had in his house with the wife of the offender, but if the commission of the crime was not immediate to the provocation, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance (People vs. Dequiiia, GO Phil. 279). The prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by the offended party in the latter’s dwelling. I n the second case, where dwelling i s not aggravating because both the offender and the offended Party are occupants of the same dwelling, the offender m a y be a mere servant in tho house of the offended yarty. Hence, in the case of People vs. Caliso, 68 Phil, 283, this circumstance was not cansidered against the m’vant who killed an infant i i i the house of its parents, because the servant was also living there. , d t when the offended party is @ - ~ h c of~ the dwelling, the iaet that the crime was committed against him while in another’s dwelling is not aggravating (People vs. Guhiting, e t al., G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951). The ruling in the GUhiting case is not now authoritative. In the case of People vs. Base, 83 Phil. 622, it was held that d&k&Was-gL@E!!tinc, although the did n&hJn to the v k i h s who were murdered by the w.u&Cd . Tk22&p&oP ‘&&LS,’

m>ZiiziGiL

569. X went to the hqg!% o€ Y in company with two other persons, hound Y with a cord and, after taking him a hundred meters froni his house, slashed his abdomen with a bolo, ’ resulting in his death. Considering that the crime was committed outside the dwelling of Y, do you believe that dwelling should be taken into account for the purpose of .. increasing the penalty to be imbposed on X? Explain yunr answer. of tCe crime Yes. It is s m t that the on-c was b w i ~ i nthe dwellinn of the victim. The & performed cannot be divided or the U - r e m g ,f.mn~.& d&ds..he broken UI (US.vs. Lastimosa, 27 Phil. 432). N01.e: But if the victim was called by the offender and the victim wont down from his dwelling voluntarily, tho killing of the victim outside of his dwelling was not attended by this agipavatjng circumstance.

214

!

571. If the unfaithful wife committed adultery in the conjugal dwelling, is dwelling aggravating? It depends. If the paramour is in the same dwelling, it is zg-2 even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, because U k s the pf the E i d p a sh~~w her husbai~d,she and her paramour v m the resued due ..to the c a ‘ u e a l home and they h a . thereby iniure and commit a v m e offense c-2 the h e a d o f the house. But if the paramour is a k o Mrg in the same hause, aggravating, because both the wife and the dwelling is paramour had a righL t d . i n the house (People vs. Destrito and. De Ocampo, 23 Phil. 28). 672. What aggravating circumstance is present when a father

/raped

his daughter?

In the m e of U.S. vs. Viloria, 27 Phil. 466, it WBS held that the perpetrator of this h r r i f v i n a crime &IJ& i - i m w e e r the confjdenee v&h it is natural h b w n daughter s-ld repose in him. In the case of People vs. Porras, 58 Phil. 578, it was held circumstance of relationship e-nr that the a&rnative taken into consideration as an aggravatinz cir&mstance. c

~

_

_

~

4

573. When a husband took a man into his1 home, furnished him with food and lodging without charge, and treated him like tr a son, but the latter committed adultery with the wifeg 215

I

1 1 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CllIRIINAL LAW REVIEWEli

of the former, what aggravating circumstance attended the commissi,on of the crime? A & e of confidence, not dwelling, because the paramour also lived in the same house (U.S. vs. Destrito and De Ocampo, 23 Phil. 229). Note: It should have been obvious ungratefulness, because the M of a w d o a t to be rratefd t o the offelided party i committing a crime against him.

5

1

574. Suppose the husband, upon knowing that the man in the preceding question was in love with his wife, sent him out of the house and, when the husband left for his office, tha.t man went to the house and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the wife, what aggravating circumstance would you consider against that man? Explain your an. .. swer. The aggravating circumstance is .&&n$, not abuse of confidence. The husband h. . & &&. & P J a& his.confidcnce . . of the .. . , illhim, a s shown by the fact that he . .. house upon knowing that the n a n was in love with his wife. The of the aggravating circumstance of :. abuse of confidence are: (1) that the offended uarty.had . _ . tg&aLthe offender; (2) that the offendera-d-such trust by committing a crime against the offended party; and (3) that the abuse of confidence facilitated the mmission of the crime. The first requisite is lacking in that case. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was comL . mitted in the dwelling of the offended party is present, because the man was no longer living in the house when :. : . .. ‘-‘;o;: the m’me of adultery was committed by him and, there. ,.’ . fore, he had no right to be there.

1

4 I

1

1 j

-

~

~-

-575. During the meeting of the Council of State in Malacafian Palace, presided over by the President of the Philippines, A, a member fo the Council of State, utte1e.l serious de. . famatory remarks against B, another member. The fiscal, :..... ,. who investigated the complaint of B against A, charged .’ the latter with grave oral defamation. What aggravating

216

i

i 1

circumstances attended the commission of the crime of grave oral defamation? Must all of -them be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. The aggravating circumstances are: (1) that the a e %as committed in the w e of the Chief Executive, (2) his oresenqe, and (3) where public a ~ r i t i e were s e u e d in the dkchaxge of their &ti@. Only m - o f them should be considered for the purpose of increasing the penalty to he imposed on A. Like in mitigating circumstances, one a d the same fact c m t be made the b&g of two or more m-yinp circumstances. There is great= u n to a& this rule in aggravating circumstances because they are unfavorable to the w d .

676. While the janitor of the Supreme Court was cleaning the Office of the Chief of Justice at six o’clock i n the morning, another janitor attacked and seri’ously wounded the former then and there. Is the fact that the crime was committed in the Office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court an aggravating circumstance? Explain your Rnswer. No, because the circumstance that the crime was comniitted in the office of the public authorities is aggravating only when the public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties in their office when the crime was committed. Note: But the aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed in a @lace dedicated to religious worship does not require that there be a religious ceremony. And note the use of the ward “edicated,” meaning that the &e is evclusively u s o r re&ious womhig. A temporary altar built at thT Luneta, even if mass is being said there by a cardinal, i s not a place dedicated to religious worship. Note RlSO that paragraph 6 of Art. 14 requ!!ires that when the offender entered any of the places mentioned there, he r a v e the i&,&ipn t o ‘tn a aiae i n that place. The ruling in the case of People va. Jaurigue should be considered applicable to other places mentioned in that garagraph 6 of Art. 14.

217

CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

577. When is nighttime, an uninhabited place or by a band an ,

.

:

.

,

' ~

,

.

. , , .

aggravating circumstance? Any of them is an aggravating circumstance1. When it facilitated the commission of the mime; *, 2. When it is easeially sough_t-fo_r by the offender to insure the commission of the crime o r for the purpose of i s u t y ; or 3. When. the offender t&~~advantage .thereof for the .. purpose of j i .

'578. When is nighttime not an aggravating circumstance, evert

, ~ %

if the crime was committed dnring nighttime? In the following cases: 1. When the crime was the a t of a succession of. a& which took place within the period of two hours, commencing at 5:OO p.m. and continued up to 7:OO p.m.; 2 . When treach-.x!-_v d- w in the commission of the crime, because -n is a~ ~ ...m .. in treachery; 3 . When the &ing between the offender and the offended party a t nighttime yas-casual and t h e m f committing the crime came_mte ' thcmind-of the offender only a t that time. The reason for this is thate-n ms not m seW&. Of course, it may be aggravating, if the darkncss f a c i l i b d the %mn&sh-of the c r i m M r that the Qffender tQok ta e O

U

Note: Case No. 3 and the rules mentioned therein apply also t o 1) uninhabited place and (2) by B band. The m e must be C O m m i t t P r l in dcvrknesg. Hence, if there IS &it e in the glace of the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is

//'

..

prgaent.

5.79. If in an, uninhabited place there were other persons pass-

ins by when a person killed another, may the circumstance that the crime was committed in uninhabited place be taken 218


into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. The question of whether or not it was difficult for the offended party to receive help must be considered. In the case of People vs. Rubia, 62 Phil. 172; it was held that the purely accidental circumstances that on t h e . day in question another banca with two persons was about 20 lrrazas from the banca where the deceased was killed did not alter the fact. that it was difficult for the victim to receive help, the incident having taken place at sea. Note: That the crime is committed in an uninhabited place i s rq&.csA aggravating, because the !solation of jL& t a g t - the ~ 4 n um ~ e n .

580. Is the aggravating circumstance of by a band applicable

t o crimes against persons? Yes. Despite what has been said in some cases to the effect that it is to be applied only to crimes against property, i t is equally applicable to crimes against persons, such as murder (People vs. Alcaraz, e t al., G.R. L-9064-67, April 30, 1958).

-581. A, B, C and D, all armed with piFjtols, raped a woman one after another. What aggravating circumstance, if any, do you find in this case? Ex,plain your answer. None, because "by a band'' is ~ L m R l b k b l eto C Z ~ W S against chastity, like rape (People vs. Corpus, et al., C.A., 43 O.G. 2249). "Abuse of superior strength" ordinarily is not also applicable to the crime of rape or forcible abduction&cause the commissior? of the crime of rape or forcible abduction, which may be %cxmmEshd b a , presupposes suoezioxk-offorce on. the Dart of fenders. But abuse of silperior strength may be present in the commission of the crime of coercion or forcible abduction, if the strength availed of is clearly i m 9f t h o quired for the realization of the&knsg (People vs. Fernando, et al., C.A., 43 O.G. 1717).

__

219

I 1



582. Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code, defining a band com-

553. Why is it aggravating to commit a crime on the occasion

mitting robbery, provides that “When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune?

-

x x x. . “Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished a s prhcipal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent th,e same.” Now, then, in determining the ,proper penalty to be imposed om t.he members of the band who committed robbery with homicide, must the aggravating circumstance that the crime was comniitted by a band be takeu into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answer. Yes, because Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code does not define a felony. It merely defines a band committing ’robbery and the liability of any member thereof who is present at the commission of a robbery by a band. This provision should be distinguished from Art. %6 !, which &&s hsixandage as.Ltelony. This article provides that when more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery i n M g h w a y , or lddnapping persons for the purpose of e m o n o r to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be atbined by means of f&cg..,apl-v&qce, they shall be deemed highway robbers o r brigands-whic his m.nn&$d as an offense. Because of that definition. of brigandage, g-r that there be the formation of a band of robbers by more than three armed persons, the aggravating circumstance of “by a baud” is iahez:gni. in brigandage, to such a degree that iLrnust of-necessity accompany the co&iian-thereof (Art. 62, par. 2). Thus, in the cases of People vs. Sawajan, et al., 53 Phil. 689, and People vs. Uday, et al., G.R. No. L-1979, Feb. 16, 1950, i t was held that in the imposition of the penalty for robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band should be taken into consideration.

When any of such misfortune occurs, it is easier both to commit the crime in the midst of the confusion whieh danger always produces, and to escape from the hands of justice. It also shows a debasetlferm of cximinality on the &p of the Qf.&ez who, in&e.ad of renderinp help to the a=, sn-i their afflictiqn by tm advantage of their midortune to wrong them. 554. A committed theft of government property u p m assurance by the mayor of the toivn that he would not be arrested and punished for it, as in fact the mayor saw to it that no policeman would patrol near the place. What aggravating eircwustance attended the commission of the crime? That the &e conunittgd with the aid of person who insored or afforded impunity, “Impunity” means freedom from punishment.

wv

585. In what cases is “aid of armed men” riot to be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? In the following cases: 1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed; 2 . When one offender, as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime, acted under the same plan and for the same purpose. 586. When is “aid of armed men” absorbed in “by a band,”

and when can it be taken separately a s another aggravating circumstance? When the offenders are more than f.hree, all armed, and they actively cooperated in the commkion of the crime, “the aid of armed men” is absorbed in “by the band” (People vs. Piring, 63 Phil. 548). But ,when the offender secured the services of armed men to commit the crime, that offender committed the crime with the aid of armed men (People vs. Ilane, G.R. No. 4590% May 31, 1938).

tIi...

, ’~ >!’~ ,,.,,.

,

.

220

221

$

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER I

587. May a person convicted of a crime punishable under aspecial 1a.w be declared a recidivist if at the time of h i s trial he had been previously convicted by final judgment of the same crime? Explain your answer. No, because a recidivist is one who, at the time of his. trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same. title of the Revised Penal Code, not of a special law. Note: But the second eonvictim of the same offense was considered aggravating in n usury ease. The Usury Law i s a special law. Art. 10 of the Code was applied (People YE.. HodEcs, 68 n i l . 178).

588. When a person has been convicted of and served sentences for several crimes and is now convicted of a new crime, what are the aggravating circumstances that may possibly be taken into account for the purpose of increasing t h e . penalty to be imposed on him? To what extent may t h e penalty be increased? 1. If the f m and the sycond. offenses are emb.?&c$d in the sa_me title of the Revised Penal Code, he is a red-u t ~&=c.on of the secanddffense. 2. If the first and the second offenses are not embraced in the same title of khe Revised Penal Code, but the convict Qreviouslm.rv.ed s e n h x e for the f a t offense .t to which the attaches an e ~ i a lor grecter penalty , r for two o r more crimA to which it attaLhes a l k h i g ... 'L =then there is ?&@zw&n or habitnality. 3. When the s&exeaLcrimes for which h.e sen." tences are so-r l ~ s _ s e r i o u s~ h ~ j ~ a l - i n j d rnhes, k y , t&f.t, estafa or f&sWio_n, the semnd and s& w n t camktions are wifhin.-ten..yw.rs fmm the I& c ~ ~ Y & L o J ~or r x l ~ e and , is naw convicted of any of s3.W crimes the thirrlLime or-_oftener then he is a h a b i b a t delinquent. I,

4. When the person oz._tr_iaj,for one crime been convicted by finaLaudgment of another crime, and t h e crime for which he is a t r i a l was committed befoE be-

222


ginning to serve such sentence or uW~rwringthe same, there is qu.+s.i,re.cidivism, Recidivism and reitzracion o r habituality, which are generic aggravating circumstances, have the effect of increasing the penalty to the maximum period, if not offset hy a mitigating circumstance. Habitual delinquency, which is an extra-ordinary aggravating circumstance, usually includes recidivism and it not only increases the penalty to the maximum, if recidivism is not offset by a mitigating circumstance, but also authorizes the imposition of additional penalty. Quasi-recidivism, which is a special aggravating circumstance, serves to increase the penalty for the new felony to the maximum period, regardless of the presence of any ordinary mitigating circumstance. In other words, quasirecidivism cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. 589. A previouslv served sentence for !%%+-seriousphysical in-

juries, punishable by arrest0 mayor. He is m c o n v i c t e d of estafa, punishable by prision curreccional. What aggravating Circumstance do you fins in this case? Explain your answer. could not be reiteraciolt There is m e , became, -it or habituality since the ?aen&L&tWd to t h e & & offense is .r1 thmA?a& f o r h e m Q . Bd o & ~ e ;and, second, it could not be recidivism since estafa and physical injuries are not embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. EXPLANATIOX: In & ~ b - , o r m t y , the convict t0 muot hsvo previously served s e w for as-e, which the law a@&@ at ls&t an esual penalty; natlesser, as in We problem given. The penalty which the convict pre.iiously served may be lighter, but he must previously serve sentences for at least two crimes to which the law attaches lighter penalty.

$90. A previously served the minimum period of reclusion tem-

poral, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty, for 223

I


rapc, upon a plea of gnilty. Now A i s couvicted of homicide. Since there is no mitigating circuiastance that attended the c~mmissionof th'e crime of horntcide, €he penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide will have t o he imposed, in the period higher than the min'mnm. Is there habituality or reiteracion in this case? Why? Y e s , there is still reiteracion or habimality, because the penalty attached to the crime of rape and the penalty f o r homicide are the same (equal penalty), that is, yeelusion temporal. It is the penalty attached..to the oj%nse that s h d d he considered, notAhe penalty actually imposed. after having conceived the idea of killing C, looked B the next day and, upon meeting him, offered B P1,OOO to kill C. As soon as he accepted the offer, R took a hand grenade with him and when he saw C , B threw .the hand grenade at him. When the hand grenade cxplodf!d, C was killed. A gave P1,OOO t o B after the latter assured the former that C was already killed. What aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime? Against whom must they be considered? Must each o f them be taken into account separately ils a distinct aggravating circumstance for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your answers. The aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime are (1) that the crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise; (2) that the act was committed with evident premeditation; and (3) that the crime was committed by means of explosion. There is evident premeditation in this case as regards A, because the time when A determined to commit the crime was known. A had conceived the idea of committing the crime the day before he offered E P1,OOO to kill C. A performed acts manifestly indicating that he clang to his determination to commit the crime, when he offered P1,OOO to B the next day after be had conceived the idea of killing C. Hence, there was sufficient lapse of time for

224

CRIRllNAL LAW REVIEWER

between the determination t o commit the crime and its execution during which A could $&e@* the eonaequence of his act. Th.e aggravating'cireum~anceof evident premeditation, which arose from the r n d a e t e of the offender, being a&endant to A only, should senre to aggravate his liability, but it will riot aggravate the liability o i E, because evident premeditation was not attendant t o him (Art. 62, par. 3, R.P.C.). qsfar_a,S_A..~-c.~~cer!led, the a c 4 w d i R g circumstance of BNnqd o r .ixomis-e. i W&illSd&&ai.~g~i~&&?n. It may be CQQ&%! as cQ& :L i@%! the seeond _element of evident- prenieditation. But prim, reward or promise is aggravating as against 5 , because he earnmitted the crime in consideration thereof. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was comi ~ t e de e a n s . . o € .explosion (the use of hand grenade) should be comidered agcdnst-B, he h&&! the o s w_ho u-y&$-ns. It c m be taken int.0 aceaunt for the purpose of i n c w i n g the penalty to be imposed on A, if the latter had lmaq&dge that the hand grenade would be u s e d h p B . But from the facts stated in the question, there is n a d k a t i o n that A knew th.at B would use a hand grenade, as they n-exer..t&Ced about the W w Y&h which B would kill. .C. Aggl'avating circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve t o aggravate the liability of those persons only who had kwxledge of them a t the time of the exe.cution-of the & or thAL3DR-B therein (Art. 62, par. 4, R.Y.C.).

%-.

592. When is the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise to be considered against the person who gave or offered it, and when is it to be taken into account only against the offender who received or accepted i t ? When it is alleged as a qiJalifying aggravating circnmstance of murder and there is an allegation of conspiracy, i t being an elemeiit of that offense, it shall affect both of them. In case of conviction both of them will be liable for murder, qualified by price, revard or promise. 225

l i

I

! ?

CIIiMIKAL LAW REVIEWER


But when it is not alleged in the inforniation or, even if alleged, it is_pnly a generic aggravathg circumstance, it shall affect Znly the principal by direct participation: because he was the one who committed the crime in consideration of price, reward or promise,

593. Art.. 14, par. 12, of the Revised Penal Code, providing for another aggravating circumstance states, "that the crinte be committed by means of inundation, fire, po:son, ex. plosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin." Now, then, when is this aggravating circumstance qualifyittg, inherent or one which in itself constitutes a crim,e or which is included by the law in defining a crime? State the effect of each upon the criminal liability of the offender. It is qualifying when t!le crime committed is against persons and the offender uses inundation, fire, poison, explosion, or any of the other means mentioned in paragraph 12 of Art. 14, to kill his victim. In this case, the killing of a person is qualified to murder. The penalty is that one provided for murder. Once any of the means mentioned in Art. 14, par. 12, is considered to qualify the killing of a person t o murder, it becomes an inherent aggravating circumstance in murder o r included by law in defining a crime and shall not be taken into account again for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 2, or par. I, R.P.C.). When any of the means mentioned in Art: 14, par. 12, is used to commit a crime against property, like arson, crimes involving destruction, or special cases of malicious mischief, it in itself constitutes a crime specially punished by law or which is included by the law in defining a crime and, therefore, it shall not he taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1, R.P.C.). .~. If there is no intent to kill on the part If the offender, F; but inundation, fire, poison or explos'on is wed as a means ;$.:'to commit a crime, and a person is Billed as a consequence, 226

,i

the use of such means does not qualify the crime to murder. It is a compiex mime, either (1) of crimes involving destruction with homicide under Art. 48 in relation to Arts. 3 2 i a n d 219, when explosion or inundation is used, or (2) of arson -with homicide (U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418). The penalty to be imposed is the penalty for the mose serious offense, to be applied in the maximum period.

594. A decided to kill B on May 29, 1959. On May 30, A killed 13. Is there evident prenieditation in this case? Explain your answer. No, because these was n g _ e x t m a L a t between t h e time A determined to commit the crime and the time he actually committed the crime. The premeditation must be h;iseri on e mLww.zm& from &time. en & mdfe.stlW&in.g- that the d p i t has clung to his d&exmination to cnmmit the crime. 595. Is evident premeditation aggravating in aherratio ictus? No. Fhick' ion m s h b e properly_takpn

i g u c s u t when the person whcm the defendant intended to kill was d s f r a m the one who became his victim. In such^ case, the. a&aL.u- '-tim was mLw&np plated in the s?r_emdihkion.

P

EXPLANATION f l ident premeditation may be considered a5 present, even if person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the offendem were &exnu&' t e k i y nataaly the intended victim but also awho ,It& p& n vi&RJLwand tho actual victim was one who would have helped the intended victim put a violent resisL ance (People vs. Ubina, G.R. No. L49G9, Sept. 1, 1955). It is not necessary that there be a plan to kill a particular pei2mi (CS.vs. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77; U.S. YS. Zalsos and Rogmac, 40 Phil. 90). Zvident premeditation is i d & in r u y (People v a Daos, 60 Phil. 143), especially where it is committed by various Perso1is, became they must have an ng.reernent, they have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carryins out the crime and they have to irct-cudpa ' tely i lL ed (.Peop!e vs. Valeriano, et al., G.R. No. L - z l S g m ) .

227

l i

I f


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Known premeditation is inherent or implied in estafa, adultery and other similar crimes (US.VS. Blaneo, 10 Phil. 298; U.S. v i . Hermosilln, 31 Phil. 406).

596. A courted the maid of the house of B to enable him to

T

enter the.t house. During the second meeting with the maid in the house and when the maid had already confidence in him, A stole money and jewelry of B. What aggravating circumstance attended the cornmission of the crime? Explain your answer. C d t , because A r m to i ? & d m w and the house cvnning to induce the m a i d t o niof B. Note: It cannot be &bus* of confidence, bec%&%eBd b & w Q . = -

'

eejnit.

697. How is the aggravating circumstance of employing fraud

in the commission of the crime distinguis5ed from that of craft?

5

tion of outhority to gain entrance into the liouse where offender committed acts of Issaiviousness. F m d - U.S. vs. Vnndal, 3 Phil. 8!3 - inducing victim to go down to the lower story of his house, pretending to be buying wine stored there and when victim went down then and there killing him. Diaguise - by resorting to any devise to conceal identity before committing the crime, f i e eggravating circumstance of disguise is twhen the offender is reragnized 1 - u the d w e .

598. A, a big and husky fellow, in the heat of anger attacked B, a small and weak man, causing upon the latter serious physical injuries. Is the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of superior strength present in this case? Extplain your answer. No, because A attacked B while he was in the heat of anger and, therefore, he could not have taken advantage of his superior strength. . n o -t e of superior strength means t o puruosely excessive force o w . pLpMrtian to tlie m&n&o.f uraih& to the person attacked.

or a manner as to make it easier for the offender t o commit the crime. Thus, if in the preceding problem, A told the maid that he was an employee of the Meralco and that he wanted t o get inside the house t o read the meter and because of his said representations, which were false, ne was allowed to enter the house and once inside, A at the point of his revolver succeeded in taking money and jewelry from the wardrobe of B, the owner of the house, the aggravating circumstance that fraud was employed in committing the crime of robbery with intimidation would be present. Note: Craft U.9. vs. Gampona, 36 Phil. 817-inviting the victim to n distant mountain to see a tree of peculiar virtue and once there killed the victim; People VS. Daos, et al., 60 Phil. 143-pretending to be a passenger and once in the taxicab a t a certain place robbed the driver of the money in his pos' session: People vs. Timbol, C.A., 41 O.G. 1869 -assuming posi-

-

228

599. Is the mere fact that the offender is a man and the victim is a woman an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior 8trengt.h in murder? No. The aggravating circumstance of abuse o f superior strength should not be taken into account just because the defendant is a man and the deceased is a woman, inasmuch, as this aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime of m w d w (People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil, 548). Note: When the crime committed is murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, it having qualified already the crime, i t shall not be taken into account to raise the penalty to the maximum. If murder is qualified hy trcaehery, abuse of superior strength is absorbed i r treachery. But the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present when a man attacked a woman with B weapon and the charge is homicide 01' physical injuries, be. cause his sex and weapon save the offender snperiority of strength and it is not inherent in the crime.

229

I


600. A and B, helping each other, attacked and iajdred C with fist blows. Is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength present in this case? ' of the d a i i q e plqisiealstrength Therebeing uuhmymz b e b e s n - h and B, on one hand, and C, on the other, their e x r-i doesno& nec@sa& impLr abuse O f . 3 L p X i W h.

'

.

.

... ,.

Note: But the greater number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of superior strenpth. Nighttime, craft or fraud and abuse of Superior strength are inhe.r.4 or rbsnrhed in ts%~!%rY, Abuse of su,perior strenglli, ordinarily, is not aggravating in coercion, rape or forcible abduction, because these crimes presuppose the employment of force v1j-s theresisti u of the offendehllarty, but when the abuse of superjor ' the strength is great1v.h e x ~ ~ s . . o f c t b armshd t t w O&JW, it i s aggravating. . Thus, abuae of superior strength .was considered by the Supreme Court in the commission of rape by four men who employed force and intimidation (U.S. VS. Camiloy, 3G Phil. 767), and in the commission of forcible abduction by several abductors (People VS. Fernando, 44 O.G. 177).

601. A was found dead with a stab wound in the baclc. Accord. ing to the doctor who performed an autopsy, that stab v o u n d was the cause of death. B was suspected and in-

vestigated. B confessed to the authorities that he stabbed A in the back. Did B kill A with treachery? Explain your aitswer. The mere fact that the deceased had wounds in the back does not necessarily show that the accused attacked him from behind, giving the deceased no chance to defend himself, so as to bring the offense within the definition of the crIme of murder qualified by treachery (People vs. Embalido, 68 Phil. 152). In the case of People vs. Cafiete, 44 Phil. 478, the deceased received a~fatal thrust with a knife in the hack, and yet treachery was not considered against the accused. h e f o r e treachery can be found to be present in the killing of a person it must d a r l v muear t h a t t h e w 230


of a m t -a by the accused was deliberately rho= by him with a sgecial view to tine accomnlishment of the act withoEsisk.to himself arisinp from the defense which the person attacked might make. 602. A, who wanted to commit acts of lasciviousness on B, a woman, suddenly and unexpectedly approached her from behind, grabbed her by placing his two arms around her waist, and then held her breast and her private parts. Must treachery be considered i n this case? Explain your answer. No, beause -t agnlies o n k t o crimes against p, not to a C r h e & cf?a&, like acts o f s civiousness. Art. 14, par. l G , in defining this aggravating circumstance, states that t u t - r e r y fender commits &=of the crimes a b t the uerso_n, etc.

u-

603. May the aggravating circumstance of treachery be present

even if the assault was made face to face? Yes. The fact that the attack was made face t o face does not necessarily imply that there was no treachew. When the a&aAk was sudden unexpected, there is treachery if the offender puruoselv ad&e_d that method or form of attack, as when it was done under the auiqe pf friendship. Bat when the offender Qted nuon a& & e whj& prodiiced passion ?r obfuscation, there can be n-achery, becaiise the method o r form of attack could mLha~% h.e.en m - y adouted, h.e having & I his m, s ~ , . a n dself contl.01 ~ ~ ~ . s ~ , o y ~ o h f u s c a t i ~ . ~604. A killed I3 by shooting the Iatter_suddenIy and-unexpeetedly immediately after B Itad gravely insdted A. Is there treachery in this case? W y ? No, because when the accused committed a crime veith passion orshfuscation, the offender e dd.i&p ately chosen that method of attack.

a child in her ann. The child, who was hit, died as a consequence. Is there treachery in this case?

605. A, in the heat of anger, shot at a woman with

231

I 1

'

I

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIlEWER


While it is a rule that killing a child is characterized by treachery, because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the offender, yet when the offender, as in this case, committed the crime in the .heEf..anger, he c~?@d.~_npt have -. of the defenseless condition o f the child. been conscious I

.

Requisites of t r s u c k w : 1. !rhat the crime committed is a-t mers0ne. such as killing or injuring a person &hut iustifiahlaaw; 2. 'Chat when the victim is attacked, he must be defenseless, ihat is, he is n& in a oositiox t o make a defeng; and 3 . That the-!, method or-ef attack must be-&&&: chosen by t h e f e n d e r .

606. Can treachery be considered in aberratio ictus? Explain your answer. Yes, because when there is treachery, it is ,impossible. victim t u l e f o r s h z r the e d e d victim or the @at.l fgden-himmself against the aggression. 607. When is the circumstance of ignominy present in the commission of a crime? Illustrate the circumstance of ig-

nominy. The circumstance of ignominy is present when GI are employed or circumstances brought about, tending tp -nr the oe-f the crime-nr or to & the offended party to shame. Raping the wife in the presence of her husband (US. vs. Iglesia, 21 Phil. 6 5 ) ; raping a woman in front of her .' betrothed (US. vs. Casafias, 5 Phil. 377); and removing 5,:. '. the drawers of an old woman to compel her to confess to the theft of clothes (People vs. Fernando, C.A., 43 'i,. O.G. 1'71'7). I.'

t:. '

608. Is ignominy as an aggravating circumstance applicable only to crinies against chastity? No. In other crimes, ignominy was considered: .: (1) A with a pistol in hand made E, a rich and promiihent person, kneel in front of his servants and then killed

232

him. In this case ignorr.iuy was considered, although t crime was against persons. (2) Embracing and kissing a ysoung woman ' &many ,s-o is unjust vexation or r s c i o n , hut -icny was considered. (3) Less serious physical injuries is qualified and the penalty is made higher by the attendance of i m n y .

609. In what crimes is the aggravating circumstance of nnlawfnl entry inherent? Why? In (1) qualified trespass to dwelling by passing through the window (W.S. vs. Barberan, 17 Phil. 609) and (2) robbery with force upon things committed in inhabited house, because in these crimes unlawful entry is the specific and essential element. ,

N o t e : There is unlawful entry whcn entrance into the house where the crime is committed is effected through an opening not intended for the purpose. The aggravating circumstance of breaking of a wall, rcuf, floor, door or window is inherent niso in robbery with force upon things and in qualified trespirss t o dwelling. This aggravating circumstance is present in rape or murder, or robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons if it is committed in the house of the offended party after breaking a part of the house. This aggravating circumstance is not inherent in those crimes.

810. May the aggravating circumstances of nnlawful entry and dwelling be taken separately? Yes. Where it appears that the accused made his entrance into the house of another bj. forcibly opening a hole in the wall of the kitchen thereof, and then and there shot and wounded a person inside, the circumstances of unlawful entry and dwelling may be properly taken separately against the offender (People vs. Mutya, G.R. L-11255-66, September 30, 1959). 611. Explain why it is aggravating when the crime is committed with the aid of persons under 15 years of age.

233

1 1

i


The purpose of the law is to.repress,so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted t o by professional criminals t o avail t.hemselves of minors takins adva!&a&e of their jrresponsibility.


I

long the suffering of his victim, is mLm€fi&nt fbrdaking ' this simxnda.nce i-muidwdion (People vs. Dayug, e t a1.j.

I

7

-__--

612. Explain why it is aggravating when the crimc is committed by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means. The purpose of the law is to &emaat the w e d by m n d m r i m i n a l s in saLmeans to eomf a e 3 mit crimt-and flee and abscond OB the same is c m -

Note: The first requisite of cruelty is lacking. I

-Em

mjtted.-

,

613. A, who hired and used a taxi and while inside thereof with his girl friend, stabbed and killed her. Is the use of motor vehicle an aggravating circumstance in this case? Yes. Tile crime was p e r n e t r a t d i n a LaLwhich was hirehandxsedh&A (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583). 614. Define cruelty and state its requisites as an aggravating 1

circumstance. There is cruelty when the culprit &mr&and-delights in making his victim s ~ s ~ . s l o w anbxadually, ly causing him unnecessary physical pain in the e mation of the criminal act. The ~,&iLes o f cruelty are: 1. That the injury c a ~ & be deliberately i n m a d by c m i g other_wrong; 2. That the other w a n p be unnecessary for the execntion of the purpose of the offender.

!

~

615. A repeatedly and without let-up stabbed B with a knife, inflicting various wounds on the different parts of the latter's body. Is there cruelty? The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, map.px&c.a&le time i n t g v r v p g e e s p the infliction .of one-xamd and t h a t o f a d k - t o show that the offender wanted to pro234

!

I

f i

I

,616. What aggravating circumstances are those which cannot exist if the offender lost his reason and self-control due to provocation or passion or obfuscation? Exp!ain your answer. They are: 1. That the crime be committed with insult o r in dis/ regard of the respect due the offended party on account o f his rank, age or sex; 2 . That advantage be taken of superior strength; 3. Treachery ; 4 . Cruelty. These aggravating circumstances casMtexls ' t if the offender 10s.s~ his r-n.and s&&&due to pwryaciltion os passi.?n o_r obfuscation, because in disregard of the respect due the oifended party, the offender must_delibecat& insult,.or d h e g a d t h e m age. or rank. of the offended narty : in abuLof-.auxerbLS.krn&.h, the offender -~ must &p&malie use of excessive. force put ucouortion to the means.-pf d e ~ i k t o k the offended . party; in t m k e x y , the offender must eg5s-w adoDt articular+means, >rn-d_or f o m a f attack that would p__-.-insure the e e u $ o n of the crime without risk to himself arising froin the defense which the offended party might make; and in c_r?Jey, the a i f a d e r must - i Iong-the suifesing of the victim. On the other hand, if the offender I m h i s reason and self-control due to provoca.tion or passion or obfuscation, he c-at h x t - & d deliberately, gurnosel,~,consciously, oi-n&g.a&.

'\

_-

617. What are the alternative circumstances? Why are they called alterriative circumstances? 235

i


They are relationship, intoxication or -of

-

m-

tion and education of the offend&(Art. 15, R.P.C.). They are called alternative circumstances, because they are &&r mitignting o r w a v a t i n g circumstances, acedins+ to. the .w natureand effect of the crime and the o attendirg its commission.


,I

Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, whether the offender is a relative of a higher degree or he is a ieir.tive of a iower degree than the offended party. Relationship is aggraraating in crimes a p i n s t m in cases whcre the offended party is a r&t~.e-of-a-kigher dzgree than the offender or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother o r brother-in-law. The exceptions are (1) when the deceased contracted adulterous relations with the wife of his brother-in-law mho killed him, and (2) when the cause of the maltreatment which resulted in the death of his brother-in.iaw was the desire of the accused to render service t o his relative. In these cases, relationship is mitigating, even if the offender and the deceased a r e relatives of the same level, because of the conditions attending the commission of the crime. The fact that the offend& party is a relative of a I?w>r-depree than the offender is mitigating in crimes against persons only when the crimes committed a r e & gc!e.or less grave felonies. Thus, if the serious physical injuries are inflicted upon any of the persons mentioned in the definition of the crime of parricide, such as the child of the offender, relationship is aggravating. Also, the killing of a step-daughter by the step-mother is aggravating, even if the deceased is a relative of s lower degree than the offender.

1)

I

618. A s a e the ring of his nephew who was then living with him. When prosecuted for theft, A contended that in view of his relationship with the offended party, he should be given the benefit of the alternative circumstance of relationship which, in this case, was mitigating because he was a relative of a higher degree than the offended party and that th,e crime comnlitted by him ivas against property. Is the contention of A tenable? Ex'plain your answer. No, because the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended narty is the i m , ascendant, descendant, legitimate, naturai, or adopted- brother^ or sister, or relative .by af€inity in the same degrees &-the affender The relation of uncle and nephew is n o t e d by any of the relationships mentioned.

-

Note: The relationship of stepfather a r stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is ic&&d by~.analogy, as sHl&r to that of a s a t - a n d descendant. The relationships of adopted father or mother, adopted ?an or daughter, and adopted brother or sister are also included.

621.

619. When is relationship neither mitigating nor aggravating? Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating when __in the crime, such as in r)arric!ide, adultery, it is &herent or :on.c.!bj.n,?ge w_here._the o f f e n M m & y is the.3-e. 620. When is relationship mitigating and when aggravating?

Relationship is mitigating in erimes-.against property by ag&sy to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 332) which exempt from criminal liability certain relatives who qomlxted theft, swjhdling or malicb.n.s_misc h z [email protected]?&er.

236

Ie what crimes is relationship a&s.aggravating?

//

Why?

Relationship is always aggravating in crimes against

_chastity, regardless of whether the offender is a relative l

i

,.I' ,,

of a higher degree or he is a relative of a lower degree .I than the offended party, becawe..o:€K thenature.and_e#ect . of the crime.

F22. The father stole the money of his Son, which was the latter's salary as an employee. Is relationship in this case mitigating? Why? No, because under Art. 332 of thc Code, Y.!.-. c&& and no criminaldiakiLity, when the crime committed

237

'

CIIIMINAL'LAiW REVlEWIIR

CIIIDIINAL LAW REVIEWER

G.R. No. L-11568, March 30, 1959). Hence, intoxkation in this easa is a mitigating circumstance.

fsther agginst his-~son,or vice versa, is either&& an exempting CireUmStance? R m p is an e_xempting circumstance when the &me of &&, -S or malicious mischief is c a b m:tted or caused mutually by the following JEX~E: , or r&&i.xe$. 1. S & -o ascendants and - d bz affinity in the same line; 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the QZQi?ZtY which b&&d to the deceased saouse -the Same shall have passed into the - d e r ; and

-

'.

--

in&,

3. B x o w a n d and brothers-in-law a n d d if livlna tozether. (Art. 332, R.P.C.)

624. When is intoxicatm a mit.igating circumstance and when is it an aggravating circumstance? Intoxication is mitigating (1) when it is n o t habitual or- (2) when it is -subsequent to the.J?&&to GQlBBi$

r ; c ir m iIntoxication e is e g (1) when it is lah '

or

(2) when it is intentional, that is, subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. Note: When intoxication is hahitux!- The fact that the accused had heen drinking liquor for seven months and that he had heen drunk once or twice Q m o n t h does not show that the intoxication is habitual. But it is not necessary that it be continuous OX of daily occurrenee (People YS. Amenamen). I t would seem that the offender must be intoxicated most of the time.

625. The trial court found that the two defendants were drunk at the time of the commission of the crime. Is intoxication an aggravating circumstance in this case: Drunkenness is an alternat've circumstance which can ~ . ~ . i or b sintentional, e n c e . ~but ~it o f , be considered as aggravating ifm habitual mitigatigg if n-td presumG 'that the drunkenness in this case was but accicknt& (People vs. Dacanay, e t al.

-

-

238

626. A, vue intoxicated and with uasshn nr obfuscation,.attacked and seriously injured B. What effect have the htoxication and the passion or obfuscation upon the criminal liability of A? Explain your answer. The intoxication of A is -.& to be accidental, that is, not habitual; there being no evidense i u h&*t or intentional. . be The circumstance of passion o r obfuscation c considered separately and indeuendently from drunkenness, since drunkenness n e c e s s a r i l y m i - a disorder i n h e qentalfaculties of a person (People vs. Baterna, 40 P h i l 996; People vs. Austria, 50 Phil. 5 3 5 ) . Hence, the two c i m a n r e s of -oin and pasion or o b f u s c a G circumstance should be c o e e d as --e

&. -_

627. Does the that a person who committed a crime is h t e establish a low degree or l a m i o n so as Eo his criminal liability? No, because n-acv alone, b-. lack of suffic@t intelli~ence, are necessary to b e e the of the alternative circumstance o f lack of instruction. Note: A person able to sign his name but so donsely ignorant and of such low intdligenee that he does not fuliv ' e the this consequences-of a criminal act, may still he e-ti mitigating circumstance. /.ow dep.rekor lack of instrueti n is not rnitiaatiria in crimes against pr&, like arson, and in crimes n e a i u t a , like rape or acts of lasciviousness. In treason and homicide or murder, the ~ u l eis not settled.

628. Is lack of instruction a mitigating circumstance in the crime of murder or homicide? In the case of People vs. Talok, et al., ti5 Phil. 696, and People vs. Mantala, et al., G.R. L-12109, October 31, 1959, it was held that lack 'of instruction is mitigating in murder. In the esse of People vs. Hubero, 61 Phil. 64, it was held that it is mitigating in homicide. 239

,,' ,

' I' CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWEI(

CHIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

D is a principal by inducement, because he directly in-

But in the case of People vs. Mutya, G.R. L-11255-56, September 30, 1959, i t was held that l & k X & d u d K ' n and i-kion cannot mitigate the a o f the offender who committed murder&-se t o i s forbidden bv natural --law which every rational being is endowed to&!! aAd feel.

duced others t o commit it: and E. is a principal by indispensable cooperation, because he cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act without whic,h it would not h m . k @ a a ' d (Art. 17, R.P.C.).

c _

629. Who a.re criminally liable for felonies? Explain why ac. cessories are not liable for light felonies. Principals, accomplices, and accessories are liable for ' . Principals and accomplices and less -a are liable f 'w (Art. 16, R.P.C.). & c m are M e for I&ht felonies, because the gcial wrong as well as the u-di urejudice small that penal sanction is deemed g&L.WSW&

--

630. If a corporation violates a criminal law, are all its officers criminally liable? Explain your answer. As a general rule, the president or manager, or the directors of a corporation are criminally liable for their acts though in their official capacity, if they participated in the unlawful act either directly or as aider, abettor or accessory, but are not liable criminally for the corporate a d s performed by other officers or agents thereof. Thus, if an agent of a partnership in his official capacity caused the death of a person because of his negligence, only he is liable, but not the manager of the partnership (People vs. Montilla, C.A., 62 O.G. 4327). Note: Corporation could not have committed a crime in which a vilfull ~urmpseo r malicious intent or nediiaence is reymired.

631. A, B, and C forcibly abducted a girl, in consideration of a sum of money given t o them by D, using a car driven by E, said car being the only available means of transportation in the place of the commission of the offense. What kind of principals are A, B, C, D, and E? Why? A, B, and C are principals by direct participation, because they took a direct part in the execution of the act;

240

' I

632. A made a bet of 85.00 with B on a cockfight. The latter havinp refused t o pay the amount thereof which the former Claimed to have won, il dispute arose between them which resulted in a fight. When the fight began, A held B by the hand. C , son of A, seized the front p r t of B's shirt and D, another son of A, came upon the scene and with a pen knife gave B a thrust In the abdominal region, causing B's death sometime thereafter. Are A, G and D principals in the crime committed? Explain your answer. No, only D is principal by direct participation in the crime committed which resulted in VS death. A and C are not responsible for the consequences of the wound inflicted u ~ o nthe deceased by D, because there are no facts stated showing -A, C and D had a e r s d UJ g; but on the contrary i t a r s $j& A and C h a n o t k3t h a w o u l d stab B when they held the latter. There was po conspiracx among A, C and D, because the f%t. was brouzht abo& by B's refusal to Day A, and, tinerefore. the three c u hDe agreed and decided to kill B.

PI

EXPLANATION: A and C are not principals by direct participation in tho crime committed by D, because there was no unity of purpose and intention among them, as the mere act of holding tlic hand and the front part of the shirt of B, without knowing that D would stab 11, does not indicate on their part an intention to kill (People vs. Ortiz and Zauza, 65 Phil. 9 3 3 ) . Hence, A and C did not share the guilty purpose of D. To be liable for the criminal act of another, a person (1) must have the same criminal purpore as that of the other and (2) he and the other must he united in ita ezeeulion.

6.333. But suppose, in the preceding question, D was about to stab B when A and C held B for the purpose of enabling

241

'I '

1

~

'_

I

CKIllIINAL LAW REVIEWER

CFIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ’

:

of the three principals by direct participation? . . Yes, because A, C and D a ,w,& + . .L k L B ;and when 4 held B by the hand, C by the front part of B’s shirt, and D stabbed . .B, thCY w s L & l %d’ of the cqmmanrwnunalpurm e . In this case, the effect is the same as that when there is anterior conspiracy. The act of one is the act of all. Thev have the same criminal liability and the same penalty shall be imposed on all of them. There is collec@Je C & g l + S d W Y.

a

I

...

the place and without waiting for A, started burnbg the house of the mayor and, as they were running away, they were arrested by certain policemen. When A reached the place to help B and C, he saw that the Bouse was already burned. What is the liability, if any, of A in the crime of arson actually committed by B and C? Explain your answer. a consairator; and ewas None, b m e C e , w a t the E m o n p f ’ i t s ayrpose, & -n R u n i s m e b,w e p t in treason, rebellion or sedition, a_nd the c r i w thev c o m k d to commit imt one of them, A is : e.

D to kill B without any risk on the part of D, are all

.

. .

.

’

7-

e

I _

Not02-e persons are liable 8s principals by direct participation when (1) They participated in the criminal resolution, that is, (a) there was anterior consm . a n o n s .&em,. or (b) there was ; % o m . a n d intentiw a t the moment of the commission of the offense; and @)&of them osrried outn-ht and part in its execution, by -te&X 2qthe s d :

-

After kiUing B, A went to C, his friend and the mortal enemy of B, and informed him that B was already dead and narrated b, C the manner he killed €3. C was very happy about it, expressed his satisfaction, and gave A a .sum of money, thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A. Is,C, criminally liahle,for the crime committed by A? Explain your answer. NO, because particination in another’s criminal es U-!+-wt& mt g U be odor to or & simi~2tn~n%csl~ the c eo f a e . In this case, C c o n c u K d , in the criminal i i u r n m of A @the latter h a m mitted tine crime,

636. A killed B in a fight. provoked by A.

634. Is a conspirator Liable for the acts of another conspirator, ., -which are radically and substantially different from that

, ,

,

.

which they agreed to commit? Illustrate and explain. Yes. F o r instance, A, B, and C, all pclicemen, agreed and decided to extort a confession by mcan8 of violence from X, suspected of having Billed Y. LI subjecting to maltreatment, known as “third degree,” C hit X with an iron bar on the head, while being he14 by A and B, causing the latter’s death. In this case, A and B are also . liable for the death of X, because the killing of X was an incident and a consequence of the agreement among A, B and C to commit an unlawful act (see People vs. Enriqnez, 58 Phil. 536, and People vs. Rosario, 68 Phil. 720).

&&

x

.

.

burn the house of the mayor of their town as an act of revenge. When they went out t.o go to the house of the mayor for the purpose of burning it, A told B and C to proeeed and to go ahead and that he would follow later. B and C, upon reaching 242

,~~

~~

637. A and B, who were together, were captured by C, D and E, the mortal enemies of B. One of them gave A a dagger while the others had their guns levelled at both A and B. C, with the concurrence of D and E, told A to choose between killing B with the dagger and himsell being shot t o death. To avoid being shot, A stabbed B with the dagser, causing the latter’s death. After B w a s killed, A was released by C, D and E. What kind of : principals are C, D and E? Was A a principal? Explai,+ :, your answers.’

635. A, B and C @ and d ot-

..

’

i

243

. ... ....~ <.


c, D

and E are princiwl$ by &ig.&!?n, because tl1eY directly fa& to COthe &.%e of m ,rof which iCiD& was the victim. A was a pQ!@.&.hY d b d Dart t in the e&!xuh of the tion, because he ’ ’ ‘ , for h a d a%. p i t A ia m t from- c &hout f m & m and intent, which are the IWO elements of voluntariness.

e

~ ~ Theye t is ~individual : criminal responsibility in this case, there being no conspiracy or unity of purpose between C, D and E, on one hand, and A, on the other. A did n o t agree with them as he was only fareed to do the act which he did. Of course, among C, D and E, there is collective criminal responsibility, there being, at least, B unity of criminal purpose.

638. A went home wit11 injuries in the different parts of his body. When B, A’s father, asked him how he got wounded, A repliell that c attacked him without cause. B became angry and said, “That fellow C ought to be killed.” After cleaning and dressing his wounds, A armed himself with a bolo, looked for C, and upon seeing him, hacked the latter to death. Is B criminally liab2e for the death of C? Explain your answer. No, because the .aiards utterehby, E, W a@UX&k? that they constituted an inducement, were n o t d e & r z t l v with the intentian that - h should kill C. A ’oughtless e m r e s s i p u t , w m any exnectatiqn or that it would nroduce the result, si-a .&icient inducement to c a m $ a d j - n e . Moreover, such inducement was not the determining cause of the commission of the crime by A, since A had a reason af h m taSnmmit these, having been injured by C w&hat any justifiakle r w n . p

.

639. Is the acquittal of the principal by direct partieipationa ground for the acquittal of the principal by induction? It depends upon the cause of the acquittal of the principal by direct partieipation. If the acquittal of the principal by direct participation is based on reasonable-dmb1 or that ke&d-,n-@. commit, the^ crime, there is no basis 244

for convicting the alleged principal by induction. One cannot be held guilty of having instigarted the commission of a crime without it first being shown that the crime was actually committed by another (People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil. 788). But if the m a l by 1p a t m is a a e d because of lack of intent, & m f or intelligence, the crime having been in fact commitkd, the principal by induction is criminally .liable. Thus, if P gave f a k e facts to an employee in the treasurer’s office who wrote them on the blank spaces of a residence certificate, the employee not knowing their falsity, P i q liahle for a a a o n l-,q d m n e\.enf the e m is n L W , ‘because the e-e is a mere innncent w e n t of P in the p e m a 2 of the g constituting; t h m g (People vs. Po Giok To, G.X. L-7236, April 30, 1955). The employee acted without malice or intent.

..

u-

040. When the crime is committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise, how many principals take part in the crime? What are they? What is the nature of their

criminill responsibility? There are two principals: (I) principal by direct participation, and ( 2 ) principal by indacenient. There being an agreement and a decision t o commit a crime between them, there is cnnspiracy and, hence, there is collective criminal responsibility, 641. A and B, who were bnth armed with iboloes, were about to strike each other, although each was waiting for an opening before striking the other. C, who was present, said, “Now B, hit him!” And B struck A with his bolo, wounding and killing A. Is C criminally liable for the death of A? Explain your answer. The question whether a person present upon t h e occasion of a homicide but who takes no direct part in the act, can be held criminally liable for inciting and encouraging another with expressions such as, “go ahead,” “hit him,” 246

i

did

have him," "now is the time," etC., - d . . g,dkr q x h words a m u n m W S a direct and d m r n i n a t i v e influence W P bv direct participation. min$ of the submitted that since B was about to strike A C uttered the words. "now B, hit him," !hQSC %!I&% not -h a direct %nd determinative i d s & c e ~ 1 1

t

s

<'there

u,n w-xe the

d o m

642. A paid 13 p1,000 t o hill C . 'ti went t o the plncr \\.here he expected to meet c. AS it \ Y ~ S a dnrlr evcnitw. 11 a stranger for c and billed that stranger. C was not there when B shot the stranEer. Is A CriminallY liable f o i the crime committed by B? Explain your answer. No, because the aimed-c was nL-ed in the inducement, and in such case i t was held that the i&ement is not material and is x t the cg@zuPing c m e of the c e i o n of the &e %&& the fitr a n e r .

causiug his death. Is C a principal or an aceompfiee?~ Explain yuur answer. . . It is submitted that C i s a princiaal - b le cooperation. It is -t & the &a* of the knife to A, that C desired o r wishe4 the killing of B. Under the circumstances, the g o-f thehnifeta-8 w -.&&,ut i_ndiJpensable cooperation, -b W m an &. w&h tne corninof h o u d e would not have' been arcomvlislwl hT- ;L He is .n&an ascpIice. because the Ly&&v: ,

-

_zI

--

&&

Noto: J n a crimc aminst property, the indispensable cooperation of a principal is shown in a case where the o m e ? of house, which is very close to another building, allowed the thief to pass through his house in going to the other'huilding where persona! property was stolen. "he owner .of the h o r n was a wincipal by indispensablc cooperation.

.,

a

. 644. Certain andit clerks, together with the paymaster, of the ,, ..

,.

,

Bureau of Public Works were charged with the crime of malversation. The charge against the audit clerks ,+.,: that, through their recklessly negligent participation h.ini.1 'i tiding the falsified payrolls, without verifying the .cor. reetness thereof, they had, in effect, cooperated with their$ eo-defendants in the commission of the crime of mal: versation of public flunds. May those audit clerks, whose: 1 negligence made possible the actual ammission of t h e ? crime by their co-defendants, he held liable i ~ sprincipals by indispensable cooperation? One who cooperatss in the commjssion of a n offense by acts of negligence without which it could not have been' accomplished may be held guilty of the offense as a principal. The audit clerks could be held liable as principals of the crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents by reckless negligence, for while they are not public officers entrusted with Government funds, lilrc their co-accused paymaster, it is obvious that they cooperated in the commission of that crime by acts without which the crime could not have been per~

Nota:

This is similar to the ease of People vs. Lawas, et al. Lawas ordered his home guards to fire at the men ill the ground floor of a house, but in the course of the melee that followed some of the home guards of Lnwas fired at the women and children who were in the second floor of the house. It was held that Lawas was not guilty of murder for tl1e killing of the women and children, because his order to fire a t the men in the ground floor of the house could not imply or include an order to go up the house and massacre the innocent end defenseless womm and children. Inducing another to commit d e r , w w &&& is got a f elow. Proposal to commit a felony is punishable only in proposal to commit treason or rehellion. Eence, since merely iz&sinz r-a to &t a &me is n u f Z i w p r i n c i o a 1 bvinducemen t is not liabk thea:

for

salt different frpm_tha..intended, under Art. 4, par. I, Revised Penal Code.

643., Whih A and B were having a fistic fight, C was an onlooker. Seeing that his friend A was getting the worse of the fight, C opened his knife, approached .A, and handed it to him. A, using the knife, stabbzd B in the chest, ~'

246

241

,.

I

CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWER


petrated (people vs. Javier, et al., G.R. Nos. L-11670 8z T..11708.

I

Anril 30. 1959). .~.

f l o t e : It would seem that the audit clerks were not liable 88

principals by indispensable cooperation, because they were not with having conspired with their co-defendants , in malvorsing public funds. To cowerate means to wish a t h w ln view of the meaning of the word "cooperate", in with due to the SuDremc Court, it is believed that when one or defendants merely acted with negligence, One m a thine ..L - in common with the defendants who the crime with malice. ".'J

..

"Y

....".

645. May the persons who took part subsequznt to the commission of the crime be considered as aecumpliees? Why? No, because- a are those persons who, not be. . ing principals, c-te in the ezecutio,l of the offense by w w i o z u or simultaneous & (Art, 1% R.P.C.).

646. Distinguish an accomplice from a principal. A principal is one who takes a direct part in the execution of the act; one who directly forces or induces others to commit it; or one who cooperates in the commission

of the offense by another act without which it would not

have been accomplished. An accomplice is one who, not being anyorle of the three kinds of principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Among principals, except that who directly forces another to commit the crime, there is anterior Conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime. An accomplice merely C E S S with j;he criminal &sign of the principal. He is ?&S conspiracy Gith the principal. -. But even if only one of two indiviEuals originated the intention to kill the deceased while the other merely assisted the action of the initiator of the crime in its execution, but-bot11 inflicted mortal Wounds, the &Q-.Ll& be considered as cg-r)rinciuals- ( U S . vs. Zalsos, et at., 40 Phil. 96). Hence, in crimes against persons, like murder or I -

248

homicide, the -on &I&

c b e d as -,ICC

B@ -,

<.+?

a mprtal wound.

647. The third kind of principal is one who cooperates with the ,principal by direct participation in the commission is the principal by cooperation disof the crime. HOIOW tinguished from an accomplice? The u r n i o n of the principal Q indisaens&Ie to the o-n of the crime, that is, without the cooperation of the principal who performed another .act the commission of the crime would not, have been accomplished by the principal by direct participation. On the other hand, the cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary.

648. Mar a person be considered a principal even if the assistance he rendered to the other offender is only necessary? Explain your answer. Yes, if there is conspiracy b e t w e e n u t . When there is conspiracy, the no-f the c%eration that o e e s to another i s not import&, since the act of me is eonsidered the act of all.

-_

--

Note: An accomplice does not have previous agreement or understanding. with the principal by direct participation. Ie there is conspiracy, none of the conspirators can he eonsidered an accowlice. All of them are principals, regardless of tho nature of their participation.

649. In what respect is the accomplice simi1:rr to the principal?

In what way does one differ from the other?

What di&bg&hes the principal from the accomplice is that the pzincioal originates tine criminal design and the a m i c e merelv concurs with f i m in his criminal purpose and that the accomplice cooperates in the execp t.n-of the 9 n by ixevious o % r, o w t h m t h a t _ ) v h i e hwould charthe o w r a m a r i n c u pursuant to Art. 17 of the Revised Penal Code.

--

-

249

I

1 CKII\IINAL LAW REVIEM'RR


e

The driver was an accomplice, because the criminal d e s i q of A, B and C, for he saw the forcihln ~...... taking of the girl, he concurred with them i w r &inal purpose by driving the &to their destination.

Thus, when the participation of a person in the commission of a crime is not shown, but he lcnows the criminal purpose of the principal by direct participation, he is only an accomplice and should not be Considered a principal, because to be considered a principal under Act. 17 Of the &\++d p e d c d e . the act of the offender must either (1) be direct, that is, it is t h RCI which p ~ hth.1,t C*IW ~ ~ 01% which tends to the same end, or ( 2 ) be illdispensable to the commission of the crime; or (3) that it induces the commission of the crime by another.

6 5 2 . May a person who m A d y concurred in the criminal desisn

of the principal by direct participation be held liable 88 principal, and not nicrely a s an aceom,pIice? Yes, the - J n f I ~ d is_ m~&& or the wound inflicted contributed-materiallx to Q2&th of the (People vs. Aplegido, 76 Phil. 571; People vs. Ascona, 59 Phil. 58C; People vs. Ragmaa and Zalsos, supre). - .

650. X was the m p t a l eneuu of A and B. There existed a c m a e on the part of A and B to kill X. One A. without knowing that B w a s following X to kill dav. .~~., the latter, went to an alley where X used to pass by for the purpose of shooting him. When, X was coming towards the place where A was waiting for him, B, who was following X, shot him. X died. What is the criminal .. liahilitv of A. if any? Explain your answer. .... A yis- n ,-I e.&&E as a PXiIldRal or a s x n accomplice. A is &a of aml,iXbe, because his &of -or X in an alley, even for the purpose of killing him, i-m.an overt so as to . e k e h4m li&& He is &-an acs.Qnl$ce in the crime committed by B, because there is no relat' n nb,the cdminal act of B and the act of enoughthat a a e m n an identical criminal desigll of the Drinciual (People vs. De la Cruz, et al., 61 Phil. 162). iY.&&a A nor B k&sX that the other would kill X. Hence, there was no community ofn. ~

\e

I

Note: musl fJ&S t e a

In crimes against persons where the death of the victim take place to coxsummate the crime, tho --sa o&zij,r~_wcunds. His act should not.mkibute _mak to the death of the victim.

-

653. How is moral aid given by an accomplice? Moral aid is -by an accomplice throuzh advice, encouragempt or agreement, but not nrevim s agreement to commit the cgme.

~

1

EXPLANATION: The moral aid' of the accomplice e m or ~2 the princimal to commit the eriqe. It must, be moral aid i n t h e erect&?% 0: the c r i m e

7 . w

.

651, A, B and C forcibly abducted a girl. placing her in a jeepney which was parked to get passengers, and then c told the driver to proceed to another town. Tlie driver saw the forcible takinx a w s of the girl, but he naertm,drove his @epney with the girl and the cu1prit.s. What is the participation of the driver in tbr crime of forcible abduction committed by A, B and C? Explain your answer.

250

~~~

!

-8

In the case of People 7s. Ubina, e t al., G.R. No. L-6969, September 1, 1065, W e have an illustration of moral aid rendered by the accomplices. The participation of the three de-. fendants in the killing of the victim was limited to being p r e e n t , i and stayine around the premises, while the otllers fired at the:.+ victim and carried out their plan. The three deiendants were. i not among those who had conspired to kill the victim. They',.; joined the conspirators only on the way to the place where the .: victim was killed. The three defendants were heId Iiahle only.' as accomplices. . .. If the three defendants were also eonqirators, they would be liable as principals. In the case of People 7s. Siivestre and Atienza, 66 Phil. 363, Silvestre knew that Atienea would commit arson and &e 8: was present when the crimes was cbrnmitted, hut the Snpmmi:);

261

I

CRIMINAL LAW REYJEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEVVER

courtheld that

her mere presence and silence, while they are simultaneous acts, do not appear that they encouraged or the crime of arson. Her failure to nerved Atienza to being a subsequent act (not previous or simultaneous), did not make her liable as accomplice.

654, When t,here in no conspiracy or there is no community of what is the nature of the criminal respon.

.

'

sibility of two or more persons who take part in the comiuission of a crime? Illustrate and explain your an-

'

.

, , .~"' could steal in the customhouse. B and C, with the4 truck driven by D, proceeded t o the customhonse, stole: certain goods then lying in the cilstomhouse, and lo&; ed them on the truck. D received from B and C some':c stolen goods. Later, A took delivery of the stolen goods in his warehouse and paid for them. The four were arrested and prosecuted f o r theft. A contended that and assistegl B and C to profit since he only e1-d by the effects of the crime, he should be held liable ils accessory. Is the contention of A tenable? Is D, the driver, criminally liable? Explain your answer. No, the contention of A is not tenable. hrrsnsr. fn,. ~~. inducing B and C t o s&l the goods, a p m a l by inducemeLt. &n accessory h L e ULhD, ~

~

I

'--"-_-"

~..'

-

-1-

articO&i&dl?.

~ k , naranspiwsy ~ ~ ~ between A and C to kill B, as the fight between A and I3 was p m , &.E&ed. They not h a previously agreed and decided to kill B. A did not know that C would stab B when he boxed him. Hence, there was not community of design on the part A and C . Such being . . the case, A and c h a i n dividnal c m Y.

--

.

c was the one wl-3 started the assault by stabbing B and then A kicked the body Of B ,?hen the on the ground, and sometime therelatter was lying after B died, what is the liability of A" A is liable as an aec~m,pli~licein the crime of homicide committed by C. ~ ~ )But t ~suppose : that

assisting the olender to b-y the effccls of the -e. $'.; Since A already u a r w d in the commission of' theft'$ as 1-, his taking part subsequent to its commission by profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the effects OS the crime cloes not make him onJy an aceessw; .:. He is a .princilsd in the crime of theft. If D, the driver of the truck used for hauling the good{:; from the customhouse to the warehouse of A, e d a some of the goods as his e,-s knaxeing from the begin- ! ning that the goods would be that driver is not an a c m m by profiting by the effects of the crime, .. for he already d -a accomalice. But if h e . came to know that the goods he received were prop erty o & l a he yp.s receivme . . t& IP,but not when he was hauling all the goods from the customhouse. he WSR -, -__; Q& an ay -, because he U etpas an accomplice.

m,

e

657. A, B and C saw X slaughtering a cow in the farm. X gave each of them a quantity of meat worth P10.00. When the owner of the cnw complained to the authorities about the disappearance of his animal, X was ar252

253

~.



rested as a suspect and when investigatdd he admitted ' that he stole the cow which he later slaughtered. x named A, B and C as the persons who also profited by the stolen cow. May A, B and C be he!d liable as accessories? Explain your answer. No, because there is n o t h d s stated in the question that t h e y a w - that the cow had been stolen. The ETSiQW @+,must Lave knowIe@ of the commission of the crime and t h n p_ro€it by its effe&.

;i i

I/>.,

658. E A, 13 and C

that the cow had been stolen and notwithstanding that fact they accepted from X the meat frum the stden cow without paving. for it, would thcy 1m l i n h l ~as accessories? Why? Suppose they paid for Yes, because they b yp t h e m f thesc.b%. t M r f o r the meat, they would be accessories, .!X a s s i s t i l u h e o m r to arofit by the effecf,?& .!i-of

Noto:

Effffeots of the w i r n e are crime of theft; or the money or estafa. Hence, the money given stoim jeep is not the proceed 01-

the stolen property in the property miswpropriated in as s. reward for locating a effect of the crime.

Note: The discovery of the crime may be prevented also by concealing or destroying the effects (the stolen prope*) or the instruments thereof (the pistol or knife used in killing the victim). In such ease, the pelson who, knowing that a crime had been committed, concealed or destroyed the e f f E t s or instrument of the crime is an accessory. Either one of the following is destroyed o r concealed by tho accessory: (1) Body of the crime (the fact of the commission of the crime) ; (2) Effects of the crime; or ( 3 ) Instrument of the crime. The PurPose Of the accessory is to @revent the diseoveN of the crime (Art. 19, par. 2, R.P.C.).

659. Are A, ~3 and C in the preceding question accessories

to the crime of simple thect or to the crime of qualified

46 Phil, 245). The reason for the ruling in the Valdelion ease is t h a t an aggravating ciroumstanee arising fram the .&v'ai*n .of the offender with the offended party and which w!ali&s the offenso shall ,the principals, accomplices and accessories to .whom it is attendant (Art. 62, R.P.C.)

affect...$file

I

an amount much bigger than the value of the goods inside his ware-

660. A, after obtaining an insurance policy for

254

a

-~

".._...

/ff

house, placed cans of gasoline with fuses connected,with*,g an electric wire in the warehouse a n d , set it on firey.3 After the fire, which destroyed the warehouse and the goods, inside, and before any investigator could get inside the burned warehouse, A told his servant to remove, all the empty cans from the burned warehouse and all traces of the conmission of arson, which' the servants did. Is t h e servant criminally iiablr? Explain your answer. Yes, because k z o a that the warehouse and the goods inside were intentionally burned by A, which is arson,. . .~ e-d the hadu.of the the servant c-kd - ... or of arson by r m n g the &e t k m f t o m v e n t ib &wry. In other words, the servant made it app& to be an accidental bYrning of the warehouse, thereby pn -g the authorities from m w g the crime. Such act of the servant made him liable as accessory under the 2nd. paragraph of Art. 19 of the Revised Penal Code.

4

$

4 4

661. When may a yrivale individual who liarbored, concealed, or assisted in the escape of the principal of the crime be held l i a h l ~as nn accessory? Whenever the -of the crime is &of treason, parricide, m g or a n to take of the Chief Executive, or is known to .be habituallv +I& of some other crimes.

--

255



watch from B, knowing that i t had been stolen by B. At the time of the trial, B was already dead. Can c

662. A saw the commission of murder by B and C and the concealing of the body of the deceased by them, and afterwards joined their company until the following day, without denouncing the crime i o the local authorities when he had the opportunity to do SO. If A was not in conspiracy with the killers or if there was no community of design between him and the Billers, can he be held liable a s an accessory? Explain your answer. No, because his failure to denounce the crime to the local authorities, knowing the commission of said crime, aside from the fact that i t is an omission, is not one Of the acts which make a person liable as a n accessory. A did not profit or assist the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime; he did not conceal or destroy the body of the crime, the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery; and he did not harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of the crime. N o t e : But if a person, who knows of the cornmission Of the crime, say murder, by another, volunteered false information which tended affirmatively to deceive the prosecuting authorities, thereby enabling the offender to escape, he i s liable as an accessory under pararmph 3 of Art. 19 ( U S VS. Romulo, 15 Phil. 408).

663. May dereliction of duty by a pnblic officer make him an accessory? Explain your answer. Yes, when the public officer, like the municipal mayor, failed maliciously to move the prosecution of the culprit, after having been informed of the commission of the crime, and such malicious refusal to perform his duty made possible the escape of the principal of the crime, the public officer is liable as a n accessory under paragraph 3 Of Art. i!) (U.S.vs. Yacat, I Phil. 443).

664. A lost his watch. As A did not know that it was s t O h by U, no criminal action was filed agaiuat B. One day, A s a v the watch in the possession of C. Being in POSsession of the lost watch of A, C was prosecuted for theft. During the trial, it appeared thlC C bought the

be held liable as accessory? Yes, because the prosecution and conviction of the principal is not an essential condition before the accessory can be held criminally liable, for while the principal may still be unknown or at large, the accessory may be held responsible, provided that he had knowledge of the commission of the crime and that he participated therein after its commission by any of the acts mentioned in Art. 19 of t h e Code.

I

I

I

6F5. Is the accessory criminally liable if the principal, after trial, is acquitted? Explain your ansn-er. It depends on the ground of the acquittal. If the facts dleged in the informatior. are not proved o r that they do I _ not . c o n s t i t u k a crime, no- legal mounds ex& for con- "' victing a defendant as an accessory for a crime n-e.:. p-e-d. The responsihility of the accestsory is to that of the principal in a crime and his m i l t is di- .. rectly reiated to that of the principal in the punishable L -

,

act. But if the crime was in fact committed, but the principal was not held crimimlly liable, because of any exempt: ing circumstance, such as insanity or minority, conviction of the accessory is possibk notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal. The, reason for this is that in exempting circumstances there is a crime committed, only that the perpetrator of the crime is not a criminal, in view o f the complete absence of any of the conditions that make the act voluntary. 666. A, knowing that B and C had killed a person, assisted in the escape of 8, who, together with C, was later accused of murder. After trial, B was found guilty only a s an accomplice in the crime of rnnvrle,. r m r l c , as principal. Is A, a private individual, liible as an accessory? Why? ~~

257

. . . I

~

-

,

:

,

I ’< ,:

~.,,

,.C

.,

CRIMINAL LAW

CllIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

No, the law mentions only the “author” and the “prin!

’

&pal” of the crime, whom the accessory harbors, conceals, or assists in his escape (Art, 19, par. 3, R.P.C.). It is submitted that the _ “ e r ” and “ p m r ’ d w t i d e accomplice.

REYIEWER

the effects of the crime, o r (2) aj!d the of&&& -. W& by the &&&s of the& (Art. 20, R.P.C.),.: Note: Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of AT^. -1s are exempt from criminal liability if they m e related to th&& .principal. Thus, the father who buried the dead body. of the“i victim murdwed by his son, to prevent tho discovery of the,: crime, or assisted in the escape of his 13011 who committed treason is not erirninallv lkbie, h m the neither nrofited d-1 the offenderto -by the e m s of t u . I

667. A. assisted in the escape of his first cousin, knowing that the latter committed murder. Is A criminally liable as an accessory? Explain your answer.

.

Yes, because the penalties prescribed for accessorfes shall’not be imposed upon those who are such, only with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendds, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees (Art. 20, R.P.C.). first cousin is &,one of those &&k&b, e-b h u by consanauinity in the third civil dearee. a:

&

I

.

668,. A stole a carabao and brought it to his home. B, a policeman in that locality, C, and D are all A’S brothers who knew that the carabao had been stolen by A. C hid the carabao under their house surrounded by Stone walls. B, the policeman, helped in the escape of A, because the chief of police might discover the crime and and arrest him. Later, D sold the carabao and spent Ihe proceeds of the sale. Are B, C, and D accessories? Are they criminally liable? Explain your answer. They areall accessories, because B , a s s i s t d i n the S & P e of A with a b u s e ~ ~ & @ & ? L d b ! 2 l E - , C docthe carabao to prevent the discovery of the crime, and 2, profited by the e f f e c t of the crime. But is criminally liable, because the &l&l (A) being his brother, he is & from criminal liability. C is not also criminally liable, for the same reason. Only is as m y , because he pr&&d by the the crime. An accessory i s B t exempt from criminal liability even if the DLi.QGiIlal is his Spouse, a w t , d e e n t , lepitimate, n a m r ad-xbrother or sister, or a r a b y af=-w@in the Same degrqs, if .such acces(1) profited by

-

mf 258

669. A, who had killed his wife, went to his adopted brother and asked the latter to hide hint in his house. The adapted brother harbored and coneealed A, because the latter gave him his diamond ring worth P1,OOO. rS the adopted brother criminally liable? Why?

.

No, A- W

the diamond ring which.hedan effect of the crime o€ parricide.

from

he profited, the adopted brother did not p r o f i t b y the e u o f the xim.

II

Note: But if A killed his wife to &the -Iwith intent a n , and she acquired said &w& before the m n e , and the diamond ring was one of the pieces of her said jewelry, such ring is an effect of the crime.

-

670. What is the j-srjof the _State in punishing crime.97 o m . To secure justke,. The State has ane-e own to maintain, a coeof it?: own ta assert, and Penal justice must theremoral principles to be fore he exercised by the State in the service and sa&f a & o n o f y , and rests urimarilrjon the moral righhtof-f the W k h m e n t inflicted.

.

671. What penalties may be imposed for the commission of . a felony? Only that penalty prescribed b y l a w ]xior to its commission may he imposed for the commksion of a felony (Art. 21, R.P.C.). Felonies are punishable under the laws in force at the time of their commission (Art. 366, R.P.C.). But the penalty provided by a penal law enacted aftex, the commjssion of 8 felony may be imposed upon the person 259

guilty of that felony, in so far as it favors him, provided he is not a habitual criminal or that the new law does not expressly provide that it shall not apply to pending action or’ causes of action. this question with the question calling liote; D~ not for the classification of penalties under Art. 25.

. , ..

672. May a favorable penal law apply to the Case of a coonviet w ] l ~ is already serving sentence? Yes, because Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code says, “a]thoul:h at the time of the publication of such laws a final has been pronounceit and the convict is serv.. . ing the same.”

I

. .

..

673. If a penal law is repealed by another penal law, chawing the penalty for the crime and thereby alfectinr the jurisdiction of courts, which law determines the jurisdiction of the court in case the crime was committed before th.e repeal? Why? The jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal action . . is determined by the law in force a t the time of instituting the action, not by the law a t the time of the Commission of the crime (People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 7x5). ’

/:

674. What is the threedold purpose of the penalty under the

Revised Penal Code? Tht! penalty under the Revised Penal Code has threefold purpose: ... 1. Retribution or expiation-the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. 2 . Correction or reformation, as shown by the rules which regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty. 3 . ,yociaz defense-as shown by its inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual delinquents. Enumerate all the principal . . penalties and their different classes.

675. What is principal penalty?

260

Principai pendty is that penalty which. is express$. ,....

.:;&

imposed by the court in the judgment of conviction. The Principal penalties and their diflerent classes Capital punishment-death; afflictive penalties-(1) re;’: elusion perpetus., ( 2 ) reclusion teniporal, (3) perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. (4) perpetual or temporary special disqualification, and (5) prision mayor. Correctional penadties-(i) prision correccional, (2) arresto mayor, (3) suspension, and (4) destierro. Light penalties-(]) arrest0 menor and ( 2 ) public censure. t ’ i n u l f i c s r o i i i i ~ ~ o i.to i the three preceding claSses-(i) fine and ( 2 ) bond to keep the peace. 67F. What is an accessory penalty? Enumerate all the accessory penalties. An accessory penaity is that penalty which .is,deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalty. The accessory penaltics are: (1) perpetual or temporary absolute dispalification, ( 2 ) perpetual or temporary special disqua.lification, (3) suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or e a l l i n ~ : (4, civil interdiction, (5) indemnification, (6) forfeitwe or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, and (7) payment of costs (Art. 25, R.P.C.). N o t e : The f i s t three above are either principal or accessory penalties, because they are mentioned under principal penalties as well as under aceessxy penalties in Art. 25, R.P.C. In Art. 236, the penalty for assuming the merformanee of the duties and powers of any public office without first being swoin in o r having given the bond required by law, i s SUS. pension and fine from P200 to P500. The suspension here ia a principal penalty. In Art. 22G, the additional penalty of temporary special diaqualification in its maximum period t o perpetual special dis. qualification i s irxposed far infidelity i s the custody of documents. Here, the disqualification is ii principal penalty.

677. State the classification of fines. A fine shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds P6,OOO; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 261

''I' CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

p6,000, but is not less than PZOO; and light penalty, if it be less than P200 (Art. 26, R.P.C.). the classification of fines under Art. 26 of the Revised 678. penal Code as afflictive, correctional, and light applicable to fin,e imposed with another penalty? Explain your answer. No. Art. 26 of the Revised Penal Code providcs that '6% fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds pfi,oOo; correctional, if it does not exceed f6,009 but is not less than PZOO." Hence, that classification is not applicable when the fine is imposed together with .another penalty. Thus, the Supreme Court did not apply that classification in a case where the penalty provided by law is v i s i o n mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,OOO. In imposing the penalty next lower in degree, the Supreme Court fixed a fine of p50 (a light penalty) and imposed it together with mg.wh correcoional, a correctional penalty (People vs. r . .-- - . ~ Quinto, 60 Phil. 311).

..

:

.

They do not have fixed durations. A convict sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties is pardoned after undergoing the penalty f o r 30 Years, - @: cept when he is not worthy of pardon by reas011 Of b S or Some other cause. If he is not pardoned, the maximum duration of his sentence shall in no case exceed forty years, as may be inferred from the provisions Of the Revised Penal Code on the three-fold rule (Art. 70, R.P.C.) .

.

!

i 1

1 '

i

681.

.

I

'

;

temporal. Pending his trial, A was detained in jail since May 10, 1968, because he could not post a hail bond. After trial. A was convicted on November 10, 1958, and was sentenced to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty. Since A had been detained for six months before judgment was rendered and not having appealed therefrom, from what day must the duration of his penalty be cowputed? , E m your answer. .=e duration of his penalty must be computed from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence. 2t'fiere are three rules provided by the Revised Penal Code for the computation of the penalties, namely: (1) If the offender is in prison., the term of the duration of the t e m p o m q pendkies is computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final; (2) if the offender is not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting in deprivation of liberty shall he computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal o f the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty; and ( 3 ) the term of the duration of other penalties is computed from the day on which the defendant commences t o serve his sentence. The first rule is not applicable, because it applies only to temporary penalties, not t o those consisting in deprivation of liberty, like reclusion temporal. The second rule is not applicable either, because it applies only when the offender is not. in prison. Hence, the third rule anolies. A should be credited with one-half of the time of the preventive imprisonment of six months. ~~

.

~

~~

~

262

,

The duration of suspension, a.s a priucipal penalty,. is from six months and one day to six years. But when it is imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall that of the principal penalty. ,<$3+< ,,,<*,, *,, A was prosecuted for homicide, pmnishable by reclusion le

263

~~~



.~ :

682. A was prosecuted for a crime punishable by arrest0 mayor or a fine from 8200 to P2,OOO. Pending the trial of the

...

case, A was detained because he ,could not put a bail bond. JJe was detained for 6 months. The court Ten. dered a judgment of conviction and sextenced him t0 pay a fine of 8500. Must A be credited with one-half of, his preventive imprisonment of six months? Why? No, because a person who underwent preventive imprisonment shall be credited with one-half of his preventive imprisonment only when the penalty imposed consists in deprivation of liberty. The penalty imposed, which is a fine of P500, does not consists in deprivation of liberty.

683. A, having surprised his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with another man, k5lled her. Prosecuted for parricide, a crime which is not bailable, A was detained pending his trial which lasted for one year. After trial, A was . sentenced to destierro. Must he be credited with one-half of the time of his preventive imprisonment O t .~ one ye:ar? Explain your answer. yes, because the penalty of destierro also COnSiStS in . depriva,tion of liberty, since the convict is not free to enter

__

.,

.. .

~

~

the prohibited area. Offenders who have undergone Preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentences consisting in deprivation of liberty. MoreOver, this is not one of the cases where the convict is not credited in the service of his sentence with one-half Of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.

.

684. May a convict sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua be credited with one-half of the time of his preventive mi-

prisonment? Explain your answer. Yes, because the article of the Revised Penal Code governing preventive imprisonment does not make any distinctiorl betwecn temporal and perpetual penalties, Moreover, the duration of perpetual penalties is to be computed at 80 years.

264

685. A served sentence for slight physical injuries twent& Years ago. Now, he is on trial for homicide and during? the pendency Qf the w e , he has been detained for one Year. If he is convicted of homicide, is he entitled tn

No, because he i s a recidivist and a recidivist is not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of his preventive imprisonment. 686. Who are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment?

The following offenders are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment: 1. Recidivists O r those convicted previously twice or more tjmes of any crime. 2 . Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, failed to surrender voluntarily. 3 . Those convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversation, falsification, vagra,ncy and pro:ititution. Note: Habitual delinquent^ and those declared in reitemcion or habitually, if the latter are previously punished for two 01 more offensrs, are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment.

68'7. Are those 'persons who did n.ut surrender voluntarily after the commission of the crime entitled to be credited with one-half of their preventive imprisonment? Yes, if they are not recidivists or are not convicted previously twice or more times of any crime, and the crime committed is not robbery, theft, estafa, malversation, falsification, vagrancy or prostitution. The persons not entitled to be credited with one-half of their preventive imprisonment are those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, fail to surrender voluntarily. 688. What is the purpose of the law in imposing the penalty of disqualification for the exercise of the right of s,,f-

frage?

266

. .


The manifest purpose of such restrictions upon this right is to preserve the purity of elections. The presumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction of felony, or other base offenses indicative of moral turpitude, is unlit to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The exclusion must for this reason he adjudged a mere disqualification, imposed for mere protection and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not a denial of a personal right (People vs. Corral, 62 Phil. 945). 689. A, who was a government employee for 35 Years and already a t the age of 69, was prosecuted for and convicted of a crime and was sentenced t o 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty, with the accessory penalty of temporary ahsolute disqualification for mpnblic office. After service of sentence, can he get his retirement pay? Explain your answer. No, because one of the effects of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office is the loss of right to retirement pay or pension for any office formerly held, and such effect lasts even after the term of the sentence. 690. Supporie A was not yet retireahle, can he be reinstated after service of sentence? Explain your answer.

No, because one of the effects of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification is deprivation of public office or employment, even if conferred by popular election and such effect lasts even after the term of the.sentence. 691. What effects of temporary absolute disqudification shall last only during the term of the Sentence? They are: (1) the deprivation of the right to vote in

any election for any popular elective offize or to be elected to such office; and ( 2 ) the disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned (Art. 30, last par.). 266


,692. What are the effects of pardon by the Chief Executive? Can the offended party in a crime legally pardon. the :' offender? Explain your answer. .,:, A pardon by the Chief Executive shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage. unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon by the Chief Executive shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. No, the offended party cannot legally pardon the offender so as to extinguish criminal action. Even pardon nnder Art. 344 only constitutes a bar t o criminal prosecution. The reason for the rule is that a crime committed is an offense against the State. But civil liability with regard t o the interest of the injured party is extinguished by express waiver. 693. A was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to suffer 4 m ~ n t h sand 1 day of arrest0 mayor, with the accessory penalty of suspension of the right .to hold office and the right of suffrage. After service of the sentence for two months, A was granted an absolute pardon by the Pres. ident and was released from jail. Can A vote during the election held six months after he was granted a pardon? Explain your answer. No. While it is h u e that the accessory penalty of sus-, .;,, pension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage lasts only during the term of the sentence (Art. 44, R.P.C.), and that it is not necessary that the same be:!! expressly remitted in the pardon, under See. 99 of the:;+ Revised Election Code, A is not qualified to vote, havinp?; been declared by final judgment guilty of a crime against',:! property. "

Note: The other accessory penalties of perpetual absolute din- :, quaiification, perpetual special disqualification, and temporary ,':: absolute or speeisl disqualification must be expressly remitted 2 in tho pardon in order that the ex-convict can vote or hold public, office. This is true even if the convict sentenced to life h-+* prisonment had already served 30 yeers when he was granted

~.:

267

'

v

1 i


I absolute pardon. Unless expressly restored by the terms of t h e pardon, he cannot exercise the right of suffrage. l'he exception is when the absolute pardon is granted after the convict has served his sentence and the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion temporal. It is deemed that the pardon is intended to restore to him the right to vote or to be elected to public office. -i: ,'

-694. What are included in costs in criminal cases? They are: (1) fees, and (2) indemnities in the course

of judicial proceedings. ,

,

695. Enumerate the pecuniary liabilities of a person giiilty

..

. .

of a crime and state whether the court .can order their payment indiscriminately. The pecuniary liabilities of the offender are: (1) reparation of the damage causedi ( 2 ) indemnification of consequential damages, (3) the fine, and (4) the costs of the proceedings. In case the property of the offender should not be sufficie,nt for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the order in which they are enumerated in Art. 38 of the Revised Penal Code. Note: Where the proceeds of the sale of the property of the offender are not sufficient to cover the damages adjudicated to the heirs of the deceased and the costs of the proceedings, i t is error to apply part of the proceeds to satisfy t h e costs; the damages should ho satisfied first (People vs. Maeaso, 39 0. G. 1504). Reparation of the damage caused is the pecuniary liability in climes against property, when restitution is not possible. Indemnification of Consequential damages is usually the pecuniar3liability in crimes against persons.

696. What iri subsidiary penalty? Is it deemed imposed in case t h o convict could not pay certain pecuniary Babilities by reason of insolvency? Explain your answer.

Subsidiary penalty is a subsidiary personal liability t o be suf€ered by the convict who has no property with

which to meet the pecuniary liabilities for the reparation of the Camage caused, indemnification oE consequential 268

! . ,


e,

damages, and fine, at the rate of one day for each subject to the rules provided by law. . .. No, subsidiary penalty must be expressly imposed ~b$ the. Court in order that the convict may be required . , ~ serve it. It is not an accessory penalty. It is imposed ,: upon the accused and served by him in lieu of certain pecuniary liabilities which he fails to pay on account of insolvency. Note: From the definition of subsidiary penalty, it will be noted that the offender cannot choose to serve subsidiary penalty, instead of paying the Pecuniary liabilities, if he has property with which to pay them. The offender has to serve subsidiary penalty, only if he has no property with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities.

697. I n what cases is there no subsidiary penalty, even if the offender cannot pay the pecuniary liabilities by reason of^ insolvency? 1. When the penalty imposed is higher than p r k i o n corwccional, such as prision mayor, reclusion t e m p o r d , and reclusion pemetua, there is no subsidiary penalty. 2. For failure t o pay the costs o f the proceedings, there is no subsidiary penalty. 3 . When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution and has no fixed duration, there is no subsidiary penalty. Note: Subsidiary penalty is possible only when any of the following penalties is imposed: (1) prision correccional, ( 2 ) suspension and fine, (3) destiewo, (4) w r e s t o meyor, ( 5 ) awesto menor, and (6) fine only. Even if ths penalty imposed is not higher than pdaion correccional, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who has to suffer an additional penalty, and the total penalty is higher than G years, there is n o subsidiary penalty (People vs. Coneepcion, 59 Phil, 518).

698. What is the ma.ximum duration of the subsidiary penalty? If the penalty imposed is prision correccional o r UTresto and fine, it shall not exceed one-third of the term

269 ',>*

ir



.~? 701. A was prosecuted for rebellion punishable by priaio&2

i_

of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more .,than one year. ::/. , ~if the ~ penalty t imposed is fine only, it shall not ."'&ceed six months, if the offender is prosecuted for grave less, nave felony; and not more than fifteen days, if _. . ' prosecuted for a light felony

nlayor and a fine not exceeding P20,OOO. A surrendered !. volnntarily to the mayor of hid town and during the' arraignment he pleaded guiltv to the charge. No aggravating circumstance wns alleged in the information. It appears that A could not pay the fine, because he was insolvent. Can A be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the fine? Explain your answer. Yes, became there are two mitigating. circumstances without any aggravating circumstance and, since the penalty of prision mayor is divisible, the penalty should be lowered b? one degree (Art. 64, par. 5, R.P.C.), which is Prision cor?eceionnl. Since the penalty actually imposed is not higher than prision correccional, A can be required t o serve subsidiary penalty.

I

,....."I-__ . . . I€ f,he penalty imposed is prision correccional or arrest0 'and fine, the subsidiary penalty shall consist in imprisonment. [f the penalty imposed is destierro, the subsidiary n.,noltv i s also destierro. If the penalty imposed is sUS-Y".Y.",, ~

_I

pension, the subsidiary penalty is also suspension. convicted of a crime for the commission of which 700. A the law provides a fine not exceeding 81,000, and Was. sentenced to pay a fine of P200. In case A cannot pay the fine of P200 by reason of insolvency, what is t h e duratbon of the subsidiary penalty. Explain your answer. ~~

Nota: When the penalty Drovided by the Code far the offenee is imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed, riot the penalty provided by the Code, which should be considered in determining whether or not there should be subsidiary penalty.

~~

Two months and twenty days. When the penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary pena1t.y shall not exceed 6 months, if the culprit shall have been Drosecuted for a grave or less grave felony; and shall not exceed 15 days, if for a light felony (Art. 59, par. 2, R.P.C.). Since the fine provided by law is not exceeding PI,OOQ, it is a correctional penalty (AI*. 26, R.P.C.) Less 'grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penn l t i e s which in their maximum period are correctional .."(Art. 9, R.P.C.). . . . i. . p.200 + F2.60 = 80 days or 2 months and 20 days, which is less than 6 months. Hence, the duration Of the subidiary penalty is 2 months and 20 days.

702. A was tried for a crime, was convicted, and was sentenced to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision cur-

reccional. He could not pay the reparation of the damage caused in the amount of PZDO, the indemnification of consequential damages in the aroonnt of 8150, the, fine in the amount of 8100, .and the costs of P32. A served subsidiary imprisonment for the first tluee pe- , .; cnniary liabilities. When released from prison, A w n e d a fortune. What pecuniary liabilitia must he pay, notwithstanding the service of subsidiary imprisonment? He must pay the reparation of the damage caused a n d , the indemnification of consequential damages.

.

,

.

N o t e : The crime committed by A is not a light felon)., befor light felonies ''a fine not ezoeedins 200 pesos X x X i s ed" by law (Art. o, R.P.c.). In the problem given the. fine provided by law is not exceeding P1,OOO. It is lhe fine pvmided bv law for the offense, not the fine ased by the court, which must be considered in determining liether the felony is grave, less grave or light.

210

Note: He is relieved from pecuniary liabi!ity as to fine, once he served subsidiary penalty therefor. Although, there is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment of the costs, he may be required t o pay them when his financial circumstances shouid improve.

i /

.

703. Is subsidiary penalty unconstitutional as an imprisonment for debt? Explain your answer.

* CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW RRVIEWEK

such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.

No, because the constitutional provision which prohibits mprisonment for debt relates to the imprisonment of debtors for liability incnrred in the fulfillment of contracts, but not to the cases seeking the enforcement of penal statutes that provide for the payment of money as a penalty for the commission of crime or for damages ,arising in action e r delictu.

A is sentenced to 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment by the court, as the maximum term of the indeterminate penalt,y. While serving sentence, A wanted to sdl his " ' 'house and lot to realize the amount necessary to pay the "'lawver mho handled his defense. Can A legally sell his real property? Explain your answer. Yes, because A was sentenced to the penalty of prision m y o r , 6 years and 1 day being the minimum of that penalty. The only case where a convict cannot dispose of his property by any act or conveyance inter u<,uuos is when he is suffering from civil interdiction, which is an accessory penalty only in (1) death, when not executed by reason of commutation or pardon, (2) reclusion p e r p ~ l u a ,and (3) reclusion temporal.

.:

. Aandwasoneconvicted of theft and was sentenced to one year day of prision correccional, its the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty. After service of sentence, A was released from prison. A now consults you and asks for your legal advice whether or not he can vote in the coming election. What will be your advice? Explain your answer. N y advice is that he cannot vote. While it is true that the duration of imprisonment imposed on him did not exceed eighteen months and the only accessory penalty inhercmt in the principal penalty is suspension from public 'ce, and from the right to follow a profession or callunder See. 99 of the Revised Eiection Code, A is qnalified to vote, having been sentexiced by final judgnt to suffer one year or more of imprisonment, and t...

I

706. Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty? No. Subsidiary penalty is a personal penalty prescribed by law in substitution of the pecuniary liability.,, when the latter cannot be satisfied because of the culprit's,', insolvency. Hence, subsidiary imprisonment cannot be : served unless the judgment condemns the accused to suf-.: fer the same in case of insolvency (People vs. Fajardo,:: 65 Phil. 539, 541-542). Do accessory penalty and subsidiary penalty the jurisdiction of the court? Explain your Accessory penalty, like subsidiary penalty, does no determine the jurisdiction of the court, beca not' modify or alter the nature o€ the penalty hy the law. What determines jurisdiction in cases is the extent of the principal penalty w law imposes for the crime charged in the info complaint.

708. X was prosecuted for illegal possession of a fire Upon a plea of guilty, X was sentenced to indeterminate penalty of not less than one ye maximum term. The fiscal presented no ev' cause X pleaded guilty. Can the court leg the confiscation and forfeiture of the firea possessed by X? Explain your answer. If the firearm was in the possession of tion, it being a party in the criminal case, legally order the confiscation and forfeiture of the fire-":: arm. In the case of U S . vs. Filart, et al., 30 'Phil. '80, :; it was held that when the automobile which was the ob-: iect of the lottery and the money which 'was obtained" from the sale of the tickets were not in the possession of any party to the action, the court cannot legally order their confiscation. In this case, it is assumed that the firearm was in the possession of the prosecution, one;<. of the parties in the criminal case. lj ~. 273

272

;,,;,,. . ., .. .

.", ,,

,

,

"

~

,

.

.,.

~

,.,,"

,

CRIMINAL :LAW REVIEWER.


r

en'may the property used in the c d not snhject to confiscation and fo 'Property of a third person not liable f ot subject to confiscation and Sorfeiture. Thus, the money 'of an innocent third person used . ,"bv . . ~ " the accused in bribing a public officer should be re.~. ', :'~.:turned t:o the owner thereof. ~~

ii' . ''

Car? the court refuse to impose the death penalty, even if the t:ircumstar.ces of the case justify the imposition .. . of that uenalty? Explain your answer. . The death penalty shall not be imposed in the (follow1 ing cases: (1) When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age; ( 2 ) when upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme Court, eight justices are not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition .of the death penalty. The court cannot refuse to impose the death penalty. . ~ . . ,because +he Revised Penal Code provides that "the death 3 penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be _

...

j.

.i

214

,,,

of a case in which capital punishment has been imposed by the sentence of the trial court?

i

711. In what'eases shall the death penalty not he imposed?

,

712. What is the purpose of the review by the Supreme Court-

~

710. 'In , what crimes is death imposed as the maximum of .: -. the penalty? What is the justification for the death penalty? . . I n the following crimes : (1) treason, ( 2 ) correspondence wit.h hostile country when it contains notice or in. formation useful to the.enemy and the intention of the . . ...... , "offender .is to aid the enemy, ( 3 ) in certain acts Of espioiiage under Commonwealth Act No. 616, ( 4 ) certain , . .. . . violations o l the Anti-Subversion Act ,( 5 ) qualified piracy, . . ~.(6) parricide, (7) murder, ( 8 ) kidnapping and serious .illegal detention, (9) robbery with homicide, and (10) rape with hoimicide. Tho justification for the death penalty is social deA convict, because of the nature ! ' fense and exemplarity. o€ the crime he committed, may prove himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The death penalty imposed on him is a warning to others.

I

imposed under existing laws" and, a!3 stated by t h e % Court, 'ks long as the death penalty rem2ins in the books, it is the duty of the judicial officers to and apply the law regardles$ of their prjvate

The requirement has for its object simply and solely the protection of the accused. He is entitled under the ' : law to have the sentence and all the facts and circum- ' stances upon which it is founded placed before the highest tribunal to the end that its justice and legality may be . . clearly and conclusiveIy determined. Such procedure is. "; . ,', . merciful. It gives a second chance for life. , :. .

:I

713. What is a complex crime and what is the penalty therefor? A complex crime is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave ofsense is a necessary means f o r Thc penalty for the more or most, serious crime be imposed, the same t o be applied 714. What are the requisites of the crime? They are: 1. Only oue act must be performed by the" offend 2 . The felonies produced by the single ac or less ginve felonies. 715. Ls the penalty for the complex

defendant? Ordinarily, the peualty for the complex crime is fay able t o the defendant, because instead .of sufferi or more penalties he shall be sentenced to one only. But if the graver offense earties .with it t alty of death as the maximum, it may be said t o favorable to him.

275

i


'.

716. What is the reason fpr the benevolent spirit of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code? When two or more crimes are the result of a single ; , ' ~ 'act, tho offender is deemed less perverse than when he . ., commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts. .:'. ,. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently . ..~<~+<,&~,.. :, ~ ~ 1 . ; . from each other, he must suffer the maximum of tXe +$*$;.penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that .i.r ,= -.it ' is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties ' ., ,, '. . for each offense (People vs. Hernandez, et al. 52 O.G. . , ? .: _. . ,

It cannot be a complex crime of the second .form,-, because one offense is not necessary means for. commit; .. ting the other.

,

. .

719. A driver of a bus with 35 passengers drove it in a reckless and imprudent manner. The bus fell into a ravine:,

Five passengers were killed and the rest of the s e w e r s mere slightly injured. Elow many crimes committed by the driver of the bus? Explain answer. Thirty-one crimes were committed, because the

5506).

..,717. A woman was found dead with stab wounds. The doetor - .who examined her dead body found that she was also . raped. .Later, X, who was suspected, was investigated . by; the police. X confessed to the police that he raped the woman and that he also stabbed her to eliminate a witness against him. Can X be held liable for a complex crime of rape with homicide? Explain your answer. Yes, X can be held liable f o r a complex crime of rape with homicide. It is not necessary to determine whether !' one offense was a necessary means for committing the other, 01. whether the two felonies, which are both grave, . . . were the result of a single act, because Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Art. 335,as amended, ! . of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes a special complex crime of rape with homicide, when the homicide ' ' , is comm.itted by reason or on the occasion of the rape.

L.

.

.,'.

, '~

suffered slight physical injuries are the offended p in the thirty different, separate and distinct cas juries, cannot form a complex crime. 720. The mayor of a town, while in the performance of

.

plain your aaswer. Only one crime of direct assault was committed

718. A, while cleaning his revolver with several persons around ; him, accidentally pulled the trigger. It exploded and " ' the slug fired from the revolver hit and killed C and the same slug that passed through and through the hody . . , .. of C also hit and injured B, who suffered slight physical . . injuries, a crime punishable by arrest0 menor. Did A ' ' commit a complex crime? Explain your arswer. ....: ., ., ',. , No, because the crime committed as regards the in', jury caused to B is only a light felony and a li,ght felony - ,. ~@.: . cannot form a complex crime of the first form; F. ~

Yes, because the single act of shooting B

.

;-

i .

'

.

CRIMINAL LAW REYIIEWER

276

277

i

pas:

.,

were., your: five


gun a t . As regards B, was iLttemuted h&d&e. a punish&le by grision GOTe committed against C vma.-gmxe use it is punishable by reclzlsion. kzwaal. for the complex crime of h m wB-&

-

1.

,

.'

kill a certain person, placed a .!&!& der a building where the intended vicer persons were working. When tlie building WAS & s h ! ? e d , killing twenty ly injuring thirty-one otl-er persons. were committed by A? .How many imposed. Explain yonr answer. There is only &me committed by A. Although, there were twenty murders committed for killing twenty . . persons by means of explosion and thirty-one attempted .' ~, . , murders, since they w s e & g m . y e felonies and t h e r e s u l t s :~ of a single acL-of exploding a bomb, they constitute a c m m e p f murders with attemnted murdqxs, and only oue penalty should be imyosed, that is, the zor mnr
-723. A pulled the trigger of, and fired, his Thompson sub.

',,,

., ~.:

. machine gun at a group of many persons, -EW -1 the Several shots were fired and five persons were killed. How many crimes were committed

m.

Explain your answer. Five crimes of dewere committed, because & there was only one act of pulling the t a r performed by A, each death caused corresuonds & a tcdand separate shot fired by A, who 'thus made himself many offenses 2 i h s a i criminally liable & 't:;'from the single that produced the same (People VJ. #;merto, ii C.A., 46 O.G. 4642).

- --

278

. .

I

I

This case of - P e w l e YS. Desiarta is.'lfkelg to be -,d&& understood, becawe there was a s j b - a c t tkigger. The reason for the ruiiup that %e &s of homicide as- t persona killed hy is that in firing a Thompson sub-machine gun t a&uually €iring s v e r 1 ot which may he a&&It is nnly be:au$ f, its &a1 mechanism that the:? person firing i t ha3 to m s the trigger .and keep his finger pressed 011 the trigger to make the ,gun fire continually. ' !

Note:

724. A burned the house of 8 to kill the latter who was .' then inside, as in fact B war lulled as a consequence. Since arson ,was the means med t(P kill 'B, ' i s A liable for the couiplex crime of murder with arson?' Why? Mo. The crime is plain murdey, because there w a s . intent t o u and'& was psed as a means to accomulish his criminal uuruose (Art. 248, R.P.C.). .. as a means of killing a person is .a m n g cjrcumstance of murder and although arson also resulted it c m t be taken into a& to f s p the csmplex crime of murder with arson (People vs. Villaroya, et-a]., 64 O.G. 3488). This is not the second form of complex crime, because aithough the commission of one offense (arson) was necessary to kill the victim, since the Revised Penal.Code specirically defines murder as the killing of a person by means of fire (among other means), it should not be governed by Art.. 48.

tr,m

Note: But if there was no .intent and the purpose of A was only t o %he house and 13 died,8s a consequence, the answer is either (1) lain arson or (2) a comalex crime of a m i with homicide (geople YS. Paterna; US. VB. Bum?, 41 Phil. 418). The reason for the first is that honiicide, which is punished with reclusion temporal, is ahsorbed in arson which carries r d h i t the higher penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion pevpetua. The reason for the second is t h a t the single act of hurning the house where the deceased wa3 killed produce+, two crimes, arson and homicide. ,,. When in the question there is no mention of intent to k W l on the part of the offender who burned the house of another,

279

.. . . ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER resulting in the death of a person, use the rulings given in the tam canes of People YE. Paterna and US. vs. Burns, and then ,give your opinion based on either of them. In the case of U.S. vs. Burns, whieh states the better ruling, the Supreme Court stated that while the law on arson prescribes a Bevere penalt in view of the &K?L k d i k which id involved in the s&ng of fire to a building, known to be occupied at the time by human beings, it does not follow h t IL resuitina homicide is t o he consideroh as &l.WSlt in the clime of arson. The -f that is there a m d is the danger to life, a t h e attendant homicide that may in fact ensue.

5. ' A was arrested for posessing a firearm without license. During the investigation by the police, A admitted that he came into the possession of the firearm because he stole it from B, the person who had license t o possess ,:'it. Are there two separate crimes of theft and illegal .possession of firearm or do they constitute a complex .crime? Explain your answer. Theft of firearm and the illegal possession of it are two dislhct and separate crimes. The crime of illegal possession of firearm is not committed by mere tra%sie%t possessiom of the weapon. There must be intention to use, which is not necessarily the case in every theft of firearm. Moreover, the crime of illegal possession of firearm, being punishable by a special law, is not a felony. A complex crime of the compound type 'requires that a single amctshould produce two or more grave or less grave felonies. A felony is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code.

'-

p&.: .",,.~, &'2& 'IS them a complex crime of attempted rape with theft? &&; ..'+- None. If a person, who failed t o consummate the rape because the woman kicked him, snatched her vanity case %' from her hand a s she was running away,& executed two -acts and the attempted rape I< . +.

~

,

r

,

':'

, I,.,

'

.. .'

CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

727. Is there a complex erime of rolbbery with attempted rape? Explain your answer. is& a "'ems to c&t anstNone. A &b= tempted rape, w a n &tempted Tape cannot be a meam tncommit a robbwy. N o r can both crimes b .g the result of o&e s w . There is an indivisible complex m e ofrobberv a h r m konsummated), defined and penalized in Art. 294, par. 2, K G g d T e n a l Code (People vs. Cariega, C.A., 54 O.G. 4307).

728. Is there a complex crime of grave coercion with murder? Explain your answer. None, If a person compelled another to do something against his will and because of the refusal of the latter, the formcr killed him, such person executed two distinct. acts and not only one, and one offense cannot be a nccessary means to com it the other (People vs. Ang.,Cho I%:, 60 O.G. 3536). e can compel the victim to do thing against his will without murdering hm;:*a can murder him without compellin,g him t o do'some against. his will.

-rt"

729. What are the requisites of the sccond form of .compl crime? They are: 1. That two or more crinles are committed by same individual; 2 . That one or some of them is o r are necessary commit the other; 3. That all the crimes are puiiished under the statute.

730. Is it a complex crime where several crimes were mitted tu commit another crime? Yes, as in the case of People vs. Gallardo C.A., 52 O.G. 3103, where the offenders had to seventeen falsifications on seventeen money orders

281

00


,

at the

same time to commit estafa by presenting all of them at the post office for cashing on only one ocoasion.

731. A, purchasing agent of a private company, bought for the company office supplies worth E 0 0 and paid it out of the PGCO he bad received from the treasurer, but in the receipt issued by the store from which the office ~.,’ supplies were purchased, A erased the figure “5” and wrote in its place the figure “6” and made other alteratibns to make it appear in the receipt that the price of the office supplies was P600, and then spent the of 8100. Did A commit a complex crime, only .difference . . one simple crime, or two distinct and separate crimes? Explain your answer. Only &e-el o f s t & with abuse d . a . ? k QtIence was . -c It cannot h e a comtllex rSime of estafa falsi.& . through f%hLXmsI , fication, because the dncllmPnf: was & & ?I!& S W t# t h e , u b s j the money .. . iZlhispnsso and it would not be necessary f o r him falsify the document to get the difference of ?lo0 and <.,,i ,, , ,..to spend it. The falsificatiPn was wlnmfk ’ ed to c o a a l & e crime of estafa. Moreover, the receipt being a private h-t iaM&&on . . document, a complex crime a-0f There is n o h complex crime is not le&ly_passihle. : of estafa t k l d falsificatipri of a private nt, &e. . m a the eaudulent w i n obtained, in the c o e o n of -,’ .,. . e&fa is the v m $ . a l U d - by the tXsXbtion uf ,. ’ ,, ’. the private docnment. . ! . ,Ahey ‘are not two distinct and separate offenses, beocument is falsified to conceal the and the falsification will be dis-

m

if ‘the offender bad to

fm

t o obtain theaoney,,goods or other

rom another person and

tkx~U-

e crime would be xddp falsification document and the

will be

absorbed.

.:..

.,‘
‘732. The treaJurer of a municipality m h r o p r i a t e d Weti: anwunt of P1,COO in his official c u s t o h and then ma.&% a l k r d o n s in his books to make it appear that, t h e nmount of 81,000 was la.vfulIv disbwsul. & . t h e treas. , ,:.,, urer liable’ for a complex crime? Why? . . No; he committed two seuarate and ri : The treasure]; an accounMe Z b l-i-c .nfiirrr committed malversation f o r misappropriating the 81,000, a public fund. The o-nf of his book, an official -document, was poJ.i~ necessary m e u s to commit the crime of malversation, bseh s the mmev in his n c m e s i t n The t m could m&atse &or a~~v-o€the funds io his possession w h t t h e m of falsifving a&& ment., But since damam o r m t o _cause d m g e & not necessary in falsification of an ojificial document, it, m ~ seuarate crime. a

-

-733. The mayor, the treasurer of a municipality,’ and X, a private individual, signed an official payroll for 8473.70 to the effect that certain persons worked as laborers .in< street projects, vvhen in fact no work was done and those persons were not entitled to pay. The amount corresponding to their Supposed wa,Ses were taken and misappropriated by the three offenders. How many crimes were committed by them. Explain )*our answer. The mayor, the treasurer o f the niunicipality, and X committed t m and independent offenses of mlversation and falsification. They were in constliracy and all are guilty of malversation (US. vs. Ponte. 20 Phil. 379). The first two committed falsification of a w a n d official document with- a ’ ‘d and, aecord-ing to Viada, the private individual whod-oc with them is m e f o r the same offense. skt the falsification was not a necessary means to commif; malversation, the treasurer having had i& possession the m m midappropriated (see Regis vs. People, 68 Phil. 43).

-

734. A was forcibly and with intimidation taken from hh house by B and C, placed in a jeep, and in a secluded 253


place one kilometer away from his house A was shot to death. lis this a complex crime of kidnapphg with naurder? Explain your answer. No, it is plain rmvder, & a w e n&ng w d d z d m J 3 and C showing that they had the i s t i o n . to.deprive A of his liberty or to &eamd rwuxp f a .e-r In this case, the forcible taking of A by B and C was solely for the eof Icillina him (People vs.. Camo, et al., XVII, L.J. 371; People vs. Remalante). N o t e : When it is -that the -of the taking of the victim was to detain him ille,?dly for any IenRth o f e or t o obtain ransom, and later the victim was killed when in mnmm is not paid, then it i s a camolex crime of with m u r k (Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 !?hi]. 8.55);. In complex crimes, whether of the first or second form. each of the two crimes can stand by itself. It must have all the element8 or, a t least, the elements necessary to eonatitutc the attempted stage, like attempted estafa, which may be co-lcxed with falsification. "

,

-

735 A shot I3 with a pistol without license. R died as a /result. Did A commit a complex crime of homicide through illegal possession of firearm? Explain pour answer. No, because the offender cQmmitted two different acts with t w o w e criminal intents, u t , tlhL&i& take unlawfully t h e m o f a =, and the willful violation of which penalizes the possmsioc of a I h ' arm w i t b u t the required permit. M ,erthe b!lp " -are not punished !g!d.fz the Same st& te. Homicide is punished under the Revised Penal Code, while illegal possesion of firearm is punished by a special law. , I u n ' w , WLQone offense is nesessuy to e_ommit the other, it has ben a t h a t the b crimes. . -m punished under the Same statutwf

.. . ,

.I,

736. In what cases may, a person who committed multipls. crimes be punished with one penalty? 3;: A person who committed multiple crimes may be pungished with one aeiialtv in t h e following cases:

6..

<.?&~~

'XIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1. When the offender committed any of the crjmesunder Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code; 2 . When the @ecificalk f h a penalty for two or more offenses, such as robbery with homicide; 3. When the offender committt!d a continuing crime.

737. What is the difference between a continued or continuing. crime and plurality of crimes? There are two forms of plurality of crimes to be distinguished from continued or continuing crime. The formal or ideal plurality of crimes, which covers the two fornis of complex crime, is distinguished from continued o r continuing crime in the sense that the offender in continued or continuing crime does not perform a single act, but a series uf acts, and each of the series of acts is not a necessary means for committing the others. The real or material plurality of crimes and the continued or continuing crime are similar in that in both there is a series of acts performed by the offender. But while in real or material plurality, each act performed by the offender constitutes a separate crime, because each act is generated hy a criminal impulse; in continued 01- continuing crime, the different acts constitute only one crime, because all of the acts performed arise from one criminal resolution. 738. A, B, C and D entered a oompound where there were six houses, each occupied by a family. When they entered the compound, the culprits had the intention to ransack the different houses and take personal property therefroni which they djd after passing through the windows. How many robberies with force upon things were committed by A, B, C and I)? Explain your answer. They c0mmitte.d Q&L o u e x d h e q -w thiqps, the different houses because the ssveral ads .of gwere not uncounectsd and entirely d l from o n e a n other. They f&ccmponent pari$ of the general &

285

I i'


1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ..

.

.. :,,

.,. ..

to despoil AIJ-those within the comnou&. (See People v s ~ u z et ai., , G. R. L-1746,May 23,4950.)

:

739. ,Suppose the six houses were standing on different lot%. .' ' each lot ha.ving its own fence, and A, B, C and D enI

'

tered each and every one of them throngh the window ,,.>;:. and took therefrom personal property, how many crimes. ..,.: ., , were comm,itted by them? Why? -.::i~ , . , There would be six different robberies with force won. .:.' ' t h i n g s , b s a i s e the six houses are e&elv distinct & fm one another and the culnrits have different criminal r a & k " w a s they &d e&and m r k 2 m of the six houses ,.:; r & b z in the six There was no general Dlan to r'.. / houses.'. (See People vs. Enguero, et al., 64 0. G . 8230' . 8231.) ;k$%l. _/r

j

.

.

I

1 ~

!

e

a common motive to run amok. They k.&d e&!n persons and seriously wounded t&&J!.Akrpersons. l,t appears that the killing and the i n j u r h g ,:.;!:, of other persons were the =It of a single imDulse b rim amok and n o t & x r & i n mk m .~~~ ~.that A and B did -~ '... '., ' , any particular individual. How nmny crimes were committed by A and B? why? The ldlilof eleven persons and the injuring of twenty other pemons should be consideEd as resulting a s u e c3ninal impulse &nd constituting a sine'le offense . ., . 13477-R, Jan. 1956). .. *(People vs. Emit, C 740. A and B

'

.

.

~

l ~ ; .

.. -

741. X entered a church and began firing with his .45 caliber pistol at a crowd. Tyo persons were ki.kbmd.another seriously injured. One r m ~ t h r e bull& e woJlLdS; t h e 'other, two; and the third, one. How many crimes were committed by X? X committed tJwee crimes. Since the three victims were nptot by and the ggdldkk the three crimes were not nroduced by a single act (People vs. Basarain, .G;R. L-6690, May 24, 1956).

286

742. Art. prnvides that "if the penalty prescribed for thr., .s . felony c m n ! be liigliec than that corresponding to the offense which the a c a i n t e n d e d to c<;mmit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imjposed in its maxi. mum period." Now, suppose that A ivanted to kill B, a slranger, and upon seeing him aimed and fired his gun a t him, but he failed to hit him and instead he hit and killed his father who was passing behind B. The penalty for parricide, the crime A actually committed, is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty for h&&,e in_tha_identitv ' of the (errov in -e) and 0;dy 0-n -f hy the unlawfd a c t of thcqffendtr. Ezample: A, thinlr- I ., ing that the p z - x n g in a dark alley was B, a stranger, fired at him who was killed 8s a result. It turned out that that person was C, A's father. 8 we there. In such case, only msr,mn was &&ed.. by t h G d the offender and.,,.i therefore, only 0-e. was &d. There could 4 con? lex crime when onlv one crime.is_nmdueed, because a : - c Qresuuposeg, the s p m r m.s.i ~nn of atJe& & I crimes. Art. 49 does to izberratio ictus, because in this hypothesis there is a complex crime end Art. 48 applies. It does not ap@a-sol to p-aete? &&ticwm~, because in this 'h y p o t h x - l h e crime bef&.&e same person, whereas Art. 49 has no application t o cases where a more serious consequence not intended by the offender befalls the Same person (P-1. 7s. Alburquerquue, 55 Phil. 150).

u-

m

,

'

-

143. Art. 249 provides: "Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another without ': the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated.,; 287

>+*:>? ., ,,.. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRI&IIINAL LAW REVIEWER

,z

p:....'in 'the

next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of

'.,'<

.''. homicide

and be punished by reclusion .temporal." Upon . ,,.; whom is that penalty of reclusion temporal to be im, "posed? To what stage of execution of the crime of :'. "homicide Is that penalty applicable? .. , The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of : a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the com" ,:,I, , ,,, .., mission of such felony. Whenever the law prescribes a ;'; penalty for a felony in general terms, it sLall be nnder';', stood as applicable t o the consummated feiony (Art. 46, .' R.P.C.).

by one degree the penalty which under Art. -51 sl?ould b?, impose2 for an attempt to commit the crime of pa:ricid'e, ..x rnnrder or - - homicide, it is elear that the court can mpose a .. nenaltv lower by three degrees. ~

The rules referred to in the two prweding questions are true only in three crimes, namely: (1). Parri- ," ';i &de, (2) murder, and (3) homicide. The annlieation of the rules is not mandatory. Their aP&cation is discretionary to the court.

Note:

R?8werg

__

746, What is a degree in relation to the peUdtieS Provided by the Revised Penal Code? A degree is one unit penalty or one of the Penalties enumerated in the graduated scales in Art. 71 Of the Re, vised Penal Code. Thus, Scale No. 1 of said article mentions the penalties in the following order: 1. Death, 2 . Reclusion perpetua, 3 . Reclusion temporal, 4 . Prision mayor, 5. Prision correceional, 6 . Arrcsto mayor, 7. Destierru, 8. Arresto menor, . , 9 . Public censure, .. .'t 10. Fine. One of them is a degree in relation to the other. P?'%Oe;$ mayor is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. PvkiOrr $$ +?; correcciod is two degrees lower than reclusion tempor ,

;744. May the court impose a penalty lower by two degrees , . than that prescribed by law for t h e consummated felony upon the principal in a frustrated Pelony? Yes. The court, in view of the facts of the ca,se, may impose upon the person wilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder, or homicide a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the .provisions of Art. 50 (Art. 250, R.P.C.). Inasmuch as Art. 60 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal . in a frustrated felony, and Art. 250 provides that the court may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that which should he imposed under Art. 50, it is clear that the court can impose a penalty lower by two degrees.

2

. ,~*.

745. May the court impose a penalty lower by three degrees ,~, than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony upon the principal in an attempted felony? , -. Yes. The court, considering the facts of the case, may '. likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Art. 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes (Art. 250, par. 2, R.P.C.). Inasmuch as Art. .. 51 provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in an attempt t o commit a &:.felony, and Art. 250 provides that the court may reduce "--, .I ~

L,

I

I

288

747. For what purposes are the penalties provided by the Revised Penal Code lowered by one or more degrees? The penalties provided by the Revised Penitl Code are lowered by one or more degrees, for any of the following purposes : 1. For graduating the penalties to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted d fdony ; 2. For graduating the penalties to be imposed u p,. p accomplices or accessories (Art. 61, R.P.C.) ; 289

291

290

,.

. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

to prision, mayor in its minimum and medium periods: It is also the penalty for the accessories t o the commis-

I

sion of a consummated murder. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death is; the penalty for the principals in a consummated murder (,4rt. 46, R.P.C.). Art. 5:1 provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony , shall be imposed upon the principals in a n attempt to commit a felony. Art. 53 provides that the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the con. summated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. Hence, in both cases, the penalty is lowered by the same number of degrees. Art. 61 in its paragraph No. 3 provides that when the penalty prescribed for the crime is compose? of one or ', . two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be compos,cd of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum p z i o d of that .' ,.immediately following in Scale No. 1 prescribed in Art. 71. Applying the same rule in lowering tht penalty by another degree, because we have to lower the penalty by two degrees, we shall obtain the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its , , minimum and medium periods. 751. The crime of maltreatment of prisoners is punished by the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to

, ,.. .

prision corireccional in its minimum period. A, who committed this crime, pleaded guilty when he was arraigned before the court and proved that hem had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that eommitked, without an aggravating circumstance attending the cammission of the crime. What is the proper penalty t o be imposed on . ~ A ? Explain your answer, stating the rules for graduat. t> .ing the penalties. ..,

;:.,

.

292

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEVVER

,.,

;,.,.

~<,:

The proper penalty to be impos,:d on A is either tiewo in its medium and maximum pirriods or arresto in its minimum period. Art. 64, par. 5 , provides that when there are,.tw more mitigating circumstances, there 1s no a circumstance, and the penalty is divisible, the lower in degree shall be imposed. In this ea two mitigating circumstances, without any circnmstance. Art. 61 in its paragraph No. 4' provides that penalty prescribed for the crime is composed periods, corresponding to different divisible pe penalty next lower in degree shall be compos period immediately following the minimum prescri of the two next following, which shall be taken from penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise, from the immediately following in Scale No. 1 prescribed in The penalty prescribed f o r the crime of maltre of prisoners is composed of several periods correspondi to difPerent divisible penalties (arresto mayor and P correccionnl) . Since destierro is the penalty follo arresto mayor according to Scale No. 1 prescribed in 71, the penalty next lower is either wrresto mayor minimurn'ij or destierro in its medium and maximum periods, because : it is impractical to require the convict to serve two penalties -$ of different nature which are not specifically imposed by. ' law. 752. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the erinie is composed OC three periods corresponding to different penalties, how many periods must the penalty next lower in degree have? When. the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code bas three periods corresponding to diflerent penalties, the penalty next lower has three periods also, starting from the period where the higher penalty ends.

753. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crime has two ,periods, how many periods must the penalty next lower in degree have? 293

I

C CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/Two

/

periods also.

754. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crime has one period only, how many periods

must the penalty next lower in degree have? One period also.

/

,.

What is a complex penalty? Is it the penalty for complex crime? Give an example of complex penalty? A complex penalty is a penalty prescribed by law, composed of three distinct penalties, each forming a period: the lightest of them shall be the minimum; the next, the medium; and the most severe, the maximum period. It is not the penalty f o r complex crime, because the penalty f o r complex crime is the penalty for the graver offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. Example of complex penaltg: Eeclzcsion temporai to death. The minim'Jm is reclusion tenzpord; the medium is reclusion pepyetua (which is in-between r e o l d o n tamporal and death); and the maximum is death. Note: The rules in Art. G4 a@pIy when the penalty prescribed

No, when the penalty for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. . if there is 110 mitigating and no aggravating. circumstance 63, R.P.C.).

/ oi

/

/

bv Inw for the crime is a complex penalty, composed of threo morl? distinct penalties.

7jS. In what cases are mitigating alld aggravating &e&. ' stances not considered in the imposition of penalty?

After committing robbery with homicide, A surrendered to a and when arraigned he pleaded guilty. There was no aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. . The penalty for robbery with homicide is reelnsion perqetua to death. There being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, what is the proper penalty to he imposed on A? Explain your answer. Reclmion perpet?ra, because the penalty for the crime he committed is composed of two indivisible penalties and according to Art. 63, paragraph No. 3, when the commlssion of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance3 and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. The presence of two or more mltigating circumstances without any aggravating CircUmsbnce

294

-I

!At.

In the following cases: 1. When the penalty is singIe and indivisible, because Art. 63, R.P.C., so provides. 2. In felonies committed through negligence, because * Art. 365, R.P.C., so provides. 3 . The penalty to be imposed upon a Mohammedan in- ,"; habitant of Mindanao, because the Administrative Code h of Mindanao and Sulu so provides<. ,J$.' .ii 4. When the penalty is prescribed by special law, cause the provi8ions of the Revised Penal Code are applicable. 5. In deterniining the minimum term of the indete minate penalty.

.!

1

295

I

I

/

! CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/"

how many penalties must the court determine and what are they? he court must determine two penalties, called the the indeterminate penalty.


*,.

,,

c

degree shall be that immediately following the divisible ,,(: penalty or the lesser of the penalties (in case there are ;!. more than one) in Scale No. 1 prescribed in Art. 71. The penalty immediately following the divisible penalty of r e ', clusioit temporal is prision mayor, also in its full extent. But the court has the discretion to impose the penalty next lower in any of its period or without regard to the periods into which it may be divided.

0. What is the rule for determining the indeterminate penalty for the crime Ounishable by the Revised Penal Code? The indeterminate sentence shall have a maximum term . . which shall be that which, in view of bbe attending eircumnces, could be properly imposed under the rules of the evised Penal Code, and the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed ..~ . . ...:,;,:., b y the Code for the offense.

.:

.'/

~. 461.

Nota: Mitigating or aggravating cireumstanees are not considered in determining the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty. It is only in fixing the maximum term that the court will eon.;ider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

What is the purpose of the law in requiring that the court should fix a minimum term? The purpose of the law is to release the convict after service of the minimum term, unless his conduct is such that. he is not entitled to be released on parole; in which case, he shall serve the full term of the sentence.

763. The penalty for illegal possession of firearm is 1 year to 5 ,years in case of small firearm. What is the rule for determining the indeterminate penalty for that offense?

Illegal possession nf firearms is punished by special law. When the crime is punished by a special law, the minimum term should not be less than the minimum prescribed (1 year) and the maximum term should not be more than the maximum prescribed (5 years). The court may impose 1 year, as the minimum term; and 2 years, as the maximum term.

62. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code

for the lelony is. reclusion temporal in its full extent, what is the maximum term ana what is the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty, if th,ere is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance. Explain your answer. , ... The maximum term is reclusion tempord in its medium period and the minimum term is within the range of prision magor, without reference to the periods into which it may be divided. ,. .< The maximum term is the medium period of reclusion temporal, because according to Art. 64, which applies when the penalty is divisible, when there is neither miti...., gating nor aggravating circumstance, the divkible penalty .. should be imposed in the medium period. :'., ..._.... , The minimum term should not be computed from reelusion temporal medium bnt from reclusion temporal in 296

its full extent, it being the penalty prescribed by th4 Code for the crime. According to the rule in paragrapli" No. 2 of Art. 61, when the penalty prescribed for the, crime is composed of one or more divisible penalties to be'imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in

f

/

764. If the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for a felony is reclusion temmporal what is the longest period of imprisonment that the court can impose for the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence? What is the shortest period of imprisonment for the minimum term? Explain your answers. Twelve years, bemuse the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty is the penalty next lower from the penalty prescribed by the Code for the crime, and in this case the penalty next lower is prision mayor, which the court can 297

.&' CHIMINAL LAW REVIBWEIZ

CKIXINAL LAW REVIEWER .,,.

.,?

jmpose .in ' i n y of its periods or without regard to arty

committed being a complex crime, reclt&on.temporal sho be imposed in its maximum period.

of its periods. Since the maximum duration of prision mayor is twelve years, the court has the discretion to impose twelve years, the longest period of imprisonment that it can impose for the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty. The shortest period of imprisonment that the court can impose as the minimunl term of the indeterminate penalty is six years and one day, i t being the minimum of the minimum period of prision muyor.

/'

765. X, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, threw a hand grenade at his grandfather and grandmother, because the latter refused to g2ve him money. When the hand grenade exploded, both of the grandparents were killed. The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. What is the proper penalty to he imposed on X, in case after trial he is found guilty and while in the reformat o r s institution he becomes incorrigible? Explain your answer. X should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from piision mayor in any of its period or anywhere within its range without reference to the periods into which it may be divided, as the minimum term, to reclusion temporul in its.maximum period, as the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty. The offender, being a minor over 15 but less than 1 6 years of age, is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. When there is B privileged mitigating circumstance, and this may be the only exception to the rule, the penalty next lower should be the starting point for the determiuation of the minimum term. One degree lower from reclusion perpetua to death is reclusion temporal. To determine what penalty should constitute the minimum teim, consider the penalty next lower from reclusion t~mporal,and this is prision mayor. After obtaining the penalty next lower in degree for the purpose of the minimum term, fix reclusion temporal in its proper period i n view of the attending circumstances. The crime

/

766. When the accussed is found guilty of a complex crime

under Art. 4R of the Revised Penal Code in relation to, :: other articles of the same Code, from what'penalty must the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence Lm ,' computed? Illustrate. There are two principles 011 the matter when the crime,,.,. involved is a coniplex one. One is that the penalty immediately lower is the next below the penalty set for the.: gravest crime. The other is, the maximum peri ing an independmt penalty, the next lower is the pe immediately below which, by analogy, becomes also independent penalty. The first principle should be used, it being more favor able to the accused. Illusirntion: A is found guilty of discharge of arm (Art. 254) with less serious physical injuries 265). The penalty for the graver offense (discharge firearm) is p i s i o n correceional in its minimum and med periods. The minimum term of the indeterminate sente should be arrest0 mayor in its medium and maximum riods (People vs. Caburao, C.A., ti4 O.G. 8261).

~

298

.,

Note: In the ease of People VS. Fulgeneio, G. R. No. L-KSh November 10, 1952, the Supreme Court disregarded its nrl in the case of People YS. Ganzalez, 73 Phil. 549, which is better ruling. In the Fulgencia caiic, the penalty of mcZus~on p e r p e t w to d a t h was first a.pplied in the maximum (death) , and then lowered it by one degree. The result is redugion serpetun.

I

I

D

767. A, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, committed der, without any other mitigating circumstance or gravating circumstance. He was found guilty in the reformatory institution, he became in The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in ' * mum period to death. 1s A entitled to an indet penalty? Explain yvur answer.

299

CRIMINAL LAW REVEWER

.

~.

.

.

.. . ...-

.

. .

-.-


ClZIrMINAL LAW NEVIEWEIZ

D

sentenced to the penalty o f destieiro or suspension.

p*.

is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable penalt:v of destierro and suspension? Because the law applies to “a prison sentence”, and of the law are expressly granted t o those who are sentenced bo imprisonment exceeding one year.

.

the circumstances relating to the persons participating in the commission of the crime from the circumstances consisting in the material execution of the act or in the means employed t o accomplish it, as t3 the extent of their effect upon the criminal liability of the offenders. The former do not affect all the participants in the commission of the crime, but only those to whom they particularly apply, like aggravating or mitig6ting cireumstances- which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or €rom his private relations with the offended arty, or from any other personal cause; ttie latter have a direct beming upon the criminal liability of all the defendants who had knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the crime, or of their cooperation therein.

/

73. A, servant of C, and B, a stranger to C , were accused of stealing the ,property of C-A as principal and B as accomplice. The value of the stolen property is 8250. The penalty for simple theft is prision correccional in its minimunl and medium periods, if the value of the property is more than 8200 but does not exceed B6,OOC. What penalty will be the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence for A and for B? Explain your answer. For A, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty is prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. For B, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty ’.’ . is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum ,periods. The ‘maximum term of the indeterminate penalty when 302

the crime is punishable by the Revised Penal Code i s ~ t pergctlty which, in view of the attending circumstafice should he imposed according to the rules prescribed,by A, being the servant of the offended party, is guilty of qualified theft punishable by a penalty two degrees. higher than the penalty for simple theft (Art. 310, R.P.C.). €3 is an accomplice in the crime of simple theft, because aggravating circumstances which arise from the private relations o€ the offender with the offended party shall serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices or accessories to whom they are attendant (Art. 62, ar. 3, R.P.C.) , Such private rela.tion existing between C (servant and master) is not attendant to B who i s a stranger.

, J:

r<

,;

;

74. Suppose, in the preceding question, A and B were h ’ ~ conspiracy, what would be the crime committed by B? would he liable as principal for simple theft only, se the relation of master and servant existing beC and A at the time of the commission of the crime was not attendant to B. The rule in paragraph 3 of Art. 62, R.P.C., still applies, notwithstanding the fact ,? .~% that there was conspiracy between IL aud B. 775. May treachery or nighttime aggravate the criminal liabdity of the principal by induction who was never at the ‘scene of the commission of the crime? Explain yollr

answer. Yes, iP the principal by induction had knowledge at > t h e time of the commission of the crime that the principal by direct participation committed the crime with treachery~’ or that he purposely sought nighttime to facilitate t h e commission of the crime, because they consist in the material execution of the act or in the means employed to.: accomplish it. Under Art. 62, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code; offender is not affected by the aggravating circumsta of nighttime unless he knew that it would be’availed

303

.u. .~-

,.

~

,

I

CRIMSNAL LAW REVIEWER

by the other offender in accomplishing the offense (People vs. Villanueva, 52 O.G. 5865).

' /

.". '.

,

'

,

,' /me

,

is a habitual delinquent? A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period of ten years from the date of hi8 release or last conviction of the crime of (1) serious or (2) less serious physical injuries, (3.) robbery, (4) theft, (5) estafa, or (6) falsification, or ofkner. is found guilty of any of said crimes a third

''

'

,

',

,

,.. . ..,

.s.,.a+

.~.I

because when he committed the cril;l$of *. y&ifi&&: tion he Was not yet convicted of the crimes of thefta~andj estafa. Moreover, since he only admitted-the co&'ssio$ of theft and estafa on cross-exanination and. there 'gap no allegation of habitual delinquency in the i i x f o F t i $ n l he is not a habitual delinquent. . *'.:., ,. ,:!g

'

;.

, ,,;<>a Note: In order that a person may he a habitual de '.''''_'+ it iS necessary that the second crime was committed after conviction of, or .after service of ,sentence for, t crime; the third crime was committed by him after 6 of, o r a f t e r service of sentence for, the second crime, The reason for this rule is that the additional. fixed by law for habitual delinquency are reformatory in acter and that their agplication should he gradual, and can be carried out only when the second crime is'co after conviction of the first crime or after service of f a r the first crime etc.

7. How many penalties are imposed on a habitual delin-

..

195.2, he was prosecuted for an information alleging only tho commission of &&gi of fakification in 1952. During the trial, A , aainit *'"on cross-examination that he committed theft in I@ and estafa In 951. After trial, A was convjcte_&& f a l s i f i c a t i o n . d A a habitual delinquent? ', Explain your ., answer. . .I. *;;; ,~, NO,

' N o t e : R,Emember the six crimes specified in the, dafinitian. Slight physical injuries is not inchtded. Homicide 1s not also included. The stage of execution of any of those crimes need not be consummated. The offender may he only an accomplice or neces:;ory in any of those crimes.

A committed theft. <>*,In 1951, he

779.

.1

quent? Illustrate. q'wo pcinalties: that is, the penalty for the crime Of which he is found guilty and an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. ~&&i-~tio?t: A was previously punished for theft and within ten years; and five years after his last release, &- committed falsification. If after trial and within ten years from his last conviction or release, A is found guilty of falsification, he shall be sentenced to the following penalties : " . (1) p&ion coweccional and fine, for falsification (Art. 172) : and ( 2 ) prision correctional in its medium and maximum , periods for being a habitual delinquent for the first time (Art. 62, par. 5 ) .

The information must allege: (1) the dates 'of th mission of the previous crimes: (2) the date af the la victim or release; and (3) the dates of the other convictions o r releaser. The ten-year period is complted from last conviction or release. The law does not require that all the three or mom: victims should take place within & lperiod' of ten years.,: the period hetween each eonvietion or release and the.: conviction should not exceed ten yevears. The ten-year period is not counted in relation to the of commission, but to the date of conviction, of subs;

. In&, determining the proper period of the additional penare aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be

crime.

considered by the court? Why? . Yes, hedause it would be arbitrary to apply it in any :of its periods without regard to the attending circumstances. :.:(See People vs. De Jesus, 63 Phil. 761.) .. '

In other words, the ten-year period should be e tween convictions or hetween release and convieti tween conviction or release and commission of su last offense.

305

304

/ '

f

I

,.:.w


," ,... ..

CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWIER

780. In the preceding question, can A be declared a recidivis{? . ....^I_.

No, because even in recidivism, the offender at the time O f his trial for one offense must be convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. Moreover, his previous crimes of theft and estafa and the crime of falsification for which he was on trial are not embraced in the same title of the Code. Theft and estafa are embraced in the title of crimes against 'property, while falsification is embraced in the title of crimes against public interest.

;&l. What is the duration of each of the three periods of ;.'F, prision correecional maximum to prision mayor mkimum? ,*ST, Make and explain the computation. ,,:,~ .. Min. - 4 Yrs., 2 mos. & 1 da. to 5 yrs., 5 mos. g, P. 1 0 das. ...:',,.,i;, , Med. 5 yrs., 5 mos. & I1 das. to 6 yrs., 8 nios. &. . i.~ . 20 das. Max. 6 yrs., 8 mos. & 21 das. to 3 yrs. I. Computation: 6 rnos. '& 1 da. to 6 yrs. is the d u r a tion of pTision correecional. 6 yrs. o r 5 yrs. & 12 mos. 6 mos. (eliminate "1 da.") = 5 rrs. Br G mos: + 3 = 1 yr. & 10 mos. Min. 6 mos. & 1 da. to 2 yrs. & 4 moa. 2 yrs., 4 mos. & 1 da. to 4 yrs. & 2 mos. Med. Max. 4 yrs., 2 mas. & 1 da. to 6 yrs. 11. COVLputation: 6 Yrs. & 1 dn. to 12 yrs. is the duration of Prision mazJo?. 12 yrs. - F yrs. (eliminate "1 da.") = 6 yrs. + 3 = 2 yrs. Min. - 6 yrs. & 1 da. to Med. 8 yrs. 83 I da. to 10 JTS. Max. - 10 yrs. & 1 da. to 12 yrs. 111. Computation: 8 yrs. 4 yrs. & 2 rnos. = 3 yrs. & 1 0 mos. + 3 = 1 yr., 3 mas. & 10 ~ Z S . The minimom period: the minimum oP the maximum of prision coireccional, as the minimum; and such minimum plus the quotient of 1 yr., 3 mos. & 10 das., as the maximum '. of the minimum period. %

j

-

-

-

-

-

~

306

. ,.,.I. ..:..>x* ,.?.,.>$, ~#+ 1

<'

,

L

''

The medium pericd: the maximuq of the min@$. period plus 1 da., as the minimum; and such m @ i$? i ; : plus 1yr., 3 mas. & 1 0 das., as the maximum of the medmm period. =;;# ' The maximum period: the maximum of the rnedi*a period plus 1 da., as the minimum; and such minimum$ plus 1 yr.) 3 mos. & 10 das., as the maximum of the max-.y imum period. . . 782. A minor 13 years old who acted with discernment cum-. mitted the crime of slight physical injuries, punishable by arresto menor. May the court which tried him and.-./ found him guilty impose a penaltY two degrees lower ,..:. .~ than arresto menor? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the court cannot., impose a penalty lower than arresto menor. Art. 68 which provides for a privileged mitigating circumstance applies only after the minor was proceeded against under Art. 80 and while.' in the reformatory institution such minor became incorrigible. R u t Art. C0 applies only when the minor under: 16 years of age committed a Brave or less grave felony. In this case, the minor committed only a light felony, in : view of the penally provided for slight physical injuries.

733. A minor 15 years and 6 months old committed homicide, a grave felony. If after trial, the court found him guilty of the crime of homicide, can the court sentence him in 1.he decision to be rendered in the same proceedings to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for homicide? Explain your answer. No, because a minor under 16 years who is convicted of B grave or less grave felony is entitled l o a suspensi of the sentence. If he is found guilty after trial, no penalty is imposed as the sentence is snspended. He will be committed to a rcformatory institution until he rea the age of majority o r f o r such less period as.the court may deem proper (Art. 80, R.P.C.). It is orJy when the minor becomes incorrigible in €h reformatory institiition that he shall be returned to th

CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWEK

court for the imposition of the proper penalty. In such case, the court will consider the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and will impose the penalty one de ree lower than ?eelusion temporal. In other 'words, rt. 68 is not immediately applicable.

, . ,...

::r'

.. .. . T 8 4 If a minor stayed in the reformatory institution f5r 5 months and while there he became incorrigible so that ' he .had to be returned to the court, is that minor entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of his stay in the reformatory institution? Why? No, because his stay in the reformatory institution is .< not preventive imprisonment which is the period of detention of the accused before and/or during the trial. The confinement of the minor in the reformatory institution Ces place,afte? the trial.

,

?.;f

78 What is the meaning of the threefold rule? ,@ The three fold r i beans that the maximum duration ,..., .. of the convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold , , , ,..., .:. the length of time corresponding to the most severc o f the , :. penalties imposed upon him.

5

.

.i

786.- Does the threefold rule apply to, or does it regulate, the imposition of the penalty on the offender? ,' ' No. It is error for the trial court to impose a penalty ,"' in accordance with the threefold rule, since Art. 70 can ' he taken into account, not in the imposition of the penalty, u t only in connection with the service of the sentence imposed (People vs. Escares, G. R. No. L-11669, Jan. 29, 1958). N o t e : Hence, all the penalties f o r all the crimes of which th-

:y . '

' I.

'

.. .

offender is found guilty must be imposed by the coun. Thus, if A was convicted of 60 estafas, for eaeh.of which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment, the court had to impose 60 years imprisonment for all the crimes ,of which he was convicted. It is only in the service of the penalties that-% threefold rule shall be observed. . , The threefold rule applies even if the several penalties am imposed by different courts at diiferent time3, because the RuIsj , ,'

308

CRIMINAL LAW REVIIdWEll of Court do not permit the cliarging of more than one in the same information.

787. X was convicted in eight estafa eases. He was sentene in the eight eases, 83 f o l l ~ w s :(1) 6 months, (2) 2 Yqt's, (3) 6 months, (4) 1 year, ( 5 ) 1 Year, ( 6 ) 2 y&m (7) 2 years and ( 8 ) 5 years. Row long will the total ',; .: period of his imprisonment be? Why? . , Only 14 years, not 15 years whic 6 years multiplied by 8, because the 1 limit of iiot morc than threefoId the length ,.of,,fime responding to the most severe of the penalties ilh If the sum total of all the penalties impose the most severe multiplied by 3, ail the penalti must be served.

7R8. The fiscal filed six informatioua for theft The amount involved in each case was P45. for theft inrolving an amount not exceeding 85 resto mayor. X was convicted in the six e83 regular trial and was sentenced to 2 months and of arrest0 mayor in each ease. As he could not ret the stolen properties, he was required to indemnify ., offended parties in the total amount of P270. . If x' insolvent, what is the total period of imprisonment th .he has to serve? Explain your answer. m a s to serve ten (IO) months and twenty-four ( days of imprisonment. Under the threefold rule; the maximum the convict's sentence shalI not be more than the -length of time corresponding to the most ; :' th2 penalties imposed on him, Two months an multiplied by 3 equals 6 months and 63 days ' ' total of thc penalties after applying the t h does not exceed 6 years, the subsidiary penalty- for payment of the reparation of the damages ea computed by dividing F270 by P2.50 a n d t h e ,108days o r 3 months and 18 days. But the i pen& shal! not exceed one-third of the penal

&

4 ~

:p

909

I

CRlI\IINAL LAW REVIEWER


I./j,-,, .,_,

&$;,..'. ;,;!+ .*,:. .. .. .,. . ~.,, . '. :.., , , .

There is only one penalty for complex crime, .coutiUU crime, and specific crimes, like robbery with .homicicI kidnapping and serious illegal detention with serioua sical injuries, because the greater penalty absorbs the 1 penalty.

a.nd in no case shall it exceed one year. Hence, the sub.sidiary penalty shall not exceed 2 months and 21 days. Adding 2 months and 21 days to the total of the pena1t;es imposed, which is 6 months and 63 days, we have 8 months and 84 days or IO months and 24 days. Note: When the tlireefold ride is applied, hecsuse the convict has to servo several penalties, lhe basis of the subsidiary penalty is the maximum duration of the convict's sentence, not the total of the penalties imposed.

:/

l>.

, ",

790. What is the penalty following arrest0 order of their respective severity? Arrest0 mens; (Art. 70).

9. game and explain the different systems of penalty. Are all of them applicable in this jurisdiction? The different systems or penalty are: (1) the material accumulation system, (2) the juridical accumulation system, and (3) the absorption system. They &e applicable in this jurisdiction. although the material accumulation system is made subject to the limitation fixed by the juridical accumulation system. Under the material accumulation system, all the penalties corresponding to several crimes must be served even if their sum total reaches beyond the natural span of human life, Under the juridical accumulation sgstem, the service of the several penalties imposed on one and the same culprit is limited to not more than threefold 'he length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed and in no case to exceed 40 years (par. 4 to 6, Art. 70,

791,. What is the penalty next lower in mayor? . Destiewo (Art. 71). Note: Dcstierro mag be imposcd by the Municjgal or J of the Peace Court (People vs. Santos).,. The reason for the order in Art. 7-i~ the mrnnlties by degrees, the classification of considered, n o t their respective aeveritr. Desti mayo? must bo close to each other, because 88 correctional penalties. It is not proper to place orresto men and dsstiewo because awesto menor is In Art. 70, rwresto menor is immediately below and dsstiwvo follows awesto meno?, hecsuge in their respective severity, w e s t 0 m6n01 is mor destiewo. The severity of penalty is judged not by the duratio the penalty, but by the degree of deprivptian of liberty hv

.

'

"'

,

R.P.C.). Under the absorption system, the lesser penalties are absorbed by the greater penalties. The material accumulation system is followed in parag r a p h ~1, 2 and 3 of Art. 70, which provides that when the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the naturs of the penalties will so permit (par. 1). The order of severity shall be followed, .so that they may be executed successively (par. 2). F o r the purpose o€ the successive services of sentences, the respective severities of penalties are stated (par. 9). ,

e

792. A, as principal, B, as accomplice, and C, as were convicted of B crime punishable by a P200 to P2.000. What amount of the fine sho posed on A, B and C? Explain your answer. For A, the fine of from F200 to 82,000 should be posed, because the penalty prescribed for the crime is penalty for the principal (Art. 46, R.P.C.). For B, a fine of from ?ZOO to F'1,500 should b posed, because he is an accomplice and t&e penalty s be lowered by one degree (Art. 5 2 ) and whenever necessary to reduce the penalty of fine by

311

310 i

,

I

I/''

xc

/

$~::-shonldbe reduced by one-fourth of the maximum amount !:"-prescribed by law, without, however, changing the minimum. For c, a fine of from 8200 to P1,OOO should be im-' '' posed, because he is a n accessory and the penalty should be lowered by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the principal of a consummated felony (Art. 53). To get the proper amount of the fine for the accessory, which ' is to be reduced by two degrees, we have to reduce, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law without, however, changing the minimum (Art. 76, R.P.C.). 111 determining the specific amount of the fine which should be imposed on A, B, and C, their wealth and means o r their ability to pay should be considered. But under no eifcumstance may the fine be less than €200. If A is a poor man, the least amount of the fine which may be imposed on him is P200. If B is a rich man, the biggest amount of the fine which may be imposed on him i s Pi,600. In the case of C, the biggest amount of the fine which may be imposed on him is 81,000.

t

*:

1

. / .

p.<: .. ,~

,,,

.

,,?. ,

CRIMINAL LAW REQIEWER

The amoimt of the damage was.8200.

the law, the penalty is a fine from an amount eq the ralue of the damage to three times such vah% What is the proper anionnt of the fine to be imposed; \;r on A? Explain your answer. a:>".' Since the offender is .a minor. I5 years and 6 mane? old, in case he becomes incorrigible in the reformatow' institution, the penalty to be imposed on him, should G ' one degree lower. A fins not less than P200 and not more than P460,: should be imposed on A, because the same rules shall'be observed with regard to fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional (Art. 76, par. 2, R.P.C.). ' Three times P200 equals P600. One-fourth of P600 is P160. F600 - P150 = F450. The minimum of ,?ZOO is not ?.*. changed.

I

.

?;ryp;::: ; ;

'

fj I

1' ~

'

312

I

,

796. What is the provision of the law governing the procedure for the trial of minor delinquents? Whenever a minor of either ,sex, under 16 years of age at the date of the commission of a grave o r ,less grave felony, is accused thereof, the court after hearing,, :,! instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall su& :' peud all further proceedings and shall commit such miq to the custody o r care of a public. o r private, benevole or charitable institution or to the custody or care of "other responsible person subject to the visitation and su vision by the Commissioner of, Public Welfare, :until minor shall have reached his majority o r f o r such period as the court may deem proper. If the minor has behaved properly and h& with the conditions imposed upon him during his men$ he shall be returned to the court in order. same may order his final release. . ,.

~

:;(.7.; I., ,,,, .':,>,,>: ,,

:, .. .

~

"

'94.'-A, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, was convicted , ..", of the crime of damage to property through reckless im-

.:

It is discretionary to the court to impose any amount not exceeding Ihe maximum of the fine provided by law (Art. 6 6 ) .

?93.: Suppozie A, in the problem given, wmmitted the crime . .. with grave abuse of confidence and that under the Ian the crime the penalty has to be raised by one ., punishing degree, what amount of the fine should be imposed? Ex;,~.. ' plain your answer. The fine should be from P200 to 82,600, because whenii <.. ever it is necessary to increase the penalty of fine by one if.' , or more degrees, it shall be increased, for each degree, by :., one-fourkh of the maximum amount prescribed ' b y law. without, -however, changing the minimum which, in this .'' . "case, is B200 (Art. 75, R.P.C.).

1~

;.

795. How about when the fine has no minimurn?

Note: The second reduction should be based on the maximum of PZ,OOO, not on 81,600, because the law provides that in making the reduction for each degree, the reduction is one-fourth of the ma%imumamount pvesc*ibed by law. In the problem given, the mtinimnm amount prescribed by law is P2,OOO.

,

:

I

prudence.

., , , .

!

313

1 1

.., .,

,-.


. I

,

.~

,

:~',: (.

.:%_ .

. ,

In case the minor fails to behave properly or to comply with the regulations of the institution or with the conditions imposed upon him when he was committed to the care of a responsible person, or in case he should be found incorrigible, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may render the judgment corresponding to the crime committed by him. (Art. 80, R.P.C.)

~

CRIMINAL LAW .REVIEWER

When a convict shall become an insane o r a after a final sentence has been pronounced, the of said sentence shall be suspended only with reg personal penalty (Art. 79, R.P.C.). This provision is a$ plicable to persons sentenced to the death, who becom insane. 800. Art. 47 of the Revised Penal Code pmvide8 &at th

death penalty shall not be imposed when the guilty person-' be more than 70 years of age. Art. 83 of t h Code provides that the death sentence shall not flicted upon any person over 70 pears of age, death sentence shall be commuted t o the pen clnsion perpetua. In what proceedings is Art. 47 plicable and when is Art. $3 applicable? Art. 47 is applicable in judicial proceedings when penalty of death may be, but should not be, imposed4 the judgment of conviction by the trial court. Art. is applicable when the death sentence is t o be eze that is, after the Supreme Court affirmed the decis the lower court imposing the death penalty and the co f origin already designated the day f o r the execution 0 the death sentence.

Note: The minor should be under 16, not only a t the time of the commissipn of the crime, but also at the time of his trial. Art. 80 is applicable only to grave or less grave felony. The minor has the right to nppeal in ease he is foound guilty. Hc has the right to bail,

797. Does the suspension of his sentence under Art, 80 of the Revised Penal Code relieve the minor of civil liability? No. The suspension of the sentence under Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code does not wipe out 'his guilt, but merely put off the imposition of the corresponding penalty, in order to give the delinquent minor a chance to be reformed. When after he has observed good conduct, the criminal case is dismissed, this does not mean that he is .. exonerated from the crime charged, but simply that he will suffer no penalty. Nor does such dismissal of the criminal case obliterate his civil liability for damages (Magtibay vs. Tiangco, 74 Phil. 576). ,

798. May the court, in the same proceeding where the minor

''

1

,

. . .. ~

is found guilty hut the sentence is suspended, impose his civil liability? No. 'The imposition of the civil liability is not fe@ble without judgment of conviction (People vs. Bakil, et al., C.A., 40 O.G. 102). Note: The offended party has to file B separate civil action to recover damages from the minor or from his narents or guard-

iws, 1

-:799.

;

:

... ,

What provision of the law is applicable when the convict -becomes insane after final sentence of death has been pronounced? 314

R4

8 1. I n . wha

*

cases is the penalty of destierro imposed? I the following cases: en death or serious physical injuries is or inflict under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, R.P. W en a person fails to give bond for good behavlo (Art. 4, R.P.C.). a penalty for the concubine in the crime of co cubina e (Art. 334, R.P.C.). When after lowering the penalty, destierro is t proper penalty. ..

F

802. A, as an act of revenge, embraced and kissed B, young unmarried girl. Upon complaint of B, the fis filed a criminal action against A. After trial, the eo& convicted A of the crime he committed asainst B. 315

I

.~ ,

.. ,..

,

CRIMINAL LAW REVVIEWER

r '

:,-',.

-. . .~,. si. , ~

,. "

.

appealed from the decision of the court. While t h e appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, A married B. Do you believe that the criminal liability of A is extinguished by the marriage of A with B? Explain your answer. No, because the crime committed by A against 3 was oily uniust vexation (Art. 287, R.P.C.), nst acts of lasciviousness, rape, seduction or abduction. It id only when the crime committed is any of them that the marriage of the offender with the offendeci party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed on him (Art. 344, last par., R.P.C.).

'803. What i,s prescription of crime? '~ ..,

Prescription of crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the crime after the lapse of certain time.

804. What is prescription of penalty? '~

Prescription of penalty is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the government to execute the filial sentence after the lapse of certain time.

4/05. A was arrested by a ,policeman for theft on June 28,

1958, the very day he committed the crime. In view of the amount involved, the crime is punishable by arrestir ' ' menor. On August 27, 1958, an information for theft .., ,\vas filed by the fiscal in court against A. Had the crime prescribed before the fiscal filed the information : in court? Explain your answer. No, it being a light felony, because it is punishable by : . arresto menor, the crime shall prescribe in two months o r GO days. A month is computed as the regular 30-day month. In the computation of the period of prescription, the first day should be excluded and the last day included. Hence, the running of the prescriptive period should commmce from the day fallowing the day on which the crime i was commilted. The information was filed on the 59th day.

.'

* .


Note: June has SO 31 days. From June 28 to 30, there are 3 d to 31, there are 31 27 days. All in all information was fil prescribed. But the rule id exclude the day was committed and include tho day when the filed in court. If June 28 i s excluded, the e start on June 29 and it will be exactly 60 d And if we consider that n month, is cornput ,30-day month, only will he only 69 days.

d/

8 6. The penalty for simple trespass to dwelling is arr

mayor and a fine not exceeding P3,000? What, is prescriptive period of that crime? Ten years. When the penalty fixed by law is a co": pound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the computation of the prescriptive period (Art. 90, last paragraph). Crimes punishable by arresto m y o r prescribe in 5 years and crimes punishable by other cor- ' rectional penalty prescribe in ten year. A fine of '81,000. ~,' is a correctional penalty. It being the higher of the compound penalty, the fine should be made the basis for classifyinglhe crime for the purpose of determining the prescriptive period of that crime. Noto: The same rule shouid 5e observed in the ease af au alternative penalty, like that one provided in- Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Code, which is arrest0 mffor or a fine doublethe value of the property involved (People YS. Basalo). Hence, if tho value of the property involved in thE commission of the. crime of removing o r selling any personal property mortgaged. hder the Chatlei Mortgage Law is PZOO, the fine doubl amount is B correctional penalty, which is higher than aTTeatg.. nmyeynr.

/

807. When does the periorl of prescription of crime commence':

to run? It commences to run from the day on which the mission of the crime is discoyered hy the (1) offe party, (2) the authorities, or (3) their agents. 311

I

1

CRIhllNAL LAW REVIEWER


qt+ ';. 808; A, in connivance with the policeman of the town, com-

..,, %

:,p::~.: ,. .

. ,.

.,

.

- . % ' .

~. .1.

,.>

,+/

mitted theft in an establishnient in that town. The policeman got a share in the hot. Nobody else knew the coniniission of the crinie o f theft by A, but t h e policeman. The crime committed is punishable by prision eorreccional. After eleven years, A was prosecuted Cor the crime he committed. Did the crime prescribe? Ex. plain your answer. No, because although the commission of the crime was known to the policeman, an agent of the authorities, since he took part in the commission of the crime and himself criminally liable, the crime may be coiisidered as not having been discovered by the authorities or their agents. The period of prescription o f the crime never ran for eleven years. When A was prosecuted after eleven years, t h e crime did not yet prescribe. Note: The fact that the offender IS unknown is immaterial, as long ,as the commission of the crime is known to the (1) offended party, (2) the authorities, or (a), their agents, in xhich case the period of prescription of crime commences to run.

,

9. If the psriod or prescription of crime has commenced to run, because the crinie was discovered by the offended party, or the authorities or their agents, when is it interru,ptcd? It is interrupted by the filing 01' the complaint or in€ormation. ,

810. With what authority or psblic officer must the complaint or information be filed to interrupt the running of t h e :~ .prescription of the crime? The complaint or information must be filed in the court which has jurisdiction over the offense, such that the proceedings can terminate in the acquittal or conviction of the accused. But there aye cases here the Supreme Court held that the filing of the compiaint with the justice of the peace court for crimes not triable by that court ''interruptcmd the running of the period of prescription of the wine.

"

,,.<,I.~

318

,.,,x.L', . ,

,,

.;:, .,:

I

Note: In the case of People "8. Tayc:o, 73 Phil. 609, it w ~ d held that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office ' does not interrupt the runnirlg of the period of prescription '? of th8 crime. In the case of People YS. Parao, 6% Phil. 712. it v a s held that the preliminary investigation or examination conducted by the municipal president (now m*micipul mayor) is a judioial function or that it partakes of the nature of x judicial proeeeding. The Supreme Court said that "judicial proceedings having been taken against the accused and his arrest having been ordered, vvhich was not carried into effnct, because he had absented himself from his residence, hiding in the Province of toyte, the crime has not prescribed."

,/

8 1. A attacked and inflicted on B slight physical injuries on February 24, 1964. The next day, B filed a complaint with the justice of the peace and within two months the justice of the' peace held a preliminary investigation. As the complaint of €3 was for serious. physical, injuries, after the preliminary investigation, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The fiscal filed an information for serious physical injuries ten months after February 24, l9G.2. After trial, the Court of First Instance found A guilty of slight physical injuries only. Had the crime prescribed before the fiscal filed the infomiation ten months after the commission of the crime? Explain your answer. Nb, because B immediately filed a complaint for serious physical injuries with the justice of the peace court. Preliminary investigation was conducted by the justice of the peace within two months. The filing of the information i; by the fiscal ten months after the commission of the crime' S is of no consequence, because the period of prescription ' of the crime never ran from the time the complain was filed with the justice of the peace. (see U.S. vs. Lozada, ' " 9 Phil. 509).

f

~

. s

dote: The preliminary investigation conducted by the justice ' :" the peace was considered "criminal proceedings" in this ease. ri :# . ..:,

/of

r

On December 27, 1963, A committed simple slander.'ql against R. The next day, B denounced the act to the&&

I

.,


'.

justice of the peace who immediately conducted prcliminary investigation. On February 18, 1964, the complaint was dismissed for lack of midence. On March 15, l!)G4, B filed a new oomplaint against A, now in the Court of First Instance which referred the ease to the justice' of the peace of the provincial capital for proper preliminary investigation. Having found merits in the complaint, the justice of the peace of the provincial capital forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance, eltarping A with grave oral defamation. After trial, judgment was rendered convicting the accused of simple slander, punishable by arrest0 menor. Did the crime prescribe? Explain your answer. No, the prescription of the crime commenced to run only on February IS, 19134, when the justice of the peace dismissed Bs cornplaint. Simple slander prescribes in two months. Only about 25 days elapsed when B filed a new complaint in the Court of First Instame on March 15, 1964. The running of the period of prescription of the crime was interrupted on the day when B derounced the act to the justice o f the peace.

813. On Angust 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-oug filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court, charging the accused Juliana Uba and Calixta Uba with the crime of serious oral defamation said to have been comitted against her on or before July 25, 1052. Finding probable cause, the court elevated the case to the Court of First Instance where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding information. However, by mistake, Pastora Somod-ong was designated the offended party, instead of Demetria. Because of this, the trial court dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. On May lS, 1956, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, but ordered the Provincial Fiscal to fill! a new inforniation. On June 12, 1956, the Provincial Fiscal filed a new information. Did tho crime prescribe? Explain your answer. 320


No. From July 25, 1952, when the crime was committed, until Augnst i, 1952, when the complaint was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court, only seven days had elapsed. The filing of the complaint on the latter date suspended the running of the prescriptive period. Said period commenced to rcn again at most frgm May 18, 1956, the date of the Supreme Court's decision, when the proceedings may be said t o have been terminated. . From that date until June 12, 1956, when the second information was filed, less than a month had elapsed. Adding this perind to the seven days which had already run, there is only about a month, which is certainly much less than six months prescriptive period provided for the crime of serious oral defamation (People vs. Uba, et al., G.R. L/;3&, October 16, 19.59); A committed serious physical injuries pnnishable b r prision correcclonal and soon thereafter succeeded in leaving for Japan where he remained for 20 years. During that time there was an extradition treaty between the Philippines and Japan. Did the crime prescribe? Explain your answer. No, the term of prescription of the crime does not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines, and the fact that we have an extradition treaty with the country to which the offender fled is of no consequence. Note: Extradition treaty is important only in prescription of penalty, not in prescription of crime.

After the filing of the complaint or information, when does the period of prescription of the crime commence to run again? When tine proceedings (1) terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or (2) are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused. The proceedings terminated without the accused being convicted or acquitted, when the ease was dismis;ed upon matian of the accused, based on the failure of the prosecution to present its evidence because its witnesses could not be 10eatcd, and the court dismissed the ease. NOt5:.

321

I



A was tried and found guilty and later the 9 proper pen-

~

The proceedings are unjustifiably stopped for. any reason. not imputable to the accused, when the trial of a criminal eaae did n o t proceed, because the prosecution neglected to mow f o r the trial and the case remained pending for several years. But when the proceedings stop f o r a season imputahle to, the accused, as in the case of Pewpie YS. Para", et ai., the period of prescription of the crime does not commence to run azain.

ally had to be imposed, because he became incorrigible. He wi?s sentenced to a penalty one degree lower, which.' is destierro. Did the crime prescribe? Why? Yes, because the crime being punishable by awesto mayor prescribes in five years. The information against him was filed after six years from the discovery of the crime. In prescription of crime, as in this case, it is the penalty prescribed by law for the offense which must be considered, not the penalty that may be imposed after considering the attending circumstances.

816. A was convicted of a crime and FYHS sentenced to pay a fine of P200, which he could not pay by reason of insolvency. He had to serve the subsidiary penalty of 2 months and 20 days. While serving 1 month in prison, he escaped and remained at large for 1 year. After 1 year, A was captured. What is involved in this case, prescription of crime or prescription of penalty? Did it prescribe? Explain your answers. Prescription of penalty is involved in this case, because A commenced to serve his sentence and, therefore, there is a final sentence. No, it did not prescribe. The fine of F200, having been imposed in a final sentence, is a correctional penalty and prescribes in 10 years. Since only one year elapsed from the time A had escaped, the penalty did not prescribe. The fine of E200 is a penalty imposed by a final sentence. Under Art. 26, a fine of less than E200 is a light penalty, and prescribes in one year, and if not less than P200, as in this case, it is a correctional penalty, which prescribes in ten years. The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine should not be considered in determining the period of prescription of the penalty of fine (People vs. Salazar, 52 O.G. 1941; People vs. Yu Hai Q Haya, 52 O.G. 5116). -

,

Note: When the fine is exactly W O O , apply Art. 9 when the issue is prescription of the crime; and Art. 26 when the issue. is prescription of lho penalty.

817. A, a m,inor 15 years and 6 months old, committed the crime o,f less serious physical injuries punishable by arresto mayor. The information for less serious 'physical' injuries was filed by the fiscal six years after the authorities came t~ know of the commission of the crime.. 322

818. A was prosecuted for theft punishable by prision correccional, in view of the amount involved. I t appears that A voluntarily surrendered to a policernan when he learned that the court had issued a warrant for his arrest and during the arraignment A pleaded guilty. There being no aggmvating circumstance, the court imposed 2 months and 1 day of arrest0 mayor. While serving the sentence for one month, A escaped. What is the prescriptive period of the penalty? Why? Five years, because the penalty imposed is urresto mayor. i '

i

4

i

In prescription uf penalty, it is the penalty imposed by final sentence, not the penalty prescribed by law for the offense, which should be considered in the computation of the prescriptive period. 819. When does the prescription of penally commence to run? It comrnefces t o rim from the day on which the convict evaded the service of his sentence. 820. A was convicted of theft, and was senltenced to 4 months and 1 day of arrest0 mayor. While serving sentence for 1 month, A was convicted of serious physical injuries, conimitted before he was convicted of theft, and was sentenced to 1 year of prision correecional for the crime of serious physical injuries. A did not appeal. The penalty for serious physical injuries was to be served 323

..

CIZIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER

by A after the service of the penalty for theft, While serving the sentence for theft for 2 months, A escaped and, was captured after 17 years. Did the penalties for theft and serious physical injuries prescribe? Explain your answer. As regards the penalty for theft, there is no Guestion that the penalty prescribed, it being only urresto mayor which prescribes in 5 years. But the penalty of 1 year of prision correceiona.1 did not prescribe, because when A escaped he evaded the service of the sentence for theft, and not the sentence for serious physical injuries which he would serve only after service of the sentence for thelt. I-Ience, since he did not evade the service of the sentence for serious physical injuries, the term of the prescription of the penalty for that crime did not commence to run. Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential condition for the running of the period of prescription of penalties.

821. What are the causes that may interrupt the running oE the period of prescription of penalties? When the service of hi3 sentence, the .. .._..after evading . culprit (1) gives himself upJ (2) ,d(3) should wn to a foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or (4) s m o m m i t another &,e, before the expiration of the period -fo ~

~

I

I

N0t.e: It is believed that when the crime Committed is not one of those covered by the extradition treaty it is a3 if there i s

no extradition treaty between the Philippines and the country t o which the offender fled.

822. A, while serving for one month his sentence of four months and one day of imprisonmert, escaped. Four years, eleven months and twenty-nine days from the day he escaped, A committed rape punishchle by reclusion temporal and remained at large for nineteen years since he committed rape. He was captured. Can A be required t6 serve the remaining three months and one day impri!ronrnent? Can he he prosecuted and punished for \ rapc? Explain your answers. 324

CILli\llNAL LAW I~EYIEwEI<

Yes, A can be required to serve the remgining period of 3 months and 1 day of his sentence of 4 months and 1 day, because although the penalty of urresto mayor (4 months and 1 day) prescriben in 5 years, yet he committed the crime of rape before the expiration of the period of prescription. A can be prosecuted and punished for rape, because rape is punishable by reclusion temporal and prescribes in 20 Years. Since A was captured 19 years after the commission of rape, the crime did not yet prescribe when he was captured. If the information is €iled in court within the remaining one year, the court can try and punish A for the crime of rape. 823. What is the usual condition imposed in conditional par. don? How long will that condition be operative? In conditional pardon, the condition usually imposed upon the convict is that “he shall not again violate any of the penal’laws of the Philippines.” The condition of the conditional pardon is limited to the remaining period of the sentence, unless an intention to extend i t beyond that time is manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in which it is imposed. Note: lllu8tmtion- A was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day upon a plea of guilty to the charge of homicide. After serving 8 years, he W ~ Sgranted a conditional pardon, the Condition being that he should not commit any crime in the future. After five years from the time he was released by virtue of the conditional pardon, he committed the crime of coercion. Prosecuted for, he was convicted of, coercion. Can he be prosecuted and punished f o r violation of the conditional oardon? No, because when he committed coercion, the condition of the pardon was no longer operative. But if the condition says, “that he should not commit any crime as Ions ns he lives” ur somethins to that effect, then he can be prosecuted and punished for violation of the eonditional pardon, because the Condition is operative 8 s long as he lives.

824. What is commutation of sentence? In what cases is commutation of sentence provided by the Revised Penal Code? 325

’


s,,


Commutation of sentence is a change of the decision of the court, made by the Chief Executive, by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon-the convict, or by decreasing We length of the inlprlsoment or the amount of the fine. In the following cases. the Code prcvides for commutation of sentence: 1 . When the convict is over 70 years of age, the death penalty is commuted t o life imprisonment (Art. 83. R.P.C.). 2 . When the Supreme Court fails to confirm the death penalty imposed by the lower court. (Art. 47, R.P.C.). 825. What is parole and how is it distinguished from eonditional pardon? Parole is a suspension of the sentence or a conditional release of a convict who has served the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty. Conditional pardon, which may be granted at any time after final judgment, is granted by the Chief Executive under the provisions of the Administrative Code; parole, which may be given after the prisoner has served the minimum penalty, is granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole under the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. F o r violation of the conditional pardon, the convict may be ordered re-arrested and reincarcerated by the Chief Executive and/or may be prosecuted under Art. 159 of the Code; for viola,tion of the terms , " of the parole, the convict cannot be prosecuted under ?p9 Art. l!59. He can be re-arrested and reincarcerated to !g@ serve the unserved portion of his original penalty. '

~

'

: I

,826. Distinguish allowance for good conduct from special time allowance for loyalty. In allowance for good conduct, the prisoner does not evade the service of his sentence; in special time allowance :for.loyalty, the prisoner evades the service of his sen.tence under certain circumstances.

' , ~

326

.

In the first, the deduction is granted in consideration of good conduct shown by the prisoner during the service of his sentence; in the second, the deduction is granted because of the loyalty of the prisoner who gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of the proclamation by the Chief Executive, announring the passing away of the calamity or mutiny. The deduction in allowance for good conduct is gradual and based on each month of good behavior; that in allowance ?or loyalby is fixed at one-fifth of the period of his sentence. The granting of allowance for good conduct is disc.retionary to the Director of Prisons; the deduction in case of loyalty, wlien all requisites are present, is a matter of right of the prisoner.

.,:-.

d'

27. How would you distinguish them from deduction of one-

half of the time of preventive imprisonment? The time of preventive imprisonment, 1/2 of which is deducted from the penalty consisting in deprivation of liberty, is that period of detention hefore conviction or before service of sentence and the deduction is nof based on the good behavior or loyalty of the prisoner. One-hrilf sf the time of preventive imprisonment is deducted from the penalty, except in certain cases, regard ess of the conduct of the prisoner during temporary de ntion.

:'1

828. A was convicted of theft of jewelry which the policeman recovered from him when he was arrested, but which was suhsequently lost, because someone in the

office of the police stole i t from the safe. As the jewelry could not be returned, may the court order A to pay the value of the jewelry? Yes, because the rule is that a person criminally liable for a felony is civilly liable and in crimes against property he is responsible to the owner, either for the payment of its value if it cannot be returned, and this is whether the property is lost or destroyed by the act

327

I

I I

i

I CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRII\IlNAL LAW REVIEWER

of the malefactor himself, or that of any other person,

demand civil responsibility arising from a crime before e the criminal prosecution.

or is the result of whatever other cause. 829. What are the rules governing civil actions arising from offenses? Except as otherwise provided by law, the following rules shall be observed: 1. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the ofrenss charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately; 2 . Criminal and civil actions arisizrg from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot be ins1,ituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action; 3. After a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prcsecuted; and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered; 4. Extinction of the penal action does not carry with i t extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist; 5 . A final judgment rendered in a civil &ion absolving the defendant from civil liability, is no bar to criminal action. (Rule 107, Sec. 1, Rules of Court)

830. Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “evezy person criminally liahle for a felony is also civilly liable.” Does iit mean that a person must first be declared criminally liable in a criminal prosecution before ‘ h e can be held civilly liable? Explain your answer. No, because Sec. 1, Eule 107, of tilie kules of Court, .. expresslly permits the institution of a civil action to

328

d! 1.

,

~

,

May the prosecution prove, over the objection of the defense, damages resulting from the commission of the crime, when the information does not allege them? Explain your amwer. Yes, because every person criminally liable for a ffrlony is also civilly liable. Allegation of damages is ot necessary.

J

8

Suppose, the fiscal alleges in the information that as a result of reckless driving by the one of the passengers of his jeepney ,&€ere’ injuries and damages in the amount of Pl,OOO, but fails t o allege the damage suffered by the o v o s e property loaded in the jeepney was 4 estruyed, can the pro. secution prove the - d ffrrell by the other passenger? In criminal prosecution where the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution, the civil liability of the accused should not extend only in favor of the person o r persons mentioned in the information. Unless the record shows that an omitted party has waived the civil liability or has reserved the right to file a separate civil action to recover the same, it is impliedly included in the criminal action.

833. In a case of frustrated homicide, with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, there was no allegation in the information and no proof off damages. May t h e court sentence the acLvsed to indemnify the offended party in the sum of F’2,000? Yes, because civil liability covers not only actual or compensatory, but also moral, exemplary or corrective damages in criminal offenses resulting in physical in- : juries. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary to prove :j moral damages, it being left to the discretion of t h e ~ r ...d%? court.

329

I

/

/ /


-8 4. In what cases may a person, who is acquitted of the

.

/

83

crime with which he i s charged, be held eivilly liable for the same act? Civil liability may still be enforced, despite the acquittal or defendant in the criminal case, in the following cases: 1 . Acquittal on the ground that the guilt of the defendant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, Civil Code): 2 . In any of the cases referred to in Arts. 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code. which permit a separate and independent civil action. 3 . Where the judgment in thc criminal case does not contain any declaration that the fact from which civil liability may arise did not exist (Rule 107, Sec. 1, par. (d), Rules of Court). 4. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176, which is entirely separate and dis%nct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 2177, Civil Code); 6 , Exemption from criminal liability established in Art. 12, except pars. 4 and 7, and justification under Art. 11, par. 4, which according to Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code do not include exemption from civil liability: (a) of imbecile or insane person; (b) of minor under 9 years of age; (c) of minor over 9 and under 15 years, unless he acted with discernment; (d) by reason of irresistible force; (e) by reason of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greatsr injory; and ( S ) for acting under state of necessity.

I

836. If a person charged with criminal offense is acquitted, can the offended party institute a chi1 action hased on the same act of the accused? Explain your answer. Yes, because extinction of the penal action does not carry witii it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the tact from which the cly&might arise did not exist. Note: Thus, in the case of Tan vs. StandaEd Vacuum Oil Co., et al., 48 O.G. 2745, it apmearing that the trial court in the criminal case stated in ita decision that “the accused cannot in any manner he held responsible for tho fire,’) there was B declaration that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist and, hence, the civil action for damages hased on the same act of the accused cannot prosper. In this case, while discharging gasoline at the garage of the Rural Transit Co., the gasoline caught fire. The driver drove the trailer t o the middle of the sl.reet and abandoned it there, but the trailer continued mcving to the other side of the street, eaoeing the building there to he burned. When prosecuted for ~ m o nthrough reckless imprudence. tho driver was acquitted. Subsequently, a civil action was filed in court to recover damages. This civil action was dismi:;sed, because of the dedaration of the court in its judgment in the criminal case that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.

1

837. A, who is charged with estafa with abuse of confidence,

i

. cover In a case where the civil action was instituted to rethe amount misapprnpriated by the defendant entrusted with it, the case was dismissed, absolving the defendant from civil liability. The judgment became final. May lhe plaintiff file a criminal action for estafa based on the same act of the defendant? Yes, because Sec. 1, par. (e), Rule 107, provides that a final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability, is no bar to a criminal action. 330

CKINIKAL LAW REVIEWEh

is acquitted because there is no misappropriation or conversion of t.he jerelry which A received from the offended party. May the offended ‘party bring a civil action against A to recover the jewelry or its value? Explain j o u r answer. Yes, since i t appears that -4 received the jewelry from the offended party, the fact from which civil liability might arise exists (De Guzman. et a]. vs. Avila, e t al., 61 O.G. 1311).

d38. May the court, acquitting the accused in a criminal case, sentence the accused in the same proceedings to return the property belonging to the complainant? It depends upon whether the ljabjlify to return the property arises from contract or it arises from the proof

J

331

,,

. .~

I

i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


of the right of the offended party, not based on contract. to recover his property.

No, hec.ause this is an independent civil action. The term “physicai injuries” in Art. 33 of the new Civil Code has been construed to mean bodily injury, not the crime of physlcal injuries, and includes attempted, frustrated and even consummated homicide (Carandang vs. Santiago, et al., &.R. No. L-8233, May 25, 1955). Note: The term “defamation” includes slander and libel. The

Thus, if the accused who is charged with estafa appears to have received the jewelry but the evidence shows that he did not misappr0priat.e it, all that the court can do is to acquit the accused, but not 60 order the return of the jewelry, because the liability to return the jewelry arosp from contract, not from a criminal act. Restitution may be ordered, even if the accused was acquitted, when the identity of the thief was not established, provided that the offense wus proved and it was. shown 1.Ilat the stolen jewelry belonged to, and was formerly in the possession of, the complainant and the accused denied having pawned it in the pawnshop from which it. was recovered (People vs. Alejano, 54 Phil. OX’!).

.

,’

1

’/

8 2. What is a prejudicial question? What are its elements? A prejudicikl question is one based on a fact distinct and sepamte from the crime but so intimately connected with it that i t determines the guilt. or innocence of the accused. Its elements are: 1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court. 2. Jurisdiction t o try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

839. In what eases may the civil action be tried notwith.standin:: the pendency of the criminal action? In Ihe following cases: 1. In cases of independent civil actiohs (Arts. 32, 33, & 34, new Civil Code). 2 . When there is prejudicial question. 3 . When the civil case is an action based o n quasi-. delict (Arts. 2176 & 2180 of the new Civil Code).

.I

1,

40. A policeman was charged with the crime of violation, of domicile in a criminal case. B, the offended party. filed a civil action for damages. Must the trial of

the civil case be suspended until the criminal case is decided? No, because the civil case involves an independent civil action, based on the violation of a fundamental right under bhe Constitution (Aft. 32 of the new Civil Code).

41. A was accused of homicide for having killed B.

While, the criminal case was ‘pending trial, the surviving wife. of I1 filed a civil action for damages. Must the trial: of :the civil action be suspended until the criminal case ’-: i . .., s .aecial?d?

. .

.

I

*

332

term “finud” ineliides estafa. Hence, civil actions based on the crimes of libel, slander and estnfs’ean proceed notwithstanding tho pendency of the criminal actions therefor.

84.3. A, who was entrusted with the Torrens title of B, forged the sixnature of B on a siipposed deed of sale and sold the property t o C. B filed a civil action with the Court of First Instance of Manila against A and i

C, the latter as vendee of the property. Later, a criminal action at the instance of B was filed in the same court (Coart of First Instance of Manila) against A for estafa through falsification of a public document. A now claims that the trial of the criminal case should be suspended and that the ciyil action sltould be. tried first, there being a prejudicial question. Is the claim of A tenable? Ezplain your answer. No, because there is no prejudicial question, as both the., civil and the criminal cases are predicated upon t same ground, that is, forgery; and that both the ciy and criminal cases are lodged with the same tribunal.’

333

I

I / J

CKIMINAL L 4 W REVIEWER

This case does not f,t the definition of prejudic:al question and the second element of prejudicial qnestiom is lacking (People vs. Garde, C.A. 54 O.G. 399).

844. A, a s driver of a bus, was 'irosecuted for homicide and damage to propert? throngh reckless iinprndencc in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. While the criminal case was pendiug trial, the owner of the damaged car filed a civil sction in the Court of First lnstanw of Kim1 to recover damages from the owner of the hns. Must the trhJ of the civil case be snspended until the criminal ehse is decided? Explain your answer. No, because the civil cas,! involves an action based on quasi-delict under Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the new Civil Code. 'The action is entirely separate from negligence under t.he Revised Penal Code and cannot be classified as a civil action arising from the criminal offense. Such civil action may proceed independently of the crj.minal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter (Chan YS. Yatco, G.R. No. L-11163, April SO, 1958). 845. In what cases may a person be held subzidiarily liable for wstitution, reparation or indemnification for consequential damages resulting from crimes committed by

,.

another'? In the €allowing cases: 1. When the innkeepers, tavernkeepers or any other persons or corporations who uwn the establishments committed R violation of municipal ordinance or some general or special police regulation, and the person who Committed a crime therein during such violation cannot be found or is insolvent, the innkeepers, tavernkeepers, or the persons or corporitions who own the establishments are civilly liable. 2. When the guests notified the innkeepers or their representatives in advance of the deposit of their goods within the inn and they iollowed the directions of the innkeepers or representatives with respect to the care of, and vigilance over, such goods, the innkeepers are civilly liable 334

i/


r the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within the inn from guests lodging therein, or f o r the payment of their , , evalue. 0 . When the employers, teachers, or corporations are engaged in ally kind of industry, and their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees committed felonies while in the discharge of their duties, and the latter could not pay the civil liability, the formzr are subsidiarily liable therefois. 4 . Persons who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear are civilly liable, if the persons who used violence o r who caused the feay are insolvent or cannot be found. 5. Those persons having under th-ir legal authority or cor;trol an imbecile o r insane person or minor who committed the crime and i t appears that those persons are at fault or negligent. 6. The persons for whose benefit the harm was prevente are civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which the may have received.

P

Y

hile operating the car of a doctor, the 'driver who was driving it in a reckless and im'prudent manner' ran over a pedestrian who was killed as a consequence. If

the driver is convicted of homicide throngh reckless imprudence and appears to be insolvent, may the doctor he held subsidiarily liable for damages? The doctor is not subsidia.rily liable for damages, because he was not engaged in industiy. "Industry" is any department or branch of art, occupation 01- business; especial one which employs much labor and is distinct branch rade. There is nothing stated in the problem that the octor was negligent in the selection of his chauffeur. H e x e , even nnder the Civil Code the doctor is not liable for the damages caused by his driver.

1

847. A deposited his goods in an inn. A notified the innkeeper of such deposit and followed the instruction of 535

I



the innkeeper as to the care of and vigilance over the goods. B entered the room of A and burned the goods of A a s an act of revenge. D was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to the corresponding penalty and to pay A the value of the goods. B was insolvent.. Can the innkeeper be held subsidiarily liable for the value of the goods? No. Innkeepers are subsidiarily liable only for the restitution or payment of the goods taken by robbery or theft. The crime committed is arson.

848. What does civil liahility in criminal cases include? The civil liability in criminal cases includes: (1) restitution, (2) reparation of the damage caused, and (3) indemnification or consequential damages. 849. May thc! court order the restitution of the property involved in a charge of estafa pending the trial of that

criminal case? Why? No. The restitution of the property involved in a criminal case may be ordered only after trial and the court is convinced that the offended party is the owner thereof. 850. The courrt in the judgment of conviction ordered the defendant t o pay the offended party the value of the jewelry stolen by him, although the defendant admitted during the trial that he had the jewelry in his possession. Was the court in error? Explain your answer. Yes, because the first remedy granted by the law to the offended party is restitution of the thing taken away by the olfender. It is only when restitution is not possible, because the offender or his heirs cannot return it, that reparation should be made,

S51: A sold t o B a pig whicli the former had stolen from C. Can A gi5-e to C another pig of the same size and weight in case the court orders the restitution? Why? 336

No. The law (Art. 106) says "the restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible." The purpose of the law is to place the offended party as much as possible in the same condition as he was before the Doffense was committed against him.

,

. .

852. Suppose that in the preceding problem, B, after buy-

ing the pig from A, without knowing t h a t . i t had been stolen, slaughtered it and consumed the meat, is B civilly liable for the value of the pig? Explain your answer. / No, beiause the law (Art. 105) merely provides for the restoration of the thing by the person who acquired it by lawful means. The reparation (Art. 106), in case the restitution is not possible, should be made by the offender, not by the person who acquired by lawful means and consumed the thing. Indemnification (Art. 107) 'is also to be made by the o€fender, not by the person who acquired by law€ul means and consumed the thing. But if B participated gratuitously in the proceeds of the felony (Art. 111), he shall be bound to make restitu- ' tion in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation. N o t e : It would seem that B n a y be held liable for the value of the pig, if he received it gretuitousfy from A. However, there is an opinion that the person who participated gratuitously in the proceeds of the lelony may be held liable civilly only when tl:e proceeds of the felony enhanced his fortune. According to this opinion, if that person did not sell the pig or its meat but only ate it, he is not bound to pay for the pig.

853. If a person is unlawfully and feloniously killed, what damages are recoverable by the heirs of the deceased from the defendant? In the case of People vs. Tan, CA..G.R. No. 12578-R, Oct. 23, 1956, the Court of Appeals held that the award o f damages to the heirs of the deceascd in the sum of (1) P3,000 for moral damages, (2) P6,OOO for the death of the deceased, (3) P10,OOO for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and (4) P1,000 for exemplary

337

,.,

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER I

C l l l h l l h A L LAW

9. Piracyand m u t h y ,

damages made by the trial court is authorized by law, taking into consideration the occupation, educational attain,merits, and age of the deceased and the ages of the orphaned children.

857. Wh a Filipino citizen, was prosecuted for treason dJdgedly committed during the Japanese occupation, the eGidence of the prosecution disclosed that A wanted to aid the Japanese army, by buying trucks and other means f transportation to he delivered ta them, as he wanted them to win the war. Several witnesses testified to the foregoing facts. On the basis of those facts, can the court properly and legally cunvict A of treason? Why7

4. What damages may be recovered in criminal offenses

resulting in physical injuries? They are: (1) actual or compensatory damages, (2) moral and exemplary or torrective damages, especially when the clime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances.

/"

Note: No proof of pecuniary loss is nceessary in order that moral or exemplary damages may bo adjudicated, for the assessment of such damages is left t o the discretion of the court. Hence, even if there is no evidence that the offended party who suffered multiple wounds inflicted by the accused sustained a loss amounting to P2,400, that amount was not unjustly awarded to fie offended party (People YS. Gerodias, C.A., 51 0.G 4614).

No. There are two ways of committing the crime of treason, namely: (1) by adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and ( 2 ) by levying war against the Government of the Fhilippines. A cannot be held liable €or treason by levying war against the Government of the Philippines, because this form of.. treason requires two things, namely: I v / a d w . l a s ~ g e of men, and (2) t h e purpose of the Not one of these a greasonabie-design byforce. was preserit. A cannot be held liable for

damages may be recovered by the offended party in libel? "_ They are: (1) genemi da?nages - those that the law &., .

.,

,., . . . I

They are: 1. Treason 2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason. 3. Misprision of treason, 4 . Espionage, 5 . Inciting to war or giving motives for ieprisals, 6 . Violation of neutrality. 7. Correspondence with hostile country, 8. Plight to enemy country, 338

REVIEWER

to the enemy. actually purchased them to the Japanese Army, there is There must be delivering them to the enemy to constitute the crime of treason by adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Intention alone is not enough. ." i

i

Elernentr df baason: 1. That he offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Fhili ines; 2. Tha there is a war in which the Philippines is involved, S. Th the offender eithera levies war against the Government, o r A, adheres to tho enemies, giving them aid or comfort

d

/ .

339

1


CRlWINAL LAW REVIEWER

858. Assuming that a foreign country has the intention to invade the Philippines in the near future, and a group of Filipinos in sympathy with that country has been ' . sending financial help 'to its government, thereby giving aid and comfort to that country, do yon believe those Filipinos are liable for treason? No. Although t , w s an oy&actLof.aid DL c o ~ & ~ r t given to the foreign copntry, and because ,of their sympathy to its government those Filipinos maniPested adherence the~eto,they c E n n t b e held liable for reason because the crime of treason can be com-mji@&.only in .ti=~.of War. That treason can be committed only in time of war, was definitely decided in the case of Laurel, vs. Misa.

.Although the law (Art. 114) provides that treason is committed by any person who owes allegiance t o the Government of the Philippines, not being a loreigner, it is likewise committed by an alien, residing in the Philippines. y!hnmary allegiance is the obligation- of fidelity andobedience which a resident alien owes to our Government.

I

861. A group of Filipino citizens and some Chinese have been residing in Japan for ten years. Siippose war breaks out between tlie Phili'ppines and a foreign country a n d diiring the existence of that war, those Filipino citizens and Chinese nationals send financial contribution to the enemy ' country from .Japan and after the war, with the eooperation of the Japanese Government, our NBI agents succeed in arresting them and later they are brought here, can all of them be punished for treason? Explain your answer. No, 0-nly the Eilipino citizens can be punished for treason. While it is true that treason can be committed in the Philippines or elsewhere (Arts. 2 and 114), only aliens. _'esiding in the Philippines can be held liable for treason.

859. Supposing that those Filipinos, together wit!i others, aetually assembled and gathered together for the purpose of ' overthrowing the government to pave the. way for the enemy in, the event of invasion, would they be liable for treason? It is submitted that they are not liable for treason. Even in treason by levying war against the Governnient . , of ,the Philippines, it is necessary that the levying of war , should take place in time of war. In the first place, , h a s o n is a crime against the national security which involves danger from wit&&. Hence, there must be a

:

wai'.

'The element of treason which is not present is: The offender YY.CS allegiapkg to the Government of the Philippines. Aliens who are not residing in the Philippines do not owe Note:

Those who would levy war against tlie Government to overthrow it for the purpose of delivering the country in whole or in part to the enemy are traitors and there are no traitors until war has started.

allegiance to

Note: The element of treason which is not lpresent in the t w o preceding pestions is: That there is a war in which the Philip-

340

OUT

Government.

862. During the Japanese occupation, A, a Filipin,o, was always

entertaining Japanese army officers in his house and was giving them parties on special occasions. A, however, managed to avoid talking with them or with anyone else about war and the countries at war. Was A guilty of treasun? Why? No. The fact that a Filipino is friendiy with 0r-sy-gpathetic to the enemy is not necessarily a n act. of trea>on. To beCtreasonous, the egtent of aid- and comfort given

I

S60: In treason, the offender mnst be o a - l g i a n c e to the Government. What kind of allegiance is contemplated in ' the crime of treamn? BQth !&a1 allegiance and temporary allegiance are :.contemplated in the crime of treason.

_,>

:$$

Note.: Art. 114, R.P.C., as amended by Executive Order No. 44, punishes an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits act8 of treason.

1

pines is involved.

,L

I

4

341

,.

. I

,

I



to the enemies must be to Xender assistance to them as enemies and not..merely as individuals and, in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies‘ hostile designs.

territory over to the advancing Japanese troops. Before they could carry out their purpose, they were surrounded by the, policemen and arrested. However, the Japanese release$ them when they obtained control of the place. Wh ’n prosecuted for treason aftcir the liberation, they. , con ended that they could not have levied war against the government at that time, because their weapons were inadequate and it was impossible for them to succeed. They further contended that assumling that they committed a crime against the national security, it was at most conspiracy to commit treason. IIow would you dispose of these contentions if YOU were the judge trying them? If I were the judge, I would convict them o f treason. It is not necessary that those attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms should have the -a =ex, to succeed in their design in .whole or in part (U.S. vs. Lagnason). ~ ~ ~ ~ a I . . c l a s h ~ aisf n~-ssa~rym s . in treason by lwying war. Actual assemblage of men which .~ is present in the case isLYicient. Moreover, their .wry PO+. if to_Eeecute a trsscnable desip>x force.

~~

1

~s

Note: Thus, to give^ mpney to m enemy soldier ~a ~f&ld or o!it of charity to him so that ha may buy peraonal necessities is to assist him as an individual.-.But if the money iS given to enable him to, buy arms t o m e them in piaging war against the giver’s country, the givci. is yuilty of treason. In the first ewe, the element of treason by giving aid or comfort which is not ,present is: Giving tho enemies aid or comfort, or adhering t o the enemies, or bnth.

$3.

:/

.:

86

l-

*.

IC during the war, a citizen made speeches critical to his own government, or opposed its measures, or engaged in profil.eering or headed and promoted strikes in defense plants, thereby diminishing the strength of his own eountry, is that citizen liable for treason? Why? No, because &id or c o m w t x!!bhguJ adll:rence..ip not treason. Thus, in the case of Cramer vs. U.S., it was said that “a citizen may take actions that do aid and comfort to the enemy, as making speeches critical to the government, or opposing its measures, profiteering, staging strike8 in defense plants or essential works and other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength, but if there is no adherence to the enemy, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” Note: The element of treason by giving nid or comfort, which is not present is: The offerider adheres to Lhc enemies.

Ole: The two requisites of treason hy levying war are present: 8 1 ) actual assemblage of men; and (2) the purpose is to

execute a treasonable design by force.

866.

,

is

I

,/’ hat

/

/

. What the usual form of aid and comfort that constitutes treason upon proof of adherence? Furnishing the enemy with arms, supplies, troops, information, or means of transportation is the usual f o r m of aid and comfort.

*

in your opinion is the justification for punishing resident alien who commit treason against the Philippines? Resident aliens have the gbliaatiog of fidelity and obediecce-to our Government under which they live. While they o t OiiFGovernment, they are here under the pro:ection should reir-in from taking active part in any attempt to to weaken the power of this counor t o attack the enemy.

.i

i 865. During the invasion of the Philippines by the Japanese,

/

a group of Filip’ o citizens whose weapons were inadequate gathered together in the plaza of the town for the purpose of a tacking the officials and policbmen in the municipal b ilding and, if successful, to turn the

I

I

!

with treason for giving,aid and comfort hy assisting the soldiers in the capture of named X. B and C are witnesses that he saw A with a nnmber Japanse soldiers on their way to the house of X on ;.

,~

4

342

343

:

I

I I

I

C R I ~ I N A LLAW REVIEWER

* '

Augost 13, 1942.' C testified that on the same day he gaw A in the house of X, while A was tying the hands of X. Can A be convicted on the basis of the testimony of B .kd C? 0, because the two-witness rule requires t h a t there must tie twq~xitnessesto each-part ,of the overt act. Tho overt act which is the subject of the prosecution is the giving of assistance to the enemy by A, leading to the capture of X. One part of the overt act is A'S going with the Japanese.soldiers to the house of X. The other part of the overt act is the tying of the hands of X by A in the house of the former. Only B'testified to the first part of the overt act of A, and only C testified to the second part of his overt act.

-

CRIMINAL,,LAW -REVIEWER

1

!

4

..

,

';

'86

*.

~~

c,,

Note: In this jurisdiction, w e fallow the zeverely .restrictive rule, as .distinguished from the eommosite theory. Under the composite theory, it is, not necessary that two witnesses testify to each part of tho overt act or cireumstanoe, as long as the parts OY circumstances constitute B single, ecntinvaus, and eomfinsite overt act.

;c ,

.

. arraignment. Charged with treason, A was brought to th6 court for The clerk of court read to him the in-

%

Note: Had A made a confession nf guilt, that'g, he pleaded guilty w&houLexplanation, A could have been lawfully ,convicted.

344

,

TG

formation which alleged that A was a Filipino citizen who joined the NIakapili organization which fought on the side of the Japanese Imperial Army against the, Philippines :inn the United States and took part in the exeeet1, . tion of guerilla suspects. When asked if he was plead, guilty or not, A ad~nitt.edall the facts allege$ in the ... - .in&! 'information but that he had to do them because he was kfraid of the Japanese. Can he be convicted of treason . ..... on' the hasis of his said admission? Why? NO. The statement of the accused is tantamount- to p l e a d i u a g u i l t .y. .. - -. The confession mentioned in the law meanS a 1 L E n A s i d g u i l t i ! . I C&rcession and avoidance is not _a confession of guilt. ::

.

a complex crime of treason with murder or serious physical injuries? Explain your answer, giving. a n iE lustration. No. In a case, the accused was a Japanese spy. He also took part i n the execution of some of the guerilla suspects and in the infliction of physical injuries'on the ' 1 others. In that case, it was held that murders and phwwa injuries were inherent .. in the crime of treason' characterized by-gNnx.&id aidcomfor t .to_thunemy. The murders and physical injuries committed, although criminal .dffenses in themselves separately punished by, the Revised Penal are the very acts of giving. aid 'and comfort to the In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can be accomplished only by some kind of act. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation (People vs. Prieto). ,,. . . B agreed and decided to commit treason.,: Then, they proposed the commission of the crime. t o several other .persons who were also deterntined lo dommit treason. .._ Thereafter, all -of them committed treason. how many ' , cfimes were committed by them? ., . . Only one, and that is treason.' conspiracy to commit treason between A and B and the proposal to commit treason made by them to several persons ,are absorbed in the crime of treason which they later committed.', N q t e : In conspiracy to commit treason and in .proposal to commit treason: the crime of treason $->E' be a&?& e ~ ~ ~ i i m i t t e d ~ p r o p to o s acommit l treason, the -s.al n-ae _*Led by the person, !O-&~?LP the proposal is made. If the p p o ~ s d . i s ~ e & s d , and t4ere is a decision t o commit the Arne of treason, it would he pnspiracy to commit 'treason.

e

I

,

'i ! I

'871. How, is conspiracy to commit treason ' committed? Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when k o . : . o r more persons come to a n agreement concerning the of treason aud c!ed&xi to commit it. (Arts. and 115, R.P.C.)

to commit treason committed?

345

I


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEIt

Proposal to commit treason is committed when the person who has decided to commit treason prcposes its execution to some other person or persons. (Arts. 8 and 116, R.P.C.)

favored emotionally and intellectually. A did not report it to the governor or fiscal where he was residing and where the act of treason was committed. Is A criminally liable? Explain your answer. No. In this case, there is no misprision of treason, because the crime of treason was already committed. Art. 116 sags “having knowledge of any conspiracy against” the Government of the Philippines, which means that there is only conspiracy to commit treason. When treason is ?ctuallg committed, m$?.csilence of one who knows of ita commission d9e3 not make him criminally liable, either as princigal, accomplice o r accessory.

9

873. Is misprision of felony punishable? A t common law, misprision of felony is a criminal . Meet either (1) to prevent a felony from being committed or (2) to bring the offender to justice a.fter its commiz:sion. Our penal law does not consider misprision of felony as a crime. The only single instdnce where it is considered a crime is in misprision of treason. Thus, i t has been held that the failure.of 8 private individual to report to the authorities the commission of an offense is not a crime and the r.ere silence of one who w h e s s e d the commission of a crime does not make him criminally liable. #

Note:

But a publie.afficer who has th; duty to prosecute or

cause the prosecution of a law violator may be held liable for

*.

dorelictiol of .duty under Art. 208, if he maliciously tolerates the commission of a crime which is about to be committed or maliciously refrains from prosecuting. 8 violator of the law.

874. Is the person gnilty of m i o n of treason only

Note: It is absurd to think that a person guilty of misprision of treason is only an accessory to the crime of treason, when there is no treason committed. What is being committed by other persons is onlp conspiracy to commit trcawn, and wbat constitutes misprision of treason is the failure to make known to the ‘proper authorities the existence of that conspiracy.

i

I

r

.,~? _., 875. . A, a l?ilipino citizen, knew that B committed treason, ~. , having given aid and comfort to the enemy whom he

No, because the law (Art. 116) provides that the offender is “not being a foreigner”.

677. A, a private individual and a IWpino citizen, knowing that B was in conspiracy with others to commit treason against the Government of the Philippines, during the time of war, harbored, concealed and later assisted in the escape of B. Is A criminally liable? Yes, not under Art. 19, but under Art. 116, because he is guilty of misprision of treason f o r not reporting the conspiracy to the proper authority. Note: A private individual i3 liable a s a n aeeessorg par. 3 of Art. 19, R.P.C., for hairboring, concealing or

‘ k

347

346 ,

-/

S76. May an alien residing in the Philippines commit misprision of treason? merit. Why?

a9

accesso;ry to’ the crime of treason? He is o n a K n i s h e d as an accessory to the crime. of treason, but he is principal in the crime of misprision of treason, this being a separate and indegendent crime defined in a different article of the Revised Penal Code.

Elements of mispvison of tmaron: 1. The offender must be owing allegiance to the Government, and must not be a foreigner. 2. I€e has knowledge of any e_onsp>r?y (to commit treason) against the Government. 3. H e conceals or does-not disclose and make known the same as SO& as possible. 4. To the Governor or Fiscal of the province, or Mayor or Fiscal of the City in which the offender resides. Thc element of misprision of treason which is not present is: IIe has knowledge of any conspiracy against the Govern-

i

I

I CRIMINAL LAW REVIEIVER

CRIMINAL LAW IWViBWEI:

#

.. . .

8. Malting or causing war materials to be made in a defective manner when the Philippines is at war; etc.

ing in the escape of the principal, ,_.rlyif the pcin.&al

is q - o f i r s a s o n (not y cto commit treason), parricide. mur er or a n attempt to take the life of the .Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty. of some other crime.

/,878. What a m the e!ements of the crime of espionage, as it is defined in the Revised Penal Code? Elements of the ist way of committing espionage: . _ 1. That the offender enters a warship, fort or naval: or military establishment or reservation; 2 . That he has no authority therefor; 3 . That his purpose is t o ~ o b t ~ ~ n . i a n y ~ n ~ ~ r mplans,. -a~on, photographs or other data o f a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. Elements of the 2nd way of committing espionage: 1 . Offender is a public officer; 2 . He has in. his. &.$esssn the articles, data or in6rmation referred to in the first way of committing espionage, bxreason~.oChis- .a€fice; He & A d h e i r contents to the rmIesenJ*bive of a foreign nation.

:"' /'r .

?

Which has jurisdiction over the offense of espionage committed, the Philippine Government or the United States authorities? Either one could try and punish the offender, because the act of espionage committed affects the security of both nations.

1

879.

-

i

.

,:

.,. ~./.,

If the offense is against the security of the Philippines, even if it is committed within the base, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction. If the offense is against the security of the United States, even if it is committed outside the base by 8 member of the.armed forces of the United States, the latter has jurisdiction over the offense. Note:

-

ay espionage be committed by acts other than those defined ass acts of espionage in the Revised Penal Code? Explain yonr answer Yes. Commonwealth Act No. G16 punishes as acts of espionage, the following : I. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting, through gross negligence, to be obtained information affecting national defe e ; Unlawfully disclosing information affecting national d ense; 3 . Disloyal acts or words in time of pcaee; 4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war; 5 . Conspiracy to violate certain sections of t h e Act; 6. Harboring or concealing violators of the Act; . '7. Destroying or injuring or attempting to injure or . aestroy war'materials when the Philippines is at war;

880. A foreigner was arrested by the military police in a * base of the U.S. Army, stationed in the Philippines. He was caught in possession of a photograph of a certain place in the base which was off-limit to the civilians.

I

r

:

881. What are the crinles clasgified as provoking war and ,. disloyally in case of war? They are: (1) inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals; ( 2 ) violation of neutrality, (3) correspondence .with hostile country, and (4) flight to enemy's country. The first two are crimes that may,provoke war. The last two are crimes involving disloyalty during the war. Note: In inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, even mere negligent act, which is unlawful or unauthorized, is contemplated in the definition of said crime, for the effect is the , same whether committed intentionally OP through negligence. In the crime of flight to enemy's country, mere attempt t&-o~x~.goAmemm. consummates the crime. The q3 law doen not require that the offender should not be a foreigner. This crime may be eqgmjt&d by a resident alien, In the crime of cmrespondenee with hostile country, the penalty is +-eclusioit temporal to death when the correspondence. contains notice or information which may be useful to the ene and the offendw intended to aid the enemy thereby. The e is not treason, because in corrcspondenee with hostile eaua adherence to the enemy is not necessary.

549

948 i

*'

.i

CRIXINAL LAW IZEYIFXER


They are: 1. Arbitrary detention, /. 2 . Delay in the delivery of the person arrested to th proper judicial authorities, 3. Delaying relea,se, 4. Expulsion, 5 . Violation of domicile. 6. Search warrants ,maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained, 7 . Searching domicile without witnesses, 8,. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings, 9 . Interruption of religious worship, and 10. Offending the religious feelings.

882. A group of men in a fast motor boat intercepted a cargo

.

vessel in ithe waters on the seacoast of Sumatra and by means of violence and intimidation took valuable personal property from the cargo vessel. They came to the Philippines in the same motor boat. If they are apprehended ' here, can they be prosecuted criminally before our court? For what crime? Explain. Yes, for piracy. It was committed on the @gh seas, which mea.ns any waters on the seacoast which a r e without the boundaries of low-water mark, alkhourh such waters m?x.be~in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government. Insofar as the PhTIippines is concerned, the crime was committed -. on the high seas.

,..

1

883. Suppose that in the same case they were caught in the very 'placs where they had committed the forcible de. predation, what crime was committed by them? Explain. I n that case, the crime committed was j:obber+with -~ violence against or intimidation of persons.

1 /

Note: It will be noted that with the-single exception of the crime of offending the religious feelings in Art. 133, the offender in all the crimes against the fundamental laws of the State is n public officer or e@oyf!! I

I'

884. What is mutiny and state the venue of action in case of

prosecution Tor mutiny on the high seas? Explain your answer to the second part of the question. I . It is the raising of commotions and disturbance on board a ship against the authority of its commander. It being a crime against the law of nations, the crime may be prosecuted and punished i n any country where the offenders may be found.

7

'

'/

i.,

a

hen is piracy or mutiny on t h e high sea^ punishable +leath? Whenever the pirates seized the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; when the pirates os mutineers &andoned their victims without means of saving themselves; whenever the crime was accompanied. by murder, .injuries, ox rape. omicide, physical the State7

887. What are the classes of arbitrary detention? The classes of arbitrary detention a r e : ,~ I. Arbitrary~detention by arresting ' and detaining a . person without legal guounds (Art. 1 2 4 ) ; 2 . Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities; and s:;peia,:ing release. Note: In these three classes of arbitrary detention the penalties depend on the periods of detention: (1) if the detention has not exceeded 3 days; (2) if the detention has continued for more than 3 days hut not more than 15 days: (3) if the detention has continued for inore than 15 days but pot more than 6 mcnths; and ( 4 ) if the detention has exceeded$ months. E l ~ ? n e ? i l sof wbitrarll dotentdon b y wresting and detmining (i person without legal grounds: 1. The offender is a public officer or employee. ' 2 . He detains a person. 3 . Without lcgal grounds.

/

.

d W h a t is the usual cause of arbitrary detention by arresting and detrinin:: a person without legal grounds?

6. What are the crimes against the fundamental laws-of .

. ., . .

..,

361

350

I

<*

:

I

/

CRIalNAL LAW RE

/

.

'i

The usual cause of the commission of the crime is ar. resting a person without warrant by a public officer. A . . .peace officer must have a warrant of arrest properly issued by the court in order to justify an arrest made by him. f there is m - r m n t o€..arrest, the arrest of a person


i

?

a public officer may constitute arbitrary detention.

889

In w!hat cases may a public officer who detained a person without warrant not criminally liable for arbitrary detention? In general, when the following requisites concur: (a) there is reasonabkground of suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit an offense or breach of the peace; and (h) the public officer has a c t e d ~ ~ i n go-od~..faith. In particular, when the detention is a consequence Of a dwful arrest without warrant in the three cases proded by the Rules of Court, namely: (1) when the person to be arrested has copmitted, is actually committing, or is about t o commit an offense in his presence, (2) when an offense has in fact been committed and'he has reasonabre ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it, and ( 3 ) when the person ,to be arrested is' a prisoner who has escaped.

!

1

1

890. Is actual commission of the crime by the person to be arrested necessary to justify his detention? Explain yuur answer. No, because the legality of the detention of a person does not depend upon the actual commisSion of a crime b;him, but upon the nature of his deed which makes the rresting officer believe that a crime has been committed o r is about to be committed by him ( U S . vs. Batallones).

.

8 d m u n i c i p a l treasurer of a town, having found h i ' . . servant quarreling with his wife, seized him and detained:!! him in the municipal jail. Is the mnnicipd treasurer: : guilty of arbitrary detention or of illegal detention?, Explain your answer. ,It is_submitted that the municipal treasurer is guilty o&n116wfnl arrest (Art. 269, R.P.C.), not arb;trary detention or illegal detention, When the w m o s e of arresting a person without authority of law or reasonable ground therefor is to -d the person arrested to the proper authority, like the jailer, it is unlawful arrest. (See US. vs. Fontanilla.) Unlawful arrest may be committed by any person (People VS. Malasugui). The municipal treasurer is ~ o t g- ~ l t xof arbitrary ,detention, because he is not the public officer who can commit the crime. Although Art. 124 mentions public officer or employee, without qualification, the offender @ u s t a c t in his official c ~ z & y in detaining , a ~person^ in otder to be liable for arbitrary detention. Only uublic o m r s w u e the authoritr to dzt-Gn oz to order the d m ~ ofya person can commit the crime, and the treasurer has no such authority. *mIikicipal tFeasurer is not guilty of illegal detenof thk purpose of the detention.

.

/.

Note: Even if the person arrested without warrant 09 arrest w a , s innocent as he did not in fact commit a crime, the arresting officer i s not liable f o r arbitrary detention, if (1) there was reason to believe that the person arrested had committed or was about to commit a crime o r breach of the peace; and (2) the peace' officer acted in good faith.

352

' '8

B

Note: The crimes of arbitrary detention, illegal detention, and , unlawful arrest are committed in the same manner; that i s : ; the offender arrests or detains a person without legal grounq4 In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer; &i illegal detention, the offender is a private individual; in un- .' lawful arrest, which is committed by any person, thk offender has the purpcse of delivering the person arrested or detained t o the proper authority, not necessarily judicial authority.

892. Suppose a policeman arrested a person without legal. : gr'round and detained him in his house, not in the jail, ?; would he be liable for arbitrary detention? It is submitted that the place of detention is immat6- ,? .<.< rial., The law v i d e t a i n s a person."

//

353

# iI CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWlER


..

..,

.. a

,

~,>:

mitted it. A warrant of arrest,is not necessary to arres@ a person under those circumstances, because ,the offens$$ was in fact committed and the peace officer had reasonable8:: around to believe that the person to be arrested committed':: it (People vs. Malasugui).

Note: But if the poliecrnan detains a person f o r e , personal motive m n d s the public oosithn of the offende: =-commits i l G d c i e n t i o n with the aggravating. cireumst:mee of taking. s g e of his public position. If the crime committed is arbitrary detention, taking advantage of public position is inherent aggravating circnmstance in the crime and does not serve to increase the penalty.

=

893. A policeman, suspecting that X stole the missing jeep :of M, called X to the police precinct at about 8 o'clock in the evening and was investigated then and, there. X . ' . ' , .was told to stay in the precinct until the investigation dernninated, but allowing him to go to the near-by when he wanted to drink and to eat and permitting go around the premises of the police precinct. He :go home until the next morning., t o . his disgust .. ..and annizyance. Was the policeman guilty of arbitrary . . detent'&? Explain your answer. . . tiecause no confinement and no restraint on his .. person was made by the policeman. At most, there was , only unjust vexation. ..,

.

.

,

. ,

.

.,

Note: The element of arbitrary detention by Cetaining a person without legal ground, which is lacking, id: That the offender detains B person. T b conn-, there m.%i.be confir,em*ent w..restraint on the person of the offended party.

Note: The element that is lacking Is: Without legal groupds;:,, There was legal ground for arresting C. , . ,

,

,

.. .

', I

ii

,.

.

.

. ~

card, wazi found lying on the ground with several wounds. B asked A to name the person who had attacked him. A said t h a t C did it. Later, A died because of the wounds. policeman, who had received information that C was possession of much money, arrested the latter searched, the pocketbook of A with his identification card was found in the pocket of C. The pokeman locked up C in jail. Is the policeman who made the arrest without warrant of arrest liable for arbitrary . detention? Explain your answer. No, because the crime was in fact committed and the ' had reasonable ground to believe that C corn:

while on patrol duty, heard somebody'&-.,: iag, "Police! Police!" When the policeman arrived,at the: sceae he saw a priest just getting u]p and freeing hm i && from the accused. The policeman did not see the attack:! made by the accused, but he heard the cries of the priest. calling for help at a very short distance of forty -metem',; away. The policeman arrested the accused and detained him in jail. Is the pdiceman who maide the arrest without : warrant of arrest liable for arbitrary detention? ' Explaii, . . i, your answer. ; 'A I . . _ ,- , No, because the arrest was lawful and the detention of the accused was €or some legal ground. The warrant,: of arrest is not necessary in this case, because the person arrested had committed an offense in the presence of t h e peace officer. The policeman heard the disturbance creatdd by the act of the accused and .proceeded a t once to the scene. Direct personal knowledge of the commission 'of the crime may be through sense of sight or hearing.

i

1

I

\'T%

!

! i

894. A, who was carrying with him a pocketbook, containing money bills in the sum of 8230 and his identification

.,

,.i:

I

/

896. May the chief of police order the icrrest of the offender, 2 !

after hearing the complainant and hi:r witnesses and being satisfied that the person complained igainst committed robbery? Explain your amwer. ' No. What the chief of police should do is to file a complaint with the proper authority, such as the justice of the peace in the municipality or the fiscal in the province or city. Any of these authorities will conduct pre-liminary investigation and, if there is probable cause, may file the corresponding complaint o r information with t h e proper court.

355

354

i

I


This is t h e ruling in the case of Sayo vs. Chief of Police, U S . vs. Sanchez, the Supreme Court held complained against may be arrested.

. .

I


I

.

crime of arbitrary detention limited or employees who actually detained ground? Explain your answer. do, because a judge of the Court of First Instance, a justice of the peace or the jodge of a city court, or the fiscal, before whom an arrested person is brought for .*. then-d of that person w&h' ,_ investigation, may &r ,,, o k v e r i f y i n g t h m h of the charge. In such a case, ,, such public officer, even though he does not actually de. , tain a person, becomes a principal by induction in&e '. , c&oof arbitrary detention. I

Note: What is the liability of B private individual who effee,,;,:';.; t i d y induced a policeman to detain a person without legal ground and the policeman actually so detsined that person? That private individual should be held liable for arbitrary , detention, 8s principal by induct.ion. Private individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining .:. I, certain policemen are guilty of arbitrary detention (:People vs. Camerino, CA-G.11. No. 14207-R, Dee. 14, 1056).

.

i

i

.$9&

! ! !

t o r l ~iw l such person (1) within 6 hours, if

punishable by light pen,.'.:, I alt&i or their equivalent; (2) within 9 hours, if detained for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties .: , . or their equivalent; or (3) within 18 hours, if detained I ( > .. for crimes or offenses puuishable by capital punishment / t i . or afflictive penalties or their equivalent. (Art. 125, R.P.C.) I

. (,i,,,

. . . . Elements

of arbitrary detention by delaying the daliuew of detained peison to the pvoper judicial authorities: ,. . 1. The offender is a public officer or employe$,. .I,: 2. IIe has detained B person f o r some .. lb$al pound., ,..

356

would be the crime if a private individual detained another for some lezal ground and failed to deliver the person detained to the proper judicial authority within the time specified by Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code? The private individual would be guilty of illegal deNote: While the private individual may make an arrest in vim of the provisions of the Rules of Court, he must u r the person arre-tted to the police officer without unnoce888~p d.But the private individual who failed to do m is not liable for arbitrary detention, because only public officers may be held liable for that crime.

900. The second element of the crime of delay in the delivery of detained person to the proper judicial authority is that the person is detained for some legal ground. What would be the offense if that element is Racking? The offense would be arbitrary detention by arresting and detaining a person without legal ground under Art. 124.

When may a public officer or employes who arrested some legal ground be held liable f&

auihority within: v n. six (6) hours, if detained for crimes or offenses punish-,, able by light penalties, or their equivalent; b. nine (9) hours, fcr erimeft or offenses punisliable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; o r C . eighteen (18) hours, f o r crimes or offenses punishabla by capital punishment or iifflietive Qenalties, or their equiva!ent.

kntion.

1

>I;!

8 . . He fails to deliver such person to the proper judici$& "?

~

I

i

I i

i

901. A inflicted on B serious physical injuries resulting in the latter's total blindness, punishable by prision mayor. The policeman who saw the commission of the crime arrested and detained A. For how long a time ean the policeman w y detain A without delivering him to the proper judicial autkionty? The crime being punishable by prision mayor, which, is an afflictive penalty, the policeman can legally. detain.; A Miithout delivering him to the proper judicial authorities 1 within 18 hours.

357



'arrested X for theft committed within his penalty for theft is arrest0 mayor. The policernan.detained X for 2 days, after which the chief of police filed the corresponding complaint with the justice of the! peace court. Later, a petition for habeas corpus was filed- in court in which X contended that he should be released because the complaint was filed after 9 hours and, hence, his detention was illegal. Is the contention of X tenable? Explain your answer. The -of the policeman to him to the court within the period of 9 hours does not affect the lezality

..

"

'

'

'

',

..

+v-

arrest, because his detontian is b~ virtue of ah qrder. of :the+ e&. At. 125 a d i s s - m l y when a pliblie officer akeded or,detained a person without warrant of arrest. When a ,public,'

905. Upon order of the m

,.

The judicial authorities are the Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the Judgee of the Court of First .[nstance, the Judge of the City Court, and the Justices of the Peace Court, , P d & c a l or any of the other prosecuting attorneys with whom the complaint may be filed isnot a judicial authority.

' ,

'

The purpose of this provision is to prevent any abu,se,; that may result from confining a person without infom~,, ing him of his offense and without permitting him'to go on bail. Note: Art. 126 does not apply when there is a warrant d

'

. .

authority?

and confined in jail for direct assault at 5:OO pm. the following morning, a co was filed against them with the justice of but the justice of the peace did ]not conduct investigation, as required by mained in jail for six days liminary investigation. It a the complaint, the justice of the peace advised the, of police to release A, B, and C, hut the mayor obj because it would be hard to locate them later they go in biding. Is the m tsntion? ExpIah your answer. No. On the assumption for some legal mound, the them with the justice of the peace, a judicial a the next day is a sufficient compliance with the and C should have heen delivered t o the proper judicialT' authority within nine hours, yet in the computati the period for the filing of the cornplaint-which is valent to the delivery of a detained person to the judicial authority-the means of communication as the hour of arrest and other ckumstances material possibility for the fiscayto make the'i y d ' f i l e in time the necessary information, mu

.

,__ I

358

369

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER '

'

..' ..?

CRIMINAL LAW REYIE,WEK

into consideration (People vs. Acosta. C.A.). The objection of the mayor to the release of A, B, and C does not make him liable criminally, because the justice of the peace has the sole power to order the re:ease or commit,,. , ment of the persons arrested, after preliminary investigation.

A policeman, on mere suspicion that B committed theft R a n d without reasonable ground thercfor, arrested the latter and locked him up in jail, but ,5 hours later he delivered B t o the justice of the peace, by filing a' eomplaint for theft. Finding that the coaplaint was not suppoi:ted by any evidence, the justice of the peace dismissed the complaint. Is the policeman- liable for arbitrary detention? Why? The policeman is guilty of arbitrary detention by arresting B without legal ground under Art. 124, because . he arrested the person without warrant of arrest and the arrest was made not under any of the circumstances provided by the Rules of Court, whereby an arrest . m y be made without warrant of arrest. He arrested the person on mere suspicion and without reasonable ground therefor.

Of the jailer, he is liable for arbitrary detention by d 8 laying release through negligence.

jq

Elements of Selaziins mleasa: 1. The offender i s a public officer or employee. 2. That there is a judicial or executive arder.for 'the r e lease of a prisoner or detention pi-isoner, or that there i s 8 proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such p e r s m 3. The affender without good reii~onsdelay (1) the serving of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or (2) the rperfomanee of such judicial or executive order for the release of tha prisoner, or (3) the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.

906 ,

Note: .Henee, even if the geaee officer delivered the person (horn he had arrested to the proper ludieial authority within the time specified in Art. 125, if the arrest WBB without legal praund, the peace officer is liable under Art. 124.

907. The justice of the peace who dismissed a criminal case for insufficiency of evidence told his clerk to tell the jailer l o release the accused, unless held on other charges. ' The jailer did not release the accused, because the order . was not in writing. As a consequence, the accused continued to be detained in jail until the next day when the justice of the peace called the jailer to his office and , reprimanded him for disobeying his order. Is the jailer , criminally liable? Why? Yes, because a verbal order of release from the justice ~' . , . of the peace is sufficient. Hence, the jailer is liable for delaying release. Since there is no malice on the part

4

I

~l

4i

4 i

1

908. What are the crimes known as violation of domicile? They are: 1. Violation of domicile by entering a dwelling against the will of the owner thereof or making search without the previous consent of the owner; 2. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legaily obtained; and 3 . Searching domicile without witnesses. A policeman, becoming angry with the owner of a house, forcibly entered the same against the will of said owner and attacked him inside his house. Is the policeman liable for violation of domicile? Explain your answer. No, because the policeman was n ~ t _ a c t i in g hisqffNal capacity- when he entered the house. The policeman should be held .liable for physical injuries committed on the person of the owner 3f the house, with the aggravating cir-, cumstance that the crime was committed in t h e - n l g of the offended party. Note: It cannot be trespass to .dwelling, because when trespass to dwelling is_.a ,direct m e a n s . . t o - ~ ~ m - ~ i t _ . . ~ ~ o ~ith ~is. _ c ~ e , .absorbed ... in the other crime. Vioiation of domicile under Art. 128 i s usuallv committed when the publie officer has eesea-ant.

910. In what cases may a public officer who 'entered the:? domicile of an individ?tal and searched papers and other,& "

360

961

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER effects found therein, without search warrant, not be held c:riminally liable? When the owner has consented to the entry of the ..public officer to his house, or when some crime or set of' disturbance of public order is actually being committed in the dwelling and he enters the same to prevent the commission of the crime or to arrest the offender. A public officer may lawfully .make a search without search warrant in the house of a person, if the latter consented to the search. 'What the law'punishes is searching "papers o r other effects found therein w o h & t the previous consent of such owner."

.

Nots: There is still violation of domicile even if the owner of the house is absent when the public officer enters the same, proyided that thcrf: is an i n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . o f - p ~ h-It . ~ b i ~ ~ ~ . n b{ the owner.

y? .

.

"

.. ..

'. ,

. ,.

.

policeman, without search warrant and having been ihformt:d that B was detaining his wife in a room of his house, and seeing that the door of B's house was not locked, entered the same at 4:OO p.m. to verify the report. When €3 went out of his room he saw the wliceman inside the house. Is the policeman guilty of viola. tion of domicile? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the policeman is not liable for violation of domi,cile, because his entry_ into the d a n g of B i!x only w m u t the latter's consent. If itt -w da timi and the door was only c&%l but not locked, +? here is no indieatian of&ik&on o n the Dart of B. Note: A policeman may enter the dwelling of another evm without search warrant and even wainst the will of the owner, ,FK& the i n m f L m u b l j c _ o - r & r and public 8ecurity jus$ifies such entry. For instance, a policeman who is arresting 8 person who has committed B crime may follow him to the house of another even against the lstters will, or when the mime is being committed in the dwelling of another, B policeman may enter the name even against the will of the owner to p r e vent the consummation of the crime, OF when B public officer enters the dwelling in order to attach the property of %e odmi!r, which is inside the dwelling.

CllIDfINAL LAW REVIEWER ,...

the dweiling:

,

1. The: offender is e. public officer or employee;

2. He is not authorized by judicial order; 3 . . Re performs any of the following acts: a . Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner

i

, ' , '

thereof; or b. Searching papers or other effects found 'therein without the prevlous consent of such owner; o r C. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and a f t e r having hem. required to leave the same.

912. In what cases may a public officer who, in making a search, is armed with a search warrant legally procured from the court, be held liable for violation of domicile?

A public officer who, in making a search, is armed with a search warrant legally procured from the court in the followmay be heId l i n b M i @alation of ing cases : +-l.)-.when he exceeds h i s authority ub-i ing the search warrant; =hen. he .us S m , in e s e - t h u e (Art. 129?%=,. he searches the dwelling yith-&um:tp?sses (Art. 130).. Note: The public officer who uses unnecessary severity in execut-

/

rant without iust. cause. may be held. liable is so, because Art. 129 says, "in addition t o ing to the affonder for the commission of

without the previous consent of the owner of the d

without search w a w t and the ~

362

.

Elements of violation of domicile by enta*ing and/w aearehhgi

363

:



is committed even if the search was made in the presence of the owner or in the presence of other persons, provided that the owner did not give his consent to the search. 914. During the meeting in Manila of the municipal mayors of the different municipalities in the Philippines, several of them created a disturbance, resulting in the interruption of the meeting. Are those mayors who created the disturbance which resulted in the interruption of the ,. . meetina liable for intermution of ,oezceful meetina under Art. 131 of the Revised Penal Code? No. The public officer or employee liable under Art. 131 of the Revised Penal Code must have the intention to prohibit, interrupt or dissolve the peaceful meeting. It would seem that the public officer o r employee, committing the crime under Art. 131 must be acting in their .,.. official capacity. And even if that is not required, a distinction should be made between a case where the public . . officers are participants in the meeting and a, case where they are not participants therein. In the first case, it is disturbance of public order under Art, 153; in the second case, it is interruption of peaceful meetkg without legal ground under Art. 131. Since they were participants in the meeting which was interrupted by reason of the disturbance they created, they are not liable under Art. 131.

-

915. What crime would be committed if the offenders who dissolved or interrupted a peaceful meeting without legal ground a private individuals who are not participants in the neeting? isturbance of public order (Art. 153). If there is violence or intimidation, grave coercion is committed (Art. 286).

/

916. When may a public officer prohibit, interrupt or dissolve a meeting without incurring criminal liability? e & When the meeting is Rot peacefuland there is a l g r r for prohibicthg, dissolving or interrupting it. 364

!

i $

917. Does a policeman or chief of police have a legal g o for interrupting a meeting simply 1Secause the speaker talking against his religion? If the meeting is peaceful, the fact that the speake , , is talking against his religion is not a legal ground interrupting. such meeting. He must respect the free If the speech is defamatory, he may later a cdmplaint for defamation against; the speaker, but /Of chief speech. o f police o r the policeman cannot legally stop t h ,' moeting. 918. May a public school principal stop' the speaker 'in the commencement exercises who delivered a campaign speech, it being election time? Yes. There is a legal ground f o r stopping him, b e cause the speaker was talking about a prohibited subject . ' in view 01 the occasion. Illustration: The municipal president bf a town stopped the s eaker from continuing with his speech at a publie meeting, ecause the speaker talked of politics contrary to the agreement. It was held tliat the munioipal president was not liable or interruptins peaceful meeting (People vs. Yalung, C.A.).

2 J, , ,

919.

'

hat are the crimes against' religious worship? They are: ' I,, Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and 1 2 . Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133).

/

'$60. What would be the crime if the public officer who pre- ~Y

vented or disturbed the religious ceremony or manifestation of a religion used violence or threat? It is still interruption' of religions worship, ohly that the penalty is higher (Art. 132, 2nd par.).

d' What

crime is committed by a private individual who prevented or disturbed a religous ceremony or manifeststion of any religi,on? &$& G q CJwy. If there is only a distur ance, it is st hanc of public order under Art. 153; if prevented by violence or

365

% I

6

I'


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER I,

intimidation, it is grave coercion and the penalty is one

.

925. A group of persons rose puhlicly and took arms against,!

the forces of the government, resulting in the killing'; Some of thoije who rose publielyj were killed and those who were captured refused t~ give: any statement or make any admission. Are. they liable for rebellion? Why? No, because the purpose of the public uprising is not known.&hen the w u e of the public uprising and taking arms against the forces of the government iiJmkq_ow_n, the offenders cannotbe held liable for rebellion.

degree higher (Art. 286).

of certain policeman.

922. A policeman and a private individual threw stones a t

.

the minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo who was then preaching in their chapel. What crime was committed by the policeman and what crime was committed by private individual? Both are liable for offending religious feelings under Art. 133. It is not necessary that the offender is a public officer. The act of throwing stones at the minister i s notoriously offensive to the feeling of the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

.

Elenenl.8 4 j rebellion: ;/That thore bo (a); public upriaing and (b) taking a m against the Government. 2:'The p-ssuf the uprising or movement is *ca . To remove from the allegiance to said Government of its laws, (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part there,of, or ( 2 ) any body of land, naval 0.c other armed forces; or b,' 'To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly o r partially, of any of their powers or prerogative.?. ,.-

923. Suppose, that in a baptismal party where all the guestswere Catholics, a priest who was there was slapped and gravely slandered by a man belonging to another religion, is that man liable for offending the religious feeling? Why? No, because the acts wei'e ilot performed in (1) a place d c z m o religjous worship or ( 2 ) during t h e ~ c d e bration of any religious ceremony. - .

N o t e : Art. 133 requires that the acts notoriously offensive t e the feelings of the faithful must be perfomled either (1) in a place devoted to religious worship or ( 2 ) during the eelehratiom of any religious ceremony.

5.

!

924. A Protestant meeting was being held on the middle o f a road. The procession of the Catholics was approaeh-

. ,

,. ..

..

i n g that meeting when the accused, who had been speaking against the Pope, shouted, "This criminal and de-vouring beast!", referring to the Pope. Is the accused, liable for the crime of offending the religions feelings? Explain. No. In that crime, the offender must act with deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithfuls. The accused did not purposely attack the Pope and deviate from the topic of his speech when the procession was approaching the meeting place.

j

.I 'j

5

366

.j,

926. , Suppose, those who were captured admitted that their purpose was to overthrow the Philippine Government, but they failed to accomplish their said purpose, because they were overp3wered by the forces of the Government, what stage of the execution of the crime of rebellion did they reach? The crime of rebellion is complete or consummated the very moment a group of rebels rise publicly and take arms against the GoxemBent, for the purpose of overthrowing the same by force./he i&ent or mrpase of overthrowing the Government is only the $ubjec&te element of the offense and it is m i c i e n t , that such pmse_exists. It is not necessarx that they accomulish it. 4:.T?? in the case of U.S. vs. acmes, where a great riumber of individuals gathered at a place with the object ': of attacking the government and of taking possession by means of force ytown, which object .they did not aceom;%$$ ,,'i*./: i, ,.!..i &?i. 567 .& 1

I

CRIMINAL LAW REV123WEII


plish because they were surprised a t their headquarters

:'

by some constabulary forces who succeeded in dispersing them after an engagement in which some were either killed or wounded and others were captured, i t was held that they were guilty of consummated rebellion.

927. One of the purposes of the crime defined in Art. 134 is to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, whofly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. What ivas the crime conimitted if the movement merely sought to effect some change of minor importance or to prevent: the exercise of governmental authority with respect t o particular matters or subjects? The crime committed was insurrection. The crime committed was not rebellion, since the purpose was not t o completely overthrow and supersede the existing government.

t

928. What is the nature of the crime of rebellion? It i:r by nature a crime of masses, of a multitude. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. It is an uprising of large extent and long duration, directed against the government. 929. May a person who did not actually take arms against the government, but entertaining the purpose of rebellion and performing other overt act, be held liable f,or rebellion? Yes, like the courier or, spy, provided that he is in con-spiracy with those engaged actually in taking arms against the government. Rebellion may be 'Committed by prom>ting, maintaining, o r heading a rebellion. It may be committed by a ' public officer or employee who exacts contributions or diverts public funds from the lawful purpose for which ,they have been appropriated (Art. 135). These acts do , not involve actual public uprising and taking arms against the government.

368

930. The treasurer of a town voluntarily g a m to the dissidents actually taking arms to overthrow the government all the public funds under his custody for use in financing the uprising. Is the treasurer gnilty of the complex crime of rebellion with malversation, or of two distinct crimes of rebellion and malversation? Is there any aggravating circumstance present in this case? There is only one crime and that is rebellion. This is so, because while holding public office or employment, the municipal treasurer took part in the rebellion by diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they were appropriated. The aggravating circumstance of having taken advantage of public position cannot be considered against him, it being the essential element of the crime he committed. p e f do not constitute a complex crime, because the . act' of diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they are appropriated, which may constitute malversation, is one of the means of committing the crime of rebellion by B public officer. It is the very act Of rebellion committed by a public offtcer and, therefore, cannot be considered as another crime to be complexed with rebellion. For the scme reason, the act of diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they are . appropriated cannot be treated as a s p r a t e and distinct . J offense.

931. A , p i t K other Huks, ,[email protected].. the..people in a b d o for ,fuodstufb, at the same time warning; them, on pain of having their heads cut off, not to .LeprL.tlikmefmce of Huks in those parts to the constabulary. Disregarding

4

I

the warning, B and C denounced the Hvks to t h e W ,~onstabulazy.d~t+chment with the r$lsult_that the were ambushed by the constabulary soldiers. In r!lt&tion for what B and C had done, a group of H u h led by A returned t o the barrio and apprehended B and C, and with their hands bound A cut off their heads. Then, A and his companions took everything they could use from the house of B and C. Can the court convict A of

369

I

I. 1 ..

I.

CIIIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER

..

.. .. .

,

murder as a separate crime from rebellion? Can the crime of murder committed by A be cnmplexed with rebellion? No. The act was perpetrated in furtherbrce of rebellion. Since murder was committed in iurtheraiice of rebellion, murder is not a separate offense. Any or all of the acts described in Art. 135, when committed a: a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends dexribed in Art. 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion. It cannot be I-egarded or penalized as distinct c k n e s in themselves. In law, they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate crime that, under Art. 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion (People vs. Togonon, et ai.).

932. In what cases may a public officer or employee be held liable for rebellion? A public officer or employee may be held liable for rebellion by doing any of the following: ( I ) engaging in war against the forces of the government; (2) destroying property or committing serious violence; and (3) exacting contributions o r diverting public funds from the lawful purposc for which they are appropriated (Art. 135, R.P.C.). Note: A public offieer or enipioyec m a y also be guilty of re-’ bellion by promoting, maintaining o r headinz a rebellion, or by merely participating o r executing the commands of others in the rebellion. This is so, because Art. 135 States that rebellion may be committed by “any person who promotes, msintnins or heads a rebellion.” The same article a h says, “any person merely particioating O P execotinp. the command of others in a rebellion” is liable.

933. Who shnll he punished as leaders of the rebellion, if their i&entities are not known? . , Those who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their names, .. . or performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels shall I

.-< 370

CR131INAL LAW REVIEWER

be punished as leaders of the rebellion (Art. 135, last par..,: R.P.C.).

’

934. May a group of alien residents in this country who rose. publicly and took arms against the government for the purpose of overthrowing the same be held liable f o r rebellion? Why? Yes, because Art. 135, which provides for the penalty for those guilty of rebellion mentions, “Any person” without qualification as to his nationality. Moreover, in the case of U S . vs. Del Rosario, it was held that it is not a defense in the prosecution for rebellion that the offenders never to3k the oath of allegiance t o the government or that they never recognized it. It is submitted that this ruling may apply Lo resident aliens. To hold otherwise, is to negate the right of the government to exercise authority ovei’ certain class of the population. 935. When i s the crime of murder, lxbber-y or arson cam-mit-. tcd in the oourse of the rebellion punished as a separate offense, and when is it considered as part of tile commission of rebelfion?

The common crimes of‘ murder, robbery, and arson committed in the coiixe of rebellion may be punished as seperalc offenses when they are committed_ for private purposes or profit, vilhout any p d i t j .a!.motiW_o_n. But .ivhen any of these common crimes s committed in the course oC t h e rebellion, not for pri ate ends or profit, but to accomplish any of the purposes of rebellion, it shall ’ he considered a ~ ~ b ~ o r bine the d crime of rebellion. I -

936. Several ,persons had the purpose of overthrowing the

Government. They secretly enlisted their sympathizers

-

,as future soldiers of the movement and solicited contrihu-

tions from those willing to give. Before they could organize to rise publicly and take arms against the GOVernment, they were arrested by the . ~ a h and when investigaled they confessed t o the foregoing

372

h


CRIMINAL LAW REVIIGWER

facts. For what crime can they be prosecuted and pnnished? C&&a_cy-to. commit rebellion. There is an agreement as shown by the purpose; there is a decision to commit rebellion, as shown by enlisting men and soliciting contributions to carry out the purpose.

c;/.i 93

9o

9%.

Under Art. 135, public officers or employees may also commit the crime of rebellion by any of the manners specified therein. How wonld you distinguish 'rebellion committed by public officers from disloyalty of public officers? I n rebellion, the public officers perform any of the following acts (1) s a ~ n i n ein war against the forces of the government; (2) &&o@ng-praperty or committing serious violence; (3) cxaacting_cnntz&tutic-m and divawing public_fu.nds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated. In d ~ o y a ~ t ~ ~ f - , p . u b l i c - o f the ~c~s, public officers are guilty o f . w o f the foliowing: (l).f$k in2 to resist a rebellion by all t h e means ,in their power;" (2) co,ntinuing t o d-e-the-dutiies of their offices under t.he coocol of the rebels; and (3) acceuting&ppoint. p p ~ t to - office under them. If he is in campiracy with the rebels, the public officer performing a n act of disloyalty is liable for rebellion. IIow is proposal to commit rebellion distinguished from inciting to rebellion? Similarities: In both, the offender dEsLot--@ke =mi o r is not in open hostility against the government; and in both, the offender -.,another to commit rebellion. Differences: - In proposal, the offender is &xiddto commit. the crime; in inciting, it is not.necessary that the offender is decided to commit rebellion. In proposal, the offender proposes the .execution of the crime by secret means; in inciting, the offender incites othbrs to the cornmission of rebellion p-ublicly and by means of speeches,

proclamations, writings, emblems, banners and other representations tending to the same end. 939. What wonld be the crime, if the crime of rebellion &s a s k committed by the peoplo to whom the p r o p o d was made or who were incited to commit it? The crime committed is e n . The proposal or inciting to connnit rebellion is absorbed.

j I

j I

!

-

~

372

940. Two rival groups of jeepney driv,ers, all armed, attacked each other in a public plaza, using their arms even against the policemen who tried to stop them and to restore order in the place. The attack being t_um.ultnnus and the commotions occurring in a puEig!b, did they commit sedition? Explain your answer. No. Although there was public and tumultuous uprising, the$ject of the uprising w > u o J to urevent the polico m e n s a r e public officers from fr$ely_.e.z%rc&hg their hnetion, or $-attain object of sedition. .~ ~..any-other ____ 94.1. Two persons, who bated a councilor of their town, burned' the latter's house. Is this sedition, their object being to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the property7 of a public officer? No, because they did not rise p.ubljcly and tumultuoW. They did not use force or intimidation or means outside of legal methods. The existen,ce of tho object of sedition is not enough. There m u s t &.public and tumultuous u p rising. The word :f;umultuoua" .means that at least four persons who are a r m e b o r wX6 are provided with means o m e n c e took part in the uprising. ~

N o t e : The element of sedition that is not preacnt ia:&at the offenders rise~publielyand tumultuously, using.foF5 ar~intimidation or o t l ~ e means ~. outside of loga\..m$thods.

!

942. What object must the offenders pursue in order that public and tumultous uprising, using force or intimidation,

or employing means outside of lmegal methods, may be considered sedition?

373

> .'W '.?.

I

CRIMINAL L A W REV1EWF:R


They must pursue any of the following objects: 1. To prevent the promulgation or execution ‘of any law or the holding of any popular election: 2. To prevent the National Government, or a h provincial or municipal government, 01’ any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or to prevent the execution .of any administrative order; 3 . To inflict any act of hate nr revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee: 4 . To commit, for any political or social’end, any act of hate or revenge against p r i n t e persons or any social class: and 5 . To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, o r the National Government of all its property or any part thereof. 043. A wanted to eliminate his political rival B before the election which was about to take place in their province. A had an understanding‘ With the Huks, whose commander was his friend, to the effect that the Huks would attack the barrio where B was living, with a particular end in view of killing B. During the attack madc by the Hukri in which A also took part, B was seriously injured and his house was burned. Considering that the Huks were engaged in rebellion and A was in conspiracy with the Huks, do you believe that A committed rebellion? Explain your answer. NO. A committed pkditioa If the purpose of the vpr&ing is cot exactly against thesovernment and not for the purpose of doing any of the things defined in Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, bi:t-.-merely to attain by force or other means outside of legal methods one object, to wit, to commit for any political end an act of hate against private person, the crime committed is sedition. <

N o t e : While it is true that the Huks were engaged in rebellion and that A was in w n s p i r a c y with them, their purpose was not to overthrow the government, but o&&Q-@fljct fozL&iEl end an act ..of . hate against B.

374

f

9.14. What is the nature of the crime of sedition? It is one of those offenses which a r e directed against the authority, not against the existence of the government, or the general peace. The u@g&?-_objsst of sedition is a vglation of tine puhlic-.peace., 945. E, in a meeting, uttered: “The big ones are persecuting and oppressing us, who are small, which they have no right to do.” Then shouts were heard from the audience, R saying, “Let u s fight them until death.” Is this inciting t o rebellion o r inciting to se,rlition? Why? Inciting t o sedition, because the people were actually incited when they said, “Let us fight them,” followed .by R’s shouting, “Let us fight them tc death.” When E uttered that the big oues ivere persecuting and oppressing them, he was lamenting a feeling of hatred andxexe.we among them (People vs. Evangelista). To inflict an act of hate or rcvenge against the person or property of public officer is one of the objects of sedition. The crime of inciting to sedition is committed when the offender who does not take direct part in the crime of sedition i& others to the accomplishment of any o f the objects of sedition by means 01“ speeches.

”

1,

!

94F. Suppose, the speaker uttered and told the audience, “Overthrow the present Government and establish your own government, the government of the poor. Use your whip so t.hat there may he marks on their sides”. Is this inciting to rebellion? State your reason. No. This is inciting to sedition. The reason is that the words uttered “suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots,’’ which is one of the ways of inciting to sedition under Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Nabong) . 947. May there be inciting tn sedition even if the inciting does not relate to the accomplishment of any of the objects, of sedition mentioned in Art. 139?

375

I

CRIhlINAL LAW REVIEWER


Yes. There are two parts of Art. 142. The first part defines inciting to sedition by inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, ernblems or other representations tending to the same end. The second part defines inciting to sedition, as by uttering seditious words or speeches, or by writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tends to disturb the public peace. ,,In the second part of Art. 142, the accomplishment of any of the objects of sedition is not the purpose of the act of inciting others. 948. What is the justification for punishing the uttering or

..

writing and publishing of sediti,ous words or speeches? The justification for punishing it is that the utterances or writings which tend to overthrow, or undermine the security of, the governmellt or t o weaken the confidence of the people in the government are against the public peace, and are criminal not only because they tend t0 incite a breach of the peace but also because they are conducive t~ the destruction of the goxe.rgment itself.

-

--

949. Does not the second part of Art. 142 violate the eonstitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of the press?

It is opined that it does, because what is Dunisheid in that part: of Art. 142 is cot, the act of ineicing to sedition but the Citterances. or the-publication of words or speeches,. thereby affecting the freedom of speech and press. Under the c!e&r-and..present danger rule, the second part of Art. 142 may be dgc&red~u.nconstitntiona1. 950. What is. your understanding of the “dangerous tendency .. . . rule’’ in relation to the crime of inciting to seditbn, and

how is it distinguished from the “clear and present danger rule”? Under the (angerous tongency rule, there is inciting to sedition when the yords uttered or. nublished have a seditious, tendency, in the sense that they could easily pro~

376

.

~ducedisaffection among the people a n d - a state of feeling:;,. incompatible with a disposition to remain 1oyal”to the . .. , Government and obedient to, the la.ws. Under the clear and present danger rule, it is required’~ ,‘thatthere must be a reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. There iaust be the’probability of serious injury to the State.

i

-

Eznntpl~ of the application of c l e w and v e s e n t danger &: A political @arty applied for a permit to hold a publIc mecting in Mimila. The Mayor refused to grant permit. The refusal of the mayor to grant permit for the holding of a public meeting was predicated upon fear that in view of the bitterness af the speeches expected from the minority men - who^ were fresh from political defeat and were smarting with ,charges of fraud agaiiist those in power, there might be hreach of the peace and of public order. Held: The danger was not imminent and the evil to he prevented was not a serious one. The mayor was ordered to issue a permit (Primieias VB. Fugono)

.

.

951. What are the crimes against legislative or similar bodies. They are: (1) preventing the meeting of a deliberative body by force or fraud (Art, 143); (2) disturbing its session or meeting; and (3) misbehaving in .the presence of any such bodies as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to it (Art. 144). Note: The legislative or similar bodies referred to nre eithe? House of Congress, its committees or sub-committees, constitutional commissions, provincial hoard or city or municipal council OF board.

952. What is the liability of il person who disturbs the proceedings of either House of Congress? The same act of disturbing the proceedings of either House of Congress may be made the basis for contempt proceeding and/or for criminal prosecution (Lopez vS. De 10s Reyes). 953. What do you understand by parliamentary immunity?,

377

I

I I


.

.

Parlinmentary immunity, under the Constitution, means that the members of Congress shall, in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be pivileged from arrcst during their attendance bt the session of Congress, and in going to and returning from the same. Under the Revised Penal Code, it means that the members of Congress should not be arrested or searched during the regular or special session, except in case a member has committed a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty higher than pvision mayor.

CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWER 1’

Ui

No, because the immunity under the Revised Penal Code extends only to awest and search during regular or special, session of Congress and the felony committed is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty higher than pi.ision .irztqior. Even if a senator o r representative committed a crime under circumstances where his arrest and/or search would be punished as a crime, he can be prosecuted and, if found guilty, he can be punished. Eveu under the Constitution, parliamentary immunity is limited only to civil arrest. The immunity excludes all indictable offcnses.

1 I

954. In what cases may a public officer lawfully arrest or

search a senator or a rempresentative? In the following cases a public officer may lawfully arrest or search a senator or representative: (1) when Congress is not in regular or special session, he may lawfully arrest or search a senator or representative in connection with any crime; and ( 2 ) when Congress is in regular o r special session, he may lawfully arrest or search a senator or representative, provided that the crime committed is punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty lt
,1157. In n meding where many persons were invited to con-

sider the ways and means of improving the community, A volunteered to speak and, in the course of his speech, he incited the audience to carry arms and use force and violence against the mnyor and councilors for neglecting their duties. Js that meeting an illegal assembly? E X plain vour aiiswer. No, because to constitute a n illegal assemblx, where T the audience is incited, the meeting must be organized for the purpose of inciting the audience to the ;commission of treason, rebellion, sedition or direct assank4 pose of the meeting mentioned in the question w

Note: A member of Congress may bc arrostod or searched during regular or special session, if he committed homicide o r rape, because these crimes are punishable by re02usio.n ?ernporal, a penalty higher than pvision. magor.

Note: A is liable for alarms and scandals under par. 4, of tlie Revised Penal Code.

955. May a member of Congress, who, during its session, has

‘

’K

in his possession a revolver without license be searched and arrested,’ the crime not being punishable under the Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer. No. The crime of illegal possession of firearm is punishable by imprisonment from one to five years, which-is not higher than prision mayor. The part of the provision relating t o “crime punishable under this Code” states the exception. Hence, crimes punished by special laws are included in the prohibition. It is only when the penalty is higher than prision mayo? that the crime should be punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

378

,SW*

2156. D,oes parliamentary immunity mean exemption from crunBq , ,.>.y ina1 liability?

‘958. A group of about 20 persons, armed with bolos, daggers

!

, .’

and licensed pistols, were gathered together in a c e r t a i n place holding a meeting. A group of PC soldiersJwho were suspecting them investigated each and every one of them on the spot, but n,ot one of those persons revealed the purpose of the meeting. Can they be prosecuted and and punished far illegal assembly? Explain your answer. No, because to constitute the crime of illegal assembly the meeting must be either one of the following: (1) any meeting atteuded by a m e d persons for the purpose ?f

319 >c

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEYYER

punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and ( 2 ) associations totally or partially organized for some purpose contrary to pubiic morals. 961. Distinguish illegal association from illegal assembly, as to (1) the act or acts constituting the crime, ( 2 ) the person or persons criminally liable. What is punished in illegal assembly is the holding of meeting and attendance a t such meeting; whereas, what is punished in illegal association is the formation or organization of an associntion and membership thereof. In illegal assembly, the persons liable are the organizers or leaders and persons merely present a t the meeting; whereas, in illegal association the persons liable are the founders, directors and presidents, and mere members of the association.

purpose o'f the meeting was to commit any of the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code. In this kind of illegal assembly, two requisites must concur, namely: (1)

962. What is the difference between ill'egal association nnder the Revived Penal Code and illegal association under the Anti-Subversion Act? Under the Revised Penal Code, the illegal association must be totally or partially organized f o r the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under that Code, o r totally o r partially organized for some purpose contrary to public morals; whereas, nnder the Anti-Subversion Act, the association or organization must have the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the .Philippines to establish in the Philippines a totalitarian regime and place the government under the control and domination of an alien power.

'959. Suppose, one of the persons who attended the meeting

.,

?vas carrying an unlicensed firearm, what crime, if any, was committed and by whom? Explain your answer. $ Only the persons carrying unlicensed firearm may be held liable for illegal assembly, because under the law, if . any person present a t the meeting carries an unlicensed , firearm, it shall be presumed that the pur7ose of said -meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is t o commit acts . . punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and he shall be ' considered a leader o r an organizer of the meeting. I

Note: 13ut that provision of the law establishes only a p r ~ sumption and may be rebutted by proof of lack of such purpose.

,960. What are the two forms of illegal associations?

...

,.

,

..

They are: (1) associations totally or partially organized.for the purpose of comrnitting any of the crimes

380

I

i

963. What are the acts punishable under the Anti-Subversion Act? The acts punishable nnder that Act are: 1. By knowingly, wilfully and by overt acts (a) af' filiating oneself with, (b) becoming or (e) remaining a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/ or its successor or any subversive association defined in that Act;

381

"

I I

,

CRIMINAL LAW REVItEWER

CRIhIIXAL LAW REVIEWER

.~

. .

. '/

986. What is the difference between conspiracy to coma

2. By conspiring with any other person to overthrobthe Government of the Republic of the Philippines or the

rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and conspiracy .overthr,ow the government under the Anti-Subversion Act?;! In conspiracy to commit rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, the conspiracy relates to the crime of rebellion_ as t!ie latter crime is defined in the Revised Penal Code) whereas, in conspiracy to overthrow the government under the Anti-Subversion Act, the purpose of the offender is to estahlish in tb.e Philippines a totalitarian regime and to lace the government under the control and domination an alien power.

government of any of its political subdivisions by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means f o r the purpose of placing such government or political subdivisions. under the control and domination of any alien power. 3 . By taking up arms against the Government to over-~ throw it, to establish a totalitarian regimd in the 'Philippines, and to place the government under the control and domination of an alien power.

..9 4. Suppose, the members of the Communist Party under the

'.

.,

,

.,/

9 a. What is the difference between rebellion or insurrectionunder the Revised Penal Code and violation of the AntiSubversion Act where the purpose of the offender is to take up arms against the government? Both in rebellion or insurrection and in violation of the Anti-Subversion Act, the offender takes up a.rms.ta overthrow the government. Gut while in rebellion or insurrection the purpose of the ofEender in taking arms is only to overthrow the existing government and replace it with a new government, in violation of the Anti-Subversion ., Act the purpose of the offender in taking arms to overthrow the government is to establish in the Philippines , . .a totalitarian regime and to place the government under the control and domination of an alien power. 382 ?

/

9

guise of forming a political party with a different name. presented a ticket of their candidates , for the coming election, with the intention of obtaining control .of t h e . Government and, once successful, of plaLing t h e government under the o n t r o l and domination of an alien power, are they liable for violation of the Anti-Subversion A e t ? ~ Yes, because one of the acts punished is by conspiring t ' overthrow the Government of the Repuhlic of the Phil: pines by deceit for the purpose of placing such Govern-. ment oi' political subdivision under the control and domination of any alien power.

jf

What are the two forms of direct assault? The two forms of direct assault are: (1) without pub-

,

lic uprising., by employing force or intimidation for, the attainment of any o f the purposes enumerated in defining the crime of yebellion, or of any of the objects of sedition; * and ( 2 ) without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force, or by' seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents while engaged in the performance of official duties or on the occasion of such performance, Elements of dived assault of the 1 s t form: 1. The offender employs farce or intimidation. 2 . The aim of the offcnder is to attain any of the purposes of t h e crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the crime of sedition. 2. There is no public uprising. Xlaments of d.bect nssuult of the Bnd / o w n : 1. That the offender (a) ,makes an attack, (2) employs farce, ( e ) . makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes B serious resistance. 2 . That the peisan assaulted is n person in authority or his agent. 8 . That t h e person i n authority o r his agent is (a) engaged in the perfarinanee of official duties, or (b) on the OCCBSi0,l of SUCII performnaee. 4 . There is no ,iiublie uprising. Note: The phrase "on the occasion of such performance'' should be undwsloud as "by reason thereof."

383

,. ,~,

/'

I

i


CRIllIINAL LAW REVIEWER

8. May direct assault 'be committed against a private in-

.

. ..

:

They are : (1) By attacking; (2) By using force; ( 5 ) By seriously intimidating; or , (4) By seriously resisting a person in authority o r his ,,"agent while in the performance of his olficial duty or by reason of the past performance o f such duty.

dividual? Explain. Yes. if the crime committed is direct assault of the first form. because in this form of direct assault the object of the offender may be any of the objects of sedition. When the object is to commit for any political or social end an act of hate or revenge against private person or social class, and there is no public and tumultuous uprising, but only force or intimidation, the crime is direct assault even if the offended party is a private individual. But in the second form of direct assault, the crime is always committed against a person in authority or his agent.

971. What degree of force is necessary t o constitute direct assault? If the offended party is only an agent of a person; in authority, the force employed must be of a serious character as t o inclicate determination to defy the law and its representative at all hazards. The force employed need not be serious when the ofended party is a person in authority. The mere laying of hands, as slspaing his face, is sufficient.

'S B

How do you distinguish persons in authority from their agents? Persons in authority are those public officers directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, those who have the power and authority to govern and execute the laws. Thus, the Provincial Treasurer is a person in authority because within the province for which he is appointed, he has the duty t o execute all the laws pertaining to finance and collection of taxes in addition to hi6 other duties; tine Provincial Health Officer, within the province where he is appointed, has the duty to execute all the laws relating to health and sanitation; the Division Superintendent of Schools, with respect to all the laws pertaining to education, in additioii to his general superintendence over all the schools and school teachers within the province to which he is assigu ed On the other hand, agents of persons in authority are only charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property. He is a subordinate official of a person in authority. Thus, the municipal treasurer and the municipal health officer are only agents of the provincial treasurer and district health officer, respectively.

the purpose of the crime of direct assault by resisting a person in authority or his agent, what is the nature of the resistance? Why? Serious resistance; otherwise, it would be resistance and serious disobedience only.

.

.

~~

A, the mayor of the town, and B, a private individual, were conversing in front of the municipal building. I n the course of their conversation about politics, B and the mayor became engaged in an altercation, resulting in B's giving a fist blow on the lips of the mayor. Is B IiabIe .for direct assault? Explain your answer. No, because the mayor was& in the performance

Note: The crime committed is o

970. What are the different ways of committing direct assault of the 2nd form?

384

385

n

l

y

(

&

~

~

i

CRIXINAL LAW REYIEWER I)

/

:..,

formance of his official duty when he is attacked o r seriously intimidated by the offender? Why? No, as long as the attack or the intimidation a made by of the past l3erformance of his officiat duty, there is direct assault even if the person in auG t y o r his agent was at the time of the attack o r intimidation in the actual performance of his official duty.

9

The .Division Superintendent of Schools who was asked by the Provincial Governor to appoint certain applicants recommended by the latter for the position o€ teachers .. openly refused to do so, because the applicants were not eligibles. The agent of the Governor who met the Superintendent in the railroad station gave the latter fist . blows, causing contusions on his face. Since the agent . . of the Governor was not the person affected by t h e performance of the official duties of the Superintendent, ... .. can that agent be punished for direct assault? Explain . . . your answer. Yes, because it is not necessary to commit the crinie of direct assault that the offender was personally affected by the pi?rformance of the official duty of the person in authority or his agent. Since the attack appeared t o have been prompted by the desire of the special agent to revenge a supposed affront to the Governor by the Superintendent in connection with the appointment of teachers, which involves the performance of official duty, the agent is liable for direct assault committed by reason of the performance of official duty of the person in authority.

*975. .,.,

.

i

.

When is the &ve of the offender important in delermining 111isguilt in connection with the crime of direct assault? If tho person in authority or his agent is attacked . ' while he is n o t i n the performance of his official duties, '. , . :the 9 v e or reason for t h e k is necessary. It must

-

386

d e by reason of the past , :, , -performance +--of pfficial duties ofhe person in euthoritx ,,&his agent.

b a w n that the a m c k w

-

A learned from his neighbor that B, the mayor of his town, was maintaining an illicit relation with, his wife. A got his pistol and proceeded to the municipal building. As soon as A saw I3 in the latter's office going over some ,pending papers, A shot B but failed to hit him. Is A guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide@ $$& Explain your answer. The m n v e here is iptnaterial,,because B, a person in authority, was attacked w s l e p r r f a r m 3 n c e of his official duty. Hence, A is liable for direct assault. 1 978. What c&umstane&tuay qualify the crime of direct asMUlt? when it is committed Direct assault is with a weapon, 0 when the offend% is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands u I n a person in authority.

p)

P 97

.A, councilor of a town, upon knowing tllat some PC soldiers were arresting his political leaders and followers for playing a gambling game, went to. the place and requested the soldiers to release them. When the sergeant of the FC refused, the councilor hit the sergeant with a cane several times on the different parts of the body, causing serious physical injuries on the sergeant. Considering that the councilor who attacked the PC sergeant is a person in authority, do you believe that the councilor is guilty of direct assault? Explain your answer. Yes, because the sergeant ya&Ata.cked while in the performance of his duties _and by reason of the nesfomance of his duties, while tliemuncilor was&in the performame of his duties. It was n g his official duty to intervene in a case where an agent of a-person 3iT authority, like the PC sergeant, had lawfully arrested law387

I

-I

/

?.,


breakers. In other words, the councilor was . not , contending in the exercise of official duties.

98 , A harboir policeman and a policeman of the Manila Police

'

Department happened to investigate a complaint for theft committed in the pier. The harbor policeman claimed that the MPD policeman had no right or authority to investigate any case mithin the harbor compound. The MPD policeman seriously injured the harbor policeman. Is the MPD policeman guilty of direct assault? Explain your an.,w e r . because No. He is liable for physical injuries o& & b w s e contendine in the exercise of authority. Jhere was no i,ntention t w h e authority of the n t , k ut t o-son in authority.

,

' .?# I

.. , ~,.>

~


f

&. When the person in authority o r his agent at the time of the attack, is& in the performance of his official duty and the attack is not bv reasop of the aast performance of hisofficial duty; n n the Derson in authority or his agent has acted without authority of l a q in excess y - o when. he is attacked; ., +dWhen the offend!@ & a person in ald.bm& he and the offended or an agent. of authority and

!

..

9 1. A slapp,ed the barrio lieutenant who was helping the

..

. ,.

.

,

.

,I

.',

~

. . '

'

policeman in preserving order in a procession., Is the crime direct assault? Explain your answer. Yes, because the barrio lieutenant is a person in authority by direct provision of Art. 152, as amended. =e f w w d , when the offended uarty is a person i n a-yt, need not be serious. The law simply mentions laying oP hands, without making any distinction as to different cases. It is to be noted that the same provision of Art. 148 with regard to intimidation or resstance as other constitutive elements of assault expressly requires that they be serious. If the law had intended to distinguish between the case of a serious laying of hands and that which is not serious, i t would have laid down that distinction. This indicates that the distinction which the law makes in the cases of intimidation or resistance is

blows. Is A liable for direct assault? I t is submitted that inasmuch ai3 the offended party was no longer a person in authority at the time he was attacked, A was not liable f o r direct assault. One of the elements of direct assault is that the offended party is a person in authority or his agent. 984. A policeman saw X when the latter attacked the justice i

itted by X?

ficial duty.

cases is an attack against a person in authority

4

... . ..

i

388

-v

389

I

CRIRIIXAL LAW REYIEWHR

CRIMINAL LAW n E v i E w m i

..

’

Elements of indiyeot assault: 1. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim

.

of any of the forms of direct assault defined in Art. 148. 2. That a person comes to the aid of such authority o r his agent. 3. The offender makes use of force o r intimidation upon suck person coming to the aid of the authority of his agent.

~

certificate. In the police precinct, the Malacafiang agent shouted at the policeman, telling hdm that . h e , d i d not know how to investigate. Whereupon, the policeman grabbed the hand of the agent to take him to, the police sergeant. The agent refused to go with him and gave fist bXo\vs on the policeman. What crime was committed against the policeman, direct assmlt or resistance and serious disobedience? Why? The crime committed was only qSistance and serious The order disobeyed is that which requiTed him to go to the police sergeant. ,The foree ‘emdovef i u t o f a &s nature and did not indicate defiance of the law 01: its r e p r e s e n w e , iEview f& &at the aecusedadxd.re-i . ,, :.

:’,

’

’.’

. ,.

For raiding his house where some gamblers were arrested, A became resentful against the policeman who made the raid. The next day, A met that policeman, while patrolling on the street, and struck him with his fist which hit the latter on his breast; but when the policeman held his hand, A desisted from further attacking him. What crime wais committed by A? A wa2: liable f o r 6 t r e a t m e n t on@ He w a s not liable for resistance and serious disobedience, beeause there was no order by the policeman that A disobeyed. u d &I Le gkect assault, be&se the force employed k.p& ofasedous nature as to inilkate &e, Ofthebw

-

a

-of

resistance and serious rii8i-e: 1. That a p s n in authority or’h-t

ikenaaaed’h

the nerformaneeqf_official duty. 2. Such official duty c o d i: givinp a Iawful~order to the ofgnder. . , S . That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such pereon in authority or his azent. . 4. That the act of the offender is not included in- the provisions of Arts. 148, 149, and 150. I

--

i

What are the6rimes against public o r a They are: Tumults and other disturbances of Oublic order. Unlawful use of means of puh-n and unlawfui ,

f

Alarms and scandals.

,’ 4 Delivering prisoners from i&& I

98# A, beccming angry with the employees in a government office, shouted to the top of his voice and chaenggd them to a fight. There was disturbance in the office.

I

390 .*’

>

: n

G-3

I

case of US. vd. Tabiana, wherein the policeman who was struck on the breast by T a l h n a with his hand had ordered Tabianr to submit himself to the arrest being effected. There w88 then in order disobeyed.

a certain Chinam? alien registration both the agent

.

was no law requiring aliens to carry their .gegistration

I

985. Several strikers obstructed the free passage along a

road by 1:ying on the road forming roadblocks. A constabulary major ordered them t o get out from the road ; and clear the way. They refused to do so. What crime . . . was committed by the strikers? Explain your answer. The strikers committed the crime of simule disobedienxe, H person in abecause the disobedieuce Lo an-of w t y was not of a serious n a b.e (Art. 151, par. 2, R.P.C.).

and the Chinaman were taken to’ the. police precinct for investigation, hecause the policema.n, believed that there

391

I

I I

I

i'

,

, f

./

.

I



. . . .

Is A liable for tumults and other disturbances ,of publie order? Why? No, because even if there was serious disturbance in the office, it was n& p&~&& or intended, A having been .' p e d to cause the disturbance ( U S . vs. Domingo, 19 'Phil. 69). -,

..

'

.I--.

Note: A is liable

.99

I

99

and seandal$u.ider

Art. 166.

news that the President of the Philippine% died in his sleep, is that reporter liable for unlawful use of means of publication? Explain. No, because such false news may not endanger the public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the St,ate.

/

.

,'.,. .

,

fw @arms

If a reporter published in a newspaper as news the false

p'

.

of the peace, rind then presented it the jailer who, not knowing the falsification, released upon receipt of the forged document. What crime was

..,

fired his pistol upward in the air within . Iftown,a person what crime was committed by him? Explain.

a

The crime of4i&ms and scandamwas committed by him, bsakse it producd alarm or d a n e r , since the slug ired from the pistol would fall down and might hit a person.

a perison caused serious disturbance in 'the meeting of a municipal council, what crime was committed by him? He committed disturbance of proceedings of a legislative body unddr Art. 144 of the Revised Penal Code.

h the intention of helping B to escape from jail,

ed an order of release and counterfeited the signa...

392 ~

,-.~. *:;,:., :.r,.:~' ,

,

.

;$

/

It is a eomdex crime of delivering prisoner from jail through falsification of x w&.A . -- 1 n t by a private iGdividual. The usual means for committing the crime of delivering prisoners from jail are -e, intimidation or briJgry. I t is true that the law (Art, 156) spF& of "other means", but the penalty for falsification of a public document by a priyate individual under Art. 172 is prision correccional medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding F'5,000, which is higher than the penalty for delivering prisoner from jail if other means are used (awesto m a g o r ) . Although the falsification was the means used to commit the crime of delivering prisoners from jail, the falsiiication which is a graver offense cannot be absorbed by the lesser offense.

,:

.j

"

E l m m t s of deJive&ng p7isoneru ,from jail: 1. That there is B pemm confined in> jail or penal estab lishment. 2 . That the offender removes therefrom such person, or elps the escape of such person. 3 . By means of violence, intimidation, or bribery, or by other means.

i

/

B scut through C to A file wrapped in the clothes delivered to A. Later, A ed the file in cutting the iron bars and succeeded in escaping. What crime was committed by B who sent the file to C? Explain your answer. Delivering prisoners irom jail. There are two ways of committing the crime o f delivering prisoners from jail: ,@f by E m A n g a person eonfined in jail or penal establishment, and @ by such person to escape. The act of helping the escape of a person confined in jail or penal establishment de&~&$ thaL&f Lrovidinq the m'isonc with tools armeaps that may facilitate his escape.

994. A is a detention prisoner in jail.

-

393

I i

CRIMTN-AL LAW REYIEVVER,

. .

Not6:

ii

a t-lter doeJt

A!

c

A

m

CRIWINAL LAW REYIEWER

e an accomplice in the escape.of A, -b

not 8. nrinchal. A commit a crime,

'

who

m

d

ova&

cc hzr escagixg:

o~sa7.u-

+fThe

eseaQeg

A.

offender is B convict b y final i I& is -8 hissontenen which con% : ?n

t. deprivation

of+ul€&.

4.

detained in the city jail on a charge of murder. money to the jailer who permitted A to leave jail, thereby making possible the escape ' o f A. I? be punished for delivering prisoner from jail? :>Why? A is found milty of the crime of [email protected] to show that A committed would be l&le as an 6 c c e s s a t o the crime ' @, of murder, because he assisted in the escape of'a aersou guilty of murcer (Art. 19, par. 3, 'R.P.C.). should be the liahility of B, because tKe llenalty

He e d s the service of his sentence bn-g the term of his s e d q e e .

For committing parricide under exceptional circumstances contemplated in Art. 247 o f the Revised Penal Code, A was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and l 0 ' d a y s of destierro, during which period of time he was prohibited from entering the City of Manila. While serving that penalty, he entered the 6ity of Manila. In case of conviction for evasion of the service of the sentence, must he he sentenced to destierro or to the penalty of prision, c~rreccionalin its medium and maximum periods? The penalty plovided for evasion of the servica&.&e during t h e t e r m of his s&?&ce& a m Et cannot e-i prescribed by law for_the_crun ' e. Hence, the D e n a l t y b be imuosed m a b e pision eol.relxh& in its medium &&.igp. because it i s - n pt and maximum t~

eeessorv to the crime of m u r k i s h i p h e r t u h e the crime of delivering prisoners from jail,

crimes of evasion of the service of sen,.

They ape: Evasion by escaping during the term of sentence. ,$ Evasion during a disorder, by failing to give up to the authorities within 48 hours after the Chief Executive has annonneed the passing away of the calamity; and , Evasion by violation of conditional pardon. "

._'

parricide, was confined in the Bilibid Prisims in Muntinlupa pending his trial. There occurred a disorder resulting from a strong earthquake. A was .one of those who left the prison, because of the earthquake. He never returned to the prison or gave himself up to the authorities within 48 hours followkg the issuance of the proclamation amnouncing the passing away of the calamity. May A be prosecuted and punished for a violation of Art. 158 of the Revised Penal Coiie? No, because he is&I a c& serving sentence penal institution, which is an e m t of the offense. The Z f3feevasion on the occasion of a disorder ia; .., that the offender is a convict who is serving sentence hi!.! a penal institution. This element presupposes b h & : ' '

, .

s convicted of murder and way sentenced to' death. id not appeal. After -months from the time udgm(ent was promulgated and while being confined ;:in the Bilibid Prisons in Mnntinlupa; A escaped. Later, &A,, was captured by the Philippine Constabdlary. 'Can L4.rbe. prosecuted and punished for evasion of tho service @:of.the senltence? Explain your answer. , . , Whether heappeals o r t , the judgment of the e penalty of death does shall have been d e,A wsi&&&&

&

. . ~ ..

.

, .

-d

I

-

595 4,

i

I



--

.

he might also he killed. He never gave himself up hi; the authorities even if the disorder already ceased to exist.) Is he liable criminally? Not under Art. 158, because the disordgr mustresult from conflagration, earthquake, e s u o n or similar catas-" *te, o r d i n g the m u t i w in which h e x a s not particie d . But he is liable under Art.157, for evasion by escaping -.during tile +yam of his sentence. ' . Noti: F i s an i ed resistance to superior officers. Hence, lsarmlng the guards hy certain prisoners is not mutiny. B U the guard@ attacked th&m~&s, there is mutin=.

person is not a detention prisoner. A person confined .. in prison pending his trial & i a detention urisoner. evasion on the oocasion of disordem: 1. The o f f e n d g is a convict who is se&ng sentence i

-9of

.

.

Lf.

u penal institution. 2. Them is rdresultina frma. conflagration. b. earthquake, e. explosion, or d. similar catastrophe; or e. in which he has & participated. 3. The offender evades the service of his sentence by .leaving the penal institution where he is confined, 0.1 the oceasipn of such disorder or during the mutiny. 4. The offender fails-ot p to the authorities , w i g n 48 hours following the issuance of a pmelamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passhg away of such +unity. Note: If the offender fails to give himself up, ire ets an in penalty is that the m c u s e h ~ f the time still remainine to be served under the origina ntence, n a exceed six (6) months. ' in 48 hours, If he ives himself u to the authorities he shall z T & d of the of.J&&.w

(Art.

1002. A. was gwa>ted a a d i t i o n a l pardon after serving four years of the six years imprisonment imposed on him by the court. The condition was that he ShQuld not commit any other crime in the future. Oln year after, he wi1q accused and found guilty of concealing deadly weapon punishable under a special law and was sentenced to pay a fine of twenty-five pesos. By order of the President, A was reincarcerated and required ito serve the unexpired portion of his sentence of six years. A filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming and contending that he was illegally detained, because he was never prosecuted and tried for violation of the conditional pardon under Art. 159. Will his petition prosper? Why? No, because the President of the P-s, &r the Revised Administrative C o b (See. [64]), may order the arresi a& reincarceration of the person without previous judicial trial. the conditions of the =don Jn such case, it would not be necessary to urosecute L &IL~ under Art. 159 of the Revised him and to liPenal Code.

98).

1000: Explain why those prisoners who & . n o t leave the pen&

institution during a disorder are n o t entitled to a reduction of their penalty. Those convicts who remain in the penal institution are m &entitled to 1/5 deduction of their sentence, b there is no assurawe that had they successfullv run away and ' w d their . they would have, nevert-s, - l$v ed i -1 with the a r i v a w of prison lifed- i by that sense of rightand loyalty - - t h e ~ w e r ~which t is sought to be rewarded by that special allowance (Losada vs. Acenas), the disorder in the Bilibid Prisons, resulting from the killings of certain prisoners by the other prisoners, A, a prisoner by final judgment, escaped for fear that 396

--

I

1003. A was convicted of concubinage amd, as the concubine of her co-accused, was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and 1 0 days of 9 t i e r r o . After one month,/she was granted a conditional pardon. Later, she violated the condition by committing vagrancy, of which she was later found guilty. In case she is prosecuted for and 397

J


CRIMINAL LAW..KEVIEWER

convicted of violation of the conditional pardon, w h a t will be her penalty, the unexpired portion of destierrw which she was serving when granted a conditional pardon,. or the penalty of prision correcciondl in it3 minimum period? The Supreme Court held in one case that in such a . c' ase the m u l d .be s e m e d t d e unexuirtxl: portion of destierro. B & the law provices the nenaltY of prision. eorreceio~@Z in its minimum erfbd,' when the unexpired Dortion of his sentence is years. It is un\y when the d1s h~ he t u years that tksxmuc ' t shall suffer the unexpired portion. It is submitted that, with due respect to the Supreme Court, the penalty to be imposed on A is p?.ision eorreeeional in its minimum period.

'

.

."

& $

'_

398

',

1006. A comniitted theft in 1935 and est:afa in 1936.

In 1937, A was convicted of theft comrnitted in 1935. While serving sentence for theft, A w a s convicted of estafa ' committed in 1936. Is A a recidivist or a quasi-recidivist? , ' Why? A is a recidivist, not a quasi-recidivist, because when , . he committed rstafa in 1936, he was& yet m e d of theft by final judgment.

04. A was corivicted of murder and was sentenced t o 17 yeam. 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. On March 6, 1 9 a after serving 15 years, 7 months and 11 days, and when only 1 year, 6 months and 20 days remained'

"

@

formatory institution pursuant to Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, having been found guilty of homicide. While in that institution, A killed a guard there. Is there quasi-recidivism in this case? Why? None, hecause the &r w a G a c o n v i c t e d hv final judgment. His sentence was suspended (Art. 80, R.P.C.).

$'-Note: The @of the netion for violation of !he canditio?lal ardon is the province or bity where the n 1 n i s violated,. h 8 , where the new crime is e o m m i t t e d e q L o n ofthe n cof the JWJ! on.

to be served by A, he was granted a conditional pardon, the condition being that "he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines." On April 29, 19fi 10 years after he was granted the conditionaX on, A committed the crime, and was found guilty,. drivin,g without license. May A be prosecuted fox of the conditional pardon? Explain your answer. No. The condition of the pardon which A was charged: with having breached was no longer operative when h e committed a violation of the Motor Vehicle Law; for driving without license. A's pardon dld not s t a t e t = i s within which the condition thereof was to be observed.. Hence, A had to observe the condition of the pardon only 'within 1 year, 6 months and 20 days. When he committed another crime thereafter, it did not result in the

.

1005. A, 15 years and 7 months old, i s confined in the r q

I

'

violation of the conditional pardon, as there was no coiidii tion violated. The duration of the condition subsequent annexed to a pardon would be limited to the remitted portion of the' prisoner's sentence, unless an intention to extend it beyond that time was manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in which it was imposed (Infante vs. Provincial Warden).

't

N o t e : To be a q u a s i - r e c i w t wo , < - re F 3"mite must be present: 4. He must be aiready convicted by final iudgment; and He commits a new felony b&vu b-g to SeNe or while sciwino the sentence. In the probiern givtn, when A conimitted estafa, there was no final judgment and he was not yet serving the sentence ,, far theft. .. Suppose A committed estafa after service of sentence for ' theft? Is A a quasi-recidivist or a recidivist? Why? .; A is a recidivist, because at the time A committed estafa.% it was after service of sentence for theft. To be a qua?i-'** recidivist, A must have committed estafa before beginning .to, serve or while Eerving the sentence for theft. As e s t a f a . ' d theft are embraced in tho same title of the Code, A i s ' ? reeidivisc.

4.

,

...

399

<

j

I

,,,

,.


'i i ,

.,I


~, : .', 1

-

1407. While A was serving sentence for homicide, he inflicted . . .serious physical injuries on another prisoner. Is A a recidivist or a quasi-recidivist? Why? .. A i s a quasi-recidivist, because when he committed the

i'.,.

. .. ', '

.

.

felony of serious physical injuries he was alreadz cmYi&ed b a a L i u & m a t of homicide a& he committed the new felony while serving the sentence for homicide.

1008. Suppose that A committed serious physical'kjuries before serving the sentence f o r homicide, but the judgment in 3 the homicide case was already final, is A 'a quasi-reei.. ' divist? A is still a quasi-recidivist, because he committed the last crime a€ter final ixdgnm~ t as regards the first crime and p-serving sentence for the first crime.

4i$!

of the peace in favor of X. M stole from the desk of secretary the paper with the signature of the Presidei#j in blank and typewrote a document over it, making :the>,,: President liable to him for a sum of money. What c&e7< was committed by M? Explain. Is M liable for forge+$ under Art. 161? Why7 Falsification of a private docum& The President wa: ma.de m a r as a &bto> & u I - > n his private c w The document prepared over his signature thena private one. M is ml&ible for _forgery under4 Art. 161, b-hte z g n a t u r e of-tha PredtXIt ms .I@) fd. The s i m a t y r e o f the President mvst be forged :, on official document? of _ t h e _ B e p u h P nf the : , . Philippines. "'

9:;-

-

sm

..

. S? , , -,!4 1011. What are the crimes under cud"Z , ;*: i_ ": They are: .1. M m and importine false coins and utterine false i CAS in connivance w u e c-feiter or ~L?.Q&. r ; 2. Mutilat,ion of coins, importation u m e of mutilated coins i ~ ! n i v :', 'a,. o m e r ; and 3 . Selling of faJsrormufiktehcoin,a c o n i i + i n ,.&;,,&J:..,'~.: 1

<:

I

1009. What are the Gimes called forgeries3 They are: A. Forging the seal of the Government, signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. A. Counterfeiting coins. A. Mutilation of coins. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer. Counterfeiting instruments not payable to bearer. Falsification of legislative documents. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. Falsification by private individuals. . .. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service.

4.

8 4

4.

&

~

ii

,

,

,.,

1012. A made a dollar coin of the United States. Is he'liable's ', . ,,-. for counterfeiting coins? Why? Yes, because & s n a m e a , n s the imitation of a genuine coin. Under the law (Art. 163) , the counterfeit- : .-ing . of a c u a foreien country ig punishable. The,:, Spanish text of the law (Art. 163) Eses the word-! -w any Qualifying word, which embraces not odx$ those that are legal tender, but also those out of circulation.!

.I_

-- -

1010. The ]?resident of the Philippines left to his s e c r e b ' a signature in blank with instruction to typewrite above his .signature the usual form of appoifltment for justice

1013. If the imitation of the coin is so imperfect that no onq, may be deceived, is the counterfeiter criminally Iiablel,! Explain your answer. Yes, because it is $ttempted counkFZEiEZ3 B&$i :a imitation of a genuine coin, the offender commence!4$ ,, .

400

401

~

..$.

..

1

.% -"

~


. -the m m o-c

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEMTER

directlv b v 'O,&ac'st,

ot perform a& the acts of sxeeutiin -w ce the felony, i t is because

d a t i n g after liberation.

&

the cause 4s

Lf

No, because the law (Art. 164) rtender.

. . 9t he does not know how agmdmuL .. ve,r, there are awho claim that when i ~ imperfect o th& no one rrav.be deceiwd t h P a l p-orduce ~

,:~?~~.'1~14; The I-peso silver .coin, which was in circulation before ., ,* .the war, h;w been withdrawn from circulation.' If A ' . counterfeited several of such 1-peso silver coin, may he be held liable for counterfeiting coins? Explain your answer. Yes, because under the law (Art. 163) even coins ,.:~: .....cI . , .. . > . .' < . drawn from circulation m a e the subject of counterfeiting. , ' , : . The for punishing tlie fabrication of a coin with... drawn from circulation is not alone, the harm caiiwcl to .

.

Note: Art. 164 uses the phrase8 "eo and "current coins", which mean t h t a s .

i

!i"

a-

--

t

m-&.l

":~~., 1

Is A liable for mutilating e

Explain y o u amwer.

1

1017. A Chinaman was caught by a detective mutilating a dollar gold coin of the United States. Is t h a t China liable for mutilation of coins? Explain your answer. No, because the gold coins have been withdrawn f r circulation by the United States Government and they are not legal tender in this country. T h e w Dunishes &S mutilation offiegal tender eo%&; those that have been withdrawn from circulatign.

%

s

1

1018. May a person i m s s i o u of cmulterfcited or mutilated nivanee with lhe counterfeiter or mutilator?

Why?

1015; What is -niutilation of .,coins?

G s m o f i sa crime de-c bv a 'uerson ._who shall take off part of the metal either by filing i t ..,. .-, of inferior qualiv. One . . piubstitutind with another -1 o a coin does not do so for the sake o f t i . : ~ y h mutilates , . 1 9 , bot to take advantage of the metal abstracted; :i f : :appro riates a a r t & ',e %e p. .of .the. metal of the coin. & . ... -,---L-?, coin diminlsks in intrlnslc value. One who utters said ,..mutilated coin receives ita legal. value, much more thm -its.intrinsic value (People vs. Tin Ching Ting, C.A.). r

,r.

.

-

'i mutilator. 1013. What erinie is eoiiunitted by a person who makes 1-p biils which are imitations of the I-peso bill issued by Central Bank?

I

I

. ?016.,,A. was surprised by .. _ . ,

/ .

. .

plicenian -;the 1-peso ;circpl+on bef& "the war in tlie Philippin&s;.but ,w&i1 has,bekn withdrawn from cir-

siIv5r 'coiri;'.which ' w .;*2.-:.. ":

4Q2

1020. What crime is committed hy a person who Philippine National Bank check?

403

I


.

,.

, .

i

j CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER

:... :aqj .~ .;/1 chased from his store, is that storekeeper criminally Iiabl'g for possession of forged treasury or bank note? .ExpM,p:; your answer. , the intent to use the counter-.'. . . to defraud or

The falsification of a Philionine National Bank e h k is(&$ification of eommacial documenfiPeople vs, Samson, C.A.,and People vs. Cruz, C.A.). Note: The "checks" mentioned in the law as obligation and

:i

..

I.

security of the Philinpinea does not include e h a -si Is51 or foreim banks *Qrivate core-. ThecEEQj

.

,

raferred t o as obligation and security of the Philippines a by the Government and drawn aaainst DUbliC fnnda.

tho2 is&

.

1021. Is there any difference a8 to the manner the crime is ' committed when the instrument involved in the forgery , , . ;j . Is payable to order? - , . <':. . No, the manner of committing t m e i t i A e a , that is,? ,-f &$ ! imuorting, or @ utterins in'*.,. . strumen s p a y a b l e t o s o t h e r documents M t .....' not payable t o b aer, in connivance with the forser _o_r " w g r in case of uttering (Art. 167, R.P.C.). I

.L,

y,

-_

1

14i2. Ib the mere possession of forged treasury or bank notea ... ' or othier instruments of credit punishable under the Revised Penal Code? Why? . . No. I u necessary that the p-or k m t h a t & a ..- ' ofe instruments i s false or falsified and that h e l .r: .: the intent to use QJ- i ' &e same. , ..,~ . I

.,i

-

1026. A resolution was under considera.tion by the munici

-

1623. A, who was buying merchandise, offered in payment of the same a bogus 100hpeso bill, knowing it to be falsified. '. The owner of the merchandise discovered that the 100... peso bill was falsified and refused to accept it. Is A . . liable for frustrated or consummated use of falsified ~.. . : money bill? :.... . ,.. . A is I u e &r @onsummated use of falsified rnonis !: " . bill, although it wa -a by the w of the I,. . merchandise (Peoples G!Santos, C.A.)A=~G%L . sary to obtain the cain in.tm&d,

I

i

--

.~ 1024. If the storekeeper keeps a counterfeited 50-peso hill to &$,: be used by him for comparison with bogus 50-peso bills 'is,, @qz:: that may be presented to him in payment .ofgoods par-

s:;Y$::.::.,

404

council. B took it from the table of the secret counterfeited or forged the signatures of the See and the Mayor thereon to make it appear that passed and Rpproved. Is this falijificatinn of leg document? & The crime of falsification is committed - -& &y b -~ or phrase w r i E n in thebill, resolution or ordinance by changing t h a n ofT)unctuation o r adding a t ,-I or signs of punctuation,

. .

J.,

~

, .'

word "Victory" in ink at the back of a one-peio .bill, zv.3 genuine pre-war treasury certificate "payable t o the &?arer on demand", which has been, however, withdrawn ftom,.. eirculation? h a b y giving to a treasury o r bank note o r any.':, instrument payable to bearer or to order, the appeirance ...: of a true and genuine document. The forgery cons$& in'% . the addition of a word in an effort to give to the one-pe bill the appearance of the true and genuine eertifi that it used t o have before it was withdrawn from cir- .' culation (People vs. Galano, C.A.),.

:T

..MII

,

1025. What crime was committed by a person who wrote the;^^.

i

The -of fa-ava docunent: 1. That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted approved or pending apbrovsl by oilher House of Cane or anv. nrovineial board or munieiaal _ . council. 2.. That the offender a t h e same. .. 3 . That the a

n has ehan;wd the mealline::.

m

.td4 . He has no proner

405

'

th-or.

CRlMINAL LAW REYIEWER . ,... .


1027; A was'in charge of preparing the payroll'in the office - of the governor. .When 'the payroll for the month of March was presented to the governor for signature, he noticed that the name of X . was included as- janitor in . .. ., .that office when X was not employed i n . that office. Instead of signing it, the governor sent the payroll to ,, , . the provincial fiscal for action. For making a false statement in the narration of h c t s in an official decument, the fiscal accused A of falsification. Is ,A liable Why? ..,. . . for falsification? .-:. No, because the payroll was not si@ by the s c o x x g r azd, hence, it was not vet a doumenL .A document .,: .,. , . w&n statement by whicht-a , is established or an ,> .; o a i i o n extinguished. Before it is simed by the QOY.: e m r , the pavr?llpiece of paper. '

'

- '

1029. A protestant ministet altered in the residence Certifi . . issued t o him his age and"tlie date Of h i s birth: liable for~'fa1slsificationcommitfed by an ecclesiastical ' . .' 'ister under the'lash paragraph of"'Art. 171 of t h e R ' 'Penal Code? Explain 'your answer., ' , . No, because the falsificatiori' by an ecclesiasti

$Ii.

1028. What are the different acts of falsification that may ,or be committed on any document? >*.i '. . They are: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signa. . ture o r rubric: f,:, ' 2 . Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not^ in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in . , an act o r proceeding statements other than those i L k L 2i : . ,;.;'.. ,, made b y ; 4 . Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; i .. ;.::I.: ... " 6 . A a n g true dates: or intercalation in a. 6 . Making anyn-a document which c h a d meaning; 7 . Issuina in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document, when no such original exists, or including in such copy statements contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; and 8. Intercalating any instrument e n & relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. I(,<

-

1030. The paymaster in a government office wrotkrthe of one of the janitors of the tiffice on;thk space f signature of that janitor on the payroll, took the of that janitor who was then absent for being ill, and ap the money. What act of falsifica.tion was committed : A? What document was falsified? Why? If there was an attemut or intent tr, imitate the s' ture of the janitor and there were some points of re blance between the signature as written by A and

~~

On the other hand, if ther to imitate the signature of the an attempt o r intent, the forged did not bear sQme resemblance falsification is by causing it to

e

--

v

406

407

I

4 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEE

.

- ’

.. . b

n investigator and soldier of the Philippire Constabulary, while investigating a suspect, typewrote his questions and, after each question, typewrote an answer to the effect that the suspect admitted the commission of the crime, knowing that the suspect did not admit anything, as in fact he! denied having committed the crime. As the 811sd not know how to read, he signed it. Was the investigator guilty of falsification? In the affirmative, what act of falsification did he commit? Yes, .attributing to the suspect who participated in or proceeding statements other than those in fa& made or given by him.

pliance with the requirement of the Manila Police Department, a policeman already appointed, qualified and . , actiig as such, filled in an information sheet called - ,. ... ..“Persoma1 Data”. On the blank space opposite question ,., _ .. . No. 10 therein, which asked if the applicant had previously been convicted of a criminal offense, that policeman - placed “None”. In an investigation later conducted, it ’ was discovered that, contrary to the defendant’s answer to que!qtion NQ. 10, he had a previous conviction of the crime of theft. The prosecution did not point to any law or ordinance imposing upon the policeman the obligation to reveal his previous conviction in filling in the ,personal data sheet. Is the policeman criminally liable? No. The elements of falsification bv making untruthful statements in a narration of facts are: @) there must ? be a &a1 obligation to disclose the truth in the narration of facts; and@) the ae-. Since there i&&auoy ordinance requirinn the accused to reveal h& -IS convictim,s-t n o legal obligation o n h e p a o f the accused to disclose t h a u t h .

I

. , - ?,? .

1@%?.In what cases is the making amf untruthfd.statementh$ in a narration of facts not a punishable act of .faLsifid- ,,. . , ,; ?; tion? In the following cases: 1. When there is no law requiring the making of such statement or the disclosure of certain facts; 2. When there is colorable truth of the statements in a narration of facts. .,., 3. When the person making the narration of facts h&; no knowledge of the falsity of the facts narrated by him:.. 4 . When the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was not made with the wrongful intent of injuring-. a third person.

i

1

. ....,., .’ 1034. A was arrested on June 5, 1957, without warrant of ar- :: rest. He was detained for three days without the police!, filing any complaint with the proper court. The policeman” .

~

’

CRIMINAL LAW REYI.R%ER

!

‘

,

Nota: The narration of facts must he absolutely %e. there i s a colorable trut.h in it, there is no crime ( U S . Bayot),. I

’

If YS.

.

who arrested A, taking advantage of the absence of ‘the’:. clerk in charge of making entry in the blotter, erased the, date of arrest of A in the police blotter .and t h 2 book .. of records of arrest and wrote thereon June 8;’.1957, , t o + make it appear that there was no arbitrary detention. What act of falsification was committed by the policeman and what document w a s falsified? .Is it fdsification committed by a public officer with abuse of his official ’: position? Explain your answer.

Note: Is it a defense that there was no i i

Under Art. 171,

‘Phe perversion of truth in the narration of facts must be made with the wrongfd intent of injuring a third peraon.

409

408

1 .

”~,,~ . , ,$*

.

I

i

I

J CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ntrnded to be protected undex Art. 171 js the, intere2t of,~,the ommunity which is' mainly intended to be' @arantezd hy 'the ', strictest 'faithfulness of tlie dficials charged with ,the, preparation and preservation of acts in which they intervene. And if ha did not take, advantage. 'of' his 'Dfficial position, , who is ,!t bq treated. as 5 private izdividual, ... i. Art. , 1 1 2 : ; p ~ ' 1, of the'Revised Penal Code. .. Und,ef-this pro&sion, damage 01. inteht to eausd damage is not .:,;.. .: ,: ,,,, ..nscessary either,, bearduse what. is punished .under that i y d vision is the violation of the Dublie faith and the nerversm of iha truth which the document ,solemnly proclaim. " ,?rhe'&g a-:'i;lust be m&b.l (People vs. 'Reodiea and ;. ,: . ' Cbhlefo). r.Ei.en:'if ordinarily the d a h 'in 'imrnat8rie. 2 . , , &r&n.of suchh-da was made to conceal a , ' O r i m e ~ ~ ~ e . tho, a c e u s e d A i t B crime, t h a e ;becomes, essential :<,,.. (TG'Belpiea, C.A.) . , 1. , , ; , :

..,. .. ,. .

1087. A, a private individual, prepared - a 'deed of sale wher6 he made a false-statement in t,he narr.ation of facts, makg i n g it appear that he'sold his prwerty to B, when iti truth arid in fact he never sold it. . The, purpose of A W q to put his property beyond. the reach of A's. creditorel The consideration mentioned in the deed of.,+onveym$E was fictitious. 'Later, he asked a notxriry.public to havf it n,otarized, which was done hy 'the notary :public, not ..knoiving the statements contained in ' the dowment . tQ be false. What crime or crimes were. committed 'a$ what document was falsified by A, considering that the .dqcument was prepared.'.by him., as a private,.individ$i and the ,act of falsification. had been conimitted by hlm 1 -:xp before the document was notariized? +A&. . The docume$z A committed other form .o-f .,? sur falsified by A is a 6 u E m T a . ' ,- ? A deed acknowledGd hefore a notarv nublic &a

,

.:

..

.

.

1035. A requested a stenographer in the office of the treasurer ' . tb pay his land tax and gave him P4040:' 'The stenwjrapkei-,

.

6

instekd of payins' the amount ' t o tlte trMsurer"for A, took %lieland tax receCp%"df>his.:father, :.,' erased the name of his father and .wrote,fn its.place the n . . 'name,,of A and gave it to him, representing that it was :~,P~''.'?%# official receipt. What crime was committed by the .> :. . stenographer? The stenographer committed two crimes, namely : (1) , estafa and (2) falsification_af-document, the ' . receipt of his father. The act of falsification committed a itsi S i g a genuine cbcumd which c i%. The falsification w a a m r y t o m i t M a . . The falsification was committed to conceal the crime sf .>, . estafa. - < x s l @ b e malversation, becauJe received the money, not as tax collectpr, but as a private individual. :

,

,,-....spent 'the money;

sented t o the no

~

%-

%

very act constituting the crime 0: (See Art. 316, par. 4 , of the Revised Penal Code.) ,__

-

a

'1036. What i!s the crime committed by a private individual , .. . who.cooperates with a public officer in falsifying a document, the public officer taking advantage of his official : .. . ,

position? A private person who cooperates with a public officer in the-:falsification of a public document W s thesame <..;:,,:., -' ~~:,~.,~..~. >. ,. ., imty.and .penalty as the public officer. (Viada; US. .. , ,,:. vs. Ponte). i . ,i.A,. ..,

Note: In the case of People VS. Tan Diang, the Supreme %o held that when the debtor made fictitious conveyance of hi3 various parcels of real property for the purpose of putth!$ the same beyond the reach of his creditors, and that th tion of the judgment issued realiaed only a small am certain qersonal ro erty of the debtor, the crime iseaudulent (Art. 314, R.P.C.). Under Art. 316. mar. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, i other form of swindlim, - w a-r, shall execute any fictiti It would seem that the proper tion is other form of swindling, etitious and it R:P.C., because the deed of sale ecuted to 'the prejudice' of -mothe

I

d

.

411

4JO

,

,..,,>.:

,, '

1

i

.

.,. , .

i

. .

B i


CRIMINAL LAW HEVIEWER

.

It is believed that notwithstanding the decision in the Casb of Feop'le vs. Tan Diong, the crime Committed is not fraudulent i n s o i v e n c p the reason that the deed of sale was fictitious,. whereas, n fraudulent insolvency, there must be A n actual a& % on*the part of the *e& with his property, w&h presupmses that there is an dctunl transfer rf his nroperty

authorities 01' to its owner found property) should regarded. The two@&gmLes of & fication are present:.& intent Q genuine signature; and m e arc s m e b&mm the nenuine s i g u e

'

't

'

.

f d i m b l e Consideration.

One.

insoIven& ? n d ( o n .

...

..

.

.,. ,.1:

i.

;

;

imws.

,I

,

.

-.1038.What dociument was falsified when the signature of a. . judge was counterfeited on the order of arrest prepared .by a private individual and used the same to cause t h e '~

arrest of the offended party? Why? F m : a t i o n of a 6ublic document) bv a urivate in. ' dividual under Art. 172, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, . .because the order of arrest is a public document, evenif it is simulated or fabricated, s&e the signature of a U er"' ' sLn in ____ authorixy & counterfeit& on the paper w m ... the appearance of anrniIlU)lhL!.fAE@given , ~.

_i I

. .

'

a

1039. A found on the street a booklet with one hlank check . .. ,.of the Philippine National Bank. He detached the hlank

,

_I

check and wrote the word ''cash'' an a blank space after ", the sum of P1,OOO in words the words "Pay to and figures, and signed the signature of the owner of the lost check with intention l o imitate it and with striking siqilarities with it. Then, A used the check in buying B's car. As the check was worthless, B was prejudiced. What act of falsification was committed, what kind of document was falsified, and what crime was committed? Explain your answers. The act of falsificatiw is qountevfeitina the signature 0iAhE.dfO LthLKKY. Y. The djxument falsified is a 6 m m e r c i a l docuZG33 documenQ It is@tafa throunh falsificati ocumenq) (People @?'<,Pined,a, &@Pined,a, I_ * & p:_ :~ i~ ,':_. .., ..,~. . C.A.). Theft ( f a d : ;eker to the loeaL

.

:: +.

-

??-

~

412

::

,'

e-rd d.t-

The document falsified, being a c u k , is by a mercantile law. Hence, it is a

Thq'&&consists ---i e t& falsified check . m A t of the car of the offended party, t pretending to Dossess urouerty (money in the form of,,. c G k ) or defrauding the offer.ded party by means of other similar deceits. The falsification of the check ' w a s n e c e s s a r y m e a G for committing estafa.

1040. When is the falsification of a public, official, or commer-

cial document punished as falsification *by publie officer, ' employee or notary pnblic under Art. 171, and when is it falsification by a private individual under Art: 172, of . the Revised Penal Code? ' When the public officer, employee or notary public c m h d the falsiifica%n ef a document with abuse Qf r, his official osition, it is @%EifiEi€ion uub!i$ under Art. E?o??%%%ed Penal Code. When the public officer, F p l o y e e or pstary public-,:: -f a p b l i c , flicial o r m m e r c i a l document ' ; . w taking advantage of his official i,osition, *when thq'C o-f is a private individual, the crime is punished :$ under Art. 172 and the name of the crime is falsification,; by a private individual. %

m

..A. .>,

1041. A is a public officer whose duty, among others, was to.:; tour the province and to make a report of his observa-1% tion in the different places he would visit. He was y. titled to travellinrr - allowance. The driver of the PU car413

..

"

CRIMINAL LAW IUWIEWER

CHIDIINAL LAW REVIEWER h.,

which he used issued a receipt f o r F25. A erased the figure '$2'and wrote in its place the figure "4". Then A prepared a v d e r for the refund of the amount of p-15 be allegedly paid to the driver and attached thereto the altered receipt issued by the driver. He signed the voucher and submitted it to the provincial auditor for auditing and later to the provincial treasurer for Payment. A was paid the amount of 845. What crime was comniitted by A? Explain your answer. A committed estafa through falsification of . . an official document, because he-EXlBlX& 3 U S &la1 caDacity :-thefalsification vas a necesc;lrdirneans to_ defraud t u v e r n m e n t . ' The receipt, which is a private docu' ' ment. Z e l y a supporting paper to the. voucher. Note: The crime committed is tres,sury under Art. 213 of ==ision requires that the p-qfficer

Is there falsification of private document through rmHe$i imprudence if there is z actu:il damage caused? Sup-' pose that there is actual damage caused?. Explain your,: answers. .. . .". .,. , .: : *: No, b a s e there must be G

e

ai

m m c e i-es

if there is actual damage caused -that becornsimportant. In such case. -ai; of falsification of private document t w h 'e-r p a n e e exists.

-

i ,'

against the pub$ Code, because must enter into

1041. Is there any differeJlce between the use of falsified doci.,: meiit in judicial proceedings and the use of document in transactions or proceedings other 'th cial? Explain your answer. Yes, in the crime of

52-6Z-F .

was paid t o him. Do not eonfuse this question with the case of U.S. vs. Nieto, where the municipal president in preparing the voucher to seek reimbursement of what he paid for the typewriter acted as a p,ri,uute pereon.

In what kind of falsification is damage to a third person .-::1042. ..

._.:

,

~

,

, ',

-

g

carbon copy of the receipt, by,making it appear amount paid by that customer was only P300, the difference of P200 and turned over to the

or at least intent to cause such damage an essential element? .. ts, damage a at hfalwflcation of least intent t,o cause damage on the nart of the Offender is a_n indispensable &?LlL nt. If there ism d a s e caused to another or at least an intent to cause damage, a r e .~~ ~.~~ _.-

of falsijiieatior, showing the intent to cause damage. Thus, if the person who falsified the receipt. showed 't t o other persons to prove his claim that he already paid hls i;daebt . to X, the intent to e s u ~ edamage is present. ~

__I

.

.

.. fication 'of private document, b m e

'

'I

3,

...

, , "'


-

,.

CRlMINAb ,LAW REVIEWER,

,win

...

the commission a ~ t a ef- ia &Q cautled by'the falsificativn of the private d w t .

-be

~

..

..,.. *

-. I

....

.

..

.,

~~

In a complex crime, each of the crimes forming i t must be -complete in'itself, that is, it can stand alone as a distinct crime. They form a complex crime, because both or all the mimes are the result of one single act, o r that one a some af them . ere necessary means to commit the other or others. Th d d a m a g e or intent t o cause dam&! e, wh&is the crime 03 estafa and that of falsi ment, cannot he considered aa-xeaeut a t the both &&B. Bgse, o m t e considered in Ialsifieati n i m . The falsification of a private docu. ment is &a crime umJ&%there is d a m s o r at le.%&Wm* to cause damage. Hence, it cannot stand +a 8 distinct criine, ' if there is d-amage to consider. Such being the ease, i t cannot form a complex crime with estafa or he a crime separate and distinct from that of estafa.

,>

Note:

When the offender has t u t the money or proporty crime committed is falsification When the offender had in

t o falsil7 a pri\.ate document from the offended party, the of B private document only. his possession the money or

, (

: ,

1048. ,A found a check for,.PSOO, payable?

s G

1046. A, an employee of a prLvate company, was in charge ,. of preparing the payroll and paying the wages of the inborers of that company. He put there names of laborers who did not work and placed opposite their names amounts conresponding to their supposed wages for the month. Then the payroll was presented to the cashier who gave ' A ithe necessary amount to cover all the wages of the . . laborers, including those who did not work. He pocketed the wages for the laborers who did not work. What crime was committed by A? Falsification of private document (People vs. Reyes).

. ,,It is consumma.ted felony,, because aLe is_ sufficient in ,falsification af Actual damage to the offended party

I

II 1

~

took i t with him to the bankj cOnn of B on the dorsal side of the check, the1eby.m appear .that it was endorsed ' by- B, What crime was committed by A.? In a similar case, the Supreme Court.of :Spain held ' ' that the crime committed was theft, becaus'e. finding'the which is a lost property'\jithout returning' it . check its owner or turning i t over to the proper author ' ' theft: and the falsification aud.e&hing of' tlie:ch'ec ' ' bui the continuation of the crime of t k f t already c mitted. 'But t h e ' ' crime of estafa t m n t . This is the " of Appeals. T a k d m e ,

.

/ .

,.

~ , . .,.-;,,,..-,:

,

1049. A entrusted to B a Torr&&, ,title covering ? pare i.' land 'for' safekeeping: Later, B" falsificc 'a' deed "of covering the property described in the.'said 'ToFiens and counterfeited the signituse 6f the owner "Of " Torrens title. ,Then, he sold the liand .ani3 delivered ' Torrens title and deed of SaIe to the' purchker. deed of sale was notarized at the instance of B. ' . receiving the proceeds of sale, he s:pent the .&e for . 0wn benefit. What crime was 'comriiifted by,,?? Expl vour answer. ,> B committedL@afa through fald'u 'z x h' t . . o f a uut& He committed e&fa y&h a h u e of 'xmtldeue, :'yj because the Torrens title was entrusted to him for safe- . i keeping and his subsequent act resulting i n the'misappropriation of the property covered by the Torrens title corn- ,i3 pleted the, commission. of the crime. He committed also:' . , , ~., the crime of 'falsification, because he counterfeited in t@e.; deed o f sale the signature :of the, owner of. the. Torrens'? ~

I

I

~~~~~

~

-t______

,;e,

24

,;:

1047. Suppose that when a private document was presented to

.

- , .

,

defraud another the falsification was discovered, is it attempted, frustrated or consummated feIony7

. i

416

417

CRIMINAL '

.

LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW' REVIEWER

p)the

title. But the falsification was a necessary means for '

committing the crime of estafa.

.,

,

.

,

. .

,

.,

.

.,

fidenee. He & d only the m m a S e x % ' D of the invoices. H e t-d have the juridical oossession of the same, because his possession of the invoice is, in law, the poamrsion of the company.

1051. When is the uger of falsified document deemed the author of the f m i c a t i o n i When the following two m a r e present: B q w h e n t u s e was so cbselv connected i n m e f alsification: and w&fihp

418

of falsifying the docu-

Ilkzstvation: Thus, when the blank check was atolen 0before the falsified check, made on wid blank check, was p m sented for payment, and the person who presented it was BTL employee in the office where the blank cheek was stolen, the two requisites are present.

1050. A bookkeeper of a company, in connivance with its cnstomer B, while recording the account of the latter, did not record some of the invoices of the said customer. Later, A sold the invoices to B for half their respective values. What crime was Committed by the bookkeeper? The bookkeeper committed the crime of falsificatio> ofarivate document by omission when he did not record some of the invoices in the record of the account of B. The falsification by omission in effect constitutes the making o f untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The selling of invoices to the customer for half their respective values does not constitute a separate and distinct offense, because it is merely evidence of damage to the company, which is an element of falsification of a private document. However, if the record of the account of B is a commercial document, defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other mercantile law, the bookkeeper is liable for two distinct and separate crimes, namely, (1) qualified theft 'of the invoices which he sold to B:'%nd (2) falsification of a commercial document which was committed t o conceal the crime of qualified theft. The falsification was not necessary to commit the qualified theft, because the bookkeeper had in his possession the invoices stolen. Note: The selling of the invoices is qualified theft, because the baokkemer toak the invoices with grave abuse of Con-

u s 9 i a d the ca-

ment.

~

1052. A, a private person and not enlp~loyedin any office, sent a telegram to B who was then in Mindanao, stating in the telegram that the latter's fat.her was dead and that he had to come home to Manila. B came home, incurring expenses for his trip, only to find out that his father was very much alive and in good health. Is A liable,for falsifying telegraph message? Explain your answer. No, because he is nei$her a public officer or employee nor an officer or employee of a private corporation= gaged in the service of s e n d i n g s receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone message. The falsification of, or the uttering of fictitious w i r e ess, telegraph or telephone messages can be committed only by an officer or employee of the Government.or of any private corporation engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone messages (Art. 173, R.P.C.). But A is liable as a princiual bv inducement -e -. c&Ee of f a m o n nf telenrauh message.

f

\

a crime: in connection with false wireless, I!able, telegraph or' telephane messages? When he knowingly u m such falsified dispatch prejudice of a third party, &r atle;l& with intent ot-e such prejudice (Art. 173, par. 2, B.P.C.).

1053. In what cases may a private person commit

1064. A was applying f o r a job in a oompany.

The m required A to submit a certificate from his forme ployer regarding his length of service in his :fo ployment and efficiency as an employee. .A -eo

419


CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWIm

.., &., :

present any, a s he was never employed, befare. 'To impress the manager of the company, A typewrote a. certificate .+ .. , . purportedly issued by the administrative .officer of an , ,,.., ,.,office .of the executive department of. the Government, 1 *-. .)..stating therein that A was .a former ,ehaploYee of that department ' and very efficient and t h a t 'he intended to resign to look for a n employmen( with a bigger salary. A ,coumterfeited ,$e signature of the administrative officer . on thi? certificate and later presented it t o the manager .,,. . of the: Company. What crime was committed by A? A committed the crime of f a l s i f i c a b of certificate pf (Art. 174, R.P.C.), ..,. .. . . merit by a private indi.&W -.

'.

ti....

-

I

.- . . ,. .

,.,-.:

Note: The last paragraphiof Art. 174 p n i s h e s a ptivate,person who falsifies a certificate of merit, .or. service. The of the sam-punished under Art. 175.

1055. Suppose that it was the 'administrative officer:.who .. , issued . it; what' crime was committed? Tlle,, administrative officer committed the crime of '. f - " ' f&&.tinn of esrtificate af-mer it bv a ollblicdfficer. - . ;. , , f.

iO56.' A l i v i l complaint was filed by A'against 'B'for damages, -j,:oli account of the serious phpsical iniuries which the I , .., , latter infIicted upon the 'former. A induced C,,,l$s physician, t o sign a certificate to the effect that 'he treated *..:.' A, 'chiargeil and received Prom hlm the sum of P500 z e his fee, but. the fact is that C received 'only PZOO in full payment of his fee. What crime was rommitted by the *?* ohvsician? 1s..it falsification -of m e d i d tettificate"By , . .,'. 'a 'physician? ' Why? falsificlG b i f i c a t i o n of private documen3 'It .is *,i '. t&xn,,o w l e , b a s e the- Zertificate hi:.. ,to,the illness o r - injury nf -a':person. I n ' does mt '

.,.)

I

..

'

s'

-,.

, .,., ,:

.., .

falsification of medical certificate, the false facCs certified must refer t d e illness or injury qf a m n (Art. 174, i I : . , ~, : ., -R.P.(S.). ' .I. 'Note: When person, ''&a I;hys:kii?, -f?lsifi$d::'i. medical emrtificate, the crime' is 'falsification :of -rned&LCW&& .,..

420

.

.

7

;

P,;:,:-':r-,:,

.-

ay

1057.. What are .the crimes classified as ,&her falsities? . .. ' ' .They are: 1. Usurpation of authority or official functions. 2. Using fictitious name and concealing true 'name. 3. Illegal use of uniforms or 'insignia. 4. False testimony against a defendant. 5. False testimony favorable to the defendant. 6. false testimony in civil. cases. 7 . ' False testimony in other cam3 and .perjury. 8. Offering false testimony in evidence; ' , . , , . . , . . . ,. , . 1058,.May a pnhlic officer commit usnrp:ttion of authority or official functions? Why? Yes, because the law (Art. 177, R.P.C.) applies,$%. "any,person". T W s no reason to restrict its OD=tL~T&iyafL%ilwh 1. I

,

'

1059. -The .mayor of the town, although tho .justice of the peace was in the municipality, :conducted 'preliminary 'examination .and ordered the arrest of the offender. Is the mayor liable for Usurpation of official functions, of the. justice of the' peace? Explain your answer. No, because the act is specifically covered by Art. 241 ~' of the 'Revised Pe&L&&e, ~v@h punishes any o f f i a o-xecutive bran Ch ,of t h P G n v e m r & who assume% , , , ,' judicial uowera, . . . , . .

1060: An. employee in the Bureau of, Public Works exercised the powers of his Director wheu the latter was sick, without having been designated as Acting Director, and, without any right to do so. What crime was committedj; by that employee? -' That- employee committed usurpation of authority OG, official functions, because under pretense o f official posi-"' tion he performed acts pectaining t o . the Director without being lawfully entitled. to do, s o . (Art. 177, R.P.C.). -

,

1061. .A, a . private individual, pretended to be a detectiw' of the M.P.D. and succeeded in secoring- the consent 'of

42 1

CHIXINAL LAW REVIEWER


the owner of a house to enter the same, because of his false representation that he would make an investigation. Once inside, and taking advantaxe of the fact that tho owner went to his bedroom to changd clothes, A h l r from a table a purse containing money and left. In addition to whatever other crime he nommitted, did A commit usurpation of authority? No, because pretending the exercise of public authority was made by A to gain entrance into the house of the offended party to commit robbers with f o w unan_thingn in that house. Since it is a n e n t of the offense of robbery, the cfime of usoroation of authority is deemed a&rM

1062. In nsulrpation of authority or official function, is it neceszry for the offender to perform a public functicn

:,.

:

.

in the Government o r in any of its branches? If he already knowingly and falsely represented himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or Of any foreign government, it is not necessary to perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer. He is already guilty of usurpation of authority. But if, in addition to pretense of official position which he made, he also performed any act pertsining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, he is guilty of usurpation of official functions.

:. 1063. Republic Act No. 10 punishes any person who, with or . without pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to the Government, or to any person in authority or public officer, without being lawfully entitled to (lo so. To whom is it applicable? Republic Act No. 1 0 is applicable only to members of , . seditious organization engaged in subversive activities.

.

~.'3064. ,t;. , .I .., ,.

:,

Is 1,he use of a name other than one's real name dways pundshable?

No, it is notpunishable(1) When used as a @nym

or (2) When a fictitious name is nqtnsed (3) When the purpose is conceal a crim to evade the execution of a judg:ment, or not to damage to public interest, or (4) ,When the use of fictitious name is an -ent o a particular felony, as it is absorbed. Thus, in estafa or in robbery where fictitious name is used to commit the crime, 80 that it is an integral part of the commission of the offense, it is not t o be considered a separate and distinct offense. Also, when fictitious came is included in the false statement in the narration of facts, i t is considered pa of the crime of falsification.

&&

Elemext8 of using fictitious E r n e : 1. The offender uses n name oLhor than his real n F e . 2 . He uses that fictitious name publicly. 3. For the purpace ofconcealing a crime; b. evading the execution of 2t judgment; or e . causing damage.

=.

,,.

'!

C that he was B and signed B's name. on a deed of sale of a ]piece of land belonging, : to B and, after receiving thc proceeds of the sale C, the vendee, A spent the same. Is A liable for fictitious name? Explain your answer. While it is true that A publicly used a name other t his real name when he represented himself as B on public document, with the purpose of causing &ma because the to B, A is*liable, the law (Art. 178) is said to be terest. Since the act of A re -. private interest of B, the crime commit means of deceit. And having f & i e d a as a necessary niea,ns to commit

1065. A represented himself to

i

422

~'

423

I

I

I

CRIM~NKL'LAW REVIEWER

CIElMINAL- LAW. REVIEWER 1

--

c&&e of estafa through falsification d f a public , document, by causing i t to appear that B'pahicipated in a n act or proceeding when in truth and in fact he did , . not so participate.

.1066. ..

. . Give an illustration of publicly using a fictitious name to conceal a crime; and an illustration, to evade the execution of a judgment. ,,.,,. , When A, who looks like B, a prisoner by final judg-

2,,

'

I,

. ,,

' '

ment, takes the place of the latter in the jail. A hae l o 'use the name of B, and B has to use the name of A ; other wise, the authorities will discover that one takes the place of the other. The purpose of A is to conceal the crime he has committed, that is, delivering a prisoner , ' . from jail. The purpose of B is to evade the execution ' ' bf the judgment against him, that is, to evade the service ' of the penalty imposed on him by the court. ' .I

1067:-A w : arrested ~ for playing a gamb1ing:game. A gave the name of B,for himself, stated he wag married, which was true; gave his real residence, real 'occupation, and correct age. Is A liable for concealing 'true name? No. He must &o 1-c his other aersonal circnms&,g. He must n a n l y conceal his true name, &l : _. 5''. a i all his other personal circumstances. .

.

:What crime. is committed. by a lieutenant who used the 'insignia ,of the captain of the Philippine Army? W h y ? 2 .

'

:! -.

, 8

Illegal use of i-because the lieutenant u m ni&& which aertaiw to an office no$..&ld by him (Art. 179, R.P.C.).

1069. What crime is committed by a constabulary soldier who . used the uniform of the policeman of the Manila Police Department? Why? because the constabulary soldier j,w&fihe is not m member (Art. ,170,R.P.0.). 494

'

;

'

. ,

,:,, ~,

Note: The insignia or uniform must beluaod nublidy'and ikinsignia o r uniform tahould not be that of an . -P,maginary The office. .,'.

.

1070. What are the three forms of false testimony? They are : 1. False testimony in criminal cases. 2. False testimony in civil c a s e ! ,.,, 3'. False testimony in other cases.

,. I.

"I

~.,

1071. The evidence presented against A ;shows that.dur&g the .: preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal, A tes-.":.' tified under oath that he saw B stab C who was k i l l e l as a result. n% he' the' case was tried before the Court of First Instance, A changed his.' testimony by testifying ;'' then and there that he did not 3ee B at the.~piacewhere -'. C was killed, and that C was killed b y an unknown 'person.. :! Can A be 'Convikted of false testimony on the basis of ,. the foregoing facts? ' ' No, the -1 must' determific"'~fY& wllich of the W contradictory testimonies If the testimony given by A before the fiscal is false, it being a testimony upon : a material matter, under oath before a competent artthorized l o receive and administer' oath, and the requiring the giving of that testimony, it-istestimony of A was upon a material matter;.-becaudg, death of C and the person who caused his death were' main facts which were the subject of"th& 'itiquiry; fiscal before whom 'A gave his testimony' wag a.,compe authorized to receive p,nd, administer oath; ( officer . waa a willful and deliberate assertion of falseho cause A knew. his testimony before therfiscal was false; and under the law, the person giving evidence-ortestimony-; 4 relative to the subject of the inquiry -by the fiscal must , . ' do so uiider oath (Art. 183, R.P.C.). If i t is the testimony of.A before.the .court which is .: .false, then the cri qf the defendant

.-

425

CRIMINAL LAW HEVIE'WER


,1072. What are the two wvnvSof committingIllustrate each. y.' By testifvine falsely u u k . c d k in a proceeding o e r than judicial. (a) False testimony &re any committee of'conwess; (b) False testimoFy before a y adrninSrativ+-&&Y ...,. ,., , a-a t-&r a hearing. Example: B, C , D and E testified under oath before . . . the board of special inquiry in support of the applicair tion of three Chinese boys to enter the Philippines, declaring that said boys were the children of A: and that they were born in Manila. During the investiga' , 'tion, A testified that the three boys were not her children. B, C, D and E are guilty of perjury by testify- ' ~ " ing falsely under oath. By making an affidavit. (a) In a9liaction for marriage license. (b) In @lieation for civil service examination. ( c ) f p p w g s , re&ing that a f & h i t s be attached thereto. Ezantple: In his application for civil service examination, which is under oath, A stated that he wa8 not convicted of any crime, when in truth and in fact he was once convicted of theft.

false testimony under oath or who executed the false afiidavit is I &liable for perjury. Perjury m t be committed t l m u 'I negligDFee, one of its elements is that there must he a willful and d assertion of falsehood.

,',:::

I

.

' '

:

-

4::

@iof

P)BViUWi

k.There must he state-

oa h a x affidavit won a-material matter: 4. Before a competent officer, authorized U v e and administer oath; b x E - 4 W i l f u l n d deliberate assertion of a false& g M r ; and That the sworn statement containing the ralaity i u &ired by law. Note: The false testimony under oath or the affidavit must. ~ i k t ac material matter; if it ildaes not refer to B material matter. the false testimony under oath or the false affidavit cannot xive rise to perjury. , There must be a w v n d deliberate assertion @.&%,&, ,,. If there is an bonest mistake, the person who BaVe a

4.

,

~

!,&.

1073. To hold a person liable for perjury, must there be a law requiring that a testimony under oath or an affidavit be made in certain cases? This is not a settled question. The meaning of the phrase (in Art. 183), which is, "in cases in which the'; law so requires" has been the subject of different interpretations by the Supreme Court (People vs; Tupasi, et' al.; and People vs. Angangco). In the Tupasi ease, it: was held that there must be a law requiring a statement ,: under oath or an affidavit upon a. material matter to be made in a particular case. I n the Angangco case, it 'w" held that i t is sufficient that the siatement be made under oath or an affidavit be made to serve a legal purpose, such as to be assured of the veracity of the witness who testifies. It is submitted that there must be. a law reauirina it. This interpretation must Drevdl, hecause such s t m k p m i m ? m d .

1074. Under the old Penal Code, a person who would procure another t o testify falsely would be liable for subornation of perjury, if the latter would testify in a manner, making him liable for perjury. What does the Revised Penal Code provide for such act? Give an example of subornation of perjury. The Revised Penal Code treats and punishes such act as plain perjury, the person who procures the false witness as the principal by induction; and the false witness, the principal by direct participation. . Example; A induced B and C to testify falsely in a'preliminary investigation that A's servant who left his house without his knowledge took with him some clothes and,

,T

427

CKIMENAL LAW REVIEWBR

CRIMINAL. LAW REVIEWER

when. as a matter of fact the servant did not n proptake anything with him, except his o ~ personal erty. B and C testified falsely under Uath before t h e 'fiscal that the servant stole^ some ,clothesbnd money belonging to A. A was guilty of the crime fonnerly . . known ,as ,subornation of perjury. Under,Jie, Revise$. Penal Code, A is liable for perjury as a' q$$pal ,,. by^ induction. .P money,

..

'

the crime'af offei*inc false testimony m

,

or official proceeding.

.

1076. A procured

I) to testify in his favor, their agreement being that I3 would testify that he was present when A. " ' paid his debt to'C, which was not true. Dur&g the trial,. ,.. ' . when A presented B, a s his witness, the lader told t h e . . . t r u t h ' t h a t ' he had no' knowledge of any payment made ' by A t o C; and th& he waS requested by A to testify ".' blsely. Is A liable criminally for having presented B ; .I as a' witness? Has B any criminal liability for taking ., . the witness stand? Explain your answers. When A, presented B as' his witness, he knew that his said witness was false, because the latter agreed with him to testify :falsely. Under, the Revised Penal Code (Art. 184), t M m e offer of a witness knowins him t a -.false wit&-% i= consummated felolly. It ,would Seem that it is not necessary that the witness offerkd should testify in .a manner making him liable for false testi. . mony, because this is covered by Art.,l7, par, %,in rela,. tion to Art. 182. A s regards, B, i t is submitted that he is also liable, because B and A were in conspiracy. ' From the facts of ' w e , it will be noted that A and E had a previous .: agreement __ and both af-them decided to carry Gut th& &,,ag indicated by the f a t t u presented him a u :, . ' W M s s Lnd B took the witness stand pursuant to their ' agreement. Since there is conspiracy, the act 'of A is consi.dered the act Of'B. ' It is true that B told tkk tr& and did n e testify in the manner he was told to testify, ';a%but such'desistance on the part of B, having been made ', 1-a the acts of ' hae..hen ppsfanned, w & not in. any way relieve him of criminal resuonsibility. In .:,,

, .

.,

.

'

e (Art.

-

, ,,

c

184), a +the acts of execution are'.Derbollged. * u ~ h e , . -mere offer ,of a false witness 5,tes:timony . ' 'a1

' '

.

'

Note: This ctime is also committed when.the offender offered in evidence a false witness o r .false teutimony in an official proceeding. This is not a crime formerly known. 8 s Subornation 09 perjury, because under Art. 184. it is not necessary that the witness offered should testify falsely !n B manmr making him liable for perjurv. "~ If the offender knowingly offered in evidencc false doeuest in a judicial or official proceedinz, the crime is' not covered by Art. 184, but should be^ punished under;the last .paragraph of Art. 112. , . The false teatimony may be offered without the witness by preienting his swposed deposition in court' or othkf official .. proceeding. ..

.

1076. A i s a retailer of certain goods imported from a foreign Colintfy by B. Tilting advantage of the Scarcity of that kind of imported goods, B and A agreed'to fix highep prices ,for the goods ,which A purcha.sed from him and A. .in turwwould resell the same goomds a t much .higher prices, ,thereby increasing the market price of such goods. Are A and B liable under the Revised Penal Code? If eo, what crime was committed by them?. . ... - ' . Yes. The Revised Penal,' Code punishes -any ,' person who, being an imuorter .of merchirnrWisewholesaler , n,r t s e r ' s h a l l a x r a in any manner w i - t t W . ' o t h e r . uersop f o r the uuruose of increasing the nprket price- of m -i ' & g (Art. 186, pa?. 3, R,P.C.). ' : ! ' ' . . .

The crime committed i s ~ o a o l vand :. G 5 0O i' trade ~!.' , : .~ . , . ., ,.. , . , , j . . ,*. 1077. A, B and C executed a Ijnblic documknt wh;ch:embodiea their".ngreement .,to the. effect t h a i mrtain .merchandise would .be sold at certain price .and .no$+one of ..them shall : , .. sell &is merchandise at,--lesserprke:without thwprevioukl ... ,,,consent of ,.the athexs, .The agreement.. xas.,not:::~carn$ .out, because they were..arrested, , @m,thep .be$held, .crim-3 , '>f F

I

I

+:

I

429,


i n d y liable under the Revised Penal Code on the basis OF ,,': : that agreement? Explain your answer. .~, '. , . Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who . shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take? part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a " trust or otherwise in restraint of trade or commerce o r ' ' to 'prevent by artificial means free competition in the ' ' market is liable for monopolies and combination in restraint of trade (Art. 186, par. 1, R.P.C.). ' ,

"

:

. . 1078. A, a millionaire, invited all lumber concessioners and of.

,

fer& them certain price plus a share in the profits if dl of them wwld sell their lumber to him only. A's purpose was t o conitrol the price of lumber sold locally or exported to foreign countries. The lumber concessioners refused , and,.rejected the offer. May A be held criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code for his attempt to mono':,.polize the sale and exportation of lumber? Explain your . . your answer. No, be,cause in monopolies and combinations in re' straint of trade, it is necessary that the offender &@ . -combine with any other person or persons to monoDo&e , ' a particular merchandise or object of commerce, !y&& n presupposq that there Should. b_e an acre.,.-"-.' .i, two or m r e aersons to accomalish $he uuraogO. The . .Re' 'vised Penal Code-e& or CoDlbdWn. But in this case, since the proposal of A was rejected by the lumber concessioners, there was no meeting of the mind between him and the lumber concessioners and, there^'fore; there is not even a conspiracy. '

"

'

Illustrate monopoly by spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice. .. Spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice to restrain free competition in the m a r h t is illusted in the case of U.S. vs. Fulgueras. i n that case, .'accused went about distributing papers and prochmas to .the people of a certain town, spreadink suhvewive . .

*

.

430


and fanatical ideas that unless they lower the prices' of needful commodities they would be viziited by flood and other calamities. As a result, the people lowered the prices of their commodities and used inrjtruments of measure larger than the regular size.

1080, When is the pussession, preparation, administration or otherwise using any prohibited drug punishable? When the possession, preparation, administration or the use of any prohibited drug is n e i s u l l y authorized. ,. , . : 1081. What requisites must he present in order that a persohi. may be convicted of illegal possession of opium? They are: tl?_eoccupancy or taking and:&&tent to possess the substance shown to be opiLm.

..

Note: The second reqiiisite is lacking .in. the case of . a wife who was told by her husband to got from beneath.-a pillow B can which contained opium and, after having tnken it-therefrom, attempted to throw it away when the policeman was searching for opium in their house. She was caught by.tha policeman wliilc in the act of throwing it away. I t was held that she had no intent to possess opium.

1082. A policeman found in the possesion of the accused a bottle containing opium in very slight quantity. The ,accused: claimed that he purchased them 6 months' prior ,:tb h is arrest,' because the state lof ..his health. necessitated his frequent use of the same. Is the accused criminally liable? The law penalizes the mere possession of opium by unauthorized person without regard to the quantity. If the state of his health really required the pills there must be a prescription of a physician therefor. Note: P-=ion of Datent medicine q w , the possessor k m that it contains wium, i s also punished by -cause the term "oDium" includes vrenarntians, b-&isb opium or morDhine e m ag an inzredieat.

1083. Two ,policemen, armed with a search warrant t o 'search for opium in the house of X, found under his bed a can

451

,/"

CRIMINAL L.4.W REYIEWER, .:,

:,. . I I

".,, which,.wa.s, empty;: but. there, .were ,traces . g f , . . ~ i j s ~ j ~an ~ing i opium .container. Can, X be .held-liable,for illeg&posses:

1087: The policemen also charge those found smoking opium h~'. that place with the crime of knowingly visiting an opium. dive. Do the policemen properly charge them? No. Only those "g&being included in the provisions of the next preceding article," which p& possessing

i

,; 'i. , , sion ,sf ,opium?:. Why?,. 1 b ? s l s e the law r d a e s n o t . ~ ~ ' p ' a ~ ~ ~ i i ~ s s s e s s i o n , 1 but present nasi%&' (U.S. vs. Tang Seng Ki). '

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER.

~

a

prohibited d n g , can be chmred with'knnwingly visiting an opium dive o r resort (Art. 191, par. 2, R.P.C.). 1:';

or -u

l.1

1

088. A w& in the house of B while the latter was smoking opium. A and B were then in the same room. Is A Liable criminally? Explain.

....,

.

liable..for illegal possession of-opium?

, ,

No, because it does-not aunear that the house o f B , w E a n opinm dive-rt. To be li&l,e for visitina a house where r-a is smolcinir opium, the & e must be shown to be an opium dive or re@.

. '

/ -

:

sion. , . . A is the owner o f a- 'house 'where Chinese sinoke opium, and f u r smoking opium in that house each Chinese would pay 1'12.00 t o A fhroq$i B' who is in charge of the place. B ilways'remains a e,door. That huuse"is well known a e s t s were' ma8e before in the .F' ' '.'to the & x m e n , place of 9ersons for smoking opium.. , are A and,:B crim, ., . , , .. . iually liable? . , m f an onium dive. B is a m ,...

,.

i

-

'

per bf o m - r c c ,m , r t : (Arts. 190, 7 , R.P.C.)., , .. , , , \ ' ..~

"i

e found'-in that house by.'tlie 'policemen 'the place: X, Y and 2 are'. just sitting er 'Chinese' are smolcing opium. They fail ~

regencf there.

'

What ~. crime .is committed

are !gdlty of the erirne of. knowinglp. ' v i m -'(Art. 191, par. 2, R.P.C.). . -

432

1089; A, who 'was a member o€ the crew o€ a foreign steamer which arrived in Manila from Kongkong, bfought with ,, /' him several cans of opium. The opium was never landed from t h e vessel. He was arrested. R e confessed that the opium belonged to him but would nut state his purpose in having in his possession the opium. There was nu evidence to show that his intention was t u import illexally the opium into the Philippines. For what crime may A be prosecuted and ,punislied? If the steamer hadManila a-ort of d estination, - t i s illegal imQortation of opium. The terms "import" and "bring" are synonymous. Importation -d 're - e the goods at the customhouse, b m e l y hr&$C~ t&m inta wort. K t would be absurd to think that A was merely carrying opium back and forth and a foreign country. No better exthe logical deduction is that A be brought into t h e Philippines. There illegal importation. But if the steamer was not makinx Manila a$ its n a t of destination, then there i s m r i m e Mere possession ' of opium in such case is He, because it does

T

J

433

: ,,


CRIMINAI, LAW REVIEWER .,

which it is found is a foreign vessel.

Note: In fact, if he was actually smoking opium, it would be tho a w r i m e for which he can be prosecuted. The possession .of the pipe would n n t he a s m t L c r i m e . Even if together with t h e opium paraphernalia a quantity of opium was found in the same place at the same time and by the same detective or policeman, there should be w s i m c only.

ful or that the list is in no way connected with %e ., . jueteng game. u t if the ~uetenglist bears a date or is otherwise / shown " . to have been used a t a time different from that / / when the game of jzieteny was played, tberemustbe evidence of its connection with the game of jueteng that has taken place or is about to take place. 1095. A group of persons were surprised by several policemen

playing monte. Cards for playing monte, tallx-sl1eets and lead pencils were found on the table, but no money W a s used as bet in the game. Are those 'person3 criminally liabletifor gambling.? . ,

. ,:e

When may a physician or denList be held criniinalb liable for preseribing opium for his patient? When the physical condition of the uatient dls.ot require the use of opium (Art. 194, R.P.C.).

-

What -si It is a 01' scheme the result of which wholly o r a l y upon chance .or. hazard.

-

(US.vs. Rafael): .

. . I ,

*.

deDends 1096.

Are spectators liable for gambling?

Why? No, becjuse a speetator does not take Dart directzw o r .%!&#*J:. . ' indzctly i n . gambling. T h e w punishes "any person y: .."'.tvho, in any rnawr, s h a dIY or i n d i r e take uart .' y~ ,,. . . i w a m b l i n g game. L . . i " . ~

1

4. .Must the Drosecution wove that the iuetenz list is conjueteng wW&has taken place or ectea wi& a game &ut Ito :take, place?

ai

434

.

I.,,...

Art.. 193, par. 2, provides that "the illegal possession of an opium pipe or other paraphernalia for using arty athei prohibited drug shall be prima facie evidence that its possessor has used said drug." Does this provision authorize the prosecution of a person for smoking opium, if he is found in pos+ession of opium paraphernalia, even if no opium 'was found in his possession? No. That provision merely a presumption that the sor other psraphernalia found in the nuia?&m of the accused are for the use of, or have b e a o -,r any prohibited d r u q

-

%

No. I n the nature of things, B jxeiew list 'nat..rag& pertains to a game of iueteng and that the actus<$ %oil@ , , n o t keep it in his possession but for its connection .Wi@ game of jueteng. The burden of the evidence .is .$'$hzh .,, .* ' ->,.' shift2 to the accused to show that his possession.is law-

pot involve a breach of Dublic order and the steamer o n

<

I

I I

,


CKIXINAL LAW REVIEWEll

1097. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code pun:' nishing the crimes pertaining to lottery? Art. 185, par. (a) punishinc lottgy as a gasle9f I .; chance. ~. . ' , €'amgraph (c) of Art. 196 punishps D ~ S S ~'011 S Sbf-lnir ~ a t w 'w Q O . J is in any , m a n n x u u the game of iueteng. Art. 196 importation, selling or distribution, k 9 . Q n*ce with the i m r , of lottery tick&; mere possession w m of lottery tickets; and selling or distributing the same without connivance with the importer.

-

.,

.+

1098. May a person be held liable for betting in games the result of which does not depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard? Yes. In betting in sports conkiib. &uy person Who shall bet -money or any objest el-o o m e g2Qn t . u l t of boxing & other sport contest i&&$& fpr betting in mort contest.

L

.1

1099. A policeman saw a man and a woman 27 below the wall facing the sea at t h e Luneta. below the wall is not visible to the publie. was pcrforniing acts of lasciviousness on the . the woman, with her consent. Are they liable

I

'

'

&Qmkll? a s , because the act, a highly scandalous conduct w a h w d d o&d ag2inst decency or good customs (Art. 200, R.P.C.),was committed in a public dace. It is not re&d that the act be committed also within the knowle&e - IC o blic, m as circumstances are

stated by the Supreme Court in the alternative, being senarated .bv_ the word "or". :',..,. .. N o t e : The.i,mportant n l e m et~ of the offense of @ve scandaD is, that the i c t & complained of be committed in a W place or mithz the SiGnicso). ;

1101. In a gathering where there were many people, A advocat-. ed the practice of birth control. Did A commit any crime punishable by the Revised Pena.1 Code? If so, what crime? Yes. A committed the crime -of
or view of the public (U.S.

78.

1102. What is the Lest to determine whether or not a picture of a naked woman is obscene? The proaer test is whether the n>ut.&e L t h d G h re, L as indi't, i m arimpure; OJ whether it is naturally r&ul&d k e x w' ' e imqllr.ns-

/

,/

yea+s old The place The man person of for WIXS

1100. Suppose that the woman w a s m e a s old and the man was her teacher, what would be the crime? Why? The man would be liable f o r m € l a s c l v ~ o u s n e ~ ~ the consent of the offended party, grave scandal, when the high& ' cause the latter crime is committed scandalous conduct is &expressly falling Within any other articl? of the Revised Penal Code. -----------

err

-

'

. / .

1

N o t e : As regards immnral acts or shows exhibited in theaters by d a n c e t s - t h a t is the lustful .rei& d l h L U l %e.

p h 3 . Is lack of visible means of s u u p s t an indispensable. element in vagrancy? No. Only in two cases is lack of visible means of sui5fGrt an indispensable element of vagrancy. ! 1. First caseL (a) The person has the physical ability t o o r k ; ( b ) He neglects t m himself to some lawful CalliB;

I

(c) He b 2.

i

.

S

~

C

m aDarent meanSof subsistence.

case: O ~

(a) The person is found about public or semi-public buildings or places or tramping or wandering about the country or the ,street& ., (b) Without visible means o f support. 437

I

I I

,i

CRUIINAL IAIV REVIEWER


1104, Suppose that B who has a pension or income from rents . .

'

'

\ .:

.

of his property and has nothing to do, finds pleasure and spends his time in the house of 'prostitution, is he a vagrant? Yes, because any idle or dissolutn nerson who lodxes in houses of ill-fame is also a vagrant. This 'is true, e m if he has a visible means of support.

-

loitering in the yard of the house of B, at late hour of the night. He could not explain his presence there. A is a man of moderate means with a good job. What crime, if any, did A commit? V m '. A person is also a vagrant if he be.fyyd oitering -i inhabited or u n i n h a h i t d & X 2 belonping a n o t l r w or iustifiab!c purpose. He is liable, e d f he has a good iab.

are the crimes classified. .under office? 5

The crimes which are classified under malfeasanc.nce,m office are: 1. Direct bribery, and /'2.

I .I

,,,WlO.

'I .~

in having sexual intercourse wit11 a woman in consideration of t500 given by A. That was the first time ,she had sexual intercourse. Is she a prostitute? Explain your answer. No;because a rostitute is n $0;. mnnev .or profit, & $ j e s C l intercourse.

' 1. !

Note:are thQse ''women who, for money or grofit, /kabituallu i n d u l E in sexual intercourse iascivious condue:" (Art. 202, 1LP.C.).

What are the crimes classified under G i s f e a s a n t in office? The crimes which are classified undcr misfeasance in office are: 1. Know&& rendering uniust iudemeqt. 2. Rendering judgment t l w h negligence. 3. Rendering utm-m it interlociitorv order. 4. Malicious delay in the-da ' e. +'

438

Jndjreci

hr-.

A justice of the peace, a lawyer for many years, hap-,.' pened to try his political enemy on a charge of less& serious physical injuries which under the Revised Penal Code is puriishable by arrest0 mayor. A s a revenge, t h e , justice of the peace convicted, and imposed two years hprkonment on, the accused. What crime was committe$.,. , ' . i . by the justice of the peace? nowingly rendering unjust j u d a The judgment is ntjust and he knows or he ought to know that his judgment is unjust. There is malicg 9' ill~will~JI this ease, t&eAustice of the peace having acted in the spirit. &. -e (Art. 204, R.P.C.). Note: An unjust jud-ent is one which i i i d supported bv the eYiddnce. , , ' - An unjust judgment m a y be iUe because of bribery.

a,

a woman who is physically a virgin be a proktitute? B Y if-she, for money or orofit, !&utiavl indulges i n i o u s conduct only, w 2sexual i n t e m u me. -

Y

i

Suppose, the justice of the *peace tries a man, malice or ill-will, for the same crime and upon eo imposed the same penalty, is' he criminally liable? Yes, f o K i - ' e gence' oi. ianorancg (Art. 205, R.P.C.).

I-

1112. The justice of the peace, knowing after examining the witnesses, that there was no groun? t o issue the& w ,.' ofst, nevertheless, issued it an'&by reason thereof A was arrested by the policeman who executed it. Is the justice of the peace criminally liable? Yes, because he rendered an G l s t interlocutory o r d e 3 1113. When is the detay in the adininistratim of justice punishable? 439

I

/” ;m

CRlMlFAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIlIlINAL LAW REYIEWER

e n the delay in the hearing and disposition of the is criminally liable and such (Art. 207, R.P.C.).

o

~

f

f

e es. u .

a

c.

Y

of committing dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses? The two ways of committing dereliction of duty in the prosecution of of€enses are: BY ina~icious~y refraining from instituting prosecuin the e By maliciously tder&-g

A-rds the fri&-, B, the policeman, committdd dereliction of dut@ & maliciously tolerating / . commissio-f the crime, k m g that a crima was abaut to be .-e He was a&o guilty of &ect b r i b e r 3 esbhe accepted a promise of .s?ift. and a n e e d to aer. . ’ in connection with the form an act performance of his official duties. Relative to the se_ond question, s w chanped his the crime of robbbbury, it is siibm a a n d did &commit niitted t h a a , the policeman, c e t be held liable for dereliction of duty, because in dereliction of duty, in the prosecution of offenses, it is necessary to prove t k m m mission of the crime which was taler&d (U.S. VS. Menu the policeman ;loza).egaIly possible t li$e €or frustr&ted dereliction o f t y in the prosecution of offenses, k w e such crime_ i s e n t i a l l y by omissjpn & t in felonis by omission t h d s S p 3 5 ) and it attemuted or frustrated stage of execution. B S having agreed to accept the $rift of Plod from A and havinr: agreed to tolwate the commission of the crime, w m anaeteonstituhga-m ’ ’m e, t h e m ?i m t y ofGreet b r i h e r a

~

that A committed by arrest0 menor notwithstanding the complaint made to him by the offended ‘party, took no action against X and even gave him money so that he could go to’ a far place outside of that municipality. What is,the eriniinal liability of the chief of Wlice? He is&oL s-aiclesnyy, because X committed only irrht W w g $ , a n accessorv i s x t liable for light felony; for @ e r e l i c t i o n m i u e prosecution of offense:, hy nP niaim refrafrom institprosecution against a violator of the law.

.,

L__

-

of a town that he would The treasurer kept the matter to the opposite his office. treasurer liable criminal-

,

ly? /Why? . To be l i a b & ~ d e r e l i c t i o i lof duty in the prosecut i f m i e s xthe public officer m m e “in dereliction ‘f the duties ”.ecoIt is-n& the duty of the kunieipal treasuEr to cause the prosecution of offenses I against person or public order s ; t o s t o p the commission 1 07 such crime which is about to be committed.

t

d‘”

i

1

I

440

&8.

A tax collector told a taxpayer that the latter need not, pay his tax, but that he had to give him some chickens.:, .,

i

441

CKIXiNAL LAW KEVIEWER

CRI>IINAL LAW REVIEWER

,'>

<.,

The taxpayer gave a dozen chickens to the tax collector and did not pay his tax. Is the tax Collector guilty of bribery? No. Thc m n s were given to him not t o r r u p t him, but b e m s e of the false aretense. It is mt within the power of the tax collector t o Yelieve a b w p r 3 m m p a y a i s tax. He, therefore, made a falsee and by means of such false pretense k d e f n u r k d the taxpayer of his chiclcens. (Estafa bv means of deceio was committed by A. Noto: In Greet briber3 l i e public officer who reeeivep the gift o x present or a a a ixomisc, must a w e e to do eith&r =of -olloninp three acts: To perform an set eoastitutin_p a-e. To execute an net ;at constituting a crime. 3.Tfrom doinrsomothing which it is his official d y t o do It f s w e e e s s a r y that the public officer performs the act constituting the crime, or refrains from doing something which it is his official duty to do. A mere promise by the public r0 to perform the act a t o refrain from doing something is sufficient. which. it m f f i c i d -

-..

442

(1

. I .

\

$

--'

1120. Suppose that in the preceding question, A gave the monef ', to the property custodian, also an employee of the City Government, who agreed to give the firearm to him, what.: ,.. would be the crime? This is W l x i b e r Q because the crime which the property custodian agreed to commit is connected with the performance of Jiis official duty; that is, Cmalversatio3 by permitting other a e u m t o 3 2 mblic Drouerty.

-

policeman, 81,000 because the latter agreed to steal a certain firearm from the property custodian of the Police Department of the City, the said firearm having been confiscated from A for possessing the same without license. In consideration of 81,000, B stole the firearm and gave it to A. Do you believe that B is liable for direct bribery, considering that he was a public of, . . ficer and he agreed to perform an act cmstituting a crime? Explain your answer. If your answer is in the ' .. negative, what crime was committed by A? Why? N>becawe the act which B, the policeman, agreed constituting the crime of theft, & to 'perform, h-a not connecLed with the performance of his official duty. If the act performed or which the public officer agreed to perform, in consideration of the gift, i s & c e d with or -r to the performance of his official duties, b-is Lot c m d .

,i

A is liable for (--theft -J&m i & l hW sO ' n. He : n u i a b l e for cprruption of public officer, because the .;:< .i policceman is& Ii-for direct or indirect hriben. .,., i.@ ,/GI order that t,he vi&r of the-qift may be held liablei-$5 ._?$ %<'1 for c o r r u i & h of imblic officer, the k t t e r m u t mitted bribery, dkcu-t. . ~$ ._,,

i

i.

Note: In ease of conviction, a confiscated firearm i s forfeited'"; in favor of the Government and hecomes public iproperty. & !!& : property custodian is a public officer accountable therefor. 1 l ~ heallows another o w to-it,Xekiiable foLkalversation3

1121.' Suppose that the property custodian was not able to give the firearm to A, because he was relieved as property custodian after he had received the money, is the property custodian liable for direct bribery? Why?

1122. Suppose, the 'property custodian gave the firearm to A soou after he had received the money from A, how many crimes were committed b y the puhlie officer?- Why? Two crimes: (1) d i r e c t b a y and ( 2 ) malversatipn. The reason for this conclusion is that the law (Art. 210, par. I , R.P.C.) provides a penalty for direct bribery "in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed."

_,

1123. A, petitioner for naturalization, gave the clerk of court 850 to set the case for hearing earlier. .There were many pending cases before that court which were filed.with it 443

I 1



much earlier. The clerk of court set the case for hearing, although the old cases should have been set for hearing instead. Is the clerk of court liable for direct bribery? being a public officer he is liable f z a e c t b r i b e d committed by executinK which d a e s = a ',a ~constitute a crime in consideration o u t t , the act be(Art. 210, par. 2, R.P.C.).

in its entirety. Is the judge liable criminally? How about the plaintiff who gave the gift? Yes, the judge is liable for&&ct bribera In i n - , 2. din?& bribery, the art nPrfnrmPrl bv t h ~ &just and praper.Ttt? law the a m c e by the public officer of offered to him bv reason ' of his office, because the object of the giver of the gifts is that they are given to h i p in anticiDation of f uture f w from him in connection with the performance of his duty or that he is rewarding him for having performed a duty, and if the public officer has acquired the habit of accepting gifts, he is ther&y e . x x to future corruvtion. t h e f t i&.hUe f o r c o m the gift to h-t (Art. ,"212, R..P.C.).

.

w

puxes

2,

I

1124,' Suppose t h a t when the clerk was not busy as he had

*

nothing to do, he was asked by the plaintiff in a civil case to prepare a writ of execution, the judgrrent in his favor having become final, but to expedite the preparation of the writ the clerk was offered P20, which he accepted and by reason thereof he prepared the writ immediately, what crime was committed by him? fi-bXi(Art. 211, R.P.C.), because the money y a s offered t o by reason Qf.hk3 hich he ad 1&e. It is not direct bribery ef the second farm, bee w e t a g performed wi?a nSt xz.hst. NohQdv was M e d (11. uniustly affected by the act which he exe g h x l (People vs. Pamplona, C.A.).

c

,

i

. ;.

,.p.Ir.. An,* I

. I .

the public treasury and s i m i l a r -

Oiher frauds. transactions. Possession of prohibited i n a t by a public officer.

p Prohibited

2,

-

.

/ 3

' i

a very unsainitary condition. He received from the owner of the store canned goods and several gantas of rice. The sanitary inspector did uot report the, condition of the store to his; superiors. What crime was eoninlilted by the sanitary inspector? -1- - . by refrkining from doing something . w&h iswag his official d u t y - t d o , t u , to reDort it to his ?,umLjor, in consideration of a gift (Art. 210, par. 3, R.P.C.).

~ . %' . ~ , ,i,,

What are the crimes under frauds and illegal exaction?

y?? and transactions? a&t

1125. A sanitary inspector who inspected a store found it in

1126. Having decided a ease in favor of the plaintiff, the i u d e ..xw i . . was given a gift by said plaintiff. The decision was &#&, perfectly 1e::al and just and in fact when the defendant :,qj;y ,b~.',, appealed the case to the Supreme Court il was affirmed

l'

A , &?.' /

444 i

1128. A sold office su'pplies to the Provincial Government. The Provincial Treasurer and A had secret agreement that the price of the supplies would be raised by P2.000 and that amouut would go to the Provincial Treasurer. When the supplies were delivered and the paymeut was about to be made, the anomaly was discovered by the Provincial Auditor who caused an investigation and as a result the transaction was caucelled. Did the Provincial Treasurer commit any crime? If so, in what stage of exeeution? What is the liability of A? Both A aiid the provincial treasurer are guilty of eonsuinmateJ fraud against the aublic -ty. This crime

'

CRII\.IINAL LAW REVIEWER

CIII~JUIiiALLAW REVIEWER

ed was turned over to the cashier. Did that employee oommit any crime? >,-because the Revised Penal Code expressly uroviks that2 i s f l m o 3 w h e n t.he tax toll- voluntarily fails to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for anv sum of money rollecied bv himy-0 (Art. 213, par. 2 ( b ) , R.P.C.). The r m i a t official receipt, b d I is provided hy law. ,

is consnmmatd by mere agreement, as long as the =Be

Ucl-2

the government (Art. 213, R.P.C.). A is liable for the same offense, because he and the provincial treasurer were in conspiracy. When there & conspiracy, the act of u e is-the act of all, and t h i s r u l e ap$& evpiAf the o f f e w is ordinarilv eammi t k d public n f f i u x who takes &antage of his official uositian (Viada: U.S. vs. Ponte). ageinat t~ae :>ublic t r c n s u q : 1 . That the offender be n public officer: 2. That he should have taken advanrage of his office, that is, h-e>itt,rvened in the transaeti3i in his official camcity.

,

, .

-of

the nlaking of contra&, or &j €he adjustment or set&ment of accounts relating t o n' ' y o d -s, o r k e uyother scheme. 4.. With B t to defraud tho Government. Note: What constitutes the offense is the mere enterinx into an agreement with any interested party or speculator, w w t-!fraud the Government.

crime was committed by a tax collector who, hy means of &cxit, succeeded in receiving from the taxpayer than that fixed by law? means of deceq (U.S. vs. Lopez). Note: In n,-i M d r s c e j is employed by the public officer in demanding an amoiinL larger than OP different from that authorized hy lam. A mere demand for a sumlarger than or different fmm that authorized by law is gu€ficien$. The talrpayer need not pay the amount demanded. It is g m w y that the public officer of the difference or the whole amount collected f e , h w liable for another c r i m e G l % % & y /

The tax collector accepted from X a gold bar worth P500 in payment of the tax in that amount which X should pay under the law. He turned over the gold bar to the treasurer. Is the tax collector liable criminally. Explain your answer. Yes. He received a thing o r o b j e e t of a nature different from thatr-orp (Art. 213, par. Z ( c ) , R.P.C.). Under the law, taxes should be nGd ia l z l t& currency.

''1131.

,i

/ 1132.

Suppose, the tax collector intended to own the gold'bar and pay tke tax out of his own funds, would he stiU be held liable? -b Yes, because l e g , directly o r,-ni -==== ofpayment other wise, things a m f a natur_e law is punished by €hi d i f f w r o m that rovided R m & s G ( A r t . 213, par. Z ( c ) ,

-.

I

, be the crime if the same acts were committed by an officer or employee of the Buteau of Internal , Revenue or of the Bureau of Customs? It would be B violation of the National Internal Revenue Code o r of the Revised Administrative Code, as the case may be.

1 .,1-30. An employee in the treasurer's office of a municipality :,,.., issued to B who paid FZO as tax a temporary receipt in . ' ' a coupon bond paper, although he had official receipt . in blank form with him. The amount collected is the .. ' amount of th.e tax fixed, by law. All the amount collect-

{134. What is the special provision of the Revised Penal Code for frauds or deceits committed by any !publie officer who takes advantage of his .official position?

446

447

i.

~

i;

~

~ i .

.,

I /

I

CKIUINAL LAW REVIEWER


In addition to the penalties prescribed for swindling and other deceits covered by Arts. 315 to 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty 'of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetua.1 special disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of sa,% crimes (Art. 214, R.P.C.).

I

.,

_,

1135. May the judge of the court of first instance IawfuUy '.

engage in agricultnre through his encargado in the prow ince where he is appointed? ig_nnta transaction of sYes because a-re / e-c n. Notes: Commcree involves transaction of exchange or specula%n. 1. The Mayor of Manila who e n g s a i n coxmerce in this City i s a t liable, because he is & a L w n ! u' i L've, but an electke, public officer. The provincial treasurer of Rizal who qngages in com-t. t m ce in this City is &.Liable-his ju&&.&h. 3. .A Justice of the Court of Appeals who engages in commerce ill Rizal may be held liable, because h: is a N&& (See 1-. and any arovince is subieet to his iu:isdietipn. Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce, prohibiting justices and judges, among others, from encaging in the commercial profossion.)

___~

custodyf he did not have the 1-0 he was not axcountable therefor. ~~

i I I

prccedins question, the crime committed by the mayor wa?&heeaub.e he took oersonal moperty, belonging to the municlpallty, w&ut the consent of the t r s s e r , its custodian. H l h a d t h e intent to gain, as the sG;fnetion or eniovment he derived from riving the b-to the persons building the chipel is sufficientgain. ,-

I

I

i

..

~

'/

1136. The mayor of a town gave to certain persons then boildlug a chapel several beams of molam wood which were in the premises of the municipal building and destined to its use. When the treasurer, the custodian thereof. learned of what the mayor had done wit,h some of the beams, the former filed a complaint against the latter with the provincial fiscal. If you were the provincial fiscal, would you prosecute the mayor for malversation? Explain your answer. If I were the provincial fiscal, I w w prosecute :? the mayor for ion, because although the mayor ,<.&& was a publie officer and the beams he gave away w e q

,.~':*+,+;. L..

:

--.--

448

~

Note: To be hahle forealversatmn oi P U ~ I C funds or vrope a t h e public officer&' must have the official custody of public funds o r propertb @ the authority to collect or receive v-e the o&&im t o account fQxAhem t , m , and &Wm to tine government. M W L

of GovernA public officer having - o ment property, vjthaut author&y to part with physical possession of it, unless upon order from his immediate superior, eannot be held liable for malversation (US.vs. Webster, 6 Phil. 394). ,/"

1.137. May the mayor or the justice of the peace be held liable for malversation? Illustrate and explain. Yes, when the mayor, for instance, received from the superintendent of schools a sum of money as rental for the use o f a building belonging to the municipality and, instead of deliverine - the same to the treasurer, applied it to his own use. In this case, t a g ert h w y as the representative of the municipality and he had the obli&on to account for it-to the government to which it was due. The justice of the peace may be held liable f o r malversation if t -h € c h i s uersonal it t h e s , f& satpaid in his court and received bv him. He thus became accountable for them, that is, he had kac!u.p t f o m to the governmat. Their misaunrooriatian iS.

G a -

h'ote: Ilencr, the name of the Dublieof&a-QLn&im. inim; m u 1 in the crime of malversation. It i s the *of the dof the public o f f s e held by the offender which dete&-

449

I

CRInlINAL LAW REVIEWER

incs whether or not he is liable for malversati


At?

-~

I ! (

OD muyernment, then he is an accountablc m i i h l i ~ liable r f o r &v e x . in case he misn' or through ahandow m w t DL~M i . 5 sto to the $&n~&t$e r other person.

/1138.

~

During the preliminary investigation by the fiscal gf a theft case, the police investigators gave the evidence to him consisting of a wallet with several ZO-pem hills . inside. The Piseal kept the eviclence, but later spent the money. What crime was committed by the fiscal? Explain your nnswer.

I

1140. The auditor examined t h e books and accounts of the municipal lreasurer or a municipality. The auditor found that the treasurer had shortage in the amount of WOO. The auditor required the treasurer t o make good the shortage witllin two hours, hut the treasurer could not; explain or make good the shortage. There being no evidence that the treasurer misappropriated the amount of P700 or through abandonment or negli~ence permitted or consented to the taking of the amount by other person, may the treasurer be prosecuted aind punished for malversation? Why? Yes, the w e of a public officer to have duly forthp u b l i c a d s or property with which he is upoii demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be ?)~.ii!za f o o i a evidence that he ha:; D u t such missing funds or property t o s o n a l uses (last par. of Art. 217, R.P.C.).

N o t e : It will be noted that as a general rule, government funds or promrty a-e Laken OP m;saaprwriated by the offender in ~. .. malvcmntion. The oveinment funds or ,,me& n i&de ? m e funds and tmst f u k r - . The trust funds are the m c o u t s . ' f u n d s , Red Crass funds, Anti-Tuberculosis funds, funds held by the municipal treasurer, and other funds which, although not strlclly public funds, are impressed with the character of public funds when they are officially received by an accountable public officer. ~

I 9. When may a private individual Bc heM li&le- for a&& J

(People v4. Tolentino). But when there is no demand, tbere m u s t be affirmatiye ftoshow aeum-n (17,s.7s. Acebedo).

v - n ?

'

In the following cases :

,

p

When he has charged, y-ii CapacitLwhatever, urovincial or municiual funds, revenue o r m (Art. 222, R.P.C.) ;.

1 th_e fault or negligence of the ~I%u% & tueh as, when it t+n during the commission of theft of robbery by other

I

I

460

#

-

he received the money lrom the @?->because police investigators hy reason of his office and he had the obligation under the law to keeu the same to be usad as evidence. Although the money belonged to the offended party in the crime of theft committed by the accused, the same was seized from the accused hy pnhlic authority and deposited with the fiscal. Malversation is c d e d h y the deuositorv of funds o r property attached, seized O P dGosited by public authority, even if such p r o p e& -h to a urivate individual (Art. 222, R.P.C.).

f

When he is an a d l a or depository of funds .. or / property, attached. sei& o r d e & fl by public ~ J -I __. 2.22, R.P.C.); .& tB % F r(i?When he @ & ?.e direct part or cooperates b . & ? of rnaiversatkn &.puhLicfunds ar Drouerty , b m b l e o f f i c e r ( U S . vs. Ponte, et al.; People vs. Calauan, et al.) : and When a private p e r s p public officer ,r by necessary &s aids a p@&&&%r in c a or ~ ~7 e r m i t t i n z ~ ~ n & E h td as i n t 0 f a. s#ex (People vs. Longara and Cinco, C.A.). ~~

wived the funds - 0 by reason of the a&he has the o h l i z h to account f i r if @-the

I

persons.

461

I



1141. What kEud of negligence may make an accountable public officer liable for malversation? To render negligence a basis for coiiviction of malversation, the negligence of the accountable public officer must be positively and clearlzi shown to be inezeusabb, approximating malice or fraud (People vs. Berms, C.A.). c

Note:

In the case of People " 6 . Bernas, the accused, then a municipal treasurer and having in his custody B number of sacks of government rice to be sold to the people, sold the execs:$ rice on credit to the employees and laborers of the municipality, in violatlon of tho instruetion 02 his superior. It was held that mhiie violation of the rules and regulations of the office is evidence of ncgligenea, in this case, the negligence of the accused cannot Lo made the basis for conviction of malversation. The accused m n t e d to avoid the possible loss that the government may suffer in view of the approaching harvest season, which might bring down the price of the riee and HISO because there was a pending storm and he had no plnee to keep tho rice. Such baing the case,ec- t ?f the accused d u approximate malice or fraud. -1 esGle. But when a disbur8ing officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, whose duty wa8 to deduct from the salaries of enlisted men the premiums to be turned over to the GSIS. entrusted that work to his sergeant, and although he knew that his s,srgeant, who was receiving a meager salary, was sporting n nice ear and living with his queridas, he did not take any step to cheek whether or not the sergeant was turning over t o the GSIS the money deducted by him from the salaries of tho enlisted men, until it was discovered by another perfion that the sergeant had misappropriated the money. i t was & twm abandonment and ne~lipewe, agproximatinr malice or fraud on the Dart of th ishur . f i cr =Ad, therefore m x r malversation. A n % e n if h e m get a ccnt out of the mismropriated funds (People vs. Torres,

,,

,*'%43.

L

m.).

c o r n o r lack of criminal inteat, when there is no negligence, is also a defense in the e m of malversatjon. Thus,tiiere is no criminal lia'bility for making 'payment through honerit mistake as to the law or to the fact-. At most, the accountable public officer is civilly liabls for the damage caused.

was a travelling sales agent of the Philippine charity weepstakes Office. 13;s duty as such travelling sales 452

I

agent was to sell sweepstakes tickets entrusted to him for salc, with tlie cihligation of turaiiig over the proceeds of the sale of said tickets to the treasurer of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes Office not later than one week before tlie corresponding draw. Ne received a total of 171 booklets of sweepstakes tickets for the February 25, 1951, draw, valued at P5,377.95. He accounted ~ Q I and turned over only P1,417, thereby leaving a balance. ~i of 83,960.95 unaccounted for. In spite of repeated de-- ...:, mands made upon him to account for the snnie, X failed to pay the said balance. What crime w8s cornmitt,& .' by X? Explain your answer. The crime committed by X is malversation (People vs. Angco). X was an accountable uublic ofBcer and the nrnc%e~d.? - of the sales of the sweeustakes tickets were public fun& for which he was acc-le. His f a m to account for the amount of F3360.95, notwithstandingde*'m&s, is evidence of misanbrovriation on h.is part.

was committed by the collect,or of the MetroWhat. politan Water District (now NAWASA) who misappropriated il sun1 of money Collected by him from the cus: tomers of the adid corporation? Expliiin your answer. The collector of the Metropolitan Water District who misappropiiated the money collected from the customers of that corporation committed -1The Netrouolitan Water District is a m n of the Philippi& Legislature. The law creating this entity classifies it as a public corporation, for the purpose of furnishing adequate water supply and sewerage service to the inhabitants of Manila and suburbs. It cannot be questioned tinat the Legislature may validly create special instrumenlalities or districts to aid the State in, o r t o take charge or, some public os state work for the general welfare. Such agencies are qaasi-corporations or public corporations ' for narrow or limited purposes. The officers and emulovees

453

'

.

I


CRliVIINAL LAW IIEYIEWER

of the Metropolitan Water District -1-a

a d

i a f u n d l r are public funds (People vs. Bustillo).

.h.m” ””t n..

__

R n t ..~ in the .~~ease of the Manils Railroad Corporation, although it is of ‘‘a quasi-pubiic character,” it was held that its.treasurer, who t m I - h i s personal use a sum of money from the funds entrusted to him for safe-keeping, was &$Y I

~

1144. The provincial treasurer required a municipal trea,Rurer to render an accounting of the funds in his possession. Believing that since there was nothing wrong with the c,ondition of t h e funds in his charge and that he had no duty to render an accounting, the municipal treasurer did not render accounts far more than two months. Is the municipal treasurer liable for the fclonp of “failore of accountable officer to render accounts”? No, because that felony is committed by an accountable public oE€icer “who is required by law or regulations to render a.ccount to the Auditor General or t o the provincial auditor,” not to the provincial treasurer, for a period of “two months after such accounts should. he rendered” (Art. 218, R.P.C.).

1145. Suppose that the provincial tre;lswer w a s dismissed from

8% i

&.. ,,”..

,

office because of certain anomalies committed by him, and although he was not acting as the treasurer of the province, the provincial auditor required him to render account, hut the former provincial treasurer refused to do so, can he be held criminally liable for failure to render accounts? Why? Yes, if ere IS a law or regulations requiring him to The law (Art. 218) says, “whether in the render m&t. service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause,’’ if required by law or regula,tions, h~ehas to render aecount:r within two months after such accounts should be rentleered.

6 -An elective public officer had discretionary fund under ‘his custody. When he ran for re-election, he spent part 454

of such fund for election campaign. Is he liable for 2legal nse of public funds? Why? No, because in the felony of &gal ncp of ,the public o f f i c e r , w g public fund or property under to a uublic use h.is administration, must an& e-t other than that for which such fund or pronerty w a s propriateLby law or ordinance (Art. 220, R.P.C.). He is’ liable f o r @ m n >

1147. The municipal council uppropriated P10,OOO for the purchase of a garbage truck. Before the municipality could purchase m e , the Lions Club donated a garbage truck t o the municipality. The lreasnrer, knowing that there was no need to reserve the amount tor the puwose of a garbage trrrelc, spent the money for the repair of the municipal building without any authority from the municipal council. Considering that there was no damage caused, do you believe that the treasurer is criminally liable f,or@Iqal use of the public rnm@ Why? because the crime is Committed even “if no dam= a or_embarrassment to the public service has resuked.“ The penalty is a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied. T e S e must be an ordinance appropriating that amount, for the renair of the m>ieipal building before the treasurer could law&lIy u s the money therefor.

a

-

a public use had not bee3 N d e : When the amount UppJied to ;i appvipviated by @ or mdinan e, the public officer applying that amount is i s liable m e f o r be u n d e r Art. Art, 217, b u propriating puubbTl-8s.

1148. The contractor who constructed a building for the munieipal police presented his claim, with all the n e e w a r y

,papers duly approved by the proper officials, to the treasurer for pzynient. The fund f o r the purpose was in the custody of the treasurer, but he delayed the pay. ment in the hope that the contractor would come across with a cut from the amount payable to him. Because for ~ W Q months the treasurer did not make the payment, the contractor filed a complaint with the provincial fiscal.

456

I


..

CRIAIINAL LAW REVIEWER

Is the municipal treasurer liable for any felony? If so, what felony? Explain your answer. Yes, he is liable for failure to make navmentfrom Gzvernment funds in his nosse.sian as a public officer under obligation to make such payment.> failure to .. make payment must bunahmus. In this case, the d& in the paym$nt w&e to his malicious intentiw to cause the contractor ta come across with a cut from the amount due the contractor (Art. 221, par. 1, R.P.C.).

I

1149. A court stenographer, having a grudge against the ac-

cused who appealed from the decision of the court convicting him, kept the slenograpldc notes and their transcript in his house and when ordered by the judge ti, produce them the stenographer claimed that the stenographk notes and their transcript were lost, which was not true. For what crime may he be prosecuted and punishecl? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the stenographer is liable for & cious failure to make delivery of Dublic Drone& & . . I & custody. It is committed by a w c officer who refuses to make delivery of any property in his custody or under his administration, a t : the ordel; to do 80 by competent authority. The refusal of the stenographer to make delivery of the stenographic notes was malicious (Art. 221, par. 2, R.P.C.).

--

-

.’

1150. A municipal policeman, having under his care and guard ..

a prisoner who was serving sentence in the municipal jail, permitted said prisoner to go and buy something in the store near the jail. The prisoner, taking advantage of the confusion in the crowd, fled and never returned to the jail. These facts are alleged in the information filed by the provincial fiscal against the accused jailer. If these facts are established by sufficient evidence, what crime was committed by the jailer? Explain your answer. ’.:’ The question involved was not squarely decided by the k?Suprerne Court in the case of U S . vs. Eandino. In that i ,.

case, the in€ormation filed by the Provincial Fiscal was dismissed by the trial court on motion of the defense and on appeal by the provincial fiscal the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Some Justices were of the opinion that while it may be true that the acccsed had no knowledge that the prisoner would escape and that he did not permit him to do so, it was unquestionable that he did permit him to go out of the municipal jail, thus affording him an opportunity to get away with ease, and that the prisoner’s escape was effected through the tolerance of his custodian and was deemed also to have been by connivance with the latter. In the case of People vs. Bandino, the Supreme Court cited Escriche’s dictionary “Legislacion y Jurisprudencia” which defines the word “connivance” t o be “dissimulation or tolerance.“ 011 the other hand, some Justices believed that proof of the facts contained in the information will sustain merely %I coiivictioc of@3elitv in the c u & r J J r i m ners through‘ Eegligenca But in the same case. it is stated that “if there was .~. connivance or conseat on the part cif the policeman in the prisoner’s leaving the jail, it is unquestionable that he is responsible fnr the crime with which h e is charged on accouiit of the escape effected by the said prisoner who took advantage of the leave allowed by his custodian.” The felony of conniving:.with or consenting to evasion is committed by any public officer who shall c o n s e n t 2 the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge. It is submitted ?hat the guard is liable, a t least, for infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence. ~~

~~~

~

~

1151. What crime, if any, was committed by the municipal mayor who permitted a prisoner detained in the municipal jail to eat in the market near the municipal building three times a day, but always under guard? The niayor did not commit any crime. Leniency or laxity on the part of the mayor i s t infidelity. It was held that leniency or laxity in the per-

__-

457

I



formame of duty of the municipal president as regards the custody of prisoner is not in excess of his duties. Note that the municipal president was the person who was aceusied of infidelity in the custody of prisoners. The reason for this is that the l i i ~ n i e i p ~president, l now the municipal mqror, j, the head of the municipal jail. The m ~ is rguilty of infidelity in the custody of urisoner, i4 he utilized the prisoner’? s a f o r domestic chores i n & house (People YS. Evangelista, C.A. 38 O.G. 1 5 0 .

--

1152. Is the chief of police liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner if he permitted the prisoner to sleep in the latter’s house at night and the prisoner a1wy-s returned to jail early in the morning? Relaxation of the imprisonment of the prisoner is considered infidelity. Thus, it was opined t h r t there is a real and actual evasion of service of senlence when the custodian permits the prisoney to obtain b relaxation of his imprisonment and to escape the punishment of being deprived of his liberty, thus making the penrlty ineffectual, although the convict may not have fled. Under this rule, a prisoner who is permitted to sleep in 11;s house every night and would go back t o jail during the daytime obtains relaxation of his imprisonment, and thereby makes the custodian liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner. Where the guard allowed the prisoner serving a 6-day sentence in the municipal jail to sleep in his house and eat there, he is gnilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoner committed with malice (People lis. Revilla, C.A., 37 O.G. 1896).

1153. What kind of negligenee is contemplated in infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligenee? The public officer who is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner is said to be negligent when his laxity in the cnstody of prisoner shows positive carelessness short of deliberate non-performance of his duties as guard. As was held by the Court of Appeals in the case of People vs. Nava, C.A., not every little mistake or dis458

P

traction of a guard leading to a prisoner’s taking advan-- L hge a€ the situation is negligence. Such mistake or dis-7;; traction of the guard may be dealt with administrative1y;j only. The negligence of the guard which shows positive care’: lessness short of deliberate non-performance of duty is il- ‘( Iustrated in the case of a guard who fell asleep while.,: guarding the prisoner with the result that the prisoner escaped. 1154. l\‘ould the gunrd of the jnil be hcid linble Cor infidelity in the custody of yrisnnw if (he priwaaf rvho e * c W d is not pct rnukted 11.v fiwL JiidRnwnt? Yes, hccause the lam in dcfininp the crime of infidelity in the custody of p-isoiier provides t w o & D enalties to be imposed on the public officer guilty of the crime. The penalty of prision correccjonal in. .its medium and maximum periods is m i posed& , -’ heen sentenced by final i u d m e n t ; and the penalty of pr&ion COTreccional in its minimum p e r i o d , p s e the fupitive 2 only held as a detention p a y f o r any crime otion of law or municipal ordinance.

-

1155. Map a @&e individual be held liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner? Yes, because the Revised Penal Code p w s vate person to whom the conveyance or custody of a pris. oner or person under arrest shall have been confided, w h shall commit any offenses of infidelity in the custody 0: prisoner. Hence. as long as the private ni-1 & c k m t i i e conveyance 0 - i of a orison% gpjzg sonunder arrest, if the escape o f the prisoner -2 under arrest is due to his connivance witl.lthepu’snne r g ] p-er ari’est or to his n-ace, sxih arivate in. diE&ual is criminally iiable (Art. 225, R.P.C.).

e

--

Y

1156. Tlie nt.cnogrwher In Ibe Plnciil’iu olllcu

romoved tho wrlf

ten confession of the accused from the record of

459

~

I

I t

L CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIilfINAL LAW REVIEWER "'

'

criminal case kept by the fiscal but which came into his possession when he was typing the information. Then, he gave i t to the accused who in turn gave him F'lOU. What crime was committed by the stenographer? Does the givin:: of the confession to the accused and receiving BlOO from him constitute a separate offense? Explain your answer. The stenographer is guilty of (infidelity in the e x $ of document3be~usehe_was a uublic officer; the wnconfession of the-accused, w h u a d m u m enl, w m f&ed o r a k u s i e d tQhim by r e m m of his of%c ' e: that h j remoyed stlchdorumeat -of e; and that t u s of the said docnment from the r w r d O f t h e c a s e w u u r a l l y result in the damage o r prejudice to& public i n m t . The m laof document i s n s t a c r i m e , u u k s i s f o r an illicit uuruose, an-at to urofit by it is an illicit puI'uose. It would seem then that the receiving. of PI100 by the stenographer is Et a n in&pg&ent and s z a rate crime of direct bribery, but as theconstitutive element of illicit purpose.

<

.

of infidelity in the custody of documents? Explain Y Q ~ ? answer. No, because the transfer cerrificate of titie &s@ yet-hned by -and, therefore, it- did not e w e & d m e n t within the meaning of' the 1a.w. In infidelity in the custody of document, the decYmept must Ke com& P th&s, it must be c a e of establishing a t or extinguishing an obligation. In this. case, before the t-raiisfer certificate of title is signed by the register of deeds, it cannot establish any right nor extinguish an obligation. wflJfl WnsL '

-

9 clLdd/;

.

'

..

6158. Is the destrnction, concealment or removal for an illicit purpose of peri.gdieals, pamphlets or magazines by the postnmster who has the custody of the same by reason of his office constitute infidelity in the custody of document? Explain yonr answer. / No, because books, p e r i o s s , p a m m t s and m s a zincs are ~ ~ documents, o t for they cannot establish a right 02extinguish an obligation.

1159. When is the taking of money hills used as evidence in the trial of a case by the clerlc of court infidelity in the

I

' ,

.,

not bo f o r a good or-lawful ourpose. Hence, if the stenographer of the fiscal was given PlOD e& the \n4ttoii confession of the accused, would also he e o n u n i t t d

I

1157. The Register of Deeds of a province told his clerk to

transfer certificate of title based on a deed The clerk prepared the transfer eertificate of title and presented the same to the Register of Deeds for his signatnre. When the Register of Deeds read the transfer certificate of title he foonil many erasures, insertion and intercalations which. made it appear very dirty. In the heat of anger, the .Register of Deeds tore to pieces the transfer certifieate of title. Did the Register of Deeds commit the crime prepare

z

. "

!,.

.-

B

case are

of sale submitted by the parties.

'

:'

.*~. !..

'~

custody of documerlt, and when is it malversation? When the money b i p are attached to the records as exhibits and removed therefrom by the clerk of court and misapFpriated by him, the crime committed i s m ;--2 documents2 b z c s those money bills.

I

trial of the case has terminated and the money b i i l s s e 1 3 t for the nuruose of returning the same to the owngr and the clerk of court misappropriated them, the crime committed is w o nYfLpsbecause these inonev bilk are trust funds ofhe government anrlthe clerk of court is accomtable therefor.

462

460

i

:

1 1

. .

.. CKIhIINAL LAW IU3Il:WER

/.’

116

,

--

. m a t c r h e is committed by tie pustw,a&e

The law (Art. 277) pu&&es any public afficer ch& custodv @ € m sor property sealed by mrmz a=, who shall b r u h e - s or permit them to & .*b

who w.d a letter addressed by one person to another and after opening the letter and finding a 50.peso bill inside the letter he renioved the money and spent it for himself: Explain your answer.

&,the

/

(

In several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the crime was held to bcfaithlessness in the custody of 6 c u mentor p a s The word “pauers” inrludes pBWX?lQUyp d n a - = m m r h .

1161. The stenographer of the court, for the purposc of helping a person accused of a crime, put the record of the ease among the records of decided cases, so that the CN of court might not set the case for hearing. As a lesult, i the case was not tried for more than one year until the. clerk of eourt, upon complaint of the offended partp, lceked for the record and found it. Is the stenographerof the court liable for infidelity in the custody of document? for infidelity The stenographer of the court is-liable in the custody of documcut, becalm he did LuLhave t h e custody of the record of the criminal case by reason o f his office. ‘fhe stenographer is not the custodian of the record. Note: If the clerk of court was the one who did it, he would

i

have been liable for infidelity in the custody of document by concealing the same, being a public officer who had the record by reason of his office. important element of the crime of infidelity in the cusof document is that the offender is a public officer .. whohas the custodv of t h e a n -t by P ce.

7

1162. A pub ic officer was charged With the custody of a sealed. docunrent. He permitted a private person to open it,. I causiig the breaking of the seal. What is the liability~ of the private individual, if any? The Revised Penal Code d m d h the a-& &k who8 theseal, & u there is conspiracy betX6een him and the public officer.

/

462

1163. When may a public officer be held. criminally liable €or opening closed papers, documents, (181‘ objects? When the public officer is &&ed with the custody of (not merely entrusted with) closed panem, dfmme&. os objects. Thus, the treasurer of a municipality who received from the PC corporal ciosed envelops containing election returns and addressed to the provincial treasurer, f o r the purpose of putting thereon sealing wax, and who opened them and read the contents thereof, was not held criminally liable f o r opening such closed documents, because he was not the custodian thereof [People vs. Lineses, C.A.). 1164. The Military Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had a secret plan t o capture certain dissidents. An agent of the Military Int,elligence Service, who was one OF those who planned the raid l o be made, mentioned it to a friend who happened to be a relative of one of the dissidents. As a consequence, the dissidents were able to elude the soldiers who were seut to capture them, Is that agent criminally liable? Why? Yes, because having known a secret involving the general interest of public order by reason of his official capacity, he revealed it. The crime is called fivelation ot secret3 i 6 y an o f f i c e 9 A r t . 229, R.P.C.).

I

I

-

i

f

I

I

’

,<,

1165. The clerk of court who learned of the decision of the ,judge, coniiclinp the accused of murder and sentencing’ him t o deayn, revaled the same t o t k ~scesed@foe the promnlgation of the judgnlerrt. As a consequence, $;, the accused jumped bail and fled to the mountains. He !P was never captured. Is the clerk of court criminally liable? Why?

,~

‘

463

I

I



>?'because having known a secret affecting the administration of justice which should not be u u b l i & d h @ the promulgation of the W o n , he .t1 Note: This is also the crime committed by an inferior officer who made a report to his superior, h u t o r e the latter could approv m e t w r t , the inferjor officer mhlished

/

$

, The felony of revelation of secrets by an officer is also 'committed by a puhlic officer who shall wrongfully aelive? to another person papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published (Art. 229, R.P.C.).

1169. May the felony of open di member of the lawmaking body? KO,0 9 exand t h w . 1170. The city engineer ordered his assistant to cause demolition of the houses built on a public street by syuakters. The assistant of the city engineer did execuse the order, giving his reasons for suspending execution of the order. The city engineer became. furio and insisted that the order he carried out. gineer gave the assistant 24 hours during which the order. But the assistant still continued to execute the order of the criminal liability of the assistant? Why? The assistant city engineer is liable for disobedience to the order of -superior officer, after the latter has disapproved the suspension of his order (Art. 232, R.P.C.).

-

thmyzh somebody else the publie o f f h r

Art. 230 of the Revised Penal Code. slander or libel, as the case may he.

l167., Is damage to the offended party a necessary element of t h G i m e of revealing secrets of private indiddual? Why?

to reinstate a policet?ian liabio fur the

No. This felony is committet by any judicial o r a ecutive officer who s N openly r e f u s to me@e Ah2

464

-

Note: The e ~ n m g i e s of open disobmzdience are: 1. S h & f who r e f u s d t o execute t m ori!i&ment . . of the court. ,. 2 . Mayor who refused to execute the order of the Governor.

Nota: The secret of the private individual muat he known by reason o d o f f i e e of the public officer, % i f m e

--

judgment, decision or order of-anj s u u a i n r yde.'.y scow of the jurisdiction of the latter an&kmed . , with all th&gaLfmn&u . ' s (Art. 231, R.P.C.). .. It would seem that the o f f e - n b nkcommitted if there , '. js &y a refusal to obey the .iudgm&., decision or order of a superior a u m t y , which involves or a f f e c t s A e offices. I

66., To hold a public officer liable for revealing the sew& of private individuals which he came to know by reason of his office, what secrets of the private individuals must he' reveal? The secrets contemplated are those that may&@ !a the good n a m o r fortune of the private individual. If the secrets are contrary t o public interest or to the administration of justice, the same may be revealed by the public officer without incurring any criminal liability. to know of the

_ ; ..

k

1171. When is it not a crime to disobey the order of the superior? Disobeying the order of the order of the smer o f that order w g & b w I t Thus, if the cKief of police t o arrest X upon com 465

;

,

.

'

. %

,. .

.. .,., ,..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER P

arrest X, because he knew that there was no legal {;he arrest, and the chief of police insisted but policeman is not the Revised Penal Code. I

' . ~

.

2. When the public officer shall maltreat

to extort a confessia_n.y to obtain some informa

..

.

hief of police of a. municipality received a letter m the provincial fiscal with a sibpoem to >e served X , to be present a t the preliminary investigation to condu&d by the fiscal. The chief of police forgot to $e the service,of the subpoena and because of his ure to do so .the fiscal was not able to continue with reliminary investigation. Is the chief of police crimliablc .. for refusal of assistance? Why? e chief of police is not criminally liable for the of refusal of assistance (Art. 233, R.P.C.). has been held that the failure t o lend cooperatioll the administration of justice o r other public service must be malicious. Since the chief of police only forgot t o serve the subpoena, he did not act with malice.

1115. May the mayor commit the crime of maltre

j+wner? The mayor i m l i a b l e for maltreatm'ent o€ p g if the latter i&tkcustodv of t h g d i c e . The, law, 235) contemplates actual charge of the prisoner, which is so merely by legal fiction. . . 1176. A constabulary soldier went inside the., provincl

/

1173., Why is the refusal of a person without legal motive to harge the duties of the office to crime under Art. 234 of the Re-

with the consent of the warden arid then and:thqe< constabulary soldier tried to obtain information %om prisoner. When the prisaner refused to give any formation, the soldier gave him fist blows and kicked him several limes, inflicting physical injuries. What was committed by the constabulary soldier. Explain answer. The constabulary soldier committed & He _c&n&-be held liable for mal -~ *?.~*a onel-, b s u s e the prisoner was not under his chdr&'.He., cannot be held liable for coercion eAher, b&..the,'pn&i$ ones was not beiw c o a e d by him @ @ s!bbng$ against his will at the time he subjected t m e e . " The physical injuries irere inflicted as an act of revenee : 1' ,., against the prisoner for not giving the desired information. -'!: r

.,(,A

d, the discharge of the duties O f a e . m&er of dutx of the person elected

1

,/

i

o a p b l i e office is l u L d m h a I I Y legal motive t - u or f the office to which he was appointed.

What are the ,two ways of committing the crime of maltreatment of prisoner? fficer shall

overdn. himself in the

-

/

.'.

<. i

!

..

..,'*

,,', 4 !, 1177. The jailer, becoming angry with t.he prisoner under hls:.,si charge, boxed mtl kicked the latter. Is the jailer k b l e ". for maltreatment of prisoner? Why? & becanse -maltreatment must z a *,i $*'

3

of a prisoner or detentiun prjsowr r @ by the & ~ U of Qpunish?&&.bnriized

by the &tion,

or ( 2 ) b

d

-

..,

prisoner b.v season o f personal grudge.

.' 5%

.~;d

C R I M I X ~ LLAW REVIEWER

<'

t

,

.~~ ~

- - - c p r e l i r n i n a r y investigation while t h T u peace is in the municipality.

. . ,

.

,

' /

118 4.". A jiistice of the peace with whom a homicide case was . ,

filed for prrliminary investigation, for some reason or another, tried the case on the merits, announcing that he would render a decision after the trial. The l a m e r df the accused asked the justice of the peace to refrain , > from doing s.9, as he had no jurisdiction over the case. '. Nevertheless, the justice of the peace continued with the trial of the case. Is the justice of the peace liable .. .. ,for disobeying the request for disqualification? Why? . .. ' ' o n m b e i n s , No. bocause the .'.' c . e d b y m h Q l 3'ty. Besides, the one requiring him to refrain from continuing the proceeding i s . , not a superior authority, he being only a lawyer of the '.,:. accused. To constitute a violation by a pnblic officer of Art. ', ' ;42 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing the crime of disobeying request for disqualification, the folIo~ving ,, . :that t h d s a w o n rexwlng innst be present : .- , ',,.. ', ,. his jurisdiction w m n&t Q$ decided, M t h a t he has .~.~-~., .. %*, *;, been la_wfullv required b y m L & u t h o r i t v 11 -t .l.-..,-' .,.'. . frorb continuing the proceeding, and .@4 that k e continues :,,.sz@'z. the proceeding. .j,&&<:funG "%:a&$*+ ,.,,,'~' . He is, however, liable for - % m a l %&'.!' tions under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, because <,."; he performed an act pertaining to a judge of the Court @* of First Instance, without beirlg lawfully entitled to do .. .,.I,

..

f

/

,,'

*'

. The mxyoyor of

a nwnicipality wrote a letter to the juntice f the peace of the same municipality, requesting the r to expedite the trial of a criminal ease cognizable 470 .c

.:.

11186. 1s a judge liable for suggesting to another judge to decide a case one way or another? . \ No, becaxe a n y an executive officer can be held liable for the crime of orders or requests to any judicial authority under Art. 243 oi" the Code.

f

187. How about a congressman who sent a note to a judce.~'

requesting the latter to decide the case in favor of his'. ,. , leader who ix a party in the case? >.* ...~., ~.,.,. NO, because the person who sent the note is not:an"" /lcntive ofxicer. -I
1: your answess.

; I

"6,

by the justice of the peace court, stating further that in his opinion the accused was innocent. ' Is the mayor ',a,: criminally liable? Why? Yes, becanse the Revised Penal Code executive officer who shall a,ddress any order or sugges--. . & i t t o any judicial a m t y to any ease 01- b u c k s corning within the the courts o f x e (Art. 243. R.P.C.). '

! h

.

1. 1

.

I

N o t e : ?his felony is also cornmitt s h & & i c j t p z a k e immoral &nj

471

:.. ,

.

,.

.'

I

~,

.,.

I



. .,

\.,',.. - .'$;. cI

iI

, .

interested i n s pe-ketbe such o>fieer f o m a n , o=y respect to which he is required to submit a report to, .. or consult w i t h a superior officer. It is also committed by a d n directly charged with the care and custody of woman nrisoner to whom he shall . .. , , ,,. ., , solicit or make immoral or indecent advances. It is also committed by a & who shall solicit or m e , , ~ ,: , i B a 1 o r indecent advances to the w t e r , s&r or . .., relative within the same dearee b-ity of the p m n $ ' thecustody of said warden. c There should not be s e m if the woman is under 18 years of age and a m , because i t .would _he t h e o w r being a p m m . . w . If the woman is under 12 wars of age, and thereis .. L ', tsexual intercourse, the crime isIf the woman is married, ..* ,.,. :. . i ' .. ', i t = s r m if thexad.cn or public officex lmQ%!Lher ~. . . to b a d d . The public officer should ~1 perform acts of lewdnegs On

In what cases is the perialtv for p g a i a e , . '

'

elusion perpetua to death, not t o he impoqed crime Committed is parricide? In the following cases : 1 . When there is a @$&&f in the tim (Art. R.P.C.). 2. When the s_se or d m , and living with her parents i circumstanc_es (Art. 247, R.P.C.). 3. When the offender m d any of his tioned in the definition of the crime of parriei nx&&eae w e -

1

'%

a,

~

~

-',

t if thewoman is a m i t u t e , the cdme i m o m m i t t e d ,

&

o @use agamst ehastita if t h 9 wnThe public officer shvaM i e Oeslt with d&ninm.-

p:

<

When i!l the killing of one's child not parricide? When a person kills his c&Ld who is h d l a d the crime is not parricide, hut infanticide. ,d..

.

.. . ,.:

.

,

,*. , ., ,

-

. I

,.

i he

I? ('

. When is the killing of one's grandchild or grandparent not parricide? Hence, the When the relationshipxis E& I-te. killing of an ille itiniete randson DI- an illegitimate grandfather is& or& as the ea%LZ?aL-he. er, adopted parent, or ister not parricide? Knd in the direct lice, tims in parricide.

conceived the idea of killing her hushand, a pistol furnished. of 4 . B shot the husband of A tb When C g a v e thhe pistol to B, the former knew that sister A had induced B to kill her hushand. What cri was committed hy B and C? 'Explain .your answer; B committed -because he k m the ds.e.as&$( of &e & promise of reward. =is am n the crime of murder, Et in the crime df *,d ~,';Lii$ w e . ;!#<&,~ i O s t h e wife is l a l e f o r f i a be-e a=@: i. ! i n g circumstances which arise f m private re la^^" of the.offend& with the offend& party and which auali@$ the crime shall a.ggravate the lia crime as against, the principals, ac to whom they are attendant. The being attendan to parricide as a stranger, to kill him with

ii

!

1194. Suppose, in the same case,'D, a stranger, assisted in escape of A, who is guilt9 of parricide, what is the Iia ity of D? The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of No that the straager who participated nequent to the commission of parricide would be liable 473 1 ,

.

Ii


r s d e , if the o f f e n a r i m a ,dk-aht the r

ory to parricide, not to murder or nomicide, bepenalty has to be lowered by two degrees. submitted that the provision of the Revised Penal is point is clear that the aggravating circum",. .,' . *'stance which arises from the privat,e relation of the offender

In the bedyoom of his house, A surprised B, who was her paramour, hugging and

with the offended party shall not aggravate the liability of, or qualify the crime against, the accessory to whom it is not attendant.

inflicting slight physical i inally liable for slight ph

195. A woman lived with two different men, A and B, for a period of one month, until A decided to give up and leave the woman to B alone. A child was born to that

:,

.1,

.

woman .eight months later. When the child. was one keek old, E killed the child. What crime was committed h$

w e the .paternity of the child i-certqin ., '':cannot be considered the father 01the child,

. . ,,," '~

:

Code, in order that a person liable for inflicting slight or less se

gd-B

B is liable

_...for

u r m n o t parricide., It is mur&r because k ! k w of the,'child & t o his tender a s E eommitted the-e without risk to himself arid, :., . therefos:, the. killing of the child was attended b d e ,, ' mstance of treachery.

.' x n h e r e z e a k n e s s

. ,, .

J

L

. AthehadPhilippines. been married to @ in China befor-e Here, A married. X. In a

came to quarrel,. A k i l l d R. 'What crime was committed by A?

aidering th'at A did not surprise his daughter in of 5exUal intercourse in his own house, do you physical injuries, or must he be sentenced to des

for having inflicted physical injuries under excep

'

tion with a-woman. A child was born of that woman, which undoubtedly was the later, that child was alwoman and married. She birth illed p when the latter was tlYo2WUs rime was committed by A? , because E m a g r a n d c h i l a was illegitimate. .In par-

u

circumstances? It is submued that A should be sentenc he surprised them in of -0, intercourse and he

p_arent wiiwt..& is living. It is sufficient that the -tawas then livingwith her rnEnts. 1200. A surprised his wife in the act 0% sexual i n t e r c o 3 4 : another man, but the paramour succeeded in j.mpi" -.A

, '.

. .

475

3,

.

. .. ,.,.,

,,

_I

.

.

. .,

., ~, ; ,

,.


the window. A took the door in going out to chase aramour, but he lost sight of him for half an hour. when A was searching for him, he saw the para-

4

/

I!.*

( not mind it.

e, he !tilled him. In case A is prosecuted for killthe paramour and convicted after trial, must he be

It is submitted that a w g h h f t &t o U h far half an hour, s w h e -may be considered continuous; m r ,i t w e

CRIMINAL LAW REVIFWSR

i~

/

One day, A surpdsed- them -.in having sexual intercourse. A killed the suitos'+n tined his said daughter. . Is A liable -.for :*hemic to the penalty prescribed by law. therefor? ..:: No; while heissl'lly'of m i c i d e , ~ h 'shoul 6 tenced to the penalty of the S&LX of hi-er He might have oromohd c~ b u t s the p says: "Any person who shall promote or wostitutim of his wife 01' daughter or a " . , have consented. to t+e infidelity uf the other.spoucie,; : not b e s t l e d to the benefits of this article."

-~

the act of sexual intercourse. Whatever time rom the's-g to the kilrillg was but necw

mour and overtook the wife in their house after the lapse of certain time. In this case, the Supreme Court applied .the provisions of Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code in favor of t'he accused.

ty of the other spouse."

t

in your answer.

4T7

~

~

'

_

'

,

L

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW'ER

b m e it -od

.

- -~


that-

' d

w o l l l L k' l L c. If'e o E y d w s n $ g i u a a s an inducement e nrincipal by direct participation to commit the c g e , t h m s gh@€Zhe commisskn of the c r i m e - w i t e vious promike, the pivinx of the numy-doesnat constitute the qualifying circJdmstance of 0rir-d W

.

~

A, whih driving a jeep, saw B, the man who almost '?;illed him before, waIking on the side of the road. A :.;..dmve his jeep straight ahead to B who was run over and ' , killed. What crime was committed by A? Why? @&d& because h m d B by means of a.-I Murder is committed by any person who shall kill another "by means of motor,vehicles" (Art. 248, pax. 3, R.P.C.).

the train passed over it, it expIoded derailing t h e and killing some persons inside. What crime was mitted by A?

. A put a, time bomb in an airpIane to kiU its pilot.The When pilat

I A:.*'

. t h e airplane was flying the bomb explotkd. was killed. What crime was committed 5y A? Why? a or fall o f a n c o m m W by m e w s of exal 'if the pilot did not die of explosion bnt died due to the Fall of the plane. "

e>,

Note: When a person had the izl~e&LkdUL another and to accomplish his purpose, he used as means (1)inundation, (2)(3) p o k n , or (4) exp$o&n, tho cdme is murder

. .

w,

It is also murder when B person killed another b y means of (1) s h i m e k , (2) strivnding of a vessel, (3) derailment, or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, o r (4) f&of an airship.

No, because killing a person on the occasion of any of the calamities mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 248 of the ,Code requires that the offender must take advantage of it /in comiqidng the crime.

A set the house of B on fire, resulting in the death of a child who was burned. What crime was committed b y A ? Explain your answer. A committed a c-rime nf a r m with hmu.ude ' (U.S. vs, Burns, 41 Phil. 418), or plain arson and the humicide absorbed in the crime of arson (People vs. Pa-, terno, et al., 47 O.G. 4600). It cannat 48 articular person by . means t l L t z . e J W ' ' nnv 7)

..

e. ..

,

,;,

. 1 :.,.a

,."

. , ir In the following cases: ,* 1. When t.he pe~sonkilled i s d i f f e s n t from the' ,in:.:. :, ::+ tended victim. . , ,. '

481

480 $E

i

',,

When is the k i l l e r n o t i a b l e for murder, even if he had premeditated hefore he coninlitted the crime?

1

. .

'!:

N o d Killing a person on the occasion of destructive cyclone, ,&&e and other public calamity is also murder.

i

ip

,'

CRIMZNAL LAW REVIEWER

. When ihhe js his-, a s d n i . or eendant; because the crime W i c i d e .

b-

'

'

.

When the v i e i s a child less than 8 A m L d d , . because the crime is infanticide.

/:; jl

~

4 . When evident uremcdi&%tionis d-n in the -information, but it is p-d-during the trial. : ;' , 6 ; When the killing of the victim is by means of B0;Son, S, .because evident aremeditation is absorbed. 1

lZl8;:Is the killing of a person with ignominy murder? Why'! * . . No, because w n y is && one of the aualifvina

'.

-

a g g r a v a t i n ~circumstances of murder. Note: But killinr

R

' s o n with-

i8-r.

i

its gaximum period to death. What is the .proper penalt y for A in case of conviction? Why? ~. .The .penalty that should be imposed on A in case, a€ conviction is reelusion perpetuu, the medium of the penalty. for murder, because only treachery qualifies the crime to. and abuse of superior strength, nighttime. purpose for, craft and fraud cannot lye eonsidered even w generic aggravating circumstances, because they a ~ so&&iLtwa *=Y-

.;

. .

1223.' A killed his y i f e with evident premeditation and with crueIty. What crime was committed by -A.? .Why? . .; / ~ a ~ ~ i ~ E v i d e n ~ r e m e d i t aand t i ocn m willbe ..;. c $ i H g e s aggravatim circumstances, w e , , 2 .< ,.? once the crime is aualified, as p a r ~ d e b, r the rplaibn- , . I ship between P a - d r t y , &e pyewnce of t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a g _ e i r c u m s tsuch a n cas' e .treachery . an,cannot change the name and nature of the c r k a n d the qualifying circumstance shall bckea&$%z ': generic avrafor the deter; ~

--

>I

<

1&4. the crime.

' 1

/.

-

Is A liable for murder?

Why?

Are the members of that band liable for murder? Why? By a band is not sa&ficdy mentioned in Art. 248 as ' a qualifying circumstance in murder; but it may be considered either Was-We of suoerior streng-th, smed men-as r e g y d s the leader of $he : or @ as- a '. in which case, they are liable for murder. 21. A was killed by a band.

'

iahe.gropa pedy. . ,. i^hen two ou more qualifying circumstances are vresente

bow may they be considered in the qualification of the crime and in determining the proper penalt Only o&them will qualify the crime shall be considered as generic aggravating which shall have the a c t o f r a i s i n g the nenalty to the,

killed B with treachery, abuse af superior st3kugth. at .nighttime purposely sought for, and with craft and fraud. The penalty for murder is reclusion, temporal in

A

A83

~

,

CRIMIWAL LAW REVIEWEX

.,.'..

" ' - ~ ' p m t i Q i ion the part of the person performing or €ail-' ing to perform such act. Hence, intent to ~kiJl -oxanalice . cannot exist when the physical injuries are ni&&&&btugh re-Wdence. . .. The crime is - m e s s serio_u,T ph-iZi3gh Zeclrless i m u r u d w d e p e n d i n g . on the extent and/or effect of the injuries suffered 6y the .. ... offended party. '

/.

/

'~'.1 ,

~

I ,'

227. Without. any conspiracy or spontaneous agreement, A and B 'dealt X blows with clubs which hit the latter on the;J!ead. These blows, or at least one of them, which '' . ' on&ouId not be determined, caused the intracranial ... h e r n o r h g e and crushing of the cerebellum of X, which caused his death. Discuss the liability of A and B, explaining: your answer. ,It i!3 submitted that A and E are guilty of the crime o?(GmJ It is a welllsettled ruk ]%this jurisdiction that w J m a v-ied as a result of oneof the wounds r e h d from two uersons, a a n g independently of each other a,nd the wounds inflicted hy them could have caused the &:t.h, and It could not be shown yhich c a u d the ' . death of the victim, ressors are g m o f A e _c crime of homicide (People vs. Peregrino and Mangco, e C X 3 3 O.G. 4504). 1

,"*

~~

:

t u e a r a t h e r than the intention. Lack of intention to commit !so grave a wrong as that committed will only mitigate the liability of the offender.

:..

'$

1226. What is corpus delicti in crimes against persons where ~, the death of the victim consummates the crime? Covpus delicti, in modern sense of the term, means the actual c,Dmmission of the aime charEd. Hence, if the crime charged is homicide, murder, parricide, or infanticide, . , . . in which the' death of the victim is an element of the of. . .. . ' fense, there must be satisfactorv e.vid.mce o f A h e j & b f &&-of the victim and of his identity. Note: When the death pf the victim results from the usa Of violence by the offender the intent to kill is conclusidy p m surned, because in czimes against ~ e r s m athe. law considers

.g ~25;

was only slight, which could not have caused the death of tkk decensed. If there is no evidence which wound was inflicted.: by oiie or the other of the two defendants, it is not easg,to .' determine their liability. In the case of US. v8. Ahiog, et a l 1 ,.: . 27 Phil. 140, the Supreme Court stated: "One line of AmerieG decisions wou:d here simplify our task, if we were t o follow-. them strictly, by acquitting both defendants. Some of these . .,.. exculpatory doctrines fol!ow: -'" 'If two o r mom are acting independently, and the actual perpetrator of the homicide canno1 be identified, all must-:%4 be acquitted, although i t is certain that one of them was'>@) *11.S& milty. , 'And where two persons strike another, there being nothing to indicate a conspiracy between them, and death resulta, if the jury have a reasonable doubt an to which struck:' the blow causing death, it should acquit- them both."' . ":::, , j .Ti Of eorure, when tlierp is conspiracy, both are liable for the :. death of the deceased. . ,,% ~*

lit,

, '

:':*:

Note: The difficult question t o salve is when one of the w&& found in the body of the deceased was mortal and the oUl&

? ;,

:.:*

I

1128.

X and Y were brothers-in-law and not altogether friendly,although they were in speaking and visiting terms. One day, Y visited the residcnee of X , was receked .in a friendly manner, but after a whse an altercation arose, as a result of which %shot Y in the abdomen, inflicting a wound that was necessarily mortal. Soon afterward: but within a few minutes, when no other person W:a+ present, Y procured a knife and cut his throat, inflict;. ing a ghastly wound, from the effect of which Y must necessarily have died in five minutes. 1s"X liable f o r the death of Y? Explain your answer. Yes. In determining the liability of the defendant in when the deukh a case like this, the && is: "&&e?-, 00, the wound inflicted bu the defendant, &Lm&tribute t o thm_cueat. If it did, although other independent causes also contributed, the casual relation between the unlawful acts of the defendant and the death has been made out. Here, when the throat was cut, Y was not m e r a y ' languishing from a mortal wound. He was actually dying -and alter the'throat was cut he continued to languish; from both wounds. Drop b y drop the life current went

:

485

,,.

:1

.&j:*,2 j ,

.

,

,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEH , -. .&$from both wounds, and at the very instant of d a t h _.. . ,. _. ..t)le gunshot wound was contributing to the event. . I f the .,.:.,..a.! '' . throat cntting had been by a third person, unconnected ! '. . *., _ .. . with the defendant, he might be guilty; for, although a .., mdn cannot be MZed tivice, two persons, uiting inde,, '. may contribute to his death and each be guiltY , . . . . mndentlv, is stiil in life, a n d a y of a hoinicide. a wound $v!ien by anhe killed. but if ~ . . " ', ,, . ' other both may properly be said t o have contributed t o his death." (Cited in U.S. vs. Abiog,~etal., spcpra).

% : +.

,

-

x_.____...,

1229. When the evidence is not clear as t o which bullet or b d lets fired by the two defendants killed two persons, how many crimes 'are committed by the two defendants? i evidence showing that the two vicIf there is n tims died with more than one and different bullets and it is wifbin the scope of possibility that the two versons were ki1.led by one only and the same missile, there is I - only one crime of double murder, a complex crime (People vs. Bersamin Mirong, et al., G. R. No. L-3098,March 5, ", .. 1951). Note: This ruling applies only whcn the positions of the %tims ~ ~ such r te h u a c0-t by o n e x s a m e dug.

_-

1230. In what crimes may the court impose wpon the person guilty of lheir f r 9 a t e d stage a penalty lower b x t w o degrees, instead of one degree, than that proyided by law for the consummated stage? In the crimes of parricide, murder or homicide.

r

Note: A s regards any of those crimes, the court may impose a penalty lower hy three degrees, instead of two degrees, upon the person guilty of an attempt to commit any of such crimes. It, is, however, discretionary t o the murt to lawer the penalty by siieh namber af degrees, as it has to take into consideration the :facts of the case.

6r

1231. X and nixteen other persons had a free-for-all fight in a market place, In the course of the tumultuous affray, a market vendor--an old woman-was killed. The ' .i

486

'

person who killed her was unknown.. Two pointed to X as the person who pushed' ihe' old during the affray, resulting in her failing It appears, however, that the cawe .of the stab wound on the side of her body:and the perso who inflicted it could not be identified. Is X criminal1 liable for the death of the old woman? Y 2 because h-t of the old woman ing a confusgl tumultuous a f f w , and ascertained who actually killed her, and the person or persons who h f m e d the-*es b m d . In such case, the Derson liahb -ei KhDcd v m u m n the victim.

".

'

,

., L 1232. Must the person killed in a tumultuous affray be one ':' of those engiged in the free-&aIl fight? Why? ~
Noto: I f the one who caused the death in a tumultuous affray is&wn, that person who caused the death will be liable for end will he sentenced to the penalty far the ordinary h&de crime of homicide, which is reclusion tempoval. If the person the gerson or who caused the death cannot be as-ined, persons who inflicted serious physical injuries shall be punished by prisioe magov, or one degree lower than the penalty for homicide.

'

'

1233. In physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray, ',. who must be the injured party? The injured party must be participants in the affray. It seems that if the injured person is&T a participant, Art. 252 is not aDplieable. Note: In physical injnries inflicted in a tum the person who inflicted the serious physical less serious physical injuries CannothLidsntif person responsihk therefor ca-entified, he for ordinary physical injuries. The @eraon or for physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous af

487

&:

.dl


..-', .. .. ,> .,< > .i

.. ,. ...

who appeared to have used violence upon the pet'son of the offendefiarty. It. would seem that there is no crime of slight physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray, because the second paragraph of Art. 252 speaks af physical injuries of a less serious nature. The persons taking part in the atfray should not compose two distinct groups (US.YS. Tsndoc, 40 Phil. 954).

1234. A wanted to commit suicide and confided his intention to B, his friend. B suggested to him how to commit suicide withoul. suffering much pain, by telling him tu put the barrel of his pistol into his mouth and fire it upward so a s to destroy his brain. Then B left him done. A followed the suggestion of B and sh,ot himself in the .....,.. ,, manner indicated by B. Is B liable for giving assistaice +& <. .. t-kkle? Explain your answer. Yes, because giving suggestion d o t h e m ? of ccmmii,ting suiclae is_a positive and direct eoooeratiop amounting to giving assistance t o sukde. ,I

--

,

1235. A, upon knowing that B would commit suicide, went to the place where B was going to commit suicide. A stood by and looked at the manner B would commit soicide. A saw the actual commission of suicide by B. Since A did not prevent B from committing suicide, is he criminallg liable? Why? No, because mere passive attitude of n o t p r e v e n.t i.n g the suicide d o z t c o a t e giving assistance t o de.

1236. A approached B and requested the latter to help him cornniit suicide. B agreed t o lend his. assistance to A ... ,., to the extent of doing the killing himself. In accordance with their agreement, B shot A in the chest perforating $: I , ,> ~., , the right 3nw a€ A. bwause ef tb.c t W y surzical . , .,. . operation given to A by a doctor, A survived. What 2. :. , .,~ .,. crime was committed by B? Explain ).our answer. '.,. B is liable for (frustrated giving assktance to suicida He p e r f o r m e d m h e acts of execution nxessary to give .... . assistance to suicide to the extent o f doing the act himself 1 .

'

,,,.;

.

488

CRIMINAL LAW- REVIEWER . , .*" , 'k: that could cause the killing of A, but if the crime ' was!.'

not produced it was by reason of a cause independent*of& !,.11.*'

his will, that is, the timely surgical operation made bp',;:;, , ,,., "L the doctor on the werson of A.

s-ed.

( 1 ) BY assistine another to commit suicide which is c o h j ,.ii

(2) By

do-

' .

his assistance t o a e r to the extent of'

(3) By s s a another to commit suicide .which c=mp?ated. The third act punished, which is giving assistance to sGei which is not consummated, refers Lo the first act. The preceding question iuvolves the 2nd act of giving as ance'to suicide, because B went t o the extent of trying to A himself. But if B only gave his pistol to A who had told he would commit suicide, and A %sed that pistol to self, but he did not die, because of the timely int of the doctor, then the act of B is that one menti

more descrying of pity than of ~,enalty.

1237. Wlien is the discharge of firearm (1)

, w e a i m i n g the *firearm


CRIMINAL LAW IlEVIEWEK

cide, or attemated murder or at-

/ N o t e : Take note, however, that it is not.inerely grave threats when the firearm is already discharged. It will I;s@ave threats if the firearm is on1 pointed a t a n , t $ x n m with d;?nth,* Ischargmg f t .

.,. .,

--

/

e>.

238; A, withoirt intent to kill, fired his gun at 3 who was wounded, but only slight physical injuries were inflicted. :What crimes were committed? Illegal discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries. One of the crimes committed is illegal discharge of fire,.' arm, because there was no intent to kill. Although the two crimes were the result of one single act, a slight phy. i d injury, which is a light felony, cannot form a complex crime with illegal discharge of firearm.

'!'

;i^

case of frustrated homieide in the sense that to consti rated homicide the offender has the lntent to firearm must have hit the victim and must mortal wound in his body $0 that the offen sidered ap having performed all the acts of sary to produce the crime of homicide.

. .

4 2 . When is it an i p o s s i b l e crime, and not illegal dheharge of firearm, if $person had the intention to discharge h?. firearm at or ..!binst another? It would b e ' h impossible crime if the offender aimed his firearm a t or against another person and pressed the trigger, but the bullet did not ezptode because it .was defective. This is an impossible crime, because the act performed wouid be an offense of an illegal discharge of firearm; a crime against persons, were it not for the' employment of ineffectual means.

..

''*

i

I__

1. 9: Suppose that in the preceding question A inflicted on B less serious physical injuries, what crime was committed? .. CompIex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with less serious physical injuries, both being less grave felonies.

.,

/

240. ~Suppgsetlint i n .the question next preceaing B was kine& what crime w a s committed? .. Homicide, plain and simple, as the intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted from the illegal

illegal discharge of firearm? Yes, if the firearm was directed at or against a certain person without intent to Bill and the offender pressed the u t the firearm did not explode because the bullet N o t e : This ease should be distinguished from the ease of nttempted homicide, in the sense that in the latter ease, the offender has the intent to kill. It is to be distinguished from tho

:. ,, . ,

,

490

1243. If the' discharge of firearm wils directed at the house , where the offended party was, but without the offender .: actualiy seeing him, what is the crime? The crime would only be alarm, because i t produced alarm or danger in the place. It is not illegal discharge . , /of firearm, because the firearm could not be discharged at or against the offended party when the latter is not visible to the offender, 244. When is the killing of a child under seven years of age (1) murder, (2) parricide, or (3) infanticide?

The killing of a child under seven years of age is murder when the reiation of the offender with the child is not one of those mentioned in the definition of the crime of ' ' parricide and the child is at least 3 days old. There is a presumed treachery when the victinl is under seven years .( of age. ' It is parricide when the victim is the child, whether :" legitimate or illegitimate or the Iegitimate other descendant of .the offender and the age of the child is at least. 3 days . . Old. '

491

1 1 CRIMINAL LAM' ILEVIICWEK

.

,.. '

'

~

; i.

. It is infanticide when the child. killed is less than 3 days dd, whether .or nat the o€€eader is related i o ihe child.

:

'

.

Note: The name of the crime is always infanticide whoever is the killer, hut the penalty differs when the offender is relatcd ti) the child, as father or legitimate eandparent, in

'

,,


,.

which (case the penalty will be that far parricide. But if the relation 02 the offender with the child less than 8 days old is not one of those mentioned in the definitiod of the crime of parricide, the penalty is that far murder. The intention to conceal the dishonor of the mother is not an element of the offense, it being only a mitigating circumstance.

, .

'was the result of .a negligent act on' the part of the offadex. T1.R vid.exe was ?& intentiona1ly-d by him:, w--4kL%-. . 1248. Is there an impossible crime-

,

Yes, if the woman is not pregnant, but the offender believes that she is pregnant because of her bulging abdomen, and he used violence to cause an abortion. This is an impossihl? crime where the act performed would have been abortio:,, which is a crime against persons, were i t not for the herent impossibility of accomplishing it. It is impossible.,:p cause an

I

'i -', ' ,

-:

womb which results in the death of the foetus.

f

'

Note: In abortion, the age of the footus is immaterial.

1246. What is the purpose of the law in punishing abortion? The purpose of the law in punishing abortion is not ' to, protect a person, as the foetus is not yet a person which

/

ubject to any rights, but principally to protect the of a human being, who is also subject to life, and the health of the mother who is placed in a grave danger abortive manipulations, and to protect as well public interest h y preventing the diminution of births.

Is there x crime of abortion through imprudence? There is a difference of opinion among Spanish commentator:1 as to whether or not there is a crime of abortion through imprudence. But it may be stated that abortion through imprudence may be committed, as for instance, when a dJ:iver of an automobile through reckless imprudence bumped a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion, the crime committed must be abortion through reckless imnrudence. It cannot be intentional abortion, because --"_ ahorI_

492

have been an-on inadequate means.

abortive means used was inadequate. crime, where the act performed would. were it not for the employment of

249. Is them frustrated a h t i o n ? Yes, if the foetus that is expelled with the use of abortive means is viable and it survives. It is also frustrated abortion if the offender with the intention to cause abor-. tion employs e f i c i e n t or m e abortive means but abortion does not result. The crime of abortion is not :produced bFreason o? a cause independent of the will of the 'perpetrator. Is there attempted abortion? Yes, if the offender has commenced the admini of abortive substance, but does not perform all the acts necessary to produce abortion, that is, the pregnant woman did not swallow the abortive, which is by reason of a cause other than his spontaneous desistance. there be an accomplice in the crime of abortion? Yes. 0-0 accompanies a pregnant woman to 'the clinic of a doctor or to the house of one to perform the act o€ abortion upon her, or one who pays the person t

493

perform the abortion, or one who looks for the physician who later causes abortion is liable as an accomplice.

1252. May a person be held liable for unintentional abortion if . at the time he exerted violence on her he did not know her to be pregnant and that as a result of the violence . . . exerted the woman suffered an abortion? ,

.

:

,x""/

Yes,, because the lack of knowledge of the pregnancy of t h offended party is immaterial. What is considered .. e crime of abortion is the fact that a pregnant woman uffers an abortion because of the act of the offender. This is in accordance with the provision of Art. 4, par. 1, which says that a person committing a felony is criminally liable for the result although not intended by him.

1253, A woman suffered abortion by natural'cause. The expelled foetus had already a human form and ahout six . months old. While the foetus was still alive, it was buried by the servant in the yard, as instrxeted by the mother. Are the mother and the servant liable crim. : inally? .. . . No, because the foetus, in view of its age, did not have 'its own life, independent of that of the motber. A foetus ,:. under these conditions had necessarily to suxumb a few ' , moments after its expulsion from the maternal womb. . The crime of infanticide was not committed, because in this crime the victim must be a child less than three days old, but one who can subsist outside of $be maternal womb. There is no abortion in this case, because the expulsion of the €oetus was due t o natural cause. I

,

.

.. .



. ,

.,~.

~ . ,

N o t e : There are two kinds of abortion: (1) intentional abortion, (,hat is, whet%abortion is intonded; and (2) *mintentiom1 abortion, that is, when abortion is not intended, hut the abortion is caused by means of violence. The means used in inter.Lional ahortion i s *ither (1) vialenee, or (2) any other means, especially adrnlnistering abortive substance or surgical operation (Art. 256, R.P.C.). Unintentional abortion is causcd by violence only (Art. 257, R.P.C.).

.,.

494

x L

.r

1254. Is the conseat of the pregnant woman in the abortioh an element ai the crime of abortion? Why? ' , No, because abortion may be committed without the consent of the pregnant woman. If the woman shall have. consented to the abortion committed on her, the penalty to be imposed on the offender is only lowered (from pri.yion n a y o r to prision correccional in its medium and":,,) maximum periods), ~

1255. 1s;Lhe woman who consented that another person should ' . ce an abortion upon herself liable criminally?

+.

She shall suffer the same penalty that would be ed had she practiced an abortion upon herself. ,

'

1256. A quack doctor, who tried to cure a pregnant woman . ' suffering from stomach ache by giving her a certain kind of medicine, caused abortion. It appeared that the cause o f abortion was the medicine administered. What is the criminal liability, if any, of the quack-doctor? f o a e g a l practice The . . quack doctor is liable only He is not liable for aborn-r Gon, whether intentional or unintentional. It is not intentional abortion, because he did not intend to cause abortion; and it cannot be unintentional abortion, because. he did not employ violence. l l a 'm is caused by violence only.

4.

~~

1257. A, a stranger, ,poisoned a pregnant woman t o kill her. As a consequence, she died and the foetus 'in her womb also died. What crr'me was committed by A? w r , because A killed the woman by m mison. It canmi be a complex crime of murder with intentional abortion, because the abortion was not intended; and the crime uf murder cannot be complexed 'with unintentional abortion, because tliere was no violence used. 125s. A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide drank poison. Because of the timely intervention of a doctor

she did not die, but the poison taken by her caused-

495

<:

,;.:: ..

'"

I .I

i

1

CRIMINAL LAW


Explain your answer. Gticed by th? woman upon In this case, when she tried to commit suicide, she could not have f n t e n i JQ c_nuse an abortion an herself.

herself?

No, because in abortio ' +- ba herself, '

.

/'

Nota: Abortion practiced by tho wornan herself is commitred by B woman who shall practice an abortion upon herself ur shall consent that another persoit should do so (Art. 268, par. 1, R.P.C.). Ths parents of the pregnant woman who Committed abortion on her with her consent to ~oneealh e r diskonor are also liable (Art. 258, par. 3, R.P.C.).

259. What circumstance will qualify the crime of aburtion committed by a physician or midwife and what is the reason of the law for imposing the penalties in their .. maximum period? Abortion committed by a physician or midwife is aualified by abuse of his or her scientific knowledne o m s sional skill (Art. 259, R.P.C.). __They incur a heavier-guilt in making use of their kn w l a g e for the destruction of human life, where it should be used only for its preservation.

7

126

.

What is duel? It i:s a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight. Note: An agreement to fight which is carried out without the presence of two or more seconds is not duel; and if one kills the other, i t is plain homicide. There i s no distinction as far as the punishment is concerned between killing B human being in the conrse of duelling and ' the crime of homicide, Both are punished with reelmion ternporv.1. Ihelling is punished with arresto mayor, although no physical injuries are inflicted (Art. 260, R.P.C.).

t. s<+

:

_.

..

.

,

" '

to zccept the challenge. C, who was present, scoffed '. at and decried B in the presence of other persons for .':$ *having refused to accept the challenge. Are A and C ',+ eriminafiy liable, A far challenging R to a duel and C ..,.:! for scoffing a t or decrying B publicly for having refused ! to accept a challenge to fight a duel? No, there was no challenge to a duel in the question. The act of A in challenging B to fight, saying: "Let US see who is the better man," is not challenge to a duel, because it lacked the formality that the challenge to a duel must have. C is not liabie either, because scoffing at or .decrying another publicly for having refused to accept, . a challenge to fight a duel presupposes the existence of a challenge t o a duel, which is not present in the question. Note: Challenging to B duel includes (1) inciting another to give or accept a challenge t o a duel, or (2) scoffing at or decrying another publicly f o r having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel ( A r t . 261, R.P.C.).

8262. Define mutilation and state the two ways of committing.

it. The term "mutilation" means the lopping or the clipping off of some part of the body. The two ways of committing mutilation are: 1 . By mutilating another f - s s e of demiving him Aeither totally or qy-, of = se esi&hhxa n f o r ~ l c i i Q P . 2. By niakirrg other mutilation, for the Eurnose of dgv,:?ij living E -- the offended party of m a r t of his body; cdhgr than the essential organ f c x a ? w d & i o n . (Art. 262, R.P.C.)

,,

--

e

Note: If the part of the body of the injured party is cut d U P ing a fight, them is no mutilation, because the offender has no pun~ose af depriving him of that pnrticular . p a r t of his body. The crime would be seriousphysical iniuries. The law does ~ & . & k o n l y to the rruJt but a l s e t e t h a intention of the act (US.YS. Esparcia, 36 Phil. 840). 1

496

.:

1261. A and B had a quarrel. A challenged B t o ' a Iight,: saying: '%et us see who is the better man." B refused

/abortion. Is this abortion practiced by the woman upon

'

REVIEWER:

497

.

.,: %..!

I


1263. A and 8 fought each other with sharp boloes, With intent to kill, A struck B in the lourer part of his body, cutting his private parts. B did not die due to the timely intervention of a doctor. What crime was committed b:y A? Why? F s r a t e d homicide, because A had .the intent to kill. d'It is n@ mutilation, because it \ v u not the intention of A to deprive B of his essential organ for reproduction.

/

Note: If there si-t t o kill on the part of the offender, and thore i s n-to hurposc of depriving the offended party of a particular part of his body, the cutting of his privnte parts or any other part of his body is anlv serious physical injuries under Art. 263 of the Revised Penal Code,

264. What crime was committed by a doctor who removed the ovary of a woman SO that she might not beceme pregnant again? 'Why? @util:itiod because the purpose of. the doctor in removing the ovary of the woman was to deurivc-her of the'essemtial organ for reproduction.

1265. A caught E stealing in his house.

This being the third time that B w a s caught stealing in his house, A cut all the fingers of the hands of B. What crime was committed b:v.'A? Why? e t a b e c a u s e when A cut B's fingers, h a tion was to denrive him o f his fingers so that E! could not steal again.

1266. What crime was committed when in inflicting any of the serious physical injuries, the offender has intent t o kill? If the wounds inflicted are mortal, that is, they are sufficient +to cause death, it is either frustrated homicide, frustrated murder or frustrated parricide, deyending upon . , , the circumstances under which they are inflicted. If the wounds inflicted are not mortal, then it is only :.:' attempted homicide, attempted murder or attempted pami&.>,?*$.> ..,, ,,,,,>: ,. cia% as the case m a y be. .~i.t$:

,

.

1297. If any of the serious physical injuries wzas inflicted because of the injurious substance given to the offended party, what was the crime committed? 1. Th.e crime was administerinr infurious substance Qg bev-e iE the offender & a t the time he administered * K e same to the offended party that i t w m US, kill (Art. 264, R.P:W. & provided there .*" then it w a s & 2 . If there en murder because the injurious s u b s h s e having b of tl:e offended party, the E&C .&M *Y p m d tke s u b i e d e u h a s of the+. ' 3. It w a s ( S m m s h reel&% iznu e offender did not know of the injurious .' n a r e of the substance 01" beverQe, but h e J j d - w t ta&% the necessary ~ e . c & h i ~ to avoid iniurv to anothcr. 1268. May the court permit the presentation of evidence medical attendance in the case of serious 'physical jnries? Explain your answer. While the law (Art. 263) 'does not mention medical tendance in defining any of the serious physical of medical attendance m3y-b wxx&ed lish the 1ErmWh.si3, which 1s- 0 &termining the seriousness of the physical injuries certain cases.

of : in- ' : a&

/Mmence

-

in

1269. In classifying serious physical injuries, what factors are 2 taken into consideration? '_, T'ney are: I . The IrsxLL.o~ror consequence of the physical. injurie inflicted (when victim becomes insane, "e.). 2 . The I= of a principal member of the body of th offended party (when he lost an arm, &leg, etc.). 3. The i s o f theof any principal member of body of the offended party (when he lost the use of hand, arm, foot or leg, ete.) 4. The loss of any of the non-&cipal.~mgber of body of the offended payty (when he lost the sense of h

499

' I

i

CRIMINAL LAW

. . ing

REVIEWER

of one ear or he lost one or two fingers, which map

,

& % z z w

.

was hit on the head by 6. There'was no break in the skin. Hence, no medicine w a s necessary. But as a consequence, A could not prepare €or his lesson

Wi.2. Classify the physical injuries inflicted by the uffendw on the offended party whose Ieg injury required hospitalization for more than thirty days. That leg injury is a serious physical injury covered by Art. 263, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code. The hospitalization for more than thirty days may mean $i&eF. i&ss-.or..iKcs.acity forJab.or f o r more .thm-tYirty~ days. (See People vs. Mom AIi, et al., G.R. L-7431, May 30, 1958.)

i

273. A boxed B on the left cheek, causing the loss of'tW0 . . molars. Medicine was applied only once on B's gum

I

500

...,

incapacitated for the performance of his work. What k i n v : of physical injuries was inflicted? Why? because although there i s .$: deformity, and the part of the body injured or the effect ..*. o m i n j u r y is not one of those specifically mention@ in the article defining the felony of serious physical injuries, there is loss oLa n o n - a r i n c i w r nf h-b..-J od ' under paragraph 3 of Art. 263.

When are serious physical i n i w 3 e s - a When of the serious ph,ysical injuries i&hflkkd

.'

.

from which the two molars were removed. He w a s nob- :&

also be deformity). 5. The loss of the , p & o f any of the non-principal membei: 6. The incaaacity or illness of the offended party.

for two months, because he became dizzy whenever he read his assignment. How would you classify the p h y s i d injuries inflicted on him by B? The physical injuries inflicted on A are classified as serious, physical injuries. t o incapacity, includer; schoOt The term "&relative &< oTgreparation .for a arofession. Hence, a student, who is injured by another and rls a consequence of the physical injuries inflicted he could not attend his class or study his lessons, is incaaacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually e n g a d .

.i

CRIMINAL LAW RNIEWER

I

1274. A boxed B in the back of his head. B did no€ need medicine as RO wound was caused on his head, but he was not able to work for one week. After one week he realized that one of his eyes could not distinguish one color from another. How would you classify the p h p s i 4 iniuries inflicted by A? physical i n j u r a because the offended Party b d the use of an evq./ 1s not necessary that there is comple&Jdidness of an eye, as t,he dirninuition of the "=offer of an a is sufficient. This is the opinion of Viada; Cue110 Calon believes that there must be total blindness.

e

c

-~

1275. A inflicted a wound on B in a l'ight. The wound remained open for 27 days. B only cleaned it with warm water and did not apply any medicine. B's wound did not prevent him from performing his work. How would YOU classify the physical injllry inflicted by A on B? Why? The injury inflicted by A on E is6light Dhysical in> jury, because there y a s no medical attendance and the latter was not inmpacitated from h-k. The physicat injury inflicted is not less serious or one of the serious physical injuries. 8 4 a a r r 4 A shoved the face of B until the latter fell on the f@r. B did not suffer any physical injuries. For what cJxFy i s A liable? . Why? ' bv ill-treating an' w A is liable fL:d. s othes.

2276. In

601

, ;

I

I /

I


CRIMINAL LAW

1277. What are the crimes against Gersonal l i b e r t a They are: /Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. ,Slight illegal detention. Unlawful arrest. .~ .* Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. . , f Inducing a minor to abandon his home. ,$!Slavery. 4. Exploitation of child labor. 4. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of ' L e b t s .

8.

1278. A, €3 and C, pretending to be constabulary soldiers, told X to go with them to the barracks f o r investigation. A, E and C took X to a seclude,d place where the latter was detained for three days until he was rescued by the real constabulary soldiers. What crime was committed /"by A, 13 and C? Why? a d s G < n d serious illega-3 because & , committed the crime simulating public authority. In such iLimmaterial. case, the periohoL&&tion

&

/1278.

What is the essenthl &men t or act tl!at makes the offense of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? Is the period of detention of the victim important in the determination of the crime? The essential element or act that makes the offense of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is the dearivation of the offended party of his lib& under any of f o h instances enumerated in Art. 267, the illegal detention. of the victim for more than five days being one of such instances. The period of detention of the victim is imuortant, when n u of the other instances which a 'dy the crime i m n t . The period of d e h h o.. & of the victimnt, when any of the following is u r e m t : 1. If it shall have been d-c simulating Dublie mityty; 2 . If any serious physical injuries shall have been i& f=d upon the person kidnapped 01- d e t n i n e d e i f -ts t o kill him shall have been made. 3. If the person kidnappgd or detained. .shall Ije a m a r , femaie,or public officer.

502

i

The penalty shall h a w h e r e the kidnapping or detention is Committed for the PurDOSe of k t o r t i p raLlBQ?@e9enda nsotof the c - n e n t i o n e d &.nr%gnt in the commission of the offense.

V'

4

REVIEWER

---

,/

i

-

1280. A policeman> together with several private individuals, kidnapped a person for the purpose of extorting ransom from the relatives of the victim. What crime was conlmitted by the policeman? Explain your answer. The p+%ep, like the pri&teindividuaIs with whom he was in cons i r g , committed&:dnauplns! a . il@T?I&iif&-because hgAid-x& in h?: c m y w k n he took mrt in the commission of the crime. Having acted as a urivate i n d i y i i , he was not liable ,for arbitrary dete n b. n .

OE

2

I

i

ri

1281. A boy, 1 4 years old, was forcibly taken from the sidewalk of a street and carried away in a jeep, but before the culprits could cover a distance of one kilometer, they, were overtaken by the peace officers who reseued the, boy. What crime was committed by the culprits? Explain your answer. To kidnap is to carry off by unlawfu!: force. The intention of the offenders was to carry away the boy by means of force. There are three ways of committing the c ime of kid-" napping and serious illegal detention: -k I (shall kidnap), &detaining another, or H i n a m d h c ~ $ m s e r deprivine him of his&&

G = & -

503

CRIMINAL LAW REITEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER I ','

.

',

The forcible taking away of the xi&m w e s i l & a l d m m (People vs. Undiana, 50 Phil. 6 4 6 ) .

$0

1282. A and B, by means of violence, dragged and carried C, a Yyomm, to a distance of three meters from the place where she was grabbed. rlfter having carried her to a distancme of three meters, A and B dropped C, because of her struggles, and A and B did not persist in dragging her away. A and B left C. What crime was committed by A a d'B? Explain your answer. and B committed the crime of @insummated Brave oercioQ ebC-comoelled to do' a d t h e r w i l l by means of violence. The acts of A and B do not constitute the crime of frustrated illegal detention, but rather that of consummated grave coercion (People vs. Marasigan, et al., 55 O.G. 8297).

i

&

criminal inhnt, as when he locked up hi, wife in 3 2 w l n fn .o. m.tide. Prevent her f r

1284. A, together with other persons, f ~ m 3 l ytook a woman 27 y e a s age to a ear and carried her to another municipality for the purpose of m a d n g her. There was no impediment on the part of A or the woman to marry. On the way to the other municipality, A never touched the woman. What crime w a s committed by A and his companions? Explain your mswer. A and his companions committed the crime ofi!legal detent103 because the victim is a f&e wh.3.W d m d o L h .T k Tk +t !~e T F victim is a female, it that the deprivation of liberty lasted morg The crime c a z e forcible t?hdu.& n, because t l i m v s no lewd design, as shown by the f a t that he did not touch the woman a i anytime and that h& i i i t e n t i ~ k i n zher f d b b w a s t o marry her. who is of age ,and The intention to mamv the iv-n of any impediment on the part of either party the &nze t u i T y negative the p r a e of unchaste designs.

Nota:

The ruling in the case of People YS. Undiana, 50 Phil. 641, and that in the ease of People vs. Crisostomo, 46 Phil. 775, arc not amlicable. I n the Undiana case, the accused dragged the offended party to a distance of 40 meters from the house where she was taken

-

.

criminally liable? Explain your answer. Yes, w h a h e kidnapping, detention or deprivation of liberty is not ille@. One of the elemeats of kidnapping and serious illegal detention or slight illegal detention is, that the kidnaminc QLWQI&Q ' iIiN F a private person arrested and detained another tJa u e? any of the instances where arrest without w authorized h y t h e R u l e s s f _ C o ure, the w l l e g a l . The detention is n 1 1 when the aceused a d e d without

P

forcible abduction and there w a s - e n c e of lewd desiens. It would seem that had the information been for eonsummated foorcible abduction, the accused would have been found guilty of consummated illegal detention. I n the Crisostomo case, the accused were found guilty of consummated illegal detention, although they only dragged the offended party along and took her against her will to a rice field where she was rescued by other persons. I t will be noted that in those eases the victims w g . u s m e d by ather.persons from the accused; while in the instant case the offenders, after having carried the woman to a distanee of only three meters and dropped her because of her struggles, did not persist in dragging her away and volu ' ' d from furthering their purnose and left with=sumg them when during all the time they wore in B position to ,carry out whatever intent they criginaliy entertained for there was no person present that could have stopped them (People vs. Marasigan, et al., supra).

1283. May a p r w individual, who Iddnwpped or detained or otherwise deprived another of his liberty, not be held

Note: But if A e n r w and && the woman on the way,

or otherwise touched her body

.. 1

KO4

his companions would be liable

1285. Su ,pose, in the preceding queslion, the female was onlJr; .I "i;i would the crime be the same? No, because in s u e h s e the intention to m a k&g that the &cannot Five consent to the marria

505 1

CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIDflNAL LAW REVIEWER

by r x o D of her a e- s i C & I E J Y Ob~ I ~ forcible a b d u c t i m

'

s; and the

.+

1266. A, B and C detained X for w a y s during which time X was subjected to physical violence, because he attempted several times to escape. X suffered l e m i o u s physical injuries. What crime was committed. Explain your answer. @ illegal baause the - d Qt f.or moreith an 5 d a t h e r e w&n&simulation o w i c = ,a the o f w p a r t y w a s s t a p w i r , a femaleor a e r , there was no t o w t h €fended p a a a n d the physical i n w n r M were-&&erious.

_-~

A and B detained without legal ground X, a -&Or, demand ransom. X was released w& i. t h d s , ,be fore the institution of any criminal proceedings, and without attaining the purpose. Must the court impose a penalty one degree lower? Why? No, because the crime committed - -s i t a That privileged' mitiga&@ngcircumstance is applicable only t o a case of &ght illegal detention.

detents

Note: T h s i m e is @&ht il&nal detentio@ when n a o f the cireurnstan%that the crime of kidnavoing acd ser;oUg illepal detention is nvesent (Art. 268, R.P.C.),

I

1287. If the robbers, after taking p e r m 1 property by means of intimidation, compelled the victim to go with them and put it restraint on his person, thereby depriving him of his liberty, are the robbers liable also for illegal detention? Why? >, b,ecause the w e of the robbers was not to deprive t&e victim of his liberty, but & t o Feventa ' reporting the matter to the authorties. 1268. What is the s t k i p a t i o n and&bility of the person who p e s t r a t i o n of ihe crime of His uarticipa_tion i a nh -t @ioi$E& & b h e a l > e ounished with the same uenalty provided for the bq direct particiuation in the crime of slight i w W n . 1269. What is the liability of the person who furnished the place for the pernetration of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? Why? The person who shalt furnish the place for the pert petration of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal I

506

detention is to be punished with a penalty one degree Iower than that provided for the urindpal, because he is only andna& i t is only in &&gbt illegal d & d iion where the person who shall furnish the place for t h e perpetration of the crime is punished with the same pen. altx as that f o r the..p-.

)

I

I

~1291. A, suspecting that B w a s occupying a part of his land, tied his hands, forced t h e latter to ride in a jeep, and took him to the municipal builNding for the puwose of filing a false charge against him and delivering him to the chief of police. What crime was committed by A? Why? A committed the crime of Q Z i E V ~ t because J h m d or detained another without authority-w or without reasonable ground therefor, but for the purpose of deiivering him to the proper authorities. 1292. IIow is kidnapping aiid failure Lo return a minor dislinguished from ordinary kidnapping and serious illegal detention? Both in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, when the victim is a minor, and in the crime of kidnapping and failure to retur a minor, the victim while in kjdnauDin5 is a minor under 21 years of age,/& and failure to return a minor, the offe der is( with the custody of n minwJwEn/ k i $ p a . p e. ~ ~ ~ serious illegal detention tb o f f e n d s shoral8-n-o custody of the v i m . f i i d n s p p l n g and ser;tduhsa\rfie% detention the crime c nsists in deurivina the offended

607

1

I I CRIMINAL

,

2

party of his libmiy, m e r y c o n f h h g h‘ u or-ng restraint _on his oerson. n kidnapping an& failure to return a minor, the crime consists in deliberately failing to restore the &or to his p&s o r guxfiians.

’


LAW REVIEWER

I

.g

1293. A induced a’minor to abandon the home of his parents by proniishx to give him food, plenty of money and *“.j

beautiful (clothes. The minor refused to abandon the home of h!is parents in spite of the enticement. Is A criminally liable? Explain your answer. It is opined by a Spanish commentator that hte-e of inducing, a minor to abandon his home is consummsed by the mere induce&. HZce, it would seem t h u i n not necessary that the minor actually abandong h a m e because of the inducement.

7. 0

1294. A, a boy 13 years old, left his parents’ home and lived with B. After sometime, C induced A to abandon the home OF B. Is C liable far inducing the minor to abandon B’s home? Why? No, because B w a m A‘s guardian nor a n e m n entrusted with A‘s cusbilg. Note: Art. 271, R.P.C., provides that t m which the W r /

because Of the induce ent made by the eeused, must be the h a m of wrent8 o7 raor the&on e n h x with his eustodv.

d

1295. In the 8ame question, is B liable for A’s leaving his parents’ home? & b s i M B =got entice or induce A-tQ abandon t h d e &f his parents. 1296. In a conversation she had with the n1inql.s I) and S,

A told said minors that Manila was a big city; that the 508

4

.

In order for an inducement of a minor to abandon the home of his parents or & i s or the person enthe crime penalized trusted with his custody to -titUte of the Revised Penal Code, i t is essential under -221 t beactual, committed with erimirJal that th&ucmm inte2t, and dctermiDd by a w i l l t o cause damage. The representations made by A to D m d S highly praising the City of Manila and her offer and promise to take e do not constitute inducement. them to that city d The verb “to induce” means “to influence”; “-t ‘1 on”; “to move h u e m i o n or i n f l u m e ” ; or “to incite by -m (People vs. Paalam, C.A., 64 O.G. 8267-8268).

N o t e : This opinion is correct, because the wime is committed by inducing B minor to abandon the home of his parents or gusrdinnr: QT the persons enhnsted with his custody. The law (Art. 271) says, “shall induce a @erson under age x x x to abandon the home,” which means that what ednstitutes th_e e&% si- the. s e t of induing, and tke i e a w ’ q of the home by-minor is not r e a k e d .

a-s,

moviehouses were bigger and better than those -found in $010; that the city was a better place to live in; that she. would take them with her to Manila; and that they need not worry about the expenses incident to their going to and shy in that city as she wwld defray them all. A was 19 year:! old and only a maid, while 1) and S were both 14 years of age. Is A liable for inducing the minors to abandon their homes? In view of the fact that m a n $ also a minor, i t cannot be sunnosed that A commanded s-cendancy over D and S, a> to be able to orevail

I

1297. A and B kidnapped and detained X for a weelc t m @ the latter to wwk in x.plantation in Mindanao&bout sakry. Before A and B could board a vessel for Mindanao with X, a policeman rescued X. What crime was committed by A and B? Why7 bethe purpose was t m e - h & is kidnamed_or ckhned ‘ , tlle_crimecamm=si slaverv if -se is t o enslave him (Art.’ 272, R.P.C.)

.

1

1298. A sold his nephew, 7 years old and an orphan, to B on the promise of the latter to send him to school and to treat him as his own child. But contrary to their agreer

609



ment, 13 compelled the boy to work in his house as sew ant^ without ,pay. What is the liability of A and B? A-was efor slavery, because he had no inten-. tion to enslave t h m r when A snld,him. B would be liable fpibecause his intention in purr ha sing^ the minor was'to enslave him, a i o d y his s u b s e m a t act.

~-

c

N o t e : The penalty shall he imposed i n the maximum p e r i d if thc purpose is to assign the offended party to some immorah traffic. Ill 01. sellinq a human b e i w &%€y crime. &W m a ! it a crime k . & ~ a t l i en c e u ~in buving oy selling n person to enslave him. ,.*'

-

--

1299. What are the a e s against s e c u r i t y a l ' They are : k: Abandonment of persons in darrre.r and abandonment of one's own victim. 2.. Abandoning a @tor. p. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. 4. Exploitation of minors. 5. Q . u ~ f i d L t r ~ s p ato s s dwelling. 6. Other forms of treD.ass. 7. Grave threats. 8. Lisht threats. 9 . Other I&&Ahrea ts. 10. G%ve c o m s . 11. L i w i o n s . 12. Othw 'similar c e n s . 13. F.omtion, m N e n a n c e and yrohibition of cornbination of capital or labor through violence or threats.

1300. A, who stabbed and seriously Tvounded B in the abdomen. left the latter in an uninhabited place where the crime was committed. Is A liable for the other crime of ahan.. donment of his own victim? Why? ,. <, in an u&W&&pbee &t&$..,;., ~,No, , because - w ~ ~ e l ' - . oA & ~ wounde4 B in that ,,~ '!, . %,

[?lace. B e A w (Art. 275, par. 1) e s abandonment of a person in %,e: o& when such uerson, m n d in an uninhabitedwoun&d o i dying, is I _ -

fails to help 01% render assistance to another whom he has qm&?n?X& v+Qim&& or injnred. A intentiwounded B. . . 1301. A, while driving il jeep, bumped and ran over a pedestrian who was seriously injured. A continued to drive his jeep without even loolcing at the injured person. How many crimes were committed by him?

A committed @) physical iniuries, if the i-party & t n& reckless imarudence, if did not die, the injured varty &ed subsequently; and# -a ment of one's own xieiim, by f a i l i m -t or render ' assistance to another whor in&r&

w-.

Note:

The crime of abandonment of one's own victim requirea

1302. Suppose that in the same quation, A stopped his jeep to help the injured pedestrian, but he saw a mob, rushing towards him, and by reasnn thereof he drove away his jeesp, thereby failing to render assistance 60 the injured person, can A escape criminal responsihility? Why? Y , es, h+ause he was prevented to render assistance b y e insuperable c z m (Art. 12, par. 7).

1303. A saw a pewm seriously wounded lying on the side of a warehouse near a harbor. He did not render him any assistance. Is A liable for abandonment of a person in danger? The &e, b e i a e w h m a n v other aersnns were -a it is submitted that A is nat liable. The olace v

~

'-.'I. ... ' , , ,

,

,

510

511

y


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER n

m n e uninhabited -t is thda&&ermn in the X&I w u render assistance.

1304. A saw at the market place a child, 4 years old, who was abandoned. A did not mind the child. Is A liable criminally? Why? No, b 9 u s e the minor-under seven years af age ~s n m i d abandoned in an unsafe place. Art. 275, par. 3, requires that such child is found abandmed and w e to a safe dace,% to his farnibis not l.&n i@X,ies.

'

1305. What i!i the purpose of the offender in committing the crime of ahandonihg a minor?

The purpose of the offender must be to avoid the obligation of caring for the minor under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him. to kill, l e f t h e r one-year old child in her bar,ong-harong which she abandodpermanently. The child (lied of hunger a s no person saw the child since . its mother had left it there. When she left the child, she thought that someone would find the child there. Her purpose was to avoid the obligation of caring tor the child. What crime was committed by her? G n d o n i n g a minor,) There are three responsibilities urovided by the Code, namely: & When the minor is deprived o&y. of t h e m k a n d protection it needs bv reasQn of & C k & L W C ; 4 When h u e is endangered; and & When the minw dies, as a result of the-on-

1306. A, w & M e n t

n i&

T h e e no intent to kill o n e part of not lxble for the h i g s e oLPanicide.

A, s h L

returned to his master. Is the servant liable for abandoning a minor? Explain your answer. . Yes, because he abandoned a childless than 7 year4 of axth&&v af which is incumbent upon him. cusk&, af the minar may be t s b o r a r y only. Note: &t io constitute the offense, the abandonment must be @Gnent,>

130% What would be the crime if there is intent to kill when the child is abandoned by the person having its custody? ,"' If the purpose of the offender in abandoning the minor under 7 yearKOof age is t o cause hiri death, the crime COX& mitted i s either f-i the cS

/

o s ; m a i f the child is 3 days o_r older and the offend

E

is not related to the child; o r & r m if the child 3 a o r older and the offender is the father or mother, w m r legithw& o r illegitimate o r legitimate grandp

s

-

-

Note: In the crime of abandoning not have ---. the intent to kill.

a

minoy, the o f f e n d e r s h s y

1309. A, a pregnant woman, while answering the call of nature in a bamboo thicket, nnexpectedly gave birth to a child. As she was suffering from extreme debility and dizziness, she left the child in the thiclwt, where a n animal killed it. Is A liable for abandonment of a minor? No. 'TkaanmlaUnmt thatthe_lsJv (Art. 276, R.P.C.) p e s is ~ W i i i Z Z i a n d ~ b a on-n d m s t , r e - z - L i n t & x m t i o n of the axe a m t@ tuba ne& by rmiQp QF his klXk2&% (People vs. BaEdian, 63 Phil. 530). 4 is exemDt from criminal liabilitr, t&c&d c r i s L & a J A n t when she left the child.

1307. A told his servant to accompany his child, 6 years oId, to his grandmother who was living one kilometer away. But the servant left the minor on the way and never

1310. A was entrusted in Iloilo by B wil,h her brother, a minor 6 years old, to be brought to his mother in Manila, but A gave the minor t o the captain of the vessel, A's friend,

512

613

CRISSIKAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlMlSAL LAW REVIEWER

to do it for him. Is A liable for abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody? Why? It is submitted that A is&liabIe for abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his -custody, o n h the person havine char= of the reaving or educutipn of a Ginaw-er ' r to-aala5licjnsti1-t or other persou, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his care or in the absence of the latter without the consent of the proper authority, shall be liable (Art. 277, R.P.C.).

incurred hv an ascendant, g?laniiw~, 01- person entrnsted t& ,tl,lysi with the custodysf-arrur u x s h a l l apain& k& @XEhllim in his servke (Art. 273, R.P.C.). Exploitation of minors is committed by &H causing, (=employing, or (3)'delivering any boy or girl under 16 years of age (or under 12 years of age, in case the offender is an ascendant) to perform any d m e r o u s M aLb&mh, &ysical strenwth, or c_o_ll_tartion; or to w o r k j n m S wild-animal o m w c h t , gmum.t, r m d k m , t ~ i . o, r m a ! . m g e r (Art. 278, R.P.C.).

a

e

Notn: Is Art. 276 applicable? That article punishss a ?- c.suL> who shall ahandan a rh ild u w t c C L ~ the s m&ody ~

1313. When is inducing a minor to abandon the home of his parents or guardian a crime of exploitation of minor under Art. 278 of 1,he Revised O d e ? The act of inducing a mixor to abandon the home of his parents or guardian is exuloitation of minor x!hedh? a a o f the mi= is under sixteen yearseand the purD3e of the offer:dxis t o make the minor follow a a acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, d a r , wild-animal tamer, or circus manage% q t o accompany any habitual v a a w t or beggar (Art. 278, par. 6, R.P.C.).

igincumbent U I . It can not he abandoninrr a minor under Art. 2'76. because . that article - y when there is an-interruptior~ of the e n s and proteetin-" t h a w Y er affi. Under the custody of the captain of the vessel, SUTt h m e and p r o t e a of a responsibjs-sm. of\.w

wznser

1311. When is a person liable for the felony of indifference of parents;? * A person shall be &ble for that felony if he s b u &&I his chLldren by not +ins them the e d u c a t i o n d h a n w a I u t i o n in life r& (Art. :?77, par. 2, R.P.C.).

Note: Exploitation of minors is punished b s s e it endangers t u o r A a E y o f m .

Note: Hence, if the parents are so poor that they do not have the means to give their children the necessary education, they will not be liable.

::,'

. ,**':. . . .,

,

The parent is not liable under Art. 2 7 7 + r % e is working in another province or city and the minor and his mother 1.e: i U him there. ~ I n that mse, ~ l @ M 'Ye u hisminor ' Ehieli their fit;rinninlife r&!iires ceases.

., . 1312. Distinguish exploitation of child labor from ex&&&iom of A r s r s . Exploitation of child labor is a crime against liberty; whereas, exploitation of minors is a crime again&&tY. I Exploitation of child labor is committed by any person c' fvho, under the metext of reimbursinc himself ot-f .,

1314. Wbat, is the difference between trespass to dwelling and violation of domicile? One of the ways of committing the crime of violation of domicile is by entering any dwelling against the wil: of the owner thereof, the offender not being authorize( judicial order. The other way of committing the offense is, havini surreptitiously enteped said dwelling, and being require( to leave the premises, by refusing to do so. Trespass to dwelling is also committed by enterinl the dwelling of another against his will. The first way of committing violation of domicile an( the manner of committing trespass to dwelling are tho &me: thc offender enters the dwelling of another agains the latter's will.

/

, '

,,L$

515

I 1

I

CRIMINAL LAW ‘REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEF:

But the other way of committing vi( tion of domicile and the manner of committing trespass to dwelling are

1317. A was found by B inside the house of the latter. There is no evidence as to the manner A entered B’s house.

not the same: while in the other way of committing violation of domicile, the offender enters the dwelling SUI= reptitiously ; in trespass to dwelling, the offender enters the dwelling of another against the latter’s will. But what constitutes the other way of committing violation of domicile is the refusal of the offender to leave the premises after having been required to do so. The offender in trespass to dwelling is any private person; in violation of domicile, the offender is any public officer o r employee.

5,<.i e . .~-

Is A liable for trespass to dwelling. Explain your answer. Where there is w i d e n e e as-t.&L.he manner a person &D the d.siellul ’ g of another, he cmnot be held liable for trespass to dwelling, because to constitute the crime of t r e m i w - b Ay&i.ng e-t jnto the dwellingof ae-r must be amin& the latter’s y& The entrance ‘into -....the dwellinn of another is against the latter’s will when there isgrohib~itionor oppositign, exmess or imp& og the part of the owner of t he dw& . g. Such prohibition or opposition cannot be assumed. Nence, there 9 must be evidence of the prohibition or opposition of the owner. of the dwelling or of the facts from which it may be implied. I

1315. The third way of committing violation of domicile under . Art. 125 is by smrching papers or other effects found in the dwelling without the previous consent of the owner. If a private person committed such act, what would be the offense? If the e&ance is onlpwithout the tfif the owner of x te dwelling and the private p e r s o n x a fiearch w3hout the previous conseqt of the owner, the offense I

1318. A prohibited B from entering his (A’s) house. One week after, B went to the house of A upon the invitation of the laitel’s daughter. A found B inside the house. A called for a policeman and complained against B for trespass to dwelling. Is B liable for trespass to dwelling? Explain your ansver. W A l t h o u g h A’s daoghter invited B t o go to the house of her father, wch invitationSUlIi0hXIWiil C!EX the express lllLQhihitioMf f-.

%E-

jiiziszim

If the entrance is.e wilkof the owner, and . the search is without the tm.u~ ‘ us consent .rf the owner, the offense is‘6respass to dwellin9 the uniust vexation beinn only a l h t felony s u e considered absorbed in the crime of tresDass t o dwellin2. If pgrsonal nroperty i s a n , after the search, w & intent t o a n , the crime i s q u e there is violence aeainst or intimidatim of 1 -s or force unon

,,

t m 1316. What is the difference between simpIe trespass and .,

.

’

’

,

fied trespass to dwelling? When the e-e into the dwelling a ~. e t h e will of its orvner&t committed by means of violence/or en iptimidation, it is o m 4 i m p i e tresuass to uweiiln the crime is committed by means o f violence or%$?&t h , it i:; -@XEtea tresuass t n X 3 I i i p (Art. 280, R.P.C.).

I

1319. At about 3:OO p.m., A pushed the door of the house of B and, once it was opened, entered the house.. IS A liable for trespass to dwelling? Explain yonr answer. It is not necessary in the ordinary life of men, in ordes to call at the &or of a house or to enter it, to obtain the previous permission from the owner who lives in it. With the utmost good faith, a person, l o whom e?ztrunce has n o t been denied beforehand, may suppose that the owner of the house h a no obiection to receiving him in it (Groizzrd). Note: This is the reason why there ia no trespa.ss, if the entrance into the dwelling is m7.u rvithozLt the consent of the ownel..

+’:

616

511

I

I 1 "

'.

i I

'



-

1320. A, a girl 12 years old living in the house of B, invited C to come inside the house. B scolded A for inviting . C to enter the house and filed a complaint against C for . ' trespass to dwelling. Did C commit the crime of trespass to dwelling? Explain. . . No. T & j n x W k a o f a member ofL&?&&i&Qld, -1 if she is a minor and onlv an inm ' ate of the dwelling, was held sufficient to iustifv the claim that the entl'yvza&.& m a d e against the occuuant's will, in the ahsene-pi=rohibition by the latter.

There crime of trespass to dwelling with homicide or e committed in said dwelling. When trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit any other to dwelling is not,an c r i z e inside the dwelling, & t& p.% independent crime. That the crime is committed in the dwelling of th; offended party, is o& an agmavating circumstance.

I

.

1324. A, inlending to commit robbery in the house of B, entered the same through the w ~ o w but' , was grabbed by the neck by B before he could touch any personal property in the house. For what crime is A liable? Explain your your anw-? @remass to d@ A .havinsr entered the house of B through the window. The e n b n c e was against the will of B. The fact that A had the intent to commit robbery in the house does not m2,ke it attempted robbery, tiiere being 110 overt act of the crime of robbery.

-

_

_

~

1321. What is the criminal 1iabilit.y of a servant who opened the window of the house of her master to make pmsible the entrance of her suitor in the house through the window? What is the criminal liability of her suitor7 She is a I-p bv i n d i s n e ..n ' vn in the crime of+3$aiified trespass t o dwellin& and her snitoy & a-prMpal by direct nart i c i d n in the said crime. N o t e : It has been held that when the entrance into the &el ling of another is effectd t-the window, the crime committed i u a u e d tres~asst o dwelling, because -t - f

im i

i..I..

ewstrnctiue

1322. At 10 o'cloclc in the morning, while the d E r of B's house was opened, .A entered it and once inside immediately pushed B when the latter asked him wli2t he wanted. What crime was committed hy A? Why? A committed the crime ofG~nalifiedtresuass to dwe1j.J ing & m e of the use of violence, ~ ~e f& that the door of the hoyse o u WUiQXED an.d.&W .. '37. In 'qualified trespass w a n g - p m l u l a h n to the CULL to dweliing, when there is v m e or intimidation .h,Q mediatele after entrance, it is not necessary tl&dx.re should he Drier prohibition or opposition to the entrance.

h

.

Note: If A-h&&he i n t e n t i m t o & a r injure 8 when he entered ths house, he would be 1i:ible only for p*il+ie%

1326. A entered the yard of the house of B late in the evening by jumping over the fence. The gate of the fence Wa9 locked. B surprised him inside the yard. Is A liable for other form of trespass? No, because the place was inh&&d.

1323. Is there a complex crime of trespass t o dwellincr y&h h eor rape committed in the said dwelling? Explain your answer.

... .

,

I

1325. A, for unknown - d s e , entered t.he house of B through the wi&ow. B upbraided A for entering his house through the window. A stabbed B, inflicting less serious physical injuries on the latter. What crime or crimes were committed by A? d r e s p a s s to d w e l l i n p r i o u s physlcal i n j u r i y When A entered the house of B, he had no intention to inflict physical injuries on B or any other person. It was only when B upbraided him that A inflicted physical in' @ -.n et on the juries. There being -t part of ~ A, h e m i t t e d c two different c?&~e S.

619

518 t

I


..

..

'

Note: Other form of trespass is committed when the offender enters the closed premise< or tenced estate of mother while either of them is uninhabited, the prohibition to enter t h o mme being manifest, and the trewasser not having secured the permission of the owner oi caretaker thereof.

i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER I n the second ease, the threat made by A to inflict upon the person of her husband G n g amauntinr to a criole a&? promised some future harm to the husband of the offended woman. Since a condition was impcsed by A, - b of the o u a s e w u immediate, because he atQn -t tained his pllrpose the next day, t h e crime was-' It will be noted that in the second case, there was no actual nat-t when the pur== was a t the Doint of beinn attaimd. In the first case, evcn a t the moment when A was accomplishing his puthe threat o r intimidation E actuul and continuing.

1

A threatenep a woman that he would kill her husband if she would not have sexual intercourse with him. BeGiuse of the threat made by him, A snceeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. What crime was commitfed by A? Why? p j b e c a u s e the t& made by A formed Dart of e element of intimidatien that he employed to succced i h i s i r n a l defie. The threai thpn cannot be considered -a ate and indeaendent &e.

1 3 2 m V h e n is a demand for money with intimidation robbery, and when is it grave threats? Give illustrations. A demand for money with intimidation i s. .m whep the intimidation is direct, Dersisteut and c&UlUlW until the offender succeeds in taking the money of the offended party. .The ga.in obtained is immediate. Thus, if A, a t the point of a pisto!, demanded money from B, threatening to kill the latter if he would not produce his money, and B gave to A all the money he had with him, the crime committed by A is robbery with intimidation. The gain obtained by A was immediate. It is w v e in1 s when the in_timidation is conditional to the offend& and merely p r o m s somefuture-m par.ty 01: to a member of his family, i n , t h m e y demanded is& dd.b?ssl t-ff&r&either aersona)JY Q?I through an intermediary. Thus, if A told B that he would kill him if the latter would not send him F1,OOO within twenty-four hours, and B a t the money the next day, A would be liable for grave threats. I n this case, the. gain ohtailled by A S!ZU ry&-te. as he got the money the next day.

fl

-

otc: When a crime, specifically liunished element of another crime ac&dlv cornmi$&, G b s o r b e d by the latter.

f- 0 u o m __r

1328. Suppose that in the preceding question, A threatened the wontian that he would kill her husband if she would not have sexual intercourse with him, and the next day, the woman having agreed t o the condition imposed by A to save her husband, A had sexual intercourse with her. What crime was committed by A? Explain your answer. I n this case, A is liable for brave threatsJ because A threatenepthe woman with the infliction upon the person of her husband of a wrong amounting to a crime, that is, that he would kill him, imposing a condition, that is, that she should have sexual intercourse with A, and A attained his purpose. Note: The crime committed is o p e , because wken the 05 fender had carnal kno %so anreed to it. t u c o n t r o l l e d her will a t the time of the sexual i n t e r m e. Distinction of the two cases: the first case, the threat made bv A ',as direct, and continuinn until A accomDlished his 1)urpose. A - had carnal -e of the woman y m q m - b~That is one of the ways whereby the felony of rape is cornmittea.

620

c ^ _

Note: In\=ry with intimidation the t h & o r is directed0-0 the ers o t -he t h B t - i m A e r s Q n , Lianar or of the offended party or th&.&anv of the fs3llily. 1,

1330. What i s the stage of execution of the felony of grave threats if the offender does not attain his purpose? Why?

621

I


CRIMINAL LAW REVIGWER

-

.I

It is consummated grave threats, because m h e a& of execut&n are performed by-the offender and the felony is produced. The f w e of the offender t~ a t b'n his p m o s e only u e s the penalty to be imposed. There are three forms of grave threats. One of them is grave threats where the offender does not attain his purpose.

X334. What is the difference between krave threats and light

threats? In-rave threats and linht threats, the offender .. makes a demand for m x y or imposes any other cn -, when he makes the threat. While i n p V b J the offender threatens a n o a r with the iilflletlon upon the person, honor or property . . the latter or of his family of any wrong aImm&B&L ofa e;in Ii$€3KrTZ$, the offender makes a threat t o rime. co.m&a w r o y not- n i '

i

1331. May a person he held liable for grave threats, even if he did not demand for money from, or even if he did not impose any other condition upon, the person threatened? Elxplain your answer. Yes, because grave t h r e a s m a y -a committm i f t h e t h s i s not subject to a condition. Th% is the third form of grave threats (Art. 282, No. 2, R.P.C.).

Note: An example of light threats is tho ease of two Chinese who threatened the offended party that they would denounce her to tho NBI and RIR for buying real estate in violation of the law and for not filing her income tax return, unless she would given them P1,OOO. To denounce her to the authoritiea is not a crime, but their demand f o r money makes them liable f a r light threats.

1332. HOWis llle penalty for grave threats determined? If the offender attained his purpose, that is, the offended pnrty gave money in case there was demand for money, or that the offended party complied with the condition imposed by the offender, the penalty is next lower in degree than that prescribed by law €or the crime the offender threatened to commit. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime the offender threatened to commit shall be imposed. wt subject to a condition, thp But if the -is penalty is fixed by law.

.1355. What is blackmailing and under what 'provisions o f , the Revised Penal Code may it he punished? Illustrate. the unlawful extortion of money

:

.

ni ~ ( D O S U . It is punished in the Revised Penal It is a t-t to commit a wrong Code a s \ T @ T i T W + not constituting a crlme, demandin9 maney o r m i n g nnyxhhcudtion. Thus, if A sent a note to a woman, stating therein that he would testify against her in the case where she was charged with adultery, unless she would send to him Pl,OOO, A is liable for light threats. Blackmailing, consisting in threatening to publish a libel and offering to prevent such publication for a compensation, is aiso punished by the Revised Penal Code (Art. 356). as a crime against &nor

cusaim

1333. May Ikhl. threats be committed if there is d e m a n d for money or no condition is imposed by the offender on the offended party? Why? No, because a_threatto commit a wrong not constibt. must be made in the manner expressed in n-i subdivision 1,of Art. 282, that is, that binademand for money , g ~ that any a t h w & ' ' ' ifflsered (Art.

b!

I

283,C.).

622

1336. A, who seduced Bs daughter, refused to nlarry her. B threatened A that if he would not marry, his daughter, he would file an administrative complaint with the SUpreme Court to prevent. him from taking the bar exam-

623 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEFVER


inations, because he was immoral.

threats?,. Why?

or light threats. If the offender fails to give bond to

Is B liable for light

keep the peace, he shall be detained for a period not exceeding 6 months, if prosecuted for grave or less q a v e felony; or not exceeding 30 days, if prosecuted for a hght felony.

/because B did n-ake a thwk&-commit a n g . It -nig to file an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court against a man not fit to become a lawyer. Note: Both in grave threats and in light threats. the threat offenbocommit an a t- w PI m&bethe the o n l y e n c e is that in grave timeats the monp amounts t o h e , while in ]-eats the m g which the offender threatens to commit b-e.

1439. A told B that he would kill the latter. What crime was committed by A? t in the heat of anger and It depends. If A u subsenuent acts of A s a d that he did not persist in the idea i n a d - i n the threat, i t is other\ light threat1 Ife with the deliberate n e of creating in the h m mind of the p r s o n t h r e a t b e d the belief that t w z b e carriGnb&ct, it{-\si

.

-

1337. But suppose, in his o d o u s e the rather of the seduce8 girl threatened to file an administrative complaint against the seducer with the Supreme Court, unless the latter would give him P5,000, and the seducer then and there. prepared and issued a check for that amount, what crime was comnliitted by the father? Why? cry' with intimidatiog because btimidatioq m N consist & threat of arosecution, and threatening the seducer with an administrative complaint is similar to i threatening one with prosecution. There si-an on the part of the father. This element of intent to gain and that of intimidation make the crime of robbery with , pain was e. intimidation. M ~ J Qie

~~

1340. A, in the heat of anger, struck I? with a cane, saying, ‘41 will kill YOU!” B suffered slight physical injuries. What crime was committed by A? the Slight physical injuries. The t h B t \vas -of a@t (U.S. vs. Sevilla, 1 Phil. 143).

/

1341. What crime was committed by a person who prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or compelled him to do something against his will, w i m violence or intimidation? Explain your answer. When the element of violence or intimidation o is not present, the committed IS unjust v m o n

Note: 13ut W e offended party did not issue a cheek then and there, or if the check ivns issued s o m e t i e r , it would be

Fv

Wt-L

1338. What is bond for good behavior and how is it distinguished! from bond. to keep the peace? Bond for good behavior is a bail which the person. making the threats may be required to give, not to molest. ’ ‘ the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to d e s t i e v o (Art. 284, R.P.C.). Bond f o r good behavior is an additional penalty ia grave threats and in light threats. Bond to keep the peace is a distinct penalty which is .,: &posed in cases involving crimes ,other than grave threats -

1342. May violence, a s an element of grave coercion, -eb ployed urn-, instead of directing i t against the ’ person of the offended party? Yes, as when the owner of a house destroys its door or’windows for the purpose of making the actual occupant vacate it. This may be c o n s i d e r e d \ p m e a C ! because the law (Art. 286) merely says, “any persqn who, x x x, shall by means of violence, x x x, c . h i m to & s o m e ~: thing against his will, whether i t - b e right or wrong.” In ’.,’<

-.\:a Y

>

625

624 E

I i


CRIMINAL LAW REYYIEWER

the given case, the violence employed on the things

Was

felt by the occupant, thereby affecting his security.

1343. When may a person who prevented another f r o m doing something even by means of violence-riminally liable? When t.he act sought to be prevented is w h i t e d by law, as preventing a thief from taking one’s propertfir, t h e . . act of taking another’s property being prohibited by law. There is no grave coercion committed if the person ity using violence or intimidation has the rig& t o m act. Thus, a private individual has the right, to prevent. ail0 4 from taking and carrying away his property, and. exercise that right he may use such force as is necessary to exclude the intruder from the enjoyment or disposali . . of his property. Also, a p_eace officer has the authority to prevent any . person from creating a public disorder, even with the use of violence, it being his duty to maintain peace and order.

/tk”

’

1344. In what cases is the act of preventing another from doing-

something not prohibited by law, even with the use of violence or intimidation, not grave coercion but another crime? In the following cases, the act of preventing another from doing something not prohibited by law, even with the use of violence or intimidation, is not grave coercioa but another crime: 1. The act of preventing the meeting of legislative bodies b force is not grave coercion, but the crime of a u d ‘ng of legislative bodies under Art. 143 of the Revised Penal Code. 2 . The act of hindering or preventing a person from joining any lawful association or from attending any Of its meetings, is not grave coercion but the crime of urQhibition or w r r u p t i o n of peaee€ul meetinAs under Art. 131 of the Revised Penal Code.

xm9w&

626

3 . The act of preventing a member of Congress from attending the meetings thereof, or from expressing his opinion or from casting his vote, by means of force or intimidatioc, is a violation of parliamentary immunity d e fined and penalized by Art. 145 of the Revised PenaI Code. Note: When the Revised Penal Code specifically defines and

/

e s a d c o m m i t t e d hy pEwxting another from doing a particular act, the offender should not be punished for grave coercion but for the crime specifically punished by the Code. e

1345. When may a person who compelled another to do something against his will, even by means of violence, not criminally liable? Illustrate. When the =on comhas the authority of law or right t o compel a n d e x to do something against his will. Thus, a policeman who saw the commission of a crime may compel the offender to submit to arrest and to go with’ him to the police station and, if he refused, the policeman may use the necessary force to compel the offender to do so, even against his will. L

Note: But if the crime was =committed in the presence of the policeman,1 and he had nareaso-ble e round to believe that the rrerswl bo be arrested committed the crime, he ‘had no authority of law to compel the suspect to submit to arrest. ,-&an then will he liable for grave coercion if bv means o m n e e he would compel the suspect to go with him to the police station.

1346. A was informed that his lot was occupied by B who was building n small house there. A went there and by means of violence drove B out of the lot and destroyed whatever was already constructed by B on the lot. What crime was committed by A? Explain your ,answer. A is liable forigrave coerclo2 because he compell
I

--

627

~


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .. :,

..

bas the right t o exclude any person from the enjoympt thereof, and for that purpose he may u s e s u c h force a_s may prevent an actual - be reasonably necessaiy to or threatened unlawful physic-a1 -1 j1 or u s u r p a t i o l r ~ f his ,property (Art. 429, Civil Code).

--__

Note: When a person is @ma& in possession of another’s property, whether le& or illegally, the owner Cannot W A t h c u s e of viole~tlcelawfully compel him to give up the property and take possession of the same himself. If he does SO, he is

~ . . .

liable for

n.

B u t if them la n e u & possession of the prwerty, and there is 0 9 a threatened u n l a w f f h y s i c a l invasion Qr usurpdt&. of one’s property, the owner of such property may use force reasonably necessary to repel or prevent it.

1348. A warned D not to report for work as there was a strike of Iahorers. But B reported for work. When B was going

bome from his place of work, A boxed him several times, saying, “Did I not tell you to refrain from working?” What crime was committed by A? Dvsical k i ur.i. . ~ A is not liable for grave coercion, because in that crime, the-&. of preventing by force must b m d e -at the offended party w a u n g or &Q&. to do the act to be prevented. Since B had already done t h e 2 t to be urevezted, and physical injuries were inflicted on him, he could be made liable for physical injuries only.

.

>;

E28

%

,

,,

a demand for money or intent to gain? Inrgrave coercio4 the e-v or -dation must be persistent and c&tin&p and the effectof the violence or intimidation is immediate. On the other hand, ‘ i n i s h e intimjdation only promises some future harm, aecausa It IS condltiocal, and t h e n d w t I?E~dFwdiak&€&.

in the doing of all the acts of A which produced the different reau1ts.

1347. A saw B about to enter the farmer’s land to occupy the same. A by means of force prevented B from enter. ing his (A’s) land. Is A liable for grave coercion? No, because the owner or lawful possessor o-hing

’.

1349. What is the difference between graire coercjon and gram threats when there is only a condition imposed without

m y person to comuel another to do something against his wilJ whether it be rivht. JSLIXU . ng. Note: The destruction of B’s small house is not a separate offense of malicious mischief, even if it was destroyed by reaeon of ha,te or revenge, because there was only one criminal i m l g e

-..

. . .,.

,,

N v t c : Thus, if the accused threatened the complainant that if he would not pay his debt he would be taken to the camp where he would be killed and the following day the complainant delivered the amount due the accused, it was held that the accused cannot be punished for grave coercion (People vs. Romero, et al., C.A.). The reason f o r this ruling is t h a t the intimidation was mede the day before the complainant delivered the amount duo the accused and that at the time the amount was delivered to tile accused there ~ - 1 sno violence or intimidation employed on the complainant.

1350. What stage of execution was reached by the offender if the offended party in spite of the violence or intimidation did not accede to the purpose of the coercion? The crime of Lgrave coercion1 is consummated. The Supreme Court held in the case of Punzalan vs. People, 52 O.G. 7609, that the fact that a n individual was maltreated for the purpose of compelling him to confess a crime which was attributed to him, constitutes the crime of consummated grave coercion, even if the agents of the authorities who carried out the maltreatment d i d a c e o m plish their purpose to draw from him a confession, which it was their intention to obtain by the employment of such means. ~

1361. How is grave coercion distinguished from illegal detention?

In \grave coercion1 the offended party is G t ddof his liberty for an appreciable length of time. Although j.) the commission of the crime of grave coercion ‘affects the ;,;i security of the offended party, there is no detention of,’?$

629

.:

! :

. .. ,s

there muthe offended party. In \ S e d 'd.@@ d e M k m L l 'b xty 01on the person of the offended party. WKen there is no clear evidence of deprivatioll of liberty on.the part of t h s d e d party, the crime of grave coercion is distinguished from the crime of illegal detention by the purpose of the o€fender. Thus, when the suitor of a woman with the help of other persons seized the woman and took her to his house where she was kept not behind closed doors but only watched so that she might not escape, the sole purpose of the snitor being t o compel her to marry him, the crime committed was coercion, not illegal detention.

. .

/' / / 1354.

P

a

-

who

L'

630

'

, : ~ ~

... :c<: ...~ .

,,~.

;,; ,j

are the three kinds of discovery and revelation , $:;. . "". :Y of secrets? They &e' Di&cering &s through s e k > r <

*f

..c.,. ,.,

ence. A z l i n g secrets with abuse p f f i 3 . R 9 i n g of industrial seere&

-

"4

.,.'. I

~. I

;<

, ~

'

.I

1356. A received a letter addressed to B. A opened the letter without the knowledge and consent of B. The contents . $ of the letter did not involve any secret of B, a s it was a letter advising him that his application for a position ,.;',:' in a business firm was approved and that he could re- ".'; port for duty as soon as possible. Is A liable for dis: covering secrets through seizure of correspondence? , *..i. .:. . According to the Supreme Court of Spain, it i s a ; ~::$ '.,I

~~

53. What is unjust vexation? &st vexatiG{ includes any human conduct which," although not prodm ive of some physical oru%&.IkdhGP 1 w a d , hou&ustlv annoy o r i ngocent oerson_s. Note: The a&of the offender must be &at. The creditor .., . seizes the property of the debtor without violenee or in-

:' ?,.

No, because the c r e c l ~ rcan assert and enforce his : right and the law urovides for a procedure to compel a dehtor t o g a 7 his debt. He cannot, therefore, validly claim : ':;i that, the refusai of the debtor to pay unjustly annoys or . . W& him. ~.*

4.What

e-!.

. ., \. ,:.:, . .

Is the debtor liable for unjust vexation if he. refused to pay his creditor?

,'

yexatlonjhecause when he seized the jeepney belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, there was no violence or intimidation

frn"*g----

.^

'i,

L

--

Note: The crime committed is n o w beea i s e- t to defraud and i m the ffcnded party w

!.

'

'

.. ,1352. A, who was indebted to B in the sum of P5,UOO would not pay his debt in spite of repeated demands by B. One day, B stopped the driver of the jeepney of A and told the driver that he had had an understanding with A to the effect that he (B) would take the jeepney with him in payment of A's debt. The driver believing the representation made by B to be true, alighted from the jeepney and gave it to B. Then B took i t in payment of A's debt. What crime was committed by B? Explain your answer. The crime committed by B is W c g e r a o n or uxfrmt

/

timidation commits & Uand, therefore, liable for mjust vexaticn, b w e et-en in & se ht-r haslLIight to be heardbefore ha is made to my. The creditor should apply to the @roper court to collect from his debtor, if the debtor has refused to pay.

.,, e . '.. .,,

.,

,

.~

n e m y that the correspondence eoa secret of .';:; mot+ person. The f& that the correspondence is & .:::j c&d i n 3 L e m a e is an indication that the writer, a s ' y well as the addressee, dges not want any other person ' , ~ to read its contents. .. . However, if A had no nuruose to discover the secrets of the addressee or writer, even if he was informed of I the cor,tents of the correspondence, he is not liable crim- .,.!:;~ .,..,. inally. .)1/

>\

' I

631

~~

.IF,.


CRIMXNAL LAW REVIEW-

..

$ ...,..

..

-;

On the other hand, even if A h i d t h e .intention of f discovering the secrets of the writer or addressee but i there is n o evidepce that h e w a s actually i n f o a e d of& eo,be is not criminally liable either. Note: Thus, in the case of People vs. Otto, Jr., 50 O.G., C.A., 3127, although he was informed of the contents of the eableprrm when he opened the same, since he had no intention to know the contents thereof, he was aiquitted of the charge of discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. In the ease of People YS. Singh, 40 O.G., C.A., Sup. 5, 35, there was no evidence that the accused oDened the telegram, because he claimed that he put it in the pocket of his trousers which wvaa subsequently taken to the laundry and the telegram was last. He was also acquitted o f tho charge of .discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. The law does not require that the offended party be (prejudiced. Revea-the secret is n ~ a element n of the offense; it only i n a s u e s the penalty.

..

,

benefit of the person in charge, employee or.work< of the establishment.

hat are the two general classifications of robbery? They are: 1 . yR rwith violence against 01' intimidation ,/ of versons. ,' 2 . R & b x b y the use of-e unon things. , . b

'

1557. Is the accused liable for revealing secrets with abuse of the secrets? office, if he did %reveal No, because the r w of the secrets is an e!s& of the ol'fense. 1358. Is the accused liable if he learned the secrets through another and revealed them? No, b w e he d m t l e a r n t h e s&s of h. cipal or master in &s-caacity as manager, empbXQLor S

a

.

Note: '.'. 1359.

-0

the principal o r rnsster is +necessary.

A was an employee of a manufacturing establishment. He learned the secret of the industry. Hie resigned and used the secret of the industry for his own benefit, without revealing it t o others. Is A criminally liable? Why? N d l e e a u s e the act constituting the crime of revelation of industrial secrets is revealing the secrets of the industry o-n$udic%of the o G e r thereof, not using the secrets

532

i

,,/ i

.'I"

State briefly the different forms of robbery with vi&nce against o s intimiddim of mrsons., They are: 1. Robbery with homicide. 2 . Robbery i i 5 k . m ~ ~ 3. Robbery with mutilation o& aQy of the serious physical jnj'llries4 . Robbery wgh violence, w u t inflicting any of the serious physical injuries. 5 . Robbery with intimi&&llanly. 6 . A m t e d or fru&&d robbery with homicide. 7. €$yecution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation.

1362. State the different forms of robbery by the uae of force u p a n a 9 . They are: 1, Robbery c o m d in an nix-e, .pat ,!.&ding or e x e devoted to religious worship, after an /' unzwful entry or by the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of lock or sealed furniture or receptacle inside the building, or by taking such furniture or objects away t o be broken or forced open outside of the building (Art. 299, R.P.C.). 2 . Robbe1.y similarly committed in a n uninhabited place or in a 7;ivnte building, which is n&an inbbikdhouse,,:;! public bm dmg, or edifice devoted to religious worship:,:$ ,. .,, , , (Art. 302, R.P.C.). ,.:,..a

-

533

CRlMJiVAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIDlINAL LAW

1363. A entere8d the house of B through the window and once .,,

. .

,

'

inside took money and jewelry belonging to E after intimidating him with a pistol. What kind of robbery was committed by A? Why? A committed Yobberv with intimidat'10% because & t w A used force upon things by entering the house m not i n & e a for entrance or of B through an o egress, when it is accomnanied by intimidation, the latter element supplies the controlling qualification of the robber): committed. The reason for this rule is to be found in the fact that robbery nccompanied by violence against or intimidation of persons is considered graver than robbery committed by the use of force upon things, in view ok the greater disturbance to the order of society and the security of the individual.

1364. When is the use of force upon things in taking personal property be1ongin.g to another ,with intent to gain theft only and not robbery? Illustrate. When the offender did not enter the building, wGUhe w w o f his b d y inside, in taking the personal property or when the offender did not break door, wardrobe; chest, or any kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle inside the building, or did not take such furniture or object away to be broken or forced open outside of the building, even if there was force upon things, the taking of personal propert belonging to another with intent to gain not robbery. was only Thus, if A climbed the wall of a house, broke the glass of one of its windows, and after creating an opening he .,. ',..merely inserted his hand into the opening and reached for the wallet containing money bills which was lying on the table close t o the window sill. the crime committed was . , r,' :., . only theft because A did not &a w w

-

/

that house, took them and carried them away, the committed by him was theft only, not robbery, b he did not enter the building by any of the means me tioned by the Revised Penal Code. If the locked or sealed furniture or receptacle wa $ the i & building when it was found and then and it was broken open and the contents thereof were taken, the crime is \theftbecause it was not broken open inside the building where it was kept. But when the locked or sealed receptacle was taken f m the building and n-b autside, the taking of 4ts contents is'

d 6 5 . A broke the wooden gate of the stone wall around the

.

.

.a

l1

'

1 , .

,.

,

'

/',

11367. A removed the radio of B from the e 7 begair to leave the place. On the having recognized the radio, B ask gotten it; hut A drew out and opened his knife threatened to kill B. What crime or crimes were e mitted by A? Explain your answer. A * isti& and seaarate crimes a n d k r a v e threats.1 The crime of theft was alrea

-

.--

634

535.

I

I

:"

.'"'

premises of B and once inside took from the yard of B building materials *-hich were lying there. What crime was committed by A? Why? 1Theft,lbecause although h m open the &e, not enter thehouse with f s r c & u m n th ings. H e m the yard mly.

'1366. A saw, through the glass of the door of a car parked on the side of the street, a handbag containing money. As the door of the car was locked, A broke the glass and entered the car through the oped the handbag. What erimc was eonlm A c o m m i t t e d L y b e m e the building._Jprrobbery y the use of breaking the door or window, the place entered after b r ,' ,' ing must be a building.

&

if 13, while outside a vacant house, removed by pieces of board from the wall of

REVIEWER

' '-

'I '

I

1

I

-

/ _ . I

i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER -

,

'.. , .' summated when the offended party was intimidated. B e ,. ~ ...i threat to kill B made by A is n o t a constitutive element of robbery, because the intimidation must be employed before the taking of aersonel prop& y belonpinz to an... o m s c e t e .

- --

,

.7.

. .. j

j

. .: .

Note: Takine or asportation is one of the element& robbery and theft. When the taking o r asnoricdbn is G m p i & t&g crime is consummated. - of \?lZQpBut th, rule is different when homicide resulted by reason of the robbery, or when rape or intentional mutilstion accompanied the taking of personal property, or when any of the seriauri physical injuries defined in pars. 1 and 2 of Art. 263 inflicted by reason of the taking of pewma1 property. yen if the taking of the personal property belonging to another IS already complete when the rape or inte.itiona1 mutilation is Committed, the crime is still robbery with rape or with intentional mutilation, And even if tho taking of the personal property belonging tn another with intent to gain is already complete, if the offenders kill o r inflict any .of said serious physical injuries on another person to defend the possession of the stolen property or to do away with a vitness, the offonder!, are liable for the special complex crime of robbery +th homicide or with serious physical injuriey.

.

5

.

1368. When is taking or asportation complete in robbery?

. , ,

-' 7

.~

i-~ '1

Illustrate. It depends on the kind or class of robbery committed. If the robbe_ry is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons, thg taking or asuortation is md e t e from the moment the o f f g d a- s% of thev& he u d - o p u o r t u n i t y 2 dispose of the same. Thus, if A pointed his knife at B and demanded for his money, and B pulled his wallet from his pocket and handed i t to A who to0J-hd.d of it, but a policeman suddenlv . awaeared, collared A, and uleced him under arrest, e a h the crime committed by A is consummated r intimidation. If the robbery is w d by the u s e o f force u x n which r e b s that the offender should enter p g, the t&hg of personal property inside is com-

536


I/

:

piete when the c ulpril has succeeded out of the building. Thus, in the case of People vs. Del Rosario, O.G. 4332), the Court of Appeals held that when the prit had already broken the floor o tered it, and had removed one sac1 opening on the floor, it was frustr; parentlv, if the culprit in the case was sururis - _ he was 'only removing the sack of sugar fr& the pile, the crime would have of force upon things.

?:

J

369. While a woman was following her suddenly snatched her handbag and ran ..::. away with it. What crime was committed by that man? I;, ~' ..>,. Explain your answer. , . not robbery That. man committed the crime of with' v i o l e m uersons, b-se the mere sna&hi n g . . of personal property from the hand of the offended party ,:: -v on the nersQn ,U ' ' on the thing taken. It is a rule that to constitute robbery with violence against persons, the violence must be on3h.e , -on the thing tagen. PeLSxof

mw

Note: But if in snatching the handbag, the culprit dragged tlie hand of the victim, the crime istrohberv with violence against nerson.

::

is .the nature of the intimidation as a constitutive element of robbery? ;,' Inhnndatio@may take any form,a s Iong as the& of the offender incites fear in,-k-0 ' of, the offended mzty. Thus, a threat with a weapon or a , threat o f arrest and prosecution is sufficient intimidation. \. 0

N o t e : Threat made to the owner of the store that it would be ordered closed and that he would be fined for failing to make entries in thc sales book unless he would give money is sufficient intimidation; and when the offender succeeded in getting. B dozen eggs and the ~ u m of P5.00 because of that intimidation, ,'-' ., ' intimidation. . , a he was suilty of -r

F 'a

-

'4

I

I

i CRIMINAL LAW REVIENER


>.

/

-

tive and threakenod the offended party wiih arrest, if the latter would not give money, is liable for & rt k i l i , he succeeded in geitinsc mnn ey.

1371. While A was looking for his lost pig, he happened to pass by the house of B and saw under the latter's house a pig. A. told B that that was his lost pig, but B said

.

.

a:.

that the pig belonged to him. A unsheathed his bolo and threatened B with bodily harm, unless the latter would give to him the pig. Afraid that he might be injured, B gave the pig to A. A was prosecuted for robbery with intimidation. During the trial it was established by the prosecution that the pig really belonged to 33 and that it was not the lost pig of A. If you were the judge, would yon convict or acquit A? In case you decide to convict him, of what crime will you find him guilty? believed in good f a i t k that the pig was his, Since even if his claim later on appeared to be untenable, being no intent t o gain on his mrt, he should be found guilty o f ( ~ W iOnei of the elements of robbery is that the offender took the personal property belonging to another with intent to gain.

137d Suppose that the policeman in the preceding question ar- ' rested X and took the tires and later sold them and spent the proceeds of the sale,. for what crime is the policeman liable? Why? Tbe policeman is liable fortmalversationl because hz&g lawfully seized t n in the performance of his dyty, he had an obligation t o a c c o u n t . & ? d h m tQthe Governn ~ n Although , the tires were private property, &e t h g were seized b L h b as an' agent of public antho&',,,,+;,, his misappropriatimof the same m&e-.bL . liahlefor: . i .,, , . . .,. malversation (Art. 2 2 2 ) . '. < In the case of US. vs. San Lim, the Supreme Court::! held that in such a case the crime would beA Justice dissenting stated that it would be either estafa os malversation.

a

/

<&g

for m e 7 The fact that a policeman, apparently act$$ incr in compliance with the law. but really with intent& * i 6,* to gain, did with intimidation seize the stolen property# stamps the crime committed by him a s robbery. Until tlie$ policeman has taken charge of the stolen property in the!; manner prescribed by the adnlimistrative law, i t is the 1,;. property of the owner, and not held in trust by the policei m a n ( U S . vs. Sana Lim). i

A private individual who represented himself to be a detec-

:

1372. A policeman was informed that X had stolen four new automobile tires. The policeman went to the house of X and asked him to produce the tires. Having found the tires in the house of X, who refused to give them

1

to the policeman, the latter threatened him with arrest and prosecution unless he would give hini the tires. The <: .!.. . policeman t.oolc the tires but did not arrest X. Later, the . ,, .. ... policeman sold the tires and spent the money for his ~. :.>. ,?. ." . own benefit. Is the policeman liable for robbery? Ex,plain your answer. Yes. When the policeman took the tires but did not arrest X, he did not act in good faith in the performance . of his duty. He had the in ' and the threat &f;arrest and prosecution -which is an in&imidation, to obtain possession of the tires made him liable

a

$..,

..*,

1374. A policeman, knowing that a person did&comrnit any crime, arrested such person, falsely accused him of a ' crime, and then by means of threat of prosecution and;:, imprisonm.ent, obtained money from such person who waS& released in consideration of the money given. What crime;$ I was committed by the voliceman? Explain your answer% .''~$g / because the threat of prose-&$ w b e r v with intimida ' c a n and i m n r i s c n m n t ? u sufficient intimidation;*$" I and there was intent to gain on the part of the polic+d man when he t o o k the money of the offended pa I

,I

":

i

b 7 5 . Suppose that the person threatened w i t i arrest and secution by the policeman really committed a crim

@&@&::&.

639

638

4



It is true that in the case given the intimidation' produced immediate effect, but the demand f o r personal property may he disregarded and the threat may be considered, as not subject t o a condition. I n such case, the crime-i$ grave threats of the third form. The crime committed by A is not robbery with in;; timidation, because one of the elements 0-ei-y &,&+t,: thegemonal g r m t y must' belong to another. Since thb property belonged tu him, A c& be guilty of robbe$,! as no one can be he. -for robbery o This is not an impossible crime ,wh formed would have. been a n offense aga property, because when the act performed also constituteii a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code, impossible crime cannot exist. ' &is submitted that A is not liable for grave+ &awe he had intent to gain. In grave coercion, fender-@intent to gain.

*.thepo1icc:man did not arrest him because of the money given to him, what crime was committed by the poliee.man? Explain your answer. (Gt-1 b-se the n-p U W he refrained from performing his duty be. p s a n . cause of e n e y .

,

s

:1376. Suppose, it is not clear from the evidence whether t h e

, , ,

offended party had committed a crime when he was asked to give money by a peace officer, when is it robbery and when is it bribery? When the money was given v m l y by the offended party, the peace officer is guilty o@ l 81= -) When 'there was threat of arrest and prosecution and the offended party gave the money, it is-

., ,, .

:..

a.

,

,.'.

'1377. What crime is committed by several persons who, by means of intimidation used against the owner of a smaU

~ : , i ,

' '

' ,

,'

house, succeeded in removing the small house from t h e lot of the owner and carried said house to the lot of t h e

A broke t h e o f tho drawer of the desk of B and t.herefrom the .pistol of B for the purpose of ushg killing E. But due to the t i K e L b t m e n t i o n of c, stopped_& the G t e r w-L?lbleto use $he..& A liable for robbery by the use of force upon t

/;379.

The crime is C o b k v w ith intimidation] Although a house mace-d as real property when attached to the wound, the m n t it-is rem0ys.d from the ground and ca&ed away it ceases to be a real property and becomes pemonal proaerty One of the &g.&s of r m r y is personal property -b evolver, threatening to watch from B. When he watch he had taken from B was his own property which he had lost a week before. What crime was committed by A?

540

Why? ' No, because A never had the intention of deprivi 11 of the ownership of the pistol with the ch permanency, but only to use i t temporarily t o (People vs. Kho Choe). In robbery, as iil theft, the : ment of taking means the act of depriving anoth possession and dominion of a movable thing coupled. the intention, at the time of the "talcing" of the t OP withholding it with the character of permanency. 4

1380. A, a passenger of a taxi, ordered the driver 'to stop the taxi and at the p i n t of a gun took all the mo in his possession. A alighted from the taxi and 'told driver to go away. After thirty minutes, the turned with a policeman in his taxi and having point 541

I

. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEYVER


.~

,-tb

1382.

A as the person who had held him up, the policeman to arrest him. A shot the policeman who was killed result.

What crime was committed by A?

Explain

1383.

'

Note: Hence, when in the commission of robbery with homicide, other crimes, such as less serious o r slight physical injuries OP direct assault, arc also committed, those other crimes do not form part of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

1381. While ransatking the house of the offended party, one of the robbers in the house dropped his pistol to thc . .. ,floor.' It iexploded and the slug fired hit the floor of , .. the second story of the house, resulting in the death ~

,.; of an inmate then sleeping there.

.:~",

~.,. ' ' mitted?

-

What crime was corn.

Why? with ' ide. Even if the homicide supervened by mere accident& - long a s it resulted on the o c c a s i o n s by reason of the xobbery, t h e x e committed is robbery with homicide r:(People ' vs. Mangulabnan, et al.) .

542

A passer-by noticed three persons. inside ' t h e house of another taking personal property. The passer-by asked them why they were there. One o€ them shot and billed ,: 1 him. What crime was committed? Why? Robbery with homicide, because the homicide was committed on the occasion, or by reason, of the robbery.

I

.

of B, taking his wallet,with .money,. bills inside. B chased A, bat the latter stabbed,,? who died as a consequence. What crime was committed? Why? . . ., Robbery with homicide, because the homicide was committed by reason of the robbery, that is, to defend .the, possession of the stolen property.

.

your answer. It is submitted that A committed robbery with homithe direct assault to be considered only a s an agating circumstance, because there is no such special lex crime of robbery with homicide with direct assault, ugh the single act of shooting the policeman who ,, .. -was in the performance of his duty produced the crime , . ., of direct assault with homicide, and the homicide resulted by reason of the robbery, under the law (Art. 294, par. 1, ; : .. R.P.C.) the crime committed is r g b b r y with lmrau~&. ' In the case of People vs. Maugulabnan, et al., the Supreme Court held that it is *necessary that the homicide be produced on the occasion of the robbery; it is sufficient that homicide r e g e d by reason of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons inter, . vening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into consideration.

A picked the pocket

1:

1384. would it be robbery with homicide if a robber killed' , his companion, another robber, on the occasion or by reason of the robbery? 'Why? Yes, because in robbery with homicide, it is only t h e ' ' , without reference o r distinction as to the persons :' intervening in the comnlission of the crime, that must . be taken into consideration.

&

l,

13S5. If parricide is committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, what is the crime committed? Why? The crime committed is robbery with homicide, be,,,,,+use tiy p , m "homicide" in that crime should be. con*s in its Eeneric sense as to include-parricide, o-r murdei or infanticid% 1386.

A, B, C and

.'

I), all armed, entered t h e house, of X-where ,

the latter, his wife and child lived. They took persohd property inside the bonse, and then A killed X, while D raped X's wife, and C inflicted serious physical injuries ' : on the child. How many crimes were committed by . , them? Explain your answer. ,,i,.:. , a .A, B, C and D committed one special complex crim of roEeLy-with-homicide, the r s c and the physical in aju,ie.s. to be considered ~ ~ ; ; i y a s _ a , ~ g g ~ ~

543 *

1

1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMNAL LAW REVIEWER , <

' '

B in a fight provoked by 'B, 'When B was already dead, A who was about to leave, saw the watch of B on the wrist of his left arm. A took it and left. Is A liable for robbery with homicide? Explain your

.'.~ answer. N G e c a u s e when he killed E, A h u n o , ' i h t e n t i o nto dep:ive him of his watch.

I

1395. A entered the house of X through a n open door a n d . ' once inside took money and jewelry in the unlocked &est. Before leaving the house, A saw a woman sleeping 5 a room. €le raped her. What crime was committed by A? Why? . ,. The crime committed by A is'( cause the taking .of personal.pr.o:op panied by rape. I t ' i s snbmittsd that in the robbery with rape, i t is not nec sefiarate crime is actually :? a companied by rape. & of robbery with rape is the f @ sonal property belpnging~4oan0 q'? is ;
Note: f n robhery with homicide, the offender must have the ktent'on to take personal pvopertg belonging to another w i t h *n ent to gain when he committed homicide. If the killing of a person took place a f t e r . the taking of personal property, the intention of the &der must be either (1) to defend h e possession of the stolen property, (2) to do away with or ( 3 ) to make good his encape.

,-,. .

'

ing t o another with intent to gain, and the robbery is'accompanied hy rape. If there is"&!!tent., t i gain, as when the personal property is taken to be used as a tcken of the alleged consent of .the wnman to the sexual intercourse, the-taKnp( oersonal p m & y i z Qn,njust'-vexation. T h e ' k p e l i.,s a separate offense.

Y

t.

I

the house of E, a woman, took her money and jewelry, raped her, and then killed her. Is A liable with rape or robbery with homicide? A is liable for ro&ry with homicide. and the pmmis, s i s c f ,..the rape shall be considered as an..aggraya$ng &mmstance. When on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, homicide was committea, and it was also acconipanied by rape, the offender should be prosecuted and punished ;or robbery with homicide, not for robbery with r a p e p u s e the provision of the Code for robbery with and rape is designed for a crime,involving bs-rsity harm than that involved in robbery with homicide.

I

$ / l b I . Is there a complex crime of

yj

~.

Note: In rohhery with rape, the offender, .ke,hza committing rape, must have the intention to take personal property belong-

.~ ,I,,.

~

'

,

644

rape? Explain your answer. ,. None, because the Revised Penal e (Art. 294) pen-" ':. /i: .-ahzes robbery accompanied&y attcmmoted rwe., It cannot be a complex crime under Art. 48 of the Revised, '. Penal Code, because a r o m c a n n o t be a necessary means to commit an attempted rape, just as an attempted rape' ,:~ necessary means to' commit robbery and $& cannot be the resglt of a-s-ingle act (Eeople' , ' There are two distinct and separate crimes attempted raE.

Y/

. A, by means of force and intimidation,B ran succeeded in rapaway as soon ing B, a 'woman, in a secluded place. as she ~ : I Sreleased by A, leaving her handbag containing money. .A picked up the handbag of B from the ground and carried it away. Is A liable for robbery with rape? Explain your answer. No, because the igtention of A was to rape 13 and t h e ' i k o f gain came to.,.his.,mind only when B had left her handbag. There "%$yo distinct and separate crimes of =e a n d a t comm' ked by A.

.,,

k,!

/138

,

t-l

-_

A

1

d

wmplex crime o f robbery with frustrated murder? .. Yes, under Art. 48, if the frustrated m y d e r js_ll ::: necessary means for .commii%hg-the.x&bery. This crime :'t

545

l o ~.%::: ,. . ..

.

.__/

'



. '.. . /:U., &by Art. 294 which punishes robbery with homicide, which must be c$xummated. . ,

.. .

... . . . ~, '.-:.

-:

,

.

(>.

&'?,I

.

: .

serious L__. physical.__inju-rjcs.

Note: A t t e e o r frustp&L-robbery with s-physical injurieii is a complex_crime under Art. 48, the serious physical injurie:i'%heing necessary means foor committing the attempted or frustrated robbery. Art. 297 punishes at&eF-pLtd.,p_r fmst~$t$d_mrbp;ry with homicide, not with' serious physical injuries. with serious physical with serious. phys i c d injunos.

already complete wh physical injuries inflicted thereafter can pot be

A and B e e d the house of S. through an open door. Once inside, they took personal property. When they were dividing the lept, they could nut agree and ;ought each , other. 4 ,who was holding his-hnlo, struck B, hitting ...,, *.,. . .. the latter on and cutting his"outer ear. Then, both of .them left with the loot. What crime was committed ., by A and B? Why? , ,- " A and B are liable for @ becauseI t&y-entered , the .' wif-~.u~using-force-.np~~"-t~~~s. A is liable also for serious plhxsv.al..injuriq not robbery with serious physical injuries, because the physical injuries that re.. sulted in BLB..deformity was inflicted upon a pssLn-,ze:,: s-le for the commission of the offense. ,'

juries inflicted by A scribed in paragraph would be the crime eo It would be robbery with' serious physical- inju The law (Art. 294) nection with serious

. r

I

m-

Noto: The serious physical injuries described in pars. 3 and 4 of Art. 263, amon6 them deformity, must be inflicted upon persons &-ponriblc for the commission of robbery, in order that the crime may be classified as ~ ~ , b ~ ~ r y . . ~ i t h . , ~ ~ , r i o ~ ~ ~ h y ~ i ~ l injuries.

/.

.,.

-+..,.894. .

'r. :'

.. ..

.'

A took a sack of rice from a ' truck which was parked .on the side of a street. When the driver. noticed A, he chased him. After running tu a distance of several meters, A. dropped the sack of rice, drew out his knife, opened it, and struck the driver in the arm, inflicting , physical injuries which incapacitat&l the driver for' laborfor two months. Then A picked up the sack of rice and 'ran away with it. What crime or crimes were wmmitted .-by :A? . ]Explain your answer. ,. :. ., ,.J,,

.

546

1396. A, with intent t o take the money of B, hit the latter ' ~ ., on the head, inflicting less serious physical injuries, What kind of robbery was committed by A, if after in4 juring B he took the money of the latter? RLbBry with violence~.aga&s~.psxsons. It is not rob bery with less serious physical injuries, because W physical injuries~inflicted on the occasion of the or sl&&t, such physical injur are only less&ous

i

.i

i

547

~ . i

::z

I

1

I

.'



..

While 'the general rule is that all the eonspi even if the result differs radically nnd substan by them, it would seem that this robbery hy a band, hecause Art. r-es that to be liable as principal of any copiiitted by the hand, the =em& must be cdmmission of the robbery hy the hand."

be ,evidence of violence only. There is no such c le the Code as robbery with less serious phyor robbery with slight physical injuries.

C and D; together with E,. agreed and decided to take personal property in the house of X. E, who was the leader and mastermind, remained in his house :: one kilometer away. Once in the house of X, A, B, C $6...: and D, all1 armed, ransacked the place for personal prop. .ir 'F+ e&. Wlhen C saw that D was about to stab X with a knife, C held D by the arm t o prevent him from killbut D pushed C and immediately stabbed X to , . ing X, death. They took money, clothings and jewelry belonging to X. For what crime or crimes are A, B, C, D r~ and E liable? Explain your answers. . .. , A, 13, and D are liable f o i ~ e r y - w i t k - l r m i c i d ebe, cause they w e r e w s e n t a t the commission of the robbery bz&a>,d and n_ot,.one.of them attempted to-prevent the commission of the homicide. C is liable only for &ejx..by a band, because he attempted toarevent the commission of the homicide by ..

.~ ,I_

'.! i ,

..

E is also liable for robbery by a band only, because he was not present at the conmission of the robbery by a band and, therefore, he cannot be punished as principal of the assault committed by the band, which was not. contemplated in the agreement. Note: As to the liability of E, a similar question wns con-

.. ..

..

B with intention to rob tho latter. When A pointed his pistol at B, the latter grabbed it and .in .' their struggle for the possession of the pistol it exploded& killing B. What crime was committed by A? Expailn' ' your answer. Homicide. It is not attempted robbery with homicide, because there was m..oxextAt ofd.&&xy. The intention -_.-. ,to comaLit.robbery .mus$Jx%slbom~by external acts. . . ., / Had A de,mmded money while pointing the'pistol at / B, it would have been a t , . e d . x o b b e r y with homicide I' '

,

b 9 9 . A bought a car from B for 85,000, which^ he did no ;fi-pay. Sometime thereafter, A brought with him a P I 6 . ~ < f+Q pared deed of sale and a t the poiut of his revolver asked ..,:: I3 t o sign it. When B refused, A shot B to death. What !j ! ) crime was committed by A? Explain your answer.' A committed a,ttempted robbery with homicide, because, with intent to defraud E, A, by means of intimidation, '.' /' tried to compel E to sign a document. Having failed his attempt, A committed attempted robbery, a n d the homicide was coromitted oil the occasion or by,.re of an attempted robbery, he should be held liable f o r special complex crime. ' The robbery which was attempted by A is .. o,f. dee$y:b3+means of violence .,or int

': :'I

'1

R.P.C.). rminated, and the death of the victim resulted on the occasion of the robber& abynce.-ef proof showin.@h"at the homicide was a. na&of the .o~g~p~pj~h the p,rin&&=ilZ-&n who was @&,the scene of the crim'e is liable for 'robbery,,. ..:-'. in -.-.-.-band' only.:

548

* r

Note: The robbery known as execution of deeds.'l& violence or intimidation is also Committed when the shall corngel the offended party to e ? or to

./ ''

dmument. -. It will be gmzzo h t e crimes, if there


of the car was

CRIMINAL LAW' R E ~ E W E R

fdb paid. It

could not be a complex crime of grave coercion with homicide, because neither' one of the two crimes could be a necessary means for committing the other snd both crimes eobe the &dLnf+..a single act. ,

,*

failed to break open the locked wardrobe; because B ww awakened and entered the room, sumrising A in . t h e act of breaking the wardrobe. The wardrobe. contained~moneg; :": jewelry and clothes belonging to B and his wife. Wha) ':;,: ,. . ..,,. ;s,. crime was committed by A? Why? ' ., It .is ..submitted. &at A committed(rattemDted robbew;.";':. b ~ ~ 2 ~ @ : ' o f . f ; p ~When n ~ the locked furniture , ji or chest is in the house or building from w h i c h the .... ,of. ,: ; ..~ fender wants to take personal property, it is necessaq,&i@

,.

1400. What are the kin& of rohbery by the use of force upon .. things? ,., .. The two kinds of robbery by the use of force upon ,~, things am: 1. Robbery by the use of force upon things committed e' . '. *'in a n q ' a b i t e d b s e , &c. building, or edke-devoted to religions worship; and G o h b e r y by the use of force upon things committed in a n &habited* or in a pdwLe_building.

.

,

._ .. ...committed did not reach the f r

The servant in the house, taking advantage of the absence of the owner thereof, bzk9..+open.-in that house l o s e h e s t and took monep and jewelry therefrom and spent the money for his own benefit. What crime .. was committed by the servant? Why? , . The servant committed r&bb).y--by. .th.e-used,ox.ce upon things,,. because he b ~ ~ ~ s . p e n . . a . . ! o ~ ~-chest e . d and ', ,' with intent to~-... gain, took personal property.,$herefr.om. .. It is submitted that the servant % ?s-.iLysd,t of ' 'fied theft, because the crime was-.c.ornmiit.ed. by ,the. , ' , . f s g a o n . things, w s m l i f i e s . . t h e crime..to robbery.

.'

p

1402. .What crime was committed by the servant who opened t h e locked chest with the key which she had stolen from the owner and thereafter took money and jewelry therefrom? Why? " The crime committed by the servant is ualified theft %a----J e chest or 'because the use of a f a k N . $0 open a loc wardrobe does_Liot-make the taking of the personal prop: :,:. . . erty therefrom r o b h e r y . . X e false key, whic .. , must be ti-open an outsid&doar enter the same.~-

r^,"'"

a guest in the house of B, tried to.brreak open the eked wardrobe in the room given to him by B. . A

Ne .

But if the locked or sealed receptacle, chest or fumJtur taken from the house or building where i t ia kept and bmugh outside to he broken open, it is ~ & d k S a w 1s

house, A broke it open and took its contents. A committed y b b--, e r y by the use of force upon things ?$

in.. 'an . inhahited home. h ~ ' t ~ ~ i - n ~ ~ l ~a wca 5~.:I~ c ~ ... ..... ~

I

~

fFom-'szd house to be Groken o r forced open-outside the place of the robbery.

.-<:g

1

-

1405. .suppose, a policexnan upon complaint of B followed .A ; to his- house and before he could forcibly open t h e re.,".; .,.

..

. .. . .. Y

560

651

CRIMINAL LAW REVIE'WR

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWFIR

...

,,

o f execution reaihed by A in the. commission of the

crime? Why? Consummated ~. robbery by the. use of force upon things committed in a n inhabited house was committed-by A, , , . _._. ., , ~r? ,,because i .~9 5 n o t necessary that the receptacle taken from , t h c o u s _ e . be.actual%.opened outside, as the intention to ~~~.~~.js..sufficient. ..... .

Note:

'

'

..

. , .

,

~

.

,

. ,,

~

.,

. .

It will be noted that when the offender (1) breaks a

door ( p i e the building), wardrobes, chests, or any other kind o locked or sealed furniture or receptacle inside a building where they are kept, or (2) takes such furniture or objects away t o be broken or forced open outside, it is %ot ?eq u i 4 that the offender should enter the building by any of the means specified in subdivision (a) of Art. 299, which arc: 1. Through an opening not intended for entrance o r egress; 2. By breaking any wall, roof, pr floor or breaking any door or' window; 3. By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools; 4. By using any fictitious name o r pretending the exercise ~ of public puthority. If the offender enters the building by any of the said means, there is nu question that the taking of personal property from the building is robbery by the use of farce upon things, even if he does not break open a locked or sealed furniture or rccept.acle.

1406. A climbed a tree near t h e , window of the house of B and from the tree, with a bamboo pole which he used. A succeeded in getting the coat of B, which was hanging by the wall inside the house near the window. A waUet . with money in the amount of PlOO was in one of the : . pockets of the coat. What crime was committed by A? Explain your answer. . , ' The ctime committed by A is b h a because A d g . , not enter the building through the window. Even if A was able to get the coat, with the wallet containing money in one o,f its pockets, from the house through the window, inasmuch a s he used a bamboo pole to get the same, without entering the house, the crime committea Is theft. To !:Constitute robbery by the use of force upon things by '

entering through an openi or egress, the offender mu @b.the house or building y w o f his body iiicluding he took personal property

was placed under arrest, wha is the stage

,.

,

,,

.

I

652

/

:.

407. While under the house, A broke the floor, and after. creating an opening he caused a small boy, seven years ;: old, to pass through the opening and enter the house, Once inside the house, the boy took personal. belongings,;? of the owner of the house. Once in possession 'of the' personal belongings taken by the boy from the A sold them and gave the boy a part of. the proce the sale. Considering that A did not en do you believe that he 's liable for robbe of force upon things? xplain your answer. Yes, A is Laiae-for robbery by the(use things. Although A did not enter the house opening in the flo which was broken by him,: ,ypLiral,_byisd i,on in the crime of robbery ngs a&ua!ly>ommitted by t use, of force upon The fact that the boy, who was only seven years exempt from criminal liability, does not alt that A, as principal&induction, is liable criminal1 the crime committed.

iE

,

/ //

1408. A, servant in the house of B, broke the wall a bedroom from the storeroom and through ing thus created he entered the storeroom and sonal property. What crime was committed? \Qualified,. t h G j The yall broken is :/. wall.." " ~ ~- .

'

09. A, for the purpose of entering B's house,

in lifting the sliding door from its g r ~ v pushed it inward, thereby opening it. On took personal property. Is A liable for robbery? No, because the door 'wasnot broken, that of the door remained intact. A is liable f

653

W

' .


CRIMINdL -LAW -REVIEWER

. >,., .? .i, -1

constitute robbery by the use of force upon things, the

'

offender must enter the house or building by breaking y:any door, etc.

"

- , I

t

,,

. ,

.+.* ,. i ,

,

A, a friend of the servant in the house of B, had an agree-

ment with that servant that late in the evening when B and-his family would have retired and slept, the servant ,. '.:-would ,drop from the window a white envelope containhe key for the lock of the 'outside door of the n: The servant complied with the agreement and in€: found on the ground the white envelope with key, took the key therefrom and used i t in openthe door of the kitchen of the house of B. Once in, A succeeded in taking clothes and monef from the Be What crime was committed by A and the Explain your answer. .4 and the servant committed robbery by the use iipon things in an inhabited house, by using false The key that the servant dropped to the ground the window and w h i c h 4 used in opening the door itchen was a u e y , i t L & g a stolen key, '. ,>''' 'The opening 'of an outside dam witit, a false key: will to the crime of robbery by the. nse._of force '. u e g s . when p>rson?Lproperty is taken inside the house or building with intent I. to - g a b . The servant is liable for the same crime, because there was comkacy .' . .. between him and A. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. f i e p r e r e l a t i o n of the servant with the offended party is i=t?.ial, because . the 'crime committed is robbery. .

,

*'"'

I

1412. A knocked at the door of the house of U who O p and, being a hospitable person, B invited A to en

I

metal badge, and that he wanted t6 verify the information that th'ere was an escaped c there. B told A to sit down as her baby and went .into her bedroom... left him in the sa;,l B returned to the sda, A was not there anymore left with the radio of B. What ,crime was commi A? Explain your answer. It is submitted that

I

offender t mt admitted A into exercise 01 public Pretending the exercise of public authority or. using; any fictitious name must be the ihdwa!.u& t h m e ' . the .person in.-the house. to ~ e ~ tcLthe4ffende. ~ $ e

. .

-_~

*

~

lill. A entered, ' t h e house of B through the open door and , . once insidse opened a wardrobe with a piece of wire which

1413. A, armed with a dagger, entered the garage of B after

I

~

he inserte,d into the keyhole. Once the door of the ward,. . robe was opened, A took personal belongings therefrom and left i.he house with the personal belongings. , What 1' crime was1 committed by A? Why? .$.<, , ,: A committed theft, because the use of a picklock to .. I_):. ,,..open a locked wardrobe will not make the taking of per,% :'.

~.

.?

. , .

sonal property therefrom with the use of force upon things. to p E n an E u L a i o a t order to get perso

I

,

554

breaking the wall thereof, and took some pers inside worth P200. The garage was at one c the lot several meters from the house of B. The of the car of B was the occupant of a part of the as his bedroom with a door which q e n e d into the gara When A entered it and took personal pxop the driver was out to the province on vacati other person was occupying it. In determining penalty, must the court take into considerati that A was armed? Explain your answer. Y-es, because the garage is 'considered a house, because it constituted the dwelling of

555 f+ j:


CRIMINAL LAW. R J W L T E R

'.even though the occupant thereof was temporarily absent

I n robbery by the use of force upon things i place or in a private building, the circumstance carries arm at the time of the commission of material. There is no gerson i n the place who

therefrom when the robbery was committed. The penalty $5. . f o r robbery in an inhabited house committed by the use .i,,of force upon things is based on the value of the property taken and on whether or not the offender carries arm L.; %(Arts. 299 and 301, R.P.C.). $$:I'

_:. 7*:, .' %.,,: kr,

'

not^ necessary

to consider the garage as a dependency a separate building. To eonstitute n dependency, the building must be contiguous to the principal building, it must have a n interior entrance connected t k r s ~ i t h ,and it C u s t form part of the whole.

of the house of B, because it is

>' ,

8

Note: It is

1415. A and B entered the storeroom of a public s c h d ; through its open door. Once inside, they found. a. box tied with a piece of wire. They untied it an :y .
'

,*,..&I

.,, ;:.:.Distinguish ,, the two kinds of robbery' by the use of force upon things a s they are defined in Art. 299 and Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code? In robbcry by the use of force upon things under Art. 299, the crime is committed in an .inhabited house, p s i c .building or edifics--dgvot& to religious worship: in robbery by the use of force upon things under Art. 302, the crime is committed in an ..@nhab&eLplace o r 4: in a pri.irat.e.. builsg:~ ~

Note: Suppose that the property taken by A and 8 was c taincd in a closed box, would the crime Committed b y A:a B stiil be robbery by the use of farce upon things? In robbery by the use of force upon things in an inha place, public building or edifice devcted to religious'wo the law (Art. 299) u?es the phrase "loeked or xc&$ furn or receptacle." If the box is neither. locked nor sealed, the. opening of the box and the taking of tho contents therefroni . .7' with intent to gain may be considered theft*-. .

.

In robbery by the use of force upon things under Art. 302, the manners of entering the building are the same as those mentioned in Art. 299, with the only exception of uS:mg_aag.-€iGt%ious&name. or p&.endhx&3he-es~erT -~ cise of public authority. In robbery by the use of force upon things in an inhabited place, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship,. the penalty is based on the value of the property taken, as well as on ,whether o r riot the offenders carry arm at-the time of the commission of the crime; i n robbery by the use of force upon things in an uninhabited place or in a private building, the basis of the penalty is only the value of the property taken.

.

In robbery by the use of force upon things in an uninhabited place or in B private building, using any fictitious e or pretending the exereisc of public authority cannot be means of entering the building, because there is no person the p!aee who can be deceived.

Note:

556

'

1416. A and B entered a warehouse through its open door'dnd'''' once inside they found a closed box but not locked. They broke it open and took the contents th of. What crime was committed by A and .B? Ex your answer. It is submitted that A and E committed robbery the use of force upon things in an uninhabited place .' a private building (Art. 302). because the warehouse' slot inhabited. Even if the box was not locked or sea! the breaking of the same and the taking of the contentd thereof with int&t .to gain was robbery, because . bery in an uninhabited place or a private build law (Art. 302) :,uses ,the phrases "sealed or, close tule or recepta%fe" and "closed or sealed rec

. .


CRIMINAL.XAW .REVIEWER

JCode which provides that the,-. shall penalty next lower in degree when the rohb in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood ence to robbery by the u s e ’ of force upon (Art. 303, . R.P.C.).

receptacle ih an uninhabited order to take personal properefrom with intent to gain is robbery. a warehouse of a crate mntsinecause B crate is a closed rbeep:

:

ed a. warehouse through an open door and once de he lifted and renroved a closed Imx containing Valrsonal property and carried it outside. Before ould break it open outside of the warehouse, A was ed by the guard. Is A liable.for attempted, frusor conqummated robbery by the use of force upon in a n uninhabited & w e or a private building? n your answer. It is submitted that A is liable for consummated robery by the use of force upon things in an uninhabited a private building. When a closed or seal&d reis taken from a n uninhabited place or a private and carried outside, it is not necessary that it open in order that the.of€ender may have profelony as a consequence. Art. 302, par. 5 , rey that the “closed or sealed receptacle has been rem2ved.” The last part of the provision which states, “even If the same he broken open elsewhere.” does not hidieate an element of the offense. by,.m&ms -of threat and intimidation against om the latter‘s camarin about fifteen sacks of h an opening made on the floor of the cam138 A and B are prosecuted and found guilty, enalty be one degree l,ower in view of the fact bbery consisted in the taking of cereals? Why? No. The crime committed was robbery with intimidation, ‘even,if there was force upon things, because when he ‘use of force upon things and violence against o r dation of persons concurred in the commission of y, the ,latter element supplies the controiling qualification.oi the robbery. The article of the Revised Penal

558:

1419. A and B removed and carried away from .C’s’ after breaking a wall thereof, nine cavanes o There being force upon things only and the^',. taken consisted of cereals, must the penalty lower? Why? No, because the quantity of the palay fak that the same was not kept by the owner as or taken by the robbers for the purpose.. ’

Note: Hence, the penalty is

One

degree lo

pohu is taken for the purpose

,

the palay is of big quantity it is not intended to by its owner as seedling.

1420. Is the posscssion of false key punishable by thg Penal Code? Explain your answer. It depends upon the kind of f d s e key possession of the accused, If the false key found, possession is a genuine key, stolen from any key other than that intended by the in the Ioclc of the door of his house, the possession the Eame is not punished by law. But if the &.US& . found in possession .of picklock or a simi ’ criminally liable for possessing the same. Note: Art. 305 of the Revised Penal Code merely de keys, without any penalty for the possession,of the the other hand, Art. ,304 of the Code punishes .the of picklocks or similar toole. H in possession of picklocks or sim

i4il. .

,.

What are false keys? ,’ . False k w s shall be deemed to include1. The ’ tools mentioned in (picklocks o r ’ similar tools specially adpp mission o i robbery).

559 : -

’.

,

.

.

..’

I ’,

2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner. 3 . Any keys other than those Intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.

1422. A, who was leaving with his family ,for Baguio, entrusted the key of the main door of his house to B. One day, i E used it in opening the main door of A’s house and . . . once inside b o k personal property belonging to A. What .:.,. crime was committed by B? Explain your answer. , ... B committed the crime of theft, uecause the key was not stolen and that key vias not “ot:Ier than” the key intended by A for use in the lock whifi B opened. ~

..

i

:. ,. . ~

ri(

..

Who are brigands or highway robbers? Brigands or highway robbers are *hose armed persons, at least four in number, who form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, o r kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or t o olitain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence (Art. 306, E.P.C.).

4. ,What crime is conlmitted by the brigands who eomnlitted kidnapping to obtajn ransom? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the brigands committed kidnapping, not brigandage. The law (Art. 306) provides that “if the act or acts committed by them (the persons guilty of brigandage) are not punishable by higher penalties: (they shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium pwiod to reclusion tem;oo~uZ in its minimum period) ; otherwise, “they shall suffer such high penalties.” This m.eanS that if they actually committed a crime punishable by a higher penalty, like murder, kidnapping with a demand for ransom, or robbery with homicide, they should be prosecuted and punished f o r such crime.

. A, B, C, D and E, all armed, committed robbery with hitimidation in the highway. plain your answer.

Are they brigands?

EX-

It is submitted that since the purpose of these five armed persons is unknown they are not brigands. TO be brigands, it is not enough that they a r e armed, at least four in number, and that they form a band of robber?;, The purpose of the band must be either (1) t o CO-t robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap persons for ex-. tortion or t o obtain ransom, or (3) for any other purpose to be attained by means of force or violence. The offenders, to be brigands, must go out upon n e , ,.. highway or rove upon the country with a view to committing rohbevy in the highway, kidnapping persons, ,ete. : Jf the agreement among them was t o commit only a p a e c - : nlar robbery, they are not brigands or highway robbers. :j Seven persons, all armed, formed a band of robbers for the Furpone of committing robbery in the hkhway. They went out upon the highway to commit robbew.. , Before they could commit any robbery, they were arrested and when investigated they confessed to the foregoing .., facts. Are they liable for consumnlated brigandage? ExpIain your answer. Yes,. It is not necessary that they actually c o d h d , robbery in the highway. The main object of the law is to prevent the formation of such bands: in fact the heart of the offense cofisists in the formation of the band by four o r more armed person8 conspiring together for the purpose of robbery, etc., and such formation is sufficient to constitute a violation of the law. It would not be necessary to show, in a prosecution under it. that a member or members of the band actually committed highway robbery, etc., in order 6 ,, convict him or them.

p
661 560

.. .. .

.,,. ,~., ..

,

,,.,


CRIMINAL LAW REVIMER;,

u.

,

/

.

.,.

. . CllIDlINAL LAW REVIEWER

1. In brigandage.

CRIMJNAL LAW REVIEWER

I€ any of the arms carried by any

1430. The servant of B, wliile ’ cleaning the latter’s bedroom, found on the bed B’s wallet containing P100. The ‘servant

of the armed persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons,are highway robbers or

picked up the wallet from the bed and dropped’it Lo t h e ground from the window intending to go down for it later. The son of B saw the wallet when it fell on the ground and picked it up, thereby frustrating the hope of , . the servant that he would be able to get the wallet later:, Did the servant commit attempted, frustrated or consummated theft? Explain your answer. The servant committed consummated theft. In a juridical sense, the consummation of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of. the property belonging to another which is realized by the material occupation of. the thing whereby the thief places it under his control and in such a situation as he could dispose of i t a t once (People vs. Naval, et al.).

bfigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be ’, imposed in the maximum period (Art. 306, as amended ,., by Rep. Act No. 12). 2. In illegal assemblies. If any person present a t the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as .he is concerned, is to commit acts punishable under the Revised . . ,.. ,, ; ’ Penal Code, and he shall be considered a leader or or.ganizer of the meeting (Art. 146, as amended by Rep. , , Act No. 12).

1

Note: In Art. 146, there must be B meeting, whether the group is in a fixed place or moving: in Art. 306, there must be a band of robbers.

14228. If an individual, who knew that a group of persons was a band of brizands, harbored, concealed or assisted in the escape of the brigands or profited from the property taken by such brigands, is he a principal or an accessory? Explain your answer. Under the law (Art. 307), he is a principal in the crime of aiding and abetting a band of brigands. Such person is liable as principal in the crime if he (1) know,. ingly. and in any manner aids, abets or protects a band of brigands; (2) gives them information of the move. .. ments of the police or other peace officers; or ( 3 ) ac.. quires or receives the property taken by such brigands (Art. 307, R.P.C.).

1429. To constitute consummated theft, is it necessary that the . , offender, who took the personal property of another with intent to gain and without the latter’s mnsent, should be able to carry it away? Explain your answer. No. The law (Art. 308) uses the phrase “shall take personal property of another.” The law does not require ’ that the personal property taken should be carried away , by the offender. :..; ’_ i

,.

$

: I

N o t e : This ruling applies ~ I s uto the meaning of “taking” i n robbery with violence against or intimidation of any person. But when the placr is surrounded by B fence or wall and one has to pass ii cheek pcint before going out, the taking of personal property is not complete before passing through the check point. Titus, iu the ease of People VS. Dinio (C.A.). it was held that in crder to make the booty subject to the eontrol and disposal of the culprits, the articles must first be passed through the M.P. eheck point. If the stolen artidea were found in the pojsessioii of the culprits by the military poiice at Ihe check point, the crime committed was frustrated theft because Lhe timely discovery of the articles in the Po* session of tho culprits by the military police prevented the culprits from placing. the articles “under their control and in such B situation” as they “could dispose of them a t once.” . .

1431. A, taking advantage of the absence of the owner, of a.;’ parked on the street, drove it to a place ”

ouse and then and there removed the fom, the four tires with him and left the jeep.^: eeuted and punished for the theft o theft of the four tires? Explain you st be prosecuted and punished for theft of,’* ffcctively deprived the owner of the

563

:.:

CRlhIIXAL LAW REVIEWER


.session of' the entire ... -. -motor vehicle, the offense .comprised .._._ , ,, the_wholc. motor..v.ehicle. The deprivation_I. of the owqer of &_jegp-.and the trespass..upon his Jight,,.pf possession were complete.,as.Jo .the,,.entire jeep (People vs. Carpio) c_----

.

I _ . . .

1432. A, in picking the pocket of B, succeeded in extracting his wallet. Finding that it was empty, he threw the wallet away. Is A liable for theft? Explain your answer. . Yes,heeause t h s a l l e t which he .extracted ..fE.nnbe pocket ofBhasl-.. some ... .... ..value and A&&b..far &he._theft ; : of the wa,llet. It wo-he. necessar3rfo~ilmake i%Tf%&allet or to dispose-of _ t h ~ - . s a m ~ . t o . . c o , ~ ~ t ~ t ~ the crime of theft. h-mn*. ~. 1433. A and IB were roommates in a boarding house. A, taking advantage of the fact that B was sleeping, took the latter's watch from the table f'or the purpose of selling it. A went out with the watch to look for a buyer, but on second thought he decided to return the watch. When A returned t o their room to place back the watch on the table, B saw him carrying his watch. A admitted to B that he took the watch f o r the purpose of selling it, but that he was returning it because his mnscience was bothering him. B now asks you whether A' can be prosecuted and punished for theft. Give and explain your opinion. Mv ouinion is that A is d l t v of theft. The element -. of "takiqg" referred to in the .law means the act oL&priving <--another ,- __... of the possession. and. dominionaf.~o.vahle thing coupled with the intention, at&e-t&ggd%wg," .

Y

"

\., ,.

.

1

1435. A gave B, a janitor in his office, P320, with instruction to pay A's insurance premium to the insurance company., B, instead of paying it t o the insurance company, spent the money. Is B liable for theft? Explain your answer;: Yes. Although E did not take the money, for it was received by him from A, he was liable for theft, because,: ~ ~money ~ s ~w ~ a~s f. ' only the p h y s i c a l , p r . m a t e r ~ ~the tr&$EFrZTto h i m , 13 did not receive the money as a bailee but as a servant. Sin-B did no& juridical possession".of th_e,monex,..he ..W@~J&!&fO& es;a&,.. b&&~-

-

*__---~

I

/

and of returning it later, would A be liable for t h e f t l . ' Explain your answer. N A because a t the time_&lie taking of tbe watch, A 11kd no intention - - . fo * r :0 .uer.m.%~n~Y so. . ~ ~ . ~ O . ~ . ~ dominion ,of tlie same,

ust: : I :

Note: It will be noted that in theft the offender does-

i

Servant, domestic, or employee who misappropriated the thins he received from his master or employer is liable for theft, not for estafa.

J

1436. A picked the pocket of B who was walking in a crowded"' place and succeeded in extracting from the latter's pocket a wallet containing 850. When A examined the wallet and its contents, he found out that it was the same wdet;; and the same money which he had lost a few horn"' before. Is A liable for theft? Explain your answer. May A be held liable for another crime?

~ + & . :

~

i

I

Suppose that A took the watch without ',he knowledge of B only for the purpose of using it in i. dance party 664

565

i

I



,.,.

act which would have been an offense against property where it not for the inherent impossibility of its :y4;?, accomplishment. It is legally impossible for A to com., 3; /,it theft of his own property.

.y&' .,.formed an

caused his arrest. C

<>'

beginning that I? would him, do yon believe that your answer. Yes. Although he kne was going t o commit a cr takihg of his radio by B. mere lack of opposition on

What element o f ' theft is lacking when a person took personal property from another, believing in good faith . t..h.a t it belonged to him? I" L.-.--_ The elp-ment of intent to &=is>Ski.ng. , . .Note: A s , . is not n ecess% Th-

----

~

I i,

1440. The crime of theft is defined in Art. 308 of the

:~:;

.e v & o r

~

s?:g&i!m O ~ t " ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ L s m - t ~ k i n ~ ot ier s property besu_fficjen$., @n.~ But to eonstitch th th%-tWbe coupled wiwl ,the intention at the time of the taking or the thing ~ h h o l d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t k pe2z"""y.

A was in Dossession of rice land on whicn he D h t e d ,rice. A harvested the palay and piled it on the land. 'B,who (claimed to be the owner of the land, filed a civil action in the justice of the peace conit to recover possession of the land, which was decided against him and in favor of A. B appealed to the Court of First InsLince, which decided the case against him. During the pendency of the appeal, B filed criminal charges against A, and had him arrested and lodged in jail. Whiie A was in jail and after the Court of First Instance ltad decidcd the civil case against him, B entered the land, took the pfllay and carried it away. Is B liable for theft? Why'? Yes, because claim not in - - , his ~ ~ ~ .-., ,of.~ .ownership .. .,~.,~ .. l . Lwas __.,~__~_, ....;.good .,,. f_iLh, Tli=must ..be-b.ma .fi&-r&jioJaua&rshiP, to la% of intent to..,gain. show pIyi.,~ll_,

When the violence consists in inflicting serious phys body, or has lost the us incapacitated f o r the performance of the work in which:. :' he was habitually engaged for a period of more tharl. 90. days (Art. 263, par. S ) , o r that the offended party has ' i become ill or incapacitated for labor f o r more than days (Art. 263, par. 4 ) , or the violence consists in infli ing less serious or slight physical injuries, and any ' them is inflicted after the taking of the personal property is complete, the crime of theft as a separate and distinct .,;< crime is committed. The physical injury inflicted con-, , stitutes another crime. (See similar question in robbery .. . under Art. 294, par. 4.) If the intimidation takes place after the taking of the" . personal property is complete, the intimidatidn may con- "8 stitute a separate crime, such as grave threat; 'and will' ,. . not quali€y the crime to robbery. ,. * When the force upon things is not used by the offender to enter a house or building or to break open a. lackea or sealed furniture or receptacle in the house or building; ' ' ?

'i

d~

$439; A s A was appruaehing his car parked on the side of ' a street, he saw B opening the door of the car. A concealed himself behind the electric post and stood there t o see what I3 would do in his ear. A saw that once inside the car B bsgan to remove, as in fact he succeeded in removing, his radio. B went out of the ear with the dio and started walking away when A collared him and

, t ? ~

Penal Code as the taking of personal property of with intent to gain "without violencc against or ~ timidation ~ ~ ~ of ~ persons ~ ~ ~n , ~ ~

I

,; -:

566

"

667

~"

E

CJUllllNAL LAW REVIEWER


.

O P after taking it away therefrom, the taking of the personal property, notwithstanding the use of force upon things, is theft.

'

Note: Thus, if A picked the pocket of B and having taken ths latter's wallet A yam away and threatened him with a knife, A used, ep , t a k i n g o f B's wallet. If X broke the wall of the house of Y and after creating a n opening X inserted his hand through such opening and reached f o r some personal grcperty of X and took i t with intent to gain, X is liable f o r :theft onl?, b::$yecc_he..~did not enter the house of Y.

w w y z -

M found a locked chest on the street. M took it to his house and broke it open. In this ease, M was liable fcr theft, be, .x chest ..xfrom. the house d.it.i cause he did not take ,the-lacked o m 3 He did not hAe,gk-&..og$$ m the house of its Owner.

__~

1441. A cut some of the stakes of a corral and, after creating an opening, A entered the corral, took and pulled away the carabm from the said corral. What crime wa6 committed by A? It depe5ds. u e mrral had a roof, th~e-t&n!~t. : ' the carabao, after, breaking some.,..of. the,.stahes, would :b b%ZGl%rwby the use of force upon..things. If the corral had no top OT roof and iQvas not ,-,g~e_nd?.3Cy of a" ighabited "....~~house, the--crime committed is qualified theft? ~r r.oof ,is not..a building. because the,.,cQrral.without a t o p o In robbery by the use of force upon things, the offender must have entered a house or building, ~

I

_

--..*

.,-.

I

,

~

...,.-.

._

.,,. ,

1442. A, servant in the house, having caught B, a trespasser, tied B t o the post of the house after employing violence on him. After sometime A removed B's shoes from his feet and took them. What crime was committed by A? Why? , Theft, because the violence used by A was entirely ' fbreign to, or had n o connection with, the fact of the y taking of B's personal property. k

1413. A is prosecuted under an information alleging that h e ' , committed theft, without force upom things or violence against or intimidation of persons. But during the trial, the fiscal proved without objection from the defense . . ' that the taking of the personal property was accomplished by A with violence against and intimidation of persons. I Can the conrt declare him guilty o f robbery? Why? ioleze&p.inst or intimidag e 3 i n the information, E n &e-perp$nal proptrty belong- ' ,. . to gain ,-.*,--.to robbery. 1444. While a truck loaded with bolts of textiles was passing along a street in Manila, a bolt fell from the truck. A policeman saw the bolt when it fell from the truck. Seeing that X was approaching the place where the bolt of textile was lying, the policeman hid himself behind parked autoniabile and observed what X would do with the bolt of textile. X picked it up and carried it with him. The policeman 'suddenly came out and placed x under arrest, accusing him of theft as a finder of lost property. Is X criminally liable for theft? Explain yo? answer. & e--.No. To be liable for theft, the finder of lost property mU~s~a~.c2n-_o~portuIlity to deliver the same to the local authorities o r to' 'if< bieiYd-and' li6 'aid - n o t - d a - s T ~ X is not liable, because the policeman irnm&&ely placed him under arrest. X did not have the opportunity to deliver tii; property to the local authorities o r to its owner. ,

,

%

W'

1445. A found B a walIet containing P100. A gave it to c be delivered to R. Once in possession of th,e wallet' took the money and spent it. What crime was commit by C? Explain your answer. C committed theft, and its contents to C,

.

669

568 .

\

c.

,;

,/

2



.

.

,.

.-------

1446. When is the malicious damaging of another's property . . ~, a crime of theft and when is it malicious mischief? . . When a person, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove 01' make use of the fruits '~ ..., ) . , or object of the damage caused by him, it is theft (Art. . ;308,par. No. 2, R.P.C.). When he only deliberately causes damage t o the prop. . 'erty of another, without removing or making use of the ,'., >' fruits or objects of the damage caused by him, it is mali? .cious mischief (Art. 327, R.P.C.). "'

'

In the following cases:

He j15d DhYSiCd poZsgssion.of. it only. Thg- person-,,w.ho . . received it from &macquired.-.the same kind..of.~possession,

'

fidence; or

i (Art. 310, ' Ti.P.c;)

9'

Yes. Although the domestic from his master,

hunting wild birds or animals a crime of theft? It is theft when a person shall hunt wild birds or anials upon a n inclosed estate or a field where trespass is bidden or which belongs to another, without the conits owner (Art. 308, par. No. 3, R.P.C.).

s o d property

a person liable for theft for catching fish in

Y.4.52. The servant in the house of B stole the watcli Of

A person is liable for theft for catching fish in the brook or stream, if that brook o r stream is in an jnclosed estate o r a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and that person catches fish therein without the consent of its owner (Art. 308, par. KO.3, R.P.C.). who gathered fruits or other forest products liable for theft? Yes, when the forest is in an inclosed estate where or which belongs to another and the gathering of the fruits or other forest products is without the consent of its owner (Art. 308, par. 3, R.P.C.).

theft? Explain your answer.

and transport A's merchandise from Manila to i

whai cases is the crime of theft punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those re. spectively specified for simple theft?

670

671

CRIIWINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .

,

.. .:,\,'

.'

',

nor AI&& of the Revised Pe property faken in r(lb@em.,ds,.a ..higher., The penalty, therefore,

qroperty &ru&gd,-tA&m. B had only the physical possession of the merchandise, the owner having had the constructive possession of the same.

I*LY;

1454.. In qualified theft committed with grave abuse of con3 . ,~ fidence, whose confidence must be gravely abused by the .",^. offender? In qualified theft committed with grave abuse of con. .~ fidence, the confidence gravely abused must be that exist. , ing b e t G e n the. ~offended party^ and thCof€ender. .~.

1457. What crime is committed by a person who shot cow which was destroying his plantation and then there took the meat from the dead cow? Explain answer. The crime committed was CEple theft, because the' cow was not taken. This is a case of simple theft, where ,' a person who, after having malic,iously damaged the p r o p :: erty of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits.,' or object of the damage caused by him.

-,ti--

~

'

Note: Thus, when thc accused asked the watchman of the

provincial government building for the key to the door of the session hall in order to use a typewriter and once in passessivn of the typewriter he took i t and sold the same, it was held that the accused was guilty of simple theft only, because it. '. th! watchman which he gravely abused a of the offended party, $le provincial government.

%~;+v;~~~~-~;~~,.pf-

1458. Suppose the cow which was destroying the plantation of the offender, was caught by him, driven to a certain,.$ place which was a few meters away from the plan?$ ..a tion and then and there the colv was slaughtereK'and d the meat was taken, what ,crime was committed by. the offender? . , The crime committed is qualified theff;, because the removal of t h c i ~ ~ ~ . i ~ g _ . c - ~ - ~ t h ~ l ~ ~ ~ t&e.cf large cattle a ~ d & . , g $ l ~ ~ j ~ s ~ ~ g & .

. .-. . .

.-1455;;"V&at ',**.'~:. , crime is committed if the property taken after t h e ."breaking of the door of a post office building is a mail, matter? Why? Robbery, because there waforce-.uQGn&hu and the Code (Art. 302) specifically provides a penalty one degree higher when the property taken in robbery is mail matter o r large caltle. I,

Note: It will be noted that if the cow is iwnoved and taken

Notc: In any kind of robbery, wheLlier with violcnee against or int.imidatian of persons or by tho use of force wpon things,

away from the place where i t is caught by the offender. the crime i n qwlifiedfhcft. It .is simpl%.ih& when the cow is not removed and taken, but is killed on the spot, and the meat .,*.. is taken.

if the property taken is mail matter o r large cattle, the penalty is one degree higher, not two degrees higher as in qualified theft.

,

'

,1456. What crime is committed if the property taken with violence against or intimidation of persons or by the .. ' use, of f o x e upon things is, a motor vehicle? Why? .-.\because the .naL$he-of the property taken canUto&cry, n&c!xan6:e..the ,naturesf the ,crime . ~.if the- ~rope:~Y&k?b.? with-v~.olence..ag~nst, or intimidatj.Q,n-s, 0 L . k

- --

1 ' !

~~

Note: But the e l $ y i s . n o t . ~ o n e . . Qegr.~e_or_t~edegrees.,~g4er tha? that provided for simple theft, b$c?,u&e, neither A =

672

i

7)

i

. **
-i

1459. What crime was committed by a person who; ha*qj borrowed the carabao of his friend f o r the purpose Of24

using it in plowing his rice field, later sold the carabao:$ to a third ,person 3nd spent the proceeds of .the Eale?',] .:@q "'r Explain your answer. .r; The crime committed is o&o$n hlrmncr. h a rordv&&

I CKlMINAL LAW REVIEWER

ClllRlINAL LAW REVIEWISR

of the same and the

misappropriation of such thing

&.

'e-ahuseoofconfide.n_ce. .

.:.

.. . 1460.. A, taking advantage of the absence of B and the latter's ,,.: , family, climbed one of the two coconut trees in the yard. of B and .took five coconut fruits from the tree. What A? Explain your ansiver. committed the crime of simple theft, because the taken from the premises of a . . plantation. When only two or some coconut trees arc growing in the yard of the owner, it i s not a plantation. . .. 1461. What, crime was committed by a person who stole crabs and shrimps from the fishpond belonging to another? ,

'

,,

1

it:,is submitted that the person committed the crime of qualified theft. The "fish" iaits-ganeralsenszr, . . term .,[email protected]~~- n ' in-water-~only, s u ~ J ~ > - ~ ~ ~ b ~ , sters, etc. In i@ r e s t r i c t i v e m i n g , fi>h-f-& cold-blooded.. __..-,-animals [email protected] an-@ s, permanentgills_.fo?r.,~r~,athing, fkand, I n a z i c r a s the law (Art. 310, R.P.C.) 'fish'' without any qualification, it is submeaning of the term should be taken i n e, so as to include crabs and shrimps.

real property of another, there or intimidation of persons. I R.P.C.), the offender mnst t estate or usiirp any real rights in property belonging .#:I 1' another, by means of violence against or intimidation of : persons. Note: If physical injuries are also inflicted in the commission of the mime of usurpation, the person who committed it is also liahls for the crime of physical injuries, because the Code: (Art. 312) states, "in addition' to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him," he shall be punished by

and used his own land after forcibly ejecting the-tenant8 therefrom? Explain ' your answer.

,Ege group of

'

1462. What crime was committed by

R person who entered and another after pulling down his small nipa house there, consent of the o m e r ? Ex-

-

plain your answer. The crime committed was anosr&r_m of t r e s p 3 s (Ark 281, R.P.C.), becaw$ the."..p l a g was a fmced esfate odmther;' I t was nocinhabited, the prohibition to ent% t w e a s m a n i f e s t , as shown by the fact that it was fenced, and the offender did not secure the permission .. ' . of the owner or the caretaker thereof. . &., ,' .~*, The crime committed is not occupation oi real p r o p ,';.",:.~ .: . . .erty, because when the offender took possession of the , .'it . ' ~ , > ., .,;. ,.+._. .,-,: ., 1,

~

~

-_

., , Such person was not liable for usurpation, because'the real property belonged to him and he had no intent to gain. I n usurpation, the offender must have the intent, to gain 'and the real property or real rights in property, should not belong to him. i

1464. What crime was committed by a person who altered the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces or estates? ' T k ~ n ~..committed,was, .e usur aries or landmarks (Art. 313, R rl. ..,

1465. What is fraudulent insolvency?

.

.

3

.

574

.

575

4

,

'

I

, ,


r' ,~.' . ~,

4. '&ere is a demand made iiy the.offended part@q to the Offender. ,' ;.&& The last element is not necessary when there is evidend of misappropriation or conversion of the money, goods .or.. ..,, other personal property received by the offender.

chant, the penalty is higher.

-

was indebted to B in the sum Qf P10,OOO and, when the debt became due and demandable, A sold his house and lot worth 815,000 and spent all the proceeds of the d e . ' Is A liable for fraudulent insolvency? axplain your answer. There being nothing stated in the qurstion that his house an.d lot were the _only property of A or that B was ac&ally prej-udizdl A is not liable for fraudulent insolvency.-Tmmportant element of the crime of fraudwith his propulent insolvency is that the act of ~~XIIXW erty by the offender resulted in the prejudice of&?s creditors. Hence, it is important to show that the sale of his property by the offender at the time that his debt was due and demandable resulted in the prejudice of his creditors.

'.

.. *,i

1468. What are the other forms of estafa with abcse of confidence? Estafa with abuse of confidence includes: 1. Estafa committed by altering the iubstance, quantity or quality of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an-obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration (Art. 315, No. l ( a ) , R.P.C.). 2. Estafa committed by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person (Art. 315, No. 1( a ) , R.P.C.)

c-"...

yrbt m a e y ,

=d& or other personal -YU r e c a - b y the offender from another person for Safe>*% or on commission, or f o r a d m i n k b h - or for the oblipalion to, make

c'

. .

676

...

,

'

.

1469. In estafa committed with abuse of confidence by misappropriatinx or converting to the prejudice of another

/

/.

,'

The elements nf -.tu! a by means of a g e : 1.J2-d there must, be a -dense, fr;uadulentnct or fraudulepicmms ; 2. '$& such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudo m : ulent means must be B a d e or executed taneouslv w j i the c o m a h i m u L t h & a u d ; 3 . JM'the offended party must have r.elkxLm -the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and 4 . #at as a result, the offended party suffered damage

1467. What' are the two general classifications of estafa 01 swindlin:$, m d give the elements of each? The .two general classifications of estafa or swindling are: (1) estafa with abuse of confidence, and (2) estafa bv means of deceit. T6e elements .-...of . e.,. m with ~b%~--?f,~c~nfi~~~e by misappropr1it;mg or converting The property of ahother

That there be misapproariation or c _ o e ? p of such money or other personal property by the person who has so received it, or denial on his part of such receipt ; 3 That such misappropriation or conversion or denial the Injury of an&heE; and is/

,?,... :2 .. .,46 - .~

,. ,

@I

Note: In fraudulent insolvency, the fact that the offender is a merchant is not an element of the offense. If he is a mer-

''

1466./"

I


~

i

i 1l

1

or by denying having received money, goods or other personal property, under what transaction must the money,, goods or other personal property be received by the offender? The money, goods or other personal property must be received by the offender (1) in trust, (2) on commission,

671

~

,:

ClZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER '

,.. .

CRIMINAL LAW ICEVIEWER

(3) for administration, or (4) under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the quasi-contracts

Was only an extension of that of the latter. The juridical pmsss>.io~nn_tbereof rgnained with the owner. Such person, not having the juridical possession of the motor vehicle, committed qualified theft for disposing of it with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner (People vs. Isaac). But if the motor vehicle was pot ouerated as a r d a r passenger vehicle and, therefore, not subject to the rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission, the contract of lease isia1i.d and the person who received the motor vehicle has acquired ~juridka! possession of the same. If he sold the motor vehicle to another person and used the proceeds of the sale for his own benefit, such person is liable Tor estafa with abb_u_se._ofconfidence.

The offender d o e s & the offended party.

-___

to he delivered $g a third persp,pr to be returned to its owner. --In estafa, thed$!ix$Fy pf,the thing to the accused. should not carry with it the transfer of ownership. . Thus, in contract o r k l i or loan of money, since the ownership of the think or of tho rnoney is transferred to the buyer or borrower, the latter cannot be held liable for estafa for failure to pay the purellase prico 01' to pay the loan.

1470; State the reason why in estafa with abuse of confidence by misaplpropriation or conversion, the ;law requires that the money, goods, or other personal property should be " received by the offender under any of those transactions. The reason is that, in estafa with abuse of confidence the offender who misappropriated or converted to the prejudice of another the money, goods or other personal of the property property must have juridical po-s&n he receiv'ed; and when money, goods or other personal property is cec~eivedin trust, on ~ctzmm~s&o.n,.. fg_r.admini s h a m , o r under any..quas&ontract or contra&of bailment, jyidical possession is tg2feKi;ed to the person who so received it.

1471. What e ' & ' i s committed, by a person who, with intent &Id to another a motor vehiele leased to him owner? Explain your answer. hen the motor vehicle i s w d as a regular uas, , senger vehicle, subject to the rules and regulations of the m the leasing of Public Service Commission, which p v&icle operat$d as a ,public utility, the.&&&oLlease is ull. d and iGh ~pezoTcan not b c c w'der4 e-xa motor vehicle. In the exes of the law, : '' such person was nLa-lessee-but only an emuloyee or . . ;?" " a-of the owner, so that his pQs-of the vehicle .-

~

.3

.

":

:

.,,'

1472. A, who was buying merehandise in the market for resale at his retail store in the barrio, told B, the owner of a stall in the market, that he w b leaving in his stall the merchandise purchased from another stall while he was buying other merchandise at another .stall. in the

,,

.. "

'

market. 13 agreed to look after the merchandise. When A returned for the merchandise and asked B for it, the latter plenied having received a n y , merchbndise from ,A .; What crime was eomndtted by E? Exp!ain your'answer. ' B committed estafa with abuse of confidence. u e - ,> eeived the merchandise.from A u a e r a c o n t m 3 af-bail- '. qed~..with 'ihe obligation of,.safely keeping. it,..and,-ofw- ; turning the same. Having received ..the..mwcha s$Pi%eeping: E ac juri&s.Lmssenrjna of the Sam aiWIiTdenia1 of received .it..is...e&Ea wi of confidence. '

j(

w---

.L

1473. A, a boy seven years old, found a wallet with m o n e y ' b i b in the amount of 840 in it. A gave it to his father who later spent the money. What crime was committea by the father? Explain your answer. The father committed theft, not estafa. When he ceived the wallet with the money from his son, the f assumed by voluntary substitution, as t o both the

. ,

578

',

:,

579

'x. :?.*< , .,

~

_ ,


erty and its owner, the same relation as was occupied by A, the finder. A finder of..Iost~.pcoperiy ,,,acgy&~~s_only physical or rnateriaGssession of the thing found by him. Ixi%&';<.case, the father acq=%lT%FTE%izal _ " ,,. .__,"____&. -.,--.,--+ or m ~ t e r i a l ~ p o s s e s s i o n ~ w money. a ~ ~ , aXnd ~ ~ when ~~~. he spent t h e money, he t h e r e b ~ c o - m ~ ~ (Amer~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ . ican case, cited in PeopAvila.) ,

. .. .~

.l474. A sold a horse to B for 81,500. B gave to A an advance payment of, 8500. A remained in possession of the horse . . , ... pending the payment of the balance of 81,000. Later, A sold the horse to C. When B asked A to return the .' P500, A failed and refused to do so. Is A liable for estafa with abuse of confidence? Explain your answer. .~. No. A received the PSOO in connection. with a con-

,:.

'a,, $,.

..

.:,:,

tract of sale of the horse. Even if there was a n agreement between A and B that the former would sell to the ' latter the horse, and that A received from B an advance payment of 8500, A cannot be held liable fol estafa with abuse of confidence for selling the horse to c.

.

,?...

.. ...~ .,

,

"_ _I__

--..,.

cause he never delivered the horse to B. He is civilly liable to B only €or the return of the P500 and for damages, if there are any. eceived a radio' from B to keep the same for trial r five! days, at the termination of which A bound himself either to return it to B or, if he desired to retain it, t o pay the initial sun1 of 890 and the balance on installm~mts. A sold the radio and did not pay any amount to B. What crime was committed by A? EXd a i n your answer.

-.

.


. 1

did not commit the crime of estafa even if he sold the radio and he deliberately avoided paying anything at all. (Sison vs. People).

''

o w n e r s h i ~ f - ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ - ~ ~ th-ebiij;er, notwithstanding -,. _ ,th.e-facfJm.. . , been paid,,, . , _;. ~ 1476. A purchased from B a p i g for P50. When A was about * to make the payment, B told A to give the amount of 's P50 to C, A's neighbor, a s B was indebted t o .C 'in&at ?: amount. A took the pig and promised to give the'P50.'.'j to C. But A never gave the money t o C. ,What crime,!' ,, .. e was conimitted by A? Explain your answer. A is not liable for any crime, because .the thing that h e ~ r ~ ~ ~ e ~ t ~he d had received from B A received a pig from €3 a n d . A . p f o m K e T % T Z S e s h e E O to C. In estafa, the, thing to be delivered must be the same thing that +he offendq.,;. . , ., received from the offended party. A ic n&&bl& did n o t take the_ P50 fram,.B. .without. .t

147i. A purchased a pair of shoes from a store where B was a salesman. The purchase price o f the pair of shoes was P45. A handed lo B a 100-,peso bill. As there was no small change in the store, B went out of the store with the IOO-p.
B committed theft. When he received the 100-peso bill from A, h ~ w q u i y s d ,?&_the . ~.hxsical-ormak&al+msession of the money, The juridical possession of the money was not transferred to E, beyuse there was no

.\

680

,

581

3

e

I ,

.?.

.-

.

.i

? ,;.

,.

1

c



2-. >

son ~ v h oreceived i t i w g b l o r 2 f t if he approp for his own he&&,. On e o%er hand, if the owner of t

agreement by which he could exercise a better right Of possession over the same than the owner himself. The delivery of the 100-peso bill was only for the moment and with the express obligation on the part of B to make immediate return of the same if it could not be changed or else to give back to A the equivalent in bills or coins of smaller denominations (People vs. Aquino, C.A.; US. vs. De Vera).

t l i i i g - i u p o n i h ~ delivery. o f ~ . t h e . . m e - t & ~ ex$ect the immediate return of ,,what “he.-delivere crhne- ~ M n i ~ ~ estafa, t ~ & ~if ~the-_pzEc&L?-r.ec ~ S misappropriated it. ’ The test does .not apply when the person who received the,: ., thing is a servant 01 employee of th or employee could not-suj&the thing !h r G e X d .

man?.

~-

1478. A gave to B money in the amount of BlOO to be delivered to C . When he was in possession of the money, B did not deliver the same to C and instead spent i t for his , own benefit. What crime was committed by B? EXplain yoix answer. ;. ;.,, B committed estafa with abuse of confidence. He re. .ceived the money under the title of commission, wiVn the obligation to deliver it to C. Having acquired juridical possession of the money, he committed estafa with abuse of confidence when he misappropriated it. $479. Suppose that in the preceding question, A gave to his servant the money to be delivered to C, but when he was in possession of the money the servant did not deliver it to C and instead spent i t for himself, what crime was committed by the servant. Explain your answer. The crime committed by the servant is qualified theft, because his possession of the money was hut=e555X of the possession of A: In other w o r d s , w e r v a n t did of the money. Having n ~ a ~ ~ 6 i ~ u F i tpossession K c d acquired only the physical or material possession of the money, the servant is guilty of qualified theft for having spent the money for himself. It is qualified theft because the crizrie was committed by a domestic servant. Note: When it is not certain that the offender received a thing under a transaction transferring juridical possession to him, because there is no clear indication that he received it in trust, on commission, f a r administration, o r under a quasi-contract or contract of bailment, the t e s t i s : Did-&h$,-_awner of Gh thin&!&pm+&deliuery -of%c-same-tLt& ..of&$,%-e~~ec& the immediate return of the thing .ddi~eh~$J-..If ,s,p,..,~h~~,te~~,

.-. .. ._

1480. May a person be held liable for estafa with abuse Of confidence, even if he did not benefit from the thing he had received from another? Explain your answer. Yes, when he disposed of the thing he had received to the prejudice of another he may mot have benefited from the thing. In this way of com-itting estafa with abuse of confdencc, the offender only used or disposed of another’s property as if it were his own. The offender uses or disgoses of another’s property without right to do SO. This is known as estafa -_--_...--by cq.uersh i

Note: Thcs, in the cane of People VS. Flores (C.A.), where the accused received il ring from the offended party to sell under the condition that she was to return it the following ’ to & e A L t o a E U k * , day if not scld and wUithQyt;uqiauthauty agmt, bnt in violation of that instruction she gave i t to a sub-agent who, in turn, delivered it, to a third person i n pnYment of the cloth that said suh-agent\hzd ohtained from said third person, the accused Sonverted it to the prejudice-of the offended party and was held liable f o r ssiafa. even if she did nottbp-nefit from the ring, In giving it to a subagent, withoat authority of the owner, the a2cused~dispose a s if . i t were her. own-~~pmq&y. The accused to give the ring to the sub-agent. Art. 315 uses the phrase “ t o t h e prejudice of knother,” not . ; . ., .. “with intcnt to gain,” as in theft o r robbery. ’.?

1

1481. When is an agent who gave to a sub-agent the personal property- belonging to his principal,.&Jable for estafa with abuse of confidence, if the sub-agent misappropriated the property? When the principal adj-&i@,Lthe agent to deliver the personal property to-a sub-agent and the agent ~.

582

.’

583

‘‘j

I

I / ,

I.

.

.+

CKlMINAL LAW REVIEWER


. ._. .,

C, B converted the watch t o the prejudice of C, not the prejudice of A, the owner of the watch. Note: Who can be the complaillant against B for estafgl'

livered it to a sub-agent for the same purpose of selling the same on commission basis a n m e r e is -evidence of c@nivance, collusion or corZSgiraey bet.wzn_.the-agent and th.e ....sub-gg.en$. t o , $&ri+Wl the p&cipal, the agent i s not Iia.ble for estafa if the sub-agent misappropriated it (People vs. Munsayac, C.A.).

- ..

Either A o r 6 , and it makes no difference that the party p udiced was C and not A. If C is the complainant, for what kind of estafa most' be prosecuted and punished? B is to he prosecuted and pUniahedz f o r esiafa by m c m f _ d e e d L . h e e a u s e he falsely pretended to be the owner of the watch, when he pawned i t to C."'.Brrq if A is tho complainant, B would be liable for 'estafa With, P abuse of confidence.

1482. If an asent, who received personal property from his principal to be sold, f o r y h , sold it on credit, is that agent liable for estafa? I n the case .of' U.S. vs. Morales, et al., 15 Phil. 236, i t was held that the act of the agent in selling the jewelry on credit and taking promissory notes from the purchaser for the purchase price, is &&sstafa, ther%b$n&,no_'evi_-.. denee of conversion .of, the property to_tke_benefitof~the w d q -Of,some other^ perso-?. But in the case of U.S. vs. Panes, 31 Phil. 116, where the accused also sold to another on credit the jewelry he had received from the complainant to be sold on commission and for cash, it was held that the accused was guilty of estafa. The 'decision was based on the rule that 'k.. appI)z.iakg >?-O~:;S ..gwn_use,,i n d u d 5 n 0 t - d ~C C K V ~ ~ to one's p g p a d a d v a n t a g e bllt every &te.mpt t a a e ofae.-mop&y of-another. without right" (9 RCL 1275). It i.s submitted that the Panes case states the better rule.

.

1484. When may the agent who received money from principal withhold the application of the Same to. th$ agreed purpose, without committing estafa with

I'

of Confidence? When the agent in good faith retained the money whic he had received from his principal for the purpose of sary self-protection against his principal in civil C versies arising between the two with reference to the or related matter, such agent is not liable for estafa. reason for this rule is that the agent acted without inal intent.

,

'

.

1485. Explain why partners are not liable for estafa abuse of confidence, if the money or property hv is that which is received for the partnership? Partners are not liable for estafa with abuse of fidence if the money or property was reee' partnership, because when two or more person selves to contribute money, property, or in common fund, with the intention of dividing among themselves, a contract is formed, called ship, and when money o r property was invest partner in the risks or benefits of the busines partnership, even though he had reserved th conveysd only the usufruct of his money or property, tEe duty to return it devolves upon the partnership 'and no$ upon the partner who received it directly from him. S u d being the case, the action that lies with the partner,

~.

3. May it person be held IiabIe for estafa with abuse of confidence even if the party prejudiced is not the owner .. of the! property misappropriated or converted7 Illustrate. Yes. For instance, A gave his watch. to B t o keep it while A was taking a bath in the sea, .md then B left with the watch without waiting for A. When A learned that 13 had pawned his watch to C for a loan of P50, : A went to C from whom he recovered his watch, with:~ out reimbursing C of the amount he loaned to B. B committed estafa, because he received the watch from A for safekeeping. He pawned it to C without '. ' right to do so. When A recovered it without reimbursing ,

.

,

. /

/

\,, !I?.,

'I

585

584

.

,

.

1Ii

;r"

I

i

. ClllMINAL LAW REVIEWER


furnished the capital, for the recovery of his money or property is not a criminal action for estafa, but a civil one arising from the partnership contract for a liquidation of the partnership and a levy of its assets, if there should be any. f l t when money or property had been %wived by a partner for specific purpose and later he misappzopriated it, such partner is guilty o f t a f a .

~~~

I I

1487. Is criminal liability for estafa affected by novation of contract? The c ~ n d - l i & i l i t y for estafa is ~ o affected t ~ by compi*omise or e o n of contract, for it is a QQ&L e* which must be prosecuted and punished. by the Government on its own motion even thou&comp&k%!rep&ioz should have been %axe of the &=%suffered by the o€fended party (People vs. Benitez, G.R. No. L15923, June 30, 1960). In the recent case of People vs. Nery, G. R. NO. G 19567, Fcbruary 5, 1964, the Supreme Court held: “Accused contend8 that there is no prohibition in the Penal Code t o prevent the parties to a contract to novate it so that any incipient criminal liability under the I‘irst avoided. The n s a n ~ _ t h e o r qmay perhaps the .filing of the~.sriminal information in

I

1488. A borrowed a typewriter from B to be used by the former for three days. After three days, B sent his brother, C, who was living with him, to A to get back the tppewriter. C went to A and got the typewriter, but C

-

,

686

-_

__

Note: The reason is differed if the charge against the partner is theft. The reason why B partner is not liaole for theft if he takeii the property of the partnership is th-t 2 partner is prcsumed co-owner of the assets and property uf the partnership and if any of such assets or property i s taken by a partner, it is not clearly and truly the property of another.

1486. Does the mere failure to return the thing received for safekeeping, or on commission, o r for administration constitute the crime of estafa? Why? No. There must be evidence that the person who received it either (1) misappropriated it, or (2) converted it to the prejudice of another, or ( 3 ) denied having received it (US.vs. Bleibel; People vs. Nepomnceno).

court because up to that time the ociginal trust relation may be cczny&ed by the parties intocan or&zsrY credi ._ situation, thereby placing the .complainant debtor toDe1 to-izdsion the original trust. But after the institution of the action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the crimiiial liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state, only the of the means can renounce it. x f k & & o nis notn@ed by the Penal Code whereby criminal^ li.&&i be extinguished; hence, the role or’ novation may only b ecther to prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast : doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made ; to appear as a deposit, o r other similar disguise is resorted to. Even in Civil Law the acceptance of partial payments, without further change in the original relation between the parties, can not produce novation. For the latter to exist, there must be proof of intent t o extinguish the original relationship, and suck intent cannot be inferred from the mere acceptance of payments on account of what is totally due. Much less can it be said that the accepb anee of partial satisfaction can effect the nullification of a criminal liability that is fully mature and already in the process of enforcement. Thus, this Court has ruled that the offended party’s acceptance of a promissory note for all or part of the amount misapplied does not obliterate the criminal offense.”

!

~01dit and spent the proceeds of the sale. What crime was annmitted by C? Is he criminally liable? ExplaWyour answers. C committed estafa with abuse of confidence, ljecause he received the typewriter from A upon instruction of B.

-J E87

I

I


Therefore, C received it from A under the obligation involving the duty to make delivery of the same to. B. C acquired juridical possession over the typewriter. When he misappropriated it, he committed estafa with abuse ‘..of confidence, with B as the offencied party. But under Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code, C is not criminally liable, because B and C were brothers who were living together a t the time the crime of estafa was committed by C and, in such a case, C is exempt from criminal liability. ’

., ;_

I

i I 1J

~~

I

~

688

1491. What crime was committed by a person who sold to ’ ,” another 1,000 tins on the assurance that they contained .I opium, when in fact only sixteen tins eontained opium, while the’ others contained only molasses, that person :-I having received the full purchase price far 1,000 tins of opium? . , .< Tiiat person committed e e f a with unfaithfulness, because he altered the sub_stance of the thing which he should. ,~ have delivered by virtue of an obligation to_d.o,_%h ¥ , i ; though .. su_ch-ogjpjion u-as based on an immoral or ill& ’:.; consideration. ----There is d G x e caused to the offended ‘ 2 party.

,’’

_-

1489. Suppose that C, in the preceding question, went to A ,.;,t, . : without the knowledge of I3 and told A that he was sent by his brother B t o get back the typewriter and .. once in possession of the typewriter C sold it and spent : the proceeds of the sale, would C be criminally liable? Explain p u r answer. .. . . Yes, C would be crimhallyliable, because he commitked e&& by means of deceit, because B did n o t a u t g g b e C .,. to get the typewriter and when he _renEse.n&d to A that he was authorized by B to get the typewriter, he thereby made false uretense, which is a f o m ~ . o j M t . In this case, Art. 532 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable, hecause the o-dy is..Bwho is not relat-C. Art 332 provides that “no criminal, but only civil, liahility shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually” by the relatives mentioned in that provision. It will be noted that to be exempt from criminal liability, any of those crimes must be committed by a person against his relativc, or caused mutually by the relatives, men.~, tioned in :raid article. i490. ,What are the elements of estafa with unfaithfulness? .. The elelnents of estafa with unfaithfulness are: 1. That: the offender has an onerous obl&&ion to deliver something of value; .:-, .* 2. That he alters itssu?Jstance, quantity or ‘quality; --4i.. -*>. .;.+ , ~ ..vi’,. . , . , , . ’ 3. That there e s-i or p m c e caused to anoyfler.


1412. What are the elements of estafa by taking undue advantage of a signature in blank? The elements of estafa by taking undue advantage of a signature in blank are: 1. That the with the s m e of the offended party be inn-blullr; 2 . That the offended party s to the offender: 3 . That above the signature of the offended: part a dscument is written by the offender; and 4. That the document so writtext c x s i e ~ ~ o n , ai* cgtzs~es-danzageto, the offen&dd?tY. ~\:,

i

1493. A, who was leaving for the province, entrusted A’s secretary, a blank piece of p thereon, with instruction to B to prepare his signature in case C would pay his debt. was already in the province, B ,typewrote a p note for P1,OOO above the signature of him (B), and later he resigned and aske A ‘was forced to pay B because of the .promissory What crime was committed by B? Expl B committed estafa b y r m d m a s i g & a & w f the offended party i

589

I ,

CKIMIN.iL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER /

a

There can be ~ ~ > ~ t &u&ss g . thze-ls a pemon defrauded., .~ B was not defrauded because he received the full payment of the loan within the period agreed upon. A is liable only for f&jQfigt&g[..a public document, , committed by a private individual, because the : mortgage was a public document and he committed a n acC of falsification thereon by making false statement in the . , narration of f a c t s . 8 n falsification of a public documen& pjejudice to a.~.thixd party is not necessary .(People' v?. Cura, et al.).

document above said signature t o the prejudice of t h e offended party.

,.

.

1494. Suppose that the blank piece of paper with the signature of A was stolen by X who typewrote a promissory note for P1,OOO in his favor above the signature of A an& later demanded payment from A, and A paid X 1?1,000. : .. because of the promissory note, what crime was com: mitted by X? Explain your answer. X is lia.ble fo falsificatiog] because the signature in b w c p o t delive \ o him by A and, thegfore, t&e , was no con_f@encer-pxsxlinclhim which he could abuse? Re is liable for falsification, because X m.adealt.-apEar ~":: . t h h A A a r t i c i p a t e d . in that transaction, w h m l n truth. yd in fact-he did. not. _so partikip&@, or ,he attributed o A statement other than that made by him.

:1

.

. G

1496. B, having found on the street a rlng worth 8500, ,took it home and later, claiming to be the owner thereof sold it to A for 8250. What crime o r crimes were com mitted by B? Explain your answwr.

.

149.6, ,.. . A, by means of deceit, through a falsified public document of mortgage, procured a loan of $500 frnm B. The . .'. ..deed of mortgage was worthless and cannot serve as a security for the payment of the l'oan, because the mortgage was made in a falsified public document. A stated :in''the said document that he was the owner of t h e Property thlat he mortgaged when in truth and in fact the property belonged to another person. Later, A paid the loan of P500 to B within the period agreed upon. When the owner of the property mortgaged learned of the falsification, he filed a complaint against A fox . estafa by means of deceit through falsification of a public document. Can A be prosecuted and punished for t h e complex cri.me of estafa by means of deceit through falsification of a public document? ExpIain your answer. No. A is liable only for falsification of a public document committed by a private individual (Art. 172, R.P.C.). He is not liable for a complex crime of estafa by means of deceit through falsification of a public document, beCause the Revised Penal Code, in defining the crime of .estafa, states that the offended party must be --defraudedt , .. . , -by any of the means mentioned by the Code (Art. 315). 4

',

590

.

B committed two crimes, namely: (1) Theft, for'ah ing found a. lost property aud having failed to deliver to the local authority or to its owner; and (2). e by means of deceit, for having falsely pretended to be the ;~ owner thereof, when he sold the ring to A. Nqte: In the crime of theft committed by B, the offended p a w I, is the owner of the lost ring which B found. In the crime of est& by means of deceit, A is the offended party, be+anse he was the m e . p a d nrdamagpd 8s the owner can recover". that ring from him without right to be reimbursed a8 regards the money he paid t o B.

1497. What are the elements of estafa by means of deceit?

! j

:.~

i

i'

i

Thef'are : . . must be a fakcpretense (false representation to a m,atter of fact, a QpsitiYeassertiorr-offa~s~od), fsaudub~fact, or fraudulent means. &'Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means m y t be made or executed prikcto or simultaneouslr w i k t d.commission ofLtb~-frmd. A h e offended party must h a y . e m d o n the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; that is, he was ip&=dd-o_part-with his money-ar.pro&Lbbe

&.'There

591

I',.,

,. ..

$,#;,:

"'-.

<,

..

.."

w:<,*

.

t

: .

,

.,'.... ,

%.ll 1

.,~27

I

'



i

cause of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent _:.

means. 4 . That as a result, the offended party suffered damage. 1498. A, having known that B was sent by C to get a sum of money from D, went ahead of B to D and represented to the latter that he was B, sent by C to get the money. . D gave the money to A, believing the false representation made by the latter. Once in possession of the money, A spent it for himself. What crime was committed by A? Explain your answer. A committed estafa by means of deceit, using ficmous name. D was induced to part with his money because of the false representation made by A that he was E. D was damaged or prejudiced.

1499. Y, an immigration broker, told C that he (Y) could help the M t e r bring his family into the Philippines, because . he had influence in Malacafiang, the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Upon these representations, C entered into an agreement with Y for thi! entry of his family for permanent residence in the Philippines. C gave P2.000 to Y . After waiting for a long time without hearing from Y, C went to the Bureau of Immigration to check on the papers for the entry of his wife and child, but he found that no such papers had been filed. Is Y liable for estafa by means of deceit? Explain your answer, No. From the fact of non-compliance by Y with his part of the agreement, it cannot be concluded that his representation that he possessed influence was false. There must be evidence that Y's pretense of influence was not true. In the absence of pioof that his representation was actually false, criminal intent to deceive cannot be inferred. A mere promise t o perform a thing is not a representation which constitutes a deceit, and failure to comply with such promise does not change its character. Deceit

592

should be proved and established by acts distinct from;"'$ and independent of, the mere non-compliance with the :. promise. There ,must be a showing that when Y received the money, he had no intention of rendering the service contracted by him. Since i t was not shown that Y in fact possessed no influence or that his inaction w a s due t o his lack of influence, he cannot justifiably he held guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. His failure or inability to render the service could have been due to a change of mind, if not to a lawful cause. 3 6 - p e r f o r m a n e e on his part and his failure to return the money gave rise only to liability (People vs. Wilson Yee).

a,

/

N o t e : In estafa by m a n s of deceit, the representations made must be false.

1500. A represented to B that he had influence with the President and told B that if he would give him P500 he wodd work for Itis appointment a s justice of the peace. B gave A H500. Later, it turned out that A was not even known to the President. Is A liable for estafa by means of deceit? Explain your answer. Yes, A is liable for estafa by means of deceit, because he falsely pretended to possess influence. The false [email protected] made by A that he had influence ind&B p x t wch- hi>~~ ~ ~ ~ lthereby e y , c a G c L d m a g e t o the latter.

1501, A offered to sell to B twenty cavans of rice at P25 a cavan. B agreed t o buy the rice. A asked for advance payment of P200 from B, who gave the said amount. A promised deliver the twenty eilvans of rice the next day, but no rice was delivered to B, because frum the beginning A had no rice to sell. What form of deceit .. . was used by A to defraud B? A used that form of deceit, by falsely pretending to possess property. Note: The phrase "by means of other similar deceits", after+<; the enumcration of the different forms of false pretensewfd3f subdivision No. Z(a) of Art. 315, includes such form of dw,$t$

693

P

,

"I ,

CRIMINAL LA&- REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER by falsely pretending to be the owner pf the property which the offender sold to the offended party. The false pretense in any of its forms must be the inducement and the offended party must have relied On the false pretense. The tost is:/Did the defendant Q!?tain from the e ? offended p a r t y ' a n 5 S n g because o f the f $ ~ K ~ ~ g If~ .he endant oh2% it is estafa by--E!ans of deceit. tained something from thk offended party without any false GGze and the false pretense made w a s e q - x & a t is' a&= the defendant h a ~ h % + d y a
.-

'Ji/502. A borrowed P5?DO_from B and after two months when the la+ demanded from A the payment of the loan, A falsely pretended that he was expecting to receive from the Army the sum of P6,OOO as his backpay within a period of one month and because of that repyesentation, B, did inot ...press .-. the immediate payment of the loan. After one month when B did not receive the payment of 'r tfie loan, he went t o the omresponding office and inquired whether or not A was entitled t o a backpay. It turned out that A was not entitled to any backpay. Is A liable for estafa by means of deceit? Explain your answer. , . No, 'because when he made the f u r e t e n s e , A did not receive anything from E. The loan of P 5 a w a e b : ,tained by A from B without any false.pcet.ea* I n estafa by mea% of deceit, where theoffender makes a false $retense, the.Jizw. requires that the f a k . w & p e should be "escuted -prior_to. -.. or @multaneous~ll with the commission o m a u d . " As stated in the question,-the false pretense .made h:y A was after he had received tke sum of 8500 from B.

/

1503. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on estafa by means of deceit committed by means .of fraudulent acts? The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on estafa by means of deceit committed by means of fraudulent acts ,. are, as follows:

594

4

By altering t.he quality, fineness, o r weight of any- :*. ' thing pertaining to his a r t or business (Art. 316, par. 2 ( h ) , R.P.C.) . A,' By postdating a check, or' issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender $ad no funds: in-t.he. bank, o r his funds deposited therein were n o t - .,, '' ficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary y? to cover his check within- three. ..(3l_aaJrsfmm receipt ' of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has heen dishonored for lack.,or insufficiency of funds shall be ~ ~ ~ i ~ u . . f a c Z e - e v i d edec_eitcon&i!L+ n~~..~~. ,~ ing false pretense o r fyaudule.ntact.. (Art. 315, par. 2 ( d ) , .,+::! as amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967) 3 . By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommoda-' tion at an hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house; lodging, house, or apartment house, w&ut paying therefor, with injent.~to_defrau-d, etc. (Art. 315, par. 2 ( e ) , R.P.C.).

&e

i::

__---

( , .

1504. A, 'a goldsmith and jeweler, substituted a diamond stone; of lesser quality than that which he received from I: when he ( A ) made the ring for B. What particdar.;;,',.; form of estafa. was committed by A? Estafa by altering the quality of the thing pertaining . to the offender's a r t or business.

1505. What are the elements ,df estafa by postdating or isSUiW. a check? . ..$ They are : > 1. That the offender ctdated-_a-check, or a* twin oayment of an o b h e n ; 2. That snch post&dati-ng or m k l g a check was ~QIE ylien the offender-fikno fugds-in the bank, or his funds. depositcd theiein were n m € i c i e n t t o cover the amount of the check.

.!'

1506. D w the amendment of Art. 315, No. 2 (d), by Republic

Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967, change the rule

I ,

I

i

.

.

''

i

.

:,


CRIMINAL LAW REtlEWER

. that there is no

In a case where the accused issued a check to Lee Hua Ilong in exchange f o r 84,000, but the check was dishonored by the bank for lack of funds, i t was held'that the ac' eused was guilty of .et& ($ng Tek Lian vs. Court of ,' Appeals, 87 Phil. 383). Note that, the accused was able to obtain the F4,000 because of the check he issued. Exception: When the check i s s d ' i s Q ' i n Davmnl of~an~~obli,ga_tion." When post-dated checks are issued and /'iiitende,d' -. . by the parties only as promissop notes, is n_o_ .e?.@& even if .there . a r e . n o _ s u f f i c i e n t _ f ~ .i~ bank to cover the =me (People vs. Roque Obieta, . , 52 0. G. 5224).

estafa if the check was postdated oir issued in payment of pre-existing obligatioq? ' Why?

.

'

'

No. The phrase "By postdating a check, or issuing such check in payment of an obligation" in Art. 315, No. 2 ( d ) , is not changed by Repnblic Act No. 4886, except that the word "such" is replaced by the article "a" in relation to the check issued. This kind of estafa is committed by means of deceit, specifically by fraudulent act. The fraudulent act of postdating ii check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation should be the efficient cause of the defraudation and, as such, should be either prior to, ~. or s i m d k e o u s l y with, the a& of fraud. Hence, as before the amendment, the act of postdating a check o r issuing a check must be made in payment of some obligation contracted by the accused at the time he issued and delivered the check. in_pay-ment of a de!?$ Thus, when.? check was_i_Ss&uel c o ~ f e d ( ~ r i o ~ - . t q s u c l l _ i s s u a n cthere e , is -fa> eFn if there is n a n d in the bank to cover ,the amount of the chock (People vs. Lilius, 69 Phil. 339). When check is issued in. substitution of a pwmissory note, i t i.s.. in.- payment of pre-existing obligation. Thus, when a person purchased merchandise, signed a promissory note therefor, and on the date of .maturibj he gave a check for the amount stated in the promissory note, but the check was dishonored by the bank for lack Of funds, that person is not liable-foL&s&fa (People 7s. Canlas, C.A., 38 0. G. 1092). The apased must bLa&le_ to2boIaj.F. something from the offended partx by.meaes of the check he issues and ci&vers. Thus, if A bought from the store of B goods worth P200 and issued a worthless check for F200 in payment of the same, it appearing t h a t ' B w~u!&nd h w e -. the goo_da to^ A. were-jt~not for.the..check issued delivered by the latter, the crime committed by A was-estafa. Note that A obksin2cl the goods from E bec_aus.e .of. t h u h e c k .

When the clieck is isaced by a , gmraL.or, there is ,.EO estafa. When the accused was persuaded to act merely as-, p a r a n t o r by guaranteeing by means of a .check the payment of the materials ordered by snother person, a fact which was kiiown to the vendor of the materials, and the check issued was dishonored for lack of funds, the accused is not guilty of estaf8. The 'check wa& igsued iri-mnt of an oJ.&zah. (People vs. Suarez, 2 C.A. Rep. 982) 1507. When does the act of postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation constitute the crime of estafa?

When the offendey had no funds..in.the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient t o cover the amount of the check, a t the time h: p o S ~ ~ a t e d ~ - c h e c l r or issued a check in pavment (If an oblig?tiO&. -_/-

c__-

,

__

.

,

.

:.'

596

I

1508. State the difference, if any, between the provision of Art; 315, No. 2 ,(d), before i t was amended and its provision after the amendment by Republic'Act No. 4885? , ~

The difference consists in the elimination of the Dhras& '(1) "the offender knowing that at the time he'. had'iio" funds in the bank", and (2) "without informini.'the payee

597


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEi3

The different forms of estafa committed through fraudulent means are: 1. By i-&another, by means of deceit, o-t any document. .~ 2 . By resorting. to some fraudulent-pr~ac~cet o i w sxcess in a gambling game, 3 . By rynoving, co.n&Lng o r destroying, in whole or in part, any cTu't regard, office files, documents o r any other papers. (Art. 315, No. 3:a), ( b ) , ( c ) , R.P.C.)

of such cii:ciimstances". These phyases are n o t found in the provision as amended.

: 1509.

When does t h e presumption of dereit in estafa by postdat. ing a check or isvuing a check arise? When the (Islc_qf~-the check fRiled to deposit the l y his check within three (3.) days amount ~ ~ ~ s s atol cover from &&eip&.of no>ice.. from the .bank and/or the pa= or hoidm that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds, such failure of the drawer shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense 01' fraudulent act on his part.

~

1513. If a person caused another, who did not kn,ow how to read, to affix his thumbmark on a document containing stipulations different from those which the other person

. ,,;

: .::

1514.- During the trial of a criminal case for estafa, A tes fied that he signed a conveyance sf his hereditary interest to the accused, thinking that the document contained a power of attorney. On cross-examination, A admitted t h a t the accufied made no such misrepresentation. Is the accused liable for estafa? Explain. No. The accnsed did not induce A to sign the do ment by means of deceit. The remedy of A would be a:, civil action (U.S. vs. Barnes, 3 Phil. 704).

1511. A, after havirg occnp:ied a room and ordered meals three times a day in an h,&l foir one week, surreptitiously removed his baggage from the hptel witfiout paying for his food and accommodation. Is A liable criminally O r only &illy? Explain your answer. A is criminally liable. He committed estifa by means of fraudulent acts.

1515. When is the removing, conceal$?, or destroying of ,. court record, office files, documents or any other pape

1512. .What are the forms of estafa committed thyough fraudll, lent means?

699 698 I

'

,,

thought the document contained, when will it be estafa through fraudulent means, and when will it be falsifi- , cation? Explain your answer. It is estafa through fraudulent means. when the offended party was induced to affix his thumbmark on the document by means of deceit, that is, the offender made statements which deceived the offended party as t o the nature of the transaction embodied in the document. It is falsification, when the offended party made state ' ' ments to be embodied in a document, but the offender in preparing the document attributed to the offended party 'statements different from those made by the latter. .

,1510. A goldsnlbth received from B a ring made of gold and diamond $;tone, to be remodelled and transformed into a .new ring of modern style. Once in possession of the ring, the goldsm'ith removed m d took the diamond stone and aepla.ced i t with a stone of inferior quality when the ring was remodelled. When it was deliveM to R, he found out that the stone was different and of inferior quality. What cr'me was committed by the goldsm'ith? I3xplak your answer. The goldsmith coniinitted estafa by means of fraudulent acts,'that is, by altering the quality of the thing pertaining to his art o r business.

...

',

I

. '..

\

CRIMINA~LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ''

,

' e

. r

.."-

.,

'

,

,

.

.

c',.

,.

.

,

.1516. nprornissory note for 81,000 executed b r A in favor of : B was annexed to the complaint which B filed with the ~' court to recover the 81,000 from A. A borrowed the .,. .

.

'

,

.

'

,

'

record from the clerk of murt and once in possessio11 of the same, removed the promissory note from the record and took it with him. What crime was committed by A? Elxplain your answer. A committed estak&ongh fraudulent means, because he wmwed a d o h n t from the c o m L w K d with i&nt to_lleikaud. By removing the promissory note attached t o thc complaint, A deprived. B, of his .evidence of A'S indeht,edness, thereby defrauding B.

1517. Is material damage to khe offended party necessary in t h e X x n e of esmfa? Material damage. to the offended party is ,not necessary in estafa. Disturbance of property rights and fm: porary prejudice are sufficidnt damage or prejudice.

1_-___

Note: Thus, ev0n if the property or money misappropriated by the offender is recovered 'or paid to the offended party t h o erimo still exists. '~

versation of public funds, in that the latter crime may take place if an accoimtable officer ''shall' permit any, other person to take such public funds or property or partially." Estafa and maheriation being both on unfaitldulness or abuse qf confidence of the the absence of similar provision in the case of es%f not be devoid of significance; it clearly imports case of estafa, Lhe profit or gain must be obtained .the' accused personally,. through his own acts, and mere 'negligence in' permitting another to take advan of, or benefit fTom; the entrusted chattel cannot ConStitUt6. estafa;, unless, of course, the evidence should disc)ose that the agent acted in conspiracy or in connivance with the one who carried out the actual misappropriation; when the agent would be answerable for the acts of his coconspirator (People w. Nepornuceno, C.A.)

(I) estafa, or (2) infidelity in the custody of document? Explain your answer. It is estafa, when the offender has t h e T H i f € - t r d ? Such intent is not necessgy in infidelity in the custody of document. It is infidelity in the custody of docummt, when the offender is a p a i c .officer, o&i&LB-%ith-the 'wstody of the document, that is, by reason of his office. - even In .ejk,fa, the offender is a p m n d j v c d ~ a l or a publjc .officer who is not entrusted with the custody of the document.

1518. Can estafa be committed through negligence? Expldn your answer. No. Art. 315 of thc Rcviscd Penal Code, in pcnal,. M r n wtnCn by ~iisnpp,.opl.inUon or convcrsion, differs , .i riirtienlly from 4 ~ t 217 . of thc snnic Code, punishing mal-

GOO

.

,1519. To establish the liability of the defendant in th of estafa, is ' i t ,necessary that there should be a demiyd made by the comphinant to the defendant prior

'

/

instit tion of the criminal action? estafa with abuse.of confidenee, by misappropriation or conversion, demand by the complainant to the defendant t o return the thing received or to account for the only when there is no evidence of & same Qsssary, appropriation or c m s i o n of the thing received. Demand is necessary in such a case, because the failure to return'! the thing received os to account for the same is circumstantial evidence of the fact that the defendant misappro-. priated the thing which he had received from the complainant. But in e s ~ b ~ m ~ i s ~ . o f - d e s deei at n, d is n~ quired, because of the tnann_-r the thizg. jEs_bt&ned by the offender from the offended party. Demand in such a case would be sepei-fluous..

,'

1520. A approached B and offered to sell .a piece of land to : the latter, showing to him a piece of paper contain& tbe description and the locati'on of the land. A told'.; .,.3

601

5

,,.

,:.

.

.. .

)

.

.._ ,1

',

-.

'

,. .,

r. ,

.

,

. .

.

.. :

_.

,

,.

I

.. ,

*

'

,

. - . .

"

'

.,I

~

.,


CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,

.,

I

...

..

. . . .. . . ,

B it A to

that he was selling i t for PIO,OOO. B agreed to buy and asked A to execute the necessary deed of sale. asked B to give a down payment of P5,OOO, promising return the next day with the deed of sale. B gave A P5,OOO. But A never showed up until he was arrested by certain detectives upon complaint of B. When investigated, A admitted t o the detectives that he mas nof the owner of the land which he sold to B, it being the property of C, who never authorized him to sell the same. Is A liable for other forms of svindling? Explain your answer.

No, A is not liable for other forms of swindling. In order that the crime of other forms of swindling may he committed, it is necessary that the offender, who is not the Owner of the real property, shouldDprescnt that k e is the owner thereof (People vs. Lotivo, C.A.). A did not represent to B that he was the owner of the land he was then selling. His statement, that he was selling t.he land to B is not a misrepresentation. It is true that he was not authorized by the owner to sell the land, b u t A n s r - r s p r e s e n t e d to E that he was authorized to se'il the land. Hence, there was not misremesentatian ode& Note: A i s not liable for estafa under Art. 315, because &re wils nritber false nreteEa2 nor ,fraudulent act. Deceit by false pretense requires that there he a false r q r scntation t o a matter of fact, a positive assertion of falsehood. Art. 315, par. 2, enumerates the fraudulent acts and the act of A i s not one of them.

,2521. A, the owner of a piece of land, sold the same to B for . . P5,OOO. In the deed of sale that A executed, he stated that the land was his property and that he 'was going . to defend the sale of that land in favor of B against the wl~ole.world. After 13 p&d the purchase price of P5,OOO and had in his possession the deed of sale, he went to the office of the Register of Deeds QI~IYto find out that the kind which he purchased from A' had been mortgaged ' . to C to secure an indebtedness of P1,OOO. Is A liable y' 'for other forms ov swindling? Explain your answer. ~

602

No. A is not liable for other forms of swindlin did not stah? in the d e & o L d e that the p r m d Y m m b r a n c e . To constitute other forms of sw byTlsposlng of real property, knowing that the encumbered. i t is necessary that there must be re;oyesentation- by the o f f d e r that the real property' is . .., free . from__%cumbrance .~ (People vs. Buencamino, t i . a

,:,

~

Although Dimgraph No. 2 of Art. 316, R.P.C., s t a t e a ' ~ that the crime, is committed "nlthough such encumtrance be ' not recorded," in solpe eases the Court of, Appeals held that thc encumbranee must be legally constituted. Thus, .it was held that an attachment or a mortgage of a piece ' o f land, which i s not registered, or a usurious loan ': with equitable mortgage, is not an encumbrance an the property. . .

Note: '

1522. A pledged his watch to B, his roommate in a d o l d t o V ' , to secure a loan of P25. One. evening, when A was going .: to a dance party, he wanted to wear his watch WMcb., he .had pledged to ,.B., Taking advantage of the fact 'i that .B was sleeping, A pulled the drawer of the table:' of B where the watch had been placed by B and took.> the same, wore it, ana went to the dance party. When A returned to the dormitory, he met B a t the door. B angrily took the watch from A. Is A liable' for other:. forms of swindling for wrongfully Wring his personal property from its lawful possessor? Explain your answer.: No. The law '(Art. 316, par. 3, R.P.C.) requires th;ae '

'

the wrongful taking of one's persfrom 1tS lawful possessor m>st..rplt in the ~ ~ ~ @ o f . A E & k r or any third person.. B was nO_t preiudiced, because he i&%veTcd the-wat.ch. The prejudice must be c e pecun~a~~_e_stimation, .because the penalty for other f 0 W of swindling is awesto m u g ~ ?in its minimum and medius! periods and a fine of not less than the. value of the dage caused and not more than three times such va1Ug As there is no actual damage- caused, thkre is' no bas,? .^.. for fixing the amount of the fine a s a part of the penaltf; .". .%$ (Castillo vs. People). .;Ij

Z523. A, who. had pledged his diamond ring to. B to.. .s, a loan or P500, by means of intimidationr took,thak 603

I


CRInIINAL LAW REVIEWER

, .. ,

.

.

.,

'~ '

,

,

'

.

,

1524. Give afi example of other forms of swindling committed . . by a person who wrongfnlly took his personal property from i1.s lawful possessor. A pledged his ring to B to secure a-loan of P100. One day, without the knowledge and consent of B, A took ,' ', his ring, thereby depriving E cf the security of the loan given by him to A. ,

N o t e : A person wrongfuliy took his personal property from its lawful possessor, also, when he represented falsely to the pmsessor that he would redeem the property and once in posBcssion of the Game, he did not pay the debt.

. ~,

If a person has executed a fictitious contract to ;

who shall accept any compensation given him belief that it was in payment of services rendered o labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actu perform such services or labor." Now, then, may

from ,Band sold it without paying, the loan. Is A liable 'for other forms of swindling, robbery, or coercion? Explain ya& answer and state why it is not anyone of the othw crimes. A is liable for grave coercion, because he compelled E by me_an$o€ intimidation-to-do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong. It cannot be other forms of swindling, because intimidation was employed, which stamps the act as grave coercion. It is not robbery, because in this crime the property taken must belong to another. The diamond ring which A took from E was his own property.

prejudice of another, is he liable for the complex crime of other forms of swindling through falsification of a public document, assuming that the fictitious contract was, executed before a notary public? Explain yonr answer. It is submitted that the execution of the fictit:,ous contract, even assuming it t o have been executed before the notary public, is the very act constituting the crime of other 'forms of swindling (Art. 316, par. 4, R.P.C.). Hence, the crime committed is other forms of swindling, plain ,and simple.

26. One of the other forms of swindling m d c r Art.

your answer. compensation given under the belief that it was in pa ment of services rendered or labor performed, when

-

misappropriate the same he would be liable f o r , e with abuse of confidence. . But the provision of Art. 316 should b ing a provision specifically covering the case.

1527. What crime iv& committed by a person who, while bei a surety, in a bond given in a criminal without express .authority' from tbe eonr cancellation of his bond or before being re1 the obligation contricted by him, sold o r . mor ' real property with which he guaranteed the of' such obligation? -The crime committed was other form of swin (Art. 316, par. 6, R.P.C.). 1528. A, sixteen years Por misbehavior, ' borrowed 8100. been given the

old, having been ch went to B, a friend of A signed a reeeipt €or 8100. money, A left his home and

316 of

the Revised Penal Code is committed by "any person 605

604

.

.: .

>,

.

,.

s~lf

P100, the latter induced him to assume an obligatio-. thereby swindling his minor son. Is B liable for swind-ling a minor? State your reason. :~ No, because B did n_ot induce u a s s u m t h - . ten to his debiment. Had I: induced A to assume the obligation and a d - u s u r i o u s - i n t e r e s t 'or m m sign . a m ' . p t for examount t w a t a c t a a h ~ y e 8 by him, B would have been liable for swindling a minor, because it woulhresult in his d e t r b n t . '

.

-

,. I.

,

'. i


CRIMINAL LAW HEVIEWER

of A became furious, telling B that for giving his

.

Note: To constitute the crime of swindling a minor, the offender must take advantage of the inwrence or emotions or feelings of the minor and m u s t d i m - e m obligation or to give any release or execute a transfer of a n y p r o p r t y right in consideration of some^ loan of money, rredit, 01 other personal property.

. '

'

.

.

,

-

'

,

, , , ,

.

Pasay City to be used in a dance party in the house .of: A's sister. There was no written consent of B to,.sueh removal of the piano from Manila to P m y City; Is A. Iiable for'removing a mortgaged property under Art. 31$ of the Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer.'. No. To constitute the crime of removing a mortgaged property under the Chattel Mortgage Law, in violation of Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Codc, 'it is necessary that the s m s of the mortgaged, personal property &% permanent,, Inasmuch as the piano would be used during,, the dance party a t Pasay City, implying that it would be returned to Manila thereafter, the removal of said piano was not pennanent.

.

1532. A mortgaged his automobile under the Chattel Mortgage . Law in favor of B to secure the payment of the. balance of the purchase price of the car, the same having, been; :' purchased fqord B. C knDwing that the automobile had been mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law in Manila ' in favor of B, with ,the consent of A, took the automobile:. , 'a to Cebu where it would be used there by the family of C. There was no written consent of B t o the removal ' '. of said automobile to Cebu. Is C liable for removing ,.., a mortgaged property under Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain your ;u!swer. Yes, because this crime can be committed by any person who removed any personal property, knowin the same had been mortgaged under the Chattel Mo&. gage Law, to any province or city other than the o n e " . in which it was located a t the time of the execution of ,'i the mortgage, without the written consent of the mortf ~ ' gagec. ~ A,

1529., What crime was committed by a person who, knowing that -: he hadl no money with him, rode id a taxi and when . . ' he reached his destination he could not pay the fare? , . ,. .' , , The crime committed was other_rdeLelts (Art. 313, : R.P.C.). This case is not covered by Arts. 315, 316 an& ,' ." 317 of the Revised Penal Code. Any person who shall ,' defraud or damage another by any other credit not men' . tioned in those articles is liable for other deceits.

:.

'

'

1530. What crime was committed by a person who made'forecast of what would happen at a certain future time? Explain your answer. None, because to constitute other deceits (Art. 318, 2nd par., R.P.C.), it is required that the interpreting of .. ' dreams, making of forecast, os telling fortunes must& for m m a i n . Since that person did not make any ,..,, . profit or gain in making the forecast, lie did not commit other deceits.

. AChattel mortgaged his piano in the City of Manila under t h e Mortgage Law in favor of B to secure a loam

'

---of P500,. Thereafter, A removed the mortgaged piaqo to , . , ,... , .~.

606

,. ., ., ,,

. . .

*,-?

Note: When the accused transferred his residence to a province and he removed in good faith to that provin property mortgaged by him under the Chattel Mortgage he is not crirninaliy liable since he could not just le property t o anybcdy else. It was for the best interest the mortgagor and the mortgagee that the forme+ k property in his new residence. There is no criminal 3

607

' "

-

.,

.

.

-

i_



13, A mortgaged his jeepney t o B under the Chattel Mort. gage Law. A sold the same jeepney t o c after securing , a letter from B consenting to the sale of the jeepney to c, .because of the promise of A that after the Sale of the jeepney he would pay the amount of .the loan he &tracted with B. But A never paid B, notwithstanding the fa& that he had already obtained the full purchase , . price of the jeepney from C. May B successfhb' Prohecute A for selling personal property mortgaged under ' ' the Chattel Nortgage Law? Explain your answer. Yes, because the consent of B was only contained in a letter. Under the law (Art. 319, par. 2, R.P.C.), the consent of the mortgagee must be written on the back of ".the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds of the province where the property is located. I n order that the personal property already , ,pledged under the Chattel Mortgage Law may be lawfully sold or pledged again, those requirements must be COmplied with. 1534. May a perwn be held criminally liable for removing, Sen-. ing or pledging a personal property--mortgaged, under the Chattel Mortgage Law, even if there is nL&m!!g@ caused to the mortgagee? Explain your answer. Yes, because the Code (Art., 319) do-es-notxequire that there should .be damage caused to the mortqagee. The penalty is awesto mayor or a fine amounting to twice the value of the property. This form of penalty indicates that the hasic, of the fine is not the damage caused but the .value of the property involved. 1535. What is arson? Arson is the x@icious

dest;uctiL% of p29RfXty b m .

r

1536. Is the extent of the damage caused b y , the 'corn ission of the crime of arson always necessary to determre the roper penalty? Why? No; because in destructive arson, as well as in other oms of arson, where the offender knew that the build-

.

608 .

i . ,

ing, farmhouse, warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in port',

.. .,@?: ,+?. ./

was Occupied, at the time of burning any of them, by . ':'*f one o r more persons, the extent of the damage caused . to the property is immaterial. The reason for tliis is .,, that the law considers the kind, character and location :' of the property burned and the danger to human liyes. . . . *.,:$i *<,~ ,;e& .:',., ,> 1537. May a person be pd.:shed with a high penaity of reelusion temporal to reclusion perpetua provided for other &,$ , . form of arson when there was no person inside tha~'3i house when it was burned, but the culprit thought that '.< it was occupied by one or more persons? % :

I_

~~

\

Yes, because the culprit showed an utter disregard

'

'

to human life, although there was no actual dangbr to ,:,,':j any person. This view is supported by the fact that,even. , ::i if there were persons in the premises but o f whose pres-,, 'a ence the offender was not aware, the law prescribes e,: ~'iq lesser penalty. It is not the actual presence of a person:: in the premines that aggravates the felony, but the knowl:: edge or the belief on 'the part of the offender that there <;$$ w w i i i the building which he burned.

-

,:a#

.

A person, intending to burn a wooden structure lects some rags, soaks them in gasoline and places them boside the wooden wall of the building. When he i s about to light a match to set fire to the rags, he is discov by another who chases him away. This is attem arson. If that person is able to light o r set fire to the but the fire is put out before any part of the buil is burned, i t is frustrated amon (U.S. vs. Valdea). But if before the fire is put out, it has bilrped. x&,.of the building, it is consummated arson,

. . ."~ *w ..

'

_., *?.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

When the U u e of the pw-erty hugxed is..&and .the burning isAEe a t a time or under-cimr&ances which clearly excl.ude_ajl- danger of the fire spreadieg, the act shall be treated and punished as malicious mischief, and not arson (Art. 323, R.P.C.).

1540, A, as an act of revenge to the people in the Io~vIand near the dam, dug a hole on the side of the dam and . -buried in i t a high power explosive and caused it to y::;. ,,:,'explode, thereby breaking the dam and causing flood in , t h e town where properties were damaged. What crime was committed by A? Explain your answer. A committed crimes involving destruction, because he caused destruction of the property by means of explosion and inundation.

.

, ,\

\{~~?

k~

N o t e : Tho other means that the offender may use in causing destruction are: (l).) discharging of eleebic current, (2) sinking or stranding of vessel, (3) damaging of engine of vessel, (4) taking up rails from railway track, (5) changing of railwsy signals, ( G ) destroying telegraph wires and posts or those of any other system, and (7) other similar effective means of dcslruction.

i541. When is the penalty of reclusion temporal to be imposed

1 Y

-.;

,i,: 7.

on the offender who committed crimes involving deitructioni! If the commission of the offense of crimes involving destruction endangered the safety of any person, the pen-. alty is reclusion temporal.

1542. A, who htad a small house, and B, his neighbor who had 8 a new bil: house, burned his own house in order to cause the destruction of B's house. But because of the timely arrival of the fire engine and the firemen, the house .' of B was not burned at all. The house of A was eompletely destroyed by fire. Is A liable for arson by burn. ning his own property as a means to commit arson? ~.. ~- . .... No, because in arson by burning one's own- property. as 'a means to commit arson, it is necessary that the prop-

,'

,

erty of another person was burned o r destroyed as. 8' result (Art. 325, R.P.C.). However, A is liable for setting fire to property exclus' ely owned by him, because the thing burned was building-' in a? inhabited place (Art. 326, R.P.C.).

1543. A was the owner of a sugarcane plantation, and B was /-Bp the owner of a rice plantation which was adjacent to

for intentional arson? It is submitted that A is not liable for arson,'because there was neither intention to cause damage nor negligence on the part Of A. It is true that there was actual damage or prejudice caused t o the property of B, but arson where damage is actually caused, th_ere.must be dice oc~w@iggncgon the part of the offender. Erarnplr of w ~ o nt l w m g h negligence:

property of another an

.

. .

,

,

, 6

i

.,

. , ,

:,

the sugarcane plantation of A. A burned his sugarcane "; plantation to remove the leaves of the sugarcane before harvesting the same. Suddenly, the wind blew towards ._ .: ' the plantation of B from the plantation of A, so t h a t , tho fire spread $0 the ricefield of B. The rice yhich :' ,;

j

,

ti '

-..,

.. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

e' e

No, because the law provides that malicious mischief ,

is committed by any person who sbLcidiberately-cause to the property of another any damage. This phrase ;.. means that the offender should act under the impulse of -' a specific desire to inflict injury to another. According . to the.8upreme Court, "it follows that, in the very nature , malicious mischief cannot be committed through nce, since culpa and malice are essentially ineom-

,_,,

.. ,

..

. .

passing by the side of a brand new automobile, picked up a nail from the street and scratched the side .: .. . ,,...,. of the car with the nail from one end to the other end .; . * of the car. That person did not know the owner of . .. the car or the driver and he had no reason to hate any ., I". of therm or to satisfy a desire for revenge. However, he enjoyed and found pleasure in scratching the sidc .of the car. Is that person liahle for malicious mischief? , . Why? Yes, because malicious mischief embraces those attempts w*. , ,. . ,. :., against another's property i A e d so-es by the .Bl!XB pleasure of destxwing.

1548. A, a good friend of the defendant in went to the office of the clerk of court and bornowe&' ' the record, pretending t~ be a lawyer who wanted to study the case. When the clerk of Lwurt left the'.offic%~ A removed the confession of the accus introduced by the prosecution as evidence, pocket and,left the office. Is A liable for special of malicious mischief for causing damage t o the r of the court? Explain your answer. It is submitted that the record damaged and removing the written confession of the a covered by the provisions of the Revised Pena

~

,

l.l

. . . -'

N o t e : Thus, in the ease of People vs. Siddagao, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case of malicious mischief, because the onhy evidence of the proxeufion as that th? accused shot two longing to another 'and that ,the motive for shooting pigs was that the animals were th?n loose inside his ntation. >he shooting of the pigs was n?g_ or desire forz-C:yge against thL owner and t done for the m_ere pleasure of de3troying.

. ,, ,

,.,

. , .. <

,

.

.. 1

,

,,

, while drinlring wine in a bar, quarreled and fought against each other. A grabbed a chair and threw it at B who was not hit, but the chair found its waT to the showcase containing bottles of costly wine. The damage caused was worth 8300. Is A liable for malicious mischief? Explain your answer. No, because he did not h i t with deliberate OLE& purpose of ,ca-damage. I-Ie is o_nlLGiY&- l i f o r t.amS&md.

tional Museum or National Library or to any or registry OP any other thing used in commo public. A,. is, however, liable for ordinary malicious mi because he deliberately caused damage to the 'pr of the court.due to evil motive, that is, to quittal of the accused even if he was guilty, .which .is an evil motive. 1549. A poured poisonous substance to the trough conta water for the animals of B. Before the animals

B prevented ppisoning of his animals by throwin the water, cleaning the trough and filling it aga fresh water. What is the liability of A - i n this It is submitted that the special case of malicious m chief by the use of any poisonous substance pr.esuppos that the use of poisonous substance resulted in the dea of, or damage to, the animalS of the offended party. is not necessary, however, that the animals should have. died. It would be sufficient if the animals got sick as a result of the poisonous substance. The penalty for special cases of mapious mischief is based on the value of the damage caused. Hence, there

613 ,,

.

....

, .,~ ,

'

CRIhlINAL LAW REVIEWER

c

:

must be damage actually caused which at least must be

.;

I

,&&cation However, if the possible damage could be estimated, liable for attempted special case of Malicious mis. ..1550i

a,.'

,.

', .

~

.

'

A d

What crime was committed by a person who took from -the Nationnl Museum the original of the "Last Farewen" of Dr. Jose Rim1 and sold it to another for Pl;OOO?

t

d

'

Why?

i/ .t.i.

i

..f

It is submitted that that person is not liable-for spe-

cases of malicious mischief, because he did .not cause t o the property of the Natiord Museum. That person is liable for theft.

$> I

b

51. Several of the laborers of the Manila RaiIroad ComPanY who declared a strike, cut dolvn a telegraph post, causing the cutting of the telegraph lines. Because the com. munication between stations was disrupted, a collision of two trains resulted. Are those laborers of the Manila Railroad Company liable for damages and obstruction to means of eommunication? W h y ? Yes, because they caused damage to meansof communication (Art. 330, R.P.C.).

,

.

,:. ,

.

in the same question, some persons in the train were killed, what would be the liability of those laborers? Explain your answer. ' ~ ' ' Since the single act of cutting down a telegraph post resulted in two felonies, namely: (1) damage and obstrnct.ion to means of communication and (2) multiple homicide, the laborers should be held liable for the corn-.

614

1553.' In what .felonies are the spouses, ascendants, descend or relatives by affinity in the same line, brothers 'sisters, and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if li together, exempt from criminal liability? They are exempt from criminal liability if thk mittcd or caused mutually by them is theft, swindling , ,.. oz estafa, or malicious mischief (Art. 332, R.P.C.). ' ..

:/4"8..

.

1 1 5 5 4 . A and B are son and father, respectively. A told 'their . - ' sewant ta, steal the watch of B, A's father. The servaht ,,i e watch of B without the latter's consent and gave , .

7

to A who sold i t and spent the proceeds of the @e: Is A criminally liable? Is the servant liable? ,. A is not criminally liable because the crime committed ' ~ : by him, as .principal by induction, was theft and because ~ ' , ' of his relation with the offended party he is exempt from

"S9f6

a~$&J A ~ . ,. criminal liability. But 'the agmption established by the Code for relatlves is not applicable to strangers participating in the c.ommission of the crime (Art. 332, last par.). Hence, 'the. , i s e m a n t is liable for qualified theft. - I _

N o t e : If the damage shall resuit i n aiiy derailment of ca1'8, collision, or other accident, without any intent to cause the same, it is also damage and obstruction to means of communication, buC the penalty is higher. But i f there was an intention t u cause destruction fr? the partpf the laborers, they should be held IiabIe for crime8 inyofiring destruction.

i.

i!

6 c

~

with multiple homicides.

The. reason for exemp

'

1556. A was a collector of a private comp

his portfolio and lost it in gambling.. Is the son. e inally liable for theft committed by him? Why7

. ., CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW RWIEWER

document which caused damage to the father.

es,' !&cause the money which he stole did not belong to hjs father. The money belonged to the company. dcrimo of theft.was not committed against the father. exemption applies only when the theft, estafa or icious mischief is committed or mztually caused by the mentioned by the Code (Art. 332). /

. '

,

barons valued at 8300. It was completely burned. barong-barong was situated in a place 500- meters f the nearest house. Is A criminally liabl

husband criminally liable for takiag from the e the jewelry of his wife, which was inherited from her parents, after opening the said ward11 a piece of wire? Explain your answer. No, because the crime committed by the husband was d therefore he is only civilly, but not criminally,

, .

/ .

>and broke open the chest and took therefrom the money which was the salary of his wife. Is the husband criminally liable? No, because no crime was committed, the money taken . being .a conjngal property, of which the husband is a I n robbery, the property taken belongs to anei'.

9. A, who was constructing a new house, sent his son to the hardware store to buy 120 sacks of cement. The ,':- ' son bought from the hardware store 100 sacks of cement and signed the invoice_ for the same, cash on delivery. . , I . , The son went with the' truck on which the cement was loaded and on the way the son altered the invoice by increasing the quantity of cement from 100 to 120 sacks .,, ', , ' and increasing the total price ,thereof. The son showed to his' father the invoice a s altered and succeeded in getting the amount for 120 saclis of cement. Then, the , . '', son delivered to the truck driver only the price for the ,. 7 100 sacks of cement and pocketted the difference. Is the : . son criminally liable or onIy civilly liable? Explain your :-I

iminal liability f o r malicious mischief comm ~

A died leaving, among other property, a gdd.and, di ring worth P3,000, which he inherited from his- f The *ife took it, sold it, and spent the proceeds sale for her o w b benefit. Is or only civilly liable?. Since the ring did not yet pass i n t o another person when the wife took it, she is only c' liable. The widowed spouse is exempt from criminal bility when the property of the deceased is stolen 0 'maliciously destroyed by him or hcr have--.passed -: into the possession of

...

.:.

. .

.~i

' '

'If is submitted that the son is criminally liable, because the crime committed was falsification of a private

616

The

1

5

4 leaving properties, among which ~ v ce i

B took the jewelry, from session of all the 'properti:s. .pbssession of the administrato B criminally liable? No, because although the jewel . ' session of the administrator,' it b

%on

.. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

was a co-owner, she did not commit theft it without the consent of ,the administrator. house of his said sister, A saw ,took therefrom a 20-peso illy liable? Why? qimindJy liable, because brothers and sisters hers-in-law are a m 2 2 from criminal liability for ng the crime of theft, swindling or malicious misA was not livief only wh_en..they areE%i&=. with his sister.

ook the coconut shell full of 20-centavo coins belongto his mother, and carried it to a place behind the ere A broke it open and took all the contents. inally liable in this case? Explain your answer. liable, because the crime comtheft, the coconut shell containsimilar t o a l&ed or sealed receptacle. whose marriage is bigamous, in the sense that she married a man who was already married, be . . held liable for adultery if she had sexual intercourse with another man? This question is not yet settled. In the case of U.S. ' vs. &lata, it was held that until the marriage is declared :. to be null and.void by competent authority in a final judgment, the offense to the vows taken and the attack on the family exists. But in the cases of People vs. Mendoza and People vs. bragon, it was held that a subsequent marria% CODtracted by any person during the lifetime of his first-spouse ". is illegal a n d ,void from its performance, and no judicial is_&misa% to_e&a~bli@ it is^ ln.va!idity, ' a s distinguished f rom mere annullable marriages. ;.. , .' IIence, in the light of these recent decisions, the phrase in the law, "even if the marriage be snbsequently declared

.,

618


void;" refers only to annullable marriages...':,Sue the case, the woman referred t o in the question: liable for adultery. 1566. A surprised his wife in a room of a hotel with: man ,while bnth of them were already undre were not yet performing the act of sexual when they were thus surprised. Did the married and the man commit adultery?' Why? Explain 90 answer be woman did not commit consummated ad merely commenc,ed the commisbion of adultery .d' overt act and did not perform all the,acts of which would produce it, by reason of a the timely discovery by the husband o f the her spontaneous desistance. She was liable for adultery. man was also iiable for attempted a k 2 ' that . Ihe woman was married. Note: There is n&&~&e,Lad"'k~w, I r e c ~ ?of the

A . ,'

of t!?e felony.

1567. A, knowing that a married woman and her paramo would have sexual intercourse in' the conjugal home, ': stood by the gate of the yard to watch f o r the r e t u r n > $ of the husband'and to warn them just in case the hus- : band would. be coming. The married woman and . h e r paramour succeeded in having sexual intercourse. Is A liable for the crime of adultery cummitted by them Explain your answer. ..,wq .~ No, beca,use of Ithe nature of the crime of adu1tery;'j -Is ' yhich is prosecnted and pmniahed upon the complaint'$$ ' . . the husband against his wife and paramour, and since it':: myst be understood in the restrictive sense, other person$& A parti-;; c p n o t be included in the complaint./!dy, cipated in the commission of adultery as an but legallx.he c&.be p=c&ed as such f o of adnltery.

619

; 1

\ I,,

CRIMINAL LAW REVI.EWER.<#~


,

, .

subject of the hushand’s complaint, and not the participation

’ ,

of other persons in the crime. Even in the case of pardon of the offenders in adultery, the law contemplates the ardon of the&, and npt~of.~.~he.~affender;.(See Art. 346, u’ s h

’,’

R-

omits adultery and concubinage, as principals.)

~’

. ’

,

J.

,

,,,

,

Second paragraph of Srt. 333 states that the “person guiftji of adultery” is “abandoned without justification by the offended spouse,” who must be the husband.

to acconlpliees punished

1

.

.,

1572. What is the effect of the death of the husband upon.: the prosecution of his wife aiid lrer paramour ,for add: tery? It depends. IC the husband died.afterhe had signed;, and €iled in court the complaint for adultery, the criminal ,. . action can still proceed to its termination; because by then the court has acquired jurisdiction over the offe But if the hushan.d died !&we the compl adultery could be filed, the crime cannot be p any more, as n>b>dy.can. sign a n . a t h e complaint..,

with B. Because of :pity for his wife, A pardoned them and did not file an:y complaint for adultery. Soon thereakter, A caught them again in t.he act of sexual intercourse. When prosecuted for adultery, his wife and B conteiided that they were not liable for adultery, because A pardoned and, therefore, he had consented to the of his wife. Is their contention tenable? No, because in the first place, the p$dm.of the hus-

1568. A caught his wife ~,

. .

It would seem that it is not. applicable, because’.the

Note: Only the act of adzLltw by the principals miLy be the

,

.

gist of the crime of adultery?

A, wife of B, surprised the latter and anothe in a hotel in the act of sexual intercourse. A sults you to find out if’she can file a compla prosecute them for concubinage? What is your explaining your views on the matter? .. , t It would advise her not to file a complaint for concubinage as it will not prosper. The reason for my view. ., is that the act of her husband is not covered ‘by any of the three ways of committing the felony of concubinage. & ,e husband did not keep the woman in the conjugal dwelling, the place being a hotel: the wsmLr.Lo&e undec scandalous GiLc erson in the hotel kne-wLt; and only time they were found in the h g t z as husband and wife.

: T

not his own. degec? Is it applicable to the paramour? If the person guilty of adultery committed the offense while being abandoned without justification by the ofi,‘-fended spouse, the penalty is lowered by one degree (Art. 333, par. 2, R.P.~.). The provision is applicable t o the paramour, ‘because .. the act i s only one, judicially speaking, since the individual i: ., act in itself does not constitute the felony. .

’

1571. Suppose that it was the man guilty of adultery who was abandoned without justification by his wife, is the .,provision applicable?

UL

is the woman liable for concubinage? When s h e - e a t the man was married,
621

CRIllfINAL LAW REVIEWER

575. The husband, whenever his wife was not in their conjugal dwelling, used to have sexual intercourse with their - - .~~ ~ female semant. Is the husband liable ?or concubinage? Explain your answer. No. He is not cable for concubinage, because the ..:; >. &id was W t a m m . kept in the conjugal dwelling .I (People vs. Hilao). It is necessary that the woman is taken by the accused into the conjugal dwelling as a concubine (People vs. Eacon) . But if the female servant was under 18 years of age and she wa~.~-a-&rsin, he would be liable f o r q3!@5! seduction.

/

1576. 'A and B, huzjband and wife, respectively, had legal separation, the husband keeping the conjugal dwelling. He brought into that house a new woman and there they lived as husband and wife. The neighbors were aware of' the illicil: relations between the two, which were the kbject of xossips and talks in the neigRborhood. Are ...LA --._the .... woman liable for concubinage? why? ; Yes. Although it may be said that the h>me of A t o be a conjugal dwelling upon his legal =Paration from his wife, he is still liable for concubinage, because he had sexual intercourse with the other woman

._

/ .

/ w i t h her at noon time, a but would always go home in the evening a stay Witlt his wife and children until the next Is A liable for concubinage? Why? No, because he did not cohabit with her. The "cohabit" means to dwell band and wife, for certain month, a year, or longer. I his house with his family, h o@riomag in the. manner-

,=

What are the limitations upon the right of the pmtY t o institute crinlinal pros n in the of a d u l t e r y d concubinage,

e

z h? ; :F& k;

t

0'

the kuilty parties must be

That b o r she has not conpardoned the offenders.

to the offen

p 3 0 . Does the acquittal of one defendant operate as a for the a uittal of the other in the crimes of ad

or con&age?

-6, because

in adultery the man may not know t&(;<: '.44

ad is married

and in concubinage the woman maX@ that the man is married. There is no ioin%;$,, ,&# although there is a -hysical act,?$$# .i

.I

$:$A

i?.,.,&

..j ,.~

concubinage? Explain your .answer. Yes, because that is k&in-~~~~>~ig the conjugal dwelling and scandalous circumstances are .nataecess=v The home remained the conjugal dwelling. Of A and his wife, even if the latter senarated from him.

622

1581. A .lvoman was sIeepingt When she wolte up, she found:'; a man on top of her with his'priwte part in her private part. Realizing that it Gas futile to resist and t o scram''' :ti for help, She consented until the man accomplished hfs >?* sexual desire. 1s the man liable for rape? Why? i4 YSSs,because when he began inserting his private pa@ into the Private part of the woman, s b * u n ~ w & ..: S&Q%ebaslecp. The crime of rape is consummated from the nlQInent the private part of the man is in the ]ibis ?:' '

623

$1

.

.,.

CKIMINRL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW EEVIEWER ~,

commit rape against h i s wife?

of the private part of the offended woman. The slight-

,

est penetration is sufficient. Her e%n>e& to the s&e.& the man did_n&-alkw o r in any v a y affecb his rihimal liability.

.8"

*;:;, 1' 2. What degree of force or intimidation is required t o es-. r

'

i-

..

-','

tablish the crime of rape? There is no fixed rule as regards the degree of force or intimidation used in tha commission of rape. It has been held, however, that as long as it was the cause of the woman's fa' ure to resist the act of the man, i t is t when the victim is the offender's daughsufficient. ter, the rl_gree of Eorce-.o.r &timidation used nesLn.ot-be irresistible in view of the ascendancy and.-aathority that he exercises over his daughter.

2

.: , .,

./

15

'

,

N o t e : But strong evidence m d indications rf preat weicht will alone prove force and violence in rape. Consent and not physical force Is the common origin of acts hetvreen man and woman Whcn the woman i i nnder twelve gears of ape, the sexual 'jntereourse with her is always raw, even if she is the one who liroposos the sexual intercourse. In rape, the r e z - o f the woman is .immaterial.

,,.I'

/''

lf a man raped a wanian and thereafter me& eliminate a witness against him, must he he pmushed for two crimes or for one crime only? Explain He should be punished for one indivisible, special eomplex crime of rape with homicide, was committed by reason of the rape

:

'9

''

.A:

1587. A young lady while sleeping was approached by another woman and inserted her finger into her private parts. When the young lady woke up, the oilier woman laughed at her. hat crime was committed by the other woman? Whf le other woman committed acts of lasciviousness because the offended party was then unconscious, being' asleep, when the other woman performed o n , her acta /"of lewdness. .~ , *, .i / i 1588. A, while passing on the sidewalk, in front of the window' of a house, saw a woman about twenty-five years old,,, .. ' ' lyhg on the fIoor near the sliding window under the' , ,.*. window sill. She was reading a magazine then. A G-: serted his hand into the opening and held the 'p parts of the woman. The woman screamed for -, , "

When ir. the use of drugs a constitutive element of rape? .k&. Use of drugs may give rise to rape, if-wmm cLmes p ~ 6 m X T c Z i ibe.&ause_.of the. .drug and wh&e-unc&us the ma_n has sexual .intercourse with her. But if the drugs only'\excite-&-liE.. se~ual.i?&si$o there is' .%E rape committed i n having sexual intercourse with her.

.

~~

1584. For the purpose of the crime o i rape, when is a woman said to he deprived of reason? A woman is deprived of reason at the time of sexual intercourse, if she is insane or imbecile or sufferiw $TO& illness which diminishes the ex&ssof h e m p a w e ? such as feeblexhdedness or mental abnormility or defi; ciency.

, ,

,' d'

F-.~

. . ~.

E~phh~~:,'':

/As i a principal by direct participakion, ,the husband kannot be held liahle for rape, because of the matrimonial consent which his wife gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law mill not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense. But if the husband is a principal by indispensable cooperation or an accomplice, or a principal by induction, he may be held liable as such for rape of his own wife, because the e g e of the husband is a personal .one and even though in marriage the wife gave Up her body d to to her husband she is not by him, to be m Another.

&-of

*-..:

.,. , ,~

'.

,

'./

626

624 E.


CRIMINAL LAM' REYIEWER

:

.: 1

and hef companions in the house caught A. What crime.^ was committed by A? Explain your answer.

,.

I I .

' ,~:

.,

,

.

It is submitted that A committed acts of lascivioosness. Although A did not use force or.intimidation to . accomplish his purpose of performing acts of lewdness,

%"

..,:, . , .,

~'

.I-l.&

,%w.,'., A+,$>-* &:<,~. , .: I. ,

.

..

~

".."' .i . .~', <

.,~.I

_.. .. .,. . ,,

I

r

.

I I

there was violence ,_ -- in the act. , In the case of People vs. Collado, it was held that the acts of stealthily embracing, kissing and holding the girl's breast constituted acts of lasciviousness. -

1589. .A, becoming angry with an ugly and dirty woman,

. '

grabbed her by the neck with his left arm, touched her breast and private parts in a public place, only to put her to shame. A had no desire to satisfy his lust. Is A liable for acts of lasciviousness? Why? . . \_ crime Yes, because the motive is immaterial in the .~ ~ . of .acts of lasciviousness. The essence of lewd&in-& very act itsalf.

.,

,:

~

Yes, because the boy was under twelve years old and the woman performed acts of lasciviousness on him. In , . acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the can- , sent of the offended party, the victim may be a person, ' :: of, either sex. .. '

I

1592. A was courting B, a woman. The latter did not want A as her accepted lover, but she was not unwilling to receive, attentions from him. One day, A forcibly embraced'her and kissed her a number of times and took other unwarkanted liberties with her person. IS A liable '., for the crime of acts of lasciviousness? E x p l h your answer. No, because a ~lvcfs an-ses.are no ci~v>nns (US. vs. Gonez).

l$,93. What are the elements of qualified seduction? The elements of qualified seduction are:

1590. A, who wanted to satisfy his lust, by means of force

'

.

tried to embrace and kiss a woman but the latter resisted and prevented A from touching her breast and private ,parts and from kissing her. Is A liable for attempted or frustrated acts of lasciviousness? Explain gour an!iwer. It is submitted that it being his intention to perform acts of lasciviousness and that he commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts b r t he did not perform all the acts of execution. A is liable for attempted acts of lasciviousness. There i u f3wt-d acts of lasciviousness in view of the nature of the crime.

'

'

: ,..

.., ,.. .

'

1591. A woman, thirty-five years old, called a bo>, seven years of age, in her r,oom and then and there played with' his ,

,

,.

.

.

.,d!;. - i.

. , ,,.:tj ..

:

~

,

.,

private parts. The boy enjoyed it. Is the woman liable for acts of lasciviousness? Explain your answer. 626

.

.,q

1. That the offended party is virgin which is pre-.?,: ., sumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation; " ' 2. That she must be over twelve and under eighteen, , ,: ,'..years of age; 3.. That the offender lias sexual intercourse with her; and 4. That there is abuE-ofauLh>rity, c m i c e or&t i ~ ~ ~ $ hpni pthe part of the offender. ,

7'

, .,* *?

1594,. What makes the crime of qualified seduction? In qualified seduction, the acts would not be punishe .were it not for the character of the person committi the s e e on account of the excess of power or abuse con€idence of which the offender availed himself ( vs. Arlante). 6595. Who could be the offenders in qualified seduction? , Any of the following may be liable for qualified sednction :

627

I

8

CRIMINA& LAW REVIEWER

,I' ; \

6

"

1.~

6.': ...


1. Those who aQused t h e k a u t h a r i t y : a . Person in public authority, b. Guardian, c . Teacher, and d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced. 2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them: a.

Priest,

b. House-servant, and C. Domestic. 3. Those who a+usLdLtheidationship : a. Brother who seduccd his sister, and b. Ascendant who seduced his descer.dant.

a : ,..

..

-

1596. The mayor of a town succeeded in having sexual intercourse with a girl who was seventeen years of age and a virgin at the time when that girl was asking the mayor to help her secure a job. The mayor did not make any promise of marriage as he was a married man. w h a t crime was committed by the mayor? Explain your answer. The mayor committed qualified seduction, because he was a peason in P U I ~ Q & Land he had sexual intercourse with a virgin I__.. over t ~ 9 l v eand . undcer-eighteen years.., of age. 1597. A girl, eleven years of age, went to the office of the justice a'f the peace to find out if her brother would be tried in connection with a case pending in the court of said jusi.ice of the peace. The justice of the peace, with the consent of the girl, had sexual intercourse with her. What crime was committed by the justice of the peace? , Explain your answer? Although the justice of the peace was a person in public authority, since the girl was under twelve years old when he bad sexual intercourse with her, the crime committed was rape. One of the elements of qualified seduction is that the offended party must be over twelve and under eighteen years of age.

-

I

*'

628

,

I

.

Nota: Abuse of authority, of confidence, or of relationship' la immaterial when the offender had sexual intercourse with a girl under 12 years old.

,.

1598. The mayor of a town had sexual intercourse with his secretary, a widow seventeen years old. Is the mayor liable for qualified seduction? Why? No, because in qualif&L&uction the o f f e u -must be In this case, the woman is a widow and therefore n a o n g e r a yirgin..

-

1599. One afternoon the teacher and his pupil, a virgin fourteen years old, were aIone in the classroom, the class having been dismissed already. The teacher kissed and embraced the girl, touched her private parts and her breasts. When he was abaut to lie with her@the parent of the girl surprised them. The teacher admitted that he wanted to have sexual intercpurse with her. Is the teacher liable for acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended 'party or attempted qualified seduction? Why? It is submitted that the crime committed was a m t e d q u a w e d u c t i o n , not acts of lasciviousness with-the consent of the offended party under Art. 339 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime of acts of lasciviousness .with the consent of the offended party wouid have been the.! crime committed by the teacher, &aA&~e--bA3&-;'. te&n to-hcvyLsexual interc~oursem1.h .her. 1600. What crime was committed by a pokeman who pretended to be arresting a girl, fifteen years old and a virgin, for .vagrancy and then the girl was taken t o a certain. house where he had sexual intercourse with the girl witli.' her consent? The policeman committed the crime of qualified seduction .-L because he is a person in p-uhlicltuthority. Note.: It would seem that the term "any person in public aui thority" does not refer only to persons in authority. It includes ic although as agent of a3spperson e x ~ i ~ g _ p ~ b lauthority, person iq authority.

629


7

1601. May qualified seduction be committed even if the girl is no lcinger physically virgin? Yes, because as long-as she is..unmarried_ and %woman of & a p n t a t b n , she i e c s i d e r e d a virgin. Thus, in the case of US. vs. Casten, the Supreme Court held that even if the defendant had prior sexual intercourse with the girl, since that girl did not have any relation with other men but only with the accused, she was swla v w n in the ey%.of the law.

~

,'f605. Suppose that she was a widow, what would be the crime

J1606.

1602. A, virgin and seventeen years, old, was living in the .. house of B and his wife, C, a first cousin of A. While A was sound asleep in a room adjoining to that of the spouses B and C, she was suddenly awakened because B was on ton of her. For fear o r shame and because C. her consin, had just given birth, A did not scream for help, so B succeeded in satisfying his carnal desire& Is 13 liable for rape or for qualified seduction. Explain your answer. B committed qualified seductta. 'Even though B was ,pat clearly o r formally..entnlsted with the c&ody of A, since she was serving i n the house o f , B and the latter took advantage of his authority and abused the confidence and trust reposed in him as head of the family and master of the house, B was criminally liable for the crime of qualified seduction. ,' B is n&l&&lG_fonape. It is true that s e e x i s t e c ? , .but her-rssistance was no_t__te.naci:o . . struggie did not tax her' powers to

. .

-

Qualified seduction, by an ascendant who seduced his descendant. What crime was committed by a brother who had sexual intercourse with his married sister, knowing her to he

630

committed by the brother? Qualified seduction. In qualified seduction by a n ascendant or brother, the virginity of the ascendant or sister seduced is not required.

,'

'_

603. What crime was committed by the father who had sexua) intercourse with his daughter, forty years old and a


/'

What are the etements of simple seduction? The elements of simple seduction are: 1. That the offended party is over twelve and under " ' eighteen years of age; ., . 2. That she must he of good reputation, singIe or w%w ; 3 . That the offender ha$ sexual intercourse with her; and 4. That it is e e d by m~ of%$ S usually takes the forni of unfulfilled Dramiee of ,.,~ The promise of marriage must be the =e that : @ the woman tokgive~.up.herself_ to the man. A promise of ,* marriage after the sexual intercourse cannot be considered. a .' . deceit if the man subsequently refused to comply. with his promise. The promise of marriage by a man whom the girl, h e w to be married cannot be a deceit, because the girl opght to know that B married man cannot marry'again while '?he firat marriage is existing. Note: D

mzrage.

,'

,/

1694. May the man who is willing and ready to marry the girl, sixteen years of age, whom he seduced be held liable for I

i'

i'

i

simple seduction? Explain your answer. Yes, because the willingness of the man to marry th girl may still amount to deceit not by itself .but by th attending circumstances v m u c h - s , as whe the man A m that the girl cannot lezally consent to marriage, and yet he makes a proniise of marriage to virgi,nity required in simple seduction? Explai swer. No, because in si_mp!e seduction the offended party ma be a widgw o x t w e l v e and uwLebghteen-JLears-df

631

I

.. ...2 ~ e - F, ’

i

I

, .~

A611.

In such a case, the offended party, who is a widow, is ..’ ,

1609. What i s the purpose of the law in punishing simple seduction? The purpose of the law is not to punish illicit intercourse, but to punish the seducer who, by means of a promise of marriage, d e s t r g y the chastity of an unmarried female o f previous chasteccharacter and who thus &s her asid2 from the pa_th_ofofvirtu.e-anhreetitude and then fails and refuses to fulfill his promise, a c&ra&!cr.~desm l e in the eyes of every decent, honorable man.

,:T : >

. .

a,., ;.. . .. . , ’ .

a t is the difference between acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the consent of the oftended party znd acts of lasciviousness wiih-&hLcons.ent. of the offended party? I n acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the consent of. the offended party, the c r k e is committed by the qse offorce.or-intimidation, or when the offended @&y is de$:ked-!eason or Qtherwise u e o u s , or when the offended party is under twelv-e. yeais-efage. In acts of lasciviousness with the._consent. of the offended party, the crime is committed by abuse _of_auth!?rity, Confid:nce, rela$nship, or by means -~ .~ of deceit. In. a d s of lasciviousness against the will or without the consent of the offended party, the age and reauta&n of the offended party is i m a t e r i a l . In acts of lascivionsness with the consent of the offended party, the offended party must be a woman y h o is a&& oy-single or, a w i & x of good r e p s a o r n , under eighteen years of age but over twelve years, or a sister or a descendant, regardless of her reputation or age. In acts of lasciviousness against the wi!l or without the consent of the offended party, the victim is a person of either sex; in the other, the v&m is a woman. In both crimes the offender performed a n a$&h!d, ness on the person ,of the offended party.

--

-

632

.

.

L , &

Was the crinie of acts of lasciviousness committed man who, while alone with his ,sweetheart, a girl teen years of age and a widow of good reputation, t her private parts and her breasts, embraced and her? Explain your answer. No. Since the girl was a widow, and not a virgh, ,~ and over 12 years old, the crime of acts of lasciviousness ’:, can be committed only if there was deceit (Art. 339) ; 07 there was force or intimidation, or if she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious (Art. 336).

I

not a virgin.

-...I< . ~. ,.


,/


,,..

/

1612. Was the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed b; 3 man who performed acts of lasciviousness on the p of a married woman with her. consent? Explain’ ..,, answer. No, because in acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party,’ the offended party is either, (1) a virgin, (2) F wido=-,.of good reputation, or (3) , a sister or descendant of the offender.

/’

I -

/

,/

y

,d&.

/ ,’’,.

Note: A married voman can be the victim of acts of lasciviom! ness, if the offender ,uses force or intimidation, or if she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when acts Of 18schiousness were performed on her person (Art. 336).

A went to an employment agency run by B, A’s friend. A asked a Sirl, fifteen years old and a virgin, to work in his house as a msid: bnt while in his house for several days, A succeeded in satisfying his lust with her. Is A liable for corruption of minor? Explain your answer. No, because, in the first place, the crime of corruption of minors requires that the offender should promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of a minor to satisfy the lust of another. Since he satisfied his o m lust, he cannot be held liable for. corruption of minor.

1614. A, a girl fifteen years old and a virgin, i s living with B in the latter’s house. A rich Chinaman, a good friend of B, one time paid a visit in the house of B and saw the girl. The Chinaman whispered to B that he ma8

633

,1

r,

., .. -?-t."

2 7 .i '

-

,



illing to give P500 if he could sleep with the girl. . Then induced the girl to sleep with the Chinaman and offered .her PIOO. But the girl refused and even cursed d the Chinaman. Is B liable for attempted or con. su imated corruption of minor? Explain your answer. B in liable for consummated corruption of a minor, ecause he a t least promoted the corruption of the girl ~ ' with abuse of confidence, which the girl gmWd-i=hinl as head of the family and master of the house. In corruption of minors, i t is not necessary that the unzhaste acts~shall have beeen & ? ? o r that the woman should have ,. acceded to the proposal. Suppose that A, the girl, was living in the house of B's brother and the Chinaman saw that girl and the China man talked to B and the latter induced the girl t o have sexual intercourse with the Chinaman by giving her P100. and the rirl acceuted the money and asreed to spend the n i g h t w i t h the Chinaman, is B liable for corruption of minor? No, because it is np_t habitual. for B to promote or fac.ilit,ate the prostitution .or c o r r u p t i o d mi-nors and he did not act with abuse of~-authority ..~ ~. o r abuse~ofc~n&&n?4 the girl not liZng with him.

/1615.

~

'(

/

ager proposed to the boy to satisfy' his lust. Is the : ,. manager IiabIe for corruption of minor? Yes, because the crime of co_rruDtion of minors r n q ' /"e committed by promoting. or- facilitating-the corzupt& I of minors of either. mx,_

1617. What is the difference between white slave trade and slavery? White.@ve trade is a crime against chastity, conimitted by a person who engaged in the business of, or profited by, prostitution or enlisted the services of women for the purpose of prostitution (Art. 341, R.P.C.). ga~.ery is a c i h e against Uxxty, committed 6y a person who purchased, sold, kidnapped, or detained a human being for thkpurpose of enslaving him (Art. 272;i~, . .. qh R.P.C.). 9 ' White slave trade may become the crime of slavery$ p f the woman to be assigned to some immoral traffic is$ purchased, sold, kidnapped, or detained (Art. 272, par. 2, R.P.C.). In such a case, the penalty for slavery is higher.',

~I

Note: But if the father or the master proposed t o his daughter or servant that the latter should satisfy the lust of another, 1makes him &&bAor corruption of minors the 6 because there is abuse of authority or _a&Ie_Af_.cmfidence. A pimp or the owner of th; house of prostitution who proposes to a minor that she satisfy the lust of another is liable f o r corruption of minor, because there is habituality in, the act.

616. An Amefican sailor went to the house of prostitution and ssked for a woman, but the manager had no woman to give as all t h e prostitutes were busy. In that house of prostitution, there was a boy, eleven years old, who was good looking and of good body, and the manager told the American sailor that the boy could satisfy his lust and, when the sailor agreed to have hmi, the man...,

,/

/ k L

'4

What are the elements of forcible abduction? The eltments of forcible abduction are: ,l', The person abducted is ,~ny&ornaGL reg&&? sier age, civil status, or reputation. / 2. The abduction is against her will. 3 . With lexd..designsl

What .crime - -. .was. e-0-mmitted JJy-_.A_.whoF-wiof two companions, forcibly Lo.ok and carried a marria woman in an automobile and while they were on t way. to a certain &ee .g_e=b!Ee$ and &sed th &-woman? Expl$n your an b - a n d his companions were liable for forc duction, notwithstanding the fact t married woman, because the law def as "the abduction o f - a w - w o n ~ a n with lewd designs." ''

6.

:.<,A. ,

634

of

'636

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

and that there wz~no..legal impediment between him and that woman, his caxluct while in the jeepney in embracing and kissing her abundantly sh~xedlewd designs. with Since the girl was abducted aggin.&he-iULand 'lew designs, the crime of forcible abduction was a m itted.

In forcible a!xh &ion, s e a l . i n _ t e r r a s e is not necess_a~.

Lewddesirm_issufficient. that the offcnder succeeded in having s$.xud

/---

intercourse with the married woman after forcibly ahducting: her, what crime is committed? Forcible abduction with rape. Rape can be committed against a married woman.

..

/

N o t e : Rape may ahsorb forcible abduction if the main objective the victim (People vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777).

the intention to contract marriage on the part

of thc! person accused of abduction evidence of lewd

,' "

,

'

'.

the girl a t anytime, can he and his Companions be prosecuted criminally? If so, for what crime? Y?. They are liable for kidnapoing and serious illegal detention, bewuse that would become a case of kidnapping o z o m a n which was not prove11 to have been cornmitted with p i c h a s t e designs. Abduction, being one of ,the ways by which illegal detention can be committed; especially quaIified by lewd intention, the kidnapping of ,)' a woman w&h-altL_unchaste designs must, according t o Via& and to our Penal Code, be considered as illegal detention.

162d. Snppose, in the same question, A did n!&.k?E&

was t o rape

design and when does it negative lewd design? The intention to contract marriage may, on certain occasions, constitute lewd designs in the crime of forcible or consented abduction, as in the case of a b d g o n of a .*, where the offender that she c m m U x g m e m e n t to the marriage. ,,.But whenAhe woman is of.:gcand, therefore, could give consent to the marriage and there is no legal impediment between her and tkk abductor and the abductor did not perform any indeu e s s , the intention to marry will negative

,/

..

.

636

i,,

~

,

,.

1. Rape. 2 . Acts of lasciviousness a m - t h e will p or without the consent: of the offended party. Qualified seduction of a sister by a brother, or of descendant by an ascendant. 4 . Forcible abduction.

.

;"

1 6. Can there be a complex crime of rape through kidnapping? Explain your ansx'er.

637

'

, '',

le24. What is the

_of other persons, forcibly took and carried1 in a jeepney an unmarried woman, thirty years of age, from the City of Manila to Pasig. R i d . On the way, l.he man kissed and embraced the woman against her mill. In Pasig, the man tried to arranze the marriage between him and that woman. But because she. refused to marry him, the solemnizing officer did not perform the marriage ceremony. The woman who was rescued by her relativ,es filed a complaint for forcible abduetion against the man and his companions. Do you believe that a eompla.int for forcible abduction will prosper? Explain your answer. Yen, because although A had the intention tQ-maKry the y m a n - w h o could give her c c n ~ n t -to the marriage

.,

. .,

'

ii


._

,

No, the crime is not kidnapping with rape, bUt.fOrd-

,!:.$


had ' sexual intercourse with the consent of the girl. What crime was committed by A? .Forcible abduction with rape, because when the victim is under twelve years of age, the takgg-of that girl, even with her ?onsZnt;~ is -still..raBtpeand forcible abduction. is_a n.ecessary. m e a p ~ t ocomi$.._it, it is comulex crime of

. . ~~., ble . abducti~n-w~th..rape. When the yiolent-.La&@g of a . . woman is nmti-va&d by lewd designs, forcible abduction .,'.:r, ,? . . is the offense. When it is not so motivated, such taking _ I

constitute:; kidnapping.

, .,.., . *& ,+&L',. ?4 ,.:

.

. r.

One oifense is agaiqst chastity;

!

. the other, against personal liberty. E;idnapping-x&n?!oL

i

he__a.neCess_zry_.meansfor committing rape.

~

cajolerp- and deceit that they succeeded in taking a girl gin and sixteen years old to a joy ride in bile as far as Tagaytay City and then Manila. Is A crinu'natty liable for taking No, because there was no Iewd design.

Suppose that in the same question the original purpose of the accused was to kidnap the woman, but later when the woman was already under his control and deprived of her liberty the idea of raping her came to his mind, and then and there raped her, what would be the 'crime? Why? Two distinct crimes of (1) kidnapping and serious iltWL.&flegal detention and (2) rape. The accused ferent __.___ criminaii.nt.ents. ~-What are the elements of consented abduction?" The dements of consented abduction are: 1. The offended party must be a &kn. 2. She must be oyer tye& and un~dzc&!&een_y_e's

1632.

@ . .

3 . The taking-away must be wJ&hsr-c.onsent, &e? s o s t a t i o n or c&ry from the offender. 4. ?'he taking away must be with lewd designs. 1629. A, who was the sweetheart of B, a widow 17 years of age, through cajolery and enticement succeeded in hkiW her way with lewd designs. Is A liable for consented abducti,on? Explain your answer. No, because i n consented abduction the offended Party .. must be a virgin.

1630. A, who was courting a girl eleven years and six monthtf ,/old and a virgin, after solicitation and cajolery, took '.. her away to a certain town and in a house there they ~

638

A induced l3, a girl sixteen years of age and a virgin, to go with ,him to the hotel where they had sexual intercourse. There was no promise, of marriage made by A to her before the sexual intercourse. Afterwards,' the girl was returned t o 'her home. What crime wm committed by A? Consented abduction, because according to the decisions of the Court o€ Appeals, citing recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, the &king of-a-xirgn, need not- have. the character of permanency. N o matter how short is the taking away, the crime exists.

I _ _ _ _

i.

of-age.

,' .

would only who was a his automoreturned to the girl?

I

i

1633. Suppose that in the ,same question, A succeeded in having sexual intercourse with I3 in the hotel, because of promise of marriage, and then refused to fulfill the promise, ' what' is the crime? It. is still consented abduction, the s$ple seduction in which is p u n i s h T T w 3 awesto muynr being-ed the crime of consented abduction which is punished with p&sio% coweecional in its minimum and medium periods. The crime of consented abduction is committed. when the cpnsent of the @ n a n m l e to being t w is promises.of ..maxrJzge of the offender: The due tohoney& ~

639,.

I ,

' II


sexual intercourse after the taking of the girl is o g y evidence of lewd design. ~

Note: But where u 15-year old girl was induced to leave her home and later forcibly violated bp the four accused, they are guilty of consented abduction with rape (People vs. Amante, 49 Phil. F79). The reason for the ruling is probably based on the fact t h a t consented abduction cannot absorb the serious offense of rupo.

..

..

In what crimes against chastity is sexual intercourse with the offended party not necessary? In the following crimes: 1. Acts of lasciviousness, either under Art. 336 or under Art. 339. 2. Forcible abduction. 3 . Consented abduction. 4. Corruption of minors.

1635. What plaint. tioned which

crimes cannot be prosecuted except upon comof the offended party or of her relatives menby the Revised Pcnal Code? State the reason underlies this requirement.

be prosecuted upon com-

CRIMNBL LAW REVIEWER

1

public trial (Samalin vs. Court of First Instance, 57 Phil. 238).

1636. A girl was raped when she was eleven years old. The girl refused t o sign and file the complaint against the -man who raped her. Can her father sign and file the complaint for rape committed against his daughter? Yes, because the rule now is that when the offended party is a minor and she does not file the complaint, this may be done by her parents, grandparents or guardian in the order named.

1

1637. A was the victim of qualified seduction committed by B against her when she was seventeen years and eleven ntonths old. Three months after the commission of qualified seduction, the father of the sir1 took her to the fiscal's office to file the necessary complaint against her seducer. The girl refused to sign the complaint. c a n the father sign the complaint f o r qualified seduction -to be pled with the court? Explain. Yes. She did not yet reach her 21 years at which' majority begins. Alone, therefore, she was without capacity to protect herself (see Tolentino vs. De la Costa, 66 Fhil. 97). ,

duction

.. . ~..
I.

..

r

Defamation imputing the commission of any of the crimes against chastity precedin'gly mentioned. It is patent that the provision requiriig t l a t the promust' be initiated upon the complaint filed by the offended party or her relatives mentioned by the Code, was enacted ogt .of-c.msideratig for the offended party and :her family who might prefer tosuffer ihe autrage the scandal of a i&&ce rather than go. &rough-with

-_

640

Nota: It is a rule now that if the offended girl is already of age (21 years), and is in complete possession of her mental and physical faculties, one should disherr e t o avenge the wrong %iiTGTiSiizx&sion. of her usrent%",* anLotker-_reiatives mentioned .in..tbe law.

no

/,

1638. Suppose that the girl who was then already over twenty- ,~ one years of age was suffering from menta1 illness, can the father sign the complaint for qualified seduc-"' tion? Why?

Yes, because the rule which excludes the parents or the guardian from signing and filing the cornplaint when"::: the girl is already of age also requires that the girl mu#!?& be it: full possession of her mental and physical faculties. ,' 641

i


m8.y a person who committed adultery or concubinage he punished for the crime even if pardoned by the offended party? When the pardon by the offended party came after the institution of the criminal prosecution, such pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. Only pardon'before the filing of the complaint may be a ground for the dismissal of the case.

L"

640. Explain briefly why in the prosecution of the offenders

/

639. When

/ 1. I

for the crimes of adultery and concubinage, both the guilty parties, if they are both aIive, should be included, and in case the offended party desires to give pardon that both offenders have to be pardoned? The reason for the requirements is that. in the first case, the Code recognizes the fact that the %c&j.-mly judicially speaking, .&:e the &.diy%.ual.a&in .itself does no~_co.nstiWe_the.felony: and, in the second -case, the Code :speaks (Spanish text) of pardvn of the adulterous act itself, which in effect is a pardon that extendsxto~~both defsndants (People YS. Mendez, et al., C.A.).

1641. Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution for ' adultery and concubinage if he or she shall have consented to the offense. Is there any difference as to their effect between prior consent and subsequent con. sent to the offense? Why? No, because prior consent is as effective as subsequent t,o bar the offended party from prosecuting the (People vs. Schnechenburger, et al.).

~

/"I

/

1644. A, knowing that B, a boarder in her house, was in ' love with her daughter 16 years old, left the house to enabl? B t o sedriee her daughter. When A was away. B had sexual intercourse with A's daughter. When the husband of A learned of the crime committed by B and of the cooperation &ven t o him by his wife A, the husband filed a complaint against A and B. What is i the criminal liability of A?

,/

She is an a c E p l i c e in the crime of qualifiedseduction but to be punished as.principa1 \..~.. (Art. Tm.

/'UM.

What is the civil liability of persons guilty of the crimes against chastity? Persons guilty of rape, seduction or abduction shall also be sent.enced: 1. To i&mnify __ . ., . tine offended woman. 2. To aclmno~~~ledge~th~.of~s~ri-ng, unless the law should preyent him from so doing. 3 . In kvery case, to suaport the offspring. The adulterer and the concubine may also be sentenced t o indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.

~

642

~~

1643. May the father done legally pardon the offender who raped his daughter eleven years old? No, because the pardon must be &Kan$ed db,&-by the offended . ~- -. -. ~ party, and it is._o-n& when she is & d or otherwise -. ..~ incapac&died to grant it that her parents, grand/parents or guardian may do so for her.

(pardon) whioh bars the the offense' is that made

eleven years old and the victim of rape pardon the oifender? Explain yonv

'/As a general rule, the pardon by the offended pa; y >: who is a minor musf be cgmJLeme.nb!z.bL&e concur& e of her^ parents .(Benga-Oras vs. Evangelista, et al.). 'I e r&on for this rule is that the cxi~mestrikes a t the famil s to, the offended aa: Y hcnor and i n B s i n i u ! - n & m & bnt .dso .- to her^ pareats... But if she has no parent to concur with, her, as, for stance, when the u&n&r is her father and her mother is already dead, s h e m e can pardon the offends.

.~

643

I


CRIMINAL LAW REVIIWER

/’

civiousness also be sentenced to indemnify the offendea party? Explain your answer.

/

Yes, because by simulating the birth of that child, A created a false civil status for the child and caused that child to lose ‘its civil status in the family of the woman ,who really gave its birth. The fact that there is no damage, wh&ther immediate or remote, 0; that it is beneficial to the child, is not a defense.

,’’

1646. May the accused w h o is iound guilty of acts of 18s-’

/f&hough the Revised Penal Code does not provide f o r the civil liability of a person guilty of acts of lasciviousness, the new Civil Code provides that mo~.al damages may be recovered in “other lascivious acts.” Since every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art. 100) and civil liability includes indemnification for consequential damages (Art. 104), the accused found guilty of acts of lasciviousness may also be sentenced to pay moral damages to the offended party.

’

1649. A, mother b u t not a wife, told her sister to place her child two ,days old in a basket, to take it to, and to knock at, the door of the house of a rich man before leaving it there. The sister took the child t,o the door of that house, knocked at the door, and left the child. The owner of the house took care of the child. Are A and her sister criminalIy liable for abandoning that child? Explain your answer. No, There are three provisions of the Revised Penal Code that may be considered in connection with the question. It cannot be a crime against civil status by concealment or abandonment of a child, because the child abandoned was not legitimate. The child must be l e m a t e , to constitute the crime. It cannot be the crime against security by abandoning a minor under Art. ,276, because the child who was found by the owner of the house was not deprived of^ the care^ and pyotection. which it needed. S& is not liable for the crime against security under A r d 2 7 7 , because she was the mother of the child. The person liable for abandonment of minor under Art. 277 is one having only charge of the rearing-or education of 1 2 minor.

Note: Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed for non-payment of thc civil liability for moral damages, because they arc not imposed by the Revised Penal Codc.

1647. What are the crimes against the civil status of person? o f births, sitbstitution of one child for ’?&::&ion another, and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate

c h i l k i i r p a t i o n of civil status. 3 . Bigamy. 4 , Mwriage contracted against provisions of laws. 5. Premature marriages. 6 . Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. Note: Tho crimes from No. 3 to No. G are called illegal marriages.

~

8. A, woman without a child, pretended to be pregnant when in fact she was not, and on the day of the supposed delivery, with the consent of A’s husband, took the child of a poor widow who could not support that child, the purpose o f A being to rear the child like her own and for its own benefit as that child would be the universal heir of A’s property. Is A liable for simulation of birth? Why? 644

~\

I

d

16 0. A had six children .with his first wife who died. A married B, n poor woman. When l3 gave birth to a child, C, the sister of A’s first wife, to preserve the property of the family for her six nephews, caused that child to be taken to the door of a convent where the sisters found it. What crime was committed by C? Explain your answer.

645

I 1

I

i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEVER

i


She committed the qige ,,against-civil-status by_cc,nc&ng o r abandoning a,\@ltimate~khiidl because the purpose of C was t o cause that child to lose its civil statu,%

1651. Why is substitution of oiie child for another made a crime? Substitution of one child for another is made a crime, because such act would create a f&c..si.viL.status for one cause the loss_.of the civil status of the child and w& other and vice versa.

I

1652. IIow is usurpation of civil status committed? *It is committed when a person represents himself to be another and assumes the filiation, parental or conjugal

/

1I

rights of the latter.

1653. A, who was courting a girl, told her that he was th son of B, a millionaire, which was not true. Is A liable f o r , uslirpation of civil status? Why? 0. There must be & l t e n f o l d . r u l s e a r d eniov the ci~viight, which is not apparent in this case.

/"

1656. -riage. A .was married to .R. One day, A succeeded in persuading a minister t o authorize a marriage between him and C, promising to bring the marriage license the next day as the treasurer was out of town. The minister performed a marriage ceremony between A and C and received the marriage licenso the next day. Is A liable for bigamy? Explain your answer. The marriage between A and C, being without marriage license, was void and of no legal effect. In bigamy, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the requisites for validity ahd would have been valid were it not for the fact that it is bigamous.

i I

1654. What are the elements of the crime of bigamy? They are :

I. The offender has been legally marcied. I

2. The said mariage bas not heen legally dissolved, or in case his spouse is absent, there has rot-bee1i.a judiciaxleclaration that the absent spouse is pr~s!!mptiyely dead. 3 . He contracts a second or subsequent marriage. 4 . !Che second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

In 1935, A married C. In 1945, I3 died. In 1946, A married D. Is A liable for bigamy?

1655. A rnari*ied D in 1930.

Explain your answer. It depends upon which marriage of A is the basis of the prosecution. If A is prosecuted for b i g m y for con646

tracting the second marriage with C, he is liable f o r bigamy, because he contracted that marriage before his marriage with €3 had been legally dissolved. If A is prosecuted for bigamy €or having contracted the subsequent marriage with D+e is not liable, because -when he mdrried D, his marriage with B had already been legally dissolved by. the death of B; and his marriage with C, being a bigamous marriage, was non-existent His marriage with C may be considered the first marriage, for the purpose o f the crime bigamy. But the first marriage must be valid in order to hold a person liable . for bigamy for contracting a second or subsequent mar-

*

I

.

Nota: But A is liable for contracting marriage knowing that the requirements of the law were not complied with under Art. 350.

,'1657. A, a Moro, divorced his wife B in 1950. Then, A married c. Is A liable for bigamy? Why? It is submitted that in view of Rep. Act No. 394, which recognizes for a period of twenty years from dune 18, 1949, divorces granted in accordance with Moslem customs and practices, A is not liable for bigamy, becaube bis first marriage may be considered already legally dissolved when he contracted the second marriage. 647

I


CRlMlNAL LAW REVIEWER ~

1

1658. May the crime of bigamy be committeu through ne@

,

ligence? Is good faith a defense in bigamy? Explain your answer. This is not a settled question. The Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of bigamy is also committed by a person who contracted a second marriage “6efore his absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.” In view of this provision, it would seem that the crime of bigamy cannot be commitred through negligence. On I-he other hand, under Art. 83 of the new Civil Code, marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is not illegal and void from its performance (1) when the first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years a t the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or (2) if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting the subsequent marriage, or (3) if the absentee is presumed dead according to Arts. 390 and 291 of the new Civil Code. It i;3 submitted that in view of the provisions of Art. 83 of the new Civil Code, good faith may be a defense in bigamy. Bigamy may be committed through negligence or imprudence.

1661. May a pekon who contracted a bigamous marriage he held liable for bigamy even if he did not have any sexual intercourse with the victim in the bigamous marriage? Yes ( U S . vs. Eernardo, G. R. 13102, unpublished). Sexual intercourse is not an element of the offense.

1662. What are the crimes against honor? /‘ Th4y are: A’. -Libel by means i f writings o r similar means. 2 . ,Threatening to publish a libel and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation. .3, Prohibited publieation of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. 4. Slander. 5 . Slander by deed. ti, I;icrimiiiating innocent person. 7 . Intriguing against honor.. 1663. What crime is c o n d t t e d by a person who ,published libelous article against the government which undermines or weakeiis the confidence of the people in the government? Seditious libel. This is not an ordinary libel defined and penalized uuder crimes against honor. Seditious libel i s one form of inciting to sedition. It is a crime against public order.

I

1659. Is the person who contracted marriage with another wlio was already married also liable for bigamy?

It depends. If he or she knew that the other ‘was alrcady married, then he o r she is iiable as accomplice in the crime of bigamy. If he or she did not know that the other was already married, then he or she is not liable. ‘1660. Are the witnesses to a bigamous marriage criminally liable? 648

It depends. If they knowingly ,and falsely vouched for the capacity of ei’cher of the contracting parties, they are liable as accomplices. If they merely acted as attesting witnesses, they are not liable.

1664. What imputation may be considered defamatory? !’,1 4

Q

An imputation may be considered d&f&m&ry when it imputes-G-another (1) the qcmgi%ion_oLa_crime, (2) a vice or defect, whether TealLorimaginary, or (3) any ag; bmission, condition, status, or circumstance, if any

643

I ,

I


CBIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

of them ,t.egd~ to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contegpt-of the offended party.

Yes, because the sending of that letter to the husband was defamatory of his wife, since the wife was defamed and tlik 0.ublicity was made^ t o the husband. ~....~.

of the different kinds of imputations the dishonor, discredit or contempt of

~

/

1668. &’’said publicly that the deceased wife of B was the :’&erida of C during her lifetime. Is A liable? Why? Yes, because Cefamation may be committed against a person who is., dead. Such imputation would black.@! the mcmo?y~of -one who is dead.

of a crime.-A said in the presence of X. Such imputation will cause the dishonor of B who was made to ap-

\.

1669. Is it necessary in the crime of defamation that the imputation actually produced the discredit, dishonor or contempt of the person intended to be defamed? No, because it Lq sufficient i f t h e imputation tends to_._c_a-ugethe dishonor, discredit 01- contempt of the offended party or one who is dead.

C always beat his wile. Imputation of an OTW~&Z.-Asaid jn the presence

1670. What is innuendo and what is its importance in the indictment for defamation? Innuendo is a clause in the indictment or other pleading containing an averment which is explanatory of some preceding word or statement. I t is the office of an innuendo to define the defdmatory meaning which the plaintiff set on the words, to shorn how they came to have thet meaning, and also to show how they relate t o the plaintiff.

in the presence of B that C is a leper. Also, calling a lawyer :‘a useless and ignorant lawyer; that his head is ilre a drum; that his law office is visited only Also, calling a physician “a doctor in bruta1in savagery and teaches brutality and inof

a status.-A

told B that he is a

bastard. 1666. A wrote a letter to B, a respectable ~ o m a n ,that the latter was the querida o f C. The letter was in a sealed envalelope and sent through the mail. 1s A liable for libel?

No, because there is it.

w-ty.

i i

N , o ~ i z L ~ s ~ I

i

1671. A wrote an article in which it ,\vas stated that the judge with a mansibn in Grace Park was receiving bribe. B and .C knew that X was the oinly judge living in Grace Park. Is A liable for libel? Why? Yes, because although the judge was not named, yet he.was i a & k b y other persons and that fs sufficient. Note: It is not sufficient if only the complainant testified that he v a s the person referred to in the defamatory imputation.

1667. Suppose that that letter was sent to E’s husband in a s,ealed envelope and through the mail and the hutband .,.. , rtad it, is A liable for libel?

1672. When a person makes an imputation which is defam?tory ‘of another, must the pcosecution or the plaintiff prove

660

651

I

+


malice o!n the part of th,e person who made the imputation? Explain your answer. No, because galise.is presumed from every defamatory %.putation. I n such a case, proof of malice is not required as i t is already presumed.

1673. A called B a swindler in the presence of other ‘persons It appears that B was really a swindler. 1s malice presumed from such imputation? Why? Yes, even if it is true . that B was a swindler, itis. presumed to .be malicious if no good intention a n b j u s t i fiable motive f o r . making it is shown. Hcnce, the presumption of malice may be rebutted only when the defendant can prove the truth of the imputation, that it was made with good intention and that he had justifiable motive for making it.

1674. If a person in publishing a latory imputation against another has the intention ’ure the reputation of the p latter, can he successfully good intention and justiiJfiable motive? Why? No, because the law will not allow a person to injure another by an injurious publication, under the cloak of “good intention” or “justifiable motive.” IVhcn malice in fact is shown to exist offender has the intention to injure the, rep offended party, the offender cannot be relieved from lia6, %’ bility by pretense of “justifiable motive.”

)

y? l

,p

1675. When is malice not presumed even if there is defamatory

.i i ..

imputation? Malice is not presumed even if the matter published is defamatory of another, when it is contained in a p&y&ged communication. ~-. ~ -

1676. What are the kinds of privileged communication? Privilege is classified as either ab‘solute or qualified.

652

CkIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

*.

An absolute privilege is one where no remedy can be had in a. civil or criminal action. Thus, for any speech or debate in Congress no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall be questioned in any other place. A qualified privileged communicatjon is a p r i m facie privilege which may be lost by proof of malice.

1677. In what eases is the defanratory imputation pot presumed t r ~be malicious? In the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person t o another in She performance of any legal, moral o ‘ social f duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative 01‘ other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, reDort or speech delivered in said proceedings, o r o€ any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

1G7R. When the defamatory imputation i s contained in a privileged communication, is the rvriter of the communication liable for libel? Yes, if the prosecution or the plaintiff proves malice in fact, which may be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred towards the offended party, o r purpose to injure the complainant. Once there is pToof of malice in fact, the privileged character of the communication is destroyed and the writer of the communication will he liable for libel. Hence, the privileged character of the communication merely does away with the presumption o f malice. And vhen there is no proof of malice iu fact, that is, the defendant has no intent to injure the reputation of the complainant, he js not liable for libel. 1679. It is a rule that if there is no malice in fact on the part of the writer of the privileged communication, he

663

\

l i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER


found guiity of bribery a s charged. Is A liable for libel? Why? Pes, because by g a g the ,[email protected] u ~ ~ e s s a r y . ~ ~ ~the b lp:ivileged i ~ i t ~ character of the-commimication was.-.desi;r.oyed. Malice in !act having been shown by the unnecessary~publicity.given by A to his komplaint against the $seal, he c_annot claim good. intention and justifiable, motive for publishing it. But i t has been said that when the accused proves his imputation against a public officer, he renders the public canse a serviee and should be acquitted. In this case, i t is said that it is immaterial that the offender did n o t act with good motives and justifiable ends.

is not criminally liable for libel. What is the basis of his exemption from liability? The exemption from liability is predicated upon the fact that it is the duty and right of a citizen t o make a complaint of any misconduct on the part of public officials, which comes t o his notice, to those charged with supervision over them. Such a communication is qualifiedly privileged and the author is not liable for libel, even though the charges contained therein are not substantiated upon investigation. But the author becomes liable f o r libel, if the charges were made maliciously and that thcre was no reasonable ground for believing them to be true. 1680. Does this rule apply to n conimunicatian involving a person not a public officer? Yes, as in the case of a written complaint to the ecclesiastical authorities against a priest or pastor for acts requiring disciplinary action. In the case of U.S. vS. Caiiete, the Supreme Court mentioned the fact that the American and British courts have extended the qualified privilege by analogy to include a case in which a member of a church makes a complaint against his minister fn &,I their common ecclesiastical superior. N o t e : The communication to he privilcsed must be made to the persons who have the power to furnish protection or t o give remedy. Hence, a cammunieotian to the Secretary of Justice, seeking to hnve the improper dismissal by t h o court of a robbery case is meaningless, because the Secretary of Justice was not the proper authority who could give the remedy.

/

1682d’A Senator, during a privileged speech in the Senate mentioned the nanies of certain persons, some were public officials and Ihe other private individuals, allegedly involved in influence peddling to the detriment of public interest. Suppose, the statements were false and the persons mentioned wp?e not really involved in influence peddli ’g, do you believe that the Senator was liable for libe Why? No, because a Senator or a Congressman enjoys absolute privilege. For any speech or debate in Congress, tFey cannot be questioned in any other place.

4 .

2,

16S3.,/Are the reporters who published the spseech in the news! papers liable for libel? If the matters published are a fair and he-stakmmt of the Senator, made iu good faith, w&h:o.uLany-coments or. remarks, the reporters, as well as -the editors of the newspapers, are not liable. ~

16Sl. A w r o t e a letter t o the Secretary of Justice denouncing a provincial fiscal for alleged bribery, stating therein that he saw the fiscal receive money from a party interested in a case then under investigation by him. A showed copies of said letter to his friends. After bvestigation by the Department of Justice, the fiscal was

1684. /Suppose, the editar of a newspaper published an editorial

654

655

I

I

commenting on the statement of the Senator, stating that those people ought to be hanged, would the editor be held Iiable? Why? Yes, because the editor made a comment or_r_emark on the s& of the Senator made in legislative proceed-

I

ings. The law does not germit the making of comment

The letter which contained the alleged defamatory imputation against President Quirino was written by defendant, in response to insistent demands from his huyer for a n explanation of the delay in the shipment of sugar, and also with the end in view of securing a n extension of the period to make delivery of the sugar. Having been made in the usual coarse of business, for the purpose of n,pholding the m’ter‘s interest, and in the performance of at least a moral, if not a legal, duty, the letter could be considered pl‘ima f&E a privileged eomniunication (Art. 354, Revised Penal Code). That the alleged imputations mere made, according t o the trial court, as “an attempt to justify his failure t o live up to his part of his supposed bargain,” needless t o say, does not take the letter out of the category of privileged communication, since the .?act that the writer had an interest to be upheld is weeisdy one of the essential elements t h a t makc a communication privileged (People vs. Rojas, G. R. L-8266, June 2, 1959).

or remark on legislative, judicial o r official proceedings. ,Only a $air and true report of such proceedings, if not of confidential nature, may be published. 1685. In a disbarment proceeding, A testified that B, the respondent lawyer, received from him, as defendant in a

civil case, a sum of money to be delivered to C, the plaintiff, in payment of A’s debt to C, but B spent the money for his own benefit, thereby imputing to B the commission of estafa. The disbarment proceeding is of confidential nature. A reporter published the testimony of A. Ik the reporter liable? Yes, b.%ause judicial, legislative or other_official procgdings, which are of confidenti~al.nature, can not he pblished.

1687. What is the extent of the privilege in judicial pro-

1686. Although the complaint did not charge the defendant

I

with removing the money from the vaults of the firm where he was employed and nothing was alleged that he misappropriated it, a newspaper article stated that the complaint made those charges. The writer had no intention t o injure the reputation of the defendant in the complaint.. Is the writer of the article liable for libel? Yes, because the article did not state a fair and report. Nois: The reporter of n newspaper publieation, i n publishing what passes in a court of justice, must publish the whole evidence or testimony, and not merely state the conclusion which he himself draws from the evidence. The reporter or the editor of a publication who distorts o r discolors the official proceedings reparted by him, or adds comments thereon to east aspersion on the character a€ any of the parties in a case, is guilty of libel, ntowithatanding the fact that t h o defamatory matter is gmblished in connection with a privileged matter. A letter written and sent in the usual course of business, for the purpose of upholding the writer’s interest, could be considered prima facie 8 privileged communication.

656

!



I

ceedings? The publication in a newspaper of a complaint or of an answer to a complaint filed in court, containing libelous matter, is not privileged, where it appears that no action has been taken by the court thereon. However, 111 view of the provisions of the Rules of Court that the records of every court of justice shall be public records, unless the court shall in any special case have forbidden their publicity in the interest of rnoralitv and decency, it would seen that it is not necessary that the court shocld have taken an action on the complaint or answer before it could be published by a reporter.

1

Note: In judie;al proceedings, parties, counsel, and witnesses are exempt from liability in libel o r slander for words otherwise defamatory, provided that the statements a r e pertinent or relevant to the case.

1688. What i s the rule relative to the publieation of pleadingt? in criminal cases? The privilege in judicial proceedings in connection with the publication of pleadings in criminal cases is not limited in scope, because law euforcemerk is a matter of public

657

1 !

,

,

*

~~

I


CRIMIKAL LAW RJWIEWER

i

interest and the .people are entitled to know the state or progress of the proceedings in criminal cases.

/

A 89. In a c r i m i i a case where a married woman was accused of adultery, the testimony of the husband in court relative to i.be commission oE adultery by his wife was published in the newspaper. The testimony of the husband was quoted in full, witbout comment or remark. Is the reporter liable for publishing the said testimnny of tlie husband which was given in judicial proceedings? Explain your answer. Yes, boeause the Revised Penal Code (Art. 357) prohibits the publication of facts connected with the private life of another when such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in conuection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial o r administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. Hence, under this provision, the report-, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine, who publishes facts connected with the private life of another when such facts are offensive t o the honor, virtne and reputation of such person is liable for libel.

1691. Is there self-defense in defamation? Yes. While it is trne that in self-defense, retaliation becomes unlawful a€ter the attack has ceased, because,. there will be no further harm to repel, such is not the case in defamation, because once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself of all the necessary means to shake it off.. Ke may hit back with another !ibel, which, if adequate, will be justifiable (People vs. Chua Hong). I

-’

1690. During the trial of a criminal case, in which A was a witness, the latter was asked on cross-examination whether i t was not true that he was convicted of undust vexation for having kissed a girl and he answered that &.e. bad- keen convicted .~ by the machinations of the attorney wbo was then oondueting the cross-exam’ imputation that he was convicted by the ma the attorney was false. May the witness from criminal liability on the ground that the statement he made is a privileged communication in a judicial Qroceeding? No, because the imputation was not true and was an impertinent answer to the question asked.

Note: The offended party pre-iioosly caused to be published in the Manila Chronicle an article entitled “Doubtful Citizenship,” in which it was made t o appear that the accused in hie petition f o r naturalization obtained a decision based on questionable proofs. After the pubiication of said article, the accused published a libelous statement to the effect that the offended pirrty instigatd investigations in difFeerent povernment offices against the accused, because of his persecution mania and in the npirit of revenge; and that the offended party was the mastermind beliind the t.hreatening letter of a certain person sent t o tho accused. , It was lieid that the alleged scurrilous imputations made by tJw accused were not merely a n outgrowth of a capricious imagination UP the accused. The statement vas intended to eounternct the impression left in the mind of the public by that article entitled “Dortblfnl Citizenship.” The accused acted in self-defense and was acquitted.

I

i

i

~~~~

..

,,

,’.

j ;.I

4

1692. A, after aiigliting from a rig, went in front of the house of three defendants B, C, and I), and in the heat Of anger shouted a t thcm the following words: “You pimps, women of ill-repute, thieves, paramours of my husband,” to which D snsn.ered back, saying: “You are a woman of tlie street, you smell bad and your money was stolen from t h e . -p&.&?~ ,.x~ca&&, A.. ‘‘Ywi. are^^ &meless, blackmailer, murderer.” D replied: “You have a thick face.. You are not legally married. You are the paramour of Father Baluyot.” Is there self-defense in defamation in this case? Why? It was held that in this case the imputations made by B, C and D were u_nnecessariIy_s~urr~l~s, because they.

j

~c

659

.

/

CkIMINAi LAW RZVIEWER

and were absolutely unrelated to A's imputations upon thein. R&M.ioGivindictiveness cannot be_~a..basisof selfdefense even in defamation (People vs. Rayo, et al.) . -. _, ' ; , ,://!' .i '_ yr:r,I ,':. '6 1693. What :;e the different means by which libel may be committed? They are by means of (1) writing, (2) printing, (3) lithograph, (4) engraving, (5) radio, (6) phonograph, (7) painting, (8) theatrical exhibition, ( 9 ) cinematographic exhibition, or (10) any other similar means.

were nj,tr_answers

I

I

PI1

i

L I

1697.

660

A told B in a room where they were the only persons Inside that the latter stole the jewelry of C. What crime was committed by A? Unjust vexation. It is not slander, because there was no publicity.

1698. A told C, in the absence of X, a woman, that one time

she climbed on his back and rested in his arms. Considering that X was not present, was A liable for slander? w h y ? Yes, because A imputed to X lack of morality, and the fact that X was absent is jmmaterjal. It is sufficient that there was publicity which was mafie when the i m p u b tion was told t o C .

Note: A defamation through amplifier is not libel, but .Wd defam&ion, because it is not similar to radio which i s Of p e p manent nature as a means of puhlieation.

/

1696. A, a woman murried to D, used to write love letters to B. These letters were stolen by C' from B. Then, C showed the letters to A, demanding P1,OOO from her and t!ireatening to show them t o her husband D, unless she paid the amount. A gave 1*1,000 to C in exchange for the letters. What crinie was comniitted by C? EXplain your ansyer. C committed the crime of threateningLpublish a libel and offering t o prevent its publicaticn for a compensation.

1694. A broadcasted defamatory matter by means of the.radio without reading from a script. What crime is committed? Most courts in the United States held that it is slander. It would be libel if the broadcast. was made by reading from written material. But since the Revised Penal Code mentions radio as one of the means of committing-the crime, there seems to be no question that it is ,libelcl

1695. What is blackmail? What is extortion? Are their punishable by the Revised Penal Code? I n common parlance, blackmail and extortion synonymous, although the latter term may have the signification. Blackmail, in its metaphorical sense, i s unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to the fears of the victim, especially extortion of momv by ihreats of accusation or exposure. Extortion is committed by obtaining property from another without his consent, induced by wc,ngful u s $ . o f f e a r (U.S. vs. Eguia, et al.). They are punished by the Revised Penal Code as lght thce.at.;, a crime against security, and as threatening. to publish a libel and offering t o prevent its publication f o r '. compensation, a crime against honor.


1699. What are the kinds of oral defamation? They are: (1) grave oral defamation, which is of a serious and insulting nature; and ( 2 ) simple slander.

1

1700. What is the difference between the two kinds of oral defamation? Words of a similar tenor uttered under analogous circumstwces may constitute either (1) grave oral defamation or (2) simple slander, depending on the intention OP the offender and the circumstances under which they are uttered. Thus, the imputation of unchastity to a woman which ordinarily is a grave oral defamation may be considered

661

I 1

I


CRIMINAL LhW REVIEWER

simple slander when the intention of the offender is to correct an improper conduct of tine woman. So, also, an " "" imputation involving the honesty and integrity of a per~f.:? ??) son is ordinarily grave oral defamation, hut when uttered during election time i t is considered as simple slander, . because it was uttered during the period of excitement ' when feelings were running high. An imp2tation which i: . is highly defamatory, if made in the heat o l anger, may ,. . .. be considwed as simple slander.

Slander by deed is a felony against honor, committed by any person who shall perform any act not inclxded and punished as libel or oral defamation, but which &a! cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt on another person (Art. 359, R.P.C.). Slazder by deed is of two kinds, namely:~(1) slander by deed where the act is not of a serious nature, which is called simple slander by deed; and (2) serious slande? by deed, where the act performed by the offender is of a serious nature.

''.

I

1701. If the defamatory imputation is directed against t,wo or

,.

.

I

more persons, is there only one crime of libel or slander or as many crimes a s there are persons defamed? In the case of People vs. Del Rosario, et al., i t was held that for each person libelled, there must be one information, even if the several persons libelled are mentioned in one article. The decision in this case is predicated on the theory that in libel or defamation the policy of the law is to redress the injury to the individual rather than the injury t o the peace and good order of society. However, in the case of People vs. Aquino, the Supreme Court abandoned the theory of redress to the injury to the individual and indicated the rule a t common law, according to which "a libel on two or more pcrsons contained in one writing and published by a single act constitutes but one offense, so as to warrant a single indictment therefor," This rule is based on the reason that the law makes the publication of libel puiiishable as a crime, not because of injnry to the reputation but because the publication of such articles tends to affect injurious the peace and good order of society. This is the reason why in the case of People vs. Aqulno, it was held that if the utterance was made but once against a family of lawyers designated by their one surname, not separately mentioned, there is only one offense.

I

/

&I.:

of slander by deed?

i

1704. If a big and husky fellow in a public place assaulted a person who could not fight him because of his small size and weak physical eonstitutiou, i s the offender liable for slander by deed, assuming that 110 physical injuries were inflicted? It depends upon the purpose of the of€ender. If his purpose in attacking the offended party was to place him in ridicule or to cast discredit or cuntempt upon him, then it is slander by deed. However, if the offender had no such intention, because he was only. provoked to a$-

.

,'1702.What is; slander by deed and what are the two k* i...

1703. What is the criterion for determining whether slander by deed .is of. a seri~ousnature? Whether a certain act constitutes slander by deed of a serious natnre or not, depends on (1) the social standing of the o€fended party, (2) the circumstances under which tine act was performed, and (3) the occasion, etc. Thus, slapping a priest while saying mass in the church is a serious slander by deed, because there certainly could Iiave been no other circumstance under which greater dishonor, discredit and contempt could be cast upon him before the faitnfuls over whom he held so high a dignity. In'such a case, the defendant may also be prosecuted for the crime of o€fending the religions feeling. But slapping a prostitute in the presence of another prostitute is simple slander by deed.

,,,

~

~

f

'

6

663

662 I

.

I

i !I

i(


sault the offended party, it might constitute ill-treatment ,.

,

‘

d

1708. State the venue of aetion, whether criminal or civil, for libel. -. The criminal o r civil action for damages in ‘eiise of libel shall he filed with the court of first instance of the province o r city (1) where the libelous article is printed and first published; or (2) where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. Where one of the offended parties is a public officer and the other a Drivate individual the action may be filed with the court of first instance of the province

only, if n,o physical injuries were inflicted. Note: .A party to an agreement to marry who backs out, after the agreement NBS made known to the public, cannot be held liable f o r the crime of slander by deed, for, otherwise, that would be an indirect way of compelling said party to go into a marriage without his or her free consent, and this mould contravene the principle in law that what could not be done directly can not be done indirectly; and said party has the right to avoid the evil of going through 8 loveless marriage, pursuant t o Article 11, par. 4, a i the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Hernandez, 66 O.G. 8465).

or city where the public officer held office, or where the private individual actually resides, at the time of the commission of tbe offense.

-

1705. When is kissing a girl and touching her breast in public slander 6,y deed and not acts of lnsciuiousness? When the acts were performed without lewd designs by a rejected suitor t o east dishonor on-thegirl (People vs. Valencia, C.A.).

1709. May the offaided party file a civil actEon for libel in one court and a criminal action for libel based on t h e same . publicntion in anotber court? No, becaus? the court where the criminal action or civil action €or damages is first filed shall acquire juribdiction to the exclusion of other courts.

1706. Who are liable for libel? The following are liable for libel: (1) any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, (2) the author or (3) editor of a book or pamphlet o r (4) the editor or publishing manager of a daily newspaper, magazine o r serial publication (Art. 360, pars. 1 and 2, R.P.C.), and (5.) any other person or persons who have something to do wiYh the publication or exhibition of a libelous matter.

1707. A received a letter from B, a woman and A’s sweetheart. C happened to get hold of the Better of B and as it contained a statement of their meeting in a hotel, C showed it to D. Is C liable for libel? Why? Yes, because the person liable for libel is the 0puhlkhe~d,exhibited or caused the publication or exhibition of defamation jn..writing or by similar..means. It will be noted that although somebody else composed the libelous letter, and the one who published it had nothing to do with the making of the same, the mere act of publish-

-

.>

,e..

ing that. letter constitutes the crime of libel.

664

CRl;\IINAL LAW Rl3V’IEWEIt

A wrote and published a statement that B is a b a s h d l If .B shall have decided to hring a criminal action against A, must the prosecution be conmenced by filing’an infarmation or by filing a cmiplairrt? It should be by information filed by the fiscal, because the imputation does not involve the commission of a crime vhich cannot be prosecuted de ofin’o. There is a ease where the Court. of Appeals held that a n imputatiou which does not constitute a crime, like the imputation that the offended party in a bastard, shall be prosecuted upon complaint signed by the oflended .party. With due .respect, I submit that there is no legal basis f o r the ruiing. Nota: In the case of People vs. Santos, et al., 52 O.G. 205, it was held that a libel attribntine a defect or vice, real or !d

/I 1

imaginary,.which does n o t constitute a crime but brings into disrepute, scorn, o r ridicule or tcnds to cause the offended. party dishonor, discredit, or contempt, does not come under

665

I :

I

J CRIMINAL LAFV REVIEWER '_

.. ;the last paragraph of A d .


360 and the information filed by

was not considered. It was a private communication made by one person to another. In view of this decision it wouId seem that if there is good motive and justifiahle end, proof of the truth is not absolntely necessary and, therefore, the same may be dispensed with.

the fiseiil is enough to confer jurisdiction upon tho court. '.

i

1711. %,,Asaid publicly that B wcls in possession of a firearm without License. If B filed a criminal action against "'

A for defamation, may A prove the truth that B was

in possession of firearm without license? Explain your answer. Yes, because proof of the truth of an imputation of . . an act or omission constituting 'a crime may be admitted, ' , a s the State is interested to know the commission of the ,crime to the end that the guilty party may be punished. -

.

,

,

,

.

1712. A s i d in the presence of other persons that B is syphiliIf B has decided to file a criminal action for .&fams . . , tic. tion against A, may the latter prove the truth that B ' mas syphilitic? Why? No, because proof of the truth of an&putation not I. z-0c a crrme shall nXbFadmitted. The State is not intermted to know that B is syphilitic.

1713. Suppose that A told his sister that B, who was courting . her, was suffeking from gomrrhea and B filed a eomplaint egoinst A for defamation, can the latter pirove the truth of his imputation if it was made by A with . . g o d motlva and for justifiable ends? Explain your answer. ,

.

,

.

Under the law, if the defendant proved the truth of the imputation and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be acquitted. However, in the case of People vs. Chaves, the Court of Appeal!; held that an imputation that a person has a contagious disease might, under ordinary circumstances. be defamatory, but loses such character when. made with good inrention and justifiable motive. In this case, the truth of the imputation that the husband was suffering from gonm-rhea with which his wife was contaminated,

GGC;

1714.

In what cases is

proof of the truth admissible in the trial of x case involving defamation? In the following cases: 1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime, regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a puhlic officer.. . . . 2 . When the offended paaty is a government employee even i f the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime, provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties. Note: Thus, if A published an article that the treasurer of a city frequented the Jai-Alai and horse races, in violation of a regulation prohibiting amountable pnblic officers from gohg t o those places, if the treasurer filed a complaint against A f o r liSel, A can prove the truth of the imputation, because both public interest and the good of the service demand that such a puhlic officer should be barred from the service.

\

1715. In or& to discomage A, who was engaged to marry B, the accused wrote a letter to A in which, referring to B, he said: "We have always considered each other a s wife and husband for five yeais now. Can she still have the pride t o marry another man? She is my wife when she is near me but 'yours when she is near you." When accused of libel for writing the above letter, the . accused testified that he wanted t o break-off the engagement of A t o B s o that he could marry lier for himseIf, and contended that he should be freed from criminal liabiiity having been actuated by good intentions and justifiable motives. Is this contention tenable? No, because &&m&e&in$ntations impired by.&& seeking. motives ar,e..ineompatible with gs.&intmEons.

667



1719. A and B were two Chinese who were competitors in business. A hired C to put a can of opium in the bedroom of B’s house. After this was done, A reported to the police that B was keeping opium in his house. When the place w‘as searched, the can of opium was found in the house of B. What is the crime committed by A? Explain your answer. A is liable f o r incriminating an innocent person, because by causing the putting of the can of opium in the honse of B and reporting to the police that B was in possession of opium, he thereby directly incriminated or imputed to B, a n innocent person, the commission of the crime of illegal possession of opium.

then has been the policy cf Governor X? A policy of intrigue, of cowardice, when confronted by another man more powerful than himself, and a policy of suppression toward his fellow creatures. He made many promises before the election, but he carried out his promises in the same manner as Judas.” Is A liable for grave oral defamation7 Yes. The first charge, while apparently involving the

1720. Distinguish incriminating 5nnocent person from perjury. 1. Incriminating a n innocent person is committed by performing a n act by which the offender directly incriminates or imputes to a n innocent person the commission o f ’ a crime; while in perjury the gravamen of the offense is the imputation itself, falsely made, before a n officer. 2. Incriminating an innocent person is limited to t h e act of planting.evidence -. and the like, in-grderto incriminate au innocent person; while perjury is the g i v L n L o f _ f a k statement under oath against a person accused -of a.cc@e or the making of false affidavit in cases in which the law requires the execution of an affidavit.

J

1721. A , v the commission of murder by B. After the commission of the crime, B left the place and proeeeded to a ditch where he threw the murder weapon. A, who saw J3 when he threw the murder weapon into the ditch, hid himself behind a tree until B went away, and immediately thereafter took the weapon from the ditch and after sometime buried the said weapon under the house of B. A reported to the police the fact that the murder weapnn could be found under the house of B.’. Is A liable for incriminating B by burying the murder

669

I

CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMIiAL LAW IlEVIEWER

whispered to B that C was the concubine of D. What crime was committed by 4, intriguing against honor or slander? Explain your answer. The crime of slander was committed by A. It is not intriguing against honor, because A did not use means which consists in some tricky and secret plot. He availed directly of spoken words to ridicule C. Intriguing against honor is almost akin to slander by deed, in that the offender, does not avail directly of written or spoken words, pietureg or caricatures to ridicule his victim.

weapon under the house of B and reporting it to the police? Why? No, because B was not an innocent person. What 363 considers as a felony is the doing of a n ~ ~ a s which directly imiminates or imputes to an ,&noceniL pgson the cozimission of a xrime.

/

act of falsely and maliciously charging a person in the justice of the peace conrt with a crime of theft /constitu,te the crinie of incriminating innocent persun? Why? No, because the crime of incriminating innocent person is li.mited to planting evidence and the like. 3.J

1723. What crime was committed hy a person who f d s e b . accused another of the commission of a crime? - If the false accusation was made under &h before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath, the crime was W r ; , If it was not under oath . .and the purpose was to e&dishonor, discredit -on, or contempt of, the offended party, it is e i h d i b e l 01 sla-nder, depending upon whether it is in writing o r orally made. I

Note: It is necessary in lihel or slander that the offender has the intention to injure the reputation of the offended party. Thus, it was held that if the matter, charged as libelous, is only an incident in an act which has another objective, Sueh 8s t o prosecute the 0ffende.d party, the crime is not lihel.

1

i,

1724. What is the difference between intriguing against honor

.

are qwdsi offenses? Quasi offenses are those felonies committed t h o u g h :;I imprudence and negligence.

and orcdinary defamation? 1. I n both, the aim of the o€fender is to blemish the honor or reputation of the offended party. 2 . They differ as to the means employec'.. The means employcd in intriguing against honor must consist in some tricky and secret plot against the offended party. The means employed in defamation is the use of written . o r spoken words, openly and publicly. 670

1727. What are the quasi offenses penalized by the Revised Penal Code? They are: 1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had i t been intentional, would constitute a grave or 1css grave felony or light felony. 2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or less serious felony. 3 . By causing damage t o the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence. ' 4 . By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have eonstitnted a light felony. ' ' .-I ~

1728. What is the difference between imprudence and negligence? Imprtidence indicates a deficiency of action. Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception. Hence, failure .~ in precaution is termed imprudence. Failure in advertence is known as negligence. . .

671

I ;

I

I

i CRIMLNAL LAW REVIEWER


Where the death of the victim was entirely due to his own fault in siddenly darting across the road as the truck, which was “going slowly,” came abreast of him, something which the accused, as driver of the truck, did not reasonably foresee or could not have reasonably foressen, the accused i s neithw guilty of homicide through simple negligence nor of civil negli- ’ ence or quasi-delict (Feople v.q. Calbefigan, C.A., 69 O.G. 37923793, citing U.S. vs. Knight, 26 Phil., 224; and US. vs. Tayongtong, 2 1 Phil., 4161..

A person who failed to pay proper attention to foresee the consequence is negligent. He may have foreseen the consequence, but if he did not take the necessary precaution to avoid it once it is foreseen, he is imprudent.

/’

1729. ,-,. What is reckless imprudence?

.

,

,~

Reckless imprudence consists in vdg&ily, b u t or failing to do an act, from which material damage results, by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing t,o perform such act, taking into ccnsideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, t i e and place. out_malice, doing

.///

1y2. If a driver of an automobile, which was following another vehicle, overtook it and took the left side of the road although he saw a rig coming from the apposite direction and thereby colliding with and destroying the rig, is the drivex guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence or through simple imprudence? Why? The driver is guilty of damage to property through . . recklefis imprudence, becanse the damage impending to be cause$mas immediate and the danger was clearly manifest.

,1730. What is simple imprudence? Simple imprudence consjsts in the 15ck of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manif est,.

/i

1731. What is the difference between reckless imprudence and simple imprudence? In both, there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender. While in reckless imprudence the damage impending to be caused is immediate and the danger is clearly manifest, in simple imprudence the damage impending to be caused is not immediate and the danger is not clearly manifest.

1

..

Note: Negligence or quasi-delict in the civil law, which is the omission to exercise the diligence of a good father of a f a d 7 which ia required by the naturc of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place, is 2es8 than criminal negligenee. Criminal negligence, besides being a violation of a civil right, also affects the public order and the public safety. The so-called simple negligence in the Bevised Penal Code, being criminal negligence, is more than civil negligence, a quasi-delict. Where there is no simple negligenee in the criminal law, there may be a quasi-delict i n the civil law. But where there is no quasi-delict in the civil law, there can be no simple negligence in the criminal law.

672

1733.

.//

hat is the fiature of the penalty provided for damage to property through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence cr negligence? When the reckless imprudence o r simple imprudence or negligence resulted in damage t o property of another, the penalty is only a fine, not imprisonment, ranging from an amount equal t o the value of said damage to three times such value, but shall not be less than twenty-five pesos. When death and physjcal injiiries are caused, the penalty is imprisonment. Note: Penalts is fine, when arson through reckless imprudence , resulted only in damage t o property. The first garagraph of Art. 365, pursuant to which “any person who, by reckless imprudence shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would have constituted a less grave felony,” Bhali suffer the penalty of “awesto mayor i n its minimum and medium periods,” merely eslnblishes a general rule. The same is subject to the exception found in the third paragraph Of the same article, namely, when the execution of Said act “shall have only resulted in damage t o the property of. another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from

673

I.

1

., t

/' .

,*-,~*

..,. . .

'

'

an amount equal to the value of said damage to three tinies such value, but which shall in n o case be less than 26 pesos" (Pmple VE. Bueno, C.A.).

the Cou.rt of Appeals did not consider the third paragraph -.... .... . . of Art. 3FG. 3734. .May the court take into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in determining the proper .. penalty to be imposed for crimes committed through . , ,. . .. imprudenc,e and negligence? ",. ~ ,.. , Z . . ( , . '~ Art. 365 provides that in the imposition of the penalties, . .. ., the. court shall exercise its sound discretion, without reto the rules prescribed in Art. 64. This means that .:i.i. . . gard the court is not bound to consider mitigating and aggravab ing circumstances. ~

.

Is the doctrine of "last clear chance" applicable to erim--ha1 negligence? I

'

In accordance with the doctrine of "last clear

~.. chance," the c.wt&blltoryaegligence of the pa&iniuKed

will not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused might, by the execeiss- of. due . c z e and pre.ca&ion, have B?,:-.'.. -avy&kL&ie c o ~ s ~ e n c e s o the f negligence of the injured ..,.,~ . party. ,. . ,-._. . (. Thus, if it appears that the accused kad_timc+and-op z.:. e n i t y , t o avoid the injury or damage caused h&he :been suff W t k c a r e f u l and_c a u t i ~ u s ,the negligence of y.':;.,. t h e injured party will not relieve him of criminal responsibility. -?,

I

~

"+ "

G -What is the meaning of the w g % & $ i t h

'reference to crime through negligence? ,: . ' , The rule states: "An automobile driver who, by the n/.-,.. ,.. negligence of another and not by his o y negligence, is :*.. .." suddenly placed in a n emergency and compelled to act in.{,: , ,stantly to avoid a collision op injury, is not guilty of negli-07gence if he makes such a choice, which a person of ordinary &. 3o .i:.:~ prudence placed in such a position might make, even though $i&:-xnhe. .. did not make the wisest choice." .- . .. vp+3

'.

~

.. .

.,

674

. ,

But if there is proof of negligence on the part o f the automobile driver, he cannot invoke the emergency rule:. Thus, the act of a motorist in attempting to pass a car in front of him a t a moment when another vehicle is &IF proaching, constitutes gross negligence and renders him .' liable for any damage resulting, from said act.

In the ease of People va. Valmonte (CA-G.R. No. 6266-R),

_I.^-

_~...,.

?.:,.:

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWEk

CkIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

,..

I

1737. A entered the house o f B for the purpose of s t e p same personal property inside. When he 'was about to enter the room of the house of B, A saw B inside the room cleaning his pistol. A hid himself on the other side of' the wall of the room, waiting for 33 to leave the room. While cleaning the gun, B happened 60 touch the trigger thereof causing i t to explode and a SIR was fired to the direction of the wall where A was.ing. The slug passed through the wall and During the investigation made by the police, it that B had no license to possess the firearm. ,liable foi homicide through reckless imprudence? Why'f No, because a person is not criminally liable..for:the death or injuries caused by his reckless and negligent acts , to trespassers whose presence in the'premises he i s not aware of. In the case of People vs. Meir, when a boy, eleven years of age, who in childish frolic clang to,$hak side of a vehicle for a joyride, without, the knowledge or consent of the defendant, and who was crashed 'againd:i the concrete post of the hospital gate when the yehic passed through it, the Court of Appeals held that n can be punished for not taking precaution to prev 'juries to persons who .act at his back. :i

What is the classification of election offenses? ' Violation of any of the provisions of the Revised E l tion Code i3 either (1) serious election .offense, or (2).re

. 1,,, .

1

, ,.

...

...

,:

'

I

,

,, ,

-

..

,

4

. ,

.



The principals, accomplices, and accessories shall be criminally responsible for election offenses and for attempt t o commit the same.

.1

The rules relat,ive to the repeal of penal laws are:

fendes in whole or in part: of the penalty a h

1740.. What are the penalties for election offenses? The penalty for serious election offenses is imprisonment of not less than one year and one day but not more . ','.::&han five years. The penalty for less serious election * , ' . .offenses is imprisonment of not less than six months but not more than one year. In both cases, the guilty party ,shall be further sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold ,a public office and deprivdion of the right of suffrage : . .~ for not less than one year but r o t more than nine years. . If he were a foreigner, he shall, in addition, be sentenced to deportat,ion for not less than five years but not more c a n ten years which shall be enforced after the prison term has been served. If an entity is found guilty of election offenses, it shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than F5,000, but not more than FlO0,JOO.

(US. vs. Soiiman, 36 Phil. 5). 2 . The general rule is that the repeal of a penal-law does not obliterate criminal liability, but when.the reB@ is absolute, and not a reenactment or n o t a repeal by S-. pliq.ntion, ?LOT is there aby saving clause, the offense-ceases to be criminal (People vs. Tamayo,, 61 Phil. 2551: ' , , 3. Where the repealing law who the acts which constituted the offense defi k n e e persons charged with violations of the old law to the repeal (People vs. Sindiong & P a Phil. 1000).

ll,4l.:Who can make preliminary investigation of violation of the provisions of the Revised Election Code? :" The Court of First Instance has the exclusive original ' jurisdiction t o make preliminary investigation of violaI'

tion of the provisions of the Revised Election Code.

...

. . ..%, . ,

.

,: , J:+

Note: The other offense is violation of the Anti-Subversion A d . The Court of First Instance has the exclusive original jurisdiction to make p?eliminary investigation when the penalty for the violation of the Anti-Subversion Act is from prisiOn mayor to death.

the prescriptive period of election offenses? on offenses shall prescribe after two years from of their commission, b u t if the discovery of such offenses be made in election contest proceedings, the period of prescription shall commence on the date on which the 'judgment in gueh proceedings becomes final.

' ' '

1744. What are the different effects of repeal of Wnai law?.& The ifferent.effects of the repeal of penal l a w ~ a r e : :, A t h e repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new " law, the p.ew law shall be applied, except when the f. ' fender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicab!e to pending action or existing causes of a c t i o d .,< /If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law' in fosce at the time of the commission of the offense shall

~

be appli (r' . a;? &;he new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no' longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.

1745. State t,he rule of construction of criminal statutes. , Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed against the government and liberally i n favor o f the accused.

-1143; S&te the different rules in connection with the repeal

.,

of penal laws. !

677

676 i

,'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Definitions


No person should be brought within the terms of c r h -

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS IN CRIMINAL LAW,,:

. inal statutes who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made ., ;, , 80 by the statute (US.vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243); .~~.~ . ,. 1746.:’ The Revised Penal Code has a Spanish text and English , : , :‘text. In ease of a conflict between the Spanish text and .’. ?* *the English text of a particular provision of the Revised -& .,-,. . Penal Code, which shall prevail? Why? .’.* .

j

,

.

-

--

.

~

v 7

.>

The Spanish text i s controlling, because the Revised Penal Code was approved by the Philippine Legislature b. +in its Saanish text. , . ..,:.’ : The clause, “sufVieddo privaeion de libertad,” was - ’ > -,:erroneousl:i translated as, “during the term oi his im’.prisonment,” in Art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering that the Spanish text is controlling, the Su.preme Court held that there is evasion of the service of the sentence, even if the pen.alty is destierro, because there is deprivation of liberfy in that penalty, though ,partial, as the convict is not free to enter the prohibited area.

,;,

, , L?.i , -,

_ .

2. Criminal Law, defined.

.; .

:

. ,._ ...?’ ;r;

.

~,,

;,!

i?;

Criminal 12w is that branch or division of lam which defines crimes, treats of their n z h r e , and provides for, . their punishment (12 Cyc. 129).

+

~~

I

.

.’.&

I

. .,<;;* .

’

,,<

. ,.

~

’

Crime is defined as an act tomnmitted or omitted ‘h violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third Revision4 VOI..;~

~

-T

:>y

_T

~

1

! I

,:.: .’ .-.,/

.

I

w.

‘,

crimen, nulla poena sine This is a maxim, which means that there is no where there is no law punishing the act.

4. “Actus non facit reum nisi k e n s s a a ” .

,

i

.._. b

This is a maxim, which means that the a c t does., the person a criminal unless his mind b e ’ c What is

.

‘wo” or

/ IS"?-'

. ,,

.. H

It is 3 misapprehension of fact on the part of-t$&$c,$&?$ owing lack of intent or malice i n the doing ofthe:zact-.:~, ,,, . - I

$

Subjective phase, defined. . . It is that portion of the execution of the crime, s t a e the point where the offender begins to .ihat-,:;h where he has still control over his a c t s , “ i n c l h ~ g 9 :&,e eir (acts’) natural course. i,

I

, i

I /

Objective phase, defined. It is that portion of the acts of the offender;, he has no‘more control over the same. AI1 the a execution have been performed by him.

678 ,,

..%

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER Definitions

CRWINAL LAW REVIEWER DoPinitions

pecial law, defined. A ":q~eciallaw" is defined in U.S. vs. Serapio, 23 Phil. ch punishes acts not defined and penalized by the Penal Code. Special law is a statute enacted by the Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment I to the Revised Penal Code. . . Imputability, defined. uality by which a n act may be its author or owner. It implies has been freely and consciously and may, therefore, be put down to the door as his

1

'I

I

. .

]i: . I : /

/

,I';

~,

Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State f o r 7 h x n s g r e s s i o n of a law. I

,i

-

I 0

19. Define each: (1) aberratio ictus, ( 2 ) error in (3) praeter intentionem. ALXEC-LS is a mistake in the blow, that is, the offender intending to inflict a n injury on a p actually in'flicts it on another. Error ,in personae is mistake in the identity o victim. Praetor htentimem means that the injurious rem greater than that intended.

/'

-//

.,*'

,"*$

:;q

0. Proximate cause, defined. Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient inte$?e$

15. Subsidiary penalty, defined. 680

-

ined. 18. *&ke+f ' ' A continuing (continuous or continuedY:- crime Single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all a from one criminal resolution.

responsibility, for a man cannot e consequences of a crime unless he is guilty of it (Albert).

cessory penalties, defined. Principal penalties those expressly 'imposed by the court in the judgment of conviction. Accessory penalties -those that are deemed included in imposition of the principal penalties.

?€%urality of crimes consists in the successive by..,the same individual of different criminal y of which no conviction has yet been declar

, defined. When a single act constitutes two or more gr less grave felonies, or when'an offense is a necessary fpr committing the other, the penalty for the most /crime shall be imposed, the same t o be applied: maximum period.

_

,& ..

16. Plurality .-fo '

Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the con.sequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime (Albert.).

,

'/-L

.

r:

It is a subsidiary personal liability t o Le suffered, by^ the convict who has no property with which to meet. . pecuniary liabilities for the reparation of the ' dam aused, indemnification of consequential damages and, f a t the rate of one day for each 2 pesos and 60 centa subject to the rules provided by law. , .

681

CRIhIINAL LAW REVIEWER Definition8


g cause, produces the injury, and without which the re-

.

I

:

.

, /

,’

//

’, ..’

.minate

penalty, without granting a pardon, prescribin the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspende If the convict fails to ohserve the conditions ,of parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole is authorize tg direct his arrest and return t o custody and thereafter to carry out his sentence without deduction of the time a t has elapsed between the date of the parole and the;

Amnesty, defined. It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense, a d is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of single individual, and is usually exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons, who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.

’

”

a convict after serving the minimum term of the inde

Com~pl~expenalty, defined. I t is a penalty prescribkd by law cornpixid of three distinct penalties, each forming a period; the lightest pf them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

’.

. ..

Parole consists i n the suspension of the sentenc

u l t would not have occurred.”

ined.

.,

-Pardo.n; defined. It is an act of grace proceeding from the power en.. trusted with the execution of the laws which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he committed.

/

. J5.

.(

~

Industry, defined. &$ is a department or Lranch of art, OCCU$: tion or business; especially, one which employs so much labor and capital and is a distinct branch of trade.

Prescription of the crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time. Prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture of th’e right of the Government t o execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time. Commutation of sentence, defined. It is a change of the decision of the court made by the Chief Executive by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon the convict, or by decreasing the length of the imprisonment or the amount of fine.

I

A prejudicial question is. one that may arise in a ci$: or administrative case wherein it must first be settled before a criminal case in which it is involved can be tried. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime lout so intimately connected with it that it deter‘9 ines the guilty or innocence of the accused.

2 4 Define prescription of crime and prescription of penalty.

i.

.~ ,.: ,. , , ’~,.

I .f, .

29. AUigiance, defined. By the t e r n “allegiance” is meant the obligation .of fidelity and obedience which the individuals owe to th: governmcnt under which they live or to their s o v e r e i ~ in return for the protection they receive, (62 Am. .@
683

682

.7‘


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWFA Definitions

Definitions

I

.

;. ‘,..5 .’$

d the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally j u s t proper (U.S. vs. Addison, 28 Phil. 580). t4’.’,

policy or interest (Cramer vs. U.S., 65 S. Ct. 918, April 23, 1945).

.T

(I.

37. “ T u m u l t u o u s ” , ~ i ~ d . The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided / with . means of violence.

31. Aid and comfort, defined. , .. The phrase “aid or comfort’’ means an act which 1

’ . strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the con,, duct of w,ar against the traitor’s country and an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor’s ....’;. country to resist or to attack the enemy (Cramer vs. U.S.,supra). .

,~

~

--

3

Ij,

“Outcry”. defined. The word “outcry” means to shout subversive or pro-’ vocative words tending to stir up the people to obtain .. .’ . by means of force or violence any of the objects of rebellioa o r sedition.

’

?

32. Neutrality, defined. A nation or power which takes no part i n a contest of arms 5:oing on between others is referred to as neutral .. (Burril, L.D.).

k,’1-A

“RiQe$. defined. riot is a violent confusion in a crowd.

3

i

It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done with- unirn,o furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility (People vs. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 19). ,

7.

, .

‘I

means to take off part of the metal, either:’ it with another meti1 of inferior,

iI

It is such reasons, suppo,rted by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief tnbt his action, I

684

4%

41. Counterfeiting, defined. Counterfeiting, in relation to coins, means the imitation:; .’,< of a legal or genuine one. It is done by diminishing the ’, /amount of silver os copper. It may contain more silver than the ordinary coin.

:44: Piracy, defined.

Just cause, defined.

:Charivari”, defined. ?.’ The term “charivari” includes a medley of discordant+--. ’voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on kettles,. ,;; tin, horns, etc., designed t o annoy and insult.

$I.

33. “High seas”, defined. ,, , It means any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of low-water mark, although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government (48 $:J. 1207; footnote 13-a). ,

‘35. Mutiny on the high seas, defined. It is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its-(Bouvier’s L w Dic., Vol. 2, p. 2283).

,

1

A document is any w i t t e n statement by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished (People Moreno, 38 O.G. 119). A document is a writing or instrument by which .... ~ , . . . fact may be proven and affirmed; 68.6

.ii i

. .

CRtRlINAL LAW RSVIEWl3R


$. False testimony, defined. F a k e testimony is committed by a person who, being hder oath and required to testify as to the truth of a matter at a hearing before a competent authority, the truth or say something contrary to it. 45. Material matter, defined. -.1 It is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry, ..‘, , or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or. ‘5% . “>* any fact or circumstance which tends t o corroborate or :,T,. ,, r,/-; , ..%* ...,.‘ , strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry, .~. or which legitimately affects the credit of any witneas who testifies (U.S. vs. Estrafia, 16 Phil. E20). . I

46. Trade-mark or trade-name, defined.

It is a word or words, name, title, ~ymbol, emblem, sign, or device, or any combination therdof, used as a n advertisement, sign, label, poster or otherwise, for the purpose of enabling the public to distinguish t h e business of the person who owns and uses said trade-name or trademark (@. *. 188, 2nd par.; Subdivision 4 ) .

A,.

Service-mark, defined. A service mark is a mark used in the sale o r advertising of services to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others, and includes without limitation the marks, names, symbols, titles, designations, slogans, character names, and distinctive features of radio or other advertising (Art. 188, 3rd par., subaivision 4).

48.Yhfair competition, defined ‘ It consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manuf&ctured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one havjng estab,. lished goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to pro. duce such result .(see 2nd par., sec. 29, Rep. Act No.166). ~

Definitions

J 49. “Prohibited drug”, defined. /

“Prohibited drug” includes opium, cocaine, alfa beta eucaine, their derivatjves, m d all preparations /from them or any of them.

defingl. “Opium” embraces every kind, class and character of opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes o r refuses uf the same ; narcotic preparations there24 or therefrom; morphine or alkaloid of opium; preparations in which opium, morphine, or alkaloid of opium, enter as an ingredient, and, also opium leaves 01’ wrappings of opium leaves, ,,’ prepared or not, for their use.

,

41. “Indian hemp” . .

or “marihuana?’, defined. “Indian-hem$’, oth’erwise known as .marihuana, canna lis Americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, and ganjah, embraces every kind, class and character of Indian Bemp,, whether dried or fresh flowering o r fruiting tops of the pistillate plant cannalis sativa1 from which the resin has not been extracted, including all .other geograuhic Varieqgs whether used as reefers, resin, extract, tincture or i n a@\’ h other form whatsoever.

52. “Narcotic drug”, defined. By narcotic drug is meant a drug that produces a condition of insensibility and melanchoIy dullness of mind with delusions and may be habit forming.

53. Gambling, defined. It is a game or scheme, the result of which depends:;$+ wholly or chiefly npon chance or hazard.

.i:

I I ’

54. Lottery, defined. It i s a scheme for the distribution of, prizes by c k e e .’ among persons who have paid, or a s e e d to pay, a valu-gi: able consideration for the chance to obtain a prize *ad, (US’.: vs. Filart, et al., 50 Phil. 80).@hs*.. L&gj>; . , I

,

086 k.

,

a

.

?

\,

“687 . . ..

.

:.

.

, .I

. ,..,.

,

I~~

~.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW.ER Definitions

CRININAL LAW REVIEWER Definitions

The word “obscene” means something offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy (U.S. vs. Kottinger, 46 Phil.

i

63. Mutilation as a form of physical injuries, defined. The term “mutilation” means the lopping or the c l i p ping off of some part of the body. See Art. 262 for th6 two kinds of mutilation. , 4. Deformity, defined. By deformitg is meant physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous and visible.

/

A pimp is one who provides gratification for the lust of others (US. vs. Cruz, 38 Phil. 677).

m’isfeasance’?is & w+ch

the improper p e r f o m s e of&e mirrht lawfully he done. the cerformance of some act w & h

1

defined. Slavery is the state of the entire ssbjection of one’s person t o the will of another (Bailey YS. AlabanaJ 219‘@ U.S. 219).

/

J

.A

66. Dwelling, defined. exDwelling place means any building og*structure elusively devoted for rest and comfort, as:’ distinguished from places offices, etc. .” .

.-*

L

omission of some act which ought

odern sense of the term, means the actual commission of the crime charged (People VS. Madrid, G. R. No. L-3023, January 3, 1951, cited in People vs. Yee, C.A., 52 O.G. 4297).

.,I

, .

61. Aborl.ion, defined. Carrara has defined abortion as the willful killing of the foetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the foetus from the maternal womb which results in tlie death of the foetus. . ~,

./

j, .>

.,

.:

62. Duel, defined. If.is a formal or regular combat previously concerted .. between two&rties in the presence of two or more seconds . of lawful age o side, who make the selection of arms fix all tlie conditions of the fight.

688

.

.‘i

Premises, defined. “Premises” signifies distinct and definite locality. It may mean a room, shop, building or definite area, but in either case, locality is fixed (Words and Phrases, Val. 33);

”

vexation, d e f i n e d l c Unjust vexation includes any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material would, however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent p Large cattle, defined./ The term “large cattle” includes carabaos, cows, horn&,--, mules, asses, and all the other members of the bovine.. family. , . defided. It is a clause in the indictment or other taining an averment is explanatory of t is the office of ing word o r statem to define the defamatory meaning which the p on the words, to show how they cam to have th ing, and also to show how they peato to the p (Bouvier’s Val. 1, 3048).

4

E89

I


CIUMIKAL LAW KEVIEIVER

Distinctions

DISTINCTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW

1

istinction between general intent and specific intent. In felonies cornmitied by dolus, the third element o€ voluntariness is general intent: whereas, in some particof of particular or specific intent is recertain crimes against property, there t to gain (Art. 293 -robbery; Art. 308 kill is essential in frustrated o r a t (Art. 249). In forcible abduction (Art. intent of lewd designs must be proved.

,

-

ntent to commit the crime and intent to penpetrate the act, distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very'nature of things, the crime itself (U.S. vs. Go Chiso, 14 Phil. 128). In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act), it is enough that the prohibited act is done ,freely

''

'

'

. Mala ,

I

in se and nmla prohibita, distinguished. ' There is a distinction between crimes which are mala ul from their nature, such as theft; rape, -homicide, etc., and those that are mala prohibita, or' wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such .as illegal possession of firearm. Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for the almost unannnous condemnation of its members; while crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience designed t o secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society (Bowlers Law Dictionary, Xawles 3rd Revised). (1) In ac$,~.inala in se, the intent governs; but in those mala pdiiibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been

~

i

I /by

i 1 I

!

j,

'

,!

i

i !

r

.

special laws. Intent, distinguished from motive. " Motive is the moving power w!iich impels one to for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use B ular means to effect such result.

-3

.

.~

/Attempted or frustrated felony, distinguished front: possible rime. ( In both, the evil intent of the offender is not c.omplished. (,&)
8'

8. Frustrated felony, distinguislie,d from attempted felon$ ," (1) I n both, the offender has not accomplished hie crimina? purpose. ( 2 ) While in frnstrated felony, the offender has peri formed all the acts of execution which should produceit&$ felony as a consequence, in attempted felony the offen@ merely cuniniences the commission of a felony directly .b$ overt acts and does not perform all the acts of .:execuY , I

F

.., ).; ,~,.

.,,

Criminal irtent is not necessary where the aet.isr hibited for reasons of public policy, as in illegal possess of firearm (People vs. Conosa, C.A., 45 O.G. 3953). (2) The term mala in se refers generally to fel defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code. &e term mala piohibita refers generally to acts made criminal

'.

;.

,

Distinctions

691 9

,



Distinctions

Distinctions

,

While the imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal, . liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be ahox$? . ...; ,., ,( that he acted during a lucid interval. ' .-

.7. Distinguhh frustrated felony from consummated felony. .I+,' In both stages of execution, the offender performs all ,.,~ . . the acts of execution. <:.., :i: But while in consummated felony the fdony is pro-'

, , ^

.

,.,.

... . . ,,, "

. i

11. Entrapment and instigation, distinguished. There is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation, for while in the latter case the instigator prac- , ; tically induces the would-be accused into the commission 5 of the offense and himself becomes a'colprincipal, in e& trapment ways and means are resorted t o for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law-breakers in the exeeution of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar t o the prosecution and conviction of' the lawbreaker. But- when there is instigation, the accused must be acquitted (People vs. Galicia, 40 O.G. 4476).

duced, in frustrated felony the felony is cot produced. In ,,consurnmated felony, all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; in frustrated felony, not all the elements of the felony are present.

8. Distinguish conspiracy as a felony irom conspiracy as a

manner of incurring criminal liability. In both, two or more persons come t o an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Hence, the definition of conspiracy in Article 8 applies to both. When the conspiracy relates to crimes other than treason, rebellion or sedition, it is not a felony but only a manner of incurring criminal liability. When the felony is committed after the conspiracy, the act of one offender is the act of all the other offenders. Even if the conspiracy relates t o the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition, if any of the latter is actually committed, the conspiracy is not a separate offense, but only a manner of incurring criminal liability in treason, rebellion o r sedition. The offenders are liable f o r treason, rebellion or sedition, as the case may be, and the conspiracy is absorbed. When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, it is not punishable. 9. Imputability distinguished from responsibility. ' While imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the consequences of such a deed' (Albert).

10. ImbeciRity distingu%hed from insanity.

> I

'.. ,

'

692

,

.. .

, .

I \

i 1

1

$

i

12. Distinction between justifying and exempting cireum-' . " .~. , stances. (1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying eircnmstance does not transgress the law, that is, he does , not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act or conduct of the . actor. The act of such pei'son is in itself both just and lawfcl. In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime. . nor a criminal. No civil liability, except in par. 4 (causing damnge to another in state of necessity) of Art. 11. (2) On tho other hand, one who acts by virtue of an exempting circumstance is not wholly exempt from civil liability (,Art. 101). In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal. There is civil liability, except in pars. 4 and 7 (causing an injury by mere accident; failing to p e r f o m an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art. 12. I ,

._

, .,~

13. Ordinary mitigating and privileged mitigating' circumj,,? , stances, distinguished. .." %

693

3 i ' .

, -

4

9%

'

Oi%dinarymitigating circumstance is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance. 2. Ordinary mitigating circumstance, if not offset by an aggravating circumstance, has the effect only of applying the penalty provided by law f o r t h e offense in ita minimnni period; whereas, privileged mitigating circumstance bas the effect of imposing upon the offender a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law For the offense (Arts. 68 and 69). ,

.

-

~

, , ,

'

.

'

,

.

., '

.*

'

. , ..

:

,

.

..

,,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Distinctions

CXIMINAL LAW llEVlBWEK

Distinctions i

I

..

. ":

...

,

,

, .

.a

.,,.

.,

:'.

~,

2..

_.,.

.,

:

~

15. Passion or obfuscation, distinguished from irresistible (1) While passion or obfuscation is a mitigating cir' cumstance, irresistible force is an exempting circumstance.

i.

694

16. Passion or obfuscation, distinguished from provocation. (1) Provocation comes from the injured party; passion or obfuscation is produced by an impulse. (2) Provocation must ,immediately precede the commission of the crime; in passion or obfuscation the of. fense which engenders perturbation of mind need not ,%e immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof . . , ... lasts until the moment the crime is committed. (3) In both, 'the effect is the' loss of reason and selfcontrol on the part of the offender.

1

-14. Distinguish provocation from vindication. (1) In the mitigating circumstance of provocation, the provocadion is made directly only t o the person commit ting the felony; in vindication, the grave offense may be committed also against the relatives of the offender mentioned by the law. (2) In the mitigating circumstance of vindicati,on, the offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or to any of his relatives mentioned by the law; in provocation, the cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense. (3) In provocation, it is necessary that the provocation or thre:rt immediptely preceded the act, i.e., that 'there be no interval of time between the provocation or threat and the commission of the crime; while in vindication, the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which admits of an interval of time between the grave offense .done by the offended party and the commission of the crime hy the accused.

( 2 ) Passion or obfuscation cannot give rise to an ,irresistible force, because irresistible force requires physical force. (3) Passion or obfuscation is in the offender himself, while irresistible force must come from a third person. (4) Passion or obfuscation must arise from Iawful senti-. ments : whereas, the irresistible force is unlawful.

I

/

,

'j

I

.

I j

a

8,

9

'

17. Qualifying aggravating circumstance distinguished generic aggravating circumstance. (1) The effect of a generic aggravating circumstan not offset by any mitigating circumstance, is to increase:.'. the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused t o the maximum period, but without exceeding the limit pr? ; scribed by law; TFhile that of a qualifying circumstance+ is not only to give the crime its proper and exclus but also to place the author thereof in such a 21s t o deserve no other penalty than that specific scribed by law f o r said crime (People vs. Bayot, 64 Phil 269). (2) A qualifying aggravating circumstance can not be: offset by a mitigating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by ri mitigating ci stance. ( 3 ) A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be,,qu,&l must be alleged in the information. If it i s not alleged; it becomes a generic aggravating circumstance ody. 5 3

695

.i


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ..+.

Distinctions

,

,

,

buse of confidence and obvious ungratefuluess, distin-

;1

~

In abuse of confidence, the offended party must have confidence in the offender: in obvious unpatethe offended party extended some favors t o the who should be grateful t o him. With the aid of armed men, distinguished from by H

X'

. ,'

. . ,

' . ~

;:

t

Note: Xeiteracibn or habituality should n o t be considered a3 aggravating when the penalty would be death.

chery, abuse of superior strength, and means emto weaken the defense, distinguished. 696

I

~ . , . @

!:

By a band requires that more than tbr% armed malefactors shall have acted together in the com%ission of an offense. Aid of armed men is present cven if one'of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary. The armed men givinp the aid need not be more than three, as two armed mer, would be sufficient.

0. Recidivism and reiteraciou, distinguished. The circumstance of rejteracion may be distinguished from recidivism, as follows: (a) In reteraci6n, it is necessary that the offender shall have served his sentence for the previous pffense; wheress, in recidivism it is enough that a final judgment has been rendered for the first offense. (b) I n reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same title of the Code; whereas, recidivism requires that the first and second offenses be embraced in the same title of the Code. (c) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance; whereas, recidivism is always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.

I

,/'

,. *...

,

. ~ . . >

Anypne of these aggravating circumstances majr &$itate tKe commission of the crime. .',;.,+. ."',.. L :,; d In treachery, means, methods or forms of attack are;;; employed by the offender to make it impossible or hard,$ for the offended party t o put up any sort of resistance (People vs. Ducusin, 53 Phil. 280; People vs. TurnBob,,, , 46 O.G., Sup. 11, 190). . ., ' In abuse of super.ior strength, the offender does not employ means, methods or forms OP attack, for he enjoys e! . .. superior 'strength of wbich he takes advantage. In means employed to weaken the defense, the offender, like in treachery, employs means but the means employed only materially weakens the resisting power of the off e w ? .party. ?~

Distinguish accomplice from principal in general. An accomplice is one who does not take a direct part in the execution of the act, who does not force or induce others to commit it, o r who does not cooperate in the corn-; mission of the crime by another act without which it would not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execuGf the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Pe& le vs. Silvestre, 66 Phil. 353). 3. Distinguish an accompIice froni a principal by direct participation. (1) In both, there is community of criminal design. Ey the overv?helming weight of authority; the same community of purpose and intention is necessary to justify the conviction of an accused person in the character of accomplice that is necessary to sustain conviction in the character of principal (PeopJe vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 83). ' . We must bear in mind that unity of purpose and of ,' action must exist, not only among the principals themselves, but also between the principals and the accomplices, and t h i t what distinguishes the latter. from'.the: former in that accomplices cooperate in the execution of

/"

697

.. .,

' 1 ,

. ,.

,

-

. ~.. . -.

,'

',

,

,

': -

'

,..

.

. .

:~i' -i

,'

i..

,

:

.

:,,

.

;:,"!

i . I

, . I.

i

,

.

:

,

:

,

Distinctions

(1) Pardon by the Chief Executive extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender; such is not the case when the parcion is given by the offended party. ' ( 2 ) Pardon by the Chief Executive cannot include civil liability which the offender must pay; but the offended party can waive the civil liability which the offender must pay. (3) In cases where the law allows pardon by the of, fended party (Art. 344), pardon should be given before the institutiou of criminal prosecution; whereas, the Chief ,Executive cannot grant pardon before conviction.

the offense by previous or simultaneous acts other than those which would characterize them as principals, pursuant t o article 17 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Maiiala,c and Viacruces, C.A., 46 O.G. 111). (2) As to the acts performed, there is no clear-cut distinction between the acts of the accomplice and those of the principal by direct participation. That is why in of doubt, it shall be resolved in favor of lesser iesponsibility, that is, that of mere accomplice. (3) Previous agreement os previous understanding is required of principals, but not between a principal and an accomplice (People vs. Aplegido, et al., '76 Phil. 571).

h-d'/

real

24. Distinpish an accomplice from a principal by cooperation.

'

..

'

'

Pardon by the Chief Executive, distinguished, fmm parby the offended party.

..

698

. .n g

.., . .. crd. In real or material plurality as well as in continuiya,, crime, there is a series of acts performed by the offender.** While in real o r material plurality, each act performed by the offender constitutes a separate crime, because each act is generated by a criminal impulse; in continuing crime, he different acts constitute only one crime, because all df the acts performed arise from one crimina1 resolution.

/ 28.

Ellity of crimes, distingnished from recidivism.

In recidivism, the accused must he convicked by final judgment of the first o r prior offense; in plurality of ' crimes, the accused successively executed different criminal ,. a 5 upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared::,:

'J-

2

25. Accessory, distinguished from principal.

part or conpercrime. in all cases althe crime.

nr material Dlurality

I

The cooperation of an accomplice, although' necessary, is not indispensable as in the case of a eo-principal by cooperation. For example, if one lends his dagger or pistol to a murderer fully knowing that the latter will commit murder, he undoubtedly cooperates in the commission of the crime of murder by a previous act which, however, cannot be considered indispensable for the reason that even though the offender did not lend his dagger o r pistol, the murderer could have obtained it somewhere else or from snme other person. I n such a case, the COeration of the offender is that of an accomplice. The cooperation of a principal is indispensable, that is, without which the commission of the offense would not have been accomplished.

(I) The accessory does not take direct ate in;or induce, the commission of the (2;) The participation of the accessory ays takes place after the commission of

,,>,c,

CRIAiINAL LAW REYIEWEH

Distinctions

.

., j: , '.,I_

"I\)

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWEll

..

,

J

'nqnsncy, distinguished from recidivism.

(I) A s t o the n&rn.es committed-In recidivism, it sufficient that the accused at the time of have been previously convicted by final judgment of other crime embraced in the same title of habitual delinquency the crimes are specified. (2) As to the period of time the crimes --In recidivism, no perind of time between conviction and the last conviction i s ' fixed 'habitual delinquency; the offender is found guil

,

.I.

.1

id)

CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRlMINAL LAW RET'iEWER Distinctions

Distinctions

>. .'

,?of

p.?.,-,..

'

.;..

.

/

.~,, ,,,

"

the crimes specified within ten years from his last release or last conviction. ( 3 ) .As t o the number of crimes committed.-In recidivism, the second conviction of an offense embraced in the same title of the Code is sufficient; in habitual delinquency, the accused must be found guilty the third time or oftener of any of the crimes specified (People vs. Bernal, 63 Phil. 750). ( 4 ) As to their effects.-Recidivism, if not offset by a mitigating circumstance, serves to increase the penalty only to the maximum; whereas, if there is .habitual delinquency, a n additional penalty is also imposed.

,i

. .

, ~ ' , '30. Distinction between a fine with a minimum.and a f i n s without. a minimum. (1) In both, the law fixes the maximum of the fine.

.

,.

'.

~~,

.

I

(2) Whcn the law fixes the minimum of the fine, the court cannot change that minimum; whereas, when the law does not state the minimum of the fine but only the ma.ximum, the court can impose any amount not exceeding such maximurn. ( 3 ) When the law fixes both the minimum and the maximum, the court can impose a n amount higher t h a n the maximum; whereas, when only the m-ximum is fixed, It cannot impose an amount higher than the maximum.

31. Causes of extinction of criminal liability, distinguished front causes of justification or exemption. Extinction of criminll liability arises from causes which occur after the commission of the offense; while the cmses of justification or exemption from criminal Iiability arise from circumstances existing either before the commission of the crime or at the moment of its consumm,ation.

;..

32. Amnesty and pardon, distingnished. ..'?~., ,.

.,

.. .

(1.) Pardon includes any crime and is exercised individually by the President; amnesty is a blanket pardon 700

granted to classes of persons or communities who may be . . ., guilty of political offenses. ( 2 ) Pardon is exercised when the person is already convicted; amnesty may be exercised even before trial or investigation is had. (3) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has bee ,convicted, that is, it abolished or forgives the punishment and for that reason i t does "not work the restoration' the rights to hold public office or the right of suffra unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms the pardon." On the other hand, amnesty looks backvpa and abolishes and puts in oblivion the offense itself; it overlooks and obliterates the offense with which the:; fenaer iri charged that he stands before the law precis as though he had committed no offense (Earrioqui et al. va. Fernandez, et al., 46 O.G. 3031). Thus, (a) Pardon does not alter the fact that the accused. i s a recidivist, because i t produces the extinction only of the personal effects of the penalty (U.S., vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147). (b) Amnesty makes an ex-convict no longer a recidivist, because it obliterates the last vestige of the crime (US.vs. Francisco, 10 Phil. 185). , (4) Both do not extinguish the civil liability of the offender (Art. 113). (5) Pardon, being a private act of the President, must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned; while amnesty being by Proclamation of the Chief ,Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice (Barrioquinto, et' al. vs. Fernandez, et ai., supra).

.

-

v

33. Conditional pardon, distinguished from parole. . (1) Conditional pardon, which may be given at any time after final judgment, is granted by the Chief .Ex701

'I i



..

.

.i. ~.

,

1

......s;. ,. .

'

''

the crime are: (1) mitigating and aggravating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offenders, ( 2 ) those that arise from the private relation of the offender with the offended party, and ( 3 ) those 'which arise from other personal causes.

702

,.

2:

Note: The examples of the latter are: (1) nighttime, ery, (8) cruelty or ignominy.

i i

i

,fi '

.. . .

meditation; ( 2 ) servant and master; ( 3 ) miiority and recidivism.

They are distinguished from the ciriumstances consisting in the material execution of the act or in the meane:; employed to accomplish it, in that the circumstances. re- :. lating to the persons committing the crime are personat;.? that is, they aggravate or mitigate the liability of the'. principals, accomplices, and accessories to whom they are,;' attendant; wherea.s, the circumstances which consist-in the material execution of the act or in the means employed ', to accomplish it, serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons who have knowledge of the time of the commission of the crime or during cooperation, therein.

35. State in general the circumstances relating to the persorls

co hitting the crime and distinguish them from the circonsisting in the material execution of t h e act or in the means em,ployed to accomplish it. The circumstances relating t o the persons committh3

.,.A

Note: Examples: (1) passion or obfuscation and evident, prv.q

ecutive under the provisions of the Administrative Code; parole, which may be given after the prisoqer has served . , . the 'mhimum penalty, is granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole under the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (2) For violation of the conditional pardon, the convict may he ordered rearrested o r reincarcerated by the Chief Executive, or may be prosecuted under Art. 159 of this Code; for violation of the terms of the parole, the convict cannot be prosecuted under Art. 159. He can .be rearrested and incarcerated to serve the unserved portion of his original penalty. Civil liabilities, distinguished from pecuniary liabilities. Art. 104, providing for three forms of civil liabilities, and Art. 38, providing for the order of payment of pecuniary liabilities, may be distinguis_ke$ as follows: ' ( 1 ) Both ' dude ( e $ & o f d c a u s e d , and (bJ4ndemm ----=F. icatlon for consequential damages; (2) While civil liabilities include restitution, pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution, because the latter refer to liabilities to be paid out of the property of the offender. In restitution, there is nothing t o pay in terms of money, as the property unlawfully taken is returned. (3) Pecuniary liabilities include (a) fine, and (b) the costs of the proceedings. Civil liabilities do not include them.

.,...>, ::J

,

1

z

..<

36. Distinguish prescription of crime from prescription of penalty as to (1) when they commence to run, (2) when they are interrupted, and (3) when they commence t o run again. (1) The period of prescription of crime commenca to run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents; whereas, the period of prescription of penalty commences to run from the day the convict evadcd the service of the sentence. (2) The running of the period of prescription of the crime'is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information; whereas, the running of the period. of prescription of penalty is interrupted when the convict is captured, gives himself up, goes to a foreign country with: which we have no extradition treaty, or when he commits: a crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. (3) The period of prescription of crime which has been interrupted may commence to run again when the proceed-~..; ings terminate without the accused having been conyi&di, or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any rkasons not imputable to the accused ; whereas, the running:g$t@~ ,..., ~i"

703



r

period of prescription of penalty which has been inter-

;

upted shall commence to run again when the convict evades the service of sentence again.

~--

~.

,

%.

,

'

I

37. Espionage, distinguished from treason. Treason is committed in time of war, while espionage may bo committed both in time of peace and in time of war. Treason is limited t o two ways of committing itlevying war, and adhering to the enemies giving them aid o r comfort; while espionage may be committed in many ways (Com. Act No. 616). Treason is committed usually by a citizen ; whereas, espionage is generally committed by a foreigner.

. . ',,.

38. Piracy, distinguished from mutiny. In piracy, the persons who attack a vessel or seize its cargo on the high seas are strangers to the said vessel; while in mutiny, they are members of the crew or passengers. While the intent to gain is essential in the crime of piracy: in mutiny, whether the offenders merely intend to ignore the ship's officers o r are prompted by a desire to commit plunder, is immaterial.

/

9. Piracy, distinguished from robbery on the high seas. When the offender is a member of the complement or a passenger of the vessel and there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon thiEgs in taking the property in the vessel, i t is common robbery; if the offender is an outsider, i t will be piracy. .Both in piracy and in common robbery on the high sedsi,,there is intent to gain and the manqer of committing t crime is the same.

40.

1

rbilrary detention by arresting and detaining a PerSOR, istiriguished from arbitrary detention by delaying the delivery of the person arrested l o the proper judicial authorities.

704

/'

In the €irst, the detention is illegal from the beginning: in the second, the detention is legal a t the beginning, but the illegality of the detention arises from the expiration' of the periods of time respectively specified by the Code Art. 125), without the person detained having been delivered to the proper judicial authorities.

1' /'

' !

i

.i 3

41. Rebellion, distinguished from treason. (a) The levying of war could constitute treason when . performfd to aid the enemy, as such would also constitute ail adherence to him, giving him ajd or comfort. IIence, where the purpose of the offenders in levying war agaihst the constituted authorities is the delivery, in whole or i n part, of the country to the enemy, then it is treason. Otherwise, the mere act of levying war to overthrow the Government would constitute rebellion. ' f b ) Rebellion always involves taking up arms against be committed by mere adhim aid or comfort.

'42. .Propsal to commit rebellion, distinguished from inciting

to rebellion. (1) In both, the offender induces another t o commit ,, rebellion. C2) In proposal, the person who proposes is decided.to codmit rebellion; in inciting to rebellion, it is not required r the existence of the crime. (3) in proposal, the person who proposes the e x e c u t i g ' of the crime uses secret means; in inciting to rebellion; the provocation is done publicly. 43. Sedition, distinguished from treason. Treason, in its more general sense, is the "violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or liege; lord, or to the supreme authority of the State." (Centy$ Dictionary) Sedition, in its general sense, is "the raising.. of commotions or disturbances i n the State" (U.S. vs. .. , . Abad, 1 Pbil. 437). 705

I


I

Sedition, distinguished from rebellion, In both rebellion and sedition, there must be public uprising. While in rebellion, there must be taking a m against the Governqent; in sedition, i t is sufficient that the public uprising is tumultuous. While in sedition, the purpose of the fiffenders may, be political o r social; in rebellion, i t is always political. Specifically, the purpose of the offender in rebellion is any one of the following: (1) To remove from the allegiance to said Government o r its !aws (a) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or (b) any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or ( 2 ) T o deprive the Chief Zxecutivc or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. The object of the offenders in sedition is any o f the following : (1) To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; ( 2 ) T o prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government o r any oublic officer thereof from freely exereking its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; (3) To inflict any act of hate o r revenge upon the person or property of any public officer o r employee; (4) To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; aad ( 5 ) To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality os province, or the National Govern.. ment of a11 its property or any part thereof. If the purpose of the uprisirig is not exactly against the Government and not for the purpose of doing the things defined in Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, but m9reIy t o attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public 706

CNIXIIVAL LAW REVIEWER' Distinctions

official like the town mayor, it is sedition (People vs. et a:., G. R. L-6803,Nov. 29, 1954).

I

..

association, distinguished from illegal assembly,' (1) In illegal assembly, it% necessary that'there. i s4 an actual meeting or assembly of armed persons for th@: purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under? the Code, or of individuals who, although not armed, are , incited to the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition; ' or assault upon a person in authority o r his agent. Such requisite is not necessary in the crime of illegal association. (2) . . In illegal assembly, it is the meeting and attendance a t such meeting that are punished. In illegal associations, it is the act of forming or organizing, and membership of, the association that are punished. (3) If the purpose of the meeting is to commit crimes punishable by special laws, such meeting is not a n illegal assembly. In illegal association, the purpose may include the commission of crimes punishable by special laws, because when the purpose of the organization is contrary to public morals the cts which are contrary to public morals may constitute imes punishable under the special laws.

1 I

J

/

Rehellion, ' distinsuished . from a violation o f the AntiSubversion Act. When the purpose of taking up arms against the Government is to overthrow and supersede the existing government, i t is rebellion; when the purpose is to establish in the Philippines a totalitarian regime ana place the Gov- .: ernment under the control and domination of an alien power#. it i s a violation of the Anti-Subversion Act.

:

! E

I

7

47. Illegal association under the Revised Penal Code, .dis-.;:: tinguished from illegal association under the Anti-Sub- ,' version Act. 707

.-,

I

,i

:. _, :


CRIMIN.AL LAW K E V I ~ W E R Distinctions

Distinctions

;e:. /

!

When the purpose of the association is to commit a n y '. Of' the crimks punishable under the Revised Penal Code or is contrary to public morals, it is an illegal association . under the Revised Penal Code. If the purpose is to overthrow the Government to establish in the Philippines a totalitarian regime and place the Government under the '. control and domination of an alien power, it is an illegal s: G association under the Anti-Subversion Act. 0 . . .

.

..'

.. 'i'iolation of conditional pardon does not cause hartn or injury t o the right of other person nor does it disturb the public order; it is merely an infringement of the:terms, stipulated in the contract between the Chief Executive and the criminal. Evasion of the service of the sentence is an attempt a t least to evade the penalty inflicted by the courts upon criminals and thus defeat the purpose of the law of either reforming or punishing them for having disturbed the public order (Alvares vs, Director of Prisons, 80 Phil. 43).

1

, ' r . % ,

I,.:

L I

@:'Direct assault, distinguished from resistance. , .. ,. (1) In resistance, when force is employed against an ent of a. person in authority, the force is not serious, there is no manifest intention to defy the law or its icers. 'In direct assault, the force employed must be serious. ,:,, ,..; ,. .' If the force consists in laying hands upon a person ."' ' in authority, such force, even if not serious, would con. , stitute direct assault. ~, k,, (2) In direct assault, the person in authority or his agent must be engaged in the performance of official duties o r that he was assaulted by reason thereof; but in resistance, the person in authority or his agent must be in the actual performance of his duties.

/

51. Distinction between use of fictitious name and concealing

true name. (1) In use of fictitious name, the element of publicity must be present; in concealing true name and other per-;.. . sonal circumstances, that element is not necessary. (2) The purpose of the offender in use of fictitious :i name is to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a judgment, or to cause' damage; in concealing true,,name, ' -''merely to conceal identity.

I

~

/ < ),;

I,

y/?

49.' -Inciting t,o sedition or rebellion, distinguished from pub3

-

.5 ;, !.

I.

lie disordcer. For a speech or the displaying of emblems or placards t o constitute provocation to commit rebellion or sedition, i t is necessary that the offender should have done the act : with, the idea aforethought of inducing his hearers or readers. to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition. But if they are more or less unconscious outbursts ich, although rebellious or seditious in nature, are not entiondly calculated to induce others to commit rebelIion sedition, it is only pubiic disorder. iolation of conditional pardon, distinguished from evaon of 13ervice of sentence by escaping 708

1

.

istinguisb perjury from false testimony in judicial pro-' ceeding. Both false testimony in judicial proceeding and perjury are perversions of the truth. While false testimony is supposed to be given.under oath in the course of some judicial proceeding, perjury-. is any n,iilful and corrupt assertion of falsehood on some material matter made under oath and not in judicial pro- .. ceeding. Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings (US. vs. Estrafm, 16 Phil. 621). False testimouy in judicial pr6ceeding contelaplates. an.,:: actual trial .where a judgment of conviction or ac is rendered, and not merely a preliminary invest (People vs. Bautista, C.A., 40 O.G. 2491). j.

i.

i

,.

709

,,,

..

,2:

>*

<'-

'

,

:

Trade-name is a name used in trade to designate a particu1a.r business of certain individuals considered 88 an entity: whereas, trade-mark is used to indicate the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a tradename is that, unlike trade-mark, it is not necessarily a b tached or affixed t o the goods of the owner (U.S. vS. Kyburz, 28 Phil. 475).

-.

I

. ~. But they differ in that i n bribery the offender refrained from doing his official duty in consideration of a~

r

.., ,'

"

55. Prevaricacion, distinguished from bribery. The third form of direct bribery (Art. 210) is COmmitted by refraining from doing something which pertains to the official duty of the officer. Prevaricacion (A& 208) is committed in the same way.

710

.I

gift received or promised. This element is not necessary e crime of prevaricacion.

1. 5

i I

, .>I

In this regard, the two felonies a.re similar.

64. Infringement of trade-mark or trade-name, distinguished from unfair competition. (1) 'Unfair competition is broader and mrre inclusive; infringement is of limited range. In unfair competition, the trade-mark or trade-name of another m&y be involved. (2) I n unfair competition, fraudulent intent is an essential element; i n infringement, it is not necessary (Alhambra vs. Mojica, 27 Phil. 266). (3) In infringement, the infringed trade-,nark or t r a d e name must be registered in the Patent Office (Ogura VS. Chua, 59 Phil. 471); in unfair competition, it is enough -ff& g"&+]h 'EA%?&-&d!.i&eSl. o n the x-oods or service of the offended party. (4) In infringement, the same particular class of goods or service is involved: in unfair competition, different classes of goods or even nou-competing goods may be involved. (5) In fraudulent use of trade-mark, the offender US@ the trade-mark of another manufacturer or dealer in selling his goods: wheseas, in unfair competition, the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer and sells the same.

., ,,


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Digtinetions

53. Trade-name, distinguished from trade-mmk.

,

,. Direct

.

,/"

.

bribery, distinguished from indirect bribery. "'*$ ,.-, (1) In both, the public officer receives gift. . ,., (2) While in direct bribery there is an agreement be-'^: tween the public officer and the giver of the gift or present; ,: i indirect bribery, usually no such agreement exists. (3) I n direct bribery, the offender agrees to p e r f o m os performs zn act constituting a crime, or not-constituting a crime but unjust, because of the gift or promise.; '; in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should d o any particular act or even promise to do an act, as i t is enough that he accepts gifts given t o him,,. .i, by reason of his office. -

/p

r

57. Distinguisb indirect bribery from direct bribery of the ,. second form. The case of People vs. Pamplona, C.A., 51 O.G. 4116 &&h +&z4fi+&mZfrs, a.cae-.d-direct bribery under the 2nd paragraph of Art. 220, because there was an W e * / ment between the public officer and the giver of the gift and that the act which the public officer executed did not ; constitute a crime. But in direct bribery under the 2nd I paragraph of Art. 210, the act executed must be unjust. In the Pamplona case, where it was held that the crime ,', . committed was indirect bribery, the act executed by the accused (preparing the voucher) was not unjust. t I 58, Maltreatment of prisoners, distinguished from grave -

!

CO-

ercion. J

..

In extorting a confession or in obtaining an information from the prisoner by means of violence, the act is similar to that of grave coercion; but the difference lies.:? in the fact that in the crime of maltreatment of prisoners"

711

CRIMINAL LAW REVIFWER Distinctions


,,

’/

I

develops that the detention is unlawful, then the offense” committed is unlawful arrest. In any other case, the detention a€ the offended party. ill render the culprit, who must be a private individual, liable for other illegal detention.

.. . i,.~:: the offended

.

I : ,

party is a prisoner. If the offended party is not a prisoner, because he was only under arrest and not et placed in jail or booked by the police, the offense w uld be grave coercion.

‘59 Attempl.ed and frustrated homicide, distinguished from physical injuries. In both, physical injuries are inflicted. Where the intent of the assailant t o kill his, victim is clear, the act of the accused in inflicting physical injuries upon the offended party constitutes the crime of attempted or frustrated homicide, not merely physical injuries.

.’/.?’

!f

60. Abortion, distinguished from infanticide.

I

A mother, who had aborted for taking “pociones amat-

,

.

/)

I

’

gas,” buried near her house a living foetus. The expelled foetus had already a human form and about six months old. But it did not have jts own life, independently of that of the mother. It could not subsist by itself, outside the maternal womb, A foetus under these conditions had necessarily to succumb a few moments after its expulsion from the maternal womb. HeZcl: Abortion, not infanticide, was committed. If the foetus (I) could sustain an independent life, after its separation from the maternal womb, and it (2) is killed, .the crime is infanticide (People vs. Detablan, C.A., 40 O.G., Sup. 5, 30). The mutilation must have been caused purposely and deliberately to lop or clip off some part of the body; this special intention is not present in the other kinds of physical injuries.

*

62. Unlawful arrest, distinguished from other illegal detentibn. .. . If the purpose of locking up or detaining the offended . party is to deliver him to the proper authorities, and it ,.

.,

. ,

. ,,

I.

!

.,. ’

712

1

64. Abandoning a minor, distinguished from kidnapping and failure to return a minor.

(1) In both, tho offender has the custody of the minor; ( 2 ) In abamdoning a minor, the minor is under seven years of age; in kidnapping and failure to return a minor, the victim is any minor under 21 years of age; (3) What is punished in kidnapping and failure to return, a minor is the deliberate faiZure to restore the minor to his parent or guardian; in abandoning a minor, it is the abandoning of the minor endangering his life /which, is punished.

61. Mutilation, distinguished from ordinary physical injuries.

1

Slavery, distinguished from kidnapping or illegal detention: When the act or manner of committing the offense is by kidnapping or detaining the offended party, the crime of slavery is distinguished from kidnapping or illegal detention by the purpose of the offender. If the pum’ose is to enslave the victim, i t is slavery; otherwise, it is kidnapping or illegal detention.

I’ :1

. !.

6$. Exploitation of minors, distinguished from inducing I to abandon his home. J minor (1) If the purpose of inducing the minor t o &an&] the home is to follow any person engaged in any of t$ callings of being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, dive! wild-animal tamer, or circus manager, o r to accompan: any habitual vagrant or beggar (Art., 278, par. 5), it i exploitatim~of minors; if there is no such purpose, it‘!, inducing a minor to abandon his home under Art. 271.,1 (2) In inducing a minor to abandon his home,;@ victim is a minor under 21 years of age; in exploiki”8 of minors, he must be under 16 or 12 years.of::aget:.jag‘ ,. 713

CKlirliNAL LAW REVIEWER


.

'

.

,.;/

'.

'

"

?'

' , :

intimidation only promises some future harm if the condi-' tion imposed is not complied with by the offended party>;. In grave coercion, the violence or intimidation is intended produce immediate effect.

66. Trespass to dwelling, distinguished from other forms of

':

~

Distinctions

trespass (trespass to property). (1) In trespass to dwelling, the of€ender is a private person; in other forms of trespass, the offender is any person. ( 2 ) I n the first, the offender enters the dwelling house of another; in the second, the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another; (3) I n the first, the place entered is inhabited; in the second, the place entered is uninhabited. ( 4 ) In the first, the act constitnting the crfme is entering the dwelling against the will of the owner; in the second, it is entering the closed p r m i s e s or the fenced estate without securing the permission of the owner or caretaker thereof: ( 5 ) In the first, the prohibition to enter is express or implied; in the second, the prohibition to enter must be manifest.

to extort money, distinguished from robbery w$h intimidation. .. I n both, there is intimidation against the offended party: The purpose, which is to obtain gain, is likewise identieat The differences are: (1) In robbery, the intimidation is actual and mediate; whereas, in threats, the intimidation is cond$ tionai or future, that is, not immediate; ( 2 ) In robbery, the intimidation is personal: while ' threats, it may be through an intermediary; (3) In threats, the intimidation may refer t o the pe~$ son, honor or property of the offended party or that 0; his family; while in robbery the intimidation is d' only to the person of the victinl; ( 4 ) I n robbery, the gain of the culprit is inimecIiatF whereas, in threats the gain of the culprit is:not'~@i mediate (People vs. Moreno, C.A., G.R. No. 43635, Apa

$7:. ,.Grave .... cocrcion, distinguished from unjust vexation.

i

Where the first and the third elements .of the Crime of grave epercion under paragraph 1 of Art. 286 are present, but the second element thereof, which is th? use of vieknee upon the offended party in preventing him from doina; or compelling him t o do, something azainst his Will, is lacking, the crime committed by the axused is light coercion o r unjust vexation under the secund paragraph of Art. 287 (People VS. Sebastian, et ai., C.A., 40 0.G. 2498).

,, 68. Grave coercion, distinguished from grave threats.

Both i n grave coercion and in grave threats, the of-. fended party is compelled to do something against his will. In grave coercion, the compulsion is made either by means i of violence or by means of intimidation; i n grave threats, it is made by means of intimidation only. But in grave coercion, the violence o r intimidation is 5'~, . actual, immediate and continuing; in grave threats, the 714

violence, distinguished from grave coereior , ., (1) In both, there is violence against the party.

I

j

;

(2) While in robbery there is intent to gain, such , ment is not present in grave coercion. .& The only distinction between these two crimes is j$ a matter of intention. If the purpose of the accusedy taking somebody's property by force or intimidation is ,I obta.in gain, the crinle is robbery; but if his purpose'! to compel anotser to do something against his will or ! prevent another from doing something not prohibited 1: law, without authority of law, but believing hmself toii the owner or creditor, and thereby seizes property, th;

715

CRIMINAL L.IW REVIEWER Distinctions .,,. A ,~ ...,.>
the crime is grave coercion (PeopIe vs. Zanoria, et al., ,,.:.,..:~ 1C.A.. ;;'.i 53, O.G. 5 2 6 6 ) .

,$&$**:,.,

'

.

I .

CI

,

,.

.

'

.'

. . ~.,

/

716

LAW

REVIEWER

Distinctions

-

,~.,.

, . ~. ..t -,

>I

..z,..

..

Brigandage, distinguished from robbery in band. .< Both brigandage and fobbery in band requee that;,&! offenders form a band of robbers. There must be at least four armed men. : 7:

Robbery, distinguished from bribery. (1) It is robbery when the victim did not commit 8 ,crime and he is intimidated with arrest and prosecution to deprive him of his personal property: it is bribery when the victim has committed a crime and gives money or gift to avoId arrest and prosecution. The reason is, when tho victim did not commit any crime, there is nothing that would have required the public officer to exercise his duty o r function. On the other hand, if the victim committed a crime and the public officer accepted bribe, the latter thereby agreed to refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do. (2) I n robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or property by force or intimidation; in bribery, he parts with his money or property in a sense voluntarily (U.S. vs. Flores, 19 Phil. 178). Robbery by execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation, distinguished from grave coercion. If the offended party has no obligation to execute, sign or deliver a document and, ruitb intent to gain, the bffender compelled him to execute, sign or deliver the document by mcans of violence or intimidation, the crime committed is robbery. When the offended party has obligation under the law t o sign, execute or deliver the document, i t will, be grave coercion if violence is used in compelling the offended party to sign, execute or deliver the document. Thu:;, a person who bought and fully paid the price of a car and compelled the seller by means of violence or intimidation to sign, execute, and deliver the corresponding deed of sale, would be guilty of grave coercion, not robbery, since there is no intent t o defraud. But if he had not yet paid the price of the car, he would be liable for robbery.

CRIMINAL

./

In brigandage, the purpose of the offenders is any'of the following: (1) to commit robbery in the highway, 01 (2) to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion o! to obtain ransom, or (3) for any other purpose to be a t tained by means of force and violence. In robbery band, the purpose of the offenders is only to commit e particular robbery, not necessarily in the highway. If the agreement among more than three armed mer was t n commit only a particular robbery, the offense it not brigandage, but only robbery in band (US.vs. Feli, ciano, 3 Phil. 422). I n brigandage, the mere formation of a band for an3 of the purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient, as 11 would not be necessary to show that the band actuall~ committed robbery in the highway, etc. In robbery i 1 band, i t is necessary t o prove that the band actually com. itted robbery, as a mere conspiracy t o commit robber> is not punishable. 4. Estafa, distinguished from theft.

In estafa, the offender veceives the thing from thc offended party. The offender does not take the thine without the consent of the offended party. I n theft, th( offender takes the thing without the consent of the o$ fended party. In theft, where the offender receives thi thing from the offended party, the former acquires on!: the physical or material possession of the thing. In 'estafa the off nder has the juridical possession of the thing h( rece' ed from the offended party.

j"

'

stafa with abuse of confidence, distinguished from mal 75. versation. (1) In both, the offender is entrusted with funds$ 7 property.

717


CRIAfISAL LAW REVIEWER Distinctions

!

,

.

-

'

~,

__.

.

I

d estafa Violation

.'..d...

. 8

...

.,,

:.

_ .,...* . ,, :

'

'

,

In estafa, the offender uses deceit to induce the of'fended party to 'sign a document which contains stipulations. different 'from those represented to the offedded party. In falsification, the offended party made stateents t.o be embodied i n the document, but .the offender, in preparing the document, attributed t o the offended party statements other than those made by him. by removing, concealing or destroying a document, distinguished from infidelity in the custody of document. (1) The crime of infidelity in the custody of documents, as defined in Art. 226, and this kind of estafa a r e -similar in that the manner of committing the offense i s the same. (2) But while under Art, 226, the offender is a public ;, p<. . . who is officially entrusted with the custody of the ,.officer ;. document; in thishkind of estafa, the offendar is a private

.

.

of chattel mortgage law, distinguished from. .

by disposing of encumbered property.

Estafa by inducing another to sign a document, d i g tinguisheil from faIsifieat'ion.

",

.,'I.

individual 01' even' a public officer who is not officially z, entrusted with the document. ') In estafa, there is intent to defraud. This element' required in infidelity in the custody of documents.

( 2 ) Both are continuing offenses. (3) But while,& estafa, the funds or property are private, in malversation they are public funds or ProPeW(4) In estafa, the offender is a private individual or even a public officer who is not accountabie for public funds o r property; in malversation, the offender must b e a public officer who is accountable for public funds o r property. (6) In estafa with abuse of confidence, the crime i s committed by misappropriating, converting, or denying having received, money, goods or other personal property: in malversation, the crime is committed by appropriating, taking or misappropriating, or consenting or, through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take the public funds or property. (6) While malversation can be committed through negligence; estafa cannot be committed through negligence.

/ ' ' /6;

:, i

Distinctions

.

In both o-Cfenses, there .is the selling of a mortgaged. property. In estafa (Art. 316, par. 2), the property involved is real property; in sale of mortgaged property (Art. 319), i t is personal property. But to constitute the crime as estafa, it is sufficient that the real property mortgaged be sold as free, even;, thoogh the vendor may have obtained the consent ,of 'th5 mortgagee in writing. Selling or pledging of personal property alre d i di or mortgaged is committed by the mere fail e to obtaip the consent of t h e mortgagee i n b r i d e e e fender should inform the purchaser that the thing sold,.g. mortgaged (People vs. Alvarez, 45 Phil. 472). The purpose of the law in Art. 319 is to protect . , 'e mortgagee; in Art. 316, the purpose is t o protect the-pur; , . whether the first or the second. us, even if the mortgagor under Art. 319 has ad-; purchaser that the personal property being sol without the written consent of the mo agee, he is still criminally liable.

c

chastity, distinguished from offe against chastity. Abuses against chastity (Art. 245) is committed by, public officer, and that a mere immoral or indecent p r posal made earnestly and persistently is sufficient; w h a as, in crimes against chastity (Art. 3 3 6 ) , the offend in the majority of cases, a private individual, and necessary that, at least, some actual act of lasciviou should. have been executed by the .offender. 719

I


/

I

ii

, i s not Revised Penal Code is the offense. When motivated, such taking constitutes kidnapping under 267, as amended, Forcible abduction is against chas , kidnapping is against personal liberty (People .VS. . c la, 53 0. G. 384).

0. Acts of lasciviousness, distinguished from attempted rape. The manner of committing the crime is the same, that . is, force or intimidation is employed, or the offended party is unconscious or deprived of reason, or under 12 years .. of age. T,he performance of acts of lascivious character is com.e . ' mon to both. The differences are: (I) If the acts performed by the offender clearly in. . .,.;.. ,. .,. , ., dicate that his purpose was to lie with the offended party, .:.;, . ,:.>... it is attempted or frustrated rape. .," ,/,,i (:I) In the case of attempted rape, the lascivious acts ,. . . are but the preparatory acts to the commission, of rape: : . ,: r whereas, in the other, the lascivious acts are themselves . the final objective sought by the offender. i,_1 ,_,. ( 3 ) While acts of lasciviousness m w be committed .. . on the person of either sex, attempted 0: frustrated rape i committed always upon a woman.

/

Criticism. dist.inguished from dcfam a t'ion. Criticism deals only with such things a s shall invi public attention o r call €or public comment. It does n foliow a public man into his private life nor pry unt his domestic concerns. : 7 ,.* - . Hence, if the criticism follows a public officer in private life, which has no connection with the p e r f o r m , ' ance of his public duties and falsely charges him Wit?: .evil,motives, clearly designeCl to destroy his reputation or..'! .,. $ b mirch his name, there is defamation. ,,~

.* .

,>I

;'

,:J S

. .

~~

.

',I ,:. <

CRIMINAL LAW REVII$WER Distinctions

.

. Acts

of lasciviousness, distinguished from unjust vexa-

tion. When the accused merely kissed and embraced the complainant, either out of passion or other motive, touching the girl's breast as a merc incident of the embrace, it is unjust vexation. Bnt when the accused not only kissed and embraced the complainant, but fondled her breast with the particular design to independently derive vicarious pleasure theref r m, the element of lewd designs exists and the crime c mmitted is acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Panopio, A, 48 O.G. 145).

./

. Forcible abduction

with rape, distinguished from kidnap-

ping.

When the violent taking of a woman is motivated y lewd designs, forcible abduction under Art. 342 of the 720

e.,;

S$ /

i

/

Slander by deed and maltreatmellt distin,wished. . , The act of holding a school teacher by the hair and,:, shaking him violently in the presence of school, children' and other teachers, because he had stopped a boy who; had been pursuing another, is not maltrcatment under par. 3, Art. 266, but slander by deed, because (1) of the public office held by the offended party, and (2) the nature , and effects of the maltreatment inflicted upon him (People vs. Velez, G.R. No. 41234, Aug. 31, 1934). Striking the priest on the face with the hand in the presence of the faithful is slander by deed, because there certainly could have been no other circumstance under which greaier dishonor, discredit, and contempt could be cast upon h:m before the laithfui over whom he held SO high a dignity (People vs. Nosce, 60 Phil. 895). The act of slapping the teacher, who refused to dance with the accused, constitutes slander by deed, in view of the shame and humiliation she must have suffered at being slapped during a dance where many people were present (People vs. Roque, C.A., 40 O.G. 1710). ' , 721 , , ..>I

".

I

,

i.4 ..

', I

i

,~

.

1

,

',.

i,.;~,. .

I,

.,,.

.,

,:

.:

., ":, ~ ..

:

"/

,:

1


Incriminating an innocent person, distinguished from per. jury. (1) Incriminating an innocent person is committed by performing an act by which the offender directly incriminates or imputs to an innocent person the commission of a crime; in perjury, the gravamen of the offense is the .

imputation itself, falsely made, before a n officer. ( 2 ) Incriminating an innocent person is limited to the act of planting evidence and the like, in order to incriminate an innocent person; while perjury is the giving of false statement o r the making of false affidavit in cases in which the law requires the making of affidavit (People vs. Rivera, 69 Phil. 236). Falsely accusing a person, made under oath, is perjury. t is not incriminating an innocent person.

~;'Jd

. . ..,.

..

. .

,

,

. .

. '

j

.

.

, .

.

Incriminatory machinations, distinguished from defamation. In incriminatory machinations, the offender does not avail himself of written or spoken words in besmirching the victim's reputation, as would be the case of defamation. The offender in incriminatory machinations performs acts to incriminate an innocent person or to blemish the honor and reputation of the offended party.

87. Intriguing against honor, distinguished from defamation. (1) In both, the aim of the offender is to blemish . ' the honor or reputation of his victim. ( 2 ) They differ as to the means employed. The means employed in intriguing against honor must consist in some tricky and secret plot against another. The means em, ployed in defamation is the use of spoken 'or written words, etc., openly and publicly. . .

.

722

CRIi\IlXAL LAW REVlEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

,

AUGUST, 1946 1. (a) In 1945, a citizen of the Philippines was accused be- '' fore the People's Court of treason against the United States for . having aided Nazi forces in the Buropean theater of war. Should the case be dismissed after the inauguration of the Republic? Give reasons. (h) What is war treason? (a) No. Treason, as it is defincd in the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who, owing allegiance to the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, n o t . being a foreigner, levies war against them o r adheres to their. enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere. While it is true that after the inauguration of the Republic, levying war against the United States or adhering to ,her eriemies, giving them aid or comfort, has ceased to be treason under the Revised Penal Code, the fact remains that the crime,', was committed in 1945, when treason under the Code could'-be committed by a citizen of the Philipp'nes against the United States. Even if tile provioion of Art. 114, R.P.C., relative to treason against the United States, is considered repealed by im~lication after the inaugnralion of the Republic, crjmjnal liability under the repealed law subsists when the repeal is hy implication. (bi War treason is committed by citizens of the Philippines or aliens residing in the Philippines who, owing allegiance .to. the Government of the Philippines, levy war.against it. Treason ; 'being a war crime, t,here must he a war in which the Philippin is involved when the offenders levy war against the Goveimme of th'e Philippines. 11. Give (a) five circumstances which exempt from cr liability; (b) seven circumstances which mitigate criminal ity ; and (e) ten circumstances which aggravate criminal lia (a) The five circumstances which exempt from crimin liability are: That the accused is1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter acted daring a lucid interval.

723

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

.,.,

2. A person under nine years of age. 3 . A person who acts under the impulje of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. 4 . A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresietible force. 5 . A person who, while perform'ng a lawful act with due care, rauses an i n j n w by mere accident without fault or nte:ntion of causing it. ::. ' b) The seven circurnstanccs which mitigate criminal Ilabii:,:,:&y are: " .)p 1. That sufficient provocation o r threat on the part of the .e'; offended party immediately preceded the act. I; 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over , ' ... i-.. . seventy years. ., 3 : That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful, as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. , 5. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself , . to a. person in authority or his agents, or that he had Voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to . . the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. 6. That the offender is dcaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise .. . suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his .. . ~. means of action, defense, or communication with his felIow beinEs. 7. That the act was commtted in the immediate vindication, 0% a grave offense to the one committin? the felony, his spouse, ascendants. descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, o r relatives by affinity within the same degrees.


Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

2. Tlhat the crime be committed in contempt of or,witl

/'

.)I . %

.-?I

:

~

(e) The ten circumstances which aggravate criminal liability

are : ,.~

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

724

insult to the public authorities. 3 . That the act be committed with abuse of confidenh or obvious ungratefulness. 4. That the crime he committed in consideration of a price$ reward, or promise. 5. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. 6. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. 7. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or meane . ,@ be employed to weaken the defense. ,n : 8. That the act be committed with treachery. .' 9. That the eecused is a recidivist. .. 10. That the crime be committed in the nighttime o r ~ i n an uninhabited place, o r by a band, whenever sue4 circumstances may facilitate the commission o f the, . .., .feme.

'

4

111. A group of 20 men belonging l o the PKM or Hukbalahap organization was required by an MI? patr,ol, also of 20 men, to surrender their firearms. Upon the Hulc's refusal, the MP?s fired at them, and the latter roturned the fire. One MP was killed, while oce Hnlc was captured. With what crime may the eaqtured Hulc he charged? The captured €Iuk may be charged with the crime of rebellion. The PKM or Hukbalahap organization has a knoG purpose of overthrowing the Government by force of arms: There was public uprising and taking arms against the G o v e d ment, as shown by the fact that the Huk returned the fire when the MP's fired at them upon their refusal to surrender th& firearms.

IV. ( a ) What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? (.b). What is the duration of arresto mayor? (c) What is the range.. of arresto mayor in its nicdinm degree? (a) Reclusion perpetua has no fixed duration. Any person sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason

725

CRIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER nar Examinations in Criminal Law &i.i,

.....i' y-ea..~flhis conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered .I*$. .*, Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. In such case, '?""by~the . . three-fold rule, the maximum durat'on of recZusi0.h

has the duration of from 1 month and

11

f

VI. What is a "prejudicial question" and give an example of a case in which it may properly be invoked. . . A "prejudicial question" is one that may ai-ise in a civil .

i

or administrative case wherein it must first be settled before a criminal case in which it is involved can be tiied. It is based on a f a h d i s t i n c t and separate from the crime but so intimately, connected with i t that it determines the guilt o r innocence of,' the accused. Example: In the prosecution for bigamy, if the accused & i m s that the first marriage is null and void and the right to decide that question is vested in another tribunal, the civil^ action for nullity of t h e first marriage must first be decided before the trial of the climinal case for bigamy can Proceed.

arresto mnyoJol. in its medium degree ,

tlimugh negligence. X admits for the damage done which amounts to P200. Z, however, l e k X that, unless the sum of Fl,500 be paid, Z would insist on a complaint being filed againsf X for damage to property through imprudence. Wkereupn, X pays Z the P1,500. (a) What crime, if any, could be imputed payment, still prosecute to property through imprudence? (e) Can both and Z a s accessory who could be imputed to Z.

It is true tha.t when Z told X that, unless the sum of 81,500 . b e paid, Z would insist on a complaint being filed against X for

t

i

!

VII. M asked It to buy a quantity of rice a t P30 a cavan.

I

M assured R that he (ill) had a buyer for the rice at 840 a cavan. After the rice was bought, it turned out that M had

damage t o property through imprudence, Z thrcatened or inti-

I

. " '

him would be an exercise of a right on the part of Z. The iremand of .Z for 81,500 for the damage which amounts to P200 only,.and the payment of PI,500 by X to Z , do not alone and e:, constitute a felony. Moreover, had X not paid to Z, the court would have deterniined the proper Yes, the Fiscal can still prosecute X for damage to the payment, because while the civil liability arising from an 'offense, such compromise shall not extinguish the public a&on for the imposition of the legal penalty (Art. 2034, C.C.).

1 . ., .i . % ,, . . .. ~

..

.. . . .

(c) No, an attempt to conceal the crime of damage$o nronertv throwh imgrudence is not an offense under the Reiris&,t% Pedal Code.

i 3

21 days to 4 months and 10 days.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER nar Examinations in .criminal L a w

I

no buyer for it. May M be prosecuted ffor estafa? On the supposition that the market price of the rice was Fa0 a cavan, I submit that M may not be prosecuted for e s t a f a ' Estafa committed by means of deceit has two elements, namely: (1) deceit, and ( 2 ) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. While i t is t,rue that M caused R to buy, rice by means of deceit. there is no actual damage caused to R since he kept the rice. The expected profit of 810 a cavan which wa& not realized does nut constitute the element o€ damage or prPjudice in estafa. .. I

VIII. Define: (1) publir officers, (2) indirect bribery, (3) ,:, destierro, ( 4 ) alternative circumstances, (5) infanticide, . ( 6 ) , br/gandage, (7) concubinage, (8) probation, (9) white slave traffic; and (10) treachery. , , >. , (1) Public officers are those persons who, by direct vision of the law, popular election o r appointment by comp

.

726

'

727



authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in t h e Government of the Phil'ppines, or shall perform in said o r in any of its branches puhlic duties as an emor subordinate official of any rank or class. is a crime committed by any public to him by reason of his office. a penalty which prohibits the convict to designated in the sentence, nor within which shall be not more than 250 from the place desimated. are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating o r mitigating according to and the other conditions

ciple o f non-delegation of legislative power and was contrary to the guarantee of equal protection under the Constitution. ( 9 ) While slave traff:c (trade) is a crime against cha&y, committed by any person who, in any manner or under any pretext, engaged in the business of prostitution, or profited byprostitution, o r enlisted the services of women for the pumme of prostitution. (10) Treachery is an aggravating or qualifying circumStance; and there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

against person, committed by any than three days of age. ( 8 ) Brigandage is a crime against property, committed by more than three armed persons who formed a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidpapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom. other purpose to be attained by means of force and

IX. A messenger was sent to the Post Office by his em. ployer to buy a money ordcr. Instead of buying the monex ,, order, the messenger spent the money on biniself. What crime has been committ,ed? The messenger committed the crime of theft. When he re- ' , ceived the money from his employer, the messenger acquired.'?$ only the material or physical possession of the money. His-;.: misappropfiation of that money constituted theft, not estafa. 'Y

is a crime against chastity committed by a mistress in the conjuga: dwelling, or had sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with s.woman who was not his wife, or cohabited with her in any other place. The concubine is liable for the same crime, t o suffer the penalty of destierro, if she knew a t the time of the of the act that the man was maiTied. which was provided in the Probation Act a suspension of the sentence in certain cases after conviction. In that Act, the Legislature decreed that in certain cases no punishment ut all shall be suffered by the convict as long as the conditions of probation are faithfully observed tiy him. The Probaton Act was declared unconstitutional, on the ground that said Act was violztive of the .prin-

X. By using identical facts as far- as possible, distinguish: , (a) rebelllm from treason, (b) frustrated homicide from phy. sical injucies, and (e) robbery from coercion. (a) Rebellion is distinguished from treason in that in the^',;'. former the purpose of the offenders in resorting to public up# +sing and taking arms against the Government is to overthroy+g it, by force of arms, or specifically: (1) to remove from the allegiance t o said Government or its laws, the territory of the .', Philippines o r any part thereof, or any body of land, naval or : other armed forces, or (2) to deprive the Chief Executive oz,.: Congress, wholly or partially, of any of theIr powers or rogatives; while in the latter, the purpose o f the offenders i ~ levying war against the Government, which must be done in t$e$ .'S . . .._,"'. of war, is t o collaborate with a foreign enemy.

728

,?.:

r,

729

t

..


CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER Rar Examinations in Criminal Law

.

(b) In frustrated homicide, the physical injuries are ind by the offender with intent to kill; in physical injuries, there is no intent t o kill on the part of the offender. ~. ,,:' , ,~$(., (e) In robbery committed with violence against person, the der had intent to gain; in grave coercion, the offender other to give personal property by means of

imputation, Jeopardy means exposure to conviction, ;or- sit-:.j: uation of an accused person when being tried; thus, no pernor@'$ shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the Same..:: ~,~,,.~ , -. offense. ,,.% (b) Rafael del Pan was a member of the Code Committee :' created by Act No. 1841, who prepared the "Correctional Code!' ; *f

NOVEMBER, 1946 surprises his wife in an act of adultery. He ded revolver at her and pulls the trigger, but yes defective and does not fire. What criminal responsibility, if any, is incurred by the man? None. Had the man inflicted upon his wife slight or less serious physical injuries, he would have been exempt from punishment, the same having been inflicted under exceptioIla1 circumstances. Even considering the act of the man as constituting an impossible crime, the means employed being in.. effectual, I submit that he should be exempt from punishment. The oEfense of less serious physical injuries and impossible crime being punished with almost the same penalty, and the law (Art. 247) does not punish less serious physical injuries when inflicted under exceptional circumstances, i t is believed that the commission of an impossible crime under such circumsta ces should not be punished.

2:'

'

/

,

I. (a) Define or explain: corpus delicti; mutiny; charivari; malice in law; jeopardy. (b) Who was Rafael del Pan? (a) Corpus delicti, in modern sensa of the term, means the ,' actual commi::sion of the crime charged. Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and.disturbanees on board a ship against the authority of its commander. The term "charivari" includes a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on kettles, tin, horns, etc., designed to annoy and insult. Malice 1; 'in.ilaw is malice which is presumed from every defamatory .. / t ~, , ' ~ % .

l9l6.

/

/-a

.

..

. , .

IIL'A gave R policeman 8300 with the 'request that the 'j latter leave his post on the Eseolta so that he (A) could steal a jeep parked nearby. The policeman accepted the money and, '; apparently acceded to A's proposal but after leaving the Escol@ he immediately returned hy another way and arrested A in the act o f stealing the jeep. Can A defend successfully on the ground of entrapment? . ,

i

.

~

No. Entrapment is not a defense. Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.

'.

IV. (a) How is criminal liability t.oi.dly extinguished? (b) w h a t i?. the difference between justifying and exempting circumstances? (a) Criminal liability is totally extingnished1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment ; 2 . By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; . ... 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime: 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided '. . , in article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. (b) The difference between justifying and exempting cir2 cnmstances may be stcted, as follows: (1.) A person who ack , .by virtue of a justifying circumstance docs not transgress the.' ..

~

I

731

I

..

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exnminations in Criminal Law

CRIMI?fdh LAW REVIEWER ~ a ~ran&iibns r in Criminal Law

am, that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of t h e law; because t h e r e is nothing unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a criminal. There is no civ:l liability, except i n , the justifying circumstance of state of necessity. . ,,(2) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime, but no criminal. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil iiabllity, except in the circumstance of accident and in the circumstance of failure to perform an act by law because of a lawful or insuperable cause. ,

.A

policeman offered, For a consideration, not to arrest wh,o had purchased what he thought was opium but which the policeman knew to he molasses. The policeman was paid BSOO. Did the policeman conunit bribery, estafa, coercion, or .., robbery? The policeman committed robbery. The offer of the policeman not t o arrest the person who had purchased what he thought was op'um would naturally incite fear in the mind of such person that if he would not come across with a sum of money he would he arrested. That offer of the policeman, eoup!ed with the thought on the part of the person that the policeman knew he had purchased opium constituted sufficient intimidation. The policeman had intent t o gain when he took the P500 paid t o him. The policeman did not commit bribery, because he had n o duty t o perform. He lrriew that the person purchased molasses, not opium. , . He d'd not commit estafa, because there was no abuse of or deceit. The polkernan took the money through commit coercion, because the policeman had intent

:-,

..

1

!/ VI., (a) What are the elements of oonsented abduction? (b) With respect to damage to property, may criminal negligence be distinguished from "civil" negligence? -. . .' (a) The. elements of consente.&labduction are: (1) the of$ended,party,must ,. be a virgin; ,&?,she must be over 12 and

,~,

732

. .

under 18 years of age: (3) the taking a w a y m u s t be y i t h her consent, after solicitation o r cajolery from the offender; and (4) the taking away must be with lewd designs. (b) The Penal Code does 'not d r a 6 a well-defined demaScation line between negligent acts that are delictual and t h o W wh'ch are quasi-delictual. It is possible that a negligent act: may be delictual and quasi-delictual a t the same time, ,, However, which cannot proved by a defendant can und+:vil

there are numerous cases pf criminal negligence

be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can:bd: preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the. and should be msde res onsible in a civil action' Code.

7

..

.,

VII. A, after making out a cash check, lost the same. B,. finding the check, prcsentcd it for payment and was arrested b,efore any money nclually was delivered to him. (a) What. crime nmy be imputed to B? (h) Is the crime attempted, frus-%. .. -. .~ " trated or consummated? , , :~ ,. ,.,,: The crime of estafa may be imputed to E. It is attempted: estafa, because when be presented the check which he found for payment, B commenced the commission of the crime of:, estafa,;by means of deceit, directly by overt acts and did not. p e r f o p all the acts of execution which should produce the[ felon,$ by reason of some cause or accident (the timely d'scovefy of the lost check in his possession), other than his' spo taqeous dcsistance.

I

VIII. (a) What is the difference, if any, between illegal. (b) Slate five ( 5 ) ruler;, . . g verniqg subsidiary imprisonment. . (a) The difference between illegal detention and arbitrary detention is that while the fcrmer js committed by privatc. individual. the latter is committed by public officer. both cr'mes the offended party is deprived of his libe the offender, the former is a crime against liberty,w,h latter is a 'crime against the fundamental laws ,,of the '8% (6) The five rules governing subsidiary imprisonment

d tention and arbitrary detention?

733

I

!

/' 4.

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

If .the principal .penalty imposed be prision corseccional or a?r&o and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine and pecuniary liabilities are satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentknce nd in no case shall i t continue for more than one year, a no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against , '

the $er. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if t h e have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. the principal penalty imposed is higher than p k k o n no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed npoxt principal penalty imposed is not to be executed

by. confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of : f&ed duration, the convict, during the period of time established receding rules, shall continue to suffer the same de-

'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIElVER Bar Examinations in Criminal LRW

for oux criminal law has general application. As a general nile, all person living or sojourning in the Philippin not fall under any of the exceptions. . , the following questions have already" b and if so, indicate the view ad by the Philippine Supreme Court: (a) Is poker a chance? ;(b) Is it possible for a minor between 9 and of age to act with discernment in respect of quasi(e) Can writs of attachment be issued in-eriminal cases?,, Philippine courts have jurisdistion over crimes committed foreign merchant vessels while anchored in Philippine (e) Can'a person be charged as an accmmplice in the crime, adultery? (a) This question has not been resolved in this, jurisdiqtion However, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, .19 it is stated that poker'is not a game of chance, f o r the play a greater degree of skill rather than chan to win.

as those of which the principal penalty consists.

The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may

''

have suff,ered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him .from reparation of the damage caused, nor from indemnification nsequential damages in case his financial circum~ ' ? ~ n ~ ~improve; ~ u l but d he shall be relieved from pecuniary

IX. An alien was arrested because he entered Olongapo ita order to obtain confidential information relative to the disposition of U.S. Armed Forces in that reservation. He has turned ,. . over to the Philippine Governlnent afterwards. May the alien be successfully prosecuted for espionage? Yes. Although, the offense was committed within a base against t h e security of the United States, i t is also an offense against the security of the Philippines. Under the Base Agreement between the Philippines and the United States, our civit court has jurisdiction over such offense even if committed with:.-., . _,_ .in. a base. It is no defense that the offender was an alien, .. i

~

734

('e) Yes. A criminal court having jurisdiction over, several: y. actions arising from the offenses charged is permitted to i s s u e " all the auxiliary writs necessary to carry such jurisdiction, into:! effect (Eraiia vs. Panzani) (d) Yes. An offense committed aboard a foreign merchant.. . , our.,: , .,..?,: vessel while anchored in Yhiljppine waters is triable before court. But crimes not involving breach of public order ~m ',' mitted aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit are not triable3 by our courts. Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order. (e) No. However, in the decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, June 3, 1x74, i t was held that if a person perfoms the acts of an accomplice by informing the accused of the ab-,\ sence of the husband of the ma,rried woman and by watching for his .return, sflid person cannot be punished as an a plice because of the nature of the crime of aduItery which i s ' punished upon the complaint of the husband alone ag

.

.:. ,

. .

735

,

ii

'1 ., .,

..,,

I

!

1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Lax.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER * Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

.. .

fa) A felony is consummated when all the elements neces:;; sary for its execution and accomplishment are present. It is

. . his wife and the paramour which must be uderstood in the

restrictive sense and, thereforc, cannot include m y other person.

frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execption which mould produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the: will ,of the perpetrator. There is an atteinpt when the offender., commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts; and: does not perform all the acts of execution which should aroduce . .~~~~~ the felony by r e a s h of some cause or accident other than his’own spontaneous desistance.

AUGUST, 1947

I. (a) In what class of felmies are accessories not liable? :(h) Wbat is meant by impssible crime? (c) A and B agreed &d determined to kill C who a t that time was passing in front 0f.the hous8ewhere A and B were. The next day both of them Gent out to seek their victim, and having found C lying down in a shaclc situated in open conutry, they fired against hiin in the belief that be was merely asleep when in fact he had ‘,. ,,. died on the preceding night. DId A and B commit any act or acts punishable under the Revised Penal Code? :(a) Accessories are not liable for light felonies. An impossible crime is one where a person performs an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on ajdount of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual

.

4)

(b) A does not commit even an attempted offcnse. A’s act of entering surreptitiously the store of B is not an overt act of any offense. The place being a store, which is open to the public, he cannot be held liable for trespass. It is true that A’s purpose is to take away with him some articles, but the external Bct performed by A has no direct connection with the crime intended to he committed. I n order thst the simple act of entering the store of another may be considered an attempt to commit the crime of theft, it must be shown that the offender clcarly intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. Such intention must be inferred from _. . . the nsturc of the acts executed. The act executed by 4 will not necessarily ripen into the concrete offense of theft. (c) A can’ be convicted of attempted robbery, because he, commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt ,acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of a ’ c a u s e or accident (that B has no ring) other than his own spontaneous desistance. It is not frustrated robbery, because A does not perform all the acts of execution. In this kind of robbery (hold-up),: in order that it he in the €rustrated stage, the offender must be in the act of getting possession of the personal property of the offended party, short of taking it, when his act is stopped Ey causes independent of his will. , ,, : ~

Thcy committed an impossible crime. The act. . performed would have been murder, an offense against person, but i t was inherently impossible to kill a dead person. A and B acted with evil intent. i

11. (a) Define the different stages in the wmmission of a crime. (b) A enters surreptitiously the store of B in order to take away Tvith him mme articles and hides himself behind or, hut due to the watchfulness of B he did not .dare to out of his hiding place, where he was discovered. Does consummated, frustrated or attempted offense? A, intending t o rob I3 of a ring which B i s to he carrying, holds up B on the highway and by subjects him to search. It turns out that and lie is permitted to go on his way. .Can A be convicted of frustrated or attempted robbery? State reason for

.

%;

*.

. .;’

.

i I

i

4

.,k

,d 736

111. (a) Into how many classes are circumstances affecting:;:; criminal liability divided? Define and give examples of eac-g; (b) What are the essential elements of selE-defense? . ( e ) If,; ~ ,.

737

’

.., 1?1 I1

I

I

f

,

'CPIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Rar Examinations in Criminal Law

of these circumstances are present, in what affect the criminal liability of the offender? affecting criminal liability are divided mto, five classes, .namely: (1) justifying circumstances, (2) exempting circumstances and other absolutory causes, (3) mitigating circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and ( 5 ) alternative circumstances. . .:. Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is and is. free from both

,,,*

CILIMINAL LAW REVIEWER "- ,~ Bar Cxaminations in Criminal Law

\

'

,

'

i

and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same d e g r m ! , with the single exception of accessories falling within the pro- ',: visions of paragraph 1 of Art. 19. 0 ~:,

I

Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the crime, do not entirely free the actor from serve only to reduce the penalty.

I

: .::

~

.;"

~~

had no intention t o commit so grave a wrong as that committed. W'&t sufficient provocation or threat on the p a r t of the, offended party immediately preceded the act.

'

~,

Aggravating circumstances are those/ which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, 2iowever, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.

ny person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in

to an order issued by

a superior for some lawful purpose. Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those grounds f o r exemption from punishment because there is wantconditions which make

Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due without fault or intention compulsion of an irresistible force. , '' .;:.,,Absolutory causes are those where the act committed 'is a for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is

of the person who commenced before he could perfo,,m all the acts

,, , '

The penalties prescri5ed for accessories shall not be irnsuch with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, naturaI, and adopted brothers ..

. .

be taken by the offender of his public *

he committed in contempt of or with .( insult to the public authorities. Alternatipe cireurnstances are thosa which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according t o tKe~ nature and effects of the crime and the other condition ing its commission. relationship, (2) intoxication, a and education of the offen The essential elements ' of self-defense are: fi reasonable necessity of the me employed to prevent or repel it; and third, lack of suffic provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (c) If on1y.a majority of the elements of self-defense present, the offender will be liable f o r homicide, bdt the pen is one or two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. homicide. He is, therefore, entitled to a privileged mitigat circumstance.

i.

7.18

'

739

I

$ 'CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Crimina! Law


. (a)

Distinguish between generic aggravating. and quaircurnstances. (b) Can a qualifying Circumstance .be without having been alleged in the information? Why? The effect of a generic aggravating cir-umstance, not ny mitigating circumstance, is to increase the penal& d be imposed upon the accused to the inoximum period, t exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that ying circumstance is not only to give the crime its per and exclusive name but also to place tlx author thereof such a situation as to deserve no other pcnalty than that ecifically prescribed by law for said crime. ' .. A qualifying aggravating circumstance canrLot be offset by a ..mitixating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance ; may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance. (b) No, because a qualifying circumstance i s an element of the offense which it qualifies. It is a rule that every element of the of ense must be alleged in the information.

I.

~

.A

1

V (a) Who are considered principals, accomplices, and ac-

: ' ,.

ries in a crime? (b) Who are criminally liable in the commission {of a crime? (e) A band of malefactors composed of eight persons, through force and intimidation, enter a house one night. Three of the hand station themselves a t the door .of the house t o prevent the entry of any persons who might , , ' come to help the person attacked, while three of the band search . . the house aind take away therefrom money and jewelry belong2 ', 3 ' ; jng to persons living therein, and the remaining two of the band rape two women who live in the house. What crime or . , crimes have been committed, and in what capacity did each "'. of the ma1e:factors participate in the commission thereof. State for what crime they should be penalized, and the degree of the penalty to be imposed. (a) The following are considered principals: (1) those who ,take a direct part in the execution of the act; (2) those who force or induce others to commit it: and ( 3 ) those who te in the commission of the offense by another act withch it would not have been accomplished. ,

,*'::

, I

.E

,~

!

Accomplices are those persons who, not being (Art. 17);cooperate in the execution of the offense or simultaneous acts. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the co mission of the crime, and without having participated either as principals or accomplices, take part s u b s e w commission in any of the following manners: (1) by p themselves or, assisting the offender to profit by the of the crime; (2) by concealing o r destroying the bod crime or the effects o r instruments thereof, in order to prevent' its discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in'' the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessor)r: acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the suthor' of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or a n attempt to, take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. (b) The folluwiug are criminally liable in the commission of a crime: for grave and less grave felonies, principals, accomplices,. and accessories; and for light felonies, principals and accomplices. ' (e) All of the eight persons, if a t least four of them are armed, are liable for robbery with rape as principals. When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, any member of the band who is present a t the c mission of the robbery shall be punished as principal of of the assaults committed by the band, unless i t be shown'thafi he attempted to prevent 'the same. The degree (period) of the penalty t o be imposed is the medium period of the penalty for. the crime of robbery with rape. The penalty is not the maximum period of that correspond:. ing to the crime committed, because it does not appear that an%, of the arms used in the commission of the offense is an. & I licensed firearm; and the fact that the crjme is committe&" a band does not raise the penalty, since by a band does qualify t h e crime of robbery with rape.

VI. (a) I n what cases are 'accessories not penalized? While A was coming home one evening, he was attacked 741

~'

~. r

I

@%;$;y .,

2

.~

/'

,

k

--,,


~ I M I N A LLAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

ed by I1 who had been lying in wait for him. C, brother af B, and I) a first cousin of B, came to the scene and saw the Jde& body of A. Upon the suggestion of C, the cadaver of A , :was *.~ buried by B, C and D to prevent the discovery of the crime. B, C, and D are caught. What is the criminal responsibility of B, C and D? (a) Accessories are not penalized in the following cases: if they are such with respect t o their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, and they take quent to the commission of the crime in any of the ,. . *

body of the crime or thereof, in order to prevent its dis-

or assisting in the escape of the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the autlior of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an a$tempt .the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be guilty of some other crime. a principal, having taken direct part in the execuconstituting the crime. Although, he took part subsequent to its commission, by helpiltg in the burial of the of A, B cannot be held liable as accessory, because he as principal in the crime. being a brother of R, is exempt from criminal liability. cousin'of B, is liable as accessory.

VII. (a) Can an accused be punished under a law enacted after the date of the conmission of his crime? (b) When do 'penal laws have retroactive eifect? D,oes such retroactive effect benefit a convict who is serving his sentence? (a) Yes. The general rule, however, is that only that pen81ty prescribed by law prior to the commission of tine felony .;,%:may be imposed, and felonies are punishable under the laws in : 1 force-at the time of their commission.

(b) Penal laws have retroactive effect in so f a r a5 they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual crim. inal, and-the penal laws do not provide that they are not applicable to p y d i n g action or causes of action. .._; "Yes, because the law (Art. 22, R.P.C.) states that pend laws ahall txyvc retroactive effect, "although at the time OX? the o f such l a m a final sentence has been pronounced the same."

/

is parricide, a d how is i t distinguished from homicirle and murder? (b) A intends to kill B, a stm'ng kllls C, his father. What crime did A commit What is the period of prescription in crimes7 ,' (a) Parricide is the killing of the offender's father, mother; o r child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, o r any of his ascend; . ... or his spouse, who must be legitimate: " ; from homicide and murder in that, in parricide the victim must be any one of the relatives menti:nf,% In other words, the relationship of the offender w i t h . t h e ' v x d is' the essential element of the crime of parricide. '. lf the victim is not any one of the relatives mentioned ig the definition of parricide, the killing is homicide, or murded if any of the quaiifying circumstances of the crime (b) Parricide, the victim being the father of the of The fact that A intends to kill a stranger and kills his by mistake does not change the nature and name o It merely affects the penalty to be imposed on the o period of prescription in crimes is, reclusion perpetuu or red in twenty years; crimes punishable prescribe in fifteen years; able by a correctionaI pena,lty shall prescribe in ten the exception of those punishable by arrest0 mayor, prescribe in five years: the crime of libel or other sim fenses .shall prescribe in two years; the offenses of o famation and slander by deed shall prescribe in light offeuses prescribe in two months.

!r.;?*<
742

'

743

I

i P+

CRIMINAL LAW REVIETVER Bat Examinations in Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER B i t Examinations in Criminal Law

robbery and theft. (b) What a r e .the esestafa? (e) A property owner in a province gent a gold bar to be taken to Manila to be amined by a. goldsmith, later io be returned to the owner, stead of fulfilling the order of his principal, nd converted the value thereof to his own a t crime has the agent committed in this case? is committed by any person who, with intent any personal property belonging to another, ce against, or intimidation of any person, o r .',Using force upon anything. ~' "-!Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain lolence against, or intimidation of, persons nor shall take personal property of another withof estafa are: (1) deceit or abuse or prejudice capable of pecuniary only the physicpl or material the custody of personal prop,;. temporary purpose or for a short period, the juridical or constructive possession remains in'the owner. The fact that the offender was the agent of the ~.. ,o&er of the gold bar does not make him liable for estafa. In vs. Contreras, the Court of Appeals mentioned where the agent was said to be guilty of theft.

1

defamation defined by the Revised Penal of committing the offense. (b) A, a of B, his fiancee, cuts her hair off. shaving her hair entirely. Of what crime is A guilty? .. . ( a ) Defamation is defined by the Revised Penal Code as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or eon,tekipt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory o t o n e who is, dead.

.

of committing the offense are: (1) by ma by means of writing, printing, lithography, graving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or :cine graphic exhibition, or any similar means: and (2) the i.mputation orally. (b) A is guilty of slander by deed. He performs.an-a which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon

A''

AUGUST', 1948

hat is the scope of the Revised Penal Cod ing the.dpplication of its provisions? (b) What are the of a felony? (e) Do civil coorts have jurisdiction . committed by persons subject to military law? , ' . (a) The ecope of the Revised Penal Code regarding:. application of its provisions is stated in Art. 2 thereof,. follows: Except as provided in the treaties and laws of prefere application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outs jurisdiction, against those who: (1) should commi while on the Philippine ship or airship; (2) 'should counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippi or obligations and securities issued by the Governm be liable for acts connected into these Islands of the obligations above: (4) while being public an offense in the exercise of commit any of the crimes ag law of nations. (b) The elements of a felony are: (1) there must act or omission; (2) the act or omission must by the Revised Penal Code; and ( 8 ) the act or omi be committed by means of dolo o r CulrJa. (e) Yes. Civil courts have concurrent jurisdi military courts or general courts-martial over cri

I. ( a )

745

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER Elar Examinations in Criminal L R W

by'soldiers of the Philippine Army. Even in time of war, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military eourtS or general courts-martial over crimes ccmmitted by soldiers of the, Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning. When the person subject to military law is a soldier of the armed-forces of the United States stationed in the Phil:ppines, the provisions of the Base Agreement between the Philippines and the United States app1Y. Our civil courts have no jurisdiction when (1) the offense is-committed by any person within any base, except (a)' where the offender and the offended party are both Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the US. on active duty) o r (b), where the offense is against the security of the Philppines; (2) the offense is committed outside the bases, but the offender and otfended party are both mentbers of the armed' .forces of the United States; and (3) the offense is committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States against the security of the United States. In time of war, the United States shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any offenses committed by members of the armed forces of the Gnited States in the Philippines.

' ..

a. (a)

Define (1) consummated crime, (2) frustrated crime and (3) attempted crime, and give an example of each class (b) Are light felonies which are not consummated punishable? Mention a few of the light felonies covered by your answer. (e) Is the offer of ,a bribe which is declined ai1 attemmpted or frustrated crime? . (a) Same answer as in No. I1 (a) o f 1947 Bar Questions. Example of consummated crime: A shot B who died as a consequence; that of frustrated crime: B was mortally wounded by A who had the intent t o kill, but due t o the timely and sble:,,isurgicaloperation and medical treatment B did not die;

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal

Law

and that of attempted crime: A, with intent to kill, shot but missed, B. (b) As a general rule, light felonies are not punishable ,',; when they are not consummated. But when the light felonies,.." are against persons o r property, they are punishable even If,, they are in the attempted o r frustrated stage. Some light felonies w e bettinglin, sports contests, intribming against honor, slight physical injuries, and theft where the amount involved docs not exceed 85.00 and -the offender acted ' under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or difficulty of earning a 1:velihcnd for the support of himself o? his family. The first two light felonies are not punishable when they are not consummated. The last two light felonies are punishable even if ,:.' they are not consummated. ( e ) The offer of a bribe which is declined is an attempted crime. When t h e erime requires the intervention of two persons to corpmit it, it is either consummated when the offer or proposal is accepted, or attempted when the offer or proposal is declined or rejected. But in a case decided by the Supre&$-.. Court, it was lie18 that where the defendant fails to c o r k p t a. public officer, because tine latter returned the money given by' '. the defentlant, the crime is frustrated corrupticn of public of- ., ficer. With due respect to the Supreme Court, I submit that it ,. should have been attempted corruption of public officer. .: 1 '

111. (a) Explain the difference between a justifyi an exempting circumstance. (b) To what class do the ing circumstances belong: (1) self-defense, (2)' acting compulsion of an irresistible force, (3) accused being years old and (4) acting in obedience to an order given^ by superior for some lawful purpose. (e) Menti'on four mitii: ing and six aggravating circumstances. .~ (a) Same answer as in No. IV (b) of 1946 (November Ear Questions. justifying circumstance, (2) (b). (1) SeK-defense under compulsion of irresiatible force exempting circum (3) accused being eight years old exempting circum

-

-

-

747

CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinatiqns i n Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWFA ~~r Examinations in Criminal Law

acting in obedience to an order given by a superior f o r lawful purpose - justifying circumstance. m e four mitigating circumstances are: (1) that the had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as. that d, (2) that sufficient provocation or threat on t h e pa& of the offended party immediately preceded the act, (3). . ' that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally 't :to" have produced passion or obfuscation, and (4) that the '--offender had ,voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authorit or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his lty before' the court prior to the presentation of the e$d ce for the prosecution. The six aggravating circumstances are: (1) that advantage be taken by the offender of his public position, (2) that the mmitted in contempt of o r with insult to the public orities, (3) that the crime be committed in consideration reward, or promise, (4) that the act be committed of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, ( 6 ) that, e committed with the aid of armed men or persons or afford impunity, and (6) that the crime be n the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthmic, or other calamity or misfortune.

/

) What is a continuous offense? Assuming that the cts constituting the same are performed in different places,

shall acquire jurisdiction?

(b) What is a complex

A was kidnapped in Manila and murdered in Batangas,, court o,f first instance shall have jurisdiction to try the nappers? (e) Defendant forced a girl to have sexual intere with him at the 'point of a gun. Sufferiqg from gonorhe infected the girl, who later complained btense pain in and as the result oE peritonitis she died. Of what nies would you accused him and why? ontinuous offense is a sicgle crime, consisting of ries of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. e courts of the different places where the facts constithe continuous crime are performed have concurrent

jurisdiction. Whichever of these courts takes . cognizance of' the case first acquires exoliisi
V. (a) Is habitual delinquency a crime? What person hahitnal delinquent? (b) Describe briefly' the tion. and sc,ope of the Indeterminate Sentence L benefits of said. law applicable to all offenses and offend Is the application of the same mandatory? (e) How i s liability. arising from crime extinguished? (a) Na, habitual delinquency Is not a cri a fact or circumstance which, if present in a gi rise t o the imposition of an additional peaalty. A person i s ' a habitual delinquent if within years from the date o f his (last) release or last eo the crimes of (1) serious or less serious p !(2) Tobo, ( 8 ) hzcrto, (4) estafa, or ( 5 ) falsi€ication;he is f o guilty of any of said crimes a third time 01% oftener. (b) The Indeterni'nate , Sentence Law covers crimes-. bhable either by special law or by the Revised the application of the law, the court must, instead of fixed penalty, determine two penalties, referred to in

~:,:;,

749


CIlIMINAL LAW IZEVIEWER Bnr Examinations in Criminal Lnw

Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w

is punished by a special law, the court shall t o an indeterminate penalty, the maximum exceed the maximum fixed by bhe special shall not be less than the minimum by the Revised Penrl Code, the to an indeterminate penalkg, be that which, in view of be properly imuosed under and the minimum term of

Law are not

from confinemerlt o r evaded sentence (7) those who violated the t e r n s of conditional pardon granted t o them by the Chief Executive, (8) those whose maximum term of imprisonment does .not exceed one year, (9) those who, upon the approval of the Iaw, had been sentenced by final judgment, and (10) those senteneed t o the penalty of destierro or suspension. The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory, except in the cases specified therein, for it employs the phrases "convicts shall be sentenced" and "the court shal1 sentence the a'c.cused to an indeterminate sentence". arising from crime is extinguishes 4n the obligations, in accordance with the

What are the forms of (b) What is perjury; prosecuted for perjury statements? 750

.

(a) False testimony is committed by any person tvho,;-be" under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a ce matter at a henrinx before a competent authority, shall the truth or say something contrary to it. The forms of false testimony are: (I) false testimony* criminal cases, (2) false testimony in civil cases, and (3) fa 'testimony in other cases. (b) Perjnry is a crime committed by any person who, ingly making untruthful statements and not being incIu the provisions for false testimony in judicial proceediigs, s testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any mate matter before a competent person authorized to administer oath in cases in which the law so requires. The elements of perjury are: (1) there must be stateme under oath or affivadit upon a material matter; (2) before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (3) willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood by the of: fender; and (4.)that the sworn statement containing the falsity is r e q u i r y law. the prosecution must prove which of the two statefalse, and must show that statement to be false by other than the contradictory statements.

,.

,

'

VII. ( a ) Distinguish arbitrary detention from '' illegal detention? May a public officer wrest without warmnt? If so, . . Discuss briefly the principles govern,. circumstances. (c) What is a search requisites for issuing a search wag rant? '.: .&W answer as in No. VI11 (a) of 1946 (November)

3 4

-A+

.. :*.

A public o€fficer may arrest without warrant in the 'follow- % :

ing instances: (1) when the person to be arrested has commit-.:.$ ed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense'.,..;., . -.& in hi, presence; (2) when an offense has in fact been mitted, and he bas reasonable ground to believe that the persofg. to be arrested has committzd i t ; and (3) when the person *&

corn;!@ .+& .*,,;y

751

,

_.*

I

I 1

/

J

' , . ,

.

'

'

CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

be:arrested i d ' p r i s o n e r who has escaped from a penal estabwhere he is serving final judgment or ternwhile his case is pending, or hafi .. escaped while from one confinement to another. suspicious circumstances is justified, if the concur: (1) that there is reasonable ground , , of suspicion that a person has committed or is about t o commit an offense o r breach of the peace; and (2) that the person . making the arrest acts in good faith. When these two requi' sites are,present, even if the suspected person is later found t o officer is not liable for arresting him. committed in the presence of the peace a well-grounded appearance of guilt

is an order in writing issued in the Philipp'nes, signed by a judge or to a peace officer, commanding h m t o search for personal property and hying i t before the court. ' . The requisites for issuing a search warrant are: (1) i t must be issxed upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge or justice of the peace, (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge or justice of the peace must exam'ne, under oath, the complainant and his witnesses, and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

. ..

, .

is parricide committed? What is the basic Is the illegitimate spouse included

(b) How is murder committed? premeditation are present in the of these two circumstances are the elements of the of the mother. to conZ.', ' eeal her dishonor, an essential element of this offense? , % : +*-+ . .' (a) Parricide is committed by any person who shall kill :$&s father, mother, or child, whether legitimab or illegitimate, :$.

1

752

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal I,aw

is other ascendants or descendants, or his spouse,,.

.i

,$>;

.is-

this offense is the relationship of the$

The illegitimate spouse is not included in the definition'of parricide, because the meaning of the definition is thab the.i .i spouse must be legitimate. .~, (b) Murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of t h e Code for pamicide and infanticide,., shall Id11 another with any of the following attendant circum-.: stances: (1) with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means t o weaken' the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford im-, punity; ( 2 ) i? consideration of a price, reward, or promise; (3) by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,:. stranding o f a vessel, derailment of o r assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall 3f an airship, by means of motor vehicles,;:$ or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; (4). on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated Here? jnabove, or of an eartiguake, ,eruption of a volcano, destructive 2 cyclone, epidemio, or any other public calamity; (5) with evident21 premeditation; (6) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanl$z ''i augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoff-:::; ! ing at his person o r corpse. ' ,*.. , '.d two will qualify the crime to murder:^. .,, of the crime of iiifanticide are: (i) that the deceased child is less t h m ' t and (3) t h a t the accused kills I

/

the elements of (1) robbery, (2) The accused, after inflicting serious thc death GP his victim, took., of the deceased. The lower ,c double crime of murder..! 753

,

I I


.,

CIEIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

4

.,-.; .I

:.

I ,

..

{

(1) FtobberYaa) Personal

belonging to another; (animus lucrandi) ;

iolence against, 01'intimidation or using force upon anything.

a person has in his possession the recently stolen property, he is presumed to ha the thief, in the absence of satisfactory explanation of his possession. If he has in his possession part of the recently stole property, he is presumed to be the thief o f all. But when all the recently stolen effects have been fou and recovered, one from the possession of the accused e place not owned or controlled by the accus had no access, the presumption cannot ris.e, 'i

X. (a) What are the essential elements of adultery and

of the owner. 'omplishsd without viomidation af persons o r

e of confidence; and

e accused in killing

the woman is married; ( d T h a t she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; . (3,),46at , as regards the man with whom she hw sexual intercourse, he must know her to be . . married. : Concubinage(1) That the man must be married. ( 2 ) Tha e committed any of the following ad Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;, b , Having sexual intercourse under scandalous.' circumstances with a woman who is not his wife: c. Cohabiting with her in any other place. (3) That as reg'ards the woman, she must know him to be married. -

king the personal property of another with e to the mind of the offender after he had

cases, i t was held that the taking of the personal f the deceased was theft, not robbery.

'

mynbinage? (b) In a prosecution for adultery, can the qnittal of the paranlour prevent the conviction of the wife the the offended party, on the ground of the indivisibility that crime? (c) What are the civil liabilities of persons fo guilty of crimes against chastity? Can a married man victed of rape be sentenced t.o acknowledge the offspring? (a) The essentia+elements of: .. 1

8

T '.i

' ' .

:

/



Bar Examinations in Criminal Lrw

.-...

(b) No, because the husband acted under the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative. Since the armed ma3 was engaged in a. murderous attack in his own home in the~pre4, ence of his wife whose life was exposed to peril, there was un: lawful aggression on the part of the deceased. Considering thf nature of the unlawful aggression (murderous attack), I assums that the means employed by the husband was reasonable. l2.m is nothing mentioned in the question about provocation by thd wife in which the husband took part. All the three requisites of defense of relatives are present.

( ) No, because-

(I.) There is no joint criminal intent although there is joint physical act; (2) Thus, one of the parties may be insane and the l o t h e r sane, in which case only the sane coulcl be

m o n s guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction, shall

/' ,,

.

To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should pre-

.. 3. In ever case to support the offspring. ,':j. .The adulterer and the concubine may also be sentenced, a separate civil proceeding, to to the offended spouse. of rape .cannot be sentenced to offspring, because the law prevents him from doing so,

::: ,,,::

ATJGUST, 1949 and demands

I

Wbere the defendant set fire to a sack. and ram kerosene oil which he had placed near one of th6 posts and partition walls of the house, and the burning of whid was immediately noticed and ,prevented by another. %?!a1 crime, if any, has been committed by the accused? State Y O & reasons. (b) Does the fact that the oEfended party had he& a person of an unchaste character constitute a good defense'? the charge a€ rape? (a) It depends upon whether or not a part of the housi was burned. If no part of the house was burned, the crime .OM: mitted by the accused is frustrated arson. If a part of the posh and partition walls of the house, even how small that part.??, is burned, it is consummated arson. I n arson, i t is not neces. sary that the building set o n fire is completely burned. .-.;. It is Prustrated arson when no part of the house was bu because the defendant already performed all the acts of tion which would produce the crime of arson a8 a consequ but the crime was not produced by reason of the fact burning sack and rags was immediately noticed and the bu of the house was prevented by another, which was independ of the will of the defendant. (b) No. In rape, the offended party need not be a or a woman of goad reputation. I

fires against him, this time hitting and killing him. 3s the policeman criminally liable? State your reasons. (h) A husband, upon hearing the screams of his wife calling for help, ' a n d coming, as he did without previous knowledge, upon nn armed man engaged in a murderous attack in his own home in the presence of his wife, killed the intruder. Is t b husband 'criminally liable? Reasons. (a) No, because the policeman killed the fugitive from jail in the fulfillment of a duty. He did not incur any criminal .' liability, having acted under a justifying circumstance. .< , . :.

756

e

111. (a) Mention three (3) different instances in w man may be legally convicted of the crime 'of L ~ C mage. (h) When may a person charged with the crim 757

1

",/


.~.. f '

,

trated homicide he found guilty of the crime of unlawful

discharge of firearms against another, whether .any wounds were inflicted or not upon the offended party? Reason out your

answer. :wried man may be legally convictcd of 'the crime e in any of the following instanccs: he keeps a mistress'in the conjugal dwelling; he shall have sexual intercourse, hnder scandalous ircumstances, with a woman who is n3t his wife; .' . ' ( d V h e n he cohabits with her in any other place. . . ( . A person charged with the crime of frustrated homieide may he found guilty of the crime of unlawful discharge of firearms against another, when the prosecution fails to prove intent to kill on the part of the accused. The essential element . of frustrated homicide is that the offender has the intent to kill. When the offender shot at another with any firearm without . .intent to kill, he is liable for discharge of firearm.

d

'

IV. (a) What crime, if any, was committed by the policewho arrested an innocent person, charging him falsdy having violated the opium law for the purpose of extortg money,, which was given? State your reasons. (b) If the property stolen or robbed is contraband, such as opium, will the defendant he exempt from criminal responsibility? State -:I your reasons. . . (a) Robbery with intimidation of person. Falsely charging an innocent person with having violated the opium law is a form of intimidation. The policeman, with intent to gain, took m.oney from the offended party by means of such intimidation. (b) No. In theft and in robbery, the personal property , taken by the defendant may be contraband, such as opium. All ,~ tliat.the law requires is that it he personzl property, belonging t o another, and taken with intent to gain. , .

:

:''1,,

'

V. (a) If the cattle stolen by the defendants have died from rinderpest, while in the possession of the constabulary during the pendency of the trial in case of conviction. are the 758

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exnminatione in Criminal Law accused likewise liable civilly for the reasonable value. of : t said cattle? State your reasons. (h) If a n . agent ~receiv from his principal a sum of money, for a, specified purpose 1n connection with the business established by the two, and on ac: count ~f certain controversies between them with reference 'to the said business, he retained the said funds for his own .protection against his principal, until there conld be an adjustment of their aecofl may the said agent he. legally held. responsibte for est? &ate 0 your , reasons. , , it appears that a person has been deprived WherYes. (a of the possession of his property, the malefactor is responsible ;' to the owner either (1) for the return of the property or (2) for' ' the payment of its value if it cannot be returned, and tkiri whether the sroperty is lost or destroyed by the act of the ~. malefador or t h a t of any other person, o r as a result of any other cause or causes ( U S . YS. San Kupang, 36 Phil. 348; see Arts. 1268, new Civil Code). (b) No. The agent in good faith rekined the funds for the purpose of necessary self-protection against. his principal. There is neither misappropriation nor conversion of the money received, nor denial of having received the same. This element of estafa with abuse of confidence is lacking. I

VI. (a) If the treasurer of a corporation took large sums

of money from the cashier working under him, for his-own personal use, leaving in lieu thereof his personal checks with instructions not t o deposit them on the current account of the! Company, until the end of the month, what crime, if any, -\vas committed by said treasurer? State your reasons. (b) When the complainant signed a notarial document, which had heen misrepresented to him by the defendant to be a power of attorney, when in truth it was a deed of sale of certain property ',, belonging to the complainant, what offense has heen committeq $ hy the accused? State your answer. (a) Estafa. This is not a case where money was exchanged.:, for the checks drawn against existing funds and available for immediate prezentation to the bank for payment; and since, .the checks were not to be deposited on the current account of. 759

'.'

I

CRIMINAL LAW I~EVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal. Law

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

company until the end of the month, there was a t least temporafy prejudice caused to the company. I n - th? case of U.S. Vs. Sevilla, it was held that the crime of estafa was committed even if the accused had no intention to permanently misappropriate the fund!: to himself, because the law is clear and makes no distinction between permanent and temporary misappropriations. (b) Estafa. The accused committed estafa by inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document. The elements of this form of estafa are: (1) that the offender induced the offended party to sign a document; ( 2 ) that deceit be employed to make him sign the document; (3) that the offended party personally signed the document: and (4) that prejudide be caused. Although, the question does not state that the defendant induced t.he complainant to sign the document, it could be inferred from the fact that the defendant made misrepresentation t o him. Since all the elements of the crime are present, the offense of estafa was committed by the accused.

(b) No. The killing of the thief cannot be legally con. sidered as murder qualified by evident premeditation, becap88 there was merely a threat which is not of a direct and specific character. Between the time when the defendant made the threat and the time when the thief was killed by him, there was no act performed by him manifestly indicating that he clang to 'Gt determination to commit the crime. That requisite of evident premeditation is not present.

. .

B

VII. (a) What crime, if any, has been committed by the

policeman and janitor, who aided the defendant municipal treasurer, in removing the safe from the municipal building and its contents afterwards? State your reasons. (b) In case of an undetermined victim, considering the threats made by the dcfendant who had lost a fishing-boat that either he or the thieves would be turned into ghosts, can .the killing 'of the thief afterwards be legally considered a s murder? State your

reasons. ( a ) The policeman and janitor, who aided the municipal treasurer in removing the safe from the municipal bnilding and , if+ contents afterwards, committed the crime of malversation. '.Even private persons who participate as eo-perpetrators in the ' offense of? malversation can be penalized for the coinmission of such crime. When the law clearly defines rt crime, as it has here defined the crime of malversation, those who in any way participati? therein must be principals, accomplices or abettors thereof. Since the policeman and janitor took direct part in the gxecution of the crime, they should be held liable as principals.

760

.

,

-

VIII. (a) And from the fact that the defendants who werti soldiers that had mutinied, had deliberately planned to atGc5 the town, using their firearms, for the killing of two per ,,. )) who had volunteered to help in defending the town, ean,::th$ culprits be legally found guilty of murder, with the circumstancc of premeditation? Sfate your reas during a quarrel, the defendant endeavored to kill but by mistake killed another, will his mistake i man instead of another relieve him from criminal responsibili for homicide? Reasons. (a) Yes. For premeditation to exist, it is not nec that the accused planned to kill a particular person. was held by the Supreme Court that a general attack village having been premeditated and planned, the kil any individual during the attack was attended by the aggravatin; circumstance of evident premeditation, which qualifies the c r i d t o murder. (b) NO. This is a case where .the wrongful act done different from that intended. Under Art. 4, paragraph'l the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred person committing a felony, although the wrongful act different from that which he intended. When the defen deavored to kill his adversary, he was committing a felony.-,.; killing of another person was the direct, logical, and neces consecpence of the felony committed. IX. (a) Is the accidental killing of a bystander, w fendant was acting in self-defense, punishahle? If what crime? State your reasons. (b) If some of the d 761

I


ants. attacked the deceased, one of them inflicting mortal wonnds, while the other two inflicted wounds which were not mortal, but all of them helped in burying the victim, what will be the .criminal responsibility of the accused? Reasons. (a) No. This is another case where the result was not intended by the defendant. In order that a person may be held "criminally liable for the result not intended by him, it is absolutely necessary that he committed a felony, and that the result was the direct, logical and necessary consequence of the felony 1: , ,.,.committed. While the defendant vras acting in self-defense, he was not committing a felony, for the act of such person was in accordance with law, so that he is deemed not to have trans:. gressed the law. > (b) If all the defendants who attacked the deceased, includ'',:ing the other two who inflicted wonnds which were not mortal, .?,were in conspiracy, they are principals, because they participated .hthe criminal resolution and they took direct part in the execution ,of the act. But if the other two, who inflicted wounds which were not mortal, merely concurred in the criminal pur-pose of the others, then those two are on14 accomplices. The fact that a11 of them helped in burying the vidkn does not make them accessories, because they o r some of them already participated as principals and the two of them as accomplices. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime and withont partcipating therein, either as principals or accomplices, took part subsequent to the commission of the crime in any of the manners enumerated in Art. 19 of the Revised Penal Code.

X. (a) While it is true that a civil action may be maintained by an employer to recover money misappropriated by his employees, without the prior institution of a criminal proceeding, nevertheless if a criminal prosecution based upon the same misappropriation is in fact instituted against the emcployee and he is acquitted, what would be the effect of such acquittal upon any subsequent civil action? Reason your answer. (b) In the commission of the crime of falsification of a public or official document, is it necesary that there should have been an

CRIMINAL LAW REVLEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

original document, falsified or imitated by the defendant? State your reasons. (a) If the employee charged with misappropriation in :S criminal case is acquitted, such acquittal has no effect any subsequent civil sction based on the same misappropri because in case of fraud, and there is fraud in misappropriation,! a subsequent civil action is an independent civil action (Art:.33,? C.C.), which may be instituted although the defendant is held criminally liable. (Is) In falsification of a public or official document, it not necessary that there should be an original document falsiy or imitated by the defendant. In enumerating and describi the eight different acts of falsification, Art. 171 o f the Penal Code mentions "genuine document" and "genuine o only in acts of falsification by altering or intercalating ment or by including in a copy a statement contrary to, ferent from, that of the original document. Therefore, it is only when the act of falsification in making alteration 01- intercalation or in including in the a different statement that there should be an original docu

AUGUST, 1950 I. (a) What relation do the generic circumstances h the 'imposition of ~penalties? (b) Name two exempting and two. aggravating circumstances. ( e ) Give the reasons underlying the: provision of the law that one who kills another in self-defe is exempt from criminal liability. (a) Generic circumstances or mitigating and aggravati circumstances shall be taken into account f o r the purppse of diminishing o r increasing the penalty in conformity with the,, following rules: (1) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves const tute a crime specially punishable by law o r which are incl by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty th for shall not be taken into account for the purpose of incr ing the penalty.

r

763

CRIMINAL LAW



t

(2) The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravat-c’wmstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it mus of necessity accompany the commission thereof. (3) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise

bg

from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. (4) The circumstances which consist in the material execu-. tion of the act, or in the means employed t o accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. (b) The two exempting circumstances are: (1) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval; (2) A pemon under nine years of age. !. The two aggravating circumstances are: (1) That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position; (2) That the crime be committed in contempt of or wilh insult to thepublic authorities. (c) The reasons underlying the provision of the law that one who kills another in self-defense is justified and does not .. incur any criminal liability are stated, as follows: “Because i t ~ y o u f dbe quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent. aggression upon its citizen (and even foreigners, of course) and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked. On the other o t be conceived that a person should succumb t o an hand, unlawf it 1 aggression without offering any resistance.”

REVIEWER


I I iI

1 i

4

/

1

I

’the Philippines do not apply in Hongkong. If ymu’were the judge, would you acquit or convict hint? %‘Thy? -.’. If I were the judge, I would convict William Lee. Art. .2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that except as provided in the treaties and laws of pyeferential application, the provisions of that Code shall be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should counterfeit any currency note of the Philippines or obligation and security issued by the Government of the Philippinas. The one-peso currency notes of the Central Bank of the Philippines are national bank notes which are among the obligations and ,securities issued by the Government of the Philippines. The,countcrfeiting of such obligation and security is punished by the Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary that there be a treaty between Great Britain and the Philippines protecting our currency against falsification ’: in the territories of Great Britain to enforce the provision of t h e , Revised Penal Cnde against William Lee who counterfeited in Rongkong our one-peso currency notes. The “treaties” mentioned in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code have reference to agreements that may be entered into by and between the Phi!ippines and a foreign country against the application of the provisiom of the Code to offenders and crimes mentioned in said Art. 2, when committed in that foreign country.

11. iUiam Lee, a resident of Hongkong, counterfeits there one-pe o currency notes of the Central Bank of the Philippines. There is no treaty between Great Britain and the Philippines~ protecting Philippine currency against falsification in the ter-~ : zitories of the former. Later, William Lee comes to Manila on;$:, a business trip and is arrested and prosecuted here for the crime &committed in Hongkong. His defense is that the penal laws o f

111. Juan and Pedro, disappointed jobseekers, agree and plan: t o assassinate the Head of the State: Juan would watch the^, Chief Executive’s movements, would tell Pedro the opportune. time and place for the assassination, and would furnish Pedro: a .45-caIiber pistol; and Pedro would shoot the intended victW4 at the time and place to he indicated by Juan. Fortunately,;; the plan is discovered by the vigilant agents of the NBI, w h o immediately arrest and investigate Juan and Pedro, and ,the$ voluntarily confess.to the foregoing facts. If you were the f i 4 f to whoni the NBI agents present the case, what action ..‘.,...%;+>,+& 3 you take against Juan and Pedro? Why? If I were the fiscal, I would droll. the case against, and Pedro, bkcause they merely agreed and decided to.co a felony, which is not treason, rebellion o r sedition..;i

764

765

cT

!

.. t , ’,

3

wad$

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exsminationa in 'Criminal Law

cbnspiracy i s ' n o t a felony punished by the Revised Penal Code'

or any other penal law. Conspiracy alone, without the execution of its purpose, is not a crime, except in few and rare eases, that is, in treason, rebellion, or sedition.

IV. (a) Give an example of subornation of perjury. (b) Can the suborner be penalized under the Revised Penal Code? (c) Define libel under the Revised Penal Code, and give its essential elements. . . (a) A, accused of physical injuries, paid B PlOO to testify .in his (A's) favor in a preliminary investigation to be conducted by a fiscal, even if A knew that B did not know anything about the case. B, under oath, testified falsely before ttle,fiscal in favor of A. This is an example of subornation of perjury. :i. (b) Yes, the suborner (A) can be penalized under the Revised Penal Code, as principal by inducement in the &me Of perjury. .. (e) Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, o r o f a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending t o cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to black'en the memory of one who is dead. ,I Its essential elements are: .'.. ,. , (1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, o r any act, omission, Condition, status, or circumstance. ..,.;, " ..' . ( 2 ) The imputation must be made publidy. , . (3) It must be malicious. ,, , (4) The imputation must be directed at r. natural or juridical-person, or one who is dead. ( 5 ) The imputation must tend t o cause tne dishonor, discredit or contempt o f the person defamed. t 1, i.'

V. (a) A was killed by his wife I3. C, a stranger, aided B in killing her husband. Is C guilty of parricide? Reason out

766

>.


your answer. (b) What premature marriages are punishable under the Revised Penal Code? ( a ) No. C is not guilty of parricide, even if be aided B in killing her husband, because the private relation o f B with her husband, which qualified the crime t o parricide, was not attendant to C who was a stranger (Art. 62, R.P.C.). (b) The premature marriages which are punishable ,. the Revised Penal Code are those by(1) A widow who married within 301 days from the date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she was pregnant a t the time of his death. (2) A woman who, her marriage having been annulled o dissolved, married before her delivery or before the, expi of the period o f 301edays after the date of the legal s

VI. (a) Are there persons exempt from liability ling (estafa)? If so, who are they? (h) Distinguish sedition from rebellion. (a) Yes. The persons exempt from liability for swindling' are: (1)Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or re affinity in the same line; ( 2 ) The widowed spouse with respect to the prop belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another; and (3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law in-law, if living together. These y r s o n s are only civilly liable. (b)' Sedition is distinguished from rebellion, as follows: (1) As t o the roanner the crime is committed. - In s tion, the offenders rise publicly and tumultuously, emplo force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal metho In rebellion, the offenders rise publicly and take arms again the Government. ( 2 ) As t o the objects o r purpose of the uprising. sedition, the object of the uprising is any of the followi

-

,'

.,'

I

:..,:. . .,.,, ,

,.,


CRIMINAL. LAW REVIEWER

'


(a) t o prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; (bb) to prevent the National C:overnment, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof from f-eely exercising its ' ' or his functions, or prevent the execution Lf any administra~.. : tive order; (a)t o inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person o r property of any public officer or employee; (dd) to commit, for any political or social. end, any act of ,.' hate or revenge against private persons o r any social class; and (ee) t o despoil, for any political or social end, any perssn, .municipality or province, or the National Government of all its property o r any part thereof. ." In rebellion, the purpose of the uprising is any of the following: (1.) To remove from the allegiance to the Government o r its laws (aa) the territory of the Piikejpines o r any part ther of, or (bb) any body of land, naval o r other armed forces; or (2) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, o r partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. .I who


B

foolish acts. Coui-ls cannot constitute themselves guardian of; persocs who are not legally incompetent." (Vales vs. Villa, Phil. 769)

/

PI. (a) A surreptitiously placed a firearm in the premises., of B and informed the police agajnst B for illegal possession.

I

:*,

~

.

sh may lose all they have to the wise; but that that the law will give i t back t o them again. follow one every step of his life and extricate

768

of Nrearm. What crime did A commit? (b) Give two exam+., ples of a complex crime. (e) What can mu say about the. penalty for a complex crime? ,. ' (6 committed the crime of incriminating innocent person, because he performed an act which directly incriminated or imputed to an innocent person the commission of the crime. of illegal possession of €irearm. +The two examples of complex crime are: U A , with intent t o Bill, shot a t B; the slug fired Trom A's gun hit B, Idlljng him: and the same slug which passed through and through B's body, hit and seriously injured C who was standing behind B. This is a complex crime of ,., homicide with frustrated homicide. .L2) Pr falsified a check f o r P500 by counterfeiting the signature of B thereon and presented i t to the bank f o r payment. ' A received F500 from the bank. This is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document. 4 e ) The enalty for a complex crime is intended to favor the cnlprit. In di ecting that the penalty for the graver offense shall. be impo ed. in its maximum period, Art. 48 could have had no. .:' other 9 rpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of Art. 48 is readily discernible. When two o r more crimes are the result of a : single act, the offender is deeenied less perverse than when he' ,;' commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts (Pee& vs. Hernandez, et al., 52 O.G. 5506). ~

iJ

VII. Elvaristo Flores, a collector of antiques, saw in a "Chinese store a silver coin tor sale, which according to his .2>?, catalogue (of antiques is worth $100. The price askeB by the ..&owner was P8. But by false representatiops he convinced the ... .:%,.' owner to sell the coin to him for PI. Several days later the seller found out that the real value of the coin was $100 and he engaged you as his counsel. What would you advise your "' client? Reason out your answer. were the counsel engaged by the seller, I would advise forget the whole thing, as Evaristo Flores committed Being the owner of the silver coin which he offered er knew or ought to know the real value of found out later that the real value of the $100, that was his own fault for which he can have " ,~ ,

him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investme relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects o

i

:ii;

''

769

I

/r/

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Lnw B

X. A Irleptontaniac was prosecuted for the theft of jewels

committed in several stores. The doctors who examined her and observed and analyzed her behavior and past experknees reported that the accused knows what is right and what is wrong 'and that she even knows that to steal is wrong, hut that whenever she has a chance she cannot overcome her impulse to steal, pa~ticularlyjewels. Is the ;mused criminally reaponsible under our Code? Give reasons. . d This is not a settled question. Since the accused knbvzp .+.t,,** 3. zc;yhat is right and what is wrong and that. she even knows that steal is wrong, she is not deprived of consciousness of her aets. Viewed in the light of these facts, a kleptomaniac is c h i n a l l y responsible under our Code. She is entitled onls to the mitigating circumstance of illness under Art: 13, par. Y of the Rovised Penal Code. There is an opinion to the effect $#at since a kleptomaniac -cannot overcome her impulse to steal, there is not only e @minution of the exercise of the will power, but a depriva' tion of the will power, which may be an exempting Lwcumthe first view I have stated is the

. A, who was a

cashier in a department store, falsified National Bank in 'the amount of PZOO by forging the signature of his friend B, who had only PlOO deposited in the Bank in current account. A bought from the store wherein he was employed certain goods and merchandise amounting to F150 which he paid with the falsified check (which he endorsed) and received as change 850 in cash. After several days A stole the check and concealed it. At the end of the month A was found short in his accounts in the amount of €200. For what crime or crimes can A be prosecuted? A can be prosecuted for a complex crime ef estafa through .,:e fdxification of commercial document, because the falsification ::"of"the check was a necesasry means for committing the estda: stealing and concealing of the cheek is not a separate I ;<. ~' , . 770 i,

I

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal

i

LRW

il

e.

crime, because the check, being falsified, had no value either to the supposed drawer or to the department store and, therefore, there is no jiersonal property taken.

i

,dDistinguish

I

:1

theft and estafa. In theft, the offender takes the thing; in estafa, the of-, fender receives the thing from the offended party. But a person who misappropriated the thing which he had'..'. ' received €rom the offended party may be guilty of theft, not estafa, if he acquired only the material or physical possesssion of the thing. the thing from the ofi'ended party, t h e of- , ' the juridical possession of the thing, and' it, he would be guilty of estafa.

I

assaults upon persons in authoritj.'

i

There are two ways of committing the crime of direct a@ saults. They are: (1) Without public uprising, by employing force o r intimidation .or the attainment of. any of the purgoses enumemted/b;f defining the crimes of rebellion .and sedition. Without public' uprising, by attacking, by fore or by serious!y intimidating or by seriously res person in aufhority or any of its agents, while engaged the perfor nce of official duties, or on the occasion of su

q

'

"Ik;fis the crime of illegal association d f r o that of illegal assembly? The distinction between the crime of illegal associat' and that of illegal assembly may be stated, as follows: (1) In illegal assembly it is necessary that there ' actual meeting or assembly of armed persons for the pu

771

I

CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law ;,,;

.,

f

,,.:

If I were the judge called upon to decide the case, I would resolve the issue in accordance with the decision of the. Supreme:

.,

of .Committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code, . or. of.individua1s who, although not armed, are incited to the :'<: commission of treason, rebellion, sedition, or assault upon a pkrson in authority or his agent. quisite is not necessary in the crinie of illegal 89-

'I,

Court. ., In the case of People vs. Hernandez, el al., 52 O.G. 5606;

.IC-

'*

.:I

illegal assembly, ii is the meeting and attendance ting that are punished. associations it is the act of forming or organembership of, the association that are bunished. e purpose of the meeting is to comm'it, crimes by special laws, such meeting is not an illegal asegal association, the purpose may inclucle. that of imes punishable by special law% because when . . the purpose of the organization is contrary to public morals '&e acts hich are contrary to &blic morals may constitute crimes unishable under the special laws.

'

/";

, ,: 4. Whal. are the essential elements of the crime of forcible abduction? The essential elements of the crime of forcible abduction

are: ,(1) The pel'son abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, n r reputation. (2) The abduction is againiit her will. ( 3 ) Witlith lewd designs.

.

,, > .

.",.

5. I n an action filed in Court against certain dissidents, the latter have been charged with the crime of rebellion cant"> ' plexed with miiltiple murder, arson and nob,beries. Tbe defense raised as one of the main issues in the ease that the murders, robberies and arsons alleged in the information are inherent and essential elements of the crime of rebellion. If .,. ', . you were the Judge called upon to decide the case, how woulil gou resolve this issue? State your reasons. I

,..a*

<:.~

.

the Supreme Court held that there is no complex crime of iebellion with multiple murder, arson and robberies. The reason for the ruling is stated, as follows: One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, . .in the words of Art. 135, is by "engaging in war against, the forces of the government" and "committing serious violence72. . in the prosecution o€ said "war". These expressions imp$ 'j everything that war connotes, namely: resort t o a m , requisi-' tion of property and services, collection of taxes and contribu-' : tions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical., in-, juries and loss of life, x x x. Being within the purview'.of: "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction ofW life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but; only one crime--that of rebellion plain and simple. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art. 135 constitute one. single crime, it follows necessarily that said acts offer no 'oc-'. casion for the application of Art. 48, which requires thereforthe cominission of, at least, two crimes. A mere participant in the rebellion, who is not a public officer, should not be placed a t a more disadvantageous position. '1

~'

'

q

3

i 4

I

,

6. State in wbal ways concubinage m a y be committed. 1; Concubinage may be committed in the following ways: (1) By lceeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; o r : ( 2 ) By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous cir: ,. , cumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; or ,. (3) By cohabiting with her in 'any other place. ' 7. What is the distinction between habitual deliquency and recidivism? ., :

,

772

~

773

' I CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law


When b, reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide, is commit d the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. W n f i e rape is frustrated or attempted and a homicide is ey)R a Litted by reason-,or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane the penalty shall be likeaise ?'ecZmion perpetm.

habitual delinquency and recidivism

*-

,(I) As t o the crimes committed. - In recidivism, it is sufficient that the accused on the.date of his trial, shall have been previo ly convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced ihe same title of the Code; in habitual delinquency' t h e cri s are specified. As t o the peiiod of time the crimes are committed. ( In r cidivisrn, no period of time between the former convic-' tion and the last convietion is fixed by law; in habitual de-. lenquency, the offender is found guilty of any of the crimes ten years from his last release or last conviction. the number of crimes committeci. ,- In reciconviction for an offense embraced in the same title of the Code is sufficient; in habitual delinquency, the accused must be found guilty the third time or oftener of any of the crimes specified. ( 4 ) As to their effects. - Recidivism, if not offset by a mitigating circumstance, serves to increase the penalty only to the maximum; whereas, if there is habitual delinquency, an additional penalty is imposed.

J'

*/tcy

'I i

f 6

(i

1

/;

@

6..

:t

(3 ?&%

i

When and how may rape he committed. ape, may be committed by having carnal knowledge of a under any of the following Circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidation: (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of ;the circumstances mentioned in the two shall be present.

two or more persons, the penalty , ,

<~.

j

4

//

9. (a) State the npeessary elements of the crime of hfide' y in the custody of documents. (b) Is tbe mere act of affi'ating with, and becoming. member of, the communist party ,, f the Philippines, constitntive of a crime under the Revised Penal Code? Why? (a) There are three different forms of infidelity in the custody of documents. Tliey are: (1) Removal, concealment or destruction of documents (Art. 226). (2) Officer breaking seal (Art. 227). (3) Opening of closed documents (Art. 228). Since the question does not specify the form of infidelity in the custody of documents, I suppose that the elements of the first form of the crime of infidelity in the ccstody of documents axe the ones called for. The elements of the first form of the crime of infidelity in the custody of, documents are: (1) That d e offender be a public officer; (2) T p d h e r e be a document or papers removed, destroyd; or conceded ; ,,. (3) The said document or papers should have been eonfied or entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office; (4) That damage or prejudice t o the public interest, or td a third person, should have been caused. (b) The mere act of affiliating with, and becoming ber of, the commu~~ist party of the Pldlippines is spy!

. I

774

775

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinationa in Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Ernminations in Criminal Lay

under the Anti-Subversion Act. Althouxh, - . -wior t u the enactment of the Anti-Subversion Act membership in the communist party is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. it being covered by the crime of illegal associations, after the enactment of the Anti-Subversion A d affiliating with, ana becoming member of, the communist party of the Philippines should be punished under the mid Act.

or incomplete exenipting circumstance, and that the offendei!' had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that corn-mitted. Aggravating circilmstances are those which, if attend in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the pe without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty vided by law for the offense. The examples of agg circumstances are: that advantage be taken b$ the of his public position, and that the crime becommitted contempt of o r with insult t o the public authorities. The alternative circumstances are those which mu8 taken into consideration as aggravating o r mitigating ai: ing to the nature and effects of the crime and the o ditions attending its commission. The examples of a1teW.a circumstances are intoxication and relationship.

,yuni:

. .

10. IInto how many classes are circumstances affecting criminal liability divided? Define and give examples of each. The circumstances affecting climinal liability are divided jnto five .groups, namely: (1) justifying circumstances, ( 2 ) ''2 exempting circumstances and. other ahsolutory causes, ' (3) miti,,2 gating circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and (6) : alternative 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 not to have transgressed the law and is free from : both criminal and civil liability. The examples of justifying circumstances are self defense, defense of relatives, defense 5 <30f;strangers, and state of necessity. , . ...."; Exempting circumstances are 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, 01' negligent. The examples of exempting civcumstances are im. becility or insanity, minority, jrresistible fore?, and uncontrollable , fear. . Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is :i a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. The examples of absolutory causes ', are spntaneous desistance of a person who commenced the commission of a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution, and legal grounds for arbitrary detention. Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. The examples of mitigating circumstances are incomplete justifying ,I:

~

,

"

"

~

/

AUGUST, 1952

./

I. From the definition given in the Revised Penal $2 (1932) that "acts and omissions punishable by law are f e (Art. 3), the word VOLUNTARY of the previous code, was eliminated, as well as tho phrase THAT ACTS OR., SIONS PUINISHABLE BY LAW ARE ALWAYS P R p TO BE VOLIJNTARY UNLESS THE CONTRARY APPEAR. (a) Considering such eliminations would yo hold that even acts and omissions punishable by law INVOLUNTARY are felonies? State your opinion on (b) Is .there any voluntariness on the part of the o cases of felonies committed through reckless negligence prudence? Why do yon say so? (a) No. Acts and omissions punishable by law which, involuntary are not felonies, notwithstanding the eliminat of the word "voluntary" and the phrase to the same ef found in the previous code, from the Revised Penal Code. Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the classical th according to which the basis of criminal liability is free w

777

CKIXINAL B a r Examinsti

LW REVIEWER r

in Criminal Law

The elimination of the word and the phrase mentioned in the question is justified, because the law premmes that acts or omissions punishable by law are voluntary. The accused may overcome the presumption by shon4ng that his act or omission .is not free, intelligent, and intentional, or thnt i t is not due t o his negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skjll. (b) Yes. Even in cases of felonies committed through n e e Iigence or reckless imprudence, there is voluntariness on the part of the offender, because reckless imprudence, as defined by the Revised Penal Code, consists in 'voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act 'from which material damage results, etc.

4)

When is a felony said to be (1) consummated; ( 2 ) frustrated; and (3) attempted? (h) Can the crime of frustrated bribery he committed? Reason your answer. (a) A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and if. is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of,pxecution which would produce the felony as a consequence hut which, nevertheless, do not produce i t by reason of canses independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt 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 o m $pmtaneous desistance. (b) No. The crime of frustrated bribery cannot be conk mitted, because bribery is a felony which requires the intervention of two persons to commit i t 'and is consummated by mere agreement. An offer of brihe which is accepted by the public officer is a consummated corruption of public officer. If such offer js rejected, it is attempted corruption of public officer. In a case, the Supreme Court held that when the public officer who had accepted the bribe returned it, the crime committed by the giver of the bribe is frustrated corruption of

CRIMINA Bar Examin

LAW REVIEWER m e in Criminal Law

-public officer. With due respect, I respectfully submit that it^ ishould have been attempted corruptiox of public officer.

111. State the differences existing between the circumstance %of"laving acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force", and that of "having acted upon an impulse so powerful as -naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation". The differences existing between the circumstance of "hav5ng acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force" arid -that of "having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturalllly to have produced passion and obfuscation" are: (1) While passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance, irresistible force is an exenipting circumstance. (2) Passion or obfuscation cannot give rise t o an irresistible force because irresistible force requires physical force. (3). Passion or obfuscation is in the offender himself, while irresistible force must come from a third person. (4) Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful senti-merits; whereas, the irresistihle force is .unlawful.

IV. Juan de la Cruz, chauffeur of a jeepney, while driving it along Taft Avenue, Manila, through recldess imprudence caused his said vehicle to hump and collide with one 6 x 6 .army motor truck going in the opporiite direction, with the result that 2 of his passengers died instantaneously and the jeepney. the property of Pedro Garcia, valued at Pl,OOO.OO, mas -completely smashed and rendered useless forever. The accident occurred on December 1, 1950. If you were the Fiscal in charge:; a f the case, would mu prosecute Juan de la Cruz for the. cam:"' ;plex crime of double homicide and damage to property through, ; reckless driving, a s mming within the purview of Art. 48 of-' the Rev. Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000 of the ' Corn-. monwealth? State the reason of your answer. . , +.; If I were the Fiscal, I would not prosecute Juan de la C,*ii -for the complex crime of double homicide and damage.,toyt# 'property through reckless driving under Art. 45 of the Revisi$% .~<&j .Penal Code. ::fa > ;A . $:?.

,&j

778 :,*...., ,'. .i'

,

,:;,.,

..

779

CRIMINAL LAW. RZVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law


The accident having occurred on December 1, 1950, t h e Motor Vehicles Law was applicable when death or serious bodily injury to any person resulted 'from negligence or reckless o r unreasonably fast driving by a motor vehicle driver. Republic Act No. 687, amending such provision of the Motor .Vehicles Law and making the Revised Penal Code applicable in such cases, took effect. on Januam 11, 1951. Since the single act of reckless driving produced a violation of the Revised Penal Code (damage to property through reckless imprudence) and a violation of a special law, Art. 48 of the Code is not applicable; because this. article speaks of h a v e o r less grave felonies resulting from a single act, and a violation of a special law is not a felony. V. In a criminal case john^ Smith was sentenced by t h e Municipal 'Court of Manila to suffer the penalty of 2 years, four months and 1 day of destierm (banishment), and thus forbidden to enter any place within the radius of 100 kilometers from the City of Manila. Subsequently and duringbthe period of service of his sentence, John Smith was caught in the City of Manila and was therefore prosecuted before the Court of First Instance of this capital for evasion of service of .sen-' teuce. I n his defense John Smith claimed t h a t ' h e was not criminally liable because his case did not coine within the scope of the penal code, particularly of Art. 157 thereof which punishes the evasion of sentence, for the reason that, according t o him, this article refers only to persons who are impenal institution. W h a t is your opinion? Why? prisoned in My opinion is that John Smith was criminally liable f o r evasion of the service of the sentence. Although, the English text of Art. 157 refers only t o persons who are imprisoned i n a penal institution, the Spanish text of the same article uses the phrase "sufriendo priwacibn de libertad". Destierro is a deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the ,sense that as .,,in,,the .,,,. ... present case, John Smith was deprivsd of the liberty ?:to enter the City of Manila.

x

780

VI. Pedro Ingles, a bill collector of the Metropolitan~AWater District, was prosecuted in the Municimpal Court of Manila in 11 separate cases for the light felony of unjust vexation eommitted against 11 distinct persons in 11 different dates of t h e month of July, 1952. The Rev. Penal Code punishes the light felony of unjust vexation with arresto menor or a ,fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both. The guilt of the del fendant in the 11 cases was.proved beyond reasonable doubt. (1) If you were the Judge, would you render a verdict of guilty and sentence him to the corresponding penalty in each o f , the 11 cases? (h) Assuming that the proper penalty that should. be imposed in each case upon the defendant were 11 days of axresto menor, what would be the length of the ,period of sentence that Pedro Ingles could be compelled to serve? Why? (a) If I were the Judge, .I would render a verdict of guilty!- * and sentence Pedro lngles to the corresponding penalty of the 11 cases. The rule is that all the penalties corresponding, to the different crimes of which the accused is found guilt should be imposed on him. (b) Pedro Ingles could be compelled to serve'only 33 d imprisonment. Under the threefold rule, the maximum duratio of the convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold length of time corresponding to the most severe of the 'be ties imposed upon him.

1

I

fl

1

1i i

5'. '

VU. A, E and C, employees of a rice dealer who..ha warehouse situated at Dagupan street, Manila, where hundr of sacks. of rice were usually stored, surprised X, when they were one morning inside the warehouse. Up0 a u g h t there the 3 intruders fired upon and killed all sa employees and ran away thereafter. The police subseque arrested Z who was charged in the Court of First Insta Manila with the crime of robbery with triple homicid the hearing the prosecution failed to prove any robbery, because no explanation was given of the intruders' motives being in the warehouse, or because on 1.hat occasion t h e ' house happened to be empty. If you were the Judge, you convict %. If so, of what crime o r crimes? Why? 781

I

ClIIiMINAL LAW REVIEWER


Bar Examinations in Crimlnal Law

If I were the Judge, I would convict Z of three crimesof homicide, the prosecutibn having failed to prove any robbery. Considering the circumstances, I submit that there WBS . .: conspiracy among X, Y and Z in the killing of A, B and C. The fact that they were together in a place where they had no. right to be, and that they fired simultaneously -with their guns at, the three employees who had surprised them, shows that .,::.,. .they had a common purpose and. were united in its execution. ’ . When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. ’, Even if Z <$id not kill all the three employedc and X and Y killed the others, 2 is still liable for the three crimes of homicide. ,

’

~

..

,’ I

1‘’

VIII. a) What is the main feature t‘lat differentiates the cri e oE estafa from that of theft? (b) “A” delivers two P500, bills to “B”, his employee, with instructions to go to the Central Bank to.exchange them with bills of smaller denominations, :md to bring back the change to him afterwards’%’’ receives. the two 8500.00 bills from his employer, but instead of ,complying with the latter’s instructions, disappears with the money which he appropriates for himself. “B” axilrnitted qualified theft or estafa? What is your opini,nn and the reasons therefor? (a) In esta€a, the offender receives the thing from tho offended party. In theft, the offender takes the thing without the consent of the offended party. Even if the offe5der receives the thing from the offended party, but the former acqnires only the physical or material possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same would constitute the crime o f theft. IIence, in estafa the offender has the juridical possession of the thing which he misappropriates or converts to the prejudic of another. ‘. ( My opinion is that “€3” committed qualified theft, not est a. The reasons for my opinion are that although “B” received the two PS00.00 bills from his employer, be had only the physical or material possession of the same and the constructive possession thereof remained with the employer untiE the misappropriation of the two F600.00 hills.

IX. ( a ) What are the elements of the crime of occupation ’ of real property ox usurpation of real rights in property? (b) -: “A” t@wner of a house and lot situated a t N,o. 100 Taft ‘.: Avenue Extension, leased this property to “B” and family, ‘ q d ..? because the lessor and the lessee quarelled at the club on certain ,’,: Qersonal matters, “A” went to said property, forcibly entered ’, therein and by means of violence against and intimidation of the occupants thereof .seized it back from “B”. Has “A” corn-mitted in this case the crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property? Give reasons for your answer. ( a ) The elemknts of the crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of r e d rights in property are: (1) The offender takes possession of any real property or usurps an? real rights in property. (2) That the real property or real rights belong to another. (3) That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the. o f h d e r in occupying real property o r usurping real rights. (4) There is intent to gain. (Is) No. “A” did not commit the crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property, because “A” was the owner of the real property and he had no intent t o gain. Elements Nos. 2 and 4 of the crime are not present.

[J ,i ‘f

i ’.

X. “A” and ‘€3’’ were mortal enemies. They occasionally, . met a t a arty that their common friend “C” gave in his:’ hous nowing that there would be a game of poker and availing himself of the first opportunity, “A” picked up the wallet of C containing P1,OOO.OO and surreptitiously put it in the pocket of “B’s” coat. When the guests were called for the ganie “C” discovered the loss of his wallet and money and “A” told “C” that he had seen “B” in the act of suspiciously placing in his coat a wallet with a bulged sheaf of paper bills. I‘ B,, is searched despite his protests of innocence and “C’s’”:, wallet and money is found in the coat of B who is brought to

J

d

::q .I\

782

. . ; L

I83

I

... .

..


the police station for investigation and proper action. Is the trick or scheme of "A" punishable by law? If you think so. " b y which law a n d what is the name of the criminal offense .;committed? State your reasons. .., Yes, the trick or scheme of "A" is punishable by the Re'? vised Penal Code and the name of the criminal offense is ' incriminating innocent person, because he performed an act :"which directly incriminated o r imputed to "B", an innocent person, the commission of a crime (theft).

,.A

~

.. .

'1

AUGUST, 1953

I. ( a ) Enumerate the characteristics of Criminal Law , (b) Explain briefly what they are. (a) Criminal Law has &reo main characteristics, namely: i (1) generality, ( 2 ) territoeiality, and (3) prospectivity. 2 , (b) Generality means that i t is binding on a11 persons who " reside o r sojourn in Philippine territory. Territoriality means that i t undertakes to pnnish crimes committed within the Philippine territory. As a rule, penal lawk are enforcible only within the territory of the Philippines. Prospectivity means that a penal law cannot malie an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when' committed. In other words, crimes are punished ,-rider the P laws in force a t the time of their commission. ,

11. (a) Define conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony. (b) When are conspiracy and proposal considered as felonies? ( e ) Enumerate the crimes of conspiracy and proposal that can be committed. (d) When does conspiracy not constitute a crime and is oinly a means or manner of incurring criminal liability? (e) In the latter case, what is the liability attached by law to those who take part in the conspiracy? ( a ) A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come ': t o ' an ameement concerning the commission of a felony and "ii decide to commit it. ,";

't

784

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER. Bar Examinations in Crimihal' Law

There is proDosal when the person who has decided to' commit a felony propoees its execution to some other persoq" or persons. (b) Conspiracy and proposal are considered as felonies' only in the cases in which the law specially provides. a penalty therefor (Art. 8, par. 1, R.P.C.). ( c ) The crimes o f conspiracy and proposal that can be committed are: (1) conspiracy and proposal t o commit treason, (2) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and (3) conspiracy t o commit sedition. There is no proposal to commit sedition. (cl) Conspiracy does not constitute a crime and is only a , ' means o r manner of incurring criminal liability, when the crime which the conspirators agreed and decided to commit is not treason, rebellion or sedition. Even if the crime involved in the conspiracy is treason, rebellion, 01- sedition, but any said crimes is actually committed, the conspiracy is only a' means or manner of incurring crimina1 liability. The reason for this rule is that in conspiracy as felony, the offenders must only agree and decide to commit treason, rebellion or sedition: (e) Those who take part in conspiracy are equally liable fop th ctually committed after the conspiracy. When there is. y, the act of one is the act of all.

::

.wT,

he Revised Penal Code considers a GENERIC GATING circumstance the fact that the offender is ,una years of age (but over 15) a t the. time of the commissi the offense, but another article of the code provides that: a person oyer 15 and under 18 years of age, the penal lower than that. prescribed by law shall be imposed, but in the proper period". In view of these provisions, .c generic mitigating circumstance ever be appreciated in of a minor delinquent over 15 but under 18 years ,of a the time of the commission of the offense? Explain answer. Yes. The age over 15 but under 18 years i s . ~ . , a . g e mitigating circumstance in two cases:

785

. ., ,”:

CRIMIINAL LAW ILEVIEWEK Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

,/

.

(1) When the offender is 1G years or over but under 18 years, because the other article of the Code may not then be applicable, since that article should apply only when the offender has been proceeded against under Art. 80 and while in the reformatory institution or in the custody of a responsible person he becomes incorrigible. The offender is not entitled to a euspended sentence under Art. 80 when he is 16 years o r over. The question involved in the first case is not yet settled b y ’ t h e Supreme Court. There are conflicting decisions on t h e matter. (2) When the offense committed is a light felony, because Art. 80 Is applicable only when the offender who is under 16 of age is accused of a grave o r less grave felony.

9/”

IV. (a) What are the laws referred to as “special lavis” under Article 1 0 of the RevisJtd Penal Code? (b) When a special law declares the commission of a certain act a criminal offense, providing a penalty for its penpetration, could a violator thereof be convicted ‘of a frustration or attempt to commit such act? Explain your answer. ,

(a) The laws referred to as “special laws” ‘under Art.. 10 -.ofthe Revised Penal Code are those penal law6 enacted by the legislative body (now Congress), which do not form part of or a r e not amendments to, the Revised Penal Code. ( b ) ’ A violator of a special law cannot oe convicted of a frustration or attempt t o commit the act defined by that law as a criminal offense, unless the special law provides a penalty for the frustration or attempt t o commit the act. The reason yor this ruling of the Supreme Court is that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on attempted and frustrated felonies , , a r e not applicable to special laws. ~.

-?

V. John Doe committed the crime of theft of one Parker’s set of fountain pen and pencil valued at t40.00 when he was 17 years of age. Considering the provisions of Rep. Act No. 47 amending Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, by reducing from 18 t o 16 the age of juvenile delinquents who may be sen786

i

i

I

1

,,

,.%

CRDIISAI. LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinolions in Criminal Law

tetieed in case their guilt is shown, could John Doe receive th benefit of the special or privileged circumstance designed, fa juvenibweffenders under 18 years of a@ provided in Art?% . e 6 Revised Penal Code? Why? This is ,not a settled question. In one case, the Supr Court held that Republic Act No. 47, reducing from 18 to 1 the age of juvenile delinquents, does not apply to A r k $ which provides for the special or privileged circumstance dt signed for juvenile offenders under 18 years of age. Undi the ruling in that case, John Doe could receive the benefit of %$ special or privileged mitigating circumstance even if h e wa 17 years of age. .’ held that since 68 is not when the offen@

.,A

80 is applicable o when the offender is under 16 years of age, the offender years of age is not entitled to a penalty one degree.lower: It is submitted that the ruling in the second case has le6 basis and, therefore, is the correct one,

~. ., . illem ,

.:,

VI. (a) What are the elements of the crime of marriage? (h) Antonio was married legally to Josefa, an during the existence of this marriage Antonio married .,Peh

against Antonio f o r said offense. Aft, hearing all the foregoing facts were duly established. Z ’ y j were the judge, would you convict Antonio of the crime,;.! ‘J bigamy? Explain your answer. -.: marriages under the Revised Penal Col are: (1) b y y, (2) marriages contracted against provisioi I

I

,,

c?f I&,

/

CRIMrXAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal t a w

*

Ir

$? J

.i

(3) premature marriages, and (4) performance of il-

legal marriage ceremony, ’ . ,. I suppo:ie that the question calls for the elements of bigamy, which are: (1) That the offender has been legally married; (2) that the said marriage has not been legally dissolved, or ,... i n case his spouse is absent, there has not been a judicial’declaration that the absent spouse is presumptively dead; (3) that he contracts a second o r subsequent marrjage; and ( 4 ) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. (b) If .I were the judge, I would not convict Antonio of t h e crime of bigamy. Since Petra is the complainant, I assume that the basis of her complaint for the crime of bigamy against Antonio is her marriage with him. If that is the case, the c+e of bigamy cannot legally exist, because her marriage with Antonio was bigamous and void ab initio. The ma.rriage \of Antonio with Catalina is not bigamous, even if the/basis of the prosecution is his first marriage, n he contracted marriage with Catalina, his marriage had already been legally dissolved by the, death of

.”

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Ctimirlal Law

’

i

’

2

d

,

a Civil Service examination Alex Jones filed the corresponding sworn application feigning to be one Richard Roe, who was Jiis friend. After being accepted the former took. the exaniination in the latter’s name and behalf. He answered the questionaires in writing. His compositions were his personal and private papers until he submitted the same to the Civil Service Examiner for revision, rating and filing in the archives of the Bureau. Has Alex Jones committed any crime? If YOU think so, state the nature of the same and the reason for your opinion. Yes. Alex Jones committed the complex crinte of falsification of oEficial document through perjury. He falsified a document (the compositions) by causing it to appear that Richard Roe participated in an act or proceeding, when in truth ~. abd in fact he did not. Although, his compositions were his

i

.4 #

788

.

and private papers, yet they are official documents,’ Civil Service examination ia given by t h e Bureau? as required by law. Alex Jones had ‘to file sworn app!ication feigning to be Richara’ Roe to enable him to take t h e examlnation for the latter:^; In doing this, be committed perjury. He made a sworn statement upon a material matter; before a competent officer au-thorized to receive and administer oath; there was a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and that such sworn statemsnt containing the falsity is required by law. perjury was a necessary means for committing the falsification of official document.

VIII. John Smith and William Winters were friends and neighbors, living on Economia street, Sampaloc, Manila. On August 1, 1 2, John had t o move his residence to Ayala Boul e v a r d l , Manila, and having no money to hire a truck transportation of his furniture and belongings, he apfor t proached his neighbor William with the request that he he allowed t o use William’s truck for said purpose. William denied the request, and John, enraged, got his rev,olver and at the point of his gun and through violence and intimidation, took William’s truck, a personal property that the latter had under his house, against his will, made the transfer of his (John’s) things t o the new residence, spending about 30 liters of gasoline contained in the tank of the truck, valued P7.20 and afterwards returned the truck without gasoline to William Winters.: Considering this set of facts, state what crime has John Smi committed, givin the grounds of your conclusion. Jod c o m m i t t e d grave coercion, because. he pelled William Winters to do something against his will, t h is, t o allow him t o use the truck, by means of violence or ’ timidation. The crime committed is not robbery, because, there was intent to gain in using the truck, the element “taking” was not present. The element of “taking” in robb as in theft, means the act of depriving another of the pos aion and dominion of movable thing coupled with t h e ih tention, a t the time of the “taking”, of withholding it with

789 :,$

I





character of permanency. The fact that John Smith returned tlie truck after using it shows that he did not have the intention to own it. The next question to determine is whether or not John Smith could be held liable for robbery for consuming the 30 liters of gasoline contained in the lank of the truck. It is submitted that there was no taking of the gasoline. It was spent in e use of the truck. John Smith is only civilly liable for i value.

AUGUST, 1954

d

/d"

IX. Jokn Doe, driver of an automobile coming from Santa

Cruz, Lagung while passing through Calantba saw hundreds of coconuts piled up along the side of the road in front of the estate of Pete Poe, ready for transportation t o Manila. John Doe stopped his car and without the knowledge or consent of the owner took 24 of said coconuts, put them in t e automobile and continued his trip to Manila. Is the theft ommitted ,by John Doe simple or qualified? Why? The theft committed by John Doe is simple, not qualified. Theft of coconuts is qualified theft, when the coconuts 'are taken coconut plantation. The side of the road, where the from t eocon s were piled up, was not part of the plantation.

P

'

%ate briefly what is the fundamental principle on which the right of the State to punish or impose coercitive measures upon ci;iminal offenders is based. To secure justice. The State has an exislence of its own t o maintain, a conscience of its own to assert, and moral prin. ciples to be vindicated. Penal justice must therefore be exere cised by the State in the service and satisfaction of a duty, and rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of the punishment inflicted.

P(

.'

/"'

1

I

X. Can the TAKING of an automobile for a joyride, punIshed by the Motor Vehfcle Act, ever constitute the crime of theft,

!'

simple or qualified, of that automobile? Why? In the case of People vs. Fernandez, decided by the ,Supreme purt, and in the case of People VY. Martisano, decided by the Court of Appeals, i t was held that the takiiig of the motor , vehicle belonging to another for joy-ride or to use i t only i; as a meanir of transportation is aqualified theft of the motor vehicle. In other cases decided by the Court of Appeals, it was held that i t was not theft, simple or qnalifi.d, of the motor .. ..vehicle, because the accused in taking the motor vehicle for '' a joy-ride did not have the intention to own it or of withholding 8,'-,/itwith the character of permanency. ' I submit this view is the correct one.

ention 2 circumstances of each of the following classificat' n: a ) justifying; (b) exempting; (e) mitigating, (a)., aggravating; and (e) nlternative. (a) Two justifving circumstances. The following do not incur criminal liability: (1) Anyone who acts in defense of S i person or rights, provided that the following circumstance; concur: first, unlawful aggression; second, reasonable necessit& of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and third, l a # of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendink himself. (2) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimatg; natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives bJi affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinitr w i t b i the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second I$ quisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance ,+p present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation w d given by the person attacked, that the one making the defe had no pa$ therein (Art. 11, pars. 1 and 2 ) . ( b ) wo ezcmpting circumstances. The following exem from criminal liability: (1) an imbecile or an ins person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid (2) A person under nine years of age (Art. 12, pars, 1 (e) Two mitigat,hg circumstances. (1) That all quisites necessary to justify the act o r to exempt from liability in the respective cases are not attendant. (

-

8

-

-

'

:

791

790

. .

...

,. , ,

~..

CRIMINAL


‘the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years (Art. 13, pars. 1 and 2). (d) Two aggravating circumstances. (1) That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. (2) That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the’ public authorities (Art. 14, pars. 1 and 2 ) . (e) Two alternative circzmstances. - (1) Relationship and - (2) intoxication (Art. 16). .,., .?, . . .. III. What are the exceptions to the allowance of one-half

-

L+~..\

:?.of the period of preventive imprisonment undergone by criminal ’

~

’::

‘.

LAW

offenders? They are: . (1) When the offenders are recidivists, or have’ been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; (2) When upon being summoned for the executjMl of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily; (3) When they have been convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversati ad of public funds, falsification, vagrancy, or prostitution

/

V. In what cases the execution of the death penalty must be suspended? . In the following cases, the execution of the death sentence must be suspended: (1) When the convict is a woman, within the three ygars next following the date of the sentence. .. (2) When the convict is a pregnant woman, until after delivery. . (3) When the convict is a person over 70 years of age. (4) When the convict becomes insane after final sentence of death has been pronounced, until he recovers his reason. , V. What are the only crimes punished under the Revised .Penal Code for which the Court, in addition to the penalty ;~:.aJ@ched by the code, may sentence or require the ,offender PtL-tn give r bond for good behavlor? (h) If the culprit fails to

give such bond, shall he be DETAINED for a period not‘ eeeditig 6 months in cases of grave or less grave felonies,:&4 not exceeding 30 days if for a light felony, as provided 85 of the RPC, or shall he be SENTENCED to destierro (banish6 ment), as provided in Art. 284 of the same Code? What ’@ .. . Ihe reason of your answer? (a) They are: .

i.:g .~

(1) Grave threats; and ( 2 ) Light t h r k t s . (b) B e should be sentenced to destierro, because Art. 284 which is the one applicable specifically so provides and, morever, Art. 35 which provides for “bond to keep the peace” applies, only to other crimes, it being a general provision intended to: cover other cases. VI. Sam was pl-osecuted and found guilty of the crime OR malicious mischief under Art. 329, No. 3, of the RPC as amended: by Act No. 3999 of the Legislature and sentenced to pay a fine of P200, value of the damage caused, and to indemnify William, the offended party, in the sum of P200, o r to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus the costs. Sam has money to satisfy both amounts, but he is stubbornly unwilling to pax them and prefers t o serve the subsidiary imprisonment. (a) Has Sam the right to choose between thl? payment of said am,ounts and the service of the subsidiary imprisonment? ( b ) Does not such subsidiary im,prisonment amount to impris,onmeiit for debt and is, therefore, unconsti; tutional? Reason out both answers. (a) It is submitted that Sam has no right to choose between ‘the payment of the fine, the damage, and indemnification, and the service of the subsidiary imprisonment, because the op ing sentence of Art. 39 says: “If the convict has no prope with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities”, which means if the offender has property with which to pay the pecu liabilities, he can be required t o , pay, which may be done writ of execution.

$ Q : $

”“..’

3:.

REVIEWER

Bar Examinations in Criiminnl Law

793

792

\


CRIMINAL LAW, REVIEWER Rar Examinations in Criminal Law

Rar Examinations in Criminal L a y (b) No, because the prohibition that no person shall be imprisoned for non-payment of debt does not relate to cases seelcing the enforcement of penal statutes that provide for the payment of money as a penalty for the commission of crime.

VII. At the corner of Rim1 Avenue and Zurbuan street, M a n h ’ P e t c r and Paul stopped Alex and a t the ,point of their respective rNevolvera the former ordered the lat.ter to $eliver to.them his wallet containing $500 iii the paper money. Alex handed them the wallet and then the robbers went away in the direction of two detectives who saw the misdeed from a distance and arrested the pair and seized from them the wallet and the money as well as the two revolvers for the possession of which Peter and Paul had no license. The crime committed by these two malefactors is frustrated or consummated robbery? (b) Could they be accused and convicted of a co lex crime o f robbery through unlawful possession of unlicense firearms in accordance with the provisions of Art. 48 of the RPC as amend-. ed by Act No. 400 of the Philippine Legislature? State briefly the reasons of your answers to these two questions. (a) The crime committed is consummated robbery, because the asportation or unlawful taking was complete the moment they had poissession of the wallet and its contents, even if the culprits had had no opportunity to dispose of the same. (b) It is submitted tha,t they could not be accused and convicted of a complex crime of robbery through unlawful possession of unlicensed fireaims under Art. 48. n Reason: Art. 48, in defining the second form of complex crime, provides that “when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed.” While this form of complex crime does not seem to require that the crime intended to be committed and the crime conimitted as “necessary means for committing the other” must be both felonies, nevertheless in the case of People v6. Araneta, 48 Phil. 650, it was held that both crimes must be punished under the same statute. In the problem given, the possession

9’

I

2

794

-of firearm without license is punished under a special law, while robbery is punished under the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, they should he prosecuted for two crimes, namely: (1) robbery with intimidation, and (2) ea,ch f o r illegal possension of firearm. .,* .. VIII. ( a ) State the difference between the crime9 :b@fGANDAGE and ROGBERY IN BAND. (b) What arms &$ve+pons the malefactors must cawy to be considered as armed n%n? (a) If the agreement among more than three armed ‘men w a t o commit only a particular robbery, the offense is-’ brigandage, but only robbery in band. Both in robbery ir. hand and in brigandage, the offen m u s t be a.t least f o z o uwned persons who form a band of robbers. . ; The intent to gain is likewise common to both. , .. . In robbery in band, the purpose of the offender is only t0 f commit robbery, not necessarily in the highway; whereas, in ,~ brigandage, the purpose of the offenders is anyone of the following: (1) to commit robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap ’,, persons for extortion or to obtain ransom, or (3) to attain , %y means of force and violence any .other purpose. In robhery in hand, the crime of robbery must be actuallyi mmmitted; whereas, in brigandage the existence alone of the pnrpose to commit robbery in the highway is sufficient, because what the law punishes in brigandage is .the formation of a band ef robbers for any of the purposes mentioned by the law. (b) Neither Art. 306 nor Art. 296 of the Revised Pena Code specifies the kind of arms or weapons the malefacto must carry to be considered as armed men. It merely: me tiow “armed persons”. Hence, any arm or weapons like kni or boloes will be sufficient. ~

IX. John asked James to exchange him a check for sum of B1.,000, and upon receiving this amount from the lat

John, with deliberate intent to defraud and for the purposet musing the Philippine National Bank, against which it ;. a w n , to dishonor the check, executed the same by Wri

‘796 1

I



his' signature very differently from that registered in the Bank. John had funds to meet the check when James presented i t for collection, but, a s i t was expected, the bank refpsed payment '_ because the signature of the drawer was not his registered signature and John declined to issue another good check or to return the money he received from James. Has John committed ~. , the crime of "estafa"? State briefly your opinion and the .-' riasons-on which it is based. .. -Yes, because by signing his name very differently from that registered in the Bank for the purpose of causing the .Bank to dishonor the check which was exchanged for cash, to ,the prejudice of the payee, h e committed estafa bf means of ~.deceit. It is like signing the check with a ficti ious name. ~

P,,

B

X. Blackmailing for the purpose of extorting .money from the party threatened constitutes what offense? Under what classification of crimes does it fall in the Eevised Penal Code? . , It constitutes either (1) light threats under Art. 283, or (2, ,threatening to publish a libel and offering t o prevent such gublieation for compensation under Art. 356. . . Light threats falls under crimes against security. ' Threatening to publish a libel and offering to prevent mch publication for compensation falls under crimes against lionor.

Accomplices are those persons who, not being principals, .. cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simul: taneous acts. ..,, . ,,~_ Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the corn.': mission of the crime, and without having participated %herein;; either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to 'StS; cornmission in any of the following manners: (I) hj. p r e fiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by. t h e effects of the crime; (2) by concealing or destroying the bo& of the crime or the effects o r instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing,,, pr assisting in the escape of the principal. of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, ,parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. (b) A conspirator who takes no part in the material corn-~ mission of the crime, but remains to guzrd his companions from a surprise by tbe police, is a principal by direct participation. He is a principal by direct participation, because having participated in the criminal resolution (he is in conspiracy with the others), he carries out their plan and personally takes part in its execution by an act (acting as guard) which directly tends to the same end.

AUGUST, 1955

I. (a) Describe the various classes of principals (autores), accomplices and accessories (encubridores) under the Revised Penal Code. (b) To which of these classes belongs a mnspirafor who talres no part in the material commission of the crime, but remains to guard his companions from a surprise by the police? Explain. (a) The following . are considered principals: (1) Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others t o commit i t ; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which i t would not have been accomplished. .

,

796

11. Define, explain and illustrate the following: (a) aberratio ictus; (b) subornation of perjury; (e) miswision of treason. (a) Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow, that is, the offender intending to inflict an injury on one person actually inflicts i t on another, For example: A fired his revolver at B with intent t o kill the latter, but missed and the same slug fired from the revolver hit and killed C , a man standing behind

B. (b) Subornation o€ perjury is a crime, formerly punished under the old penal code, committed by any person who knowingly and wilfully procures another t o swear falsely in a manner

797

.

I


a'i

that the&itness suborned does testify under cireumstanes ren-

/ ,' '

'

deri him guilty of perjury. For example: A induced B to te ify falsely against C in a preliminary investigation. B, a f t e r eing duly sworn, knowingly and wilfully testified falsely against C that the latter raped D. (e) Misprision of treason is a crime against. national security committed by a person owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against it, who conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible, to the governor o r fiscal of the province or the mayor o r fiscal of t h e city in which he resides, as the case may be. For example: During a war in which the Philippines is involved, A, a Filipina citizen and knowing that several persons are in conspiracy against the Gover fhent of the Philippines, keeps silent about it. Tomas Cruz, a cargador riding on

.

:' 'a

;4

.

4

truck hauling cases

?

nessing the act immediately places Cruz under arrest. Discwhafl offense has been coniuiitted, and whether it is consummated, frustrated or attempted, giving reasons in full: ' Tomas Cruz committed theft. It is consummated. T h e fact that he was all the time'on the truck and that he merely threw o u t the two cases of milk as the truck passed wecertain street, is immaterial. In a juridical sense, the consummation of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and'malicious taking of the property belonging to another which is realized by the material occupation of the thing whereby t h e thief places it under his control and in such a. situation as h e could dispose of it at once.

d

1

.*(

/

. .

/'

Treachery, craft and use of means to weaken the defen e are differriitiated. as follows: Any one of these aggravating circumstances may facilitate the commission of the crime. In treachery, means, .methods or forms o f attack are employed by the offender to make it impossible or difficult for the offended party to put up any sort e. In craft, the offender resorts to intellectual trickery In use of means to weaken the defense, the oftreachery, eniploys means but the means employed weakens the resisting power of the offended party. Examp!es: Treachery - A waited until B fell asleep in the latter's house and then and there stabbed him to death. Craft A, with intention t o commit robbery, hailed a taxi pretending t o be a bona fide passenger so as not to arouse the suspicion of the driver, and when he was taken as passenger, the driver if the latter would not give in his possession. A succeeded in getting the Use of means to wenken the defease E, threw a handful of sand t o the eyes of B and, when the latter could not see, A boxed him on the face and different parts of the body. '(h) Band, aid of aimed men, and brigandage are differentiated, as follows: Rand and aid of armed men are aggravating circumstances, while brigandage is a felony. Band is composed of at least four (4) armed persons who act together in the commission of a crime. In aid of armed men, i t is not necessary that there be at least Sour armed men. Two o r three armed men would

-

o/ milkasbelonging Sikat Co., threw street. out /twoA cases valuedwitat 850.00 the truckto passed a certain policeman

IV. D'Areutiate the following circumstances, giving t h e necesar illustrative examples: (a) Treachery (alevosia) , craft (astu a ) and use of means to weaken the defense. (b) Band @J.drilla), aid . of armed men, and brigandage. (c) Recidivism (reineidenein), repetition (reiteracion) and habitual delinquency-

CKIhIINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Xxaminations in Criminal Law

,

,

(4) armed persons form a band of robhers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persona, for the purpose o f extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other uurpose t o he attained by means of force and violence. Examples: Band, - A, B, C and D, all armed, held up k; and Y, depriving them of their personal belongings. AX of

I


CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWJ~R


-

armed men A, accompanied by B and C who were both armed .with knives, killed D when B and C were .standing nearby acting as guards to prevent any help {.hat might come to D, B&gz%ndage A, B, C, D and E, all armed with guns, went upon '::the highway and roamed upon the country for the purpose of kidnapping rich persons to obtain ransom or robbing them. (c) Recidivism, repetition and habitual delinquency are dif., . ferentiated, as follows: Recidivism and repetition are generic aggravating circum. . stances, w'bile habitual delinquency is an extraordinary ag'.: gravating circumstance. Repetition or reiteraeion is distinguished from recidivism, in that(1) I n reiteracion, it is necessary t.hat the offender shall. .have served his sentence; whereas, in recidivism it is enough that a final judowent has been rendered in the first offense. ',. (2) Ln reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses ' . ~ must not be embraced in the same title of the Code; whereas, recidivism requires that the offenses be included 'in the same y title of the Code. ( 3 ) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance; whereas, recidivism is always t o be taken into consideration in iixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused. There is habitual delinquency when 5 person within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In habitual delinqxency, the offender '1 is either a recidivist or one who has been previously punished . . f o r two or more offenses (reiteracion). He siiall suffer an addi'.i tional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. ,' Examples: Recidivism - A was on trial for theft. He was .,. then already convicted by final judgment of estafa. Convicted A was on trial for homicide. Ne preof theft. Repetition viously served sentence for rape. Convicted of homicide. Habit. . ,, ual delinquency In 1950, A was convicted of estafa and served ,.'. sentence therefor. In 1954, A was convicted of theft and served

Bar Examinations in Criminal Law ,. . . . ., sentence for that crime. In 1960, A was prosecuted, tried f o r , , , and convicted of serious physical injuries. Upon his conviction of serious physical injuries, A is a habitual delinquent. ,and i',l he shall be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to the cnme of serious physical injuries, in the maximum period, and %o':iln'-additional penalty for being a habitual deiinquent.

i

-

1

-

-

9,

,

, :

800

'

V. A, knowing that his master €3 used to carry a very Val: ' uahle watch, waylays him one night, wearing a mask t o %void recognition, and demands surrender of the watch, threatening '~ B with a revolver. When searched, B is found to carry only a : pocketbook with B50 that, A does not take. When B tells."A , that the watch was left a t home, B is albowed to g o withoyt'; further molestation. What offense is c'ommitted by A and IS his responsibility aggravated? Why? Reason out your answer..,. A commits the crime of attempted robbery with intimid&; tion, attended by the aggravating circumstance of disguise (wear- I, ing a mask to avoid recognition). When A waylays B and de:' mands surrender of the watch, with intent t o gain, threatening.: the latter with a revolver, he thereby commences the mmmis;':; sion of robbery with intimidation directly by overt acts and does not perforrii all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of a cause or accident, that is, that B left the watch at home. It is not an impossible crime, because the crime of robbery is possible of accomplishment, B having a pocketbook with P50 in it. ..

/

VI. If a person is convicted of a crime penalized with pfi$ sion mayor maximum t o reclusion perpetua, and there are no aggravating circumstances, is the accused entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law? Reasons. Yes. The enalty provided for the cnme being a compleq penalty, con ' ting in three different penalties each forming .a period, a there being no aggravating circ.umstances, the penal: i y imposable is reclusion temporal, the medium period., ,Th$, penalty imposable not being death or life imprisonment and'"it not appearing that the crime committed is one of those men:

/

801


1

.tioned . . . in th exceptions to the application of .the Indeterminate '-Sentence Law, he is entitled'to the benefits of that Law. _... ... ,. : I t is the penalty imposed, not the penalty provided by law, which determines whether or not the Indeterminpte Sentence Law 'is-applicable. ' i

I'

VI Yielding to Maria's insistence upon marriage, Pedro

''& ~:./

er to his friend Juan, who upon previous arrangement Pedro poses a s a duly authorized minister of the Gospel. Juan performs an alleged marriage ceremony that Maria believes good faith to be real, and Pedro and Maria sign a marriage certificate, with Juan signing as "Minister". The couple live ,'together as husband and wife for some time, but later Maria discovers the scheme and complains to the fiscal. For what crime may Pedro and Juan be held liable, if Maria is only 16, and it 'turns out that Pedro was already married t o another woman? Explain Jlour answer, giving reasons. Pedro and Juan may be held liable or the complex crime of . . functions. . Since s@ple: seduction through usurpation of official they were in conspiracy, that act of one was the act df both. . 'Without legal authority, Juan performed an act properly pertaining to a person in authority by. assuming the official character of a minister of a religious sect in order t o malte the girl believe that she was legally mavried t o Pedro who had the intention to seduce her. The girl .would not have been seduced by Pedro were it not for the act of Juan. The crime of ususpation of official functions' was a necessary means f o r committing the crime of simple seduction.

:'

,.$th

\f

.'d/

VI1 X, a duly authorized collector of "ATC Inc.," receives P5,OO from Q in payment of an account, and entered the said sum in ihe original recei.pt; but in the duplicate receipt delivered t o the Company, X makes it appear that he received F4,OOO only,, and pockets .the difference. The Court convicts X of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document. ,;._ Is.-cthe ,. .sentence correct? Reason out. the answer. ~.,.. ,I :;..,:,-No. The sentence is not correct, for two reasons. , I . .

.. ,v

,

the duplicate receipt is merely a priva no such complex crime of estafa throdg document. In fahification of a private crime unless another fact, independent' of that of falsifying the document, is proved: Le., damage'
I I

. . ._ I

CRIMINBL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law'

i

,

.

.

802

803

.,.



t h e wrongful act done be different from that which he intended (Art. 4, pa;. 1, R.P.C.). A was not properly and legally convicted of illegal discharge the offender must not

mitted by them? And considering that M and N are married, but P is single, to what civil liability should the court sentence each of the accused? Reason out your answer. M, N and P committed robbery with rape. The robbery was accompanied by rape. P who is single should be woman and to support the gave birth to an offspring .

.

All the three must support the offspring, because a n d u e each and every one of them contributed to, and cooperated in, the giving birth of the child. Not one of the three may be required to recognize the offspring of the offended woman, it being impossible to determine the paternity thereof, and as regards M and N who >re married ."the law prevents them from so doing. .& ,. 'j ,~ .. ,They should return the jewelry to the owner thereof, if possible; otherwise, to indemnify him in the amount of P1,000. '

I

AUGUST, 1956 the effects of civil interdiction as accessory penallies include civil interdiction as an ac.

ory penalty?

(a) The effects of civil interdiction as accessory penaltg are: ( I ) 'Deprivation of the rights of parental authority o s guardian9hip of any ward. (2) Deprivation of marital authority. (3) Deprivation of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inlev vivos (Art. 34). (b) The penalties which include civil interdiction as an accessory penalty are: (1) death, when not executed by reason of commutation or pardon ; ( 2 ) ,reekisio?~pe?Petzba: and (3) ~ e c l u s i m te~~pold.

. ";

4

11. (a) What crimes are geualized by death a s maximum: penalty? (b) If a man or woman becomes insane after he OS sentenced to death, what does the law provide regarding s... t h execution of the death penalty? (e) Give your opinion i to whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. Give reasons. (a) The crimes which are penalized by death as maximum! penalty are: (1) treason, (2) certain acts of espionage under Commonwealth Act No. GI.6, ( 3 ) correspondence with hostile country when it contains notice os information and the intention' of the offender is to aid the enemy, (4) qualified piracy, ( 5 ) certain violations of thc Anti-Subversion Act, (6) parricide, (7)) murder, (3) kidnapping and serious illegal detention, (9) robbery;, with homicide, and (10) rape with homicide. (b) If d a n or woman becomes insane after be or she ' s e n h d to death, the law provides that the execution of t penalt,y shall be suspended only with regard t o the perso penalty. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason,: his sentence' shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have; .,' prescribed. , ,* .Art. '79, being a general provision on the suspension of execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity,, there being no^ specific. provision as r e s r d s the suspensio

&J/

/

;

804 . ,

,;.>.,*

.

805

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

the execution of death

penalty in case of insanity of the convict, said article is applicable. (e) My opinion is t h a t the. death penalty shpuld not be abolished. Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death.: Thi penalty has deterred many a dangerous’.enemy of ., society f m committing serious offenses. i

I

.

,

. ...

(a) What do you understand by parliamentary immun(h) Under what c&umstances can a senator or represerl‘ ,A7; ity? a,,, tative of the Philippine Congress be arrested and convicted? (c) :-Does parliamentary immunity mean exemption from criminal . ~. liability? Enplain fully these three points. . -’ . (a) Parliamentary immunity, under the Revised Penal Code, ns that no public officer or employee shall, while Congress is lar or special session, arrest or search ‘any member therept in case such member has committed a crime punishable ’’ ‘uiider the Code by a penalty higher than prisiun mayor. Under the:ConstituRion, i t means that the members of Gongress shall in ~,., ., . .ai cases, except treason, felony and breach ?f the peace, be .>. pnvileged from arrest during their attendance ‘ at tKe session .; : ’Bf;.Congress, and in going. to and returning frvm the same. ’ . (b) A senatw or representative of the Phijigpine Congress cin he arrested and searched under the following circumstances: ’ . (1) When Congress is in regular or special session, gut the crime committed is punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty hi,gher than prision mayor; ‘and .. . ‘ ( 2 ) When Congress is not in session, regardless o f ’ the penalty provided for the crime committed. It is submitted that a member of Congress can bc convicted by the court for any crime regardless of the penalty provided :‘- by lavr for the crime and whether Congress is in session or not. What the law prohibits is arresting or searchCng a member of Congress under the circumstances mentioned by the law. , (e) No. Parliamentary immunity does not mean exemption from criminal liability, because the law merely provides for the exemption from ayrest or search of memberr of Congress under ..c e ~ a i ncircumstances. The Constitution prmides that they are .I.

i

”

.

806

CRIiilINAL LAW REYIEWBR Rnr Examinations in Criminal Low

merely privileged from civil a w e s t during their attendance ‘at the scssion of Congress, and in going to and returning from t)ie’. same. ..

A

(a) “A”, while visiting his friend Juan in the latteis ’ house, surreptitiously ,placed in the drawer of Juan’s table;some., subversive papers of communist wigin. At midnight “B?, fake NBI agent, searched the house, by meam of a faysified search warrant and found the subversive papers in Juan’s table.; ’I B9, threatened and intimidated Juan, telling him t h a t unless he: gives him P500.00, he will arrest him and charge him for.,being a conimunist. Juan to avoid being arrestsd and taken to jail, gave P500.00 to the fake agent. Outside of the house “B” gave “A” part of the money he got from Juan. ‘What crime have :A’ and “B” committed? Give reasons. (b) Distinguish blaekmN from threats as penalized by the Revised Penal Code. .’, , (a) ”A” and “B” commi.tted robhery with intimidation. The placing of subversive papers of communist .origin in the drawer of Juan’s table by “A”, the search made by “E?’,knowingly and falsely pretending to be NBI agent, the use of a falsified search warrant, and the threat made by “E’ are not separate offenses of incriminating innocent person, of violation of domicile, of usurpation of official functions, of using falsified document with inient to cause damage, and of grave threats. They are acts constituting the element of intimidation in robbery. “A” and “B” were in conspiracy. They are equally liable for the same crime. (b) Blackmail is the unlawful extortion of money by air appeal to the fear of the victim, or by threats of accusation or exposure. I t is mid that light threats may amount of blaclimailing.

.a

V. (a) 1%’ f penalties ale classifed a s afflictive? (b) Give the p A e s c r i p t i n n o ~ crilnes i punished with correctional penalties. (a) The penalties which are classified a s afflictive are: (1) reclusion perpetua, ( 2 ) reclusion temporal, ( 3 ) perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, (4) ’ pelTetual or temporary . . special disqualification, and (5) v i s i o n mayor. 807 ‘3

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w

,

(b) The period of prescription of crimes punished with correctional penalties is ten (10) years; with the exception vf those maw?, which shall prescribe in five ( 5 ) 29 years old, on her way back to her

.,

hoGe in Polo, Bnlacan, accompanied by her sister, was forcibly , -. . .abducted by Ernesto, one of her suitors. Ernest0 kissed her se$eral times .while he was holding her in his arms to prevent 'her running away. The abductor took his victim away to another "town ._, . where' thiey were overtaken by Aurora's brother. Ernesto rd~easedhis victim and disappeared. Ernesto w a s Aurora's suitor . . ,for , several years. To his proposals of marriage Aurora has :J.dways answered in the negative. So, he decided to, abduct her .fvith' no other intention but t o marry her. Which one of the 'following crimes, abduction by force, illegal detenti,on, coercion, or,,unjust vexation, has Ernesto committed? Give your own opinion and reason it out. Ernesto committed abduction by force, becarise the abduction of Aurora was against her will and with lewd designs. Although, he abducted her with no other intentidn but to marry her, 'that they had the required age for consenting to marriage, and that neither of them had any impediment to contracting it, .yet Ernest.0 had lewd designs, as shown by the fact ,that 'he kissed Aurora several times while he was holding her in his arms. rcible taking of a woman cannot be.iliega1 detention, had lewd . . designs. I

'~

'What facts constitute indirect bribery? (b) When is committed by reason or on the occasion different and se-

(a) The facts which constitute indirect bribery are: (1) that .the offender is a public officer, (2) that he accepts gifts, and (3)..that said gifts were offered to him by reason of his office. . ~. . (.b) No: When murder is committed by reason or on occa&n.b.f the robbery, it is a special, indivisible complex crime of

.


robbery with homicide. The word "homicide", as used in defining such s ecial complex crime, is to be understood .. in,its . generic s e as t o include murder.

/

, 111. Pablo owns several hectares oC paddy land. Being unable to cul#.i,vate it for lack of funds he entered into a partnership w i d Pedro, his brother-in-law, whereby the latter would furnish money for seedlings and for t.he purchase of two carabaos and Pablo would prepare the land and sow the seedlings; Pedro would traiisplant the seedlings and take care of and harvest the crop. They further agreed that the profits, after deducting the expenses, would be divided share and share alike. At the time the crop was ready for harvest, Pablo was in Manila attending other business and Pedro proceeded to harvest the crop, stacked the palay and threshed it. Pablo upon his return found out that Pedro has already disposed of the palay, including the share that belongs to Pablq. (a) What crime h a s Pedro committed, theft or estafa? (6) To what,extent is Pedro liahle? Give reasons, (a) Pedro comn-.it,ted eslafa with abuse of' confidence. Pedro held in trust for Palslo the latter's share in the harvest. Pedro had juridical possess:on of the share which belonged to Pablo. When he misappropriated it, Pedro caused damage or prejudice to the latter. . (b) Pedro is criminally'liable, even if he is the brothei.-in7 law of Pablo, because they were not living together (Art. 332, R.P.C.). Pedro is liable for estafs to the extent of the value of the share of Pablo, because the other haif of the harvest; belonged to him. While it is true that they entered into a partnership, they,+ not the paytnership, owned their respective shares which were , d e t e r m v -

I

IX., (a) Explain fully why is it that the ,penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code are divided into arreslo menor, a-,; resto mayor, prision correecional, prision mayor, etc.? (b). Dis!; cuss whether or not this nomenclature or division of 'pen,@tie$i , , ;,....i ,, i~'XZ1 should be abrogated? ..L I

,j..

I

808

809

."

,I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal L


(a) The penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code are divided into urresto menor, arrest0 mayor, pision correccional, Pr;rion magor, etc., for many reasons, namely: (1) one of the juridical conditions of penalty, according to the classical school on'which the Code is mainly based, is that it must be commensurate with the offense-differenl crimes must be punished with 'different penalties; ( 2 ) the Fravity of a felony is determined ,ky the penalty attached to i t ; (3) the respective severity of the penalties is considered in the successive service of sentences; (4) the penalties are classified in the graduated scales for the ,.purpose of determining a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty. (b) The nomenclature or division of penalties in the Revised Penal Code should not be abrogated, because t h e penalties that may be imposed under the Code are subject 'to many rules be eliminated if the division of penalties the nomenclature or division of Code is to change completely

.. , ~ .. .

is affected by mitigating circumstances, and. ( 2 ) two i

~

that he was attacked by the,day before. fhddenly, he got up, took his bolo and killed 'his wife, qounded his father and several other persons. Finally he stabbed. himself Motives of the crime are not shown., Being ' but did not die. I.prosecuted for parricide, bis counsel alleges as defense the fact @at the nian committed the crime under the influence of an as an after-effect of his dream.' If you were the .:??@Uucination , would you acquit or convict the defendant? Give reasons. .,I' ,judge, I i If I were the judge, I would acquit the defendant.' The act e o f the defendant was not voluntary, there being no intelligenffe ' ;and intent on his part. A person is not criminally liable if his act is not voluntary (Art. 3, R.P.C.). AUGUST, 1957 reference to penalties for offenses punishable Penal Code, what is meant by degrm and (h) Give (1) an instance when degree

810

when degree is affec ( c ) F the rules Se ence Law: (1) If the offense is punishable under.the:' vised Penal Code or its amendments; and ( 2 ) if the offense punishable under any other law. (a) By degree is meant one entire % or onp unit of the penalties enumerated in t provided for in Art. 71. Each of the pe perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, in the graduated scales o f Art. 71, is a degree. By period- is meant one of the three equal portions, called minimum, medium and maximum, of a. divisible penalty. (b) A degree is affected by mitiga there are two or more mitigating circumstan ing circnnmtances are present. In such case, the court impose the penalty next lower t o that prescribed by law 64, par. 6. R.P.C.). A degree is affected by a privileged mi (1) when .the offend years of age and he and (2) wpeii the majority of the requis tify th act or to exempt from criminal liability is present. ) If the offense is punished by th court shall sentence the accused to an indetermi th JJ the maximum teim of which shall be that which, in attending circumstances, could be properly imposed rules of the Revised Peual Code, and the minimum of he within the range of the penalty next lower to that pmsc by the Code for the offense. In determining the minimum term, i t is left entirely w i the discretion of the court to fix i t anywhere within the of the penalty next lower without reference t o the periods which it may be subdivided (People vs. Uucosin, 59 Phil. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances are req to be considered only in fixing the maximum term of 'th determinate sentence. The court may disregard them in f

811

I

c:

I


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal ]Law'


$)/minimum term of the indeterminate sentence, because it is discretionary to the court to impose the minimum term any: where within its range. .. .. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the .. . , , :starting point for determining the minimum term of the in',,* determinate penalty is the penalty next lower from that pre:.cribed b y the Code for the offense (People vs. Gonzales, 73 i. .'' Phil. 549). If the offense is punishable under any other law, the k r t shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law nd the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum rescribed by the same.

I

.;

~

&

/

i

(a) Who a r e criminally liable for light ,felonies? /h) B ' ults C who sustains physical injuries which heal in five days. D hides B in his house to prevent his arrest knowing that he is wanted by the authorities for the assault on C . What is D's criminal liability for hiding B? Reason out your answer. (a) Only principals and accomplices are liable for light . felonies. (h) D has no criminal liability for higing E, because D IS an accessory and the crime committed by R, which is sliglit physical injuries, is only a light felony. Accessories are not liable for light felonies (Art. 16, R.P.C.).

111. (a) Bigamy is punishable with prisi6n mayor in its full extent; Tried for bigamy in the proper court, A is found guilty of the crime charged. Applying the Indeterminate Sen*;.. . :. tence Law, within what penalty or penalties (not peri,od or .. :? periods) should the minimum and the maximum of the sentence '. . to be imposed on him? ( I t is sufficient that you state- the penalty or penalties without giving the periods thereof.) Ex,; plain your answer. (h) Possession of a revolver or a pistol . is punishabTe with imprisonment of from one year and one day , to five years, according to Section 2692 of the Revised Ad' ' ministrative, Code, as last amended by Republic Act No. 4.

si2

After trial, B is found guilty of illegal possesion of a pistol and is sentenced to three years of imprisonment as maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what is the minimum : . . of the sentence that should be imposed on him? (a) The maximum of the sentence to be imposed on A should be within p ~ k i o n.mayor, and the minimum should be within prision correccionat. The maximum should be within pvision mayor, because accezading to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code the maximum term of . the indeterminate sentence should be that which according t o the ruIes of the Code shouid be imposed upon the offender. If there is no privileged mitigating circumstance present, the is the penalty provided by the Code , f o r the z2cUm&proper period. The minimum should be within prision correecional, because according to the same law, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower t o that prescribed by the Code for the offense. P?isidn eorreccional is the penalty next lower to p r i s i h mayor, the penalty prescribed for the crime of bigamy. It (b) The minimum of the sentence that should be imposed on B, found guilty of illegal possession of a pistol, is either (1) one year, or ( 2 ) two-year imprisonment, because if the offense is punished hy a special law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty should not be less than the minimum . of the penalty prescribed. One year or two-year imprisonment is not less than the minimum of one year imprisonment prv.. Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, for illegal possession of firearm.

'

I

1 / ,$*

.;,

I

V. (a) L is ,prosecuted for homicide, with no aggravating circumstance being alleged in the information. Upon arraignment he pleads guilty a s charged. The fiscal concedes voluntary surrender to an agent of a person in authority as a mitigat-: ing circumstance in addition to the voluntary plea of guilty., Taking into consideration the presence of two mitigating circuin:': stances, and bearing in mind that homicide is punishable with.,

813

I


(n) 'l'Be court should sentence C of homicide, the crime alleged in the information. Evideut premeditation proved during the trial by the fiscal cannot qualify the crime to murder, because i t is not alleged in the information. (b) 'The penalty for homicide should be imposed in the ium period. because of the aggravating circumstance of emeditation which is not offset by any mitigating

in its full extent, within what penalty should sentence to be imposed on him be? Ex(b) Charged with and convicted of theft in the Municipal Court following his plea to the Court of First Instance nf this city. Upon arraignment in the latter court, he pleads guilty as,charged. Is he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of votuntary plea of guilty? Reason out your answer.

'

(a) The maximum of the sentence to be imposed on L should be,within prisidn mayor, because he is entitled to a penalty one de&ee lower to that prescribed for homicide. Art. 64, par. 5, . of,"the Revised Penal Code provides that when there are two o r 'more mitigating circumstances, without aggravating . circumstances, .the offender shall be sentenced to. the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the 'Code. (b) No, because the plea of guilty should be made a t t h e first opportunity and he had that opportunity when he was arfaigiied 'in the Municipal Court. Plea of guilty in the Court of"First Instance in a case appealed from the Municipal Court is not a mitigating circumstance, becaiise the Code requires that it should be made by the accused prior t o the pcescntation of the evidence of the prosecution. In the Municipal Court, the prosecution presented its evidence.

, . *'.

-

under the. following informaday of March, 1957, in the Province of Bulacan, and within the the above named accused, ?with intent wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously a4sault M by stabbing the latter on the chest with a dagger, : thus inflicting upon him physical injmies which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.'' At the trial, the fiscal proved, 4vith0,ot objection of the defense, that the killing was attended by evident premeditation. (a) Of what offense should .-' . .the court sentence C? (b) In what period (minimum, medium or 'maximum) of the penalty for that nIfense should the court ,, i.mpose on C ? Explain your answers.

. .

,

, : . , .&a

_>. ,.,

1.

814

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Lalv

?

i

Distinguish instigation from entrapment. (b) ., H is the owner and operator of a drag store. Suspecting that she @lis her medicines at prices above the ceiling prices fixed by the government, government agents buy medicines from her a t her drug store and pay with marked paper money. The prices a t which she sells the medicines t o the agents are higher than the ceiling prices and the agents apprehend her for violation of the Price Control Law. Accused of profiteering by the fiscal, she moves to quash the information on the ground that she was induced by the agents to oommit the act for which she' is being prosecuted. Assuming that the Price Control Law is still in force, how should the court resolve.her motion to quash? Explain your answer. (a) Instigation is distinguished. from entrapment, a s follows: There is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation, for while in t,he latter case the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the.,ofIf'become a coprincipal, in entrapment ways and . ,': means a resorted to for the purpose of trapping and captur-.. ing Lhe lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. en-^, trapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. But when there is instigation, the accused must ', be acquitted (People vs. Galicia, 40 O.G. 4476). In instigation a public officer or a private detective induces, . , an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him,: ,i upon after the commission of t h e crime by the latter:: it:.,^; . ....., < is an exempthg circumstance.

7"7

::

or

. i

815

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exaninations in Criminal L a w

CRIMINAL LAW REVMWER Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w

(b) The court should deny the motion to quash the information, because B: was not induced by the agents to commit the act for which he was being prosecuted. When the agents bought medicines from her a t her drug store and paid the prices at. which H sold them, they merely resorted to ways and means for the purpose of trapping and capturing her in the exe&ition of h e r criminal plan. There is entrapment, which is and the English texts of Article 157 Code are in part respectively worded as con prision correccional e.1 sus grados medio y maximo el sentenciado que quebrantare sn condena, fgandose mientras estuviere sufriendo privadan de libertad por:sentencia firme x x x.” “The penalty of ‘prision correcciorial ,‘In. its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any, ixnvict who shall evade service of his senter.ce by escaping d+g the term of his imprisonment by reason 0: a final j n d e ment x x x.” A is the accused in a criminal case in the Munieipal.Court of Manila. After trial he is sentenced ;.o the penalty of destierro and is ordered for the duration of his sentence not to enter any pNlace within a radius of 100 kilometers from.said city. He disobeys the order and comes back to live in Manila before his sentence expires. Prosecuted for a violation of p art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code, be contends that he should, be acquitted because the sentence which he evaded is not imprisonment but destierro. How should the court decide the case? ‘Explain your answer. (b) Art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code provides: “The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum per,iod shall be imposed upon t,he convict who, having been granted eonditionaI pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penaltr remitted by t.he granting of such pardon be higher than six .’ years, the convict shall then suffer the unenpired portion of his ., original sentence.” F is convicted of homicide and sentenced . t o 12 years and one day of reclnsion temporal as maximum. After serving eight of the twelve years in prison, he is pardoned by the President of the Philippines, on condition that ..’’. he.shal1 not again violate any penal law of the Pl1ilippines.

.~

, . ~

.

816

I

!”

i

Re accepts the condition and is forthwith released from jail. Five years after his release, he assaults another and is conyicted & sI&ht physical injuries by the proper court after trial. w h e be convicted of a violation of Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code? Reason out your answer. (a) The court should convict A of evasion of the service of the sentence. Although, the English’ test of Art. 157 speaks ing the term of his imprisonment,” the Spanish de, which uses tne phrase “sufriendo privacion uld prevail, because the Revised Penal Code was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. The phrase mentioned covers the penalty of destierro. The convict. sentenced to the penalty of destierro is suffering from deprivation of liberty, though partial, because he is not free to enter the prohibited area. (b) No. When F was granted a conditional pardon by the Presiden.t$of the Philippines, he had only four years of imprisonment to serve. Since the remitted portion of his sentence is only four years, and he committed slight physical inj,uries five years later, the condition was no longer operative at that time. I submit that the condition “that he shall not again violate any penal law of the Philippines” does not indicate an intention on the part of the President to require F t o observe that condition for a longer period of time. VIII. (a),Distinguish violation of domicile from trespass to 3 When may a. public officer or etnployee commit although that public officer or employee is provided with a search warrant? (a) Violation of domicile and trespass t o dwelling are committed in the same manner, that is, the oilendcr enters a dwelling against the will of its owner or occupant. They differ in that, while in violation of domicile the o€fender is a public officer o r employee, in trespass t o dwelling the offender is a private individual (b) A public officer Gr employee may commit violation of domic’le although he is provided with a search warrant in, the following instances: (1) when the public officer o r employee 817

.

.

CllI~lINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

procured the search warrant withollt just cause: (2) when he exceeded his authority or used unnecessary severity in executing t h e searcli warrant legally obtained: and (3) when ha searched the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, without the presence of the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality.

M. (a) Wow is parricide committed? (b) P and G are hmhand and wife. They have had a stormy marital life, be=use P has had one concubine after another and often beats G. Unable to stand her husband longer, G hires B to kill &&,promising to pay B the sum of P1,OOO as reward for the to the proposal and receives part of the reward G . So B enters P's house one night and shoots Of what offense or offenses are -G and by any person who shall kill mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitnlate, his ascendants or descendants, o r his spouse who ) G and B are guilty of parricide and murder, respectively. G is guilty of parricide, because d i e is the spouse of the person killed. B is guilty of murder, because he killed P in Consideration of price, reward or promise. A stranger cannot be held liable for parricide even if he is in conspiracy. with the spouse of the deceased, because the private relation of the spo se with the deceased is not attendant to him (Art. 62, par. , R.F'.C.).

(a) A falsifies a private document for the purpose of defrauding B, his brother with whom he is living, in the sum of 81,000. A succeeds in obtaining the P1,000, to the prejudice of B,by m e m j of the falsified document. What crime or crimes has A committed? Reason out your answer. (b) I n ' c a s e of prosecution, would the fact that B is his brother be available .to. A as a defense? Why? . ,. (a) A committed falsification of a private document. He ~':,, did^ not commit a complex crime of estafa through falsifica,, > i i i , ,

' I

i

i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Ear Exarninalions in Criminal Law

2

f $,

1i 1

tion, because there is nc such complex crime as estafa t l p u g l i : falsification of a private document, the reason being that the $ Praudulent gain obtained through'deceit in estafa, in the corn..' mission of which a private document is falsified, is nothing^ more nor less than the very damage caused by the falsification of such document. (b) The fact that B is his brother is not available t o A >as a defense, because the exemption from criminal IiabiIity estahliahed by law (Art. 332, R.P.C.) for relatives (among them, brothers who are living together), does not extend to-crimes other than theft, swindling, or malicious mischief. The cri committed by 4 against his brother- B is falsification. . ,.I,* *

,

818

,

,..

. .

,

~

.

AUGUST, 1958

I. (a) Define crime; criminal law. (b) Enumerate accused : person's constitutional right; statutory rights. (C) Name a right which may be waived and one which may not be wgved:' State the reason or principle underlying the difference betweem, rights which may he waived and rights which nlay not be waived. (a) Crime is defined as an act committed or omitted in vi@. ' lation of a public law forbidding or commanding it (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Itawle's Third Revision, Vol. 1, p. 729). Criminal law! is tbat branch or division of 1 fines crimes, treats o r their nature, and provides f o punishment (12 Cyc. 129). ,~ (b) The constitutional rights of the amused are: 1. No person shall be held to answer for a fense without due process of law. 2. All persons shaI! before conviction be bailable ficient sureties, except those charged with capital of when evidence of guilt is strong. Excessive bail shall n required. 3. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall sumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, an enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,, to\.: I ,

';,'..;

.;

:,

819

I

!

,_ .

'

.

I

1

i '5


,.

f the nature and cause of the accusation against him,

l

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criniinal Law I

is that those rights which may be waived are personal, svhile' those rights which may not be waived involved public interest': which may be affected (Rules of Court by Moran, Vol.:2, p;: ,. 1,.. ,,. 748, 1952 Edition). , .

a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face and to have r,ompulsory process to secure .the attendin his behalf. . 4 . No person shall be compelled to be a witness against liimself. , fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and

.

: a -

put in jeopardy of punishment

.

. for the same offense. .""7.Free access t o the courts shall not be denied t o any son by reason of poverty (Article 3, Bill of Rights, Philip. . pine Constitution). '

..

'

The statutory rights of the accused are:, 1. To be presumed innocent until'the contrary is prove+ '2. To be present and defend in person and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is, 'from the arraiuipromulgation of the judgment. e informed of the nature and cause of the accusa. I

"'

U N ' T o what wffenses committed outsid limitdof the Philippines do the provisions of the Rev Code apply? Name them. (b) A jilted suitor forcibly a girl aged 20 to another town where, he kept her agai will for several days, and through intimidation, tried, ~ , , success, t o make her marry him. He had no thought jug her chastity and did not touch her person beyond was necessary to accomplish his purpose to marry the,^ What, if any, crime did the suitor commif? Slate your re (a) The provisions of the Revised Penal Code appl the fcllowing offenses committed outside the territorial:,l of the Philippines :

To testify as witness in his own behalf. His neglect

3 . Acts connected with the introduction into the Phil'

1. or refusal t o be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice

OP the obligations and securities mentioned in the pre

..dr'be used a,gainst him. 5. To be exempt from being a witness against himself. ', ' " ' ? 6 . To be confronted a t the trial by, and cross-examine, 1'-+,he witness against him. 3,'. .7. To have compulsory process issued to 'secure the attendance of witnesses in his behatf. 1. 8. To have a speedy and public trial. 9. TO have the right of appeal in all cases authorized by Sec. 1, new Rules of Court). which may be waived is the right of the and cross-examination. A right which may not be waived is the right of the accused to be informed the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The reason or principle underlying the difference between ".;.rights , . which may be waived and rights which may not be waived

820

number; 5 . Crimes against the national security and , the nations (Art. 2, R.P.C.). ' (b) It is submitted that the answer to this be qualified, because there is no lewd intention on of the suitcr and there is no clear indication that the

being a woman and a minor), if there is deprivation of iibe 621



Oar Examinations in Criminal Law

I

Abduction, being one of the ways in which illegal detention can b e committed, the kidnapping of a woman without unchaste designs must, according to Viads and t n our Penal Code, he considered as illegal detention. However, since there is no clear dcprivation of liberty but the offended woman is compelled to do something against her will, such as to make her marry the offender through intimidation. the crime committed is grave coercion (People vs. Dauatan, et al., C.A., 3 6 . 0 . G . 450). In case of doubt as to whethey or not there is deprivation of liberty, the purpose of the offender must be taken into consideration to determine the' crime actually committed. In this base, since the purpose 6f the of€ender is t o compel the girl by means of intimid ion to marry him, the crime committed . is grave coercion.

.

I '

1

-

i

pfF

IV. (a) A and B engaged in a face-to-face fight in which B was fatally wounded, dying eight hours later. C, A's brother, : bearing of the fight came rushing and, finding the dying man

.

III. (a) Is evident premeditation an aggravating circumstance in a c' e of robbery? In a case of treason? State Y W ~ reasons. (h A police oificer on duty was shot and killed with treachery, with evident. premeditation, at night time purpodY sought facilitate the perpetration of the killing, and with the ai of armed men to insure o r afford impunity., mat crime did the offender commit? And how is each of the above circ stances to be regarded, as aggravating or qualifying? (a) Evident premeditat.ion as an aggravating circumstance phould not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty in the crime of robbery, because i t is inherent in that, crime, especially where it is committed by V ~ ~ ~ O U persons, for they must have an agreement, they have to manner of carrying out the crime in order to succeed (People September 19, 1955).

evident premeditation, Night time and with the aid of .armed men to insure or afford impunity should not be taken into consideration as separate aggravating circumstances, because they Tn or ahsorbed by the qualifying circumstance o f , are inher treac A l t h o u ~ h ,evident premeditation is a qualifying circumstance of murder. when it concurs with another qualilying +cumstance, like tmaciiery, whicli is already considered as qualifying, evident premeditation is to be regarded as aggravating circumstance only.

1, 1 ? '

S

offended party's general physical Condition and which

of the injuries inflicted by A.

For what crime was C and in what capacity- that of principal, accomplice, or cessory? 9 6 y o n r reason. (b) If upon the same circ stances'-C stabbed B in the throat and thereby hastened death, killing B instantly, what crime did C commit and, what capacity? State your reason. (a) .Having. stabbed B in the leg inflicting in, t h a t a wound which did not affect the offended party's general sical condition, an2 which would have taken ten days to if B had not died from the effects of the The crime committed is only homicide, because when A wounded B, it was not attended by any circumstance t h qualify the crime to murder, the attack havin

long continued process and planning (Peonot mortal o r did not contribute to the death of B. (b) The crime committed is direct assault with murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of

822

the criminal design of A, merely concurred in inal purpose.

823

I i CRIMINAL LAW RETIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law


Bar' Examinations in Criminal Law

I- ---.. In the second case, the municipal treasurer committed also two crimes, namely: (9) malveraation of public lunds, and (2) falsification of a public or official document (the payroll). , a complex crime, for the same reasons stated There is no juridical dif€erence. between the ' in both cases the commission of falsification to commit the crimc of malversation. The amounts misappropria.ted in both cases were in the possession of the treasurer a t the time. he falsified the documents. The crime of falsification was committed by the municiual treasurer to conceal the mime of malversation in each case.

the same circumstances C stabbed B in the hastened B's death, killing B instantly, C a eo-principal in the crime of homicide, beconcurred in the criminal design of cannot be considered an accomplice because he inflicted ortal wound (U.S. vs. Zalscs and Ragmac, 40 Phil. 103). accomplice in crimes against persons should not inflict' a mortal wound. It is submitted that even if B was defenseless at the time C inflicted a stab wound in the throat which hastened B's death, treachery may not be considered, because it does not appear that C consciously adopted that method or form of attack to insure the' killing of B without risk to himself arising B might make. Hence, the crimc com-

. P

after appropriating to his' own under his ,custody, changed an the m&ey tran$pbtions recorded in ths ledger tally with the cash remaining after the misappmpriation., The same municipal treasurer caused to be included in a payroll the name of a fictitious laborer and made personal use of the amount which had been fraudulently made to appear as having been paid t o such laborer. Whal crime or crimes did the mnnicipal treasurer commit in each of these two cases? Reason your answer giving particular eni'phasis on the ques1,ion whether or not there is any juridical difference between the said cases. In the first case, the municipal treasurer is guilty of two

in the ledger.

824

I

VI. A prisoner who had heen sentenced to ten years' imprisonment was granted a conditional ,pardon, which he ac- ' had six more months to serve, the condition not a s a h commit any law violation. Three prisoner's release he committed a Revenue Code and, upon trial, was found guilty and sentenced to pay a Pine. Is he subject . t o ., prosecution for violation o f ,the conditional pardon under 'Art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes violation of a " conditional pardon with prision correccional in its minimum, ' ,, d ? period? State the reason for your anwer. . , ,J. No.. The rule is th,at the duration of the condition -subbe-, went, annexed to a pardon, is limited to the period of' th> : prisoner's sentence, unless an intention to extend it bey " ' that time was manifest from the nature of the c,ond:tion the language in which>as imposed (Infante vs. Provin Warden, .48 0 . W ) . The conditional pardon, as mentic in the question, does n o t state the time within which t ditions thereof were t o be observed. Since the pri granted a conditional paxdon when he had only s more to serve, and that he committed a violation of nal Revenue Code three years after he was granted a condl pardon, the condition of the pardon which he was charged,, having breached was no longer operative when he a violation of the Internal Revenue Code. , I

,

I.

-

s25

I 1 .:

:i

.,

.:;

CRIMINAL L A W _ . R ~ T W l E R


Bar .Examinations in Cqi mal Law

/

mour. S' e his wife and the man were on their feet, they ,could n t have been in the act of committing sexual intercourse when the accused surprised them. Under Art. 247 of the R e vised Penal Code, i t is an indispensable requisite that a legally married person should surprise his spouse i n , the act of com.mitting sexual intercourse with another person (People vs: Gonzales, 69 Phil. G6.

i

IX. (a) A was aroused from sleep by a noise 'in his room, ': .. which was unlighted, and saw in the room the outline of a.

a) It is submitted that A was guilty of theft, although had been previously stolen One of the elements of the crime of theft is that the property belongs to another. This element has ' beon interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that it is sufficient that the offender is not the owner of the From whom the personal .property Possession of the property by is taken is sufficieht @S.

\ i i r m h A s k e d who he was, the man did not identify hi,mseE. Believing that nian to be a burglar, A shot and killed him 'with .his (A's) pistol, which he kept under his pillow. The man w h k A thought was a dangerous thief, it turned out, was, A's son. Is A crirninally liable for the killing? State your. reason. (b) A waited in ambush for 13 to kill him. He saw C a few meters away and, believing C to be B, he fired upon and ;. hom he had not the slightest intention o f hurting. p Gn from criminal liability for C's death.. .:a Can Ac*claim Give your reason for ynur answer. (c) Is there any fundamental : difference hetween case (a) and (b) above? Explain your , 2: answer. ( a ) Even assuming that the person inside the house was a dangerous thief, it is submitted that A would not be'justified io shooting him to death. A cannot claim defense of p or defense of home under paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Re- .. vised Penal Code, because in either case the law requires that there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased.: Inasmuch as the question does not mention any fact indicatin the existence of unlawful aggression on t h e s a r t of the perso whom A believed was a dangerous th:,ef,-.he was not justif in shooting apd killing h i e n l a w f u l ' aggression is an unla ful attack o m threat to inflict real injury which mus be offensive and positively strong, not merely imagined. Thiscannot be a mistzke of fact, because i n mistake of fact done would have been lawful and the facts been a s the believed them to be (US.vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488). case of U.S. vs. Ah Chong, there was a pressing necessity on . I

k

. .

that the Katch he saw in

-

of robbery,. even t!iough the claim of 0wnershi.p is untenable (U.S. vs. Manluco, et al., 28 Phil. 3GO).

/for

VIII. A

..

.

I

.

killmg his wife under

spquse in the act committing sexual intercourse with her para-

,

826 _ ', . si '.'

A

,

CRIMIN t L A W REVIEWER Bar Ex inations in Criminal Law

'

CRlMlNAL LAW BEVIEWER

/

Bar Examinations in Criminal ~ a w

part of the aceus t o act immediately, because when the door \vas forcibly (;p ed by the deceased who was then outside and a chair fell o him (Ah Chong) he thought that he was being attacked. I the problem given, there was no such pressing necessity on t part of A to shoot and kill the person whom he believed was a dangerous thief. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Re-

.

vised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by anY person committing a felony although the wrongful act done he different from that which be intended. Since the act of A was not justified, he was committing a felony when he shot the deceased.' A is criminally liable for the killing, although the wrongful act done was different from that which he intended. (b) A is liable for killing C, even though he did not have

1

X. (a) Name all the circumstances any one of whicb makes the taking of human life murder. (b) A i s s u d a check without funds in payment of an outstanding debt knowing the check would not be honored. Did A, or did he not, commit any penal offense? If your answer i s yes, what was the offense? If your answer is no, why nut? (c) Name the crimes which must be prosecuted upon complaint o€ the offended evty, ana- state the taking of huma:i li.fe murder, are:

.

,

3 . By means of inundation, fire, poison, esplosion, shigi'' wreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment of, or assault upon, 6:; street car or iocomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor.., vehicles, or with the use of m y other means involving g r e a t , .. waste and ruin; ., , 4 . On occasior~of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, o r any other public calamity; ' 5 . With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmentiug the suffering of the victim, o r outraging o r scoffing at his w s o n or corpse. (Art. 243, R. P. C.) (b) It is submitted that A did not commit any penal uffense.~ When a person issued a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation, even if a t the time he knew that he had no funds in the bank to cover the check and even if he did not inform the payee of that fact, there is only civil liability. The reason,. for this answer is that in the crime of estafa by postdating or. issuing a check, it is required that the said check must be"' issued and delivered in payment of some obligation contrac$edi ' a t the time of the issuance 01' delivery of the check (People vs. Lilius, 69 Phil. 339). ( e ) The foliowing crimes must be prosecuted upon complain$^: by the Fffended party: ., -., 1. Adultery; 2 . Concubinage; 3 . Seduction ; 4. Abduction ; 5 . Rape; 6. Acts of lasciviousness; and 7. When the defamation imputes the commission of a which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. (Arts. 344 & 306, R It is patent that the provision requiring that the ings must be initiated upon the complaint filed. by the ,'

.i

828

829

I 1 CRIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER

CRI3llNAL LAW REVIEWER Rar Examinations in Criminal Law

Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w

ed party o r her relatives, was enacted out of considerat& ;on f o r the offended party and her family who might prefer to Suffer the outrage in silence rather than go tnrough with the scandaL of a public trial (Samilin vs. Court of First Instance, 57 Phil298).

&a) .Ex(;ept as provided in treaties and laws of preferential applicatlon, enumerate five cases wherein the Revised Penal Code is applicable outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. (b) One night, two American soldiers of t h e U.S. Army forcibly take two Filipino hostesses from Angeles, Pdpanga, and bring them inside Clark Air Base. Once inside the base they are taken to a dance, but fbding the ball to0 crowded they immediately .proceed to the soldiers' quarters where the girls are raped. (1) May the two soldiers be prosecuted ' befor,e a Philippine Court? Reasons. ( 2 ) For what' offense or of.fenses are they criminally, liable? Reasons. ( a ) p i o n s of the Revised Penal Code'shall be enforced o ide the jurisdiction of the Philippines again&t those z

'

Nho:/ P 1. Should commit an offenSe while on a Philippine ship or airship ; ha. 2. Should forge or counter.%.%tany coin 01' currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by t h e Government of the Philippines; ' 3 . Should be liable for acts connected with the introductiora h t o the Philippines of the forged 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 (Art. 2, R.P.C.) soldiers may be prosecuted becommitted two distinct and sepa-

830

. ,' : , .' d

,, .,

rate crimes of serious illegal detention and rape. The crime of seridus illegal detention was conlmitted outside the base. It is. e question that the two American soldiers of the took the two Filipino hostesses from Angeles, Pampanga, which is outside the Base. The forcible taking of the two Filipino hostesses constitutes the crime of serious illegal detention, there being no lewd designs on the part of the two American soldiers at the time of the taking of the hostesses, as shown by the fact that they took them to a dance once inside the base. The Base Agreement does not apply with respect to the crime of serious illegal detention which was committed outside the base. , When the crime is committed outside the base by a member of the armed forces of the United States and the offended party is, not a member of the armed forces of the United States, the Philip-. pine Court shall have jurisdiction over the offense. Even if it is supposed that the American soldiers committed a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, it being a continuing crime which began outside the base, the Philippine Court, bas concurrent jurisdiction with the military court o€ the United, States Armed Forces. ., ( 2 ) The two American soldiers are criminally liable for two., illegal-detention and rape. detention, because the forcible detention and the victims were women. The crime committed may not be forcible abduction, because there seems to be no lewd designs on the part of the two American soldiers a t thc time of the forcible taking of.the hostesses. Lewd designs cannot be inferred from the commission of rape when the circumstances of the case show that the offenders had no intention to commit rape a t the time of the forcible'. taking of the women. The two American soldiers are also guilty of rape as a separate offense, because the intention to have carnal knowledge with the two Filipino hostesses came to the mind of the American soldiers on-hey were already inside the base and they could not dance with them a,s they found the hall too crowded. But since from the circumstances of the case it is apparent'. that the intention of the two American soldiers in forcibly taking 9

831

I 1

' i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

the two hostesses from Angeles, Pampanga, was to take them to a dance, and not to rape them, they have different criminal , .., .,, intents and, therefore, two different crimes wer? committed by t them.

.. I

' 3 .

.,...

II. (a) '[s mere membership in the Coamunist Party of t h e Philippines punishable? Cite authoritative provisions. (b) A was taken to a farm by outlaw members R and C. B gave 'A a bolo and told the latter that the chief outlaw wanted to kill the farmer who tvas sleeping inside the hut. A refused, but after B told A "you have t,o com,ply with that order of the chief outlaw, otherwise you will have to come along With us," A killed the farmer. Is A criminally liable? Reason out your answer. (a) Yes. The Anti-Subversion Act punishes any person who knowingly, wilfully and by overt act affiliates, becomes, or remains a member of the Communist Party. (b) Yes, because A is not exempt from criminal liability. A was not acting under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or gre,ater injury. The statement of B, "You have to comply with tha.t order of the chief outlaw, otherwise YOU will have t o come along with us,"$s not a threat sufficient to cause a fear of a n evil or injury ggeater than that which A was, required to commit. Such a statement did not promise. ah evil of such gravity and imminence that a n ordinary person would have Succumbed to it. The fear of A was fanciful, remote and speculative, not rcal, imminent o r reasonable. ,

8

.

111. (a) What penalties are to be imposed for cwmplex ,crimes?; for crimes committed which are different from those . . intended? (b) A was sea.ted at the rear side of the orchestra :in a theater. He left his seat with his revolver in hand t o ' 'look for another seat behind. On his way, his revolver suddenly was discharged and the bullet hit E, causing his death, and C, causing injuries that required more than 30 days to : , '' . !heal. If you were the prosecutor, for what offense or offenses d you charge A? Reasons. If convicted, what would be proper penalty?

832


Ba,r Examinations in Criminal Lav

,(a) The penalty to be imposed for complex crimes is the;', penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its.. maximum period. In cases in which the crimes committed a r e different from . tliose which the offenders intended to commit, the following rulm'' ; shall be observed : 1. If the pena.lty prescribed for the felony committed be.;,, higher than that corresponding to the offensg which the accused' intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter. shall,..., be imposed in its maximum period. 2 . If the 'penalty prescribed for the felony committed be,' lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended t o commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3 . The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person '. shail also constitute an attempt or frustration o f another crime, ; if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. (b) If I were the prosecutor, I would charge A with the complex crime of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. When A held his revolver in hand while looking for another seat in the theater, he did not take the necess a r y precaution to avoid injury to persons. Since the single act of reckless imprudence resulted in homicide and serious physical injuries, A committed the complex crime of homicide with serious physical injuries throngh reckless imprudence. The proper penalty t o he imposed on A would be the penalty for homicide through reckless imprudence, it being the graver offense, to be appiied in the maximum period. ', : ', ~

,, . IV. (a) Distingnish hot11 by their nature and their effect& between justifying and exempting circumstances. (b) M, a public: school teacher, scolded B, one of her pupils. The next day;: while M was condncting her class, R's father boxed M on dif-2 ferent parts of her body. The injuries of M healed moretfi++ . ..

833

. .

CRIMINAL LAW REYJEWER

Bar .Examinations in Criminal Law

CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER ,. Bar Examinations in. Criminal Law.

'

than thirty days. For what offense ather be charged? Give reasons for your rson who acts by virtue of a ansgress the law, that is, he nit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there awful in the act or conduct of the actor. The act ed and lawful. On the otiier the grounds for exemption anting in the agent of the conditions which make the act voluntary or

s by virtue of a

ere is. a crime,

oxing M resulted

'

irect assault. Under the law; a erson in authority. M, a public school

single act, they constitute a complex crime.

. .

of .grave threats before the JP court. He was arrested'and tained in the municipal jail Chief of Police that X performed absence, X was able t n draw his s his confinement. The mayor approved the payroll treasurer paid the salary. What offense or offenses h commithed? Reasons. Who are the parties liakle: Reasons. (a). One specific offense where gardless of whether the offense is tent or through criminal negligence is malversation',' (b) Either there is a complex crime of estafa t fieation of an official document, i€ Patrolman X and Police were in conspiracy, in whic therefor; or there are two different offenses of of official document through reckless imprudence fo Chief of. Police is liable and estafa by means of dece Patrolman X is liable. The 'Chief of Police e document when he certifie when the latter was detained in the municipal jail period of time. The act of falsificatiou committed.' of Police is making untruthful statements in 'the, facts. If the Chief of P the falsity of the facts narrated fieation committed by a public of positih. If Patrolman X was in conspiracy with Police, then both he and the Chief of. Police: wo of estafa through falsification there is conspiracy the act of eopplex crime of estafa throu ment, because the falaificati necessary means for commit ifthe , Chihef o f Police was cation and Patrolman X mer fication made by the Chief be liable for the crime of e thereby employed deceit

CRIMINAL LAW KEVIEWEIL Bar Examinationn in Criminal Law

lic o€ficials concerned to pay him the salary.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW1;S Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

The

injured party or to the heirs of the injnr R.P.C.) Persons guilty of rape, seduction o r abduction, sh sentenced : 1. To indemnify the offended - 2 the offspri veut from doing so. 3 . In every case to support the offspring. The adulterer and the concubine may indemnify for .damages caused to the offended spouge

.

. :> (b) The two exceptions to the rule that penal^, have retroactive effect in so f a r as they f (1) when the new penal laws specifically provide, not apply.to pending action o r causes of actioh, the offender is R habitual delinquent. (e) A member of Congress may be a ular or special session of Congress for offenses pun a penalty .higher than prkion mayor.

arrested during the regular or special session ,of e civil liability incurred by a person who committed includes: (1) restitution; (2) reparation of the d&d.; and (3) indemnification for conseque:btial da&ges

. ,

restoring the thing itself, th allowance for any deterioration or diminu.t?on':of value, as determined by the court. The thing itself shall ,b&,.restoredemn though it may be found in the possession of a twrd party who had acquired i t by lawful means, saving to the latter. his action against the proper person who may be liable "tO-'Gm(Art. 106, R.P.C.). paration- is made or satisfied by determining the amount age, taking into consideration the price of the tliing, whenpossible, and its special sentimental value to the injured The Court shall order the payment of the amount determked, , . based on those considerations (Art. 106, R.P.C.). emnification shall include not only those caused to the party but also those suffered by his family or by a third by reason of the crime. The Court shall fix the amount consequential damages that the offender shall pay to the ,.

.~

836

-

R.P.C.).

Give the two exceptions to the rule that penal laws a retiroactive effect io so f a r a s they favor the persons

9

and B, armed with carbi -11. (a) house attempting shouted or help which caused A There is no evidence to show who fatal shot. May A and B be prose answer. (b) A police raiding team a a wornan in the act 6f cohabitation admitted by the couple that the woman received five .bo perfume in consideration of the inter fense committed, if there was any J

answer. (a) -Yes, A and B may b e prosecuted even if there is. evidence to show who among A and B fired the fatal shot. reason for this answer is, since A and B were in consp to commit robbery in the house of that the death of X was an incident and a consequenc agreement t o commit robbery, coupled with the Pact th

837

I

I

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

age. It not appearing that the woman is married, held liable for adultery. In concubinage and adultery, rs must be a married man and a married woman, reThe bacheIor did not commit any other offense against a w e it does not appear that the woman was under rs of age, and there are no circumstances wltere the n is immaterial in crimes against chastity.. The e held liable for prostitution, because. there is t she habitually indulged in sexual inqercourse or profit. As it is defined in the Revised Penal Code,

e held liable for .violation of ,domicile rch warrant and the entrance was against the more persons,

ife, with knowledge of B. After receipt of sisted in the prosecution of A. If you were the will you du? Give your reasons. (b) P

Reason ,out your ' answer. prosecutor, I would prosecute A for estafaj turn of the 8500 to B's wife with knowI-

838

CRISIINAL LAW REVIEW& Uar Examinations in Criminal Lnw

.

edge of B. B had a right to insist in .the prosecution:of cause the return of the P5 poker game through fraud, As the prosecutor, I could still prosecute was committed by A and his return of him of criminal responsibility. Under Code, there may be a compromise up0 from an offense; but such compromi public action 'for the imposition of (b) The offense committed wa person killed, was the gra was not paryicide, because The killing cf other ascendant is relationship between the killer and ascendant is legitimate. P did not kill 'x cumstances (Art. 247, R.P.C.),be wife, M, and X in the act of sex

IX. (a) Give the cases wh Law does !tot apply. (6) D brought his maid ,.E After raising his cane D compelled E to take'of and dance before him. What Give your reasons. (e) F, e %any, misappropriated P50,O nessman. For what offens Reason out your answer. (a) The Illdeterminate the following: . .. 1. Persons convicted of offenses punished ,&h'd or life imprisonment. 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy ,or commit. treason. 3 . Those con;.icted of tion or espionage. 4 , Those convicted of piracy. 5. Those who are habitual delinquents. 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement sentence. ~

839

. .._ .'~.

I

,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exnminationa in Criminal Law

. , :,,

,

,

~

the terms of conditional pardon granted Chief Executive. maximum term of imprisonment does not a c e d one year. Those who, upon the approval of the iaw, had been senby final judgment. Those sentenced to desfiewo or suspension. . .;,' .,,lo. .* .,."<, .- ,'Jb). The offlanse committed by D was acts of lasciviousness, .committed with intimidation, because by compelling his maid off her clothes and dance before him, there was lasciviousthe motive (U.S. vs. Bailoses, 2 Phil. 49). (ic) F and 1; a r e liable for estafa. The offense committed ot.malversation, because the funds of the Manila Rai1roa.d 6,omVany are not public funds and the cashier of that company k3,:not.a public officer. The crime committed is estafa with ab@,e,--of,confidence, even if the Railroad Company i s of a quasi-public character (U.S. vs. Sevilla, 43 Phil. 190). Although L, a businessman, did not have any fiduciary relation- with the Masfla -Railroad Company, he is neverthelkss liable for. estafa, becaqse when the law clearly defines a crime, a s the Revised qeyl Code defines the crime of estafa, those who in any way participated therein must be principals, accomplices or abettors thereof (U.S. vsr Ponte, 20 Phil. 379, citing Groizard & Viada).

X. (a) State the provisions in the Revised Penal Code which ,succeeded the former offense of false prosecution. (b) ideration of P15,OOO which R gave ~ L Y S, the 'latter execut'e the next day a deed of conveyance over 1,000 in favor of R. On the following day, S did not the ag,reemeut, instead he evaded R.. When pressed Later on, S sold the same lot was the offense committed, if there : :.. any? Reason out your answer. " (a) The former offense of false prosecution is now punished ,by the Revised I'enal Code as perjury, if the false accusation io uriaer oath: or defamation, if not under oath, and the purpose ,k%&iscredit ,I ., . or to injure the reputation of the offended party. ,<,erwrjr i s committed by any person^ who, knowingly mak'ing un-

fl

'1

CRlBlTNAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal IAW

.

~

8

truthful statements, shall testify under oath or make an affidavit :, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized' .' to administer an oath in cases in which the law so (Art. 183, R.P.C.). Defamation is a public and malicious imputation o or a vice or defect, real o r imaginary, or any act, omissi0 lion, status,, or circumstance tending to cause the dis of a natural or jlrridical person, or t who is dead (Art. 353, R.P.C.). that the former offense of false innocent person (Art. 363, R.P.C.), only when there is planting of that no offense was committed b y on the part of S f o r failure to co ply with his obliga.tion t o execute a deed of conv the lot in favor of R. S did not commit the crime of es because there was neither deceit nor abuse of confidence. ,+' lot was existing. It does not appear that S had the inten the beginning to defraud R and that the former proinuse e latter to execute a deed of conveyance only to induce;:him to part .with his money. The amount of P15,@00'was'rece by S not in trust, or on commission, or for administration under any other obligation involving the duty to mak or to return, the same. The transaction was one of Pum sale and when the amount of Q15,@00was delivered by' the latter acquired ownership over the money, not 'mer dical possession of the same. S was still the o he sold it, because there was no having been executed.

AUGUST', 1960

:

.;,"*py+.r. * ~.

,..

frustrated felolly, and give a n exantplp:' required for self-

an example. (a) A felony is frustrated when the offende the acts of execution which would produce the felony,::

' . , .->.. r .(, ,

341

I

CRIMINAI.

RIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

LAW REVIEWER

:.:

nr Examinations in Criminal Law

hich, nevertheless, do not .produce it by reason ependent of the will of the perpetrator (Art. 6, ith intent to kill B, stabbed the latter with st, perforating one of his lungs, thereby nd sufficient to cause his death. But due nd able surgical operation and medical treatment, e circumstances required for self-defense are: lawful aggression; easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent cient provocation on the part bf the perdefending himself. , . (Art. 11 par. 1, R.P.C.) f self defense:-A, with a bolo i.1 hand,,attacked avoided the blow, unsheathed his own bolo, and, attack coming from A, B s t r u c x him on the d causing serious physical injuries. In in inflicting the injuyies. iracy. (b) A and . B conspire' to rob to act as guard while B goes 'up and d takes away with him money and two later divide between themselves. king the house, the owner thereof offered some rewithout the knowledge or consent of A, 'B sltoots. What is the crime committed, and the criminal

(a) A conspiracy exists when two or more nersons come t o :.~~~~~.~, $&s;an,.agreemen.t concerning the commission of a felony and decide A%@O conunit it; (Art. 8. R.P.C.). ,~ ,,I ; (b)' The crime committed by B is robbery with homicide, .', ,:.,.' 3 . ,$nd.%hat ~ by A is robbery only. Under the Revised Penal Code, .. .'%he'Onlycase where a person who-is present at the commission .;p$&robbery shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults ...,e b d i t t e d b? the others, is when the robbery is committed by and he is one of the members thereof (Art. 296, R.P.C.). ,..(;* .,,, ,.* ,,i&<;: . ,;.,&sF;+~... ,.,L

Since there a r e only t bery, the provision cited is However, in the case 6191, although only two therefore, they did not constitute a b .the other robbers were guilty of robb the homicide was committed by only knowledge' or consent of the others. t r u e that the rule is, when 't is the act of all, this rule must'give of Art. 296 of the Revised Pens

111. A, a boy eight years old, living with his pare boy, B, a neighbor, sets f house, razing it to .the ground. B's father acc arson and demands indemnity for the value of . Decide the ewe, giving reasons. The crimina1,case against A will have to be di 'under nine years old is ex 12, par. 2, R.P.C.). of A should indemnify E's if they are a t fault or were not a t fault or n -4 must pay for the indemnification. The civil liability, committed by a person under nine years upon those having such person under t h e h -legal..au control; unless it appears that there was no fault or on their part. If the parents are insolvent excepting property ex 101, pars. 2 and 3, R.P.C.).

~~

band^ ~

circumstances; two exemp circums , circumstance;

Justifyirbg circumstances.-.The inal I i a h i t y :

~

842

843

follow

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWISR Bar :Examinations in Criminal Law @ + .

rime^ :,'!#I

,cording to the conditions attending the commission of the,,~';.

,!-it

(Art. 15, R.V.C.).

'~

,&A

~

/

I

V. (3) Mention two ways in which criminal liability 6: totally extinguished. .Yb) Distinguish between prescription . .~of ' , ,; , a crime and prescription of a penalty.

the means employed to pre-

, ~ n

ocation on. the part of t h e

is totally extinguisheddeath of the convict, as to the personal penalties.

ce to a n order issued by

(Art. 89, pars. 1 a

'

crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities their agents; in prescription of a penalty, from the date' wh the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. As to the circumstances h?/ which it is interr scription of a crime, the running of the period is interrupted by the filing of .tfie complaint o r prescription of a penillty, if the defendant shou no extradition treaty, or should.. c expiration of the period of prescr of a cri

circumstances; : That advantage"be taken by the offender of his public , , (1) :,:.:"*\#~* .,, nosition: / e committed in contempt of or with rities (Art. 14, pars. 1 and 2, R.P.C.). stance.-That a person killed another reward ai. promise (Art. 248, par. 2*

,~i . L

.

"

rnative circu~tance.-Iiltoxication, which is taken vating or mitigating circumstance ac-

844

VI. Define (a) parricide, (b) murder.

R.P.C.)

.

(

,

., , ~

ing are exempt from

,

,

~;. ,., &.

*

CItIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exarniii;lH4ons in Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW .REVIEWER Bar Exnminations in Criminal Law

d'

full of p sengem The jeepney was overturned

,-Ahy person who, not falling within the provisions of shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder, if comt h any of the following attendant circumstances: (1) chery, taking advantage of superior strength, with t h o -armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense persons to insure or afford impunity; ( 2 ) in a price, reward or promise; (3) by means ,of poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a

one passenger was killed, the leg of anoth'er p&enger&;w crushed and had to be amputated. The car driven by'^ also damaged. What uffense or offenses may ,A be.:c with? for t a k h g a motor vehicle belongi to gain. Complex crime of damage~to amount of the damage is more than grave felony, with homici physical injuries, all of them being the result of one single a of reckless and imprudent driving. A is also liable for a violation of the Motor which provides that no student's permit shall son. to. whom the same is issued to operate. a mo any public highway, unless accompanied by a p a regular license .to' operate such motor vehicle.

waste and ruin; (4) on occa-

, or any

other public calamity; (5) with evident cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly of^ the. victim, or outraging or scoffing,

itted by any married woman who shall th a man not her husband and by the &s .carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to .be m a w if the marriage be subsequently declared void (Art.

'

itted by a married woman and by a concubinage is como knows him to b e

student license to drive motor h fhe key left in the switch.

bo&ds,.a taxi and pursues A who in his haste to escape, and:. se of h i s inexperience, violently collides with a jeepnep

the rule for the application of (maximum, medium ::n< absenoe of aggravatir circumstances. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law. c ( three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty~ posed of three different penalties, each one of which period in accordance with the provisions of arti the courts shall observe f o r the application of following rules, according to whether there are or no 01- aggravating circumstances : (1) When there are neither aggravating. cumstances, they shall impose the penalty pres its medium period. (2) When only a. mitigating circumstance commission of t h y & they shall impose the gena1ty.i.n ,its,. mum period. f l y an aggravating circums mission of the act, they shall impose the ,. :. , A a x i m u m period. ,

841

846. ..

.

,-

, ,,

,

I

CRIMINAL LAM! REVIEWER

CXIMlNAL LAW REVIEWBR Bar Jhaminations in Criminal Law

,

Bar, ,E-xa,minations ia ,Criminal ,Lav : . .!W*%

.

'

'.

mitigating and aggravating circumstances rt shall reasonably offset those of one class cording to their relative vieiglk are two or more mitigatiag circumstances circumstances are present., the court shall ext lower to that prescribed by law, in the may deem applicable, according to the number such circumstances. atever may be the number and nature of the aggravab ances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty escribed by law, in its maximum period. imits of each period; the courts shall deter&ne the extent of the penalty according to the .number and .aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the e r extent of the evil produced by the crime. ) State one difference between arbit&ry detention detention. (b) A is accused of robbery and is ar-

constabulary sergeant, by virtue .of a warrant st. A put up bail and was ordered released by the court. sergeant B'sees A a t the cockpit and imhim and takes him +A the constabular guardp t there till the next morning when B took

yl

.

him to the court. All along A was telling ? , t h a t he was out on bail, but B would not believe him; neither did he, B, make 'Sng effort to verify if A had really been released on bail. .What .offense if any has B committed, acd why?

"

,. , '

,:

.' (a) Arbitrary detention is committed by public officer, while illegal detention is committed by private person. In both offemes;. the offendy s, a person of his liberty without ,::legal ground or auth tention through negligence, bemalice he did not take the neces'ving A of his liberty without legal ine complex crime and give an example.

.:. .: , .. . . ./'

.:,.:*.,:'

?*:

848

There, i s a complex crime when a single act constitut&twb+?t o r more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other (Art. 48, R.P.C.). ,.. ,An example of a complex crime is when a person fired his. gun once and the same bullet killed t w o individuals; o r when, ,'," a person falsified a dezd of mortgage to induce another to p,a.&, , , with his money, thereby defrauding the latter. The latter,is:.an: ,!~; exainple of a complex crime of estafa through falsific+tio~z&~:@$ .. ,.. . . , .yT,: public document. ,_ > i x:,:,? ' i ~~

/'

,

AUGUST, 1961

I

, y<, , a. , ,

' /

'

$(a) Define "crime" and give an example of an sible' crime,'' as defined in the Revised Penal Code. .&b charged with the forcible abduction with lewd desi2 a.,girl, 16 years old and Y, a 20-year old female f e e n d , p f The evidence shows that the abduction was with their conge Decide 'the case with reasons. , .(a) Crime is defined as an act comnitted or violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. An example of impossible crime is, aa f o l l o m A b that' B was only sleeping, with intent to kill, shot at the la,@ body then lying on bed. It turned out that B had be an hour before A fired at his body. (b) A should be sentenced to suffer the penalty f o r $ sented abduction in which X is the offended party, being with her consent, she being 16 years old io be a virgin, it not appearing that she is married. A should be acquitted of the charge of forcible abdu insofar as Y is the offended party, becau:;e the element of the abduction is against her will" is absent; and he c o d be convicted of consented abduction, because Y is over 18 y of age. ..

,

..';is

-11. (a) If an insane person ,commits a crime, wh first be civilly liable, his legal guardian, or t h e insane$

849

.

I 1 CRfMINAL LAW .REVIEW& .Bar Examinations iti- Criminul Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Lnw

win his p r o k r t y ? Why?' (b) Specify two (2) offenses which prescribe i one (1) Year.

/

,',(a) devolve

he civil liability for acts committed by a n insane shall. pan. his legal guardian, unless it appears that there was'no fault o r riegligence on the part of the latter,+ If the legal g'uayd' n was not a t fault or negligent or be insolvent, the in&de person who committed the crime shall respond With his OWn'property not exempt from execution, in accordance $th .the civil law (Art. 101, R.P.C.). ' .* .Hence, iAe legal guardian should first be civilly liable. e for damages caused by the incapacitated their authority and live i n their comof the guardian shal! cease .when they all the diligence of E. good father of a damage (Art. 2180, N.C.C.). punished only by a .fine or by imprisonment one month, or both, prescrise after one year. e following offenses.prescrihe after one year: ailure t o brand or register cattle.-Any. person who se to brand or. regiiter his large cattle h animal not branded or registered by an two nor more than five pesos, or by imment for not less than five days nor more than thirty days, both such fine and imprisonment, in 'the discretion of the vised Adm. Code). '. . ( 2 ) Unlicensed signs, signboards, or billboar&.-Any per, 'son .who shall erect, construct, m a i r b i n , display, o r , expose a bign, signboard, Cr billboard without first paying the lawful tax therefor shall be fined not exceeding one hundred pesos or be imprisoned not exceeding one month (Sec. 2729, Revised, Adm. code): " ' '

i'

.

. ,

,~

II III. A issues a BlOO check by signing the name of a ba* fiepositor, imitating the signature of the latter. 'If he suceeeds m c m h i u g said check, what crime or crimes, if any, have been r committed? Why? 1

i

a50

4

'' committed a complex crime of estafa t h r o u g h ' . f a l s i f i c o ~ , of a commercial document. When he imitated the signature: the bank depositor on the check for FlOO and issu A committed. the crime of falsification of a comm ment. By cashing the check, A committed estafa by deceit. And since the crime of falsification was means for committing the crime of estafa, A committed. .complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial d ment.

. N. Specify two (2) modifying circumstances in the. sition of the ,penalty which ' can be considered ' aggravathg at times, and miti-ting at other times. Give illnstrative examples,>.

A and 13 were convicted of slight physical'injuries infliC~84 on C. A was the son of C and B was the.father of C. In!thi.k case, 'relationship is a mitigating circumtance i n tlie iinp!.isition of the penalty .on B and a n aggravating circumstance in theri imposition of the penalty on A. Relationship is a mitigating: circumstance in crimes against persons, ,when the offender &.arelative o f - a higher degree than the offended party.. It is .an .aggravating circumstance when the offender is a relative of.-;a.: lower degree than the offended party. ,., . A killed B when the former was i n the state of intolticdtion. If the intoxication OS A was accidental, it is a mitigating circumstance. If it is habitual o r subsequent to the plan to corn-? mit tbe crjme, his intoxication is a n aggravating circumstance.. i f :

. .,,.:.'r:1 ,

V. (a) Specify two (2) criminal acts constituting a violatiowof the.Election Law. (b) Specify two (2) criminal acts constituting a violation of the Corporation Law. (e) When.may

the death 'penalty not be imposed although the accused'is r e d y guilty of .:a. capital offense, with aggravating circumstance and, no ,mitigating circumstmees? .. .,,,, (a) The following are criminal acts constituting violationi' . . .. ,..., . of the Election h i w : I

: : . t

~

861

CRIIIIIXAL LAW REVlEWER Bar Examinations in Criminnl Law

. CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law driver recklessly drove at nig

is mashr‘s

injury on a child passenger &at was expelling out of a foetus from the body passenger; and damage to the “innocent” were committed? Why? three separate and district crimes, (2) homicide with abortion (if the physical injuries (if the ‘thtough reckless imthrough reckless imthe essential elemeots a taking of the c a r ; personal property belongs to another, his master; (4) ,that the taking was withO l i t the,consent of the owner of the car: and (5) that there was &nt t o gain. It is qualified theft, because the property taken is a motor vehicle. The element‘of intent to gain is present, because the use o r property is sufficient to establish’ that dement. “taking”, the Supreme Court held that qualified theft of an automobile when a joy ride without the consent of its that if at the time have the intention of withholdthe element of ‘:taking” in the crime of theft is lacking and, hence, the crime % is. not committed. He also committed the complex crime of homicide with abor.tin’ or . a t least less serious physical injuries, and damage to ’property, assuming that the damage is not less than PlOO,through’ reckless imprudence, because the three offenses a r e a~?.Iqas,grave

854

felonies and they were the results of one single ct of reckless driving (Art. 48, R.P.C.). There is such crime as unintentional a.bortion through reckless imprudence when, as in this case, the violence was not intentionally-exerted and the foetus died ax a consequence. If the foetus survived in spite of the violence, the offender is liable f o r at least less serious physical injuries, because the mother necessarily suffered internal injuries due to the expulsion of the foetus. .The offense of slight physical injuries through reckless ima light felony, cannot form a complex crime.’ ,-j treated and punished as a separate offense. .): I

.

.”

‘. In slander by deed, the offender per€orms:any act not included.in the crima of libel or slander; in libel, the offender avails himself of written o r printed words, or words published, .y by means of radio, phonograph, painting or threatridal o r cine-: .‘iJ matographic exhibition in besmirching the reputation. of another ’ person. The two offens ’ are similar i n the sense that in both offenses (1) there m st be publicity and (2) that the acb, per- :! formed or the wo$ds published cast dishonor, discredit. o r .contempt upon the offended party.

IX. Distinguish dander by deed from libel.

,

,.

, i

_

~I

r

/

X. Distin isla “trespas to dwelling” from c‘tres&w to propert* (0 er forms of trespass). , , In “tr .pass to dwelling”, the offender is a private person: ” in “trespa s to property” (other forms of trespass), the off&dev I: is any person. In the first, the offender enters a dwelling%ouse~@~ of another; in the second, the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another. In the first, the place entered by the offender i s inhabited; in the second, the place entered.@ uninhabited. I n the first, the act constituting the crime is by entering the dwelling against the wiII of the owner: in the second, it is by entering the closed premises or the fenced estate without securing the permission of the owner or caretaker .thereof. . I n the first, the prohibition to enter the dwelling of another i$

855 , ,,,*:,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Emminations in Criminal Law


...a1r

*.

in the second, the prohibitior’ to, enter the

’

’

the corresponding VISA authorizing “B” ‘ t o ’en* Philip’, pine soil to which “B” WEIS not entitled: (a) Has “A” committed any crime defined and .p&hed in the Revised Penal Code? If so, name it;, if not,

- ’

fenced estate of another must‘be mknifest.

->., .’

..

.’AUGUST, 1962

*

,’

,.

esplain your answer. .‘.,l’i (b) Can “A” be prosecuted in the Philippines for said , . . . ,. crime? Why? r .’

prepared and submitted to Congress’ or governmental authorities amending the SYSTEM of penology of the Philippines? If so, enumerate them chronologically, giving the names of their respective authors. ”

in the ]?hilippines are: 1. The Spanish Penal Code, and 2. ‘The Revised Penal Code. ’’ The Spanish Penal code^ was made effective .in ‘the Philippines in 1887. The Revised Penal Code took effect in 1932 (Art. 1, R.P.C.). (b) Yes. Before the promulgation of Act 3815’ .(RePenal Code), there was a proposed “Correctional completed in 1916 by Rafael del Pan, a member Of Committee created by Act No. 1941. After the the Revised Penal Code, a project known Code of Crimes” was prepared by the Code Commission and was submitted to Congress. It has not yet been adopted by Congress.

~,

k.”

~

-

.

’

.

~ ’ .. ,

. .,. I /

’

(a) Yes. “A” committed two crimes: (1) .direct bribery (Art. 210, R.P.C.), and (2) falsification of official and public documents committed by &:’ public officer with abuse of official position (Art. 171, R.P.C.). ’ ’ ’ -.-’ (b) Yes. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippines, ‘but also outside o ,its jurisdiction, against those who, while’being public ficers or employees, should commit ‘an offense in t$ exercise of their functions (Art. 2, R.P.C.).

.

Consul of the Philippines stationed in X-pl&, of his official functions as such, while in his place of assignment and for the consideration oE F10,oOO prepared various documents in favor of “E” wherein he knowingly made untruthful statements ’ .in - the,- .na+ra tion of facts and ih connection therewith ‘ h e ‘i&u&‘‘B’’

856

I I I A E x p l a i n the aggravating circumstance that t h e crime was Committed by a band. ., ., (b) What shall be the nature or extent of the d i s y i s e necessary to consider its attendance a s an aggravating circumstance? (c) Article 14, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code mentions 3 aggravating circumstances, Le., night time, uninhabited place and that the crime be committed by a band. Are ALL these 3 circumstances when attending the commission of a crime to be considered as only oiie or as 3 different and separate from one another? Why? (a) The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a hd is present when more than three armed malefactors ted together in the commission of the off se. least four of the persons who committed the riHe must be armed. It is not necessary: that the mem: . bers of the band be armed with firearms. Boloskid clubs ’ . - snd other deadly weapons a r e sufficient arms.^‘.'."?': ~

’

,./

~

857

r..

,:

,I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEC Bar Examinations in Criminal,’Law


.(b) The disguise must be such as to conceal the ideatity of the offenders. The purpose of the offenders in employ. , ing disguise is to prevent their being recognized. There 1s .disguise when the offenders had their faces blackened or . when they covered their faces with handkerchiefs before committing the crime. ’ But if in spite of the use of handker-, * chiefs to cover their faces, the culprits were recognized :, by the victim, disguise is not considered aggravating (People vs. Sonsona, G.R. No. L-9866, May 25, 1956). , ... ~,., (c) In its decision of April 5, 1884, the Supreme Court of Spain held that they constitute only one aggravating circumstance if they concur in the commission of a felony. But in its decision of April 27, 1897, the same court held that its former decision did not declare an ab. .,solute and general rule which would exclude the possibility of their being considered separately when their elements a r e distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity (People vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. L-4189, May 12,.1952)’.

.

.

>.,’

crimes from rebellion. According to the Supreme Court, one of the means by which rebellion may be committed is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government” and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely: resort to arms, requisition of- property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life. Being within the purview of “engaging in war” and “committing serious violence”, the other common crimes (such as murder, homicide, robbery, and arson) .and rebellion constitute not two or more offenses, but only one crim+that of rebellion plain and simple. But if the commission of other common crimes .in the course of the rebellion is done for private purposes or profit, without political motivation, those other common crimes. would he punished as separate and distinct offenses. (b) Yes. The threefold-iength-of-time rule shduld’ be followed irrespective of the fact that the different’offenses are charged in several informations, or a r e included in. a single prosecution, or that the several cases are tried before. the same court o r in different courts (People vs. Garalde, 50 Phil. 823). The rule applies although the penalties were &posed for different crimes, at different times, and under separate informations (Torres vs. Superintendent, 58 Phil. 847). .~ , The rule shall be applied to her in the service of the penalties. The maximum duration of the’ convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties &posed: upon her.

.

,

/ ~

I

wi (a)

Can the crime of rebellion be complexed with, ocher common crimes? Why? (h) In 1960, Juliet committed 6 crimes. of estafa to’ the damage of the respective offended parties in the sum of P1,OOO in each case. She was in the m e year prosecuted for all the 6 cases: 2 in the Court of First htitance of Bizanila, 2 in Quezon city, 1 in Pasay city am$ the last one in Cdoocan City. She was convicted after hearing in all the 6 cases. In the imposition of the corresponding penalties: (a) would she be entitled to the benefits of the threefold-length-oftime rule provided in Rule 70, last paragraph. of the . . Revised Penal Code a s amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217, Section 2? In the affirmative case, how could that rule be applied to her? (a,) No, because the other common crimes committed SA:.’in the course of the rebellion are either absorbed in the rebellion or treated and punished as separate and distinct !

858

V. One morning, Hilarion went to the house of Dionisio and .: there had an altercation v i t h him over certain. deliver@ of tobacco leaves which the latter did not want to yieId.1 ~

Enraged, Hilarion left saying that he was to come back, at-noon, which he did, armed with ‘a galtik and a . - . . and at a distance of 30 feet from t h e house, .called .DIP!

-.

869

~

I 1 CRIMINAL LAW' REVIEWER ' Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

CRIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

?:" nisi0 to ''come down". As the latter refused, Hilarion, t~ compel Dionisio to come down, set fire to Dionisio's , . " ,. house. Naturally, Dionisio fled before the house was de. stroyed. Is Hilarion liable for the crime of arson pro'":-' vided in Art. 321, No. 1, of the Revised Pen& Code for ". .. 'having . set fire to a dwelling house knowing it to be OC..~ .,."'cupied by one or more persons at the time of, the fire?

Even if F .had participated in the conspiracy, he was not one of the malefactors, because he desisted before the commission of the crime. Conspiracy alone without the execution of its pui'pose is not a crime, except in treason; rebellion, or sedition. This ruling applies to F. And even if F was one of the malefactors, but he and C were shot and killad by their companions on the occasion of the robbery, the latter would still be liable for robbery with homi\ cide. . .. It is immaterial that the person killed was one of the .robbers, "provided that the homicide be produced by reason o r on occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result ,obtained, without reference or distinction as t o the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the . ' commission of the crime, that have to be taken into con, > ' ..sideration (People vs. Mangulabnan, et al., 62 O.G:6532). .,. . ' If F and C were killed by the government forces, the I 8 malefactors did not commit the crime of robbery with homicide, but only qualified theft, being already "in the act of carrying the spouses' automobile away from the garage," , . ' wben "they were halted by the government forces." ' ., , It is qualified theft only, because there was no violence 'against or intimidation of persons o r force upon things at the time of. the taking of the automobile. The firing of ,,,,,,,. .. . . their guns made by the malefactors, if it did not injuxe or kill any person, although constituting violence against , or intimidation of persons, occurred after they had ,already the material possession of the hutomobile. The taking of the automobile may be considered already complete when the gun battle ensued. i : ' ' The'NBI agents and the constabulary soldiers, were , not liable, if they killed F and C, one of the malefactors, .because they were acting in the justifying circumstance of ' fulfil1,ment of duty when they killed them.

I

.

',.

2. ~'

'

'

'Explain your answer. No. That the great perversity on the part of the of, ' ,.,.. , . fender implied from the burning of a building knowing " that persons were in it, and for which a quite severe penalty " is attached by law, was not the moving spirit in the case at bar. With all probability the crime of arson would not have been committed if Dionisio had heedcd the call, of ,q .,:;r Hilarion for Dionisio to come down (People vs. Manhit, et al., C.A., 51 O.G. 221). . . ., t '

,

).,*

r,ir-.

~

'.>VI.A;&

C:, D, E and F conspired to comm:t the crime of :.'.*'*-.robbery with homicide in the h&se of the sp.oUWSY and r: 5 2,'residing in San Juan, Riial. F, sm.aht of d d -4 ' spouses became a f r d d upon learning that tlte? canspirators ::'. intended also to kill his masters and informed- them. Of. the proposed crime. Said spouses sought theh 'the prQtection of the NBI and the Constabulary, so that ivhen .. , . , on August 1, 1962, the malefactors went to -the, house , of said spouses to consummate their intended fdoEy and were in the act of carrying the spouses'. automobile away . . , from the garage, they were halted by the government forces whereupon a gun battle ensued With the result that : F, the spouses' servant, and C, one of the. mdefacbrs, :, , were killed. Did the surviving malefactors .commit tiie composite or special crime of robbery with homicide not- ' withstanding the fact that one of the ,persons killed had participated in the conspiracy and the other was one Of the malefactors killed by the government forces? EXplain your answer. The surviving malcfaetors committed the special crime .. , ,. of robbery with homicide if F was killed by anyone of them.

.;

,,,'

~

c.

,

I

j_,

-Vn.

(8)

!, ;:,/,

What do you know about the so-called impossible criimes? Do the perpetrators thereof incur an$ crim-

I

860

861


. .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEIVER

.


imposed to Romeo, for the crimes committed before his esedw from Muntinglupa, affect the imposition and .%Nice of the penalties for which he wils sentenced f o r the second group of crimes under the threcfold-length&,f-time rule prescribed in Article 70, last paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act 217, section 21 Yes, the penalties imposed upon Romeo, f o r the crimes he committed before his escape from Muntinglupa, can af., . fect the imposition and service of the penalties for which ' . he was sentenced for the second group of crimes. Upon his conviction o f the 10 crimes of estafa, he could be declared a recidivist, having been convicted of theft by final judgment a t the time of his trial for estafa and both crimes being embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. It is assumed that a t the time Romeo escaped in 1960, he was serving one of the penalties f o r the three crimes of theft. All the penalties f o r the ten crimes of estafa should be imposed on Romeo notwithstanding the penalties for theft. But in the service of the penalties f o r estafa, the penalty f o r theft not yet served out should be considered f o r the purpose of the threefold-length-of-time rule.

inal liability under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code? Why? (b) In the affirmative case, give an example of a' felon,ious act punished by the Penal Code that turns out to be a n impossible crime. In the negative case, e.? plain briefly why the perpetrator of a so-called hpossible crime does not incur an>- criminal liability. (a) There is a n inlpossible crime, when the offender performs a n act which would be an offense against ?fr:,, sons o? property were it not for the inherent impossiblllty , . of its accomplishment or on account of the employment Of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, R.P.C.). Yes, because the Revised Penal Code provides the penalty of awesto mayor or a fine ranging from 8200 t o B500 for the commission of an impossible crime (A@. 69, R.P.C.), According to the positivist theory, on which the punishment of an impossible *crime is based, society must be protected from the anti-social activities, whether actual ...or aotential. of the morbid type of men, called "swially '. dangerous persons." (b) A, with inteni to kill B, looked for 'the latter and, finding him lying on a bamboo bed, stabbed him.with . a knife in the chest several times, not, knowing that B , had been dead an hour before. I .

8 :

.

/

,

VIII. In January, 1950, Romeo was prosecuted and convicted - in the Court of First Instance of Manila of 3 crimes of ', :-thefi. for which he was sentellced by reason o f ' t h e value ', of' the properties stolen t~ the following penalties of pri. .sion correecional: 16,200 fine to 2 y m s , 6 . months and 20 days; 81,000 and 8500 fine t o 1 year, 8 months an? :' .~,:21 clays in each case. R o m a immediately commenced to, serve these penalties in Muntinglupa. Zn 1960, while serving sentence, he escaped therefrom and went t0 Ling¥, Pangasinan, where he also committed 10 cdlnes Of ..; esbfa, each in the Sum of FP,OOO, for all which mimes, ": he again was prosecuted and convicted after hearing in , .. May, 1961. Under these circumstances, can the penalties

fx. X-newspaper of genel'al circulation in the PhMppines, published in its issue of August 1, 1962, a Iibelous d d e accusing A, B and C of having acted in cionfederation to smuggle, as they did smuggle into the Phili,ppines, several items of merchandise worth 11,000,000. A resides in Manila; B in Quezon City; and C in Polo, Bdacan. Under these facts, may the criminal liability of the author of

'

862

'!

that libel be divided into 3 distinct and separate offenses so that said author might be prosecuted and convicted ., . of 3 erimes o f libel? Explain your answer. ,. No. The latest ruling of the Supreme' Court: is tha5.i '1a libel on t.wo or more persons contained in o n e : d w : : . and published by a single act ,constitutes but .one'-ijffe&e'' 80 as to warrant a single indictment therefor" ( P k p l e . vs; ' I

.

863

I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations ill Criminal Law Aquino, 53 O.G. 8844, citing State vs. Hoskins, 60 Minn. 168). It is submitted that this ruling applies, even if the ., ,. three offended parties 1:eside in different cities and prov.i!,y82.ince. The criminal action for libel must be filed with :s the Court of First Instance of the province or city where ~ ' . < , the accnsed or any of the offended parties resides a t the time of the commission of the offense (Art, 360, R.P.C.). Hence, only one criminal action can be filed.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations, ia Criminal L a r

'4.

,..

,.

.I. 1

'

I

i

.

.'Xr'ta)!A, B, C and D, without any right whatsoever squatj! ,: , , ted on a piece of land in the Ctiy of Manila, the p;:! ' , .pra,perty of E. Inasmuch as ejectment proceedings .35 : 9 would take quite a very long time to produce results, ."if .ever successful, can the Fiscal of Manila, upon , complaint of E, charge A, B, C and D with the crime ,of coercion or unjust vexation which, though. Ught , . !' .,, .felonies, covered by Article 287, last paragraph,'of the /,: ,:.,, . ,... . Revised Penal Code, wonld, upon conviction'. ..of the culprits, bring about their immediate ejec%n from -,, ".th8epremises? Express your opinion giving your rea. ... .. . ..

,. 1

6

~

,

. -. : ,

i

<

-.

:; i

~.

.

AUGUST, ~-1.963 -

..: '(a)

.I

~,

,

~

:'

'

I

..

.

I

864

,

When did Act No. 3815, .knqwn as the Revised Pen& i Code, take effect? (b) Is the Revised Penal Code of the! Philippines east .in+1 the moulds cf the Classical School, the Positive School or i n y,, 1'', other school of Penology? Explain briefly your . answer. .,.. , < ':, (a) Act Nu. 3815, known as the Revised'Penal Code, bok effect on the first day of January, 1932 (Art. I, R.P.C.). (b) The Revised Penal Code is cast in the mould of the Classical School, aIthough some provisions of eminently positivistic tendencies (those having reference to the punishment of impossible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incorporated. in . ., the said Code.

I .?,'.

. . sons therefor. '(b) Rogelio was prosecuted for murder. kter' hearing, he was found guiIty of the crime charged attended ,,'., by the mitigating cir&nnstance of the offender having aU&Ai*;';. , , voluntarily surrendered himself to a person thority or his agents. He was, thcrefore, sentenced, ti:>: : among others, to the principal pendty provid$d for v j tL.2i.,, r,,, '. murde? in its minimum degree, that is, to 17 years, ..-i 4 mouths and 1 day of reclusion temporal., MaF the , .. .,j; provisions of Acts 4103 and 4225, !yawn a¶ the in, :,, ._, . .1) ,,dieterminate sentence law be appli~d,in this case? IZxpIain your answer. ,.I . . (a) No, because although they may he convicted of the crime of coercion or unjust vexation, the restitution *:a . . ..of,the piece of land to its owner has no legal basis. The .crime committed not being against prollerty, no restitution of ,the thing .can be done (Teresa de las Piiias vs. Royal Bus, Co., Inc., 56 O.G. 4052). ' .?.7 :'

- ( b ) Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law may be a p plied in this case. Although the penalty for murder is reclwion temporul in its maximum period to death, the penalty that should be, considered is that which the court imposed after trial. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to, among others, persons convicted of of: fenses punished with death or life imprisonment. Since the court did not impose the penalty of death o r life imprisonment, 'the particular exception t o the applicati& of the Indeterminate Sentence Law can not be considered in this case.

'(0'Define

'

SI.

the circumstances of treachery, nighttime and , ,, uninhabited place. (b) John had a motor boat'which he used to lake to t h e middle o f . the Manila Bay t o sleep there, alone. At about midnight of August 5, 196.7, Peter, 'Paul and Mike;'acting in eons p h y and eanfederation with .wch other, drove in a . b a a to and boarded -the motor boat where John was sleeping and right then and there assaulted him and causcd,,his.death byb by st ran^. 865

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ~ a maminations r in Criminal Law

'.

I'

Bar Examinations in Criminal La<

.lation. Peter, pad and Mike were prosecuted 'ii, the Court. Of First Instance of Manila for murder qualified by treachery mpntioned facts were proved at the hearing. May the 'defendants ~R this case be convicted of murder attended by .the aggravating circumstauces of nighttime, uninhabited Place ,.and'bya band? Why? ","'(i) There is treachery when the offender Commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or for? in '&e execution thereof which tend directly and specially to 111sure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make (Art. 14, Par. 16,

R.P.C.)

. .... CRIMINAL LAW REVSEWER'

,

.

The word "nighttime" should be understood, ' according to Via&, to mean that period of darkness beginning a t end of dusk and ending a t dawn, Nights are from sunset to Sunrise..

What do you hnow'.about ./ single common crimes, complea crimes or eo@e or special crimes? Give an exampIe-:oi . .~ / each. ' . ' < i G! crime is one committed by a single act, prb: ,..,. . ,, 1

.,, .I < EzampZe: A shot B, causing the latter's death. -. There is a complex crime when a single / ' act constitutes: or more grave or less grave feloxues, or when an offense is a

',.

necessary means f o r committin&the other (Art. 48, R.P.C.). , Ezample: A shot at B .to kill the latter; The same slug h i t md killed B, also hjf act of firing a shot frustrated homicide.' a check and cashed it with the bank. The vias a necessary means for c o d % 1

. ,.

..

Go

C~

A composite or special crime is one where the Revised P e n d Code prescribes one penalty for two o r more crimes. Example: Robbery with homicide or rape with, h d $ i d e . ..

qualified by treachery.

. , ,

IV. Is the act of taking 13 sow8 at the same time and.-h,'the. .

.

Uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance is present, because tho crime having beed committed at sea it was difficult for the ..~ victim . to receive andhelp and it was easy for the assailants t o escape by a band,'because to conThe crime malefactors should have stitute a band ,.. offense, Tn the problem, kcted' together part in the 'killing Of the ;:$here are {lnly

---

1

866

same place, although 8 cows. belonging to one owner and,,the. other 5 to another owner, susceptible of division into.different and separate offenses; in other woxds, is the number of cows stolen or the number of the owner or m y other factor the b&b f o r determining cases of theft? State the rea-. sons for your answer. 7, / / '-I NO. The but one indivisible criminal&t, ,Y*,.s*.~ time and in the sake. . r p lgq although 8 cows pertaked to one owner and the ,other, 5 &&..: .,* * ... to another ownes (People vs. Tumlos, 67 'Phil. 32Oj.z . ' ,'i-.i.ii 867

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Crjminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminnl Law

1

' . n e r e is only one crime of qualified theft of 13 COW, because &-the taking of them the offender had only one criminal resolution or t h a t he acted under one criminal impulse. He had only one criminal intent.

4

*

V.

. .,

Does the act of contecting the services of 286 laborers, paid; the act of paying their partial pay or non-payment of the ' @ariees ngle act or several independent 'acts the laborers unpaid file independent for the respective amount each ,hss . , Reason out your answer. d prior to the effectivity of Repubkc known as the Minimum Wage Law, which wa?. April 6, 1961, the answer is in .the affirmative. '. of appellant in contracting the services of' the '286 of whom .were not fully paid, the act of pa Yk wages and the act of non-payment of the salaries Ute independent acts of decep+&n. ontract with appellant and if one laborer was not paid the amount due him on the date agteed upon, then such laborer could file the. corresponding actio? .to right the wrong done to him. I n fact, there are 'as many .estafas & ' t h e r e a r e offended parties (People vs. Nagampo, 52 O.G.

WI. A, an accessory after the fact in a crime of mnrder,for

'

6625).

.

r

assisting in the escape of B, the principal, was prosec,uw, the Court of First Instance of Manila together with said priii. cipal, the information charging them with the commission of riaid offense in their respective participation. Before hearing, ': k,died and the case as to him was dismissed. Under these etr;. '. cumstances, can A-nvicted alter the hearing' of the m e & ' crime for having assisted in the escape' of the :, State the reasons for your answer. If the prosecution proved beyond doubt the commission of the crime of murder by B, A can be convicted as accessom b - ) the 'conimission of the crime, for having assisted in t h of the principai. It is not necessary to convict a person, charged as that the principal be tried and..convicted first. While iish text of Art. 19 of the Revised Penal Code seems to req it, the Spanish text of that article does not require that principal be found guilty before the accessory could be held i' In case of confIict between the Engiish text and Spanish the latter must prevail. ~

':

But if the act was committed after the effectivity of Re-

.cAUCION or bond t o keep the peace a s additional penalty be imposed upon a person found guilty of having committed any other crime defined and punished in thla Revised Penal, Code? State the reasons fui/y& answer. No. No,&y shall be punishable by any penalty not.prescribed b A a w prior t o i t s commission (Art. 21, R.P.C.). Since the Revised Penal Code does not expressly' prescribe the additional penalty of bond t o keep the peace for any other crime defined and punished therein, it cannot be imposed if'the crime committed is neither grave threats (Art. 282) nor .light threats (Art. 28.1).

'

VIII. Withuut any previous request or understanding owner of a large tract of land in Quezon City where th had a. little shack, and without any right whatsoever," 868

869,

. :,,..,. ~,. ,.

I 1 /

CHIM1NP.L LAW REVIEWER Bar E m u h t i o n s iii Criminal Law

of fand,carrSng to build

0'

mitted 6y means of fire, it is absorbed in the crime of-'murder.' committed by that means.

X.

i,

..

.. .

,,

,

'

, . ,

. ,

in any way intimidate him. .... .

Ix.

:

Three imalefactors went to the house of Victoria where the7 found 'her sleeping. As their purpose in going to that place W a s to kill her, they Victoria died of being the means

h i ~ ofw1961 A was convicted by final"se sentences Qf 2 crimes of robbery, but before beginning to such sentences he disappeared. In June, 1963, while .at he committed another crime of robberp with'violen and intimidation of persons defined i n ' Article 294;: p a d 4 , o f the Revised Penal Code and punished with prision 'mayor'hiih maximum period to reelusih temporal in its medium ,p& If you were the judge and should find the accused.'&@. the offense charged, what penalties would you impose. upon .& taking into account all the above mentioned circumstanc&l &$ plain briefly the reasons for the penalty or penalties you would impose vpou the accuse& ' On the supposition that A was convicted on the same day or about the same time of the two crimes of robbery committed , ,in 1961, I submit that, upon his comiction o f robbery with violence against and intimidation of persons'in 1963, he is not a habitual delinquent. The first two convictions a r e considered as one. H e n c + m & d i t W + e e d t y ~ should be imposed on him. But if A committed the second crime of robbery a f t e r ' h i s conviction of the f k s t robbery, then he is a habitual delinquent upon his conviction of the third robbery. He shall suffer an additional penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods. There is quasi-recidivism in this case, because A, having been convicted by final judgment, committed a new felony, before beginning t o serve his sentence. The penalties to be imposed upon A are, as follows: ( 1 ) reclusion temporal in its medium period; and (2) pision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, for being a habitual . delinquent. . ,... A being,, a quasi-recidivist, the penalty for the new felohy;" shaIl be i r y m a x i m u m period.

810

871

The medium period

i

.~

CRIMINAL ‘ U W REVIEWER Bar ExExarninatians in Crilninal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Bar Examinations in Criminal Lnw

.of reclusion temporal is the maximum of the three periods of

SEF’TEMBER 20, 1964

I’

the penalty prescribed. The additional penalty should not b e imposed in the maximum period, because although in the case of People vs. De Jesus, it mas heId that modifying circumstances should be considkred in ae,imposition of the additional penalty, I submit that that ruling -should not apply when a special aggravating circumstance, like of the crime. penalty, because he is

‘

1

i

..,..

.- (b) Distinguhkmotive from intent, and give an example of each. ’

!

,

.

i

i. ,.. .,

,

I . .

.. . . .. . . _ .

,

.A * ,

Ii

‘ .

per se” from ‘‘Mala prohibita”, $& ... give an example of each.

( e ) Distinguish “D’&

(a) Except as provided-in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of the Revised P e n d Code be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, inclu$ng its.atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but &o outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: ,. ., ,

j’

~

I.. Should commit an 9ffense while on a Philippine ship or

I

airship;

1

. .2. Sliould forge o r cpunterfeit 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 introd&,,. ; .

I

..

,

ippines?

.’

..

,

I. (a) hi what cases may the Provisions of the Revised P& C d e be enforced outside the! jurisdiction of the. PN-

1

i

. i l

,.

,

,

.,

.,.

I ,

I

I

.

~

.

, ., . ,.

.. *,

I

,

. ..

: , -,

.

.,

. ,

Gon into these Islands of the obligations and securiti&, men-

,

I ~

.

.

.this Code.

”

,,

.. ?,.!.

,

.

means to effeek such result.

...

tremp. moral perversion may lead a man to’,co without a real motive but just f o r t h e tiirke . o f i 372

873

1

I


.One may he convicted of a pears to he good or bad or A-good motive does not :General intent is an essential condition of voluntariness in intentional felonies. Specific intent is an element of certain felonies. " Example of motive:-The fact that the accused had beers losing in his business operations and his stock of merchandise i s heavily insured indicates the motive to commit arson. Example of intent:-A shot B tq kill the latter. A had , , ~ t h e ' i n t e n tto kill. ,, ;' ' , (e) There is a, distinction between acts which are hakt 8 ~ , o wrongful r from their nature, and those that we mukt 9ro- . . hi@ita,or wrong merely because they are prohibited by statute; :' Crimes w ~ a hin SE are those so serious in their effects o n " ' society = ' t o call for the almost unanimous condemnation of itd ',' mchbers; while crimes makt prohibita are -violations of mere, @ea of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regolstion of the affairs of society. (1) I n acts mla'in se, the intent governs; but in those A b p@ibita, .. the only inquiry is, has the law been violated. , d , , ' . ( 2 ) The term naah in se refers generally to felonies defined he term mala p6ohi.. .&d pemlized by the b. i.b, .refers ~ generally '". Example of ,

I

':

II. (a) Tb what crimes is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (b) What is the purpose of the Indeterminate'Sentence Law? (a) The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applfceable t o

the. following: 1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty .or. life imprisonment.

874

i

/

2. 'Those convicted of trea n, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason 3.. Those convicted of misprision of sedition or espionage. 4. Those convicted of p i r z y . 5 . Those who a r e habitual delinquents; / E. Those who shall have-escaped from confinement or sentence. 7. Those who violated the t e a of condition ed to them by t h e Chie€ Executive.' . 8. Those wh se m a m u m term of impriso exceed one year 9. Those ho, upon the approval of the !sentenced. by inal judgment. 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro 0 sion. .' (b) The purpose of the Indeterminate S to uplift and redeem valuable human niateri unnecessary and excessive deprivation of pers economic usefulness. The 1ndet.erminate Seiitence Law aims to individualke: t h e administration of our .criminal law.

/

IJL (a) 6

n

e invoke lack of edwation w, ..a. s h c e in ,his favor if h e dow.not'know write but a p p w s t o be exeeption'dy, $ idtelligent to the extent t h a t he 'coul full Consequence of his' acts?

%

,

,'

'

(b) An engineer for and in behalf of the where h e is officially assignel& signs provincial officials, a contract with a truction company for the construction of a propin- ' cial road. He also approved part of the, co&C' tion work €or payment. Within a period of year after the termination of the eontract. ahd work, he recommended his 8on and he was accept@ .i as a ,foreman in the construction company., Fs' there an offense committed by the engineer? 'Why?.. 875

/’ ,

i

,

..

>

., ,

of sufficieu8 in..

“X” is liable ?or other forms of swindling, under Ar& 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Coqe, .whi~jpqali+$&$i any person who, knowing that real property is encumbered, ,&tlJ&

the alternative

.

. ,., <. .. ”,

CRIMINAL LAW REVEWER Bar Emuhadom in CSdnnl Law

dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not record& It is assumed that the encumbrance is L: real estate’mortgage;:. because the property encumbered was a house. Having c1aimed.G” the deed that the house was free from all liens and encumbranceip. although he knew that the house had been previously encumbered,. “X” violated the provision of the Penal Code referred to. T h e term “shall dispose” includes the act of encumbering.

so densely ig-’ of such low intelligence that he does- not realize the full consequences of a criminal act, may still be entitled to this %tigating circumstance. On the other hand, another unable t0 write because of lack of educational facilities or opportunities, h y ,yet be highly or exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert that he easily realizes the full significance of his acts, in which ease he may not invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law;. any public officer to accept or have any memher employment in a private enterprise whicb.has. with him during the pendency’ there& its termination. The’engineer is &.where he is officially assigned: .,’

~norant ~ ~ and * .

of a defendant in a criminal action to make indemnification. devolve u p ? his heirs? Explain. (b) A8 security for a P10,OOO.OO loan which “X* received from “Y”, “X” executed a deed of chattel mortgage on his house in favor. of. “Y”, in which deed “X” claimed that t h e house w& free from all liens and encumbrances. The r e g i s t m , however, refused to register the deed because the house

..,

.

Y.

’

(a) What are the crimes against personal liberty and

security? cashier in a governmen( office received a sum of depositing same, he mLmppropriated it and later falsified the bank’s reconciliation statements. Is there a complex crime of estata thru falsification? In the negative, what crimes, if any, are committed? (a) The crimes against personal liberty a r e : (1) Kidnapping and serious illegal detention; (2) Slight illegal detention; (3) UnIatvful arrest; ( 4 ) Kidnapping and failure to return a minor; ( 5 ) Inducing a minor to abandon his home; (6) Slavery; (7) Exploitation of child labor; (8) Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debts. The crimes against security are: (1) Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim; (2) Abandoning a minor; ( 3 ) Abandonment of minor by person entrusted, with his, custody; indifference of parents; (4) Exploitation’ of ,, minors; ( 5 ) ther forms of trespass; , ’ (.7)Grave threats; (8) Light threats; ( 9 ) Other light threats; ,~ (10) Grave coercions; (11) Light coercions; (12) Other similar-,^ coercions - (Compulsory purchase, of merchandise and payment,,.1: . of wages by means of tokens) ; (13) Formation, maintenance and , ” prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violenceior:? hhreats; (14) Discovering secrets through seizure of correspon$-;$ ence; (15) Revealing secrets with abuse of office; and .(16) R,& 1 .,::,.;,.& vealing of industrial secrets. .,‘_,I

877

I

CR3MINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exminations in Criminal Law

crime of estafa thru ’ fa1dfiCadocument. However,, i n : by “A” is not a Complex through falsification, because the fabificatfon ,a& of bank’s reconciliation statements was not a necessary means it the est& or malversation. Those documents Were to c:oneeal the other crime. “A” committed two Crimes, (1) malversation of public funds, because a8 a cashier. vernment office A was an accountable. public. Officer received by him in his officlal CapaditY,WaS ) falsification of commercial documents, the, tatements being commercial documents. ’ I’. (b)

There

’

es the crime of arbitrary detention Cox’m y classes of arbitrary detention are ..

. .

y’;

man, through fraud and while h i s sisting, contracted a ,second marrmge. the marriage “L” learned about the forthwith left, “A’. She refus& &&A,,. U.L f s7 9 arges of bigamy w i n s t , . n r d g h b q however, fjed a complaint against “A’’ for bigamy. the Fiscal prosecute “A” on the bF% . ..Of. .. . t h e complaint filed by “L’s’’ ‘neighbors? ’” (a) Arbitrary detention is a crime commitkd by public’.offieem or employees, which consists in detaining ‘a person..+thout legal grounds,, or delaying the delivery of the person detained for 5ome ,legal ground to the proper judicial authorities with1.n the ,be,spwifi&by law, or unduly delaying the release Of a PrlsOner D r detentio11 prisoner.

VII. “A” the accused, a driver in an army motor pool, among his duties, was assigned to drive home the employees, one of whom is “B”, the complainant woman. On t h e way about 1O:OO p.m. he stopped the weapon 'carrier. informing the woman that it was out of gas. She got off ~ t h e , h u c k and he followd. Immediately, h e held and hugged her to h‘ breast. A struggle ensued. From his efforts,.to &h her breast, her dress from the collar to the waist . line on the front p a r t was tom. A t any rate, she , to get free and moved away. The accused desist foUowing her. Nay the defense of frustrated act,.,of viohmess prosper? Why? No. There is no frustrated crime of acts of lasciviousness; ’’ because if the participation of the accused amounts t o all the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily pr consequence thereof. There ic only consummated cri lascivionsness. ’

vm. Smtos

was indebted to Perez f o r Pi0,OOO.O secure the necessaw cash, Santos drew up’a.’ch&k! ’ , ~p10,~00.00in fa-pera against the P.N.B.’%t t i m e w ~ 3 u pthe check, Santos knew that h e ~ h a d ’funds deposited it the P.N.B. and that he would any time be able to deposit any money to value of the check. When the check got di sued Santos for estafa. Decide the case. Santos is not liable for estafa. Postdating or without fcnds in the bank is estafa only when the in payment of an obligation contracted at the tim . and delivery thereof. If the check is issued a n d . deli payment of pre-existing ,obligation, there is only civil, criminal, liability. ..lll(r

M. (a) What offenses constitute “impossible crimes”?.

’

,~~ $E ,d@ w4 ;

,:,

,

(b) Are all impossible crimes prescribed and. punish&$&& the Revised Penal Code? (e) “X” m e mid ht, broke t h e .window of a ’ g 9 i and d g e t the gun that w& on di&Ey” I , . .<..I,

679

1

1 ClWdINAL LAW R?AVIXWER Anti-Graft and Cormpt Pmuicc~Law '

.

,

1MPQR.TANT PROVISIONS 'OF THE GRAFT &XD CORRUPT PRACTICES:?;

'\

(Approved, August

17, 1960)''

"

::

The Anti-Grdt and Corrupt Pmctkes Law' does. not provisions ;of the Code on bribery. 0.

Unless the act performed by the offender would

The corrupt practices of any public See.' 3 of the Anti-Graft Law a r e in &iti of public officers already penaIized by existin Rep. Act No. 3019). Corrupt practices of public officers.

' The following are corrupt practices

I

the picketed firm and refused &I allow Its driver to p?O&ed peaceflully, on his way and they voiced the' threat that .if the driver proceeded on his way, he wouid he hdrt, notwithstanding the fact that the driver told them that the truck did not belong to the company. A s a consequence of the threat, the truck remained' in the premises for two ''. ~ . , . dsys at t h e end of which an injunction was issued by t h e court agG& the picketeers. What is the criminal liahility of the picketers? . . The picketeers are liable for coercion. The acts of the picketeers in stopping the truck and refusing to allow its driver to proceed peacefully on his way by means of threats are clearly constitutive of the crime of coercion (People 63 O.G. 6232).

of any public of€i

ficer t o perform an act constituting a violation of rules and^. regulations duly promulgated by competent authority o r an of-. fense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allow; ing. himself t o be persuaded, induced, or influenced to 'commit such violation or offense. (h) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percenhge or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer i n his official capacity has to intervene under the law. ( e ) Directly or ,indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary o r material benefit, f o r himself or ,for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, an Government permit o r license, in consideration for the he19 given r to egivGn,.wthout prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act. ,

L

1

i

,

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family employment in .a private enterprise which has pending:,offfcia!?

i81

CRIMINAL LAW REVIE\VER Anti-Graft and Compt PraSOic~ Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law

business with. him during the pendency thereof or within one year a f t e r its termination. (e) Causing any undue injury to any part35 including the Government, or giving any private party an$' unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the disch ge of his official administrative or judicial functions thro gh manifest partiality,. , , .".,kJ. ./+; ' ' +dent bad faith or gross inexcusable egligence. This provision ,' &all~,applyt o officers and employe of offices or government CSrporations charged with the gra t of licenses or permits or ,; . d&er concess,ions.

P

~

(j) Knowingly approving o r granting a n y license, permit, '? privilege or henefit i n favor of m y person not qualified for86r ' . not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, o r of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled. (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized pexcoq,or- releasing such information i n advance of its yt-ase date. T G person giving the gift, present, share, percentage,~or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) . a n d ( c ) ; or ,offering>, :or. giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d) ; or urging the divulging or untimely'release ,. , of the confidential information referred to in suhparagraph. (k):,.of.;l.. ! this section shall, together with the offending public officer>b2.'2 " punish under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently.of'~. temporarily disqualified in the: discretion of t h e Court, from.:. ,, , '? transacting business in any form with the Government. , ;%

~

~

Entering, on ';,ortransaction

.,.'.

.

having any. interest. (i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, f o r pirsoria1 ,gi-ain, o r having a ma'terial interest in any transaction o r 'act requiring the approval of a hoard, panel or group of which he is a.m&her;, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate i n the action

. .. el.or..group to which they belong. :...

" ,

,,

i

,

.,

'?,~,. ~,,.

88

. ,

,,

(a) It shall be unlauful for any person having family or. personal relation with any pu8lic official to capitalize o r exploi take advantage of such family or close personal relation b or indirectly equesting o r receiving any present, gif er' pecuniary a va from any other person business, transaction, applkation, request or contrac government; in which such public official has to i mily relation shall include the spouse or relatives b y or affinity in the third civil de'gree. The word "close tion" shall include close personal friendship, social connections, and professional employment all gi macy which agsures free access to such public (b) It shall he unlawful for any perrion knowin or cause any public official to commit any of the o in Section 3 hereof. /.

h

I

.

,

~ , ,,, ,

.

CRIMINAL LAW WXIEWER Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practica Law

CRIMINAL LAW REYLEWEX Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law

his section shall not apply to -

.

.

, ,

:~",. :;,

1

.

'

.~

,.

ition on Members of Congress: ' . , unlawful hereafter f o r any Member of the Conga% ing the i;erm f o r which he bas been elected, to acquire or renal pecuniary interest in any specific husineM ent b p r i s e which will be directly and particularly fa-qored or,benefited by any law or resolution authore'd by him previoilsly approved or adopted by.the Congress during the same term. The ,provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation i n Congress of the enactment or adoption of a n y law or resolution, and acquires or re'ceives any such interest during his incumbency. :.i. It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress 'I ,:w other public officer, who, having such intefest prior to the ,.

884

Penalties for violations. Any public officer or private person co unlawful a.cts or omissions enumerated in S fihis Act shall be punished with impris one year nor more. than ten years, public office, and confiscation or forfe erninent of any prohibited interest a n nifestly out 'of proportion to his sala (Sec. 9, Rep. Act No. 3019).

,

person who, prior to the assumption bf office of any officials' to whom he is related, has'been already with the Government along the same line of. business, nor transaction, contract or application already. existing or e time 0.f such assumption of public office; n,y.appIication filed by him the apprbval o$ which is onary on the part of the official 06 officials concerned s upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or gulations issued pursuant to law; et lawfully performed i n an 'official oapacm or of a profession. , .

~ , , 2

approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain :su,d interest.

. .

.' .,.,

,

Prohibition on relatives of the President, Vice-President, President, of the Senate or the Speaker. 1 be unlawful for the spouse o r for any,?elative, by ty or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the f ' the Philippines, the Vice-president of the Philip:esident of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House reseniatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly; in any s, transaction, contract o r application' with the Govern... , . Sec. 5 , Rep. Act No. 3019). , .

Comt. of First Instance h8s jurisdictims. . Until otherwise provided by 1 Act shall be within !he original jurisdictiotl of the proper' , . First Instance (See. 10, Rep. Act No. 3049). .

'.

Prescription of offenses. ..,

....,.-

~

,

All 'bffenses punishable under this Act shall prescr1Fe.- in' , ~, .: . , ' .ten years (Sec. 11, Rep. Act No. 3019). . ,

Exception to the applkation of the Anti-Graft and Oormpt Flractices Law. ," Unsolicited gifts or presents of s m a ~o r insignificant $due' offered or given as a mere a r d i m q taken of gratitude or friendship aocording to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of .this -Act (Sec. 14, Rep. Act No. 3019).

.

885

CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in CrirninaJ Law

CRIM
.. ., .., .~.. . .." :\. I

~

.

.

,

1

'OCTOBER 3, 1965 ,

....

,

(,-,'-,;

,

.

. . . .,,

.

..... .

,

.

-

. (

..

I.

Defihe the following: 1. Criminal Law

'

. ,

.

,

.

>

. ~.

. - ., 1

. ... ...

,,

.

,

j

:

..

anch or d i v k o n ' o f law +hi& de-' natui.e, and provides f o r their. . ., . . . . .~ . e time of his"trial.for one crime, .. shall have been previously convicted by final judgment, of r crime embraced in the same title. of the .Revised de. (Art.14, par. 9,. R.P.C.1. ,.. , .. . ,.., '. . . .is quasiLrecidivism when. a perso<: bqm@i$$ed,'a felony having been convicted ,by fical judgment, :kefo,??e,be@F: ,ning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same. He pen(llty shall be punished by the maximum I period, of. cribeh by law for the n e v felony. (Art. 160, -R.P.G:) r s o n shall be deemed to be. habitual delinquent,,,if ;with-. : ' in i~ period of ten (10) years from the date of his reiease i... or-last conviction. of the crimes of. serious or less ,serious is injuries, robo, hwrto, estafa, or falsification, .Ee. .guilty of any of said 6rimes a , t h i r d , t i m e w o f t e n e r . ,last par., as.amended. by Republic - A c t "No. 12). ex penalty is one composed of three distinct penalties,. foxming a period; the lighfestdf them',shall:be,kh& the next the medium, and the rrost severe the maximum period. (Art. 77, R.P.C.) I

at?;

~

11. , (a) 'When is the alternative circumstance of relationship mitig, a!nd when is it aggravating? Explain. four (4) distinctions between amnesty and pardon.

866

(c) D w a s sentenced by final judgment to serve a n imprisonment of six ( 6 ) years and one (1) day, and to,'@demnifY the offended party in the sum of P250.'For failure to pay the said amount of indemn:ty, how long wilI D be confin$ jail by virtue of said sentence? w h y ? ,. . , . .., ,

(a) As a rule, relationship is mitigating. in crimes .against property, except in theft, estafa or malicious mischief. as(prcvided in Art. 332. Under Art. 332 of the Revised only civil, liability shall reslilt from the of theft, swindling, or .malicious ,mischief ' cr) mutually by spouses, ar,cendants and. descend affinity in the same line; brothers and sister and sisters-in-law, if living ,together. Thus, re1ationshlp"is ' mitigating in th (Arts. 29,4-302), usurpation, (Art. 312), (Art. 314),; and arson (Arts. 321-322; 326-3 ' It is agkravating in crimes, . orfended party is a relitive 'of or .when the offender and the same 1.evel;as killing a brother, a half ,, ther. (b) Thk following ' are' the four ' d nesty and pardon : (1j Pardon includes any crime and ia exercised ind by the President; amnesty is a blarket pardon gr classes of persnns o r communities, who may be political offenses ; (2) Pardon is exercised when the person'is already, c 4 victed; amnesty may be exercised even before triakrdr vestigation is had; (3) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of 'an offense of which he that is, it abolishes o r forgives the punishment, an reason it does "not work the restoration of.' the hold public office or the right of su 887

.;

'1

I

!i

":I b i

r'

CRIMlNAL LAW REYIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVTEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law


be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon." On the band, amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts oblivion the orfenses itself; it so ,overlooks and obliterates the orwnse wlth which the ofrender is charged that he stands betore the law precisely as though he committed no offense. (4) Pardon, being a private act of the President, must , , b e pleaaed and proved by the person pardoned; amnesty, being by proclamation of the Ghier bxwutive with the coil. . currence of Gongress, is a public act of wnich the courts , , Could take judicial notice. . . . (e) Even if I) failed to pay the amount of indemnity, he will be cominea in jail t o r six (ti) years and one (I) clay oiiry. 'Yher? , &,no suusiaiary Imprisonment. buosmary lmprisorunmt is p ~ o 'per only waen tne penalty imposea is eltner (1) prksron oorrec-' , ' c i p d , (2) arresm nwgor, (3) arresco menor, or (4) tine only,<.,, .. gence, LS the penalty imposea by the court is not one or'them, . suusictlary peirar-cy cannor; be imposed. Wnen a convict'is sen-, tenced to serve an imprisonment of SIX ( 6 ) years and one' ('ij day, the penalty imposed is prkszon mayor. .. .

0,'while delivering a speech dnring a p ~ b & c , , @ ~ Y,?$I ~,~ amplifier, uttered defamatory ' w o r d $ ; ; i n s l upon the laiter the commisslon'of 1 &ve offiinse. What crime o r crimes, if any, may 0 be h e d l i a b l e ' Why?

%,,

"__

'*

/ -1 1

111. (a) A, mho was duly licensed to possess and a m y a fire-arm, in his hurry to cast h.s vote, forgot tnat when. he ,entered hls pouing piace he had nls g& turned ,at nis w&& Prosecuted for tne violat.on of tne provmon of tlip Ke-' vised &:leetion Code prohibiting. the carrying of fqearm: inside pollAngplaces A eontends'that his act was without ., ', any criminal intent, that he did not use his gun .to inti..' midate any one, or violate .any provision of 'the election' code, and, therefore, he should be absolved of the charge '. f.iled against him. Is A's contention meritorious? Give reasons for your answer. Xb) . , Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes libel com' ' mitted by 'means of writing, printing, lithography, en.graving, radio, phonogiraph, painting, theatrical exhibition, . .. ' ' " ' 'cxematographic exhibition, or any similar .means.

'

888

. ij

I,

I

I

1 j !

-

-

'

.

'

/

1

'*

(a) It is respecUully submitted that A's contention is with. out merit. The law which A violated is a special law and the f a d that his act was without any criminal intent is immaterial. It ma3 be conceded that A did not intend to intimidate any elector or ti violate the law in any other way, but when he entered the poll gun tucked at his waist, he committed..it wfl law does not reqnire f o r its violation tlht t$ offender has the intention to intimidate the voters, or td 'inter fei-e otherwise with the election. In acts mala proMbitu, the onl: inailiry is. has the law been violated? In this case, A violated tk Election Code. (b) The word "radio", as used hi Art. 355, should be con sidered in relation t o the terms With which it i s associated rvriting, painting, engraving, phonograph, etc. all of Wlikl have a common characteristics, namely, their permanent nat? as a means o€ publication, and this explains the graver penal@ fa libel than that prescribed for oral defamation. In ' short,' th present case constitutes the crime of oral defamation punish,@ in Art. 358 of the Revlsed Penal Code (People vs. Santiago; G)? NO. L-17663, May 30, 1962).

,

,

.i

IV (a) W, an unmarried woman, killed her infant child wh0-w only two (2) weeks old far the purpose of concealing, he dishonor. For what crime or crimes may W be held liable Why? , Supposing, in the foregoing problem, W was wistd the'commission of the act directly by her broth ~ ~ h e d i a b i l i oft y X, if any? Why? ,. '. (b) F, who was then living in the same house With; G, with intent of gain and without the h,oNI@,

889

LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER gar Examinations in Criminal Law

was able to run away and hide in a room. After shooting B, A ran away. I3 suffered a wound that was treated and healed in 15 days. What crime was committed by A? Reason out your answer. #refi ,,!?h&&pted, d L r a t e d , and sum a t stapes. d e l o n y is consummated when all the elements necessary f o r its execution and accomplishment are present. It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony ‘aa consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the corn; mission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not, perfo’orin all the acts of execution which should produce the felony,by rea$on of some cause or accident other than hie own spontaneous sistance (Art. 6, R.P.C.). . . In consnmmated felony, the offender performed all the actsof execution and produced the felony. I n frustrated felony, while the offender performed all the acts of execution and reached tlie objective phase of the act, he did not produce the felony. In attempted felo!ly, the offender did not perform all the acts of,ex$ cntion, as he merely commenced the commission of’ the felony ~:: directly by overt acts. The offender did not pa phase of the act. (b) A committed the crime of attempted m by evident premeditation. The fact that 73 was which A rnust have seen, must have produced i n that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital p In other words, A knew that he had not ‘actually perform the acts of .execution necessary t o kill his victi circumstances, it cannot he said that the subjecti acts of execution had been completed. And as it does t.hi A continued in the pursuit, and as a matter o f f away afterwards, a reasonable doubt exists that A h a believed that he committed all the acts o f execution’ # ’

6; i,

‘d4

~

V. three stages of execution of a felony?

I

890

EX-,

891

.. ,~., ,v..::;,,


.. '

CklhllNAL LAW REVIEtVER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

a e subjective phase of said acts. This doubt must be resolved . &:favor of .A. Therefore, A is not guilty of frustrated murder, 6ut only of attempted murder, because he did not perform all the acts of execution, a@tual,and subjective, in order that the purpose 2nd he had to kill his victim might be carried out Pio, G.R. No. L-5848, April 30, 1954). , VI. . . what is a complex crime, Giie an .example. hen does oonspracy in the commission of a crime exist? Can a convict be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivjst? Illustrate your answer. (a) There is a complex clime when a single act constitutes '$ o r more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is &essai.y, , means for committing the other. (Art. 48, R.P.C., as "%en,ded :i by Act NO. 4000) In complex crimes, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes Of the la%' BS'Well as jn the conscience of the offender. The offender has pnb one criminal intent. Even in the case where a n offense 1s a necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is only one (People vs. Hernandez, et al., 62 0.G: 5506). Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of 9 mmolex crime, and that penalty is that for the most serious crime .-. to be applied in its maximum period. Example: Guillen, by a single act of throwing a hi(3hly explosive hand grenade at President Roxas in a public meeting resulting in the death of Simeon Varela, comgitted several grave felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon Varela was the victim; (2) multiple attempted murder, of which President R o s s and four others were the injured parties, but having been produced bv a single act, they for1n.a complex crime (People VS. Guillen, & Phil. 907). (b) Conspiracy in the commission of a crime exists when , hvo or ,mote persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, R.P.C.).

{,

.<,~. ,. .. , - I

( c ) yes, when no two of the ci-imes cornmitted a r e embm&''s;; ,. ..! id the same title of the Revised Penal Code. ;L:;.,. .,,. 3.. , ~ ..I' ' Ihtl.atiO%: was convicted of falsification in 1920&(f <.. ,~.., .::, .,*.. '..~. , served sentence in the mme year. Then, he committed:&&f&

-x

~

'

.

Was convicted thereof, and served sentence therefor in 1925.~::"His kist crime was physical injuries wmmitted in 1930. Falsifica-' tion is a crime against public interest; esblfa, against phperty;, and physical injuries, against persons. While X is a habitual delinquent, he is not B recidivist. .,,

,

VI1 . . . * C and D conspired to rob a Chinese store'ahd: to' dnap its owner for ransom. After robbing the store;they in fact brought away the Chinese owner m nnevinndv ~ . ragreed and kept him in an isolated place, leaving A'.+$ B to guard him. The day following the robbery'the Chinaman kept on sh~utingand, fearing Lhat his. shouts would attract attention that would lead to .&he!r detectiofq A &id B lulled the Chinaman. ,~ Based on the foregoing facts A, 5 C and D , were all charged with having committed the crime of robbery with homicide. C and D set up the defense that they should only be charged with the simple crime of [robbery because: ,(1) they had not conspired to kiu the'chinaman; (2) they had not participated in killing him since they were not present in the place where, and during the time when, he wa8 killed; (3) the IdU'ng of the victim was only an incfdent to silence him; arid (4) the killing did not take place by reason or on tbe occasion o f t h e -rohhnrv. ----,Decide the case, declaring the criminal liability, if my, of each of the accused. Exnlain. least two (2) distinctions between robbery & ,.

/.

:

~~

.I

-

892

I

'

,

(a) It is submitted that A, B, C, and D are liable,for ICfdnaPPing with a demand for ransom and homicide, the latter a s a separate offense. The robbery and the kidnapping, although 893

. I

,'

ii

~

CRIMlNAt LAW REVIEWm Bar Examinations in Crimjnal L a w

CRIMINAL .LAW RCVIENER: Bar Exaninations in. Criminal. ~ a o i

. ' .,

from one criminal resolution. The to commit the two criminal acts on the same occasion, the robbery may be considered absorbed i n the crime of kidnapping. The homicide was committed with a different criminal intent. Therefore, A, B, C, and D are liable for kidnapping wYth.a demand for ransom punishable by death. A and R are also liable iO,rJhomicide. C and D are not liable therefor,.because they did not take part therein directly or indirectly, and neither did they induce or cooperate in the commiss:on thereof. Not being preimt =,hen +.he victim was killed and not being i n conspiracy with "__ _.__ . .A and B, (; and D are not liable for homicide. ~ I y y

..__

,

___

VI11 . individual, arrested a person while the latter as actually committing the crime of murder, with the . intention of bringing him to the police authorities. While _, . . 'on the way, in consideration of the sum of W o , A allowed ., I., .:. -is., his, prisoner to escape. *3ir.**.-

.894 .

.

,

I

o f h e r who accepted money in consideration ,of his not p e r f o h : $g 'his duty, he is cot liable for bribery. He is not liable a . . private individual for the crime o f infidelity in the cnstody'~of

person under 'arrest, because the latter was not entruited & his custody. , .. ,

Note: A is not covered by tho phrase "or m y other pemons ,performing public duties" in Art. 210 of the Revi$ed:iP&& (2: Code. :: . ,

ib) No, N is not an accessory to M, because although he2 knew that M committed.the crime of murder, he did not assist t h e . . latter in his escape with abuse of his public function. ;He. only allowed him to escape, which is different from assisting t h e culprit , to escape. ,~ ... , .

,

-

Reason

. I

(b) The following a r e distinctions between robbery and bri-

I

,

,. .' .out y o w answer. . ' .- .~ ., ~.. ,., . . ..* (b) M, a son of N; committed the crime o f murder in-'tK⪯ ~. .. , sence of the latter.. N, 1~110i s the Chief of Police anqabus'-.' ing his .office a s such, allowed his son M to escape to another municipality. ,/' Is N. an accessory to M?. Give reasons. , What. will be t h e .penalty o f N i n case M will ,.. b e faun$.: . ,, . guilty , 'of -murder. Give reasons. . . ., , . ,,. . '(a)' A, did not commit any crime, because not 'being a peace '.. offlcer~ ' i , . charged with the duty of arresting criminals, or ' a ;public '

~

when the victim did not commit a crime and with arrest and prosecution to deprive it is bribery when the Victim money or gift to avoid arrest and prosecution. The reason is, when, the victim did not commit any crime, there is nothing that would ,' have required the public officer to exercise his duty 01' ' , function. On the other hand, if the victim 'committed a crime and the public officer accepted bribe: the latter . thereby agreed to refrain from doing somethmg which it ..' was his official duty to do. '.. . 2 ) 111 robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or Property by foree or intimidation; in bribery, he park3 with .~ ': , his money or property in a sense voluntarily (U.S. VS. F'lores, 19 Phil. 178).

crime, or crimes, if any, did A commit?

-/'What

,,

:.

'

N is an accessory under Ai%. 19, he is exempt.from liability, he being the ascendant of M, the principal,, and,, by the effects of the crime or assist the off&de
. .

..,,

Ix.,. .. ne of simple seduction.

.. . '

,!

of 'Marnda who is single and; 17 :y carnal knowledge of .the.1 in order to assuage .her

%95

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEX


Bar Bxsuainations in Criminal Law


OCTOBER 2, 1966 I. What are the three stages in the cornmisston of an offense? ' in

,..:-.in@, X - m a d e repeated promises to m u r y her. Far f&hre to keep his promise, E was charged with the crime of sim- . -,,..deseduction. Will the charge prosper? Why? . (a) I t is the seduction of a woman, who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen yearn of age, committed by means of deceit (Art. 338, R.P.C.). (b) It is respectfully submitted that the charge will not prosper, because the crime of simple seduction was not COmmitted, the element of deceit being absent. A promise of marriage made after the sexual intercourse has taken place, or after the woman has yielded her body to the man's unchaste desires, could not have induced the woman to surrender her virtue. It must appear that the woman was induced to give i n "by means of.a'promise, and that she surrendered her virtue in reliance upon it s fulfillment." >: , ,

X.

(a) When are light felonies punishable, and who may :he held 6, . . liable for their commission? .(b) A fanner surprised a boy stealing some f d t s ,from the irees at his backyard. To scare the b y the Iarmer fired I . his gun in the air, The shot scaftered and a' stray pellet injured the boy who was gathering fruits. '

What crime, if any, was committed by the farmer?

*.:

.i') " .. ,, (a) l i g h t felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against per.'~soimor property ( ~ r t7, . R.P.c.). , '.., .. Only principals and accomplices, excluding, accessories, are criminally liable for light felonies (Art. 16, R.P.C..). < ( E ) ) The farmer committed the crime cf physical injuries Wru simple imprudence. He did not take the necessary precaution t.o .avoid injury t o person. It is only thru Simple humdence, because the danger was not clearly manifest, and the injury imgending t o he caused was not immediate. The farmer had , no intention to kill the boy, because he did not fire a t the boy. His purpose was only to scare him.

896

'

,

Explain each briefly. The three stages in the commission of a n offense are: (1) internal acts; !2) preparatory 'acts; and (3) acts of execution. Internal acts rei'er to the act of conceiving the co&ssion of a crime. Preparatory acts a r e those which a r e . u n d i e n to execute the act conceived. It includes proposal and conspiraci to commit a crime. Acts of execution may result in a n attempted; n frustrated or a consummated offensc. There i offense when the offender has only commenced of a felony directly by overt, acts, but he doe,s '110 the acts 01 exeeutlon which should produce the fel of Some cause or accident other than his own 'spo sistance. It is a frustrated offense when the of all the acts of execution which would produce consequence but which, nevertheless, do not' prod oP causes independent of the will of the perpe is consummated when all the elements necassary for' its ,aau;. .,. 3 , . . ' . , , tion and acc~mplishment are present. ., , ,: ' i

~

11.

1,

,(a) A was ther diriver of a passenger truck which was in good condition. While passing a curve at moderate speed on t h e national highway, one of t h e front%ea exploded, as a result of which the'truck took'a sharp tuarn to the right, and fell off an embankment,'riotwithstanding A's efforts to apply the b&esmid~,Yo., veer the vehicle to the left. As a consequence, 'one: of the p m n g e r s @f the truck was pinned 'to,.d&-th!,I Is A criminally liable for the death of.the7parr s e w e r ? If not, why not? If so, of what crime is h e guilty? Explain you? answer, (b) A was indebted to B. When the latter tried to collect the indebtedness, A insulted him, strurk'hhwith ' his fiet, and then pu'rsued him. When B w a s curnered by a high pYe of logs, he drew.his bolo' &ddelivered a blow on the shoubder of A. A tried to

897

B struck two more blows, causing far homicide, B pleaded self: tenable? Reasons for yoW answer. ,,.,: , ,. (a) A is not criminally liable,'for the redson that the death ";io,?, =of the passenger was caused without fault or malice on the p,art '.6YAA: .. Since the truck was in good conditior, that A was driv-, :,ing at moderate speed, that one of the front tires exploded, I .Y,,." 'i , something which could not have been foresezn, and A exerted ~, gfforts t o apply the brakes and to Veer the vehicle to the left %'avoid , any injury, he was performing a lawful act with due care, and he caused an injury by mere accident without fault of causing it. (Art. 12, par. 4, Revised Penal Code). from criminal liability. par. 1 of Art. 11 of the R.P.C., anyone who of his person or rights does. not, 'incur rinY provided the following eircurnstances concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasoliable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the given case, the first and third requisites of self-defense are ;present. Whether or not the second requisite i s presellt depends upon the size, physical condition, .and character of the aggressor. If B was of the same 'size and physical condition as A,. he should not use a bolo in the first place. But if A was a bully, a man larger and stronger than B, and of known violent character, there was a reasomble necessity of employing ,the bolo to repel the aggression. Hence, all the requisites o i self-defense would be present, and,the defense would be tenable . . ( a ) Briefly discus4 the essential diffsrences bctween an 111; and a principal w310 coopemtw "in the of the offense by another act without not have been accomplished." polkeman, was charged as principal with the crime of mwder with direct n s d t Upon an agent of authority. B was charged in the 5ame >,,,,: , information as aceessorr in .the sense that he eon.11.

898

' , .. ,( .,! (a) An accomplice does not enter, into ,a...,$onspi&y '&&:':" the principa1 by direct participation, ' f o r :lie,.merely concurs in, F,: the criminal design of the latter. A pGincipa1 ,.by: cooperation..: I is usually in conspiracy with the prillcixlii lj$ 'dif&t '$&icipa- '' tion. The cooperation of the accomplice is',onlyineCessary. The. , cooperation of the principal is 'indinpensable t o ' t h i ,accomplish- ' ' ment (b) of the commisaion of the offense. , . , . , Ill the latest case decided by~., t,he' Court ,of"!A.ppeals.. . ,.:i I

,

~

iiivolving the same question, i t was held that not onlyi must the crime be proven, but as well the identity of the author thereof must be established, in a full-dress criminal trial,, ,in order that a P ~ ~ O charged U as an accessory f o r . harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal if the crime may be convicted as such accessory. . I n an earlier;c&e, i i Ivas held that it is not necessary that ,the principal sh&d be first declared xHi.l+$lseforc the accessory can be made liabli ; 1 - L 2 W

It is submitted that in the light of the latest decision,-hhioh . .

is more reasonahle and practical, the trial as to B cannot COIItinue and, therefme, the case must be dismissed. . .

IV.

(a) Is premeditation inherent jn the crime of murder by means of poison? Explain briefly. .. (b) m a t is the penalty next lowcr to' ariesto ' nuyo? ,; with regard to service of sentences? ''What::isi:tl;$--j penalty next lower in degree to Wresto- mnvnr? A.,. : . .: (a! Yes, preysdifation is inherent in the crime of"m bY nleanS Of Son. Tlie reason is that it is deemed ific in t h l t of murder by means oE'.'pojson,.'for'obv' the_ is presumed to have been preceded by cool thou&+:'. r e f M i 6 n upon the resolution, to cairy o u t which .W the ,very essence of premeditation.

.~. ~

~

I

899

'

~

CRlMIN.4L LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exminations in Criminal t a w

Bar Eraminatiom in Crimini~l Law

(b) The penalty next lower to awesto, mayor with regard

to service of sentences is avresto menor (Art. 70, R.P.C.). The ~ n a l t ynext lower in degree to arrest0 mayor is desteirro (Art.

3 . -Performing m y of the acts mentioned in Commonwealth 6, otherwise known as the Espionage Law. , concept of espionage may be, but is not always,, the legal concept of heason. Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person "ho owes allegiance to it,. In espionage, the act of gathering, transmitting. UP losing information ' respmting the , natio&;$ji feme with intent o r reason t o believe that the, information. is to be used to the injury o f the Republic of the Philippines 01' to the advantage of any foreign nation is, when committed' in tinie of war by a Filipixo citizen or resident'a1ien;h' breach of allegiance to the Philippine Governme& But when espionage is committed by an alien who is not residing in the Philippines, he not owing allegiance to our Government, the &gaI-'concept of es ionage is not ernbraced within the legal concept of treason.

i"

%\.

V 1 . k was apmijnted a ''casual" employee in the office of 1 the Judge of Court of F h t 1nstance:for a period.of tlwee months, and was assigned as bodyguard'of the Judge. Is X a public officer? a person in authority?,an!agent*of ',. a pwmn in public authority for pnrposm of the ,penal. :i providons on qualified seduction? Explain your~mswers,' 'i A "casual" employee in the office of the Judge"of Co of First Instance for a period of three monthn, assigned bodyguard of the Judge is a public officer, bee appointed by competent authority and he performe of the Government public duties as an employee: . ; I t .>m+&that a mere emergency helper of the Bureau of Treasury as janitori ox; perfomed. public duties. (

I

'

, . ' t

He is not a person in authority, because he rectly vested with jurisdiction, which is the power oria to govern or execute the laws. i l,

900

901

I


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ~~r Zxaniinntionr in Criminal Law

VIII. .i,:,aHe,is .not an agent of a person in authority, because as bodyguard of the Judge his duties were limited only.to protectihg,.the,Judge. He was not charged with the maintenance of public o r d e r and the protection and security of 'life ,and property. Unless there was an occasior. for it, he was not included id''<&$ &use "who comes to the aid of persons in authority"

i

(a) Pedro and Mdria were office-mates, and :,intimap developed between them. One day: Pedro 6Cdf:t6 Maria a baoldet contained in a pay envel seeulrely sealed and stapled. The 'booklet id' tionably indecent and highly 'oEfensiye"'to'! Pedro was thereafter chwged under' pgr. ticle 201 of the Revised Penal Code which ,p/o~d&: i'The penalty of pr:sion carreceional in its minimum', -Il,r period, or a fine ranging promi 200 to 2,000 pesos,. or both, shall be imposed upon: 4. Those who s h a sek give away or exhibit prints, engravings, sed$tures ar literature which are offensive to morals." Es Pedro guilty of the c r h e charged? Reasons. .: .(b) Juan and Petra (a. girl of-17 years ;of a&) were found by the latter's parents in a compromislrg situation. Sometime later the parents severeIy s ed their daughter for having brought' dyshono the family because they discovered t h a t Juan had filed an. applkation for marriage with another woman. Immediately after such upbraiding, Petra left her house, and, together with Juan who was waiting for her outside the house, went to and stayed in the latter's house, the two having sexual intercourse occasionally thereat. What crime, if any, is Juan guilty of? Reasons.

~

(a) Pedro is not guilty of the crime charged. What is punished by Art. 201, par. 4, is the distribution or the giving of indecent litel-ature, etc., to many people and not merely the isolated, casrral or occasional act of giving such kind of literature t o a single recipient. The purpose of the provision is the protection of public morals, that is, the morals of society as R "; whole, and not merely the morals of a singie individual. Hen giving indecent literature to one person only is not a violati of Art. 201, par. 4. (Peoplc vs. Tempongko, 1 C.A. Rep. 31

reasons.

(b) No crime was committed by Juan. Even if.-Petra a virgin and under 18 years of age, Juan is not guilty of con-902

903

;.. , . .


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEH'ER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law '

sented abduction, because the girl voluntarily went with Juan without solicitation or cajolery from him. But if Petra left her parents' house by prearrangement with Juan and at his bidding, inasmuch as he awaited her outside of the house, then Juan is guilty o f consented abduction. Juan cannot be held guilty of .,,. simnle seduction, since no deceit was enlployed by Juall before the sexual intercourse with Petra.

(b) While A is correct in saying t h a i he is not guilty under par. 1(a) of article 315, R.P.C., and that he is not guilty e i ~ e r of estafa involving real property, the Solicitor General erred in stating that the ofiense comes within the: purview of paragraph l ( a ] of article 315. The Solicitor General misconstrues the mean- ,, ing of paragraph l f a ) of article 316. Under the provision of law, the obligation to deliver already exists, and the offender on making deiivsry has altered the substance, quantity or quality of the thing delivered. The facts of this case before us are.not four-square with the above-quoted provision of law. ' Here, A " deceitfully pointed to B one parcel of land, offering it f o r sale, " on the shength of which deceit B parted with his money. The ; deceit practised by A preceded the alienation by B of his money. 'V. It i s therefore clear that there was no alteration o f substance, :: quantity or quality in the sense intended by paragraph l(a) ,., , of article 315 in A's execution of the deed of sale. .. . ., Since the facts of, this case are not covered by any o! the provisions of articles 315, 316 and 317, the offense comqit$e+d by A must perforce come within the meaning and intendp&: '' of the blanket provisions of paragraph l ( a ) of article 318. ~

E. (a) A, neighbor of B, in conspk'acy with the latter's .d<,

servant C, who allowed A to enter his master's house, took therefront B's TV set, without the knowledge and consent of B. What are the respective criminal liabilities of A and C? Reasons for ydw answers.

,

h d for +e. y'llabg the land suitable f o r his purposes, B bought, it. I(. turned out that in the deed of sale entered inro by them, A had switched parcels of land, with the result thtit what B bought was another Pame1 wh:'eh was worthless for his purposes. A was t h m a f t m p'rosecuted for and convicted of estafa Under P a . 1 (a) of article 315 of the Revised P e d Code for ''dtdring the substance, quantity, or CiuditY of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so " A appealed, contending that he is not gurlty undex the said Par. 1 (a) of article 315, R.P.C., and. that he,& not guilt y either of est& involving real property. The Solicitor e n e r a 1 maintains thai the conviction was proper. Who is correct: the Solicitor General or A? Or a r e both the Solicitor General and A IvrongT IS A guilty of any offense? Reasons for y o u answer.

,(b) A pointed to B a parcel of

%

. -,

,

..

( a ) C, a domestic servznt, is liable as principal for qualified theft, while A is liable as principal for simple theft only. The circumstance arising from the priyate relation of C with B, which qualifies the crime of theft as t o him, does not Serve t o increase the liability of A, to whom it is not attendant. 904

~

X.

'

,I

(a) What are the two clames of privileged eommup,

cations? Give an example of each. ,(b) 4 whose legal residence i s Castgnran, Quezon, the congressman of t h e first district of Quezon,province. When attending sessions of Congress, his act(:? ud residence is Quezan C5ty. During the sion of Congress, 33 published in the Manil a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon inee, an article containing offensive e that are libelous per se against the .honor grit? of A. The latter thereupon filed ' a en coniplaint for libel against a, in the municipal of Casiguran, Quezon. B filed a motion to dism alleging that the court has no jurisdiction over case. Is the motion tenable? Reasons for you

answer.

I / CRIMIIVAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Exminations in Criminal Law

CRIiMINAL LAW REVIEWER

nnr

Examinations in Criminal Law

,.

(a) The two classes of privileged communications are: (1) absolutely privileged; and (2) conditionally or qdalifiedly privileged. ',?;~ . Example . of absolutely privileged communicatioion: . , .. 1. The absolute immunity granted by the Constitution to ' Senators and members of the House of Representatives who are not to be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate therein. (Art. VI, See. 15, Constitution); or 2 . .Testimony or statements made by parties and witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings provided that such Btate: ments are pertinent or relevant t o the case. Example of a qualifiedly privileged conimunication: 1. A private communication made by any person to acother in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty. (Art. 354, par. 1, R.P.C.); os 2 . A fair and true report, made in good faith, vithout any comments 01- remapks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature! or:of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise Of their functions. (Ibid, par. 2, R.P.C.) ( 6 ) The motion of B is tenable. Clearly the municipal court of Casiguran, Quezon, has no jurisdiction over the case, because only the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides or, in case one of the offended parties is a public officer, where he holds office, a t the "' .time of the commission of the offense, has jurisdiction over .. the case. Even f o r purposes of preliminary investigation, only the fiscal of the province or city, the municipal court of the city 'or capital of the province can conduct the same. (Art. 360, .as amended by Rep. Act No. 4363)

0CTY)BER 1, 1967

X. ,(a) Define Criminal or Penal Law. (b) ENUMERATE and DEFINE the diffkent, clwifieations or the circumstances affeefing criminal liabity. Give two @xamplesof each. ( a ) Criminal Law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their pnnishment. (12 Cyc. 129) ( b ) The circumstances affecting criminal liability are: I. Justifying circumstances (Art. 11) 11. Exem2ting circumstances (Art. 12), and other absolutory causes (Arts. 20; 124, last par.; 280, last par.; 332; 344; etc.) 111. Mitigating circumstances (Art. 13) IV. Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14) V. Alternative circumstances (Art. 15)

4

ti I

906

.

Justifying circnmstances a r e those where the act of a persoil is said to be in zccordance with law,, so that such pe:son is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both Criminal and civil liability. Examples : 1. Anyone mho acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances eoncnr : First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means'employed to ,prevent or'repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the p a r t of the person defending himself. 2 . Anyone who acts in defense of the person O I - . ~ rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legiti-,: mate, nataral, wr adopted brothers or sisters or of his:! 907

I

i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal t a w

CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

relatives by affinity in the same degrees, ‘xiid those by consanguinity within the fourth civil depee, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntaq, o r negligent. Examples : 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. 2 . A person. under nine years of age. Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, bUt serve only to reduce the penalty.

2 . That the crime be committed i n contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. Altercative circumstances are those which must be takeii into consideration as aggravating o r mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. Examples : 1. Relationship. 2 . Intoxication.

-

Examples : 1, Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justifsr the act or t o exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases a r e not attendant. 2. That the offender j, under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. Aggravating circumstances are 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. Examples : 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. 908

Y ’

’ .

11. (a) ENUMERATE a n d DEFINE the different stages,:of the execution of a crime. ,(b) “A” 1~1acedrugs and jute sacks, soaked in kerosene oil near the partition of an i,nhahited house and set them o n fire, but no part of the house was burnkd because t h e fire was extinguished on time. What crime did “A” coxmit. Give your reason. * (a) They are: (1) consummated, (2) frustrated, and (3) attempted. Consummated felony, defined. A felony is consummated when necessary for its execution and accomplishment ar present. Frustrated felony, defined. It is frustrated when the offender the acts of execution which would felony as a consequence but which, do not produce it by reason of causes of the will of the perpetrator. Attempted felony, defined. There is an attempt when t h mences the commission of a felony acts, and does not perform all the’acts 0

909


CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Examinations in Criminal Law

Bar haminations in Criminal Law

nir

former i s riot qualified theft, for the offended party was the ovylier of thz store, and not “B”.

which would produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

IV. (a)

What a r e the offenses not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code? Give an example. (b) Under the Administrative Code, councilors a r e prohibited to have an interest in any c o n t i z t with the municipality. ‘A,” an incnmbe1bt municipaI councilor, made a n offe!r to the municipality of which he is councilor, to pave one o f its streets’ for a very reasonable price, which offer %vas not however accepl. ed. Did the councilor commit a n y mime? Give your

(b) The fact of having set fire to some rags and jute sacks, soaked in kerosene oil, aiid placing them near the wooden partition of the house, should not be qualifikd as eonsummated arson, inasmuch as no p a r t of the house began to burn. It is only frustrated arson. (U.S. VS. Valdcs, 39 Phil. 240)

111. ( a ) Who are the principals in the commission of an ofI

(b)

> .

I

fense? “A,” servant of “B,” went to a store, where “B” OOUld purchase on credit, and falsely represented to the owner of the store that he was sent t h a e by “B” to buy certain goods worth P50.00 to be chargeed to t b e account of ‘‘13.” As “A” was known t o ’ t h e owner of t h e store a s the servant of “B,” the goods were delivered by t h e owner of t h e store to “A” who absconded with them. What crime was committed by“‘A”2 Give your reason.

reason. (a) Offenses which are o r in the future may be punishable

under special laws a r e not subject to the provisions

of this Code. (Art. 10, R.P.C.) Example : The offense of ille@d possemion of firearm which Is punished by a special law. (b) No, because there was only a n attempt to violate the’ provision of the Administrative Code, a special law. 11: was held that the attempted or the ‘frustrated stage of the execution of a n offense’genalized by a special law is not punishable, unless the special law provides a penalty therefor (US. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89). ,

( a ) The following a r e considered principals. 1. Those who take a direct part i n the execution of the act. 2 . Those who directly force or induce others t3 commit it. 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without whicb it would not have been accomplished. (Art. 17, R.P.C.) (b) The crimc of estafa was committed by “A”, because he defrauded the owner of the store by means of deceit consisting in falsely representing to the latter that he was sent by “B” t o buy the goods and thereby caused damage t o the said owner of tbe store. Although, “A” was the servant of “El”, the crime committed by the 910

?

’j <1

’!

(

V. (a) Jose committed robbery in t h e house of Pedro. The i h t t e r with a shotgun puirsued Jose. While running, JOW dropped tlie money h e had stolen and thus Pe. dro wa3 able to recover the m,oney. Jk Jose guilty of robbery, and, if so, is it consummat-,6% ed, frustrated or attempted? Give pour reason. ~h j‘ .-,Cb)Distinguished grave thrent demanding money from .: robbery with intimidation of person.’ ’ ., f a ) Yes, Jose is guilty of robbery’ Ghich is consummated. he having carried out of the house the property taken 511

I

1 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Eminatious in Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW XEVIEWW Bar Examinatiom in Criminal Law

(a) In illegal assembly i t is necessary that there is an actual meeting or assembly of armed persons

and, therefore, the taking of the same was already complete. This is on the assumpti011 that robbery with force upon things was committed. It was not robbery with intimidation, because the intimidation (pursuing with a shotgun) was employed by the offended party, not by the offender.

for the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, or of individuals who, although not armed, are incited to the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition, or assault upon a person in authority or his agent; in illegal association, i t is not necessary that there be am actual meeting. 5 ( b ) In illegal assembly, it is the meeting and attendance at such meeting that are punished; in illegal association, it is the act of forming or organizing and membership in the association that are punished. ( e ) In illegal assembly, the person liable are: (1) the orga.nizers or leaders of the meeting and (2) the persons present a t the meeting. In illegal associalion, the persoas liable a r e : (1) the founders, directors and president, and (2) the members. ( b ) Theft. Perez’ possession of the coutents of the safe was not such as to render its abstraction by him malversation ( U S . vs. Webster, 6 Phil. 394). Perez had only the physical or material possession of the cash and checks he abstracted.

(b) In both crimes, there is intimidation by the offender. The purpose, when threat is made to extort money, is identical t o obtain gain. The differences are: (1) In robbery, the intimidation is actual and, immediatc; whereas, in threats, the intimidation ,is Conditional or future, that is, not immediate; (2) I n robbery, the intimidation is personal, while in threats i t may be through an intermediary;

-

(3) In threats the intimidation may refer to the person, honor or property of the offedned party Or that of his family; while in robbery the intimidation is directed only to the person of the victim; ( 4 ) In robbery, t h e gain of the culprit is immediate: whereas, in threats the gain of the cidprit is not immediate (People vs. Moreno, C.A., G.R. No. 43636, April 30, 1936).

,VI. (a) Is there any difference batween ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION and ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY? Give the differences. (b) Perez was a clerk of the Bureau of Post. entrusted with t h e combination and k@y of a safe, but he is not Incharge of the cash book nor he has any authoritr to open the safe and withdiraw money therefrom. ,During the absence of his superior, he opened the safe and abstracted therefrom cash and checks. What crime did he commit?

.

(a) Yes. The differences are: 912

VII. ,(a) Who commits the crime of ABUSE AGAINST CHAS-

#,

’

TITY?

(b) “A” a provincial guard, incharge of the provin made love and unchaste proposal to a woman confhed in the jail but failed t o seduce her. be liable for the crime of ABUSE AGAINS TITY? Give your reason.

(a) The publie officer who commits any of the f f

1 4

‘i

8

acts: 1. By soliciting or making immoral or inde yances to D. woman interested in matters pending se-.,:bi yI

913

.

:~3 ...

lis

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ill Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examiuations in Criminal Lnw

Bar Examinations

fore the offending officer for decision, o r with respect t o which he is required to submit a report to O r consult with a superior officer. 2. Ey soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a ivonian under the offender’s custody. . 3. BY soliciting or making immoral oc indecent. advances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity 6f any person in the custody of the offending warden or officer. , : (b) Yea, because the crime of abuse against chastity is ummated by mere proposal of somemng unchaste and immoral to a woman. It is n o t necessary that the woman solicited should have yielded to th6 solicitation of the public officer.

-;I

‘ai ’, ,’!

,

!,

. I

..

-& /,

..

2 . Tittering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace. 3 . Writing, pubiishiny, or circulating scui“ri1ous libels against the Government or any of the duly constitu@d authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the //--;ubljc peace. 1-a) “A” a,&cial Ptreasurer connived with two provin-

cial guards to take away from his office, a snfe containiig money a n d to divide it among them. While the conspiratclrs were brhighg t h e safe outside of the provincial building, they were caught by. consta W a r y men, thus they were not able t o get the‘mo. my. a t cruue 11 any, did they commit? Give your ’ 9 ’ /season.

w

~’’ . 111. ,(a) Enumerate the acts constituting TUMULTS and DIS. ,.,!,?TURBANCES of, public order. ~. ,(b) Enumerate the acts constituting INCITING’ TO SI%

,)V

,’6) AlthougkL, only the provincial treasurer was a n account-

; ”

able public officer, and the two guards were not, all of them committed malversation, for even public officers wlio are not accountable f o r public fund6 may be held liable for malversation if they participated as eo-peqetmtors in the offense of malversation. (U.S. vs. Polite, et.al., 20 Phil. 379) Even if they were not able to g?.t the money, the crime was consummated, because the law uses the phrases “shall take” and “permit any other person to take such public funds or property”. I t is submitted that there was taking in bringing the safe outside of the building.

DITION.

,

,

,

( a ) They are: 1. Causing’any serious disturbance in a public place, , office or establishment ; 2 . Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Ark. 131 and 132; 3 . Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place; 4. Displaying placards o r emblems which provoke a disturbance of public, order in such place : 5 . Burying with pomp, ,the body of B person who has been legally executed. (b) They are: accomplishment of ‘any of the sedition by means of speeches, emblems, ete.

X. (a ’ “A” is serving sentence for violation

of

4

a law whiehd

was subsequently totally repealed. I” May “A” be refieved of the penalty imposed upon him’ .* ’

1)

L

und,er the repealed law? Give your reason. ( b ) Pedro, a relative of Juan who was executed for the crime of multiple murder, claimed the corpse of ’ Jnan and gave it a pompous burial. 915

t

:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEK Examinations in Criminal Law

nar

Did Pedro eonintit reason.

;in]'

violation of law?

Give you1

(a) Yes, be&use a person cannot be punished for acts no longer criminal (People vs. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 226), Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of n felony, who is not a habitual criminal, although at the time of the pub' lication of such laws a Zinal sentence has been pronounced and the convict is szrving sentence (Art. 22, R.P.C.). The repealing law is decidedly favorable to "A". (b) Yes, because burying with pomp the body of a persor. who was legally executed is a violation of Art. 85 and punished by Art. 153 of the Revised Penal Code.

916

reyes 1968

Recommend Documents