Criminal Law Review (Campanilla) - Liang vs People (GR 125865, Feb.

28, 2000)
- Agreement, ISAM Development Bank Member of congress/senate cannot be question or held liable in
Art. 2 - Characteristics - Bank Officer has an immunity from crime provided in relation to connection with debate speech made in congress
duties - question him in the senate/congress ethics committee
1. Generality vs Territoriality - SC: to invoke immunity under that agreement, not absolute - immunity from libel
immunity
Generality based on Art. 14 civil code - crime must be committed in his official capacity Case Law
- Slander, is not part of his duties - Sec. 7, Art. 7, 1973 Constitution
If accused is claiming exemption sa pagiging tao niya - committed the act not in his capacity as bank officer but in his - Presidential immunity
- generality personal capacity - Under 1987, wala na
- Estrada vs Desierto (G.R. No. 146710, March 2, 2001)
If accused is claiming exemption dahil sa lugar Laws of Preferential Application - charged plunder
- territoriality - RA No. 75 - invoking presidential immunity
- Arrest imprisonment against ambassador public minister domestic - SC: no provision under 1987 constitution, revoked provision on
Example Generality Principle servant is a crime presidential immunity
- American citizen caught possession of a loose firearm, but has - person causing arrest is liable in law - despite the fact of revoking
license to possess from US - these people have immunity but subject to RECIPROCITY rule - Case law recognizes presidential immunity
- US Constitution, right to bear firearms (they cannot have law - the sending state must provide similar exception to diplomats - but it is not absolute
absolutely prohibiting) consuls of the Philippines - Two Condition to invoke presidential immunity:
- In the Philippines, we can have absolute prohibition but do - president must be an incumbent president
regulation Art. 180 of PD 1083 (Code of Personal Muslim Laws) - the crime must be committed in connection with his function
- YOU CANNOT ENFORCE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION IN THE - the provision under the law involving Bigamy shall not apply to a (function related)
PHILIPPINES person married in accordance to this code - At that time, Erap no longer incumbent, there was constructive
- The license required under our law is that issued by the PNP - Another exception to Generality Principle resgination
- GENERALITY PRINCIPLE, applies to those even sojourning here, - Rule: Bigamy obligatory to all persons sojourning residing - first requisite not present
obligatory force of penal laws regardless of belief - Malversation Plunder violation ra 3019 is not function related
- Galakgak Case (CA 54 OG 1027) - but under Quran pwede dawala beses nagpapakasal - second requisite not present
- passed this law as a recognition of able to marry twice
Exception to Generality Principle - so exception siya to generality principle STUDY: WHAT IS EXAMPLE OF A FUNCTION RELATED CRIME?
- Public International Law
- Treaty People vs Nolora (15425, September 7, 2011) function related: you have to analyze that
- Law of Preferential Application - Nagpakasal twice
- Case Law - roman catholic rites Mamasapano
- he is claiming Art. 180 - President decided to consult someone not qualified
International Law - SC: that law not applicable because only applicable if marriage is - if he was charged simple negligence, can Aquino invoke presidential
- principle of diplomatic immunity made in accordance with muslim rites immunity?
- G.R. No. 142396, Feb. 11, 2003 - Yes! It is a function related crime.
- SC: if the accused possess an acknowledged diplomatic title and he Sec. 11 of Art. 6, 1987 Constitution - What if president Aquino was charged now in 2019? Can he invoke?
is performing diplomatic duties of diplomatic character - Members of Congress Senate privilege from arrest while congress is NO, no longer incumbent president
- if he goes to DFA he is acknowledged there in session, provided penalty not more that 6 years
- That accused has a BLANKET DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY - immunity from being arrested Head of several department, undivided attention
- absolute - not immunity from being convicted, prosecuted - if there is crime, attention will be shifted
- Old Case (1936) - Moran Case - cannot be served while congress in session - BASIS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
- A consul has no diplomatic immunity - Art. 145, RPC - immunity from arrest, members of assembly now
- Diplomat function to protect political interest of the state congress No vice-presidential immunity
- consul protects financial interest of the state - unless crime punishable by prision mayor or higher than 12 years - not head of the executive branch
- 1967 - Convention on Consular Immunity - Martinez vs Morpe (G.R. No. 34022, March 22, 1972) - most of the time he is appointed as secretary of a department
- has consular immunity - immunity under the 1935 constitution
- provided crime committed connected to consular function related - there is no immunity from being searched Art. 2 of the RPC
- no jurisprudence yet, you analyze - immunity under 1935 is immunity from being arrested not search
- murder not function related - Art. 145 cannot expand the congressional immunity under the Territoriality and Extra-Territoriality, Exception
- BQ, reckless imprudence not function related constitution
- Slander not function related (Coquia Book) - if you violate parliamentary immunity under constitution, you Territoriality
- Diplomatic Immunity vs Consular Immunity commit crime violating parliamentary immunity under the RPC - echo of territorial character of criminal law
- Diplomatic - absolute immunity - Parliamentary Immunity under Constitution - not more than 6 years
- Consular - limited immunity, function related - Under RPC - not more than 12 years Technique:
- Art. 145 is DEEMED MODIFIED by the Constitution (Martinez vs
Treaty Morpe Principle) If crime committed within territory of the Philippines
- always think territoriality principle - People vs Wong Cheng
- SC: We are still under the American Government, therefore AAA v. PBB (GR 212448, January 11, 2018)
If crime committed outside theories in American obtaining in the Philippines. Considering - Art. 2 RPC and Sec. 15 of Rule 110 of CrimPro
- think of 2 America adopts British Rule, we adopt the British Rule. - consider place of the criminal act
- territoriality and extra-territoriality - 1922 Case - also consider effects of the criminal act if element of the crime
- discuss what is the crime committed - murder start in manila, died in QC - concurrent jurisdiction
- then ipasok niyo yung issue ng territoriality 1982 - Convention of the Law of the Sea - Nambabae sa Singapore, asawa at anak nasa pilipinas
- dahil committed outside, include the issue of territoriality - Coastal State will not assume jurisdiction - act of infidelity committed in Singapore, psychological effect of the
- jurisdiction - Flag State Rule act of infidelity happens in the Philippines, therefore the Philippines
- Exception: has jurisdiction
Crime committed within Territory of the Philippines - If assistance is requested by the master of the ship, diplomatic - If adultery, Philippines has no jurisdiction, cause element is not an
- tinatanong: yung exception representative of the flag state element of the crime
- Embassy, Foreign Merchant Vessel, Regime of Island, VAWC - Police will arrest, we not have jurisdiction
- If the consequence of the crime extend to the coastal state Perez vs Catindig (Admin Case, March 10, 2018)
Embassy - nagbabarilan sa loob ng foreign vessel, natatamaan mga tao - admin case not territorial in character
- in the case of Raegant vs CIR (GR 26379, December 27, 1969) buildings sa Philippines - 2nd marriage happened abroad
- SC: the ground occupied by the American Embassy is not the - we now have jurisdiction - no bigamy cause territorial character
territory of the foreign state - If crime disturbs the peace of the coastal state or good order - pero pwede i pa disbar cause not territorial in character
- If there crime is committed in the American Embassy, the (peace and security)
Philippines will assume jurisdiction - If assumming jurisdiction is a necessary measure to prevent Extra-Territoriality Principle
- Modern writer of International Law is rejection of the fiction of traficking narcotic drug or psychotropic substance - Flag State Rule (committed in a vessel or airship in Philippine
territoriality of ground of an embassy - Lok Tiung Case 1911 no longer controlling Registry
- for obvious reasons: slight physical injury you have to go to states, - Opium Law, does not cover transportation - consider place of registration
visa, witnesses - possession yung crime here - forging/counterfeiting coins and notes, importing
- Under UNCLOS, can we assume jurisdiciton? Yes. - whether the notes is Philippines peso or dollars
Inviolability of an Embassy (Principle) - crime committed is transporatation - If forgery committed outside the Philippines, must distinguish
- the act of jurisdiction or administration cannot be made within the - Lok Tiung Case not applicable cause possession yung issue whether peso or dollars, we only have jurisdiction if philippine peso
confines of an embassy without a waiver from the sending state - necessary measure to suppress traficking narcotic drug or - to protect economic interest of the Philippines
- serving warrant of arrest is an act of jurisdiction, cannot perform psychotropic substance - crime committed by public officer in connection to his office
without the waiver - drug traficking now considered a universal crime - People vs Coling/Coleen (111709, August 30, 2011)
- go to dfa, communicate with embassy, to ask permission to serve - exactly why coastal state can assume jurisdiction - crimes against national security
the warrant - Requisites: - crimes against law of nations
- Foreign Merchant Vessel
Do not confuse inviolability with territoriality of embassy - if not merchant vessel, like military or public non-commercial Prospectivity
(government vessel) - GR: Criminal Law is prospective in character
Foreign Merchant Vessel - considered floating territory of the flag state, so NO - because generally it is prejudicial
- special rule JURISDICTION - Ex. Sec. 22, Art. 3 of Constitution, prohibition on passage of ex
- If a crime is committed on board foreign merchant vessel - foreign vessel has no right of innocent passage post facto law (retroactive effect given to criminal law)
- french, english, exception to Art. 26/27 of Convention on the Law of - if pinapasok mo, you have to recognize the principle in - Art. 21, RPC, no felony shall be punishable by a penalty not
the Sea international law prescribed by law prior to its commission
- Territorial Water - Exception:
French - if in High Seas, FLAG STATE RULE, flag state has jurisdiciton - Art. 22, given retroactivity, if not prejudical, but favorable
- flag state rule unless universal crime all states have jurisdiction - even without Art. 22, the rule is given retroactivity if favorable
- flag state has jurisdiction - do not confuse territorial water from internal water - Art. 22 added to impose additional condition
- unless crime affects national security of the coastal state (peace and - internal - includes, river, lake, archipelagic water - to give retroactivity to a penal law
security) - territorial - 12 miles water from the archipelagic line, external - must be favorable and
water - must not be habitual delinquent
English
- coastal state rule Play Safe: Apply 2 Views People vs Murigo Case
- coastal state will assume jurisdiction - penalty used to life imprisonment
- exception: unless has no pernicious effect or does not affect peace Regime of Island - now reclusion perpetua
and security of the coastal state - magkakaroon ng sariling archipelagic doctrine - committed crime prior to amendment
- controlling duration unlimited vs limited
French vs English If question is Spratly Island - Life Imprisonment is graver than RP
- Different GR and Exception - GR: no jurisdiction cause disputed - so imposing RP is favorable to the accused
- French: GR - Flag State; Exception - Coastal State - However, western portion Kalayaan Island, we have jurisdiction
- English: GR - Coastal State; Exception - Flag State Decriminalization
- Burden of Proof VAWC - RA 10158
 - amended Art. 202, RPC - People vs Gonzales (195671, Perlas Bernabe)
- Vagrancy and Prostitution General criminal intention vs specific criminal intention - 2nd View
- after amendment, no more vagrancy - general book 1 - Culpa is the crime itself
- Intent of RA10158 is to decriminalize Vagrancy - specific book 2 - According to JBL Reyes
- RA 10655 - People vs Cano GR 19660 May 24, 1966 (reiterated)
- repealed Art. 351, RPC US vs Achiong - Based on Art. 365
- Premature Marriage - acquitted cause no dolo - Ivler vs Modesto San Pedro?
- not allowed to marry within 301 days after death of first husband - no evil intent to kill
- confusion as to father of new child - intention was defense 3 Requisites of Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
- Binay: Discriminatory, not applies to men 1. Salary Grade (not present, rtc/mtc)
- Antiquated: confusion no longer an impediment due to technology Criminal Intention must be combination of: 2. Office Related (not present, rtc/mtc)
- extinguishment, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to try and - specific criminal intent 3. No damage to the Government (not present, RTC)
punish,Jurisdiction to Try and Prosecute - general criminal intention
Art. 4, RPC
Law expressly provides Retroactivity mens rea = general criminal intent (dolo)+ specific criminal intent
- Sec. 68, RA 9344 Two wrongful acts
- Child in conflict with the law Theft - wrongful act intended
- already served - actual gain not necessary - wrongful act done
- given retroactive effect, immediate release
People vs Seradilla Exception to the GR that intent is basis of crime
Absolute Repeal vs Partial Repeal - precise moment took the check with intent to gain consummated - People vs Cagoco (1933)
- whatever reason failure to obtain actual gain - Conclusive Presumption of Intent to Kill based on Art. 4 of RPC
Absolute Repeal - Praeter Intentionem
- intention decriminalize People vs Jacinto
- impossible crime Violence not indispensable for Conclusive Presumption of Intent to
Repeal, tapos reenact? - failed to gain because check funded Kill
- intention not decriminalized - US vs Valdez
Rebellion/Insurrection
RA 8353 - no longer have to distinguish between scope to apply Art. 4, important that accused is committing a felony
- repaled Art. 336, RPC - actual removal not necessary element, becomes laughable when it - BQ: suicide, tumalon, di namatay, nagkaroon ng abortion
becomes so - what crime committed
Partial Repeal vs Repeal with Reenactment - If marawi is now an independent state because of actual removal, - 2 views
how do you file a case against them? - Ortega: reckless imprudence resulting to homicide
Absolute Repeal - Lagman vs Medel Diaz - JBL Reyes: suicide not a felony, not responsible, so accident
- retroactive - what is important is public uprising, taking of arms, intent to
remove Assume the position of an ordinary person and from there analyze
Partial Repeal
- depends When asked to distinguish crimes Principles covered by Article 4:
- maybe retroactive - identify offender, criminal act (verb), mode, specific criminal 1. Error in Personae
- maybe prospective intention (purpose) - although victim intended different due mistaken in identity, …
- mistake of identity is not a defense because of art 4
Felony When using the codal - mistake of fact is a defense because it will negate dolo
- look at the criminal act and the criminal intention - has something to do with justifying, exempting circumstance
Can you consider culpa as a crime or culpa as a mode of committing - US vs Achiong
a crime? Offender - he though magnanakaw
- general - mistake of identity
2 kinds of Felony - specific - 1911, wala pang mga ilaw, madilim (consider the
1. Intentional - principal circumstances of the date when analyzing cases)
2. Culpa - secondary - there is also mistake as to element of self-defense, unlawful
aggression
Criminal Act and Criminal Intention Principal and Secondary Offender - no unlawful aggression here, it was a chair
- because of mistake of fact, it was considered there was
Criminal Act Culpa (2 views) unlawful aggresion
- tingnan mo lang yung verb - 1st View - error in personae vs mistake of fact
- ex. the taking, the killing, etc. - Culpa is just a mode of committing a crime
- should not be confused with mode of committing a crime - Angeles vs Jose, Lontok vs Concordio, Reodica vs Hon. Justice 2. Praeter Intentionem
- pagnagawa na yung criminal act, consummated na, but must be Ortiz - wrongful act done be greater than that intended
accompanied by criminal intention - Based on Art. 3, RPC - Cagoco
 - Military allowed to search and destroy in the performance of
People vs Ortega (116786) 3. Aberacio Ictus their duties
- patay, tulungan kita tapon sa balon, we will destroy the corpus - mistake of blow - false intel
delicti - Art. 247, RPC - employed element of surprise, target unarmed unhostile
- namatay hindi sa saksak but sa lunod - Death under exceptional circumstance - mistake of fact applied
- principal by direct participation yung chinarge - Veronilla (4445, Feb. 28, 1955)
- homicide committed by an accessory is contemplated under Art. 4, People vs Gonzales - exempting circumstance in relation to mistake of fact
principal siya - surprise the spouse in the act of sexual intercourse - World War 2 (context)
- through Art. 4, wala ng palusot palusot - effect principle not important - impossible to validate facts at the time
- what is important in the letters of the article - BQ: Is there a mistake of fact constituting an involuntary act
US vs Valdez (irresistible force or uncontrollable act) which is a defense?
- threat, tumalon namatay Destierro - Mistake of fact and death under exceptional circumstances
- praeter intentionem - punitive - would have constituted cicrumstance had the facts believed to
- protective be were such
People vs Turing - First Requisite is not present (can be mitigating)
- 8 murders immediately thereafter - US vs Apeno (7929, Nov. 18, 1912)
- 12 ang charge, may 4 tumalon sa train - People vs Abaca/Abarca - stabbed brother thinking he was going to rape her (1912, really
- one hour after dark, knew she was alone)
- reason of killing proximate cause is catching wife sexual intercourse - means not reasonable, first element not present
Proximate Cause Rule - exception to the rule ang Abarca - however, because of the mistake of fact, unlawful aggression
- Art. 4 was recognised
- Art. 12 (accident as proximate cause, exempted from criminal Unintentional Abortion - SC: incomplete self-defense of honor recognised
liability) - Art. 257 - Apolinar vs Narvaez
- Art. 365 - another proximate cause rule - People vs Narvaez abandons Apolinar
- employment of violence is intentional - natutulog pagkagising winawasak yung wall
People vs Nepomuceno (127818, November 11, 1988) - what is unintentional is the effect of abortion - defense of property in relation to mistake of fact
- mitigating circumstances cannot be based on the same facts
Self-Help Doctrine there is a third person - cannot claim 2 mitigating based on same facts
- includes defense of property - People vs Ouanis (July 27, 1943)
Issue of Complexing in Aberacio Ictus - Order to arrest notorious criminal
pouring gar out of fun or out of hate - there are 2 victims - there must only be necessary force to effect arrest
- 365 v. 4 - privileged circumstance of incomplete performance of duty
People vs Adriano (July 15, 2015) considered
People vs Pugay (1988) - stray bullet - People vs Yapyuco (120744-46, 2012)
- not art. 4 - police, barangay, civilian military received report that NPA
- rubber snake, heart attack Mistake of Fact Doctrine coming
- pwede accident, but if alam mo may heart problem go to 365 - mistake of fact can negate dolo - established checkpoint
- taking of property he thought was his - thinking NPA is in car arriving, they showered
GR No. 192123, March 10, 2014 - there is taking - killing NPA not part of duties they are unarmed
- anesthesiologist, na overdose ang patient namatay - but there is not intent to gain due to mistake of fact - summary execution not the duty of the police even if they were
- to determine whether act is culpable, there must be standard of care - mistake of fact as a defense (as a factor that can negate dolo) NPA
observed by a similar specialist in a similar situation - connect mistake of fact justifying exempting absolutory - BAR: facts same apply Ouanis, any other apply Yapyuco
circumstance etc, all elements are present (“salvage” of people in “performance of duty”)
People vs Carmen - first element not present, can be source of mitigating - People vs Calderon (62189, Nov. 1954)
- Accused is a quack doctor circumstance - Military, went to the forest
- offense committed under special law is not a felony contemplated - second element not present, reckless imprudence resulting to - houses there, they thought there were bandits, old man came
under Art. 4, which covers felonies that are acts or omissions homicide (validation of the mistaken facts) out bring an “itak” saying “smalls kayo dito”
punishable by RPC - third element not present, first is also not present - milatary shot claiming he though was a member of the
- Requisites: hukbalahap
Art. 67 - justifying exempting etc had mistake of fact been true - killing a rebel without due process is summary execution which
- incomplete accident - negligence is not part of performance of duty
- exception to Art. 3, no dolo no culpa - criminal intent - second requisite alone not present, crime committed is reckless
- Requisites all present imprudence resulting to homicide
Carnaping although punishable by special law, is a felony covered by - Ah Chiong Case - 1926 case
Art. 4 - considered self-defense present due to mistake of fact - negligence
- Jurisprudence that carnaping concepts applicable same as theft, etc - People vs Mamasalaya (4911, Feb. 10, 1943) - if third element is not present, there is killing intention, first element
- performance of duty as a justifying circumstance in relation to not present
181184, Jan. 25, 2012 mistake of fact - error in personae
 - new law change of jurisdiction - if felony is frustrated you will decrease penalty 1 degree lower,
RA10951 - favorable or prejudicial? neither attempted 2
- August 29, 2017 - whether mtc, rtc, sandigabanyan, due process is available
- Published: September 01, 2017 Nature of Participation
- Effectivity: September 16, 2017 Special Provision in 10951 - principal, accessory, accomplice
- Sec. 102 - penalties - cases pending before the effectivity while trial has already started,
- People vs Lito Corpus (180016, April 29, 2014) court hearing the case shall not lose jurisdiction by virtue of this act Privileged mitigation circumstance
- basis of 10951
- amendments introduced the 200x formula Admin Court Circular Situations where elements or circumstance are only 2
- penalty based on amount - trial includes arraignment - one out of 2 is majority
- what is important is the date of arraignment
Art. 26 - classification of fine - if accused already arraigned, RTC will not lose jurisdiction even if Art. 69
- 200 penalty is changed to less than 6 years - 2 degrees lower for privileged mitigating circumstance of minority,
- 6000 - if on or before September 16, 2017, the accused is already already obsolete
arraigned, the RTC will not lose jurisdiction, if penalty under the new - O_O
Hernan vs Sandiganbayan (December 5, 2017) law is 6 years or less
- accused convicted of malversation - on the other hand, the accused has not yet been arraigned, the Minority is either an exempting circumstance or privilege mitigating
- Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgment RTC will lose jurisdiction, if penalty under the new law is 6 years or circumstance
- once judgment attains finality it will become immutable and less
unalterable even if to correct an erroneous conclusion of law or the exempting circumstance of minority is either
application of fact three fold rule - absolute (15 years or under, with or without discernment, conclusive
- totality presumption acted without discernment or intelligence, no amount of
People vs Valdez (December 8, 2015, Justice Peralta) - three fold evidence can be presented by prosecution to overcome cause its
- falsification of documents committed malversation - lowest conclusive)
- non-bailable in previous guideline of DOJ - what is dolo in ca pax? (2017 BQ)
- **If we apply 10951, this will now be bailable service of sentence - age of criminal capacity
- generally bailable all offenses except those punishable by - Generally successive service - above 15
reclusion perpetua - subject to 3 fold rule and scale - conditional (above 15, under 18)
- had the rule been simultaneous, 3 fold rule rendered inutile - exemption is subject to the condition that he acted without
Prescribed penalty vs Imposable penalty - simultaneous only allowed discernment
- imprisonment + fine - if acted with discernment, it is only a privileged mitigating
If penalty is found in Book 2 prescribing penalty for a crime after circumstance
defining it Penalty - disputable presumption acted without discernment, prosecution
- that penalty is prescribed penalty must overcome
Graduation - the factor that separates absolute and conditional
Imposable penalty - GR: consider the prescribed penalty - the 15th birthday
- if you will consider other provision in RPC for determining penalty, - Unless: there is graduating penalty
that penalty is imposable - this is the starting point “Under” Rule
- it sort of becomes prescribed - criminal provisions generally “under”
basis of whether bailable or not is prescribed penalty - ex. if indivisible, ISLAW not applicable - except RA9344
- character of reclusion perpetua is indivisible
Principles in Valdez - at the end of the day, because of express provision in 9346 Cybercrime Law
- for purposes of determining whether crime bailable or not, court - if penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment reduced to - using information technology committing a crime, graduating factor
consider prescribe penalty, not imposable reclusion perpetua, accused not entitled to parole (aggravating circumstance, one degree higher)
- exception: - thus ISLAW not applicable - reason why cyber liber a crime despite there being no penalty for
- privileged mitigating circumstance of minority - ex. minor RP to RT it
- attempted or frustrated stage - ISLAW applicable
- Penalty must be purely reclusion perpetua, death, life - consider graduating factor cause of privileged mitigating Rappler
imprisonment circumstance - multiple publication rule
- if combination of reclusion perpetua and a divisible penalty - Art. 64 if there is graduating factor - republication is another source of libel
- not bailable - it however is not a continuing crime
- Sec. 11, 9165 3 graduating factors:
- amount of shabu 5-10g 1. stages Period of Prescription of Cyber Libel
- 20 years and 1 day or life imprisonment 2. nature of participation - Act 3326 - 8 years according to DOJ (WRONG)
- should be bailable by Valdez principle 3. privileged mitigating circumstance - If we apply 3326, 20 years ang prescription not 8 years
- cause not purely life imprisonment - what is applicable? art 90 of RPC or act 3326?
- malversation is always bailable Stages - Dean Aquino and DOJ: act 3326 cause special law
- but because of 10951, 8.8M no longer bailable - art. 50
 - Judge Campanilla: Art. 90 cause you can’t charge him with cyber - will you consider confession and surrender as special - ex. penalty is RT, BQ: 4 mitigating, will you consider to go
libel under cybercrime law cause no penalty. what we are charging is mitigating circumstance for purpose of reducing RP to RT? down 2 degrees? NO. Penalty next lower in degree, regardless of the
libel under RPC with graduating circumstance of using information - NO number of mitigating (Par. 5, Art. 64)
technology, so charge is based on RPC - no special mitigating circumstance in Art. 63 - b. LEGRAMA (Legrama vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626,
- Second Rule June 20, 2005)
How to graduate? - law prescribes two indivisible penalty (RP to Death) - ex. there is confession and surrender, you will use them for
- GR: Art. 61 - aggravating circumstance rule purposes of graduating RT to PM
- at the end of the day, simplified technique!!! - If there is an aggravating circumstance, greater penalty, - considering such, there are no more mitigating, to
- the graduated penalty is a single penalty, whether prescribed is otherwise lesser penalty consider for period, so PM medium
simple compound or complex - ex. confession surrender passion
- ex. prescribed is single, homicide, RT 102983 - use CS for RT to PM, use passion to PM medium
- one degree lower, prision mayor - the special mitigating circumstance is found in Art. 64, there is none
- even if compound penalty, graduated penalty is single in Art. 63 2nd Exception: Special Aggravating Circumstance
- ex. penalty for murder, RP to death (compound) - apply penalty in its maximum period
- graduated penalty: RT Pag divisible we have to: - not subject to off-set rule
- complex, composed of 3 penalties - Graduation
- ex. treason committed by resident alien, penalty: RT to death - Proper imposable Period 3rd Exception: Complex Crime
- graduated penalty: prision mayor - Fixing the Penalty - Art. 48, RPC
- Two Exceptions: - 2 Penal Rules
- 1. If prescribed penalty is in period, graduated penalty is also in Graduation - a. consider penalty for the most serious components
period - consider: - b. apply the penalty in its maximum period
- single period, single period - priority rule - as a rule, 2 rules above are applied together
- compound period, compound period - identify graduating factors - but there are times, not applied together
- complex period, complex period - indivisible penalty reduced to divisible penalty - so, treat 2 rules as separate and independent from each other
- ex. penalty for technical malversation is prision correcional - ex. direct assault with homicide, minor
minimum period GR: may multiple aggravating circumstance - penalty is RT
- graduated: arresto mayor maximum - Manlolo Case - 1st rule, homicide is higher so consider RT
- 2. Penalty combination of RP and penalty in period - apply penalty in its maximum period when more aggravating - considering minor, RT to PM
- graduated: complex period - multiple aggravating only one effect: maximum period - 2nd Rule, RT max
- ex. penalty sa sexual abuse/child prostitution, RT in medium to - ex. direct assault with homicide, confession
RP Off-set rule - penalty is RT for most serious crime, then RT in the maximum
- graduated: complex period: prision mayor in medium to RT - off-set aggravating and mitigating period
in min - none left, neutral - disregard confession because the situation that accused
- aggravating remains, maximum committed a complex crime is a special aggravating circumstance
Iba yung imposable period and prescribed period - mitigating remains, minimum - People vs De Leon (GR 179940, June 26, 2009)
- provision under 48 provides a rule on special aggravating
Check if papasok sa exception, if not, go to General Rule circumstance
There are 2 rules on application of penalties - so does not apply the off-set rule
- Art. 63 (indivisible penalty) 1st Exception: Special Mitigating Circumstance - People vs Recto (129069, October 17)
- Indivisible may be divided into 3 para may min med max - Consider 2 things: - maximum period of reclusion temporal
- Art. 64 (divisible penalty or in periods) - 1. Requisites
- a. 2 or more Mitigating, no aggravating circumstance Note:
Art. 63 - 1995 BQ: 4 mitigating 1 aggravating, 2018: 3 mitigating 1 - if the 1st and 2nd Exception combine
- RP aggravating (Will you appreciate the special mitigating - use 1st exception to go down one degree lower
- Death circumstance?) - use 2nd exception for maximum period
- RP to Death - NO! 2 or more mitigating, NO AGGRAVATING. There should - no more LEGRAMA
- Perpetual Disqualification be NO AGGRAVATING to appreciate Special Mitigating
- Censure Circumstance 4th Exception: Art. 365
- b. Penalty must be a divisible penalty - Special Rule: In imposing the penalty the court shall exercise sound
2 Rules under Art. 63 - ex. Rape, penalty, RP, confession and surrender. Can you discretion without regards Art. 64
- First Rule go down one degree lower? NO!
- in all cases in which law prescribes a single indivisible penalty - ex. Rape, penalty, RP, minor, confession and surrender. Fixing the Penalty
- as it is rule Can you go down one degree lower? YES
- applied in accord regardless of the aggravating mitigating - now penalty is RT because of the privileged mitigating Suggestion: Make outline or summary
circumstance that may have attended the commission circumstance of minority. RT is divisible so special mitigating
- disregard the modifying circumstance circumstances can now be appreciated. 2 Penalties to be Fixed:
- court shall apply the penalty as it is - 2. Effect 1. Determinate Penalty (Straight)
- People vs Ramos - a. penalty next lower in degree rule - within range of imposable period
- NO ISLAW, less than one year - to consider seniority as a mitigating circumstance, it is - so as not to confuse the above, complex crime in book 2 is
- simply means that his penalty/release is mathematically important the accused was a senior citizen at the time of the described as Special Complex Crime
determinable commission of the crime - technically there is not complex crime of rape with homicide, it’s a
- miminum penalty is only the date you are allowed to apply for parole - Add: Assuming accused was already over 70 years of old at special complex crime
- essence of ISLAW is parole not the indeterminate sentence time of committing, just the same. You cannot consider seniority as a - Under Art. 48: (memorize the spanish term)
- indeterminate sentence is only to know when accused can apply mitigating circumstance cause american penal system - Compound Crime
for parole - Seniority under the RPC, over 70 (a day after your 70th - single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies
birthday) - composed of several crimes produced by a single act
ISLAW - no such thing as exempting circumstance of seniority, it’s - singularity of the act
- we only talk about minimum penalty, maximum penalty (no medium) mitigating - Complex Crime Proper (delito complejo)
- People vs Mallari (178041, April 1, 2013, Del Castillo) - singularity of the penalty
sole function of fixing minimum penalty - carnapping - singularity of the criminal intention
- to determine when the accused may apply for parole - special aggravating circumstance of organized and syndicated - but in the process, he technically committed two crimes, one
- maximum penalty is the true penalty in accordance to the RPC group cannot be considered if not alleged in the information or more of which is necessary to commit the principal crime
- ADD: even if in the information, cannot be appreciated cause - but considered by law as one
Ex. Carnapping Special Law did not adopt the technical nomenclature of - to remedy the situation where: mind of the accused is only one,
- Art. 39 of the RPC the RPC should be punished for the single, consider as only one crime,
- in case of non-payment of fine by reason of insolvency - ISLAW and special law - not really produced by a single act
- If the special law adopts technical chuchu, apply rules on - no requirement that the other act is a necessary means to
People vs Guinhawa (162822, August 25, 2007) penalty in the RPC, then ISLAW Rule 1 accomplish the other crime, as opposed to complex crime proper
- asked in 2005 and 2016 - People vs Nangkay (3565, August 5, 195_) - Times when they overlap
- Penalty is not more than 10 years and not less than 5 years - just look at whether single act or not, singularity of criminal
Parole - exceeding 1 year - application of ISLAW is not favorable do not apply intention
- in Nangkay case, it was applied because it was favorable - conflict between general and specific provision, specific will prevail
**maximum of the imposable penalty and between one degree lower - 2 conditions to apply the Nangkay Case: - Strategy when faced with several crimes:
the imposable penalty - what is involved is the 1st rule not the 2nd - special complex crime
- it is always favorable because minimum is locked to the - Art. 48
2016 penalty one degree lower - Absorption
- penalty fixed at 1 year pricion correcional - circumstance must show that accused deserve leniency - GR: components of a special complex crime are all consummated
- islaw not applicable because does not exceed 1 year - 2017 Case - Exceptions:
- In the Nangkay Case, circumstance showed accused - attempted rape with homicide
2. Indeterminate Penalty deserved leniency, he served confession. (do not confuse confession - attempted robbery with homicide
- within range of maximum and minimum imposable penalty as a mitigating circumstance, here it was to show he deserved
leniency) Art. 297 - frustrated robbery with homicide
- Here, he did not confess, many fundador, he did not - THIS NO LONGER EXISTS
People vs Simon (GR 93028, July 29, 1994) deserve lenience. - Laurel vs Abrograr (GR 155076, January 13, 2009)
- If penalty imposed is under special law, will you apply rules on - case involving economic sabotage - asportation (carrying away) is not an element of theft
penalty in the RPC? - Exception to the Simon - element of larceny which is a common law crime
- 2 Rules: - Sec. 98 of RA9165 - in defining theft, the law uses the word “taking”
- 1st - if accused is an adult at time of commission of the crime, RPC not - People vs Mercado (L-54571-72, July 1958)
- if the special law adopts the penalty under the rpc, then it adopts applicable - what is important is the taking of property without consent of
the penal system under the code - If accused is a minor at time of commission of the crime, RPC is the owner
- Jakaban Rule? applicable - possession whether physical or constructive
- People vs Mantalaba - asked in 2014 Bar Exam - already consummated
- People vs Salazar - including Art. 68 of RPC - perform an act with intention to take the property but fails to
- 2nd - convert life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua possess physically or constructively
- special law did not adopt the technical nomenclature under the - GR: penalty under 9165 must be convertible - ATTEMPTED
rpc, then it does not adopt the penal system under the code - thus, no such thing as frustrated, as soon you take it, it is
- Pecho? (111399, November 14) Special Complex Crime consummated
- Violation 3(e) of RA3019 - composed of several crimes where the law provides a single penalty - People vs Valenzuela (June 21, 2007)
- penalty not borrowed from RPC, so cannot implement - essence: singularity of the penalty prescribed by law even if there - abandoned the Diño Principle
frustrated stage, you cannot graduate are several crimes committed - Diño Principle
- you cannot implement the provisions of the code on american - ex. robbery with homicide (2 crimes committed); yet only one - if the goods are bulky and the bulky good are taken
penalty system penalty prescribed by law - to consummate, the accused must bring out the bulky
- People vs Reyes (August 01, 2010) - Complex crime: goods from the compound
- RA 3019 case - under Art. 48 - failure to do so, does not consummate the property for
- Sandiganbayan considered Seniority as mitigating - under Book 2 failure to bring them out
circumstance - SM Parking Area
 - bulky goods not brought out - DEFENSE in attempted felony
- ability to freely dispose the property not an element of theft - intent is doubtful Whether rape committed before or after the taking it does not matter
- what is important is physical or constructive possession - sort of reward given by the law - crime is robbery with rape
- NO SUCH THING AS FRUSTRATED - not a defense in frustrated - because robbery is the original design
- consummated when possession acquired - already inflicted mortal wound - People vs Cadastre
- otherwise attempted - spontaneous desistance from performing all acts of
- Calceran? execution to complete criminal design Motive to Kill Rule
- accused was charged of frustrated theft - how can you spontaneously desist is you already inflicted - if there is motive to kill, the original design is homicide
- di nalabas ng mall yung ninakaw? mortal wound, you already completed all the acts necessary for - if no motive to kill, original design is robbery
- no such thing as frustrated theft execution - People vs Catanacio (1960)
- no necessity to bring out to consummate theft - BASED/DEPENDENT ON THE EXCLUSIVE WILL OF THE - animal ate plant
- but under the information only frustrated, can you convict him ACCUSED - got made at the owner, stabbed the owner of animal
theft? - then got the wallet
- No, cause not necessarily included Rape - there is motive to kill
- but pwede attempted - why no frustrated rape? - original design was to kill
- Variance Rule - 2000 case - separate crime of homicide and theft
- People vs Salvilla (GR 86163, April 26, 1990) - the touching of the labia majora menora pudendum (external - killing done to facilitate robbery, escape
- in the compount, hold-up to give me the money parts) by the penis of the accused - special complex crime of robbery with homicde
- money given but wasn’t to bring out of compound cause police - no touching but intention to sexual intercourse
arrived - attempted rape People vs Flores (71980, March 18, 1991)
- what is the crime committed? - no intention to sexual intercourse, but with lewd designs - rape with homicide
- SC: as early as 1990, the SC has abandoned the Diño Case - acts of lasciviousness - theft (after thought)
- what is important: taking by means of violence/intimidation or - no lewd designs
using force upon things - unjust vexation Initial act taking
- not ability to dispose - slander by deed (may tao nakakita napahiya siya) secondary rape, killing
- cited Johnson vs State (american jurisprudence) - Attempted Rape - robbery with homicide absorp rape
- by placing money on top of the counter - to perform all acts of execution you have to touch the labia majora - De Leon Case
- they acquired control and dominion over the property menora by the penis of the accused thus already consummated
- they acquired possession - why no frustrated Initial act killing or an act preparatory to killing
- already consummated - only attempted then rape, then ninakawan
- People vs Bara (198020, July 10, 2013) - People vs Orita - rape after killed
- hold-up to, give property, did not give, shoot, dead - not considered rape
- considering performed act by means of violence without being 2 basic requites to complete special complex crime - … at the corpse
able to take property 1. … - People vs Butler (20276, January 27, 1983)
- attempted robbery with homicide 2. intimate connection … - what if rape while dying
- no need to run to consummate - not rape
- constructive possession is enough Technique when face with many crimes - considered cruelty/ignominy
- People vs Marquez - People vs Laspardas (L-46146)
- stray decision How to know if special complex crime? - rape as a modifying circumstance
- you won’t be able to explain this when it comes to the bar - identify original design - apply criminal motive rule
- it even has the same facts as Bara - identify principal crime - there is motive to kill
- why - everything else secondary crime - murder, separate crime of theft
- can you attach secondary crime with principal crime to have special - no motive to kill
Stages of Homicide complex? - robbery with homicide
- Frustrated
- all acts of execution People vs Dinola (March 22, 1990) Qualified Car napping
- mortal wound - principal crime: rape - Sec. 3, RA10223
- but did not die - robbery only an after thought - car napping in the aggravated form
- Attempted - no such thing as rape with robbery - driver/owner killed in the occasion of car napping
- did not perform all acts of execution - therefore, not a special complex crime - this is a special complex crime, but SC calls it qualified car napping
- clear intention to kill the victim or car napping in the aggravated form
- not mortal wound Initial Act Rule - People vs Mallari (179…)]
- Spontaneous Desistance - determine the initial act to determine the original design - convicted accused of the special complex crime of car napping
- to perform all acts necessary to execute criminal design - do not mention in the bar with homicide
- to inflict mortal wound - People vs Florence - play safe: just say qualified car napping or car napping in the
- NOT ATTEMPTED - nangnakaw bago i.rape aggravated form
- despite opportunity, he spontaneously desist from performing - initial act is robbery
all acts necessary to complete criminal design - if rape after thought, not a special complex crime People vs Sia, People vs Garcia, People vs Altamolin
- concept of car napping is the same as that of theft or robbery - special complex crime - not during or after the commission of the crime
- even if killing is accidental - must happen prior to the actual commission of the crime not in the
People vs Talacroso (126368, September 14, 2000) - what is important is death results on occasion of robbery course of
- rode tricycle - similar to the concept of contract in civil law
- argument as to rate Dec. 31 1993? - there must be conspiracy (agreement + decision) first before
- killed driver, then took the tricycle consummating the intended/planned crime
- car napping secondary thought Old Rule
- abducted victim for purpose of killing principal by Indispensable cooperation
Arson - special complex crime - pag hinawakan ang biktima depends
- two kinds: - not for purpose of killing, only after though
- simple arson - separate crime not indispensable
- destructive arson - liable as an accomplice
- People vs Soriano, People vs Macabando (July 31, 2013) New Rule
- SC: Destructive arson is a heinous crime - amendments of heinous crime law Participation:
- simple arson, accused manifest a lesser degree of perversity - if victim is killed in the course of the detention, whether killing was - Principal
- priority destructive arson, if not simple arson purposely sought or merely after though, what is important is death - Accomplice
- 2 properties to consider: resulted in the course of the detention - Accessory
- inhabited house - crime committed is not a separate crime of murder/homicide,
- expressly mentioned in Sec. 3, PD1613 kidnapping Different Rule if there exists conspiracy
- in Art 320, no mention of inhabited house - neither complex crime proper - participation pertain to merely accomplice or accessory but there
- personal property - but punished special complex crime kidnapping with exists conspiracy
- vessel, locomotive, train, ship, airplane, airship murder/homicide - because conspiracy all three of them liable as principal by direct
- transportation conveyance leisure entertainment - exception to the rule participation
- bus not included - cause even if not original design - collective responsibility rule
- People vs Alvarez (28447, September 1928) - what is important death resulted in the course of the detention
- stepson sinunug ang damit knowledge and concurrence
- malicious mischief Elements to apply Mercado Principle (to commit accuse of special community of design
- you will not apply the alvarez prinicple complex crime of kidnapping with murder)
- no such thing as arson of small value - Deprivation of liberty conspiracy as a crime
- repealed provision in rpc - appreciable period of time within which victim was deprived of - art. 9, RPC
- Art. 320 liberty - 3 requisites:
- death results as a consequence of arson - ex. People vs Sacaya (15024, December 31, 1960) - agreement
- higher penalty - abducted, 40 meters away he was killed - decision
- People vs Abayon (204891, September14, 2016) - kidnapping with murder is a crime against liberty - there must be a law prescribing a penalty for conspiracy to
- but only 40 meters away, kidnapping ruled out commit a crime
intent to kill, burn, conceal, with travel - crime committed: murder - rebellion, treason, coup de ta
- if original design it to kill … - intent to deprive liberty
- important that the deprivation of liberty is not just incidental to the conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime
People vs Dacut (168050, September 19, 2009) implementation of the criminal intention - 3 requisites:
- he burned the building to kill 2 person - Three Instances deprivation of liberty Incidental: (incidental - conspiracy (agreement & decision)
- murder transportation absorbed by murder) - crime agreed upon has been committed
- deprivation arising from transporting victim from place to another - perform an act in furtherance of conspiracy
People vs Sidiño to look for place to kill, rob, rape - to apply the collective responsibility rule it is important that he
- separate - deprivation arises from accused trying to prevent police from perform his part, an act in furtherance of the conspiracy
catching them - exception: Master Mind
Original design to commit robbery - prolonged implementation of the design to kill, rob, rape - principal by inducement
robbery with homicide - even if wasn’t at the crime nor perform an act
- homicide is generic Estafa through false pretense
- includes murder, parricide, etc. - intent to damage not enough, actual damage necessary in estafa Conspiracy
- aggravating circumstance - as opposed to theft were actual gain not necessary, intent to gain - considered part of the preparatory stage
- by means of fire enough
Preparatory act as a rule not punishable
burned building not kill but to facilitate robbery and afford immunity Conspiracy - cause do not show the specific intention required to be liable for that
original design to commit robbery - anterior crime
accident someone died - agreement and decision must happen prior to the commission of - exception: when law penalizes mere conspiracy
- robbery with homicide the crime
- People vs Mangulabnan (September 28, 1996) - or immediately before forcible adbuction
- by reason or on occasion of robbery, homicide resulted - conspiracy occurs before commission of the crime - absorbs attempted rape
 - ex. 2014 BQ People vs Roxas
if the abduction is executed with lewd designs - pumasok sa bahay bukas ang pintuan, tapos biglaang - kinidnap mo yung tao with the car
- People vs Jose (February 6, 1971) aksidente pumutok ang baril, may namatay sa kabilang bahay - kidnapping and car napping separate crime
- victim: well known actress - hostage mga bahay, hinabol ng pulis na huli
- 1st determine if there’s a robbery involved Puno
Doctrine of Absorption - **Even if initial taking walang violence or intimidation, but to Moreno
- primary crime will absorb the secondary crime maintain possession employed violence or intimidation, it is still Astor
robbery Salvilla
how to know if indispensable:
- 1st standard: appreciable distance, becomes necessary (complex People vs Concepcion (200922, July 18, 2012) Absorption
crime) - snatchers - if the crime committed is a special complex crime, and there are
- no appreciable distance between place of rape and forcible - driver and mag snatch other crimes committed
abduction as indispensable means to commit rape (absorb) - 2 condition to apply: - GR: apply doctrine of absorption
- sobrang gigil na - snatching was not committed by means of violence intimidation
- victim that was killed was a co-robber Multiple homicide / Multiple rape
Abduction with intent to deprive liberty - considered single special complex crime regardless of the number
- rape is just an after thought People vs Comigue (18205, July 27, 2009) of years
- Case: (186417, July 27, 2011) - committed robbery then thereafter reported to police
- In kidnapping with rape - one of the police killed People vs Regala
- at time of abduction there is no lewd design, intention only to - SC: not robbery with homicide, no direct connection - the aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 is exclusive
abduct - Direct connect / intimate relationship is a special element of special - as opposed to Art. 13 where it allows similar or analogous mitigating
- not to be confused with the lewd design at the time of rape (lewd complex crime circumstance
design inherent in rape) - condition: - no such provision in Art. 14 for similar/analogous circumstance
- what is important, lewd design at the time of abduction - at the time of the killing, the robbery has been fully consummated
- forcible abduction - separate crime, robbery and direct assault People vs Larañaga
- complex clime of rape with forcible abduction - 2015 BQ - rape not an aggravating circumstance
- went inside building, bukos ang pintuan - it is a component of the special complex crime of kidnapping with
how to know existence of lewd design at time of abduction? homicide
Rape - rape only considered aggravating circumstance when victim is raped
Doctrine of Absorption while dying
- People vs Puno (February) People vs Abanilla - considered ignominy
- GR
How can you distinguish acts of lasciviousness from attempted rape Robbery by using force upon things
Salvilia Standard to know whether there is intent to have sexual intercourse - breaking property to enter
- apply if same facts or not - not to escape (theft only if no breaking to enter)
- People vs Bransuella (Decemebr 11, 2013)
- Robbery may namatay - mere touching of breasts, does not show intent to penetrate Habitable
- technique - there must be a showing that accused is trying to penetrate - human activities possible
- robbery with homicide yan - Cruz (October 2014)
- except: the following cases - in the absence of showing that the penis of the accused was uninhabited building
erectile and in the position to penetrate - what is building
Jaranilla (28547, February 22, 1974) - must be habitable
- delito continuado robbery with homicide vs attempted robbery with homicide
- special complex crime of robbery with homicide under art 294…, - death results, whomever is the killer (robbery with homicide) what is force?
robbery by force and violence or intimidation - must be the one who did both the attempted robbery and homicide
- cannot use special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Fernandez
Art. 294 Efficient intervening cause rule - actual breaking
- because what is involved here is robbery by using force upon things
- separate crime proximate cause rule Mallari
- 2 requisites to apply Jaranilla principle: - breaking the padlock
- taking must not be by violence or intimidation car napping always a separate crime - the padlock is part of the door
- People vs Peladio(L-6177, May 24, 1977) - SC Decision
- malayo na sila napatay ang police - People vs Dela Cruz (174658) Breaking the window
- in Jaranilla taken was not through violence intimidation - usually one theft regardless of number of properties taken - as an ordinary aggravating circumstance
- in this case, taken through violence or intimidation - here, pera and tricycle - entry not an important element
- special complex crime - SC: robbery with homicide, car napping - as a qualifying circumstance under Robbery
- considerable distance between place of taking and place where - car napping is a separate crime
victim is killed People vs Zaranilla
- broke window, got the wallet - 1. in robbery with homicide, important that original design is - at the first time committing, he had no foreknowledge that he
- technically didn’t enter to rob, but in kidnapping with homicide, it does not matter what the would commit it again or replicate it
- crime isn’t robbery by using force upon things original design was (regardless of intent)
- it is theft - 2. victim of homicide must be the one kidnapped, as Estafa vs Syndicated Estafa
- breaking the window as aggravating circumstance opposed to robbery with homicide where it doesn’t matter who died
- considered aggravating circumstance so long as attended the - 3. illegal recruitment, estafa
commission of a crime - 4. kidnapping with murder is possible - no double jeopardy
- Carnapping
Intended - People vs Garcia single criminal impulse rule (to obey the order of the commander)
- concept of carnapping is same of that as theft and robbery, - because of the impossibility to determine the number of deaths
must take the aparador outside with the intention of breaking to take whatever principle applicable in theft and robbery is applicable attributable to each accused
the contents - three peculiar principles:
- exception to People vs Valenzuela where taking is necessary - 1. victim must be the same single criminal purpose
- in robbery by using force upon things - 2. independent and separate crime - Abella Case
- what you’re stealing is the inside the poroperty - 3. special law did not adopt the technical nomenclature of
- force upon building the RPC Mutually exclusive remedies
- actual or constructive - even if syndicated/organized crime group is alleged in - appeal
- force upon aparador the information, it cannot be considered as a special aggravating - probation
- actual or intended circumstance for carnapping
Granting of probation
US vs Macamay Collective Responsibility - judicial
- theft - Band
- possession of picklocks - at least four armed men Denial of application for probation
- an ordinary aggravating circumstance - not appealable
Robbery with Homicide - or special aggravating circumstance if the crime committed is - only remedy: Certiorari - GAD
- apply doctrine of absorption robbery (robbery by band)
- exception: you cannot consider when what is involved is Granting of parole and pardon
disregard of dwelling robbery with homicide, rape, … - executive
- band is only a ordinary aggravating circumstance
Treachery - Band for the purpose of applying collective responsibility When can you apply for probation?
- GR: considered only in crimes against against persons - do not be confused with conspiracy - GR:
- Exception: People vs Baron, People vs Escote - 2 requisites: - Exception:
- may be appreciated when what it involved is special complex - 1. accused must be present and has the opportunity to prevent - CICL
crime of robbery with homicide the killing or the rape
- not considered as qualifying circumstance - 2. despite of the opportunity to commit the rape, members of the Probation
- considered as ordinary aggravating circumstance band failed to perform an act to prevent it - suspension of the sentence
- Exception to the exception:
- special complex crime of kidnapping with murder People vs Caballero Pardon
- phraseology of 294 different from 267 - there is conspiracy to kill Pedro -
- Qualified piracy - Juan did not agree to kill Pedro
- “accompanied by homicide, murder, or rape” RA9165 and Probation
Delito continuado
Pag special complex crime - single criminal impulse previous crime and parole
- use the Uniform Rule - several acts - no problem
- what is the uniform rule?
- a principle applicable to a specific special complex crime can Foreknowledge principle Accessory follows the principal
be applied to all special complex crime - most of the occasion, issue in delito continuado, several acts in one
- June 8, 2011 Peralta Case single occasion Amnesty vs Pardon
- kidnapping with rape, robbery with rape is a special - what if there’s a time interval in the replication of the act - People vs Patriarca
complex crime - foreknowledge principle is applied to check single criminal impulse - extinguishes criminal liability, penalty, all its effects, the crime itself
- therefore the principles in robbery with rape can be used - without for knowledge, no single criminal impulse - it is as if he did not commit any crime at all
in kidnapping with rape - amnesty looks backward (“amnesia”)
- but there are 2 crimes, with different rules Case - pardon looks forward
- Exception to Uniform Rule: - palay deposited in the warehouse
- Kidnapping - warehouseman committed theft Conditions to an Amnesty
- can still be applied, the uniform rule - next year stole again - Inherent
- but there are four distinct rules that can only be applied in - delito continuado? - Expressed
kidnapping - No - People vs Vera (18184, January 31, 1960)
 - SC: admission of guilt is a condition to avail of the benefits of - ex. case: in theft, there is no contract involved so you cannot
amnesty consider novation as a defense because there is no contract novated
to speak of
when criminal extinction happens? - 2. novation must happen prior to the misappropriation
- not immediately - 3.
- presidential proclamation needs concurrence of congress
- there is a need for determination whether accused has complied
with its conditions exempting and justifying circumstance
- case - present at the commission of the crime (during)
- there are 3 stages of an amnesty
- issuance of an amnesty proclamation by the president mode of extinguishing criminal liability
- concurrence of congress to the amnesty proclamation - after commission of the crime
- implementing stage: determination if the condition was
complied with Estafa
- administrative determination - deceit/misappropriation, actual damage
- judicial determination - juridical possession
- a concept incompatible with taking without consent
Mode of Extinguishing Criminal Liability
- GR: exclusively listed in Art 89
- Exception:
- final discharge of probation
- decriminalization
- marriage (Art. 344, RPC)
- no longer because of Art. 89 in re 344
- now because of Art. 266-d

Re-election?
- not listed under Art. 89 as a mode of extinguishing criminal
responsibility
- happens after consummation of the crime
- Rule: anything that happens after consummation of he crime is
not a defense
- unless: law says so

Morales vs CA
- Condonation Doctrine

Vergara
- prospective application of the repeal of condonation doctrine

Novation as not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability

mode of preventing criminal liability