100% found this document useful (1 vote)
535 viewsModule No. 2 - CLJ 2
Uploaded by
randyblanza2014Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
535 viewsModule No. 2 - CLJ 2
Uploaded by
randyblanza2014Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 10
LVS. CULPABLE FELONIES
is | Not malicious.
injury caused ss
unintentional, being just an
incident of another act
performed without malice.
‘Wrongful act results from
‘an | imprudence, negligence,
| tack of foresight, or tack of
| skit
==
to the Stages of Their Execution
6, they are classified as:
red,
ed
mated
classification of stages of a felony in
fs true only to crimes under the Revised
‘Code. It does NOT apply to crimes
sunder special laws.
E even certain crimes which are
under the Revised Penal Code do not
these stages.
this, classification of felonies as to:
Grimes: Crimes which are
ymated in one instance;a single act
fhe accused consummates the offense
= matter of law (i.e. physical injuries,
Jf lasciviousness, coercion, slander)
Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under
An.23
Mere demanding of an amount
Gifferent from what the law authorizes
phim to collect will already consummate
‘crime, whether the taxpayer pays the
‘amount being demanded or not.
Oy
@
@)
@
0
@
Material Felonies: crimes that have various
stages of execution
Felonies by omission: Crimes which have no
attempted stage.
Grimes which have NO FRUSTRATED
STAGE: the essence of the crime is the act
itself.
Rape ~ the slightest penetration already
consummates the crime
‘Arson - the slightest burning already
renders the crime complete.
‘Theft - “free disposition of the items stolen”
is not in any way determinative of whether
the crime of theft has been produced.
[Valuenzuela vs. People (2007)]
‘According to Their Gravity
Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as:
() Grave fetonies - those to which the taw
attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive;
+ Reclusion perpetua
+ Reclusion temporal
+ Perpetual or Absolute DQ
+ Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
* Prision mayor
‘+ Fine more than P6,000
Less grave felonies ~ those which the
law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period is correctional,
+ Prision correccionat
© Arresto mayor
* Suspension
* Destierro
«Fines equal to or more than P200
Light felonies ~ those infractions of law for the
‘commission of which
the penalty is arresto menor, or a fine not
exceeding P200, or both. General Rule: Light felonies are punishable
coniy when they have been consummated
Reason: They produce light, insignificant moral,
‘and material injuries that public conscience is
satisfied with providing a light penalty for their
‘consummation.
Exception: If committed against persons or
property, punishable even if attempted or
frustrated.
Light felonies under RPC:
(() ‘Slight physical injuries
(2) Theft when the value of the thing stolen is
less than 5 pesos and theft is committed
under the circumstances enumerated
under Art. 308 par. 3
{) Alteration of boundary marks
(4) Malicious mischief when the value of the
damage does not exceed two hundred
pesos or cannot be estimated
(5) Intriguing against honor.
For light fetonies, the only ones who can be
held liable are the principals and accomplices.
Why is it necessary to determine whether the
crime Is grave, tess grave or ight?
To determine
© whether these felonies can be complexed or
not;
«* the prescription of the crime and
+ the prescription of the penalty.
In other words, these are felonies classified
according to their gravity, stages and the
penalty attached to them.
Take note that when the Revised Penal Code
speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the
definition makes a reference specifically to Art.
25 of the Revised Penal Code.
Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Art.
25" because there Is also a classification of
penalties under Art. 26 that was not applied.
%
‘This classification of felony according to gravity
is important with respect to the question of
prescription of crimes.
If the penalty is a fine and exactly P200.00, it
is only considered a light felony under Art. 9. If
the fine is imposed as an altsmative penalty or
‘as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is
considered a correctional penalty under Art. 26,
hence a less grave penalty.
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. 26
(with respect to prescription of penalties). Wt is.
considered as a correctional penalty and it
prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is
apprehended at any time within ten years, he
can be made to suffer the fine.
‘Asto Count
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
(a) Compound Crime,
(b) Complex crime; and
{) Composite crime.
Asto Nature
(a) Mala in se
{b) Mala prohibita
B, ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Elements of Felonies (Art. 3, RPC]
There must be an act or omission (actus
reus/physical act)
‘Act: Any kind of body movement which tends
to produce some effect in the external wortd;
includes possession.
‘Omission: The failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do under the law.
‘That the act or omission must be punishable by
the RPC. that there is a law requiring the
of an act; if there is no positive
sno Uabiity The intention to do] The intention to
something wrong. | commit a" defnite |
2ct is performed or the omission ce
Ss ccnerns Presumed from the | Existence snot
mere doing of a | presumed.
‘omission must be voluntary wrong act__
The burden 1s upon | Since the specie
the wrongdoer to | intent is an element
Prove that he acted | of the crime, the
without such | burden 1s upon the
criminalintent. . | prosecution to
establish its
existence
@) Giiminal intent
iiates heck ctr (@) The purpose to use a particular means
‘Or incurred with deliberate intent toceffect a result. i
pence occn (b) The intent to commit an act with
malice, being purely 2 mental state is
presumed (but only ifthe act committed
‘s unlawful). Such presumption arises
a aE from the proof of commission of an
Bebo commits the act or omission. unlawful act.
there is tack of freedom, the offender (2) However, in some crimes, intent cannot
BS exempt from liability (Le, presence be presumed as an integral element
limesistible force or uncontrollable {hereof soithas to be proven.
(2) Example: In frustrated homicide,
Specific intent to kill is not presumed
but must be proven; otherwise it is
‘merely physical injuries.
Intent which is a mental process
resupposes the exercise of freedom
te intent otherwise referred to
fintent, and must be coupled with
|9f action and intelligence on the part
‘5 to the act done by him,
ity to know and understand the
fences of one's act.
ower is necessary to determine
Be morality of human acts, the lack of end the use of intemijence
Bdacis to név-extsteie orb ina If an act is proven to be unlawful, then
; intent will be presumed prima facie.
‘there is lack of intelligence, the neyo
‘An honest mistake of fact destroys the
Presumption of criminal intent which
arises from the commission of a
felonious act. [People v. Canis)
‘Mens rea: "A guilty mind, a guilty or
wrongful purpose or criminal intent."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sth ed,, p.
889)
is exempt from tability.(ie.,
“Sfiender is an imbecile, insane or under
gyears of age) Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is
no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no
intentional felony. [Visbal vs. Buban (2003)
Exception to the requirement of criminal intent:
(Felonies committed by CULPA
(2) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA
CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL INTENT
(GENERAL VS. SPECIFIC INTENT)
‘» The general criminal intent is presumed from
the criminal act; the absence of any general
intent is relied upon as a defense; such
absence must be proved by the accused.
‘= Generally, @ specific intent is _not
presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact,
must be proved by the State just as any other
‘essential element.
'* This may be shown, however, by the nature
of the act, the circumstances under which it
was committed, the means employed and
the motive of the accused
+ In some particular felonies, proof of specific
intent is required.
‘* In certain crimes against property, there
‘must be intent to gain (Art. 293 ~ robbery,
Art 308 ~ theft).
‘Intent to kill is essential in attempted and
frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to Art
249), as well as in murder.
In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific
intent of lewd designs must be proved.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN
DISCERNMENT AND MOTIVE
INTENT,
Intent - is the determination to do a certain
thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It
establishes the nature and extent of culpability
inintentional felonies.
‘The purpose to use a particularmeans to effect
a definite result. (Reyes)
Discemment ~ is the mental capacity to tell
right from wrong, It is integral to the element
of intelligence, NOT intent.
Motive - it is the moving power which impels
fone to do an act for a definite result (ex.
vengeance). Generally, it is not an essentiat
element of a crime; hence, it need not be
proved for purposes of conviction (except in
certain cases enumerated below).
How motive is proved
Generally, the motive is established by the
testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or
immediately after the commission of the
offense, deeds, or words that may express it or
from which his motive or reascn for committing
it may be inferred. [Barrioquinto v. Femandez
(1949)]
‘When Motive Becomes Material in Determining
(Criminal Liabluty
() When the act brings about variant
crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery
[People v. Puno (1993}))
(2) When there is doubt as to the identity
of the assailant.
(3) When there is the need to ascertain the
truth between two antagonist
versions of the crime.
(4) When the identification of the accused
proceeds from an unreliable source
‘and the testimony is inconclusive and
not free from doubt.
(5) When there are no eyewitnesses to the
crime, and when suspicion is likely to
{all upon a number of persons.
(6) When the evidence on the commission
of the crime is purely circumstantial.
‘+ Lack of motive can aid in achieving
acquittal of the accused, especially where there is doubt as to the
Identity of the accused. [People v.
Hassan (1988)
Proof of motive is not
indispensable for a conviction,
particularly where the accused is
positively identified by an
‘eyewitness and his participation is
adequately established. [People v.
Delos Santos}
the act is alleged to be
ted in defense of a stranger
it must not be induced by
2, Fesentment, or other evil
iment does not indicate the
intent, merely intelligence [People v.
0993)]. Thus, discernment is
her the crime is dolo or culpa.
ACT DIFFERENT FROM
DED
Griminal ability shall be incurred:
committing a felony (detito)
‘the wrongful act done be different
bwhich he intended. 100.00. 0%
‘commits a fetony with matice,
the consequences of his felonious
‘commits an intentional felony is
for all the consequences which
and logically result therefrom,
n or intended or not.
relieved from criminal lability for
consequences of one’s illegal acts,
Because one does not intend to
Such consequences. [US v. Brobst
Rationale: e! que es causa de la causa es causa
‘del mal causado (he who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused),
Requisites:
(1) An intentional felony has been
committed.
(2) The felony committed should be
‘one committed by means of dolo
(with malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1
speaks of wrongful act done
different from that which he
intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by
a special law because the offender
violating a speciat law may not
have the intent to do an injury to
another.
(©) No felony is committed when:
() the act or omission is not
punishable by the RPC,
(ii) the act is covered by any of
the justifying circumstances
‘enumerated in Art. 1.
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party
be the direct, natural and logical
‘consequence of the felony committed by
the offender.
The relation of cause and effect must
be shown:
@ Unlawful act is the efficient
cause
b. Accelerating cause
@) Proximate cause
Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury without which the result would not have
occurred.
‘The proximate legal cause is that acting first
‘and producing the injury, either immediately or
by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of ‘events, each having a close causal connection
with its immediate predecessor, the final event
in the chain immediately effecting the injury as
a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances,
that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent
Person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an injury
to some person might probably result
therefrom. (Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957)]
Note: Criminal liability exists from the
concurrence of the mens reo and the actus reus.
Criminal liability for some felonies arises only
upon a specific resulting harm:
* Homicide and its qualified forms
requires DEATH of the victim to be
consummated.
‘© Estafa: requires that the victim incur
damage for criminal lability for the
consummated felony to arise.
General rule: The offender is CRIMINALLY
UABLE for ALL the natural and logical
consequences of his felonious act, although
not intended, if the felonious act is the
proximate cause of the resulting harm,
‘Any person who creates in another person's
mind an immediate sense of danger which
causes the latter to do something resulting in
the latter's injuries, is lable for the resulting
injuries. [People v. Page citing People v.
Toting}
Thus, the person is still criminally Gable
although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended in the following
cases:
(1) Errorin personae - mistake in the identity of
the victim; injuring one person mistaken
16
for another (Art. 49 ~ penalty for lesser
crime in its maximum period)
(a) At east two subjects
{b) Ahasintent to kill B, but kills C
(0) Under Art. 3, if A hitsC, he should have
‘no criminal ability. But because of Art.
4, his act's a felony.
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when
offender intending to de an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another (Art.
48 on complex crimes ~ penalty for graver
offense in its maximum period)
(3) Theres only one subject.
(4) The intended subject is a different subject,
but the felony is still the same.
(5) Procter intentionem - injurious result is
greater than that intended (Art. 13 -
mitigating circumstance)
(6) If A’s act constitutes sufficient means to
carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim
raeter intentionem.
When death is presumed to be the natural
‘consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
© That the victim at the time the physical
injuries were inflicted was in normal health.
+ That death may be expected from the
physical injuries infcted; and
+ That death ensued within a reasonable
time. [People v. Datu Baginda]
PROXIMATE CAUSE V.
CAUSE V. REMOTE CAUSE
IMMEDIATE
Proximate cause ~ see definition above.
Immediate cause ~ The last event in a chain of
events, though not necessarily the proximate
cause of what follows.
Remote cause - A cause that does not
necessarily or immediately produce an event or
injury. ‘an efficient intervening cause or an
force that intervened between the
‘committed and the resulting injury,
active force is a distinct act or fact
foreign from the felonious act of
sor
resulting injury is due to the
act of the victim,
‘are not efficent intervening
The weak or diseased physical
