BOOK I | REVISED PENAL CODE

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal law is that branch of law, which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.

THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Classical theory – The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution. It is endeavoured to establish a
mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty, and there is
scant regard to the human element. NOTE: The RPC is generally governed by
this theory.

2. Positivist theory – The basis of criminal liability is the sum of the social,
natural and economic phenomena to which the actor is exposed. The
purposes of penalty are prevention and correction. This theory is exemplified
in the provisions regarding impossible crimes (RPC, Art. 4), the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty (RPC, Art. 13, par 7),
and habitual delinquency [RPC, Art. 62(5]).

3. Eclectic or Mixed theory – It is a combination of positivist and classical

thinking wherein crimes that are economic and social in nature should be
dealt in a positive manner, thus, the law is more compassionate. Ideally, the
classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made
to work on economic and social crimes.

4. Utilitarian or Protective theory – The primary purpose of punishment under

criminal law is the protection of society from actual and potential
wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged
society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers since
criminal law is directed against acts or omissions which the society does not
approve. Consistent with this theory is the mala prohibita principle which
punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent.

EQUIPOISE RULE

Where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional

presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused. Under this
rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt
on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of
proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and
does not suffice to produce a conviction (Maria Tin vs. People, G.R. No.
126480, August 10, 2001

LEGAL BASIS FOR INFLICTING PUNISHMENT

The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power
of the State. It is the injury inflicted to the public which a criminal action
seeks to redress, and not the injury to the individual.

1|Page
 SOURCES OF CRIMINAL OR PENAL LAWS

1. The Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Act No. 3815) and its amendments;
2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine
Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Batasang
Pambansa, and Congress of the Philippines;
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law by President Marcos;
and
4. Penal Executive Orders issued during President Corazon Aquino’s term.
5. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and Spain
6. Codigo Penal of Spain
7. Various penal ordinaces passed by local legislative bodies

NOTE: There are no common law crimes in the Philippines (Reyes, 2017), as
embodied in the latin maxim Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

(Article III, Sec 22, 1987 Constitution)

1. Expost Facto Law -The Congress cannot make an ex post facto law
(Article III, Sec 22, 1987 Constitution). This limitation prohibits the
passage of retroactive laws which are prejudicial to the accused.

2. The Congress cannot make a bill of attainder (Article III, Sec 22, 1987
Constitution). This limitation requires that criminal laws must be of
general application and must clearly define the acts and omissions
punished as crimes.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime when there is no
law punishing the same) – No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is,
if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.

2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act cannot be criminal where the
mind is not criminal) – This is true to a felony characterized by dolo
(deceit), but not to a felony resulting from culpa (fault).

3. Doctrine of Pro Reo – Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied

and the law admits of two interpretations, one lenient to the offender and
one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or favorable
to the offender will be adopted.

4. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my
will is not my act) – Whenever a person is under a compulsion of
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to do an act against his will, in
which that act produces a crime or offense, such person is exempted in
any criminal liability arising from said act.

CRIME

A crime is the generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either

under the RPC or under a special law.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CRIME

1. As to the manner or mode of execution (RPC, Art. 3)

a. Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate intent

b. Culpa or those committed by means of fault

2|Page
 2. As to the stage of execution (RPC, Art. 6)

a. Consummated
b. Frustrated
c. Attempted

3. As to gravity (RPC, Art. 9)

a. Light felonies
b. Less grave felonies
c. Grave felonies

4. As to nature

a. Mala in se
b. Mala prohibita

5. As to count

a. Compound
b. Composite or special complex
c. Complex, under Art. 48 of the RPC
d. Continued

6. As to division

a. Formal felonies – those which are always consummated (e.g. physical

injuries).
b. Material felonies – those which have various stages of execution.
c. Those which do not admit of the frustratedstage (e.g. rape and theft).

SPECIAL LAW

It is a penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the RPC. They
are statutes enacted by the Legislative branch, penal in character, which are not
amendments to the RPC.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

MALA IN SE

- There must be a criminal intent.

- Wrong from its very nature.
- Generally punished under the RPC. (Note of the Exceptions)
- Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are appreciated in imposing the
penalties.
- (a) Good faith (b) lack of criminal intent; or (c) negligence are valid
defenses.
- Criminal liability is incurred even when the crime is attempted or
frustrated.
- Penalty is computed on the basis of whether he is a principal offender, or
merely an accomplice or accessory.

MALA PROHIBITA

- Sufficient that the prohibited act was done. Criminal intent is not
necessary.
- Wrong merely because it is prohibited by statute.
- Generally involves violation of special laws.
NOTE: Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. Even if the
crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is
inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and
the lack of criminal intent are valid defenses unless they are the products
of criminal negligence or culpa
3|Page
 - Such circumstances are not appreciated unless the special law has
adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the RPC.
- (a) Good faith or (b) lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses; it is
enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated.
- Criminal liability is generally incurred only when the crime is
consummated.
- The penalty of the offender is the same as they are all deemed principals.

NOTE: The crime of technical malversation, punished under Art. 220 of the
RPC, was held to be a crime that is malum prohibitum. The law punishes the
act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular
public purpose for another public purpose. The prohibited act is not inherently
immoral, but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its
commission on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience.
Therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses (Ysidoro
v. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012).

Violations of Special Laws which are considered Mala in se

The following examples of violations under special penal laws are considered mala
in se:

1. Piracy in Philippine waters (PD No. 532)

2. Brigandage in the highways (PD No. 532)
3. Plunder (RA 7080)

NOTE: Likewise, when the special laws require that the punished act be
committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved
before criminal liability may arise. Effect on the nature of the crime when
covered by special law and it uses the nomenclature of penalties in the RPC
Even if a special law uses the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, that
alone will not make the act or omission a crime mala in se. The special law may
only intend for the Code to apply as supplementary to the special law (People v.
Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994).

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

When the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation but
only for the application of the law. However, if there is ambiguity:

1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of
the accused.
2. In the interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, the Spanish text is
controlling.

APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE PENAL CODE

Three Cardinal Features or Main Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law

1. Generality

GR: Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory
upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles
of international law and to treaty stipulations. (Article 14, Civil Code of the
Philippines)

XPNs:

a. Treaty stipulations and international agreements, e.g. RP-US Visiting

Forces Accord.
b. Laws of Preferential Application, e.g. RA 75 penalizes acts which would
impair the proper observance by the Republic and its inhabitants of the
immunities, rights, and privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines.
c. The principles of public international law.

4|Page
 d. Members of the Congress are not liable for libel or slander in connection
with any speech delivered on the floor of the house during a regular or
special session (1987 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 11).
e. Public vessels of foreign friendly power.
f. Members of foreign country stationed in the Philippines with its consent.

Examples:

i. Sovereigns and other Chiefs of States.

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

NOTE: Only the heads of the diplomatic missions, as well as members of the
diplomatic staff, excluding the members of administrative, technical and
service staff, are accorded diplomatic rank.

A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or

minister Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial representatives of
foreign nation are NOT diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the penal
laws of the country where they are assigned (Minucher v. CA, G.R. No.
142396, February 11, 2003).

2. Territoriality

GR: The penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its
territory.

XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC

1. Should commit and offense while on a Philippine ship or airship (fact of

registration is in the Philippines);
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands(Art. 163 & 166);
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations (Art. 114-123).

Extraterritoriality it means the law will have application even outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the state.

X went to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City and

boarded an airship of the Philippine Airlines destined for the U.S. As the
airship passes the Pacific Ocean, X killed Y, a fellow passenger. Which
court can try the case of murder committed by X, is it the Philippine
Courts or the U.S. Courts?

Answer: The Philippine Courts. Art. 2 of RPC provides that its provisions
shall be applied to those who “should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship.” (Gapit, 2013)

3. Prospectivity/Irretrospectivity

GR: Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be scrutinized in accordance

with the relevant penal laws if these are committed after the effectivity of
those penal laws.

The law enforced at the time of the commission of a certain crime should be
applied. Article 366 provides that crimes are punished in accordance with
the law in force at the time of their commission. (Gapit, 2013)

NOTE: Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit means the law looks forward, never
backward.

5|Page
 XPN: Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
persons guilty of a felony, although at the time of the publication of such
laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the
same (RPC, Art. 22).

XPNs to the XPN: The new law cannot be given retroactive effect even if
favorable to the accused:

a. When the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending

actions or existing causes of actions (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922,
November 8, 1902).
b. When the offender is a habitual delinquent as defined in Rule 5 in
Art. 62 of RPC(RPC, Art. 22).

RULE AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN

MERCHANT VESSELS

FRENCH RULE

GR: Matters happening on board a merchant vessel while in the territorial

waters of another country are justiciable only by the courts of the country to
which the vessel belongs.

XPN: unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory
or the safety of the state is endangered.

ENGLISH RULE

GR: Matters happening on board a merchant vessel are justiciable only by

the courts of the country where the merchant vessel is (territorial)

XPN: unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the
internal management thereof

NOTE: The Philippines observe the English Rule

CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES

FELONIES

Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.

NOTE: If it is not punished under the RPC, it is called an offense.

ACT AS CONTEMPLATED IN CRIMINAL LAW

An act refers to any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as
the possibility of its production is sufficient (Reyes, 2012).

OMISSION AS CONTEMPLATED IN CRIMINAL LAW

An omission contemplated in criminal law means inaction; the failure to

perform a positive duty which one is boundto do. There must be a law
requiring the doing or performance of a duty.(Reyes, 2017)

Examples: Misprision of treason, failure of an accountable officer to render

accounts

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

1. An act or omission;
2. Punishable by the Revised Penal Code;

6|Page
 3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault
(People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990).

KINDS OF FELONIES

1. Intentional felonies (Dolo) – committed with deliberate intent to cause

injury to another (with malice)

2. Culpable felonies (Culpa) – where the wrongful acts result from

imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill(unintentional,
without malice)

INTENTIONAL FELONY VIS-À-VIS NEGLIGENT FELONY

DOLO

- Act is malicious.
- With deliberate intent.
- Has intention to cause a wrong.

REQUISITES OF DOLO

If any of the following requisites is absent, there is no dolo.

1. Criminal intent (mens rea) – the purpose to use a particular means to effect
such result. Intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental
process, is presumed from the proof of commission of an unlawful act. A
mental state, hence, its existence is shown by overt acts.

NOTE: If there is NO criminal intent, the act is justified. Offender incurs NO

criminal liability.

2. Freedom of action – voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the

act or omission.

NOTE: If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability.

3. Intelligence – means the capacity to know and understand the

consequences and morality of human acts.

NOTE: If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability.

CULPA

- Not malicious
- Injury caused is unintentional, it being an incident of another act
performed without malice.
- Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or
lack of skill.

REQUISITES OF CULPA

1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender, that is, the crime was the
result of negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;
2. Freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is, he was not acting
under duress;
3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Negligence (Deficiency of Action/Lack of Foresight)

Negligence means deficiency in perception or lack of foresight, or failure to pay

proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing injury or damage to be
caused.

7|Page
Imprudence (Deficiency of perception/ Lack of skill)

Imprudence means a deficiency in action or lack of skill, or failure to take

necessary precaution to avoid injury to another.

Crimes which cannot be committed through culpa (negligence or imprudence)

1. Murder
2. Treason
3. Robbery
4. Malicious mischief

Mens rea

It is the criminal intent or evil mind. In general, the definition of a criminal

offense involves not only an act or omission and its consequences but also the
accompanying mental state of the actor.

Examples:

1. In theft, the mens rea is the taking of property belonging to another with intent to
gain.
2. In falsification, the mens rea is the commission of forgery with intent to pervert the
truth.
3. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of property belonging to another coupled with
the employment of intimidation or violence upon persons or things.

Intent

- Refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired result. It is a

mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a
person.
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
- Generally, it is an essential element of a crime.

Crime may be committed without criminal intent

A crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is:
1. A negligent felony, wherein intent is substituted by negligence or
imprudence
2. A malum prohibitum.

Motive

- It is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired result.

- Motive as determinant of criminal liability
- It is NOT an essential element of a crime. Hence, it need NOT be proved for
purposes of conviction.

GR: Motive is not an element of a crime and becomes immaterial in the

determination of criminal liability.

XPNs: Motive is material when:

1. The acts bring about variant crimes; E.g. There is a need to determine
whether direct assault is present, as in offenses against person in
authority when the assault is committed while not being in the
performance of his duties;
2. The identity of the accused is doubtful;
3. The evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial;
4. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions
of the killing; and
5. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is
likely to fall upon a number of persons.

NOTE: Good faith is not a defense to the prosecution of a malum prohibitum.

8|Page
ART. 9, RPC || CLASSIFICATIONS OF FELONIES

Importance of classifying the felonies as to their severity

To determine:

1. Whether these felonies can be complexed or not (Art. 48, RPC);

2. The prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty (Art.
90, RPC);
3. Whether the accessory is liable (Art. 16, RPC);
4. The duration of the subsidiary penalty [Art. 39(2), RPC];
5. The duration of the detention in case of failure to post the bond to
keep the peace (Art. 35); and
6. The proper penalty for quasi-offenses (Art. 365, par. 1, RPC).

Classifications of felonies according to their gravity

1. Grave – those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the
RPC (RPC, Art. 9, par. 1).

2. Less grave – those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC (Art.
9, par. 2, RPC).

NOTE: The criminal can still be rehabilitated and hence can be the subject of
probation and Alternative Dispute Resolution insofar as the civil aspect is
concerned.

3. Light – those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided (RPC
,Art. 9, par. 3,).

Factors to be considered in imposing a penalty for felonies punished under

RPC
1. Stages of execution;
2. The degree of participation; and
3. The presence of attending circumstances.

NOTE: For special penal laws, it must be expressly provided that the
aforementioned factors are to be considered.

Persons liable for grave or less grave felonies

 The principals, accomplices and accessories.

When light felonies are punishable

GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated.

Example: An attempt to conceal one’s true name under the 2nd par. of Art.
178 is not punishable. Also, an attempt to commit Alarms and Scandals (Art.
155, RPC).

RATIO: It involves insignificant moral and material injuries, if not

consummated, the wrong done is so slight that a penalty is
unnecessary (or the de minis principle).

XPN: Article 7 provides that light felonies are punishable in all stages when
committed against persons or property. (Example: A thing stolen with a value
that does not exceed 5 pesos which carries the penalty of arresto menor, may
be the subject of an attempted theft).

NOTE: However, this provision is not always applicable.

9|Page
 Example: If the offender is only an accomplice and there are two or more
mitigating circumstances without any compensating aggravating
circumstance, the appropriate penalty will be two degrees lower. It must be
noted that the penalty lower than arresto menor is public censure. There is
no two degrees lower than arresto menor.

Persons liable in light felonies

Only the principals and their accomplices are made liable for the commission
of light felonies. Accessories are not liable for the commission of light
felonies. (RPC, Art. 19)

Crimes considered as light felonies

1. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266);

2. Theft (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8);
3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313);
4. Malicious mischief (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 3);
5. Intriguing against honor (364); and
6. Alarms and Scandals.

NOTE: If one assists in the escape of another who committed Alarms

and Scandals, he is not liable under RPC but may be liable under PD
1829.

ART. 4, RPC || ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Criminal liability is incurred by any person:

1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended (RPC, Art. 4 par. 1) ; and

2. Performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,

were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (RPC,Art.
4, par. 2).

Requisites of the Proximate Cause Doctrine (RPC, Art 4, par. 1)

1. That an intentional felony has been committed; and

2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender (U.S. v.
Brobst, G.R. No. 4935, October 25, 1909).

When considered as the “direct, natural and logical consequence” of the felonious
act

1. Blow was efficient cause of death;

2. Blow accelerated death; or
3. Blow was proximate cause of death (Reyes, 2017)

Q: In an act to discipline his child, the father claims that the death of his
child was not intended by him. Is his contention correct?

A: NO. He is liable under Art. 4(1) of the RPC. In order that a person may be
criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is
indispensable (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the
perpetrator. In beating his son and inflicting upon him physical injuries, he
committed a felony. As a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child,
he expired. His criminal liability for the death of his son, is thus clear (People v.
Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).

10 | P a g e
CAUSES WHICH MAY PRODUCE A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
THE OFFENDER INTENDED

1. Mistake in identity (error in personae) –The offender intends the injury on

one person but the harm fell on another. In this situation the intended victim
was not at the scene of the crime

Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead.

NOTE: There are only two persons involved: the actual but unintended
victim, and the offender.

EFFECT: Art. 49 of RPC. It depends when the intended crime and the crime
actually committed are punished with different penalties (Reyes, 2017)

 If punished with same penalties: no effect

 GR: If punished with different penalties, the lesser penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period (it becomes a mitigating
circumstance).

2. Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus) – A person directed the blow at an intended

victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In
aberratio ictus, the intended victim and the actual victim are both at the
scene of the crime. (A, shot at B, but because of lack of precision, hit C
instead).

NOTE: There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim,
and the actual victim.

3. Injurious consequences are greater than that intended (praeter

intentionem) – The injury is on the intended victim but the resulting
consequence is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It is essential that
there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the
offender and the felony which resulted.

This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the
offender.

(A, without intent to kill, struck the victim on the back, causing the victim to
fall down and hit his head on the pavement.)

EFFECT: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance particularly

covered by paragraph 3 of Art. 13.

The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional

felony or dolo. These situations do not arise out of criminal negligence.

Aberratio ictus vis-à-vis Error in personae

ABERRATIO ICTUS

- A person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor

aim, that blow landed on somebody else.
- The offender, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are all at the
scene of the crime.

ERROR IN PERSONAE

- The victim actually received the blow, but he was mistaken for another
who was not at the scene of the crime.
- There are only two persons present in error in personae – the actual (not
the intended victim) and the offender.

NOTE: Error in Personae and Aberratio Ictus are NOT valid defenses under the
“Transfer Intent” doctrine: the law transfers the criminal intent to the actual victim.

11 | P a g e
Q: A and B went on a drinking spree. While they were drinking, they had some
argument so A stabbed B several times. A’s defense is that he had no
intention of killing his friend and that he did not intend to commit so grave
a wrong as that committed. Is praeter intentionem properly invoked?

A: NO, praeter intentionem is improperly invoked because it is only mitigating if

there is a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting
felony. The fact that several wounds were inflicted on B is hardly compatible with
the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

MISTAKE OF FACT

Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who
caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not
act with criminal intent. It is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused
believed them to be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender must believe that he
is performing a lawful act.

An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises
upon the commission of a felonious act.

NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felonies.

REQUISITES OF MISTAKE OF FACT

1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful; and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.

Q: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one evening, before going to bed,
he locked himself in his room and placed a chair against the door. After
going to bed, he was awakened by someone who was trying to open the
door. He called out, “Who is there?” twice but received no answer. He then
said, “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” At that moment, he was struck
by the chair. Believing he was being attacked, he took a kitchen knife and
stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Is he criminally
liable?

A: NO. There was mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to
be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11,
paragraph 1; self-defense (U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910)

PROXIMATE CAUSE

Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred(Bataclan v.
Medina, 102 Phil. 181).

As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his
felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate
cause of the felony.

Requisites of proximate cause

1. The direct, natural, and logical cause;

2. Produces the injury or damage;
3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; and
4. Without which the result would not have occurred

12 | P a g e
Difference between proximate cause and immediate cause

Immediate cause may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence
which sets into motion other causes that resulted in the felony.

Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the
body of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of
the offended party the belief that made him risk himself.

If a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which

causes such person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the
man who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries
(People v. Toling, G.R. L-27097, January 17, 1975).

Example: X and Y are crew members of cargo vessel. They had a heated argument. X
with a big knife in hand threatened to kill Y. The victim Y, believing himself to be in
immediate peril, threw himself into the water. Y died of drowning. In this case, X is
liable for homicide for the death of Y.

Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound
inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, the actor is
liable.

It is important that there be no efficient intervening cause.

Instances when the felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury

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

1. There is an efficient intervening cause between the felony committed and

the resulting injury; or
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Efficient Intervening Cause

It is an intervening active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely

foreign from the felonious act of the accused.

Q: Cruz and Villacorta were regular customers at Mendeja’s store. At around

two o’clock in the morning of January 23, 2002, while Cruz was ordering
bread at Mendeja’s store, Villacorta suddenly appeared and, without
uttering a word, stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruz’s body using a
sharpened bamboo stick. When Villacorta fled, Mendeja chased Villacorta
but failed to catch him. When Mendeja returned to her store, she saw Aron
removing the broken bamboo stick from Cruz’s body. Mendeja and Aron
then brought Cruz to Tondo Medical Center and was treated as an
outpatient. Cruz was later brought to the San Lazaro Hospital on February
14, 2002, where he died the following day of tetanus infection secondary
to stab wound. What is the proximate cause for the death of Cruz?

A: The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab
wound. There had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing
and the date when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting
symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus infection
from the stabbing, then the symptoms would have appeared a lot sooner than
22 days later. Cruz’s stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its
subsequent infection with tetanus might have been the proximate cause of
Cruz’s death. The infection of Cruz’s stab wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his
death (People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011)

13 | P a g e
Circumstances which are considered as inefficient intervening causes

1. The weak physical condition of the victim

2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as the victim’s inability to
swim
4. Refusal of the injured party to be subjected to medical attendance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment

NOTE: Although the above-mentioned circumstances may have

intervened in the commission of the crime, the offender is still liable for
the resulting crime because the proximate cause his act remains and
these circumstances are inefficient.

Death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries

inflicted.

The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, when the following facts are established:

1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal
health.
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.

ART. 4(2), RPC || IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Requisites of an impossible crime:

1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property (see list of

crimes under Title 8 and Title 10, Book 2, RPC)
2. Act was done with evil intent;
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or means employed is either
inadequate or ineffectual; and
4. Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of RPC;

NOTE: The offender must believe that he can consummate the

intended crime. A man stabbing another who he knew was already
dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.

NOTE: There is no impossible crime of kidnapping

Essence of an impossible crime

The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of

accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed
to bring about the crime.

Inherent impossibility

Inherent impossibility means that under any and all circumstances, the crime
could not have materialized.

Kinds of inherent impossibility

1. Legal impossibility – occurs where the intended acts, even if completed

would not amount to a crime. (Example: killing a dead person.)

2. Physical impossibility – occurs where extraneous circumstances unknown

to the accused prevent the consummation of the intended crime. (Example:
pick pocketing an empty wallet). Employment of inadequate means It is the
use of means whose quality or quantity is insufficient to produce the
intended felony.

14 | P a g e
Employment of ineffectual means

The means employed cannot in any way produce the intended crime.

Example: poisoning a person with sugar.

Penalty imposed on impossible crimes

The penalty imposed shall be that of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from
200 to 500 pesos.

REASON FOR PENALIZING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

To teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although

objectively, no crime is committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

NOTE: It is a principle of criminal law that the offender will only be

penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under
some other provision of the RPC. An impossible crime is a crime of last
resort.

Q: Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the
intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom,
all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets, thinking that the
intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It
so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening
and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Was it an impossible crime or
attempted murder?

A: The SC held that the culprits are liable only for the so-called impossible crime.
The factual situation in this case presents a physical impossibility which
rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. Under Art. 4 of the
RPC, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime (Intod v. CA, G.R. No.
103119, October 21, 1992). Here however, their acts constitute malicious
mischief.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME A FORMAL CRIME

By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either

consummated or not consummated at all. There is therefore no attempted or
frustrated impossible crime.

ART. 6, RPC || STAGES OF EXECUTION

Stages in committing a crime

1. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of a person, not punishable even if,
had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime

2. External Acts – include (a) preparatory acts and (b) acts of execution

a. Preparatory acts – those that do not have a direct connection with the
crime which the offender intends to commit.

GR: These are ordinarily not punishable XPN: When expressly provided
for or when they are considered in themselves as independent crimes.
(e.g. Possession of picklocks under Art. 304, which is a preparatory act to
the commission of robbery under Arts. 299 and 302).

b. Acts of execution – punishable under the Revised Penal Code

Stages of acts of execution

1. Consummated
2. Frustrated
3. Attempted

15 | P a g e
Purpose of the classification of felonies

To bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.

NOTE: The penalties are graduated according to their degree of

severity. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. There are
felonies which do not admit of division.

Phases of felony

1. Subjective phase – that portion of execution of the crime starting from the
point where the offender begins up to that point where he still has control
over his acts. If the subjective phase has not yet passed, the felony would be
a mere attempt. If it already passed, but the felony is not produced, as a rule,
it is frustrated.(Reyes, 2017)

NOTE: If it reaches the point where he has no more control over his
acts, the subjective phase has passed.

2. Objective phase – the offender has performed until the last act and is no
longer in control of its natural course.

Consummated felony

A felony is consummated when all the acts necessary for its accomplishment
and execution are present (RPC, Art 6)

Frustrated felony

A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a result, but which nevertheless do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
(RPC, Art 6).

Q: X stabbed Y in the abdomen, penetrating the liver and chest of Y. Y was

rushed to the hospital and was given immediate medical treatment. Is X
liable for consummated homicide?

A: NO, because the prompt medical treatment received by the offended party saved
his life (People v. Honrada, G.R. No. 112178-79, April 21, 1995).

Q: Villostas went to a nearby videoke bar to buy cigarettes. Once inside the
bar, he was stabbed by Olarte, Ario and Pasquin on different parts of his
body. When Villostas was rushed to the hospital the he was treated and the
doctor testified that all the injuries suffered by Villostas were fatal and
would cause his death were it not for the timely medical attention given to
him. Is Olarte, Ario, and Pasquin guilty of Frustrated Homicide?

A: Yes. All the elements of frustrated homicide are present. First, their intent to kill
is manifested by the weapon used which is a pointed sharp object. Second, the
victim suffered numerous fatal wounds, but he did not die due to the timely
medical assistance given to him. Third, none of the qualifying circumstances for
murder is present.

Q: A, a doctor, conceived the idea of killing his wife B, and to carry out his
plan, he mixed arsenic with the soup of B. Soon after taking the poisonous
food, A suddenly had a change of heart and washed out the stomach of B. A
also gave B an antidote. Is A liable for frustrated parricide?

A: NO, the cause which prevented the consummation of the crime was not
independent of the will of the perpetrator. It cannot be considered attempted
parricide, because A already performed all acts of execution. A can only be liable
for physical injuries.

16 | P a g e
Q: Jessiriel Leyble was waylaid and shot with a firearms by the group of Eden
Etino et al. ETINO only fired a single shot at close range, but did not hit any
vital part of the victim’s body. The victim's wounds, based on his Medical
Certificate, were located at the right deltoid through and through, and the
left shoulder, and he immediately fled the scene right after the shooting. It
appears that he did not sustain any fatal injury as a result of the shooting,
considering that he and his companions even went in pursuit of petitioner
after the incident. RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of frustrated homicide, to which the CA affirmed.

A: It cannot be reasonably concluded that petitioner's use of a firearm was

sufficient proof that he had intended to kill the victim, After all, it is settled that
''Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact that the use of
firearms is dangerous to life." Rather, "Animus interficendi must be established
with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the
crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of
circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt. When
the intent to kill is lacking, but wounds are shown to have been inflicted upon
the victim, as in this case, the crime is not frustrated or attempted homicide but
physical injuries only. (Etino vs. People,G.R. No. 206632,Feb. 14, 2018)

CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF A FRUSTRATED STAGE

1. Rape – the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, the slightest
penetration to the female organ consummates the felony.
2. Corruption of public officers – mere offer consummates the crime.
3. Physical injury – consummated at the instance the injuries are inflicted.
4. Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual congress.
5. Theft – the essence of the crime is the taking of property belonging to another.
Once the thing has been taken, or in the possession of another, the crime is
consummated.

ATTEMPTED FELONY

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
own spontaneous desistance (RPC, Art 6).

NOTE: The word directly, emphasizes the requirement that the

attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act
performed by the offender not the felony he has in his mind.

ATTEMPTED FELONY FRUSTRATED FELONY

Offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose.
Only commenced the commission of an
act directly by overt acts but did not Has performed all the acts of execution.
perform all the acts of execution.
The offender has not passed the The offender has reached the objective
subjective phase. phase.

OVERT ACTS

Overt acts are some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which if
carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense (Reyes,
2017.)

INDETERMINATE OFFENSE

It is where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its
nature and relation to its objective is ambiguous (Reyes, 2017).

17 | P a g e
Q: A person enters the dwelling of another. However, at the very moment of
his entry and before he could do anything, he is already apprehended by the
household members, can he be charged with attempted robbery?

A: NO. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although he may
have planned to do so. Instead, he may be held liable for trespassing.

Q: One night Jugeta with his cohorts had gone to the residence of the victim
where they violated his domicile by first pulling off the sack that covers
their nipa hut where they slept. The victim pleaded to accused-Jugeta to
stop but the latter instead fired a shot wherein the victim used his body to
cover his family. Jugeta still fired volleys of shots which landed fatally on
the body of the daughters of the victim. The two daughters expired upon
arrival in the hospital. Is Jugeta liable for double murder and multiple
attempted murder?

A: YES. Notwithstanding the other crimes JUGUETA committed, he is also liable for
multiple attempted murder since the design of the crime was to neutralize the
entire family instead of the two daughters specifically. They have commenced all
the acts of execution but was not able to push through due to reasons unknown
to them (People v. Jugeta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016).

Criteria involved in determining the stage (whether it be in attempted,

frustrated or consummated stage) of the commission of a felony.

1. The manner of committing the crime;

2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.

The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether
the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a
felony.

Literally, under Article 6, if the offender has performed all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony as a consequence but the felony was not realized,
then the crime is already in the frustrated stage.

If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution but he was not able to
perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, then it is an attempted felony.

NOTE: The SC held that in case of killing, whether parricide,

homicide or murder, the killing will be in the frustrated stage if the
injury sustained is fatal, sufficient to bring about death but death
did not supervene because the immediate medical intervention. If
the wound inflicted was not fatal, the crime is only in its attempted
stage because the offender still has to perform another act in order
to consummate the crime (People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602,
February 4, 2010).

Instances wherein the stages of a crime will not apply

1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless otherwise provided for;

2. Formal crimes (e.g. slander, adultery, etc.);
3. Impossible crimes;
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (e.g. attempt to flee to an enemy
country);
5. Felonies by omission; and
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g. betting in sports, corruption of
public officers).

Q: Two police dressed as civilians were conducting surveillance in

Binangonan, Rizal. They went near a store when suddenly Rolando and his
wife arrived and approached the police officers not knowing their real

18 | P a g e
 identity. Rolando spoke to one of the officers and asked “gusto mo bang
umi-score ng shabu?” The officer replied, “bakit, meron ka ba?” Rolando
answered in the affirmative and then he took a sachet of shabu and
showed it. When the officer asked how much the shabu was, Rolando
replied P200. Upon seeing the sachet, the police officers immediately
introduced themselves and arrested Rolando and his wife. They were
charged of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs which is found under
Sec 26 of RA 9165. Can there be an attempted stage in the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs?

A: YES. According to the SC, the identity of the buyer and seller are present. The
seller was Rolando while the buyers would be the officers. The corpus delicti was
also established however, there was no delivery because they immediately
introduced themselves as police officers therefore; the consummated sale of the
drugs was aborted by the act of the police introducing themselves and arresting
Rolando. Hence, the crime committed is only attempted illegal sale of dangerous
drugs (People v. Rolando Laylo y Cepres, G.R. No. 192235, July 6, 2011)

ART. 8, RPC || CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL

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

GR: When conspiracy exists, the degree of participation of each conspirator is not
considered because the act of one is the act of all, they have equal criminal
responsibility.

XPN: Even though there was conspiracy, if a coconspirator merely cooperated in the
commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without
his cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator should
be punished as an accomplice only (People v. Niem, G.R. No. 521, December 20,
1945).

XPN to the XPN: When the act constitutes a single indivisible offense.

Requisites of conspiracy

1.Two or more persons came to an agreement;

2. Agreement concerned the commission of a crime; and
3. Execution of a felony was decided upon.

NOTE: Mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation
or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. Except
when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator
should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the
execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of:

1. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself;

2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of
the crime; or
3. Exerting moral ascendancy over the other coconspirators.

Two kinds of conspiracy

1. Conspiracy as a crime – The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is

only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy,
otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the
crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act.

Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the

felony subject of the agreement of the parties. It may be proved by direct
or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the
alleged conspirators prior to, during and after the commission of the
felony to achieve a common design or purpose” (Franco v. People, G.R.
No. 171328, February 16, 2011).

19 | P a g e
 Examples: Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit rebellion,
conspiracy to commit acts like sale, importation and distribution of
drugs, conspiracy to commit access devise fraud, conspiracy to commit
terrorism.

NOTE: If one of the traitors/rebels actually commits treason/rebellion,

conspiracy loses its juridical personality and it becomes a mode to
commit a crime.

2. Conspiracy as a basis of incurring criminal liability – When the

conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an
overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable.

GR: As long as he appeared in the scene of the crime, he is liable as a co-

conspirator.

XPNs:

1. If he is a mastermind, he does not have to be in the scene of the

crime to be co-conspirator.
2. If he performs an overt act in the performance of the conspiracy,
even if it is not in the scene of the crime per se like the driver of a
get-away car who planned the crime as well, or the man who
pressed the button of a remote control bomb and the bomb
exploded a few streets away.

Q: Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's
house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the
latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other
end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the
appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching
the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was
arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any.

A: Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby
becomes co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act
and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from
his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Joel and it
was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. There being a conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-
conspirator.

Effect of conspiracy if not all the elements of the crime is present as regards the co-
conspirator

GR: When there is conspiracy, the fact that the element of the offense is not
present as regards one of the conspirators is immaterial.

XPNs:

1. In parricide – the element of relationship must be present as

regards the offenders.
2. In murder – where treachery is an element of the crime, all
offenders must have knowledge of the employment of the
treachery at the time of the execution of the act.

WAYS IN COMMITTING CONSPIRACY

1. Express Conspiracy – There is an express agreement.

The liability of the conspirators is only for the crime agreed upon, except
when:

a. The other crime was committed in their presence and they did not
prevent its commission;
b. When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime planned
(e.g. homicide resulting from physical injuries);
c. When the resulting crime was a composite crime or a special complex
crime.

20 | P a g e
 2. Implied Conspiracy – The offenders acted in concert in the commission of
the crime. Their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that
they are pursuing a common criminal objective, and they shall be deemed to
be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not
individual.

Instances where unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the

crime is shown:

a. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime

is sufficient to create joint responsibility.
b. Active cooperation by all offenders in the perpetuation of a crime will
create joint responsibility.

Requirement of proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime

In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of a previous

agreement to commit a crime. Proof of a previous agreement and decision to
commit the crime is not essential but the fact that the malefactors acted in
unison pursuant to the same objective suffices (People v. Agacer et al., G.R.
No. 177751, December 14, 2011).

Conspiracy may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of

acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during, and after
the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. Proof
of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, and may be inferred from
the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them
with respect to the commission of the offense. It is likewise not necessary to
show that such persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement
setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an
illegal objective is to be carried out (People v. Pepino and Gomez, G.R. No.
174471, January 12, 2016).

Q: Does conspiracy exist when the acts of the accused were caused by their
being frightened by the police officers who were allegedly in full battle
gear and the fortuitous and unexpected character of the encounter and the
rapid turn of events?

A: YES. The rapid turn of events cannot be considered to negate a finding of

conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for
conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford
full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the
very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject
felony (People v. Carandang et al., G.R. No. 175926, July 6, 2011).

Q: Can a head of office be held criminally liable as conspirator on the basis of

command responsibility?

A: NO. A head or chief of office cannot be held criminally liable as a conspirator

simply on the basis of command responsibility. All heads of offices have to rely to
a reasonable extent ‘on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who
prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. It would be a bad
precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems – dishonest or
negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain
incompetence – is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he
did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step
from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a
transaction before affixing his signature as the final approving authority (Arias v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989).

21 | P a g e
PROPOSAL

Proposal exists when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.

Requisites:

1. A person has decided to commit a felony;

2. He proposes its execution to other person or persons; and
3. The proposal need not be accepted or else it shall be a conspiracy

Punishment for proposal and conspiracy to commit felony

GR: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable because they
are mere preparatory acts.

XPN: Except in cases in which the law specifically provides a penalty thereof, i.e.
Treason, rebellion and coup d’etat

NOTE: If there is conspiracy to commit Rebellion, and Rebellion is

thereafter committed, the accused is liable only for rebellion, the
conspiracy now being merely proof of the Rebellion.

Conspiracy vis-à-vis Proposal to Commit a Felony

CONSPIRACY

- It exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the

commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Once the proposal is accepted, a conspiracy arises.

- Conspiracy is bilateral. It requires two parties.

PROPOSAL

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

Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the
proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal.

- Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the other.

CONTINUED CRIMES

Continued crime or continuous or delito continuado

It is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but arising from one

criminal resolution.

Here, the offender is impelled by a SINGLE CRIMINAL IMPULSE but

committed a series of acts at about the same time in about the same place
and all the overt acts violate one and the same provision law. e.g. theft of 13
cows belonging to different owners committed by the accused at the same
place and at the same time.

NOTE: A continued crime is NOT a complex crime

CONTINUED CRIME IS DIFFERENT FROM TRANSITORY CRIME

Transitory crime, also called, “moving crime” is a concept in criminal

procedure to determine the venue. It may be instituted and tried in the court
of the municipality, city, it province where any of the essential ingredients
thereof took place.

22 | P a g e