Understanding the Interplay: Revised Penal Code & Special Penal Laws, Study notes of Law

Download Understanding the Interplay: Revised Penal Code & Special Penal Laws and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1 By Atty. Anselmo S. Rodiel IV 1. General principles a. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege - There is no crime when there is no law punishing it. (Evangelista v. People, 2000) 2. Mala in se (evil in itself) and mala prohibita (prohibited evil) Mala in se (CRIMINAL INTENT) Mala prohibita (INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT) Definition A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson, or rape [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed.] An act that is considered a crime because it is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed.] Applicable law General Rule: They are punished by RPC Exceptions: Special penal laws that are declared as mala in se, i.e., plunder (Estrada v Sandiganbayan), physical abuse under RA 7610 or Child Abuse Law (Patulot v. People, 2019), WILLFUL deprivation of support under the VAWC Act (Acharon v. People, 2021) General Rule: Special laws, i.e., hazing, refusing access to corporate records, smoking in public places, illegal possession of firearms, and so on. Exception: Technical malversation (illegal use of public funds under the RPC) is a malum prohibitum. (Ysidro v People, 2012) Intent Criminal intent is necessary Criminal intent is immaterial. Intent to perpetrate the act is necessary/already sufficient. Good faith Hence, good faith is a valid defense Hence, good faith is NOT a valid defense Degree of accomplishment The degree of accomplishment (consummated/frustrated/attem pted) is necessary in determining the penalty to be imposed As a rule, there is only one punishment for all offenders. The degree of accomplishment is not necessary. The exception is if the special law punishes the different degrees of accomplishment, i.e., Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act Persons punished The principal, accomplice, and accessory are punished. As a rule, only the principal is punished. The exception is if the special law punishes the accomplice and accessory too, i.e., Anti-Hazing Act. Division of penalties Penalties may be divided into degrees and periods. There is no such division of penalties, unless the special penal law adopts the degrees and periods provided under the RPC. 3. Applicability of RPC to Special penal laws a. Offenses which are punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. (Art. 10) b. In short, as a rule, the RPC does not apply to special penal laws. c. Instances where the RPC was applied suppletorily to special penal laws. i. VAWC - Legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. 9262. Thus, the parents-in-law may be included in the information. (Go-Tan v. Tan, 2008) ii. BP 22 - B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. (Ladonga v. People, 2005) 4. Scope and characteristics a. Generality - Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (Art. 14, Civil Code) i. This covers the PERSONS within the Philippine territory. If the offender alleges that he is a foreign citizen, so the Philippine penal laws shall not apply to him, then we need to apply the generality principle to counter/answer that allegation. ii. Exceptions: 1. Principles of public international law - The following are exempted from the operation of criminal laws because of GAPIL: a. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state (president, chancellor, HEAD OF STATE and the like); and b. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires. c. Meanwhile, consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial representatives do not possess the same status. “Consular officials shall be IMMUNE from jurisdiction of the receiving State in respect to acts performed in the EXERCISE OF HIS CONSULAR ix. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position. 1. The crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the RPC shall be cognizable by the RTC in which the charge is first filed. (Sec. 15(d), Rule 110) ii. Exceptions: 1. Treaties 2. Laws of preferential applications a. Foreign embassy in the Philippines i. EX: In the US Embassy, the RPC does not apply. The penal laws of the United States of America will apply. ii. Basis? GAPIL (Public International Law) b. Warship rule - A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its respective country. [Art. 27, United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea] i. Internal waters/Territorial waters do not matter. They are never subject to Philippine laws. c. Foreign merchant vessels i. French rule (Flag state rule) - The coastal state shall not exercise jurisdiction over the foreign merchant vessel, except if it affects the peace of the coastal state. (Sec. 27, Art. 27 of the UNCLOS III) ii. English rule (Coastal state rule) - The coastal state shall exercise jurisdiction, except when it merely affects the peace of the foreign merchant vessel. 1. These rules apply only within the territorial waters. 2. Within the internal waters, the Philippines shall exercise jurisdiction. The French Rule/English Rule do not apply within the internal waters. c. Prospectivity i. Without prejudice to Art. 22, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the effectivity of the RPC [and special penal laws], shall be punished in accordance with the law in force at the time of their commission. (Art. 366, Revised Penal Code) ii. As a rule, penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect. Otherwise, it will violate the rule on ex post facto laws. iii. Ex post facto laws - An ex post facto law is one which: [there is an element of RETROACTIVITY] 1. makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; 2. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; 3. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; 4. alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; 5. assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and 6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.) 5. Retroactive effect of penal laws a. General rule: Penal laws shall have a prospective effect. b. As exception: i. “Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony.” (Art. 22) c. As exceptions to the exception: i. The person guilty must not be a Habitual criminal (Art. 22); or ii. When the new law is Expressly made inapplicable to pending actions. (Tavera v Valdez) d. Art. 22 versus a specific provision of a special law i. In case a special law provides that the same shall be given retroactive effect if favorable to the accused without condition, then apply the same, regardless if the offender is a HD or not. Meanwhile, Article 22 provides for 2 conditions: first, it must be favorable, and second, the offender must not be a HD. 6. Interpretation of penal laws a. Penal laws shall be strictly construed against the Government and in favor of the accused. b. However, the rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, there is no room for interpertation of the rule. (People v Gatchalian) 7. Pro reo principle (In dubio, pro reo) a. The fundamental principle in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the presumption of innocence of the accused. b. Intimately intertwined with the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. It is the doctrine that in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment. criminally liable. Why? He acted in self-defense, so he was not committing a felony. iii. “Although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended” covers the following instances: 1. Mistake in the identity (error in personae) a. It happens when the offender, intending to injure a person, actually inflicts injury to another person because he wrongfully identified the latter as the former. b. Hence, lack of intent to kill the deceased, because he intended to kill another, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. i. Why? Because of Art. 4. c. The penalty for mistake in the identity is provided by Art. 49 - Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. i. If the prescribed penalty for the crime intended is lesser than that for the crime committed, the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. ii. If the prescribed penalty for the crime committed is lesser than that for the crime intended, the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. d. An illustration is A intended to kill his neighbor during nighttime. However, he was able to kill his father, thinking that his father was the neighbor. i. Was criminal liability incurred? Yes, as provided under Art. 4, RPC. ii. What’s the crime committed? Parricide, for killing an ascendant. iii. What’s the penalty for the crime committed? The penalty is reclusion temporal IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD. Why? If the prescribed penalty for the crime intended is lesser than that for the crime committed, the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. e. An illustration is A intended to kill his father during nighttime. However, he was able to kill his neighbor, thinking that the neighbor was his father. i. Was criminal liability incurred? Yes, as provided under Art. 4, RPC. ii. What’s the crime committed? Homicide, for killing the neighbor. iii. What’s the penalty for the crime committed? The penalty is reclusion temporal IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD. Why? If the prescribed penalty for the crime committed is lesser than that for the crime intended, the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. Mistake in the blow (abberatio ictus) a. It happens when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts the injury to another. b. The penalty for mistake in the blow is provided by Art. 48 - Complex Crimes. Why? Because a single act of blow produced two or more grave or less grave offenses (compound crime). In such case, the penalty of the most serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed. c. An illustration is A intended to shoot B. Due to lack of precision, he shot C, causing his death. i. Is criminally incurred? Yes, as provided under Art. 4 ii. What’s the crime committed? Complex crime of homicide AND attempted homicide. iii. What’s the penalty to be imposed? Reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Why? Because the penalty of the most serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed. 3. Result exceeds the intent (praeter intentionem) a. The prescribed penalty for praeter intentionem is that provided for the result produced. b. An illustration is when A punched B, merely intending to hurt him. However, B hit his head on a pavement, causing his death. i. Is criminal liability incurred? Yes, as provided under Art. 4. ii. What’s the crime committed? Homicide. iii. What’s the penalty? The penalty provided for homicide, i.e., reclusion temporal. a. if not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or b. on account of employment of inadequate or ineffectual manes. (Art. 4) c. Other requisites provided by jurisprudence: i. The act done must be done with evil intent. ii. The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. Otherwise, it is an actual crime. d. Crimes against persons: i. Parricide ii. Murder iii. Homicide iv. Infanticide v. Abortion vi. Duel vii. Physical Injuries viii. Rape e. Crimes against property: i. Robbery ii. Brigandage iii. Theft iv. Usurpation of real rights/property v. Culpable insolvency vi. Swindling (estafa) and other deceits vii. Chattel mortgage viii. Arson and other crimes involving destruction ix. Malicious mischief f. Examples: i. Persons - A shot B, not knowing that B is already dead 3 hours before. There is physical and legal impossibility in this case. ii. Property - A, with intent to gain, took a watch from B’s pocket. However, it was later revealed that such watch was actually owned by A that he lost a week before. There is legal impossibility in this case. iii. Persons - A tried to kill B by putting poison in his drink. It was later revealed that it was actually rock salt and not poison. There is employment of ineffectual means. Further, there is physical impossibility in this case. iv. Persons - A intended to kill B by poisoning his drink. However, A put an amount so small that no person may be poisoned from it. There is employment of inadequate means. Further, there is physical impossibility in this case. iv. Stages of execution 1. Internal acts a. These are mere ideas in the mind of a person. They are not punishable. 2. External acts a. Preparatory acts i. As a rule, they are not punishable by law. ii. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are punishable ONLY in cases in which the LAW SPECIALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY therefor. (Art. 8, RPC) b. Acts of execution i. Consummated; Requisites 1. All the elements for its execution AND accomplishment are present. ii. Frustrated; Requisites 1. Offender performs all the acts of execution; 2. Which would produce the felony as a consequence; 3. But which, nevertheless, does not produce it; 4. By reason of some cause independent of the will of the offender. a. By reason of some cause independent of the will of the offender - If the felony was not produced because of the will of the offender, there is no frustrated felony. Instead, there would be another crime committed by the offender. i. As example A shot B on his chest. However, A saved B by bringing him to the hospital. Here, there is no frustrated homicide because B did not die due to the will of A. Further, it is not an attempted homicide since all the acts of execution which should produce the felony were committed. Hence, the crime committed is serious physical injuries only. iii. Attempted; Requisites 1. The offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, 2. but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony, 3. by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 6) a. Directly by overt acts - external acts; the act must have direct connection to the crime intended to be committed i. Indeterminate offense - it is an offense where the purpose/CRIMINAL INTENT of the offender in performing the act is UNCERTAIN/ambiguous. Hence, the offender will only be convicted for the crime which has DIRECT CONNECTION to his external/overt act. (People v Lamahang) b. By reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance - all acts of execution must not be committed because of some cause or accident, i.e., the offended party was able to dodge to bullet. If they were not committed because the attacker spontaneously desisted, there is no crime. 5. Theft - Even if the thief was not able to freely dispose the property stolen, the crime is already consummated when the thief is able to take or get hold of the thing belonging to another. Hence, there is no frustrated stage of theft 6. Robbery with violence… - The same is true for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. 7. Robbery with use of force… - Here, the capacity to freely dispose is a material ingredient of the crime. Hence, there can be frustrated robbery with use of force upon things. 8. Formal crimes - these are crimes consummated in one instant, i.e., libel, slander, and treason 9. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act - the offender does not have to succeed in order to consummate the crime. Examples are corruption of minors and flight to enemy’s country. 10. Felony by omission - there is no attempted or frustrated stage. It is either he commits the crime or not. v. Continuing crimes (It’s a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE concept) 1. This is also called a moving or transitory crime. 2. It is consummated in one place but by reason of its nature, the violation is deemed continuing. 3. The purpose of a continuing crime is determine the proper venue of the criminal action, validity of warrantless arrest, and commencement of the prescriptive period. a. For venue, the action can be filed in the court of the municipality or city where any of its essential ingredients occurred. Hence, in kidnapping or estafa, the action can be filed in various places. b. For validity of warrantless arrest, since the crime is continuing, the offender can be arrested without a warrant because it is in flagrante delicto. c. For prescription, since the crime is still continuing, the period never begins. vi. Complex crimes and composite crimes (Art. 48) 1. What are complex crimes? a. Compound crime (delito compuesto) i. when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies b. Complex crime proper (delito complejo) i. when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other c. Effects i. The penalty for the MOST SERIOUS CRIME SHALL be imposed, to be applied in its MAXIMUM period. (Art. 48) ii. For compound crime, the proper phrase is “murder and homicide.” For complex crime proper, it is “rape through forcible abduction.” iii. A complex crime is only one crime, in the eyes of the law and the conscience of the offender.(People v Hernandez) iv. It cannot be offset by ORDINARY mitigating circumstances due to its complex character. 1. Take note of the word “shall” in Art. 48. d. Other notes for compound crimes i. Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated as: 1. Separate felony; or 2. Absorbed by the grave or less grave felony. ii. Both crimes must be punished by the RPC. (Grave/Less Grave Felonies) iii. Examples of compound crimes: 1. Single act of throwing a hand grenade, killing multiple people. (People v Guillen; People v Pama) 2. Mistake in the blow (recall our previous discussion) 3. The act of raping a girl, causing her physical injuries which required medical attention for about 20 days, i.e., rape and less serious physical injuries. (US v Andaya) 4. Stabbing a judge while hearing a case, i.e., homicide and direct assault. (US v Montiel) 5. Stabbing a pregnant woman, i.e., abortion and homicide. (People v Lopez) 6. Light felony - A punched B, a policeman, while B was patrolling the city. The injuries suffered by B required a medical attendance of 14 days. There is a complex crime of direct assault and less serious physical injuries. iv. Examples of NOT compound crimes 1. Light felony – A punched B while B was carrying his baby. Both B and his baby fell to the ground. B and his baby suffered injuries that required medical attendance of 1 day. There are 2 separate counts of slight physical injuries. 2. Light felony - A punched B, a policeman, while B was patrolling the city. The bruises required a medical attendance of 1 day. There is only a crime of direct assault, and the slight physical injuries must be absorbed. 3. Light felony - A punched B, a barangay captain, during the session of barangay officials. The bruises required a medical attendance of 1 day. There are separate crimes of direct assault and slight physical injuries. a. Thus, if direct assault and slight physicals were produced by the single act of the offender, you need to determine the POSITION/OCCUPATION of the offended party. b. If law enforcement officer (agent of a person in authority) – slight physical injuries is absorbed by direct assault. c. If a public officer who is not a law enforcement officer (person in authority) – there are separate crimes of direct assault and slight physical injuries. 4. Light felony - A raped B. The incident gave B injuries which required medical attendance of 1 day. Rape absorbs slight physical injuries herein. crime of rape and forcible abduction. ii. EX: Mr. A wanted to have sexual intercourse with Ms. B, so Mr. A grabbed Ms. B from her house, in order to have sex with her. Once they arrived at the hideout, Mr. A proceeded to have sex with Ms. B without her consent. What’s the crime committed? The crime committed is RAPE. Forcible abduction is absorbed. iii. Mr. A wanted to have kidnap Ms. B for ransom, so Mr. A grabbed Ms. B from her house. Once they arrived at the hideout, Mr. A, as an afterthought, proceeded to have sex with Ms. B without her consent. What’s the crime committed? Special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. iv. Examples of NOT complex crime proper 1. RPC and special law - There can be no complex crime of plunder through falsification of public documents. Instead, there are separate crimes. 2. RPC and special law - illegal possession of firearms cannot be complexed with homicide. Instead, RA 10591 states that it becomes a special aggravating circumstance. 3. Indispensable means - A, with intent to kill, burned B’s house knowing that he is inside. The crime of arson is absorbed in the crime of murder. There’s no complex crime of murder through arson. a. What if A’s intention is merely to burn the house, and on occasion of the fire, B was killed as he was inside of the house. What’s the crime? The crime is arson with homicide, and the penalty for the crime shall be death. (People v. Soria, 2020; People v. Al Saad, 2021) However, since the implementation of the death penalty has already been suspended, the offender shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 4. Conceal the other - A, after killing B through gunshots, burned B’s house to prevent discovery of DNA evidence that will implicate him. There are separate crimes of homicide and arson. 5. Conceal the other - A, after misappropriating public funds in his disposal, falsified the payroll to make it appear that government employees received their salaries where in fact, all the money went to A. a. Check if the falsification was done in order to MISAPPROPRIATE the funds of the government, or in order to HIDE the criminal act. i. If it was done to misappropriate – there is complex crime of malversation through falsification of public documents ii. If it was done to hide – there are separate crimes of malversation and falsification of public documents. iii. In sum, for falsification of public documents, there are two (2) scenarios: either complex crime or separate crimes. b. HACK: Check what was the first crime committed by the public officer. If the first crime is falsification, there is a complex crime. If the first crime is malversation, there are separate crimes. c. TANGENT: A public document is a document created, executed, or issued by a public official in response to the exigencies or the official functions of the public service, or in the execution of which a public official intervened. (US v Asensi, 1916) 6. Falsification of private document AND estafa - under the Doctrine of Common Element, an element used to complete one crime cannot be legally re-used to complete the other crime. The common element of estafa and falsification of private document is damage. Hence, there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document. There’s also NO separate crimes of estafa and falsification of private crimes. The crime must be EITHER estafa or falsification of private docuemnts. a. If falsification is a necessary means to commit estafa, the crime is only falsification. b. If falsification was used merely to conceal the estafa, the crime is only estafa. c. HACK: Determine what was the first felony committed. Was it estafa or falsification of private documents? If estafa, the crime is ESTAFA only. If falsification of private documents, FALSIFICATION only. f. Special complex crimes b. Further, for justifying circumstances, freedom and intelligence are present, but CRIMINAL INTENT is absent. 2. Self-defense a. Requisites: i. Unlawful aggression ii. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it iii. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself b. Unlawful aggression - this means actual assault or threatened assault of an immediate or imminent kind. It does not include mere threatening or intimidating attitude. i. The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was subsequently attacked by the person defending himself. The person defending himself must not attack a person other than the unlawful aggressor. 1. EX: A attempted to stab B. B, in his defense, stabbed C, A’s companion. Was there self-defense? No. The facts did not show that C was a conspirator/accomplice of A in stabbing B. Thus, B should be criminally liable, because he stabbed a person other than the unlawful aggressor. 2. EX: A attempted to stab B. B, in his defense, stabbed C, A’s companion. Previous to the incident, A and C attempted to corner B in an alley. Was there self-defense? Yes, because based on the collective acts of A and C, they were conspirators in attempting to kill B. 3. EX: A attempted to stab B. B, in his defense, also attempted to stab A. However, A dodged B’s attempts, so B was able to stab C, the man behind A. Was there self-defense? Yes, because B merely defended himself from the unlawful aggression of A, and he actually aimed at A. Thus, even though C suffered injuries, B cannot be held criminally liable. a. Should this fall under accident (Art. 12(4)) and not self-defense (Art. 11(1))? No, because A did not commit any crime. The nature of an exempting circumstance under Art. 12 is the accused committed a crime, but he incurs no criminal liability. ii. The requisites of self-defense are without prejudice to the proper application of mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is an ABSOLUTORY CAUSE. (US v. Ah Chong) 1. EX: US v. Ah Chong – Due to the rampant criminality within his community, Ah Chong thought that the person who went inside his room was a robber, and not his roommate. Thus, there was a mistake of fact that his roommate was an unlawful aggressor. 2. EX: A pointed a gun at B, so B shot A. It was later revealed that A merely pointed a TOY GUN at B. Did B commit any crime? No, because there was a mistake of fact that A was an unlawful aggressor. 3. In other words, honest belief/good faith has the same effect as mistake of fact. 4. NOTE: Mistake of fact will be discussed later in absolutory causes. iii. Retaliation is not self-defense because the unlawful aggression has already ceased. Hence, during the retaliation, the unlawful aggressor is the retaliating person. 1. How do we differentiate retaliation and self-defense? By checking INTERVAL OF TIME between the unlawful aggression and the act of the accused. a. If there’s NO interval of time, it’s self-defense. b. If there’s interval of time, it’s retaliation. 2. The person who retaliated is not acting in defense of his person. He is actually acting as the NEW unlawful aggressor, and the person he is retaliating to is the one who can invoke self-defense, in case the person who retaliated gets injured or dies during the retaliation. 3. Basically, the tables will turn once there’s an interval of time. iv. When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists. Hence, the one making the defense has no more right to attack the former aggressor. 1. However, if the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take a more advantageous position to insure success of the attack already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is considered still continuing. v. There is no unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight. 1. However, where there is an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and place of the fight, there is unlawful aggression. vi. Lawful aggression v. Unlawful aggression 1. In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to steal from his next-door neighbor, Mrs. V. On the night of May 15, 2010, Mr. R proceeded with his plan and entered Mrs. V's bedroom by breaking one of the windows from the outside. Finding Mrs. V sound asleep, he silently foraged through her cabinet, and stashed all the bundles of cash and jewelries he could find. As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V shout, "Stop or I will shoot you!", and when he turned around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle which was pointed at him. Fearing for his life, Mr. R then lunged at Mrs. V and was able to wrest the gun away from her. Thereafter, Mr. R shot Mrs. V, which resulted in her death. Mr. R's deeds were discovered on the very same night as he was seen by law enforcement authorities fleeing the crime scene. May Mr. R validly invoke the justifying circumstance of self- defense? Explain. (2019 Bar Exam) iii. Descendants iv. Brothers/Sisters (legitimate, adopted, natural) v. Relatives by affinity within the same degrees; and vi. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree (first cousin/uncle/niece, purely by blood) b. Siblings, explained i. TIP: Forget about legitimate/illegitimate for now. They will just CONFUSE you. Let’s focus on sibling by blood, adopted, and affinity to determine who is a relative! 1. Full sibling – same F & M, regardless if married or not – relative of the accused, because sibling by blood 2. Half sibling – same F or M – relative, because sibling by blood 3. Adopted sibling – relative, because adopted 4. Sibling-in-law – sibling of the accused’s spouse. This can be a full or half-sibling of the spouse – relative, because affinity 5. Step-sibling – the accused’s father got married to the sibling’s mother – NOT a relative of the accused. They are strangers. To become a relative by affinity, the accused himself must be the one who got married. ii. After determining that they are siblings in blood, now is the time to determine if they are legitimate/illegitimate siblings, i.e., whether their parents are married. iii. NOTE: Delete the word “natural.” We now use “illegitimate” siblings under the Family Code. (Briones v. Miguel, 2004) c. Relatives by affinity, explained i. Who are the relatives by affinity of the accused? 1. Spouse 2. Father-in-law/Mother-in- law/Grandparent-in-law/Grandson-in- law 3. Brother-in-law/Sister-in-law a. Cousin-in-law and Uncle-in-law are STRANGERS to the accused, because the provision clearly states that relatives by affinity must be the same degree as spouse, ascendant, descendant, and sibling. b. Step-parent and step-child are STRANGERS to each other. i. Why? Because the accused must be the one who got married, not his parent. ii. Do not be confused with parent-in-law and step- parent. iii. The father-in-law is a relative, while the step- father is a stranger. c. NOTE: Always check if the accused was the one who got married, or it was the parent of the accused who got married. d. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree i. Uncle/Aunt (sibling of parent) ii. 1st Cousin (child of uncle/aunt) iii. Niece/Nephew 1. Again, uncle-in-law, 1st cousin-in-law, and nephew-in-law are STRANGERS to the accused. 2. Uncles, 1st cousins, and nephews only become relatives of the accused if BY CONSANGUINITY or BY BLOOD. e. The first two requisites are the same as self-defense, i.e., unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means used to repel or prevent the unlawful aggression. f. For the third requisite, it’s different. Art. 11(2) states “in case provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein – i. This means there is still defense of relative, even if the relative provoked the unlawful aggressor, as long as the accused (person defending the relative) had no part therein. ii. ILLUSTRATIONS: 1. B stabbed A. In defense of A, his son shot B. B died. Is the son criminally liable? a. No, because of defense of a relative. 2. A shouted demeaning and racial slurs at B (A provoked B). B stabbed A. In defense of A, his son shot B. B died. Is the son criminally liable? a. No, because of defense of a relative. b. Even though A provoked B, A’s son (the person defending him) had no part in the provocation. 3. What if in shooting B, the son was also motivated by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive? a. Revenge, resentment, and other evil motive are IMMATERIAL in defense of relative. b. As long as the son of A did NOT PROVOKE B, there’s still a complete defense of relative. c. It does not matter if the son of A and B are mortal enemies. d. The son still incurs no criminal liability. 4. A stabbed B, so B stabbed A. The son of A witnessed the whole incident. Thus, in defense of A, the son shot B. B died. Is the son criminally liable? a. Yes, because B was NOT an unlawful aggressor. It was A, the father, who was the unlawful aggressor. Thus, the first element of defense of relative is ABSENT, making the son of A criminally liable. 5. A stabbed B, so B stabbed A. The son of A did not witness the whole incident. He only witnessed B stabbing A. Thus, in defense of A, the son shot B. B died. Is the son criminally liable? a. No, because there was mistake of fact as to who was the unlawful aggressor. As to the son, B was the unlawful aggressor, even though b. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it - The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another. c. No other practical or less harmful means of preventing it i. However, the injury feared should not be brought about by the negligence/imprudence or malice of the actor-accused. ii. Civil liability - Here, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. 6. Fulfillment of duty/Exercise of right a. Performance of duty or lawful exercise of right or office b. The injury caused was the necessary consequence of the DUE PERFORMANCE of duty/right/office. (People v Oanis) i. In short, performance of duty + due performance. The second element is more important. ii. In Oanis, the first requisite is present because as police officers, they were trying to capture a wanted criminal. Thus, there was performance of duty. However, the second requisite is absent because there was no due performance of duty. Through impatience, over-anxiety, or in their desire to take no chances, they exceeded their duty by killing a sleeping person whom they believed was the criminal. Thus, Oanis was held criminally liable. 1. NOTE: Exceeding one’s duty is not due performance of duty. 2. In Oanis, the death of the sleeping person was not the necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty as a police officer. a. The death of this sleeping person happened because he exceeded his duty. iii. For fulfillment of duty, the duty of the officer requires him to overcome his opponent. Thus, reasonable necessity of the means used to repel or prevent the unlawful aggression is NOT an element. Meanwhile, for self-defense, the private person must merely repel or prevent the unlawful aggression of the injured party. Thus, the second element is reasonable necessity of the means used to repel or prevent the unlawful aggression. 7. Obedience to superior order a. An order was issued by a superior b. For some lawful purpose c. Means to carry out the order is also lawful i. EX: PO3 A obeyed the order of Colonel B to sell the dangerous drugs that they seized from a recent raid. He sold the same to drug addicts. Later, PO3 A was charged with violation of CDDA. Does PO3 incur criminal liability? Yes, because there was incomplete obedience to superior order. PO3 A obeyed an unlawful order from a superior, i.e., Colonel B ordered him to sell dangerous drugs, and the means was also unlawful, i.e., actual sale of the dangerous drugs to drug addicts. ii. EX: PO3 A was instructed by Colonel B to obtain the extrajudicial confession of a detained suspect named Z. In order to obtain the confession, PO3 A punched and kicked Z. He was able to obtain the confession in writing. Later, he was charged with maltreatment of prisoners. Does PO3 A incur criminal liability? Yes, because there was incomplete obedience to superior order. PO3 A obeyed a lawful order from a superior, i.e., Colonel B order him to obtain the extrajudicial confession of Z, but the means to carry out this order was unlawful, i.e., physically injuring Z in order to obtain the confession. iii. EX: PO3 A was ordered by Colonel B to deliver a sealed parcel to Mr. Q, a Bureau of Customs Commissioner. PO3 A delivered the parcel to Mr. Q. Mr. Q opened the parcel which contained P1,000,000 in cash. Later, it was revealed that the money was given by Colonel B to Mr. Q, so that Mr. Q will allow Colonel B’s luxury car to pass through customs without being checked by officials. Later, their scheme was discovered, so the Ombudsman charged Colonel B and PO3 A with corruption of public officers, and Mr. Q with direct bribery. Is PO3 A criminally liable? 1. No, because (1) there was an order from a superior, (2) PO3 A honestly believed that the order was for some lawful purpose, and (3) PO3 carried out the order lawfully, as he just delivered the parcel to Mr. Q. Thus, he is not criminally liable. 2. Where the accused acted upon the orders of superior officers which they obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on their part, the accused is not criminally liable. (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, 1997) iv. EX: PO3 A was ordered by Colonel B to deliver a sealed parcel to Mr. Q. PO3 A delivered the parcel to Mr. Q. After the delivery, Mr. Q opened the parcel and it was revealed that it contained marijuana leaves. Thus, PO3 A was suddenly arrested by NBI agents. Mr. Q was actually an undercover agent, and the NBI secretly undertook an operation to catch public officers who are engaged in the sale and distribution of dangerous drugs. Later, PO3 A was charged with violation of CDDA. Is PO3 A criminally liable? 1. No, justifying circumstances are not applicable to special penal laws, such as CDDA. However, PO3 A is not criminally liable, because he has no intent to perpetrate the act. For there to be intent to perpetrate, the accused must have committed the act freely and consciously. PO3 A did NOT KNOW that the parcel had marijuana leaves inside of it. He was NOT CONSCIOUS of this! ii. Exempting 1. “Are exempt from criminal liability” a. This means the accused COMMITTED a crime, but he is EXEMPT from criminal liability. the differences between right and wrong, and the consequences of the wrongful act. d. Who must prove the age of the child? i. Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the law has the burden of proving the age of such child. 1. In other words, the defense must prove it. Why? Because the defense would invoke minority, in order for the accused to be exempted from criminal liability. e. Who must prove that the child acted with discernment? i. The prosecution has the burden to prove the same. 1. Once the defense has proved the minority of the accused, the accused will be exempted from criminal liability, as a general rule. 2. The accused will only be criminally liable, if the prosecution can prove that he acted with discernment. 3. NOTE: If the facts do not show that the accused, a 17-year old boy, acted with discernment, then HE IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE. 5. Accident a. Performing a lawful act b. With due care c. He causes an injury to another by accident d. Without fault or intention of causing it i. An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstance is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. (Julleza v. Orient Line Philippines, 2019) ii. Negligence, on the other hand, is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand without which such other person suffers injury. (People v Fallorina, 2004) 6. Irresistible force a. Compulsion of irresistible physical force; and b. It came from a third person, not the accused himself. i. “Irresistible” 1. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending. Further, the compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape. (People v Loreno, 1984) 2. EX: A group of rebels ordered Mr. A to kill Mr. B, while pointing a gun at him. Thus, Mr. A killed Mr. B. Is Mr. A criminally liable? No, because he acted under a compulsion of an irresistible physical force. 3. EX: A group of rebels ordered Mr. A to kill Mr. B the next day, while pointing a gun at him. Next day, Mr. A killed Mr. B, without the presence of the rebels. Is Mr. A criminally liable? Yes, because the force was RESISTIBLE. The next day, the duress was not present, imminent, and impending anymore. Further, he could have escaped, as the rebels were not present at the time of the incident. 4. EX: Mr. A was ordered by Mr. B, while holding a gun, to kill Mr. C. Mr. A was also holding a gun at the time that Mr. B made the order. Mr. A killed Mr. C in Mr. B’s presence. Is Mr. A criminally liable? Yes. The force was resistible, because Mr. A also had a gun. Thus, Mr. A had an opportunity to escape the situation or refuse the order of Mr. B. 5. EX: What if the gun was already pointed at Mr. A? It is arguable that there was irresistible force, because even if Mr. A had a gun, he was still in an extremely dangerous position, since Mr. B’s gun was already pointed at him. ii. “Came from a third person, not the accused himself.” 1. Passion/Obfuscation/Anger/Extreme hatred/Revenge/Primal instinct/Uncontrollable desire cannot be irresistible force, because the physical force must come from “a third person,” and not from the urges of the accused. 7. Uncontrollable fear a. Acted under an impulse of uncontrollable fear b. Equal or greater injury i. “Uncontrollable” 1. It should be real/present, imminent, and reasonable, and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. 2. A threat of a future injury is not enough. It is not “imminent.” (Ty v. People) 3. EX: Mr. A texted Mr. B that if Mr. B will not kill Mr. C, Mr. A will kidnap Mr. B’s spouse and children. Later, Mr. B killed Mr. C. Is Mr. B exempted from criminal liability? No, because the fear was controllable. Mr. A’s text message to him was a mere threat of a future injury. It was not real and imminent, but purely speculative, fanciful and remote. 4. EX: Mr. A kidnapped Mr. B’s spouse and children. Later, Mr. A texted Mr. B that if Mr. B will not kill Mr. C, Mr. A will kill Mr. B’s spouse and children. Thus, Mr. B killed Mr. C. Is Mr. B exempted from criminal liability? Yes, because the fear was uncontrollable. Mr. A’s text message to him was real, imminent, and reasonable. Further, the injury that will happen to Mr. B’s spouse and children was equal to the injury that was inflicted by Mr. B to Mr. C. Thus, he is exempted from criminal liability. 5. EX: Mr. A’s mother is ailing. The mother was confined in BBB hospital. His mother’s hospital bill amounted to P1Million. In order to pay for the same, Mr. A issued 10 post-dated checks. The checks were later dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Mr. A was later charged with 10 counts of violation of BP 22. Mr. A claims that he issued the checks