Categories
Audiobook Criminal Law Criminal Law 1

Criminal Law 1 Audiobook #3 Application of Penalties, Revised Penal Code Review

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
Book 1 Articles 46 to 61
Title Three Penalties
Chapter Four Application of Penalties



This is an audiobook reviewer by Law School Buddy on Criminal Law Philippines made specially for law school students. This audiobook is helpful in study and review sessions, as well as for memory retention. This audiobook is aimed at helping students to recall the concepts of Criminal Law Philippines in law school, during their review or study session, after reading the books, or attending lecture or review in Criminal Law Philippines.

Section One

Rules for the application of penalties to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same

Article 46 – Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general.

The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony. Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.

Article 47 – In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed.

The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:

1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.

2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty.

For the imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death sentence, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said court, unless some member or members thereof shall have been disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the case, in which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining justices shall be required.

Article 48 – Penalty for complex crimes.

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Article 49 – Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended.

In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:

1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.

3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Article 50 – Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime.

The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.

Article 51 – Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes.

A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

Article 52 – Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime.

The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony.

Article 53 – Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony.

The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony.

Article 54 – Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime.

The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.

Article 55 – Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime.

The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony.

Article 56 – Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime.

The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.

Article 57 – Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime.

The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

Article 58 – Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories.

Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.

Article 59 – Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible.

When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.

Article 60 – Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57.

The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.

Article 61 – Rules for graduating penalties.

For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed:

1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.

3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.

4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.

5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.



Categories
Jurisprudence Criminal Law

Praeter Intentionem

When the Resulting Harm is Greater than Means Employed by the Offender

“Praeter intentionem” is defined as having an injurious result that is greater than that intended. The Revised Penal Code describes it as no intention to commit so grave a wrong.

In People vs. Ural, praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed” (Par. 3, Art. 13, Revised Penal Code). It is manifested from the proven facts that appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola.

His design being only to maltreat him, may be because in his drunken condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the detention cell. Such that when he realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary

People vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801 March 27, 1974

Categories
Jurisprudence Criminal Law

Aberratio Ictus

Can A Wrongful Act Done Differently From That Which is Intended Incur Criminal Liability?

In “aberratio ictus” or mistake in the blow, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

In the People vs. Flora case, when Hermogenes Flora first fired his gun at Ireneo, but missed, and hit Emerita Roma and Flor Espinas instead, he became liable for Emerita’s death and Flor’s injuries. Hermogenes cannot escape culpability on the basis of aberratio ictus principle. Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended.

Note, however, that when a person intended the commission of several felonies with a single act, it is not called aberratio ictus or mistake of blow, simply because there was no mistake in the commission of crime.

People vs. Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000

Categories
Jurisprudence Criminal Law

Error in Personae

When does a Mistake in Identity Become a Criminal Liability?

Mistake In Identity

“Error in personae” or mistake in identity is injuring one person who is mistaken for another. The intended victim is not at the scene of the crime. It is the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he is not really the intended victim. If the crime committed is the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.

The maxim “ignorantia facti excusat” applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness.

In this case, Oanis and Galanta, unlike Ah Chong, found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the two had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was accordingly unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for appellants to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.

The crime committed by Oanis and Galanta is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental. 

People vs. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943

Categories
Jurisprudence Criminal Law

Mistake of Fact

Is There Criminal Liability for Ignorance or Mistake of Fact?

The legal maxim, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” aptly justifies that the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so.

In the absence of malice (criminal intent), negligence, and imprudence, does not impose any criminal liability on the actor.

Ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged “cancels the presumption of intent,” and works an acquittal; except in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence; and in cases where, under the provisions of Article 1 of the (old) Penal Code one voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor incurs criminal liability for any wrongful act committed by him, even though it be different from that which he intended to commit. There is no criminal liability, provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.

US vs. AH CHONG, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19,1910

Categories
Audiobook Criminal Law Criminal Law 1

Criminal Law 1 (Part 2) Penalties Classification Accessory Duration and Effects Revised Penal Code Audiobook

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
Book 1 Articles 21 to 39

Title Three Penalties
Chapter 1 Penalties in General
Chapter 2 Classification of Penalties
Chapter 3 Duration and Effect of Penalties

Categories
Criminal Law Doctrines

What are the Characteristics of Criminal Law?

Generality means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons who lives or sojourns in the Philippines (Article 14, NCC), subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other diplomatic officials are immune from the application of penal laws when they are in the country where they are assigned (People vs. Galacgac, CA., 54 O.G. 1027). Acts performed should be in official capacity and performance of his duty (G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 2000).

Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within the National Territory of the Philippines, subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, including those outside of its jurisdiction as provided in Article 2, paragraphs 1-5 of RPC. 

Prospectivity means the law acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had already taken effect. Vice-versa, this act or omission which has been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law. Exception: (1) when new statute it is favorable to the accused and (2) the accused is not a habitual delinquent (Article 22 of RPC).

Categories
Criminal Law Doctrines

Mala In Se vs. Mala Prohibita

Mala in se (“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.] 

Mala prohibita (“prohibited evil”) – An act that is a crime merely because it is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.] 

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of Special Laws are ‘generally’ referred to as malum prohibitum.

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.

The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se, -on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission b)”. reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. 

In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.

Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015

Categories
Audiobook Criminal Law Criminal Law 1

Criminal Law 1 (Part 1) Felonies Justifying Exempting Mitigating Aggravating Revised Penal Code Audiobook

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines – Book I
Title One Felonies and Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability

Chapter 1 Felonies
Chapter 2 Justifying Circumstances
Chapter 3 Mitigating Circumstances
Chapter 4 Aggravating Circumstances
Chapter 5 Alternative Circumstances

Title Two Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies