II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

Question 1

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

1. Criminal Liability – Article 4(1)
   a. Actus reus and mens rea;

Objective and Subjective Elements

Answer 1

A.
Actus Reus: - This translates directly to “guilty act”
It refers to the physical action or omission that constitutes the crime.

B.
Mens Rea: - This translates literally to “guilty mind”.
It signifies the mental state of the accused at the time of the crime, focusing on their intent or knowledge.

Actus Reus, Mens Rea, subjective elements, and objective elements all intertwine to form the foundation of criminal liability in Philippine law. Here’s a breakdown of their relationship:

** The Big Picture: **

1. Actus Reus and Mens Rea: These are the two fundamental pillars of a crime. There must be both a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) for a crime to be established. The prosecution must prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Mens Rea and its Elements: Mens Rea itself is further broken down into (a) subjective** and
   (b) objective elements.
   These elements help define the specific mental state required for a particular crime.

Subjective vs. Objective within Mens Rea:

(a)
Subjective Elements:** Focus on the accused’s actual thoughts, knowledge, or intent at the time of the crime. It’s about what was going on in their mind.
Examples include intention, knowledge, and recklessness in its most specific form (e.g., deliberately disregarding a known risk).

(b)
* Objective Elements: Focus on what a reasonable person would have known or foreseen in the situation. It’s about an external standard of what someone should have considered.
This often comes into play when establishing recklessness (e.g., would a reasonable person know their actions could cause harm?).

Putting it Together:

Imagine a crime like theft. The actus reus would be the physical act of taking another person’s property without their consent. Mens Rea, in this case, would involve the subjective element of intent to permanently deprive the owner (steal) from the property.

However, the objective element of recklessness might also be relevant. For example, if someone “borrows” a car without permission but intends to return it, they might lack the subjective intent for theft. However, the prosecution could argue the objective element is present - a reasonable person would know taking a car without permission is reckless and could be considered theft.

• Key Points to Remember:**
• Actus reus is the foundation, the “what” happened.
• Mens Rea builds upon that foundation, considering the “why” behind the act.
• Subjective and objective elements help define the specific mental state required for a crime within Mens Rea.

Understanding this relationship between these concepts is crucial for analysing criminal offenses in the Philippines and determining if someone can be held liable for their actions.

Question 2

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

1. Criminal Liability – Article 4(1)

b. Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem

Answer 2

Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae, and Praeter Intentionem: A Philippine Law Comparison

These three legal concepts deal with MISTAKES MADE during the commission of a crime in Philippine law.

A) Key Differences:**

1. Target of the Mistake:
   a) Aberratio Ictus:** The mistake relates to the ACT ITSELF (hitting the wrong target). The offender intends to harm someone but ACCIDENTALLY injures a different person.
   b) Error in Personae:** The mistake relates to the ID OF THE VICTIM. The offender intends to harm a specific person but mistakenly attacks someone else.
   c) Praeter Intentionem:** The mistake relates to the RESULTS OF THE ACT. The offender intends to commit a crime but the outcome is more severe than planned.
   Example:
   * Aberratio Ictus: A person aims to shoot their enemy (intended target) but misses and accidentally shoots a bystander.
   * Error in Personae: A person mistakes their enemy’s twin brother for their enemy and attacks them.
   * Praeter Intentionem: A person throws a rock at someone intending to scare them (lesser crime) but accidentally hits them in the head, causing serious injury (more serious crime).
2. Level of Culpability:
   a) Aberratio Ictus & Error in Personae:** Generally, these can potentially reduce the culpability of the offender. They might be charged with a lesser offense depending on the specific circumstances and intent.
   b) Praeter Intentionem:** The level of culpability might vary depending on the specific crime and the severity of the unintended consequence. It could potentially reduce culpability in some cases, but not always.
   Example:
   * Aberratio Ictus: Someone aiming to shoot their enemy might be charged with attempted murder for the intended victim but reckless homicide for accidentally injuring the bystander.
   * Error in Personae: Someone attacking their enemy’s twin brother might be charged with assault and battery instead of attempted murder.
   * Praeter Intentionem: Someone throwing a rock that causes serious injury might still be charged with assault and battery with the unintended consequence considered an aggravating factor.
3. Strict Liability vs. Specific Intent:
   a) Aberratio Ictus & Error in Personae:** These concepts are typically relevant in crimes that require SPECIFIC INTENT, such as murder or assault with intent to harm a particular person.
   b) Praeter Intentionem:** This concept can be relevant in crimes with both specific intent and strict liability components. For example, arson requires intent to set fire to property, but the resulting damage might fall under strict liability.
   Example:
   * Aberratio Ictus & Error in Personae: Wouldn’t apply to a crime like drunk driving, which doesn’t require specific intent to harm a particular person.
   * Praeter Intentionem: Could apply to arson if someone sets fire to a building intending to burn down a specific store (specific intent) but the fire spreads and damages neighboring buildings (unintended consequence under strict liability).

B) Similarities:**

1. Mistakes During Crime: All three concepts deal with mistakes made during the commission of a crime.
2. Potential for Reduced Liability: They all have the potential to reduce the criminal liability of the offender depending on the specific circumstances.
3. Burden of Proof: The burden of proving these mistakes generally lies with the accused.

By understanding these concepts, you can gain a deeper understanding of how mistakes during criminal acts can be analysed and potentially affect the offender’s liability in Philippine law. Remember, the specific application of these concepts will depend on the individual case and the specific crime involved.

Question 3

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

1. Criminal Liability – Article 4(1)

c. Proximate Cause and Efficient Intervening Cause

PC - domino, NDU seq of E w/c CtC
EIC-indep E that Breaks Causation

Answer 3

Here’s a breakdown of proximate cause and efficient intervening cause in a single sentence each, along with an illustrative example:

A)
Proximate Cause:
= The natural, direct, and unbroken sequence of events that produces the criminal harm, without which the harm wouldn’t have occurred.

B)
Efficient Intervening Cause:
= An independent event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s act and the criminal harm.

Example:
Scenario:
Mark pushes John into a swimming pool (Actus Reus). John, who can’t swim, drowns (harm).

Proximate Cause:** Here, Mark’s act of pushing John directly caused him to fall into the pool and drown. It’s a natural and unbroken sequence of events leading to the harm.

Efficient Intervening Cause (absent):** In this scenario, there’s no efficient intervening cause. John’s inability to swim is a pre-existing condition, not a new event breaking the causal chain between Mark’s push and the drowning.

Possible Variation with Efficient Intervening Cause:

Scenario: Same as before, but this time, a lifeguard dives in and unsuccessfully tries to rescue John.

Proximate Cause:** Mark’s push remains the initial cause that set the chain of events in motion (John falling into the pool).

Efficient Intervening Cause (present):** The lifeguard’s attempt at rescue, although unsuccessful, introduces a new and independent event that breaks the direct causal link between Mark’s push and John’s drowning. This could potentially affect Mark’s criminal liability depending on the specific circumstances (e.g., recklessness vs. intentional murder).

Question 4

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

2. Impossible Crime – Article 4(2)

Answer 4

In Philippine jurisprudence, an impossible crime refers to a situation where an act, although intended to be a crime AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY, cannot be completed due to:

1) Inherent Impossibility:** The act itself is inherently impossible to achieve under any circumstances.
2) Inadequacy of Means:** The means used to commit the crime are clearly insufficient to achieve the desired criminal outcome.

In such cases, the actor cannot be held liable for the intended crime, although they might be liable for an attempted crime if the act itself constitutes a punishable attempt.

Here are some key points to remember about impossible crimes in the Philippines:

• Focus on Act and Means: The focus is on the objectivity of the act and the means used. Even if the offender believes the crime is possible, the law considers the objective reality.
• Attempted Impossible Crime: If the act constitutes an attempted crime that is punishable by law (e.g., attempted murder), the offender might still be liable for the attempt, even if the crime was ultimately impossible.
• Subjective vs. Objective: While the offender’s intent (mens rea) is important, the act’s objective impossibility takes precedence in determining criminal liability.

Examples:

• Inherently Impossible: Trying to steal a ghost’s possessions (inherently impossible as ghosts are not considered property).
• Inadequacy of Means: Attempting to rob a bank vault with a butter knife (means are clearly inadequate).

Important Note: The concept of impossible crimes can be nuanced and may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case. It’s always advisable to consult with a legal professional for a definitive analysis.

Question 5

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

3. Gravity of Felonies: Grave, Less Grave, and Light – Article 9, as
   amended by R.A. No. 10951

Answer 5

Here’s a breakdown of the key points for Grave, Less Grave, and Light Felonies in the Philippines:

Grave Felonies:** These are the most serious crimes punishable by death or penalties considered afflictive (e.g., lengthy imprisonment). Example: Murder.

Less Grave Felonies:** These are less severe crimes punishable by correctional penalties (shorter imprisonment terms). Example: Theft with violence.

Light Felonies:** These are the least serious felonies punishable by arrest or a fine, or both. Example: Minor theft.

Question 6

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

4. Stages of Execution – Article 6

a. Subjective Phase and Objective Phase - EXPLAIN int/ext act

b. Preparatory and Overt Acts
c. Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Stages
d. Spontaneous Desistance

Answer 6

Stages of Execution: Subjective vs. Objective Phase (Philippines)

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in the Philippines outlines the stages of execution for felonies: consummated, frustrated, and attempted.
Within the CONCEPT of ATTEMPTED felonies, the distinction between the SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE phases is crucial.

1) Subjective Phase (Internal Act):**
- Focuses on the internal act of the offender, their intent (mens rea) to commit the crime.
- This phase involves the planning, preparation, and formation of the criminal intent.
- The law generally doesn’t penalize the subjective phase alone.
Example: John decides to steal money from a bank (subjective phase - planning and forming the intent to steal).

2) Objective Phase (External Act):**
- Focuses on the external act of the offender, the outward manifestation of their criminal intent.
- This phase involves taking concrete steps towards committing the crime.
- An attempted felony occurs when the offender starts the objective phase but fails to complete the crime due to reasons beyond their control.

2A) Objective Phase can be further divided into:

A) Acts preparatory:** These acts, while related to the crime, are generally too remote to be considered punishable attempts (e.g., buying tools for a future robbery).
B) Acts of execution:** These are acts that directly and immediately lead to the commission of the crime (e.g., entering the bank with the intent to steal).

Example (continued): John enters the bank with a gun, intending to rob the cashier (objective phase - act of execution).

Distinguishing the Phases:

The line between the subjective and objective phases can be blurry in some cases. The courts consider factors like:
1) Imminence of the crime:** How close was the offender to completing the crime?
2) Nature of the acts performed:** Were the acts specific and directly related to the crime?

Example (continued): If John gets cold feet and leaves the bank before approaching the cashier, it might be considered an act preparatory (within the subjective phase) as he didn’t take a substantial step towards completing the robbery.

Understanding the subjective and objective phases is crucial in determining the appropriate penalty for attempted crimes in the Philippines.
The law generally penalizes acts within the objective phase, particularly acts of execution, when the offender’s intent and a substantial step towards the crime are established.

Question 7

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

5. Duty of the Courts in Case of Non-Punishable Act and Excessive Penalty – Article 5

Answer 7

Legal Framework:

Non-Punishable Acts: Require a specific law penalizing the act.

Excessive Penalty: Courts must apply the penalty prescribed by the law at the time the offense was committed.

In conclusion, Article 5 of the RPC ensures that individuals CANNOT be Punished for acts that are NOT DECLARED Criminal by law

and

safeguards against the imposition of excessive penalties by requiring ADHERENCE TO the Law in Effect at the time of the offense.

This upholds the principles of legality and proportionality in criminal justice.

Question 8

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

6. Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code – Article 10

rpc DOES NOT have
so Fill the Gaps w genPrin

Answer 8

Legal Framework:

Suppletory Application: Used when the RPC does not have specific provisions for certain situations.

General Principles of Criminal Law: Applies to fill gaps in the RPC, ensuring consistency and legality in criminal procedures.

In summary, Article 10 of the RPC ensures that the legal framework remains comprehensive and consistent by allowing the use of general principles of criminal law TO SUPPLEMENT specific provisions WHEN NECESSARY. This principle facilitates a robust application of justice even in situations not explicitly covered by the RPC itself.

Question 9

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
B. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
1. Justifying Circumstances – Article 11

Answer 9

Justifying Circumstances (Article 11) - Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:

• Self-Defense: Justifiable use of force to protect oneself from imminent harm or attack.
• Defense of Relatives: Use of force to protect a family member from an imminent attack.
• Defense of Stranger: Use of force to protect a stranger from an imminent attack if there is no other means to prevent the harm.
• Avoidance of Greater Evil: Committing a lesser evil to avoid a greater harm or danger.
• Fulfillment of a Duty: Acting in the performance of a legal duty, such as law enforcement or military actions, within the bounds of authority.

Question 10

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
B. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

2. Exempting Circumstances – Article 12

Answer 10

Exempting Circumstances (Article 12) - Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:

• Insanity: The person is suffering from a mental disorder or defect that impairs their ability to understand the nature of their actions or to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime.
• Imbecility: The person has a mental deficiency that significantly impairs their cognitive functions and understanding, affecting their criminal liability.
• Minority: The person is below the age of criminal responsibility (usually under 15 years old) and thus cannot be held criminally liable.
• Accident: The act was performed without criminal intent or negligence, and it resulted in harm purely by accident.
• Consent of the Victim: In some cases, if the victim consented to the act, and the act does not violate public morals or laws, it may exempt the person from liability.

These bullet points summarize the key exempting circumstances under Article 12, where individuals are not held criminally liable due to specific conditions affecting their culpability.

Question 11

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
B. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

3. Mitigating Circumstances – Article 13

Question 12

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
B. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

4. Aggravating Circumstances – Article 14

Question 13

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
B. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

5. Alternative Circumstances – Article 15

Question 14

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
B. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

6. Absolutory Causes

Exempting circumstances vs Absolutory causes

Answer 14

Examples include theft between certain family members (Art. 332 RPC)

Provides for exemptions from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling, and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by certain family members. The family members covered by this provision include:
Spouses
Ascendants and descendants
Parents-in-law and children-in-law
Siblings (by consanguinity)

Effect on liability:
Exempting circumstances remove criminal liability entirely, while absolutory causes acknowledge the crime but prevent punishment.

Question 15

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

C. Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation
1. Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories – Articles 16-20

Answer 15

1. Principals (Article 17)
Definition: Principals are individuals who directly participate in the commission of a crime by performing the acts that constitute the offense, either as the main perpetrators or as those who committed the crime with a full understanding of its nature.

Example: If a person plans and executes a robbery, they are considered a principal in the crime.

2. Accomplices (Article 18)
Definition: Accomplices are individuals who assist or help the principal offenders in the commission of the crime, but do not directly execute the criminal acts themselves. They provide support or aid with the knowledge of the criminal intent.

Example: If a person provides the getaway car and assists in the planning of the robbery, but does not participate directly in the robbery itself, they are considered an accomplice.

3. Accessories (Article 19)
Definition: Accessories are individuals who, after the commission of a crime, provide help or support to the offenders by concealing, aiding, or assisting them to evade detection or capture, and are not involved in the crime’s execution.

Example: If someone hides the stolen goods from a robbery or provides false alibis to protect the offenders, they are considered an accessory to the crime.

These definitions outline the different roles and levels of involvement in criminal activities, with principals being the direct perpetrators, accomplices providing direct support, and accessories aiding after the crime has been committed.

Question 16

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

C. Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation

2. Conspiracy and Proposal – Article 8
   a. As a mode of incurring criminal liability
   b. As a crime

Question 17

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

C. Persons Criminally Liable and Degree of Participation

3. Liability for Multiple Commission of Crimes
   a. Recidivism – Article 14(9)
   b. Habituality – Article 14(10)
   c. Quasi-recidivism – Article 160
   d. Habitual delinquency –Article 62(5)

Question 18

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

D. Plurality of Crimes (Real and Ideal)
1. Absorption System

Answer 18

Under the absorption system, when a criminal act results in the commission of two or more offenses, the more serious crime absorbs or encompasses the lesser offenses. This means that the defendant can only be charged and punished for the most serious offense committed, even if the act also constitutes other offenses of lesser gravity.

Scenario: Mark forcibly takes a wallet from a person on the street, using intimidation and force. He manages to grab the wallet containing money and personal items.

Analysis:
In this case, Mark’s actions constitute both theft and robbery:

a) Theft:
Taking the wallet and its contents (money and personal items) without the consent of the owner.
b) Robbery: Using force or intimidation against the victim to commit theft.

Question 19

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

D. Plurality of Crimes (Real and Ideal)

2. Single Impulse Rule

Answer 19

Substance of Single Impulse Rule:
Under the Single Impulse Rule, if a person HARBORS A SINGLE criminal intent and proceeds to commit a SERIES OF ACTS to achieve that intent, all the acts arising from that single intent are TREATED AS ONE OFFENSE

This rule ensures that the defendant is prosecuted for a single offense despite the multiplicity of acts committed in furtherance of that intent.

Question 20

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

D. Plurality of Crimes (Real and Ideal)

3. Complex Crime – Article 48

Complex Crime: A crime committed in the execution of another crime, where the multiple offenses are treated as one for legal purposes.

Question 21

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

D. Plurality of Crimes (Real and Ideal)

4. Special Complex Crime

Special Complex Crime: A specific type of complex crime where the law explicitly treats several crimes as a single offense due to their inherent connection, such as robbery with homicide.

Question 22

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

D. Plurality of Crimes (Real and Ideal)

5. Continuous/Continued Crime

Continuous Crime: An offense committed through a series of acts that are part of a single criminal intent or scheme, and are considered one crime despite occurring over time.

Question 23

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

D. Plurality of Crimes (Real and Ideal)

6. Continuing Crime

Answer 23

Under Philippine law, a continuing crime can involve various offenses such as kidnapping, human trafficking, illegal drug trafficking, and certain forms of fraud or embezzlement where the criminal activity SPANS A PERIOD rather than occurring at a specific moment.

In this scenario, the illegal drug trafficking constitutes a continuing crime because it involves a series of interconnected acts (transportation, distribution, and sale of drugs) that collectively contribute to the commission of the offense. The criminal liability of the perpetrators EXTENDS THROUGH OUT THE DURATION of their involvement in the drug trafficking operations, rather than being limited to discrete instances of drug distribution.

Legal Implications:

Continuous Criminal Conduct: Each act of trafficking contributes to the overall criminal offense.

Aggregation of Acts: The acts are considered together to determine the extent of criminal liability.

Prosecution Approach: Prosecutors can charge individuals involved in continuing crimes for each act that contributes to the offense, leading to multiple charges based on the series of unlawful acts committed.

Question 24

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – Article 21

Answer 24

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Article 21): “No one can be convicted or punished for an act that was not defined as a crime or prescribed with a penalty by law at the time it was committed.”

Example: If a person committed an act in 2021 that was not classified as a crime under Philippine law at that time, they cannot be prosecuted or punished for that act even if the law changes in 2024 to criminalize it. For instance, if a new law in 2024 makes the act of selling a specific item illegal, a person who sold that item in 2021 cannot be penalized under the new law.

Question 25

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
2. Philosophical Theories

Question 26

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
3. Classification of Penalties – Articles 25-26, as amended by R.A. No.
10951

Question 27

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
4. Duration and Effects of Penalties – Article 27

Question 28

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
5. Application and Graduation of Penalties – Articles 46, 50-57, 61-65 and
76-77

Answer 28

Certainly! Here are the key phrases to remember for each of the specified articles under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:

1. Article 46: “Application of penalties is based on the nature of the crime and the offender’s circumstances” – This article details how penalties are applied according to the crime committed and the offender’s personal circumstances.
2. Article 50: “Penalty reduction for mitigating circumstances” – This article provides for the reduction of penalties when mitigating circumstances are present.
3. Article 51: “Penalty increase for aggravating circumstances” – This article specifies that penalties may be increased when aggravating circumstances are present.
4. Article 52: “Determination of penalty in cases with both aggravating and mitigating circumstances” – This article explains how penalties are adjusted when both aggravating and mitigating circumstances are involved.
5. Article 53: “Penalty application for cumulative and alternative penalties” – This article covers the application of penalties when multiple or alternative penalties are prescribed.
6. Article 54: “Rules for the application of penalties in compound and complex crimes” – This article addresses how penalties are applied in cases of compound or complex crimes.
7. Article 55: “Graduation of penalties based on the degree of the crime” – This article discusses how penalties are graduated according to the degree of seriousness of the crime.
8. Article 56: “Penalties for attempted, frustrated, and consummated crimes” – This article specifies the penalties for different stages of a crime: attempted, frustrated, and consummated.
9. Article 57: “Application of penalties for habitual offenders” – This article provides for the increased penalties for habitual offenders.
10. Article 61: “Penalties for violations of special laws” – This article addresses the penalties applicable to violations of laws other than the Revised Penal Code.
11. Article 62: “Mitigating and aggravating circumstances in special laws” – This article details how mitigating and aggravating circumstances apply to violations of special laws.
12. Article 63: “Application of penalties in case of a conflict between special and general laws” – This article outlines how penalties are applied when there is a conflict between special and general laws.
13. Article 64: “Rules for the suspension of the execution of sentence” – This article specifies the rules for the suspension of sentence execution under certain conditions.
14. Article 65: “Suspension of the sentence for first-time offenders” – This article provides for the suspension of sentence for first-time offenders under specific circumstances.
15. Article 76: “Rules for the application of penalty reduction” – This article outlines the rules for reducing penalties based on specific conditions.
16. Article 77: “Application of penalties in cases of doubt” – This article covers the application of penalties when there is doubt or ambiguity in the law.

Question 29

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
6. Accessory Penalties – Article 25

Question 30

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
7. Preventive Imprisonment – Article 29, as amended by R.A. No. 10592

This article provides that the period of preventive imprisonment, or time spent in detention before trial, is deducted from the total sentence if the accused is subsequently convicted, ensuring that time spent in detention is credited towards the overall penalty.

Question 31

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
8. Subsidiary Penalty – Article 39, as amended by R.A. No. 10159, sec. 1

This provision mandates that when a person sentenced to a fine cannot pay, they may be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment, which entails serving time in jail as a substitute for the unpaid fine.

Question 32

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
9. Community Service – Article 88a, as inserted by R.A. No. 11362, sec. 3;
A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC

This provision allows courts to impose community service as an alternative penalty for certain offenses, where offenders perform work benefiting the community instead of serving time in prison.

Question 33

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
10. Release on Recognizance – R.A. No. 10389

This law allows the temporary release of a detainee without bail, based on a promise to appear in court, typically granted to individuals charged with less serious offenses or who cannot afford bail.

Question 34

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
11. Successive Service of Sentence – Article 70

Question 35

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
12. Three-Fold Rule – Article 70

Question 36

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
13. Indeterminate Sentence Law – Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No.
4225 and R.A. No. 4203, secs. 1-2

Answer 36

Parole

1st Determination of Appropriate Penalty with circumstances

2nd Setting of minimum penalty which is one degree lower

3rd once minimum sentence, convict entitled to parole

Question 37

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties
14. Anti-Death Penalty Law – R.A. No. 9346, secs. 1-3

Answer 37

Anti-Death Penalty Law – R.A. No. 9346 (Sections 1-3):

Section 1: Prohibition of the Death Penalty
Key Sentence: The death penalty is prohibited in the Philippines, and no person shall be sentenced to death for any crime.

Example: If an individual is convicted of a serious crime such as murder or drug trafficking, the highest penalty they can receive is life imprisonment, not the death penalty, which was abolished under this law.

Section 2: Repeal of Existing Death Penalty Provisions
Key Sentence: All laws, rules, and regulations that provide for the death penalty are repealed and rendered ineffective.

Example: Prior provisions that allowed for the death penalty for heinous crimes, such as the Revised Penal Code sections that were previously applicable, are no longer valid, and the legal system must apply life imprisonment or other penalties instead.

Section 3: Recalibration of Sentences for Crimes Previously Subject to the Death Penalty
Key Sentence: Sentences that were previously death-eligible must be recalibrated to a maximum of life imprisonment or other appropriate penalties.

Example: An offender who was previously sentenced to death under old laws for a crime like kidnapping for ransom will now have their sentence recalibrated to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum of 30 years, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and applicable laws.

These summaries and examples reflect the intent of R.A. No. 9346 to abolish the death penalty and ensure that sentences are adjusted accordingly to fit the revised legal framework.

Question 38

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

E. Penalties

15. Pecuniary Liabilities – Article 38

(Note: The specific penalty for each crime is not included. The questions will
provide the prescribed penalties in problems involving application and graduation of penalties.)

Answer 38

Pecuniary Liabilities (Article 38): “Pecuniary liabilities are financial obligations imposed on a convict, including fines and restitution, as part of their sentence.”

Example: If a person is convicted of theft, Article 38 may require them to pay a fine and/or restitution to the victim for the stolen property. For instance, if the court orders a fine of PHP 10,000 and restitution of PHP 5,000 to the victim, the convict must pay these amounts in addition to any other penalties imposed.

Question 39

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction
a. Death of Convict
b. Service of Sentence
c. Amnesty
d. Absolute Pardon
e. Prescription of Crimes – Article 90; See Periods of Prescription
for Violations Penalized by Special Acts – Act No. 3326, secs. 1-2
f. Prescription of Penalties – Article 91
g. Marriage between the Offender and the Offended Party – Articles
266-C and 344
h. Probation – P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707, secs. 4,
9 and 16

2. Partial Extinction – Article 94, as amended by R.A. No. 10592, secs. 2-5
   a. Conditional Pardon – Article 95; Act No. 1524
   b. Commutation of Sentence – Article 96
   c. Good Conduct Allowances – Article 97, as amended by R.A. No.
   10592, sec. 3
   d. Parole – Act No. 4103, sec. 5

Answer 39

Here are key phrases for each mode of extinction of criminal liability under Philippine law:

Total Extinction

1. Death of Convict: “Criminal liability ends with the convict’s death.”
2. Service of Sentence: “Criminal liability ends upon full service of the imposed sentence.”
3. Amnesty: “Criminal liability is extinguished by amnesty granted by the government.”
4. Absolute Pardon: “Criminal liability is fully extinguished by an absolute pardon from the President.”
5. Prescription of Crimes – Article 90; Act No. 3326: “Criminal liability ends when the time limit for prosecuting the crime expires.”
6. Prescription of Penalties – Article 91: “Penalties become unenforceable after the lapse of a specified period.”
7. Marriage between the Offender and the Offended Party – Articles 266-C and 344: “Criminal liability for certain offenses is extinguished by marriage between the offender and the victim.”
8. Probation – P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707: “Probation grants conditional freedom, potentially leading to the extinction of criminal liability upon successful completion.”

Partial Extinction

1. Conditional Pardon – Article 95; Act No. 1524: “Conditional pardon reduces liability but may impose certain conditions on the offender.”
2. Commutation of Sentence – Article 96: “Commutation of sentence shortens the duration of imprisonment but does not fully extinguish liability.”
3. Good Conduct Allowances – Article 97; R.A. No. 10592: “Good behavior can reduce the time served in prison, partially extinguishing the liability.”
4. Parole – Act No. 4103: “Parole releases the offender before completing the sentence, under supervision, partially extinguishing the liability.”

These phrases should help you easily recall the key concepts related to the extinction of criminal liability in Philippine law.

Question 40

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction
a. Death of Convict

Answer 40

Substance of Extinction Due to Death of Convict:

When a convict dies, either during the commission of the crime, before the judgment becomes final, or while serving the sentence, the criminal liability is EXTINGUISHED.
This principle is based on the idea that criminal punishment is intended not only to punish but also to reform the offender.
Once the offender dies, there is NO LONGER any PURPOSE served by continuing criminal proceedings or enforcing the penalty.

Illustrative Example:

Imagine a scenario where Juan is convicted of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years. During his confinement in the national penitentiary, Juan suddenly passes away due to a medical condition.

Question 41

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

b. Service of Sentence

Answer 41

Substance of Extinction Due to Service of Sentence:

Extinction of criminal liability due to the service of sentence means that once a convicted person COMPLETES THE ENTIRETY of their court-imposed punishment (whether imprisonment, fine, or other penalties), their criminal liability for that particular offense is considered fully extinguished.
This form of extinction underscores the principle that once an individual has undergone the prescribed punishment, they HAVE PAID their DEBT TO SOCIETY and are no longer subject to further punishment or legal consequences for that offense.

Illustrative Example:

Maria was convicted of estafa (fraud) under the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to serve four years in prison. She diligently serves her sentence in a correctional facility and completes the four-year term imposed by the court.

Question 42

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

c. Amnesty

Answer 42

Substance of Extinction Due to Amnesty:

Amnesty is an act of the state granted THROUGH LEGISLATION, which generally extends a pardon to a group or class of persons who have committed POLITICAL offenses or acts against the state.
It aims to promote peace and unity by pardoning those who may have been involved in activities against the government during certain periods. In the context of criminal law, amnesty is a SOVEREIGN ACT that wipes out the offense itself and all its legal consequences. It is a legislative act and applies retroactively, meaning it covers offenses committed before the grant of amnesty.

Illustrative Example:

During a period of political upheaval, several individuals were involved in protests against the government, resulting in charges of sedition under the Revised Penal Code. In response to calls for reconciliation and national unity, the Philippine Congress passes a law granting amnesty to all persons charged with sedition and related offenses during that specific period.

Question 43

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

d. Absolute Pardon

Answer 43

Substance of Extinction Due to Absolute Pardon:

Absolute pardon is a form of executive clemency granted by the President of the Philippines.
It completely extinguishes the criminal liability of a convicted person and removes all legal consequences associated with the offense. Unlike conditional pardon, which may impose certain conditions or obligations on the pardoned individual, absolute pardon is unconditional and wipes out the conviction and its effects AS IF the offense HAD NEVER BEEN committed.

Illustrative Example:

Juan was convicted of theft under the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment. After serving five years of his sentence, new evidence emerges showing that Juan was wrongfully convicted due to mistaken identity. Upon review of the case and recommendation from the Department of Justice, the President of the Philippines grants Juan an absolute pardon.

Question 44

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

e. Prescription of Crimes – Article 90; See Periods of Prescription
for Violations Penalized by SPECIAL Acts – Act No. 3326, secs. 1-2

Answer 44

PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES

1. Prescriptive Periods:
   a) 1 year: Offenses punishable by fine or imprisonment up to 1 month, or both
   b) 4 years: Imprisonment more than 1 month but less than 2 years
   c) 8 years: Imprisonment 2 years or more but less than 6 years
   d) 12 years: Imprisonment 6 years or more
   e) 20 years: Treason
   f) 2 months: Violations of municipal ordinances
2. Commencement of Prescription:
   
   • From the DAY OF COMMISSION of the violation
   • If unknown, from the day of DISCOVERY
3. Interruption of Prescription:
   
   • Interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person
   • Resumes if proceedings are dismissed without constituting jeopardy

Key points to remember:
- Longer periods for more serious offenses
- Special 20-year period for treason
- Short 2-month period for municipal ordinances
- Prescription starts from commission or discovery
- Legal proceedings interrupt prescription

This summary captures the essential rules regarding prescriptive periods for various offenses, their commencement, and interruption as specified in the given sections.

Question 45

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

f. Prescription of Penalties – Article 91

Art. 92. When and how PENALTIES prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:

1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year

Answer 45

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

1. Commencement of Prescription:
   
   • Starts from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents.
2. Interruption of Prescription:
   
   • Interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information.
   • Resumes if proceedings terminate without conviction or acquittal, or are unjustifiably stopped for reasons not imputable to the accused.
3. Absence of Offender:
   
   • Prescription does not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

Key Points to Remember:
- Discovery: Prescription period starts upon discovery of the crime.
- Interruption: Filing of complaint or information interrupts the period.
- Resumption: Period resumes if proceedings end without a final judgment or are unjustifiably halted.
- Absence: Period is paused if the offender is outside the Philippines.

This summary captures the essential rules regarding the prescription period for crimes, emphasizing the start, interruption, and resumption of the period, as well as the impact of the offender’s absence.

Question 46

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

g. Marriage between the Offender and the Offended Party – Articles
266-C and 344

Question 47

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. Total Extinction

h. Probation – P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707, secs. 4,
9 and 16

Answer 47

Here’s a summary of the key points regarding probation for easy memorization:

1. Eligibility:
   
   • Available for probationable penalties
   • Must apply within appeal period
   • Not allowed if appeal is perfected
2. Special Cases:
   
   • Can apply if non-probationable sentence is modified to probationable
   • Co-defendants can apply even if others appeal
3. Effect of Application:
   
   • Suspends sentence execution
   • Waives right to appeal
4. Disqualifications:
   
   • Sentences OVER 6 years
   • Crimes against NATIONAL security
   • Previous CONVICTION over 6 months/1000 peso fine
   • Previous PROBATION
   • Already SERVING sentence
5. Termination:
   
   • Court orders final discharge upon fulfilment of conditions
   • Restores civil rights
   • Extinguishes criminal liability
6. Key Procedural Points:
   
   • Court’s decision on probation not appealable
   • Probationer loses benefit if seeking review of modified decision

Remember:
- Probation is an alternative to serving sentence
- Strict eligibility and disqualification criteria
- Successful completion restores rights and clears record

This summary captures the essential elements of probation, including eligibility, process, disqualifications, and effects of successful completion.

Question 48

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability

2. Partial Extinction – Article 94, as amended by R.A. No. 10592, secs. 2-5
   a. Conditional Pardon – Article 95; Act No. 1524

Answer 48

Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

“1. By conditional pardon;

“2. By commutation of the sentence; and

“3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence.”

Question 49

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability

2. Partial Extinction – Article 94, as amended by R.A. No. 10592, secs. 2-5

b. Commutation of Sentence – Article 96

Answer 49

Here’s a summary of the rules regarding special time allowances for loyalty and good conduct for easy memorization:

1. Special Time Allowance for Loyalty:
   a) 1/5 deduction of sentence:
   
   • For prisoners who evade imprisonment during calamities (Article 158)
   • If they surrender within 48 hours after proclamation of calamity’s end
   b) 2/5 deduction of sentence:
   - For prisoners who stay in confinement during calamities
2. Applicability:
   
   • Applies to all prisoners (preventive imprisonment or serving sentence)
3. Good Conduct Allowances:
   
   • Can be granted by:
     
     • Director of Bureau of Corrections
     • Chief of Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
     • Warden of provincial, district, municipal, or city jail
   • Must be lawfully justified
   • Once granted, cannot be revoked

Key points to remember:
- Loyalty during calamities can reduce sentence by 1/5 or 2/5
- Applies to all types of prisoners
- Good conduct allowances are granted by prison authorities
- Good conduct allowances are permanent once given

This summary captures the essential rules for special time allowances based on loyalty during calamities and good conduct, emphasizing the potential sentence reductions and the permanence of good conduct allowances.

Question 50

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability

2. Partial Extinction – Article 94, as amended by R.A. No. 10592, secs. 2-5

c. Good Conduct Allowances – Article 97, as amended by R.A. No.
10592, sec. 3

Answer 50

Here’s a summary of the rules regarding the deductions from the period of imprisonment for good conduct under Article 29 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for easy comprehension:

Deductions for Good Conduct:
1. First Two Years:
- Deduction: 20 days per month of good behavior

2. Third to Fifth Year:
   
   • Deduction: 23 days per month of good behavior
3. Sixth to Tenth Year:
   
   • Deduction: 25 days per month of good behavior
4. Eleventh Year and Beyond:
   
   • Deduction: 30 days per month of good behavior
5. Additional Deduction:
   
   • 15 days per month for study, teaching, or mentoring service

Key Points:
- Eligibility: Applies to offenders qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment and convicted prisoners in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center, or local jail.
- Appeals: An appeal by the accused does not affect their entitlement to these allowances for good conduct.
- Commencement: Deductions start from the day of the commission of the violation or from the discovery if not known at the time.

This summary captures the essential rules for deductions from imprisonment periods based on good conduct, emphasizing the increasing deductions over time and the additional benefits for educational and mentoring activities.

Question 51

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

F. Extinction of Criminal Liability

2. Partial Extinction – Article 94, as amended by R.A. No. 10592, secs. 2-5

d. Parole – Act No. 4103, sec. 5

Answer 51

This rule describes the role and responsibilities of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence in partially extinguishing criminal liability through parole. Here’s a summary of the key points:

1. Board’s Duty:
   
   • Examine physical, mental, and moral records of parole-eligible prisoners
   • Determine appropriate release time
2. Parole Eligibility:
   
   • Prisoner must have served the minimum penalty imposed
3. Factors Considered:
   
   • Prisoner’s work and conduct reports
   • Board’s own study and investigation
   • Prisoner’s fitness for release based on training
   • Probability of law-abiding behavior upon release
   • Compatibility of release with society’s welfare
4. Board’s Authority:
   
   • May authorize release on parole at its discretion
   • Must follow established rules and regulations
5. Conditions of Parole:
   
   • Set by the Board
   • Must comply with prescribed terms
6. Retroactive Application:
   
   • Board to examine records of prisoners sentenced before the Act
   • Make parole recommendations to the Governor-General for qualified prisoners
7. Minimum Imprisonment:
   
   • Prisoners must serve at least the minimum period they would have received under the new Act

Key points to remember:
- Board assesses prisoner’s rehabilitation and readiness for release
- Parole decision based on multiple factors, including societal welfare
- Applies to both new and existing prisoners
- Parole is a form of partial extinction of criminal liability

This summary captures the essential elements of how the Board of Indeterminate Sentence can partially extinguish criminal liability through the parole process.

Question 52

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto
1. Primary and Subsidiary

Answer 52

Legal Framework:

Primary Liability: DIRECT COMPENSATION for damages caused by the criminal act.

Subsidiary Liability: SECONDARY OBLIGATION of others involved in the crime to pay if the principal offender cannot.

In summary, primary civil liability in the RPC pertains to the DIRECT OBLIGATION OF THE OFFENDER to compensate the victim, while subsidiary civil liability ensures that victims are compensated EVEN IF the primary offender CANNOT FULFILL their obligations, thereby promoting the principle of full compensation for victims of criminal acts.

Illustration:
Suppose in the previous case, Juan is unable to pay Pedro the amount ordered by the court due to financial hardship or insolvency. In such a scenario, under the subsidiary liability provision of the RPC, Pedro can seek recourse against Juan’s employer, who was found to have benefited from the theft, or other individuals involved as accessories or accomplices, to recover the civil damages awarded by the court. This subsidiary liability ensures that victims are compensated even if the principal offender cannot fulfill their financial obligations.

Question 53

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto

2. Restitution, Reparation, and Indemnification – Articles 104-108

Answer 53

Here are brief descriptions of restitution, reparation, and indemnification, each in one sentence:

1. Restitution: The act of RESTORING or returning to the rightful owner something that was taken or lost, often to undo unjust enrichment[3].
   
   • Example: Returning stolen property to its original owner.
2. Reparation: Compensation or payment made TO REPAIR damage or injury caused, often used in the context of international law or historical injustices.
   
   • Example: A government paying reparations to victims of human rights violations.
3. Indemnification: A contractual obligation to compensate for loss or damage incurred, typically involving REIMBURSEMENT for expenses or liabilities[1][2].
   
   • Example: An insurance company indemnifying a policyholder for damages after an accident.

Question 54

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto

3. Civil Liability of an Offender Exempted from Criminal Liability –
   Article 101

Answer 54

Here’s a summary of the key points regarding civil liability in certain cases where there is exemption from criminal liability:

1. General Rule:
   
   • Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability in specific cases.
2. For imbeciles, insane persons, and minors (under 15 without discernment):
   
   • Civil liability DEVOLVES UPON THOSE with legal authority or control over them.
   • If no such person exists or is insolvent, the imbecile, insane person, or minor is liable with their own property (except exempt property).
3. For acts preventing harm to others:
   
   • BENEFICIARIES of the prevented harm are CIVILLY liable in proportion to their benefit.
   • Courts determine the proportionate amount of liability.
   • Special rules apply when shares can’t be determined or government/majority of town inhabitants are liable.
4. For acts under compulsion or irresistible force:
   
   • Primary liability: Persons using violence or causing fears.
   • Secondary liability: Those doing the act (if no primary liable person exists).

Key differences:
1. Liability transfer: In cases of minors and mentally incapacitated, liability shifts to guardians.
2. Beneficiary liability: Unique provision for liability of those who benefit from harm prevention.
3. Hierarchical liability: In compulsion cases, there’s a primary and secondary order of liability.

Question 55

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto

4. Share of Each Person Civilly Liable for a Felony – Article 109

Answer 55

If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond.

Question 56

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto
5. Preference in Payment – Article 110

Answer 56

This rule describes the order and nature of liability for principals, accomplices, and accessories in a crime. Here’s a summary for easy comprehension:

1. Primary Liability:
   
   • Principals, accomplices, and accessories are primarily liable within their own class.
   • They are severally (in solidum) liable for their respective shares.
2. Order of Subsidiary Liability:
   
   • First: Property of principals
   • Second: Property of accomplices
   • Last: Property of accessories
3. Right of Reimbursement:
   
   • Any person who pays the full amount (in solidum) or under subsidiary liability has the RIGHT TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT from others for their respective shares.

Key Points to Remember:
- There’s a hierarchy of liability: principals, then accomplices, then accessories.
- Each group is primarily responsible for their own share.
- If one group can’t pay, liability moves to the next group in order.
- Anyone who pays more than their share can seek reimbursement from others.

This system ensures that victims are compensated while also maintaining a fair distribution of responsibility among different levels of involvement in the crime.

Question 57

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto

6. Persons Who Participated Gratuitously – Article 111

Answer 57

Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.

Question 58

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE

G. Civil Liability Ex-Delicto

7. Extinction and Survival of Civil Liability Ex-Delicto – Articles 112-113

Answer 58

1. Extinction of Civil Liability (Art. 112):
   
   • Civil liability from criminal acts is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligations.
   • Follows provisions of the Civil Law.
2. Persistence of Civil Liability (Art. 113):
   
   • Civil liability continues even after:
     a) Serving the sentence
     b) Deprivation of liberty or other rights
     c) Amnesty
     d) Pardon
     e) Commutation of sentence
     f) Any other reason for not serving the sentence
3. Exception:
   
   • Civil liability is extinguished only as provided in Article 112.

Key points to remember:
- Civil liability from crimes follows civil law rules for extinction.
- Serving criminal sentence does not automatically extinguish civil liability.
- Civil liability persists despite amnesty, pardon, or commutation.
- Only specific civil law provisions can extinguish this civil liability.

This summary emphasizes that civil liability arising from criminal acts is treated separately from criminal liability and generally persists even after criminal penalties are served or forgiven, unless specifically extinguished under civil law provisions.

Question 59

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

1. Criminal Liability – Article 4(1)
   a. Actus reus and mens rea; - explain in detail

Answer 59

Actus Reus vs. Mens Rea in Philippine Criminal Law: A Breakdown with Examples

Both Actus Reus and Mens Rea are crucial elements that need to be proven for a crime to be established in the Philippines. Let’s delve into their key differences and similarities with illustrative examples:

A) Key Differences:**

1. Focus:
   * Actus Reus: Focuses on the external aspect of the crime, the physical act or omission itself. Think of it as the “what” happened.
   * Mens Rea: Refers to the internal aspect of the crime, the accused’s guilty mental state or criminal intent. It’s the “why” behind the act.
   Example:
   * Stealing a car (Actus Reus) requires a person to physically take the car without the owner’s consent.
   * Mens Rea, however, can vary. It could be intent to permanently deprive the owner (theft), or simply wanting to borrow it temporarily without permission (joyriding).
2. Levels of Culpability:
   * Actus Reus: Doesn’t differentiate between levels of culpability. It’s either present or not.
   * Mens Rea: There are different degrees of Mens Rea, reflecting the accused’s state of mind:
   
   • Intention: Deliberate plan to commit the crime.
   • Recklessness: Disregarding a substantial risk that the crime will occur.
   • Culpa: Negligence or lack of foresight.
     Example:
     * A driver (Actus Reus) accidentally hits a pedestrian while texting.
     * Mens Rea would depend on the specific situation:
   • Intention (murder) if they deliberately aimed at the pedestrian.
   • Recklessness if they knew texting while driving was dangerous but did it anyway.
   • Culpa (reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property/physical injuries) if they simply weren’t paying attention.
3. Strict Liability Offenses:
   * Actus Reus: Always required for a crime.
   * Mens Rea: Not required for some specific offenses, known as strict liability offenses. In these cases, the focus is solely on the act itself, regardless of the accused’s intent.
   Example:
   * Selling expired food (Actus Reus) is a crime with strict liability. The seller’s knowledge or intent (Mens Rea) is irrelevant. They are liable for the act of selling the expired product.

B) Similarities:**

1. Interdependent:
   * Both Actus Reus and Mens Rea are interdependent. To be found guilty, the prosecution must prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Burden of Proof:
   * The prosecution bears the burden of proving both Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
3. Defenses can negate:
   * Certain defenses can negate either Actus Reus or Mens Rea, potentially leading to an acquittal.

Example:
* A person accused of theft (Actus Reus) claims they were forced to take the car at gunpoint (defense negating Mens Rea - lack of intention).

By understanding these key differences and similarities between Actus Reus and Mens Rea, you can gain a deeper understanding of the elements that constitute a crime in the Philippines.

Question 60

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

1. Criminal Liability – Article 4(1)
   a. Actus reus and mens rea;

Mens Rea:
Objective and Subjective Elements - explain in detail

Answer 60

In Philippine criminal law, the concepts of objective and subjective elements are often used in relation to Mens Rea, the mental state of the accused. However, it’s important to understand the distinction between these two within Mens Rea itself.

Key Differences:

1. Focus:

• Objective Element: Focuses on the external aspects of the accused’s mental state. It considers what a reasonable person would have known or foreseen in the situation.
• Subjective Element: Focuses on the internal aspects of the accused’s mental state. It considers the accused’s actual knowledge, intent, or recklessness at the time of the crime.

Example:

• A person shoots someone in a crowded bar (Objective Element - Actus Reus is established).
• The objective element would ask: Would a reasonable person have known their action could result in someone getting shot? (Yes, in a crowded bar with a gun, this is foreseeable)
• The subjective element would ask: Did the accused intend to shoot someone (murder), or were they acting recklessly (reckless imprudence resulting in homicide)?

2. Levels of Culpability:

• Objective Element: Often associated with the concept of recklessness. It asks if a reasonable person would have foreseen the consequences.
• Subjective Element: Can encompass various levels of culpability, including intention, recklessness, and even negligence (culpa) depending on the specific crime.

Example:

• A driver speeds through a red light (Objective Element - Actus Reus is established).
• The objective element would ask: Would a reasonable person know that speeding through a red light could cause an accident? (Yes, it’s a foreseeable risk)
• The subjective element would depend on the driver’s intent (did they deliberately ignore the light?) or recklessness (were they simply not paying attention?).

3. Burden of Proof:

• Objective Element: The prosecution usually has the burden of proving the objective element, especially when establishing recklessness.
• Subjective Element: The prosecution generally has a higher burden of proving the subjective element, particularly when dealing with specific intent.

Example:

• Someone accidentally sets fire to a building while cooking (Objective Element - Actus Reus is established).
• The prosecution would need to show the objective element (recklessness) by proving the accused knew their actions could cause a fire (e.g., leaving flammable materials near an open flame).
• Proving the subjective element (intention to start a fire) would be much harder and might require additional evidence.

Similarities:

1. Both are part of Mens Rea:

• Both objective and subjective elements contribute to establishing a person’s Mens Rea, the overall mental state behind the crime.

2. Vary depending on the Crime:

• The specific requirements for both objective and subjective elements will vary depending on the nature of the crime and the level of culpability required.

3. Defenses can negate:

• Certain defenses can negate either the objective or subjective element, potentially leading to an acquittal.

Example:
* A person with a mental illness shoots someone (Objective Element and Subjective Element might be unclear).
* A defense of insanity could negate both elements, arguing the accused lacked the capacity to understand their actions or form the necessary intent.

Question 61

What are the crimes NOT REQUIRING MENS REA “GUILTY MIND” OR CRIMINAL INTENT? EXPLAIN.

Answer 61

While strict liability offenses exist in Philippine law, they are uncommon. Here are 10 examples that are generally considered strict liability offenses, though it’s important to note that interpretations can vary depending on specific circumstances:

1. Violations of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Regulations: Selling expired or adulterated food and drugs falls under strict liability. The seller is liable regardless of intent or knowledge (e.g., unknowingly selling expired medicine).
2. Environmental Violations: Certain environmental laws impose strict liability for causing pollution or environmental damage. The focus is on the act itself, not the polluter’s intent (e.g., a factory accidentally spilling pollutants into a river).
3. Violations of Building Codes: Failing to comply with building codes when constructing a building can be a strict liability offense. The focus is on ensuring safe structures, regardless of the builder’s intent (e.g., a building collapsing due to faulty construction, even if unintentional).
4. Wildlife Protection Laws: Harming or possessing protected wildlife species is often a strict liability offense. The focus is on protecting wildlife, not the person’s intent (e.g., accidentally running over a protected turtle on the road).
5. Underage Drinking Laws: Selling or providing alcoholic beverages to someone underage is typically a strict liability offense. The seller is liable even if they believed the buyer was of legal age (e.g., selling alcohol to someone with a fake ID).
6. Traffic Violations (with some exceptions): Certain traffic violations, like exceeding the speed limit or disobeying traffic signs, may be considered strict liability offenses. The focus is on ensuring road safety, not necessarily the driver’s intent (e.g., speeding unintentionally due to a faulty speedometer).

It’s important to note that interpretations of strict liability in traffic violations can vary. For some offenses, the prosecution might need to consider the driver’s intent or recklessness (e.g., reckless driving that causes an accident).

7. Violation of Curfew Ordinances: Some localities have curfew ordinances for minors. If a minor is found outside during curfew hours, the parent or guardian might be held strictly liable, regardless of their knowledge (e.g., a teenager sneaking out past curfew without the parent’s knowledge).
8. Possession of Illegal Drugs (small quantities): In some cases, possession of small quantities of illegal drugs might be considered strict liability. The focus is on deterring drug use, not necessarily the person’s intent to sell or distribute (e.g., having a small amount of marijuana for personal use).

It’s important to note that interpretations of strict liability in drug possession can vary. For larger quantities or evidence of intent to sell, prosecutors might consider Mens Rea.

9. Violation of Animal Control Laws: Failing to leash or control a pet in public areas designated as leash zones could be considered strict liability. The focus is on public safety and responsible pet ownership (e.g., a dog biting someone because the owner didn’t have it leashed).
10. Violation of Workplace Safety Regulations: Employers can be held strictly liable for workplace accidents caused by unsafe working conditions, regardless of their intent (e.g., a factory worker injured due to a malfunctioning machine that the employer failed to maintain properly).

Remember: This list is not exhaustive, and interpretations of strict liability can vary depending on the specific law and the individual case. It’s always best to consult with a legal professional for definitive advice on any legal matter.

Question 62

Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Actus Reus and Mens Rea (Philippines)

Question 1:

Mark, a security guard at a museum, falls asleep on the job. During his sleep, a priceless artifact is stolen. Mark can be charged with:

a) Theft (Actus Reus and Mens Rea are present)
b) Attempted Theft (Actus Reus is incomplete, Mens Rea is present)
c) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage (Actus Reus present, Mens Rea might be argued)
d) No Crime (Neither Actus Reus nor Mens Rea are present)

Answer 62

Answer: (d) No Crime

Reasoning: Theft requires both Actus Reus (taking the artifact) and Mens Rea (intent to steal). While the artifact was stolen (Actus Reus), Mark’s sleep negates Mens Rea. He lacked the necessary mental state for theft. Attempted theft (b) wouldn’t apply as the theft was completed. Reckless imprudence (c) might be considered if the museum could argue Mark should have foreseen the risk of theft due to his job duties. However, proving Mens Rea for recklessness would be challenging in this scenario.

Question 63

Question 2:

Sarah leaves a venomous snake unlocked in its terrarium while she goes on vacation. The snake escapes and bites a neighbor’s child. Sarah can be charged with:

a) Murder (Actus Reus and Mens Rea are not present for murder)
b) Attempted Murder (Actus Reus incomplete, Mens Rea unlikely)
c) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Physical Injuries (Actus Reus and Mens Rea are likely present)
d) Strict Liability Offense (Actus Reus present, Mens Rea irrelevant)

Answer 63

Answer: (c) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Physical Injuries

Reasoning: Murder (a) and attempted murder (b) require specific intent to kill, which is absent here. Reckless imprudence (c) is more likely. Sarah’s act of leaving the venomous snake unsecured (Actus Reus) demonstrates recklessness, and the child’s injury is the resulting damage. Strict liability (d) wouldn’t apply here as this crime requires a specific mental state (recklessness).

Question 64

Question 3:

John practices archery in his backyard, unaware that his neighbor’s child is playing nearby. An arrow accidentally ricochets and injures the child. John can be charged with:

a) Attempted Murder (Actus Reus incomplete, Mens Rea absent)
b) Homicide (Actus Reus present, Mens Rea absent)
c) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Physical Injuries (Actus Reus and Mens Rea are likely present)
d) Strict Liability Offense (Actus Reus present, Mens Rea irrelevant)

Answer 64

Answer: (c) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Physical Injuries

Reasoning: Attempted murder (a) and homicide (b) require intent to kill, which is absent. John’s act of practicing archery (Actus Reus) could be considered reckless as it posed a risk of harm, especially without checking the surroundings (Mens Rea - recklessness). Strict liability (d) wouldn’t apply as recklessness is a necessary element for this crime.

Question 65

Question 4:

Anya bakes cookies and unknowingly uses flour contaminated with E. coli bacteria. Several people who eat the cookies become sick. Anya can be charged with:

a) Attempted Murder (Actus Reus incomplete, Mens Rea absent)
b) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage (Actus Reus and Mens Rea might be argued)
c) Strict Liability Offense (Actus Reus present, Mens Rea irrelevant)
d) No Crime (Neither Actus Reus nor Mens Rea are present)

Answer 65

Answer: (c) Strict Liability Offense

Reasoning: Attempted murder (a) and recklessness (b) are unlikely as Anya was unaware of the contamination (no Mens Rea). This is likely a strict liability offense (c) where selling contaminated food constitutes Actus Reus, regardless of Anya’s intent or knowledge (Mens Rea).

Question 66

Question 5:

Bernard plans to rob a bank but gets cold feet and abandons the plan before entering the bank. Bernard can be charged with:

a) Robbery (Actus Reus absent, Mens Rea present)
b) Attempted Robbery (Actus Reus incomplete, Mens Rea present)
c) Conspiracy to Commit Robbery (Requires agreement with another person)
d) No Crime (Neither Actus Reus nor Mens Rea are complete for any crime)

Answer 66

Answer: (d) No Crime

Reasoning: Robbery requires both Actus Reus (taking money from the bank) and Mens Rea (intent to steal). Bernard has Mens Rea (intent) but lacks Actus Reus (no robbery attempt). At

Question 67

Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Subjective and Objective Elements (Philippines)

These questions delve into the interplay between subjective (accused’s mental state) and objective (reasonable person standard) elements within Mens Rea in Philippine criminal law.

Question 1:

Leo, who suffers from chronic insomnia, drives while sleep-deprived and crashes into another car, injuring the driver. The prosecution likely needs to prove:

a) Only the subjective element (Leo’s knowledge of his insomnia)
b) Only the objective element (a reasonable person would know driving sleep-deprived is risky)
c) Both the subjective element (Leo’s knowledge of his condition) and the objective element (risk awareness)
d) Neither element (accidents lack Mens Rea)

Answer 67

Answer: (c) Both the subjective element and the objective element

Reasoning: This scenario hinges on recklessness. The prosecution likely needs to prove both elements:
* Subjective Element (Leo’s knowledge): Was Leo aware of his sleep-deprived state and the potential risk it posed while driving?
* Objective Element (reasonable person standard): Would a reasonable person in Leo’s situation (knowing about Their insomnia) understand the risk of driving while sleep-deprived?

Question 68

Question 2:

Mila leaves her toddler unattended for a few minutes in a parked car with the windows rolled up on a hot day. The toddler dies from heatstroke. Mila can be charged with:

a) Murder (Actus Reus and Mens Rea unlikely)
b) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Death (Subjective element might be weak, objective element likely strong)
c) Child Endangerment (Specific mental state requirements might vary)
d) All of the above (Depends on specific circumstances)

.

Answer 68

Answer: (b) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Death (most likely)

Reasoning: Murder (a) requires specific intent to kill, which is absent. Child endangerment (c) might be applicable depending on the law’s specific requirements. Here, Reckless Imprudence (b) is most likely:
* Subjective Element (Mila’s knowledge): Did Mila know the dangers of leaving a child unattended in a hot car?
* Objective Element (reasonable person standard): Would a reasonable person know leaving a toddler in a parked car on a hot day poses a serious risk of harm? (likely yes) The objective element is likely strong, but the prosecution might need to consider the subjective element (Mila’s awareness of the risk) for a stronger case

Question 69

Question 3:

Dante drinks alcohol at a bar and gets into an argument with another patron. The argument escalates, and Dante punches the other person, causing injuries. The analysis of Mens Rea would likely focus on:

a) Only the subjective element (Dante’s intent to harm)
b) Only the objective element (foreseeability of violence)
c) Both the subjective element (intent to harm) and the objective element (foreseeability of violence)
d) Neither element (self-defense might negate Mens Rea)

Answer 69

Answer: (c) Both the subjective element and the objective element

Reasoning: Here, the level of culpability in Mens Rea is key. Both elements come into play:
* Subjective Element (Dante’s intent): Did Dante throw the punch with the intention of causing harm (malice)?
* Objective Element (foreseeability of violence): In that situation, would a reasonable person foresee that throwing a punch could result in injury? (likely yes) Considering both elements strengthens the case for recklessness or intentional harm.

Question 70

Question 4:

Alex, a security guard, is deceived by a person posing as a repair technician and grants them access to a restricted building area. The person then steals valuable equipment. Alex can be charged with:

a) Theft (Actus Reus and Mens Rea absent for Alex)
b) Recklessness (Depends on the specific circumstances)
c) Aiding and Abetting a Crime (Possible if Mens Rea for recklessness can be proven)
d) Breach of Contract (Civil issue, not criminal)

Answer 70

Answer: (c) Aiding and Abetting a Crime (possible, with limitations)

Reasoning: Alex doesn’t directly commit theft (Actus Reus). Aiding and Abetting (c) is a possibility. However, Mens Rea is crucial. The prosecution would need to prove:
* Subjective Element (Alex’s knowledge): Did Alex know the person was not a legitimate repair technician?
* Objective Element (reasonable person standard): Would a reasonable security guard, in the given situation, suspect something amiss and question the person’s access request? Here, the strength of both subjective and objective elements

Question 71

Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Aberratio Ictus (Philippines)

Question 1:

Mark aims his gun at Alex (intended victim) during a heated argument. He fires, but the bullet ricochets off a nearby wall unexpectedly and strikes Ben, who was standing behind Alex. In this scenario, Aberratio Ictus is most likely applicable to:

a) The charge against Mark for shooting at Alex (Actus Reus is present, Aberratio Ictus might be for a different victim)
b) The charge against Mark for accidentally injuring Ben (This is the most likely application of Aberratio Ictus)
c) Neither Alex nor Ben (Aberratio Ictus doesn’t apply as Mark aimed the gun)
d) Both Alex and Ben (Aberratio Ictus applies to both intended and unintended victims)

Answer 71

Answer: (b) The charge against Mark for accidentally injuring Ben

Reasoning: Aberratio Ictus refers to the mistake of hitting the wrong target. Here, Mark aimed at Alex (intended target) but accidentally hit Ben due to the ricocheting bullet. This mistake applies to the unintended consequence (hitting Ben) and could potentially reduce the charge against Mark for injuring Ben. Attempted murder for Alex (intended victim) might still be a possibility.

Question 72

Question 2:

During a bank robbery, Leo fires his gun at the security guard (intended victim) in a crowded lobby. The bullet misses the guard but hits a startled customer (Carla) who was trying to flee. Aberratio Ictus is most likely applicable to:

a) Only the charge against Leo for injuring Carla (Aberratio Ictus applies to unintended consequences)
b) Only the charge against Leo for attempted murder of the security guard (Actus Reus present for attempted murder)
c) Both charges against Leo (Aberratio Ictus for Carla, attempted murder for the guard)
d) Neither charge (Aberratio Ictus doesn’t apply in crimes with hostages or bystanders)

Answer 72

Answer: (c) Both charges against Leo

Reasoning: While Leo aimed at the security guard (Actus Reus for attempted murder), Aberratio Ictus applies to accidentally injuring Carla (unintended consequence). He might face attempted murder charges for the intended victim (guard) and a lesser charge considering Aberratio Ictus for injuring Carla.

Note: The applicability of Aberratio Ictus can vary depending on the specific circumstances. These questions aim to illustrate the concept in the context of Philippine law.

Question 73

Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Error in Personae (Philippines)

Question 1:

Sarah plans to rob a jewelry store and mistakes the owner’s identical twin brother working there for the actual owner. She threatens and binds him, demanding access to the safe. Error in Personae is most likely applicable to:

a) The charge of robbery (Actus Reus is incomplete, Mens Rea might be present)
b) The charge of kidnapping (Error in Personae might negate specific intent for kidnapping)
c) Both robbery and kidnapping charges (Error in Personae can apply to both)
d) Neither charge (Error in Personae doesn’t apply to crimes against property)

Answer 73

Answer: (b) The charge of kidnapping

Reasoning: Error in Personae refers to mistaking the identity of the victim. Here, Sarah intended to rob the owner (specific intent for robbery). However, she mistakenly targeted the owner’s twin brother. This error in personae might negate the specific intent required for kidnapping, potentially reducing the charge. Robbery charges might still be applicable depending on the specific actions taken.

Question 74

Question 2:

John, a hitman hired to kill a specific politician, receives a faulty photo and mistakes a journalist for the politician. He follows and shoots the journalist. Error in Personae is most likely applicable to:

a) The charge of murder (Error in Personae might reduce the charge to attempted murder)
b) No charges (Error in Personae completely negates Mens Rea)
c) A separate charge of attempted murder of the intended politician (Depends on specific actions taken)
d) Both a and c (Error in Personae reduces murder to attempted murder of the intended victim)

Answer 74

Answer: (a) The charge of murder

Reasoning: Here, Error in Personae applies. John intended to kill a specific person (politician) but mistakenly killed the journalist. This error negates the specific intent required for murder of the intended victim. However, John still acted with malice and intended to kill someone, albeit the wrong person. Error in Personae might reduce the charge from murder to a lesser offense like attempted murder, but it wouldn’t completely negate Mens Rea (guilty mind). There might also be separate charges depending on the actions taken against the intended politician (c).

Question 75

Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Praeter Intentionem (Philippines)

Question 1:

During a bar brawl, Michael throws a glass bottle at another patron (intended victim) aiming to scare them. The bottle accidentally hits a nearby chandelier, causing it to fall and injure a bystander. Praeter Intentionem is most likely applicable to:

a) The charge against Michael for assaulting the intended victim (Actus Reus present for assault, Praeter Intentionem for bystander)
b) The charge against Michael for injuring the bystander (This is the most likely application of Praeter Intentionem)
c) Neither charge (Praeter Intentionem doesn’t apply to minor injuries)
d) Both charges (Praeter Intentionem applies to both intended and unintended consequences)

Answer 75

Answer: (b) The charge against Michael for injuring the bystander

Reasoning: Praeter Intentionem refers to the unintended consequences of an act exceeding the original intent. Here, Michael intended to scare the patron (lesser crime) but the thrown bottle caused a more serious consequence (injuring the bystander). Praeter Intentionem applies to the bystander’s injury, potentially affecting the charge for that specific consequence.

Question 76

Question 2:

Anna sets fire to her own house (Actus Reus present) intending to collect insurance money (Mens Rea - fraud). The fire spreads unexpectedly due to strong winds and damages neighboring houses. Praeter Intentionem is most likely applicable to:

a) The charge of arson for burning her own house (Actus Reus and Mens Rea are present)
b) The charge of arson for damaging neighboring houses (Praeter Intentionem for the unintended consequence)
c) Both charges (Praeter Intentionem can apply to both)
d) Neither charge (Praeter Intentionem doesn’t apply to arson)

Answer 76

Answer: (b) The charge of arson for damaging neighboring houses

Reasoning: Arson has specific intent (burning property) and can have strict liability components (damage caused). Here, Anna intended to burn her house (arson) but the fire spreading to neighboring houses is an unintended consequence exceeding her initial intent. Praeter Intentionem is most likely applicable to the damage caused to neighboring houses, potentially affecting the charge for that specific consequence.

Question 77

Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Proximate Cause and Efficient Intervening Cause (Philippines)

These questions test your understanding of how these concepts influence criminal liability:

Question 1:

Lisa poisons her husband’s coffee (Actus Reus) intending to kill him. He takes a sip but feels unwell and throws the rest away. Later that day, he dies from a heart attack unrelated to the poisoning. In this scenario:

a) Proximate cause is established (Poisoning initiated the chain of events)
b) Efficient intervening cause is present (Heart attack breaks the causal link)
c) Both a and b (Proximate cause is established, but the heart attack intervenes)
d) Neither a nor b (Poisoning didn’t directly cause death)

Answer 77

Answer: (b) Efficient intervening cause is present

Reasoning: While Lisa’s act (poisoning) initiated the chain of events, the heart attack is a new and independent cause of death. It breaks the direct causal link between the poisoning and the death, making it an efficient intervening cause.

Question 78

Question 2:

Daniel shoots at Michael (Actus Reus) aiming to kill him. The bullet misses Michael but grazes a nearby gas pipe, causing a massive explosion that kills Michael. In this scenario:

a) Proximate Cause is established (Unforeseen consequences can still be proximate)
b) Efficient intervening cause is absent (Explosion is a foreseeable consequence of shooting a gun near a gas pipe)
c) Both a and b (Unforeseen consequences can be proximate, but the explosion might be considered foreseeable)
d) Neither a nor b (Shooting a gun doesn’t directly cause explosions)

Answer 78

Answer: (c) Both a and b (Depends on the foreseeability of the explosion)

Reasoning: Proximate cause can exist even with unforeseen consequences. However, the question hinges on foreseeability.

• Proximate Cause: Daniel’s act of shooting set the chain of events in motion, ultimately leading to Michael’s death.
• Efficient Intervening Cause (possible argument): The defense might argue that the gas pipe explosion was an unforeseeable and independent event breaking the causal link.

However, the prosecution might argue that the explosion was a foreseeable consequence of shooting a gun near a gas pipe. The court would then determine the level of foreseeability in establishing proximate cause.

Question 79

Question 3:

Bernard leaves his car unlocked with the keys inside (Actus Reus). Someone steals the car and crashes it, injuring a pedestrian. In this scenario:

a) Proximate Cause is not established (Leaving the car unlocked is too remote a cause)
b) Efficient intervening cause is present (Car theft is an independent act)
c) Both a and b (Remote cause and car theft intervene)
d) Proximate Cause is established (Bernard’s negligence contributed to the harm)

Answer 79

Answer: (b) Efficient intervening cause is present

Reasoning: While Bernard’s negligence (leaving the car unlocked) created the opportunity for theft, the car theft itself is a new and independent act. This breaks the causal link between Bernard’s act and the pedestrian’s injury.

Question 80

Question 4:

Elena pushes Sarah into a lake (Actus Reus) intending to scare her. Sarah, who can’t swim and suffers from an undiagnosed heart condition, drowns. In this scenario:

a) Proximate Cause is established (Elena’s push initiated the chain of events)
b) Efficient intervening cause is absent (Sarah’s pre-existing conditions don’t break the causal link)
c) Both a and b (Proximate cause is established, pre-existing conditions don’t intervene)
d) Neither a nor b (Pushing someone into water doesn’t directly cause drowning)

Answer 80

Answer: (c) Both a and b (Proximate cause is established, pre-existing conditions don’t intervene)

Reasoning: Proximate cause exists. Elena’s push directly caused Sarah to fall into the lake, setting the chain of events leading to her drowning.

• Efficient Intervening Cause (absent): Sarah’s inability to swim and heart condition are pre-existing factors, not new events breaking the causal link. They contribute to the harmful outcome, but Elena’s push remains the proximate cause.

Question 81

What is the penalty for impossible crime?

Answer 81

In the Philippines, the act of attempting an impossible crime itself is penalized under Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This article deals with the penalty for “frustrated crimes,” which includes impossible crimes.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

> “An act performed by a person 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 shall be punishable by arresto mayor (3-6 months imprisonment) in its maximum period, to a fine of not more than 200 pesos, or both, at the discretion of the court.”

Key Points:

• The penalty for an impossible crime is relatively lighter compared to completed crimes.
• The focus is on the offender’s intent and the act itself, even though the intended outcome wasn’t achieved.
• The concept of attempted impossible crimes allows for some degree of punishment even when the act is ultimately unsuccessful due to inherent impossibility or inadequate means.

Important Note:

While Article 59 provides the general penalty for impossible crimes, it’s important to remember that the specific circumstances of the case can influence the penalty imposed by the court. Consulting with a legal professional for a definitive analysis is always recommended.

Question 82

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

4. Stages of Execution – Article 6
   a. Subjective Phase and Objective Phase

b. Preparatory and Overt Acts - EXPLAIN

c. Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Stages
d. Spontaneous Desistance

Answer 82

In the context of attempted felonies under Philippine law, the distinction between preparatory acts and overt acts plays a crucial role in determining criminal liability. Here’s a breakdown of these concepts:

A) Preparatory Acts:**
* These are acts that prepare for the commission of a crime but are too remote or general to be considered an attempt.
* They reflect the planning stage and don’t directly and immediately lead to the crime itself.
* Generally not punishable under Philippine law.
Example:
* John decides to rob a bank (subjective phase). He then buys a ski mask and gloves (preparatory acts). These acts, while related to the crime, are too general and don’t directly initiate the robbery.

B) Overt Acts:**
* These are acts that are more specific and closer to the crime’s execution. They demonstrate a substantial step towards completing the felony.
* They mark the beginning of the objective phase, where the offender’s intent becomes evident through outward actions.
* May be punishable as attempted felonies if they meet specific criteria.
Example (continued):
* John enters the bank wearing the mask and gloves, approaches the cashier, and demands money (overt acts). These acts directly target the crime (robbery) and are a substantial step towards completing it.

Distinguishing the Two:**

The distinction between preparatory and overt acts can be nuanced. Here are some factors courts consider:

A) Imminence:** How close was the offender to completing the crime when they stopped?
B) Specificity:** How directly did the acts relate to the specific crime intended?
C) Unequivocality:** Do the acts clearly demonstrate the offender’s criminal intent?

Example (further illustration):**
* If John enters the bank with the mask and gloves but changes his mind and leaves before approaching the cashier, it might be considered a preparatory act. While related to the robbery, it wasn’t a substantial step towards completion.

– Importance in Philippine Law:**
Understanding the difference between preparatory and overt acts helps determine the appropriate penalty for attempted crimes. If the acts fall within the preparatory phase, the offender might not be held liable for the attempted crime itself. However, if the acts constitute overt acts, they can be punishable as an attempt, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Question 83

II. REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK ONE
A. Felonies (Article 3)

4. Stages of Execution – Article 6
   a. Subjective Phase and Objective Phase
   b. Preparatory and Overt Acts

c. Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Stages - EXPLANATION SEE PREWEEK NOTES

d. Spontaneous Desistance - EXPLAIN

Answer 83

In Philippine criminal law, the concept of spontaneous desistance refers to a situation where an offender voluntarily abandons their criminal intent AFTER they have already begun the OBJECTIVE PHASE (overt acts) of committing a crime.

This voluntary abandonment can potentially NEGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY for the attempted crime.

Key Points of Spontaneous Desistance:**

1) Applies to Objective Phase:** Spontaneous desistance only applies after the offender has begun the objective phase (overt acts) of the crime. Mere planning or preparation (subjective phase) followed by abandonment doesn’t qualify.
2) Voluntary Abandonment:** The offender must voluntarily choose to stop the crime. External factors forcing them to stop (e.g., getting scared by security guards) wouldn’t qualify.
3) No Crime Completed:** The offender cannot have completed the crime or caused any harm for spontaneous desistance to be relevant.

Example 1:
- John enters a bank wearing a mask and gloves (overt acts - objective phase). He approaches the cashier with the intent to rob the bank. However, upon seeing a security guard nearby, John gets scared and abandons the plan, leaving the bank without taking any money (spontaneous desistance).

In this scenario, John’s voluntary abandonment of the crime after starting the overt acts might negate his liability for attempted robbery.

Example 2:
- John enters a bank, approaches the cashier, and demands money (overt acts). Before the cashier can comply, John is apprehended by security guards who were alerted beforehand (external factor).

Here, even though John didn’t complete the robbery, the external factor (security guards) forced him to stop, not a voluntary act of desistance on his part. He might still be liable for attempted robbery.

• Importance of Spontaneous Desistance:
  The concept of spontaneous desistance recognizes that even after initiating a crime, an offender might choose to abandon their criminal intent. This can be a mitigating factor, potentially reducing or eliminating criminal liability depending on the specific circumstances.

Question 84

Question 3:

Sarah buys a lock-picking kit (preparatory act) and studies blueprints of a bank (another preparatory act) intending to rob it later. She is arrested before taking any further action. In this scenario:

a) Sarah can be charged with attempted robbery (Preparatory acts can be attempts)
b) Sarah cannot be charged with any crime (Acts were too preliminary)
c) Sarah might be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery if she had accomplices
d) Both b and c (No crime for individual acts, conspiracy possible)

Answer 84

Answer: (b) Sarah cannot be charged with any crime

Reasoning: Sarah’s actions (buying the kit and studying blueprints) are considered preparatory acts (subjective phase). These are generally too remote and don’t constitute a substantial step towards the crime itself. She cannot be charged with attempted robbery at this stage.

Question 85

Question 4:

Daniel starts his car and drives towards a bank intending to rob it (Actus Reus for preparation present, Mens Rea present). However, he gets into a car accident halfway due to a sudden downpour (independent cause). In this scenario:

a) This is an attempted robbery (Driving towards the bank is an overt act)
b) This is frustrated robbery (Daniel performed all acts of execution)
c) This is neither attempted nor frustrated robbery (Accident stopped him)
d) This might be an attempted robbery depending on the proximity to the bank

Answer 85

Answer: (d) This might be an attempted robbery depending on the proximity to the bank

Reasoning: While the accident stopped Daniel, driving towards the bank with the intent to rob it might be considered an overt act (objective phase) depending on how close he was to the bank. The proximity to the intended crime and the specific actions taken are crucial in determining attempted robbery in this scenario.

Question 86

1. Which of the following best describes the subjective phase of criminal law?
   a) It focuses on the defendant’s actions and their consequences.
   b) It examines the defendant’s mental state or intent at the time of the offense.
   c) It determines the societal impact of the defendant’s conduct.
   d) It assesses the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions based on the circumstances.

Answer 86

Answer: b) It examines the defendant’s mental state or intent at the time of the offense.

Legal Reasoning: The subjective phase of criminal law centers on the defendant’s mental state, including their intent, knowledge, or awareness of wrongdoing at the time of the offense. It seeks to establish whether the defendant possessed the requisite mental state for criminal liability, such as intent to commit the offense.

Question 87

3. Which statement accurately reflects the principles of strict liability offenses?
   a) Proof of the defendant’s intent or knowledge is required to establish criminal liability.
   b) Liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s mental state or intent.
   c) The defendant’s actions must be reasonable under the circumstances to avoid liability.
   d) The severity of penalties imposed depends on the defendant’s subjective intent.

Answer 87

Answer: b) Liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s mental state or intent.

Legal Reasoning: Strict liability offenses impose liability without the need to prove the defendant’s intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Instead, liability is based solely on the defendant’s actions or omissions, making them criminally liable irrespective of their mental state.

Question 88

Preparatory acts vs Overt Acts - criminal liability

Answer 88

Some general examples of how planning and overt acts might be distinguished in criminal cases in the Philippines, based on common legal principles:

1. Hazing cases:
   Planning: Students discussing and creating a plan for a hazing ritual.
   Overt act: Actually inviting new members to participate in the ritual or preparing the location for the hazing.

Legal reasoning: Under the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 11053), even the act of inviting or recruiting members for hazing can be considered a punishable offense. Section 14(e) of the law states that intimidating, threatening, or employing any form of vexation for the purpose of recruitment in joining a fraternity is punishable.

2. Election fraud:
   Planning: A politician discussing ways to rig an election with associates.
   Overt act: Creating fake voter IDs or bribing election officials.

Legal reasoning: While planning to commit election fraud is not itself a crime, creating fake IDs or bribing officials are direct steps towards committing the crime and would be considered overt acts under Philippine election laws.

3. Drug trafficking:
   Planning: Individuals discussing potential routes and methods for smuggling drugs.
   Overt act: Purchasing materials for packaging drugs or contacting potential buyers.

Legal reasoning: Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), preparatory acts like planning are generally not punishable. However, acts that directly move towards the commission of drug trafficking, such as packaging or attempting to sell drugs, would be considered overt acts.

4. Corruption:
   Planning: Government officials discussing how to embezzle funds.
   Overt act: Creating fake documents to justify fund releases or actually transferring funds to personal accounts.

Legal reasoning: Under anti-corruption laws in the Philippines, the act of planning corruption is not typically punishable. However, creating false documents or misappropriating funds are direct steps towards the crime and would be considered overt acts.

In each of these scenarios, the key distinction is that planning involves discussion and preparation, while overt acts involve taking concrete steps that directly contribute to the commission of the crime. Philippine law generally does not punish mere planning, but overt acts can be grounds for criminal charges.

Question 89

1. Scenario 1: In the context of theft under Philippine law, which of the following actions constitutes a preparatory act?A) Entering a jewelry store during business hours.
   B) Taking a pair of gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.
   C) Smashing the display case and taking jewelry.
   D) Driving past the store to assess security measures.

Answer 89

Answer: B) Taking a pair of gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.

Legal Reasoning: Option B constitutes a preparatory act because it involves planning and preparation (taking gloves) to avoid detection when committing theft. The act itself does not yet move directly towards the commission of theft (taking jewelry), which would be considered an overt act. Options A, C, and D involve actions that are closer to the actual commission of theft (entering the store, taking jewelry, assessing security), thus constituting overt acts.

Question 90

2. Scenario 2: Under Philippine law on illegal drugs, which scenario represents an overt act rather than a preparatory act?A) Discussing the possibility of buying illegal drugs with a friend.
   B) Arranging a meeting with a drug dealer to negotiate a purchase.
   C) Researching the effects of a specific illegal drug online.
   D) Possessing drug paraphernalia such as weighing scales and packaging materials.

Answer 90

Answer: B) Arranging a meeting with a drug dealer to negotiate a purchase.

Legal Reasoning: Option B represents an overt act because it involves direct action towards the commission of a drug-related crime (arranging a meeting with a drug dealer). This action demonstrates a clear intent and substantial step towards acquiring illegal drugs. Options A, C, and D involve preparatory acts such as planning (discussing), researching, and preparing materials (paraphernalia), which are steps leading up to the commission of the crime but do not constitute direct action towards its immediate execution.

These scenarios illustrate how Philippine criminal law distinguishes between preparatory acts (planning and preparation) and overt acts (direct actions towards committing a crime).

Question 91

1. Question: In Philippine criminal law, what distinguishes a preparatory act from an overt act?A) The preparatory act involves mere planning, while the overt act directly moves towards the commission of the crime.
   B) Both preparatory and overt acts involve direct actions towards committing the crime.
   C) The preparatory act is more serious than the overt act in terms of criminal liability.
   D) The overt act is committed before the preparatory act.

Answer 91

Answer: A) The preparatory act involves mere planning, while the overt act directly moves towards the commission of the crime.

Legal Reasoning: According to Philippine criminal law principles, preparatory acts are those that precede the execution of a crime and involve planning or setting up for the commission of the crime. These acts do not yet constitute the beginning of the execution of the crime itself. On the other hand, overt acts are direct actions that move towards the commission of the crime and indicate a clear intent to commit the crime. Thus, option A correctly distinguishes between preparatory acts and overt acts by focusing on their respective roles in the progression towards committing a crime.

Question 92

2. Question: When does criminal liability generally attach under Philippine law in relation to preparatory acts?A) After the completion of the preparatory acts.
   B) When the preparatory acts have progressed beyond mere planning.
   C) Upon the commission of the overt acts.
   D) When the crime is fully executed.

Answer 92

Answer: C) Upon the commission of the overt acts.

Legal Reasoning: Criminal liability under Philippine law typically attaches upon the commission of overt acts, which are direct actions towards the commission of the crime itself. Preparatory acts, such as planning or preparing to commit a crime, do not yet constitute criminal liability unless they progress to overt acts that indicate a clear intent and movement towards committing the crime.

Question 93

3. Question: Which of the following scenarios best exemplifies an overt act under Philippine criminal law?A) Purchasing materials to manufacture counterfeit currency.
   B) Discussing plans to rob a bank with a group of friends.
   C) Entering a bank with a loaded gun and demanding money from the teller.
   D) Conducting surveillance of a bank’s security procedures.

Answer 93

Answer: C) Entering a bank with a loaded gun and demanding money from the teller.

Legal Reasoning: An overt act under Philippine criminal law is a direct action that SHOWS a CLEAR INTENT and substantial movement towards the commission of a crime. Option C demonstrates such an act by directly threatening the teller with a weapon and demanding money, which constitutes a direct step towards the commission of robbery. Options A, B, and D are preparatory acts because they involve planning or initial steps that precede the direct commission of the crime.

Question 94

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES VS PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

Answer 94

KEY DIFFERENCES:

1. Commencement:
   
   • Penalties: Prescription begins from the final sentence.
   • Crimes: Prescription starts from the discovery of the crime.
2. Interruption:
   
   • Penalties: No specific provision for interruption.
   • Crimes: Prescription is interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information and resumes under specific conditions.
3. Absence of Offender:
   
   • Penalties: No provision regarding the offender’s absence.
   • Crimes: Prescription does not run if the offender is absent from the Philippines.

These distinctions highlight the different approaches to the prescription of penalties and crimes, focusing on when the periods start, how they can be interrupted, and the impact of the offender’s absence.

Question 95

MCQs on Application and Graduation of Penalties

Question 1
Scenario: An accused is convicted of murder but the court finds that he acted under the influence of passion or obfuscation immediately provoked by the victim.

Question: Which article of the Revised Penal Code should be applied to determine the proper penalty?

• A. Article 50
• B. Article 51
• C. Article 52
• D. Article 53

Answer 95

Answer: A. Article 50

Reasoning: The scenario presents a mitigating circumstance, which is covered under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code. This article provides for the reduction of penalties based on mitigating circumstances.

Question 96

Question 2
Scenario: A person is convicted of both robbery and homicide arising from the same incident.

Question: Which article of the Revised Penal Code is applicable in determining the proper penalty?

• A. Article 52
• B. Article 53
• C. Article 54
• D. Article 55

Answer 96

Answer: C. Article 54

Reasoning: The scenario describes a complex crime, where two or more crimes are committed with a single act or a series of acts with one criminal intent. Article 54 of the Revised Penal Code provides rules for the application of penalties in such cases.

Question 97

Question 3
Scenario: A law is enacted imposing a higher penalty for possession of illegal drugs. This new law is applied to a person who was arrested for possession of illegal drugs before the law was enacted. The accused challenges the application of the new law on the ground that it violates their constitutional rights.

Question: Which principle of criminal law is applicable to this case?

• A. Article 46
• B. Article 57
• C. No retroactive application of penal laws
• D. Article 61

Answer 97

Answer: C. No retroactive application of penal laws

Reasoning: While the specific article is not explicitly mentioned, the scenario clearly involves the principle of non-retroactivity of penal laws, which is a fundamental principle in criminal law. Applying a new, harsher penalty to a crime committed before the law existed violates this principle.

Question 98

MCQ

Question: A new law is enacted criminalizing the act of spreading false information online (fake news) that causes panic and social unrest. The law also imposes a penalty for violations committed prior to its enactment.

Which principle of criminal law is violated by the retroactive application of the penalty?

• A. Presumption of innocence
• B. Right to equal protection
• C. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
• D. Double jeopardy

Answer 98

Answer: C. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

Reasoning: The principle of “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” mandates that a person cannot be punished for an act that was not defined as a crime at the time it was committed. Retroactively applying a penalty to an act that was legal when committed violates this principle.