Criminal Law

Principle of Territoriality and Generality

GENERALITY
Foreigner with firearms in PH – Liable for RA 10951. Using
Generality principle, Pp v Galacgac. Penal laws shall be applicable
to all those residing and sojourning the PH territory.
4 XPN;
1. Principles of International Law
2. Treaty
3. Law of preferential application
4. Case law
Principles of International Law
A. Diplomatic Immunity – blanket immunity (GR No. 142396, Feb
11 2003, Moran principle GR No. 44896 July 31 1936)
B. Consular Immunity (Function related)
Treaty
A. Liang case GR. No. 125865, Jan 28 2000
Law of Preferential Application
A. Any arrest against ambassador and minister, servant, family.
Shall be null and void. RA No. 75. Reciprocity rule of quid pro quo.
B. PD 1083 code of personal Muslim laws (Nolora vs People, GR.
919425)
C. Sec 11. Art VI 1987 Consti (Martinez vs Morife)
D. Sec 11 (2), Art VI
E. RA 9372
D. Cybercrime law
F. Trafficking of Person
Case Law
A. Estrada case GR. No.146710 March 2 2001
3 conditions; 1. Expressly invoked by the pres, 2. Only by an
incumbent president, 3. Crime must be function related act.
“Yes. 1. Presidential Immunity is only copied from US, where they
don’t have VPresidential Immunity. 2. VP is not the head of
executive department. 3. To invoke pres immunity, it must be
function related. But in the issue in the plunder case, invokes an
act which is not related to his function.”
Territoriality Principle – crime committed within PH
1. GR No. 212446 Jan 11 2018 – Art. II of RPC
2. Pp vs. , Crime committed within a foreign embassy in a
French Rule aka Flag State Rule – if a crime is committed in a
foreign vessel, within the territorial water of a coastal state; Flag
bearer have jurisdiction
English Rule - if a crime is committed in a foreign vessel, within the
territorial water of a coastal state; coastal state has jurisdiction
Convention of the Law of the Sea sec 2. Art 27 and Art. 32 -
Criminal jurisdiction shall not be exercised for purposes of arrest
and investigation, in connection with the crime committed on-board
a merchant foreign vessel of the receiving country
To apply; (GR 17958 Feb 27)
1. Must be in the territorial waters of the PH to apply

XPNS
1. If the master of the ship requested for assistance
2. If the consequence of the crime extends to the coastal state
(WongCheng Case, Smoking Opium)
3. If the exercise of territorial jurisdiction is necessary to prevent
drug trafficking (Look Chiu case will not apply, in this case there’s
only possession not transpo)
200 Miles EEZ – 1. PH has no sovereignty, 2. crim jurisdiction shall
be limited
(Side note: Passive personality doctrine – consider the
nationality/citizenship of the victim)
A.C. 5816 March 10 2016 – Admin case not territorial
G.R. 496 Dec 31 1902 – even if the vessel is owned by a PH citizen,
if not registered in PH, then PH has no jurisdiction
Forgery – whether usd or php, if committed inside ph territory we
penalize, if outside ph ony then we apple Art II of RPC. Maybe
penalize even if foreign citizen forgers ph currency outside ph.
Plunder committed outside PH, you cannot apply extra territoriality,
it is commited by a public officer, within his function
Gr. No. 111709 Aug 30 2001 – special law is applied outside PH
Rebellion – is not a threat against national security, it is a threat
against public order
Prospectivity – retroactivity may only be applied if it is favorable to
the accused.
Art. 22 of RPC – because there is an additional condition to apply
retroactivity, the non-delinquency.
If the crime has been decriminalization, Art. 22 will not apply, since
there is no longer any penalization. The courts will lose jurisdiction
to try and punish the accuse.
If a special law provides for retroactivity and prospectivity, Art. 22
does not apply. Specific provision > General provision.
3 kinds of Repeal
Absolute = Decriminalization
3 ways to Decrim
1. Decrim by Absolute repeal
2. Decrim by repeal reenactment
3. Decrim by amendment
Art 27 – 30 yrs, Art 29 – 40 yrs if there is preventive imprisonment
ART. 3 of RPC
Culpa (First view)
GR 2638 Feb 14 1927 – People vs Turla
“Light Felony is being excluded as part of a complex or compound crime”
Complex crime penalty
2nd view – ART. 365
GR No. 6640 July 28 1955
GR No. 19660 May 24 1966
Culpa is the crime in itself.
Ivler vs Modesto San Pedro GR No. 172716 Nov 17 2010 – Violation
of the rule on double jeopardy, you cannot split two actions.
G.R. No.162144 Nov 13 2012 – Family court has no jurisdiction if
minor dies
Mistake of Fact Doctrine
Effects
1. May negate a specific element of a felony, therefore a felony is not
committed – GR. No. 163927, Jan 27 2006.
2. May negate Dolo, which is a general element of a felony – Req for
a valid mistake of facts; 1. The act would have been lawful, had the
facts been true, 2. Mistake of fact is not due to negligence, 3.
Mistake of fact is not accompanied by Dolo.
3. Can be a source of mitigated circumstance, if 1 st and 2nd element
is not present.
If all elements are present; connect to Justifying, Mitigating,
Exempting, and Death under exempting circumstance – Ah Chiong
Case
People vs Mamasalaya GR. No. 4911 Feb 10 1953 – performance of
duty
People vs Berinilla? GR No. 4445 Feb 1955
If no 1st and 2nd element – US vs ---- GR. No. 7929 Nov 18 1912
In case of People vs Apolinar – not considered as unlawful
aggression, right to life is greater than right to property, this case is
no longer controlling.
People vs Narvaez GR. No. 133466 April 20 1983
(You cannot appreciate two mitigating circumstance from the same
facts)
Pp vs. Uwanis G.R. No. 47722 July 27 1943 – performance of duty
Pp vs Yapuco G.R. No. 20 June 25 2012 – no first element of
performance of duty, incomplete performance of duty is not present,
it should’ve been the 2nd that is missing not the first.
Correct Principle – Salvage not performance of duty.
Pp vs Calderon GR. No. L-6189 Nov 29 1954 –
People vs De Fernando – 1 st element and 3rd is present, therefore
reckless imprudence resulting imprudence
ART. 4 First part (1)
Basis of penalization is the human free will, criminal liability of a
person depends on his wrongful act done not his criminal intention.
PP vs Gagoco G.R. No. 38511 –
Bataklan vs Medina – bus tumaob lumapit may alang apoy as ilaw
tapos nasunog namatay, Art 4 is not applicable.
Error in Personae in relation to Art 4
Liable for the wrongful act done.
Praeter Intentionem Art 4.
Wrongful act done is greater that which he intended.
US vs Valdez GR. No. 16486 March 22 1921 – convicted kahit light
treats kaso nalunod tumalon, homicide.
CAMPANILLA DOCTRINE - It is not necessary that you employ
violence~ If victim dies, intent to kill is presumed.
PP vs Tuling GR. No. –
PP vs Oct 9 1997 – Complex crime of rape with SP
PP vs Arpa G.R. No. 26789 April 25 1969
4-12-365 Rule – Proximate cause Rule
PP vs Tiongco
PP vs Pugay G.R. No. 74324 – Pouring gasoline is not unjust
vexation.
PP vs Solidum March 10 2014 – Standard pag may kaso Doctor
PP vs Carmen – Reckless imprudence resulting to Homicide
Note: As a GR an offense punishable under SPL is not an offense
contemplated under the RPC. XPN; Carnapping PP vs Asimunim
(Asimuling) GR No. and GR No. 181184 Jan 25 2012 (Anti-Fencing)
Aberratio Ictus – principle connected to Art. 4, there must be a
felony
PP vs Patulot
PP vs Guillen G.R. No. L-1477
Campanilla Doctrine – If attempted and Frustrated only, know the
extent of the injuries sustained by the accused.
PP vs Gonzales – Art. 247
(Death under exceptional circumstance is not available for women
during Spanish code) But in RPC 1932 it’s applicable to both
husband and wife.
PP vs Arakel? G.R. No. 12629 Dec 9 1959
US vs Mercel? 14170 Nov 23 1918
PP vs Abarca 1987
Aberratio ictus pwede complex crime? PP vs. Guillen and PP vs
Umawid and PP vs Violin, there’s intent to kill, knowledge that there
are other people that might die. Intent to kill is an important
element of murder.
Error in personae, no issue of complex crime
Praeter intentionem, no issue of complex crime
PP vs Paturot
PP vs Adriano - Namaril sa kalye, separate crime
PP vs Desierto CA No. 454540 and PP vs Sanchez – not complex
crime
Art 49 applicable lang sa Error in Personae, PP vs Guillen – if what
is involve is a complex crime then Art. 49 may not be applied but
Art. 48.
PENALTIES
Prescribe penalties – complex period composed of 3 periods, Art.
294
Graduating factors
For purpose of determining whether ISLAW is applicable or not you
have to consider graduated penalty. Whether to apply Art. 63 or
64.
3 Graduated factors
1. Stages
2. Nature of Participation
3. Privilege mitigating; 1. INC Justification or exemption (ART. 69)
(PP vs Oanis) – in case of doubt whether you consider 1 out of 2 in
favor majority or minority you resolve in favor of Accused, it’s a
privilege mitigating.
INC minority – Art 68 apply. Exempting circumstance is either
absolute or conditional. PP vs Jose GR. No. 206916
Art. 67 – incomplete accident
GR: Graduated penalty is single
XPN: A. If the prescribed penalty is in period (PP vs Cupao? G.R. No.
38329 Oct 10 1933)
1. single period
2. Compound
3. Complex
B. Combination of Penalty in Full and in Period
PP vs Lucas – divisible penalty in Reclusion Perpetua
In all cases where the law prescribes a single penalty and

People vs Valenzuela – ability to freely dispose the property is not

an element in the crime of theft. There’s no such thing as frustrated
theft.
People vs Canceran – variance rule accused can be convicted of
attempted, which is necessarily included in the crim of frustrated
theft.
People vs Bara G.R No. 19820 (2013) – Homicide by reason of
attempted robbery, XPN Robbery by using force upon things, by
removing the furniture and receptacles outside the building.
Old Rule; If the killing is purposely sought then it is a separate
crime of murder and kidnapping, if the killing was just an
afterthought then it is a complex crime of murder by reason of
kidnapping
(People vs Mercado; there must be deprivation of liberty and intent
to deprive liberty) New Rule; purpose is not immaterial, as long as
the killing happened in the course of detention, it is a special
complex crime of kidnapping with murder

Kinidnap victim then binaril, kaso nabuhay. Kidnapping and

Frustrated Murder.
Component of a special complex crime; it must be committed
XPN: Attempted rape with homicide and attempted robbery with
homicide
In this case there is no kidnapping with frustrated murder, so we
apply the old rule. If the purpose of the abduction is to kill the
victim it is complex crime, since kidnapping is essential to commit
the frustrated murder.
But if the frustrated murder is just an afterthought it is two
separate crimes of kidnapping and frustrated murder
People vs Lora L-49430

Conspiracy
US vs Dominguez
Bar Q, used People vs Lora but added one more principal.
Anterior conspiracy – before the commission of the crime, di pwede
in the course of the commission of the crime.
Community of design – look into the extent of participation and
time
Conspiracy as a crime
Agreement
Decision
There must be a provision prescribing penalty to commit the crime
committed
The crime agreed upon was not committed
Mode of incurring Collective responsibility rule
Agreement
Decision
Crime agreed upon was committed
The conspirator must perform an act in furtherance of the
conspiracy (XPN: If the conspirator is the master mind)

People vs Castillo
People vs Estacio
PP vs Naguin

People vs Mejorada
Peopla vs Almanzor – is the main purpose is to rape the victim
abduction is deemed absorbed
People vs Igan

Pp vs Jose 28232 Feb 6 1971 – Complex crime of forcible abduction

with rape and 3 crimes of rape separate
PP vs Garcia
PP vs Amado case Gr. No. 199100 – rape through forcible abduction
complex crime
If necessary ang abduction art 48
If Indispensable apply doctrine of absorption
Pp vs Panida 127125 July 6 1999
PP vs 124703 June 27

Abduction with intent to deprive liberty – no showing of lewd

design
PP vs Mirandilla Gr. No. 1286417
PP vs Anticamaray
PP vs Laranaga – rape, abduction, and murder (wombo combo),
adopted the ruling of people vs Mercado
In case robbery and kidnapping for ransom occurs at the same time
GR; Separate crime
XPN;
1.
2. Pp vs Moreno April 10 1992 – crime committed is robbery the
incidental deprivation of liberty is deemed absorbed
3. PP vs Astor - incidental deprivation of liberty was absorbed due
to the evasion from the police
4. PP vs – deprivation of the liberty to add additional money

People vs Concepcion April 4 2018 – rape, deprivation of liberty to

prevent the police from arresting him
GR;If the original design is to commit robbery eh may namatay,
Robbery with homicide PP vs De Leon 2009
XPN;
1. PP vs Jaranilla Feb 22 1974 `
2.
3. PP vs Concepcion