Teaching Demo

Criminal Law
• Criminal law
- is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature, and provides for their punishment.
Crime
- is defined as an act committed or omitted in violation of public law
forbidding or commanding it. It is a positive or negative act in violation of
penal law; an offense against the state.
Felonies
- are acts and omissions punishable by the
Revised Penal Code. Felonies are classified
according to the means by which they are
committed, into: (a) intentional felonies, and (b)
culpable felonies. (Article 3, Revised Penal
Code)
Intentional felonies/DOLO
-How Committed:
a. Freedom
b. Intent
c. Intelligence
There is deliberate intent in the commission of a felony if

the offender, in doing the act or in omitting to do an act, has
done so with FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and INTENT
1. Freedom
When a person acts without freedom the law

looks at him as a mere tool. And as such, his liability
is likened to ―the knife that wounds, or of the torch
that sets fire, or of the key that opens a door, or of
the ladder that is placed against the wall of a
house in committing robbery.
2. Intelligence
If a person acted without intelligence in

committing a felony, then no crime exists. This
requisite is necessary to determine the morality of
human acts. Hence, the law exempts certain classes
of persons from criminal liability such as minors
(15below) and insane persons.
3. Intent
Intent to commit the act with malice,

being purely a mental process, is presumed
and the presumption arises from the proof
of the commission of an unlawful act.
CULPABLE FELONIES;
- How to determine if a felony is committed by
meansof culpa?
There is culpable felony if the offender, in doing
the act or in omitting to do an act, has done so with
IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK of
FORESIGHT or LACK OF SKILL.
IMPRUDENCE
- Usually involves lacks of skill

- A deficiency of action or failure to take necessary precaution
to avoid injury or greater damages.
Example:
When a driver fails to check and determine the road
worthiness of his vehicle before hitting the road where thereafter
he had a break failure which caused him to run over a pedestrian.
Such may have been avoided if he prudently checked his vehicle.
NEGLIGENCE
- Usually involves lacks of foresight.

- A deficiency in perception or failure to pay proper attention
and to use diligence to avoid a foreseeable injury or damage.
Example:
When a cop indiscriminately fires his gun in the air during
New Year’s Eve caused injury to another, had the cop foreseen that
firing his gun in open air might injure someone the incident would
not be happen.
CASE ANALYSIS FOR
DOLO/DECEIT
G.R. No. 168217 June 27, 2006
JOY LEE RECUERDO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts:
Petitioner Recuerdo, a dentist, was charged with the crime of
Estafa under Art. 315 of Revised Penal Code for, with intent to
gain and by means of deceit, false pretenses and fraudulent
manifestations, and pretending to have sufficient funds with the
Unitrust Makati Commercial Center Branch, PCI Bank Makati-De
La Rosa Branch, and Prudential Bank Legaspi Village Branch, did
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously prepare, draw, make and issue
checks amounting to P132,000, P78,000, and P600,000, to
complaining witness Yolanda G. Floro, who is engaged in the
business of buying and selling of jewelry, as payment for jewelry
she obtained from the said complainant, knowing fully well at the
time the checks were issued that her representations were false for
she had no sufficient funds in the said bank, so much that upon
presentment of the said checks with the said bank for encashment,
the same were dishonored and refused payment for having been
drawn against an “Account Closed”, and in spite of repeated
demands to deposit with the said bank, the said accused failed and
refused to do so.
Recuerdo argued that her act of issuing the dishonored checks
does not constitute the offense of Estafa considering that the
subject checks were not issued and delivered to Floro simultaneous
to the purchase of the pieces of jewelry, but only several days
thereafter, when she had already thoroughly examined the jewelry
and is fully satisfied of its fine quality; that out of the 17 subject
checks, nine were honored by the drawee banks; that she made
partial payments of the amounts of the subject checks while the
case was pending in the CA, contrary to the findings of the courts
that she acted with deceit when she drew and delivered the checks.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Recuerdo committed the crime of
estafa.
Held:
Yes, Recuerdo committed the crime of estafa.
Estafa through false pretense or fraudulent act under Paragraph
2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 4885, is committed as follows:
By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover
his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
The essential elements of the felony are: (1) a check is
postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at
the time it is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover
the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. It is criminal
fraud
or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under
the Revised Penal Code, and not the non-payment of a debt. Deceit
is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or
conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
Concealment which the law denotes as fraudulent implies a purpose
or design to hide facts which the other party ought to have. The
postdating or issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when
the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited
therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false
pretense or a fraudulent act.
Petitioner’s defense of good faith is even belied by the evidence of
the prosecution and her own evidence. When the postdated checks
issued by petitioner were dishonored by the drawee banks and the
private complainant made demands for her to pay the amounts of
the checks, she intransigently refused to pay; she insisted that she
issued and delivered the postdated checks to the private complainant
after the subject pieces of jewelry had been delivered to her.
Petitioner never offered to pay the amounts of the checks after she
was informed by the private complainant that they had been
dishonored by the drawee banks. It was after the CA promulgated its
decision affirming the decision of the trial court, that petitioner
made several
payments to the private complainant; however, there is no
showing as to which checks they were made in payment for.
In fine, it was the spectre of a long prison term which jolted
petitioner into making remittances to the private
complainant, after the CA affirmed the decision of the trial
court and increased the penalty meted on her, and not
because she had acted in good faith in her transactions with
the private complainant. To reiterate, petitioner rejected the
demands of the private complainant to pay the amounts of
the dishonored checks.
While it is true that nine of the 17 postdated checks
petitioner issued and delivered to the private complainant
were honored by the drawee banks, such a circumstance is
not a justification for her acquittal of the charges relative to
the dishonored checks. The reimbursement or restitution to
the offended party of the sums swindled by the petitioner
does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. Estafa
is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished
by the State on its own motion even though complete
reparation had been made for the loss or damage suffered
by the
offended party. The consent of the private
complainant to petitioner’s payment of her civil
liability pendente lite does not entitle the latter to an
acquittal. Subsequent payments does not obliterate the
criminal liability already incurred. Criminal liability for
estafa is not affected by a compromise between
petitioner and the private complainant on the former’s
civil liability.
CASE ANALYSIS FOR
CULPA/FAULT
Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company
David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy
at sea; he was also able to learn some principles of
mechanical engineering and mechanical drawing from his dad’s
office (his dad was a mechanical engineer); he was also employed as
a mechanical draftsman earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was
mature well beyond his age. One day in 1905, he and another boy
entered into the premises of Manila Electric power plant where
they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home.
In an effort to explode the said caps, Taylor experimented until he
succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it using a match
which resulted to the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries
to his companion and to Taylor losing one eye. Taylor sued Manila
Electric alleging that because the company left the caps exposed to
children, they are liable for damages due to the company’s
negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.

HELD:
No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as
follows:
(1) Damages to the plaintiff
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or
some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and
the damage.
In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been

negligent in disposing off the caps which they used for the power
plant,
and that said caps caused damages to Taylor. However, the
causal connection between the company’s negligence and the
injuries sustained by Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of
Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he even, in
variousexperiments and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the
caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and hence the
injuries. Taylor at the time of the accident was well—-grown youth
of 15, more mature both mentally and physically than the average
boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn
P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury
was incurred; and the record discloses throughout that he was
exceptionally well qualified to take care. The evidence of record
leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character
of the cap with which he was amusing himself. The series of
experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion
admit of no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by
the use of electricity, followed by his efforts to explode it with a
stone or a hammer, and the final success of his endeavors brought
about by the applications of a match to the contents of the cap,
show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor can there be any
reasonable doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the
explosion might be dangerous.
IGNORANTIA
EXCUSAT
(IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE)
QUESTION?
)

Teaching Demo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Demo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Demo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law

There is deliberate intent in the commission of a felony if

When a person acts without freedom the law

If a person acted without intelligence in

Intent to commit the act with malice,

- Usually involves lacks of skill

- Usually involves lacks of foresight.

ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.

In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been

You might also like