The student’s will be able to:

1. Know the date of effectivity of RA 8315;

2. Know the application of the provisions of RA 8315;
3. Know and understand Felony under Art 3 of the RPC;
4. Understand Criminal Liability under Art 4 of the RPC; and
5. Understand the Duty of the Court in criminal cases.
 ART. 1. THIS CODE
SHALL TAKE EFFECT
ON JANUARY 1, 1932.
 ART. 2. APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS. -- EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE TREATIES AND
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE SHALL BE
ENFORCED NOT ONLY WITHIN THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO INCLUDING ITS
ATMOSPHERE, ITS INTERIOR WATERS AND MARITIME ZONE, BUT ALSO OUTSIDE OF ITS
JURISDICTION, AGAINST THOSE WHO:
1. SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP;
2. SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS;
3. SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO
THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING
NUMBER;
4. WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN
OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS; OR (SOME OF THESE CRIMES ARE BRIBERY,
FRAUD AGAINST NATIONAL TREASURY, MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY, AND
ILLEGAL USE
OF PUBLIC FUNDS; E.G., A JUDGE WHO ACCEPTS A BRIBE WHILE IN JAPAN.)
5. SHOULD COMMIT ANY CRIMES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE. (THESE CRIMES
INCLUDE TREASON, ESPIONAGE, PIRACY, MUTINY, INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR
REPRISALS,
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY, FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY AND VIOLATION OF
NEUTRALITY)
Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels:
1. French Rule – Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless
their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of
the state is endangered.
2. English Rule – Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect
things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. (This is
applicable in the Philippines)
• Requirements of “an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or Airship”
1. Registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs
2. Ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace.
Two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was
committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are:
1. When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are
part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong;
2. (2) When the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts
the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed
affects the national security or public order of such foreign country
When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise
of their functions .As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs
only when the crime committed pertains to
the exercise of the public official’s functions, those having to do
with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions
contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed
by the public officer in the Foreign Service of the Philippine
government in a foreign country.
Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was
committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy
grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are
considered an extension of sovereignty.
ART 3. DEFINITIONS. -- ACTS
AND OMISSIONS
PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE
FELONIES
(DELITOS).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there
is fault when the wrongful results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
• Acts – an overt or external act
• Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law.
To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere
imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act refers
to any kind of body movement that produces change in the outside world.
In felony by omission however, there must be a law requiring the doing or
the performance of an act. Thus, mere passive presence at the scene of the
crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy is not punishable.
Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in
danger of dying or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded - abandonment.
• Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
• Offense- crimes punished under special law
• Misdemeanor- minor infraction of law, such as violation of ordinance
• Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law
• HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED:
1. by means of deceit (dolo) - There is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent.
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent
Examples: murder, treason, and robbery
2. by means of fault (culpa) - There is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
a. imprudence - deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along
a road. He hit B because it was raining - reckless imprudence.
b. Negligence - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending
danger, usually involves lack of foresight
c. Requisites:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
4. Lack of intent
Voluntariness comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence
and the fact that the act was intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no
voluntariness if either freedom, intelligence or imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill is lacking. Without voluntariness, there can be no dolo or
culpa, hence, there is no felony.
Criminal Intent
Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the
nearest translation is deliberate intent.
In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:
(1) General criminal intent; and
(2) Specific criminal intent.
General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This
does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted
without such criminal intent.
Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of
a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated
homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same.
Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:
(1) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless
imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;
(2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called
malum prohibitum.
Distinction between intent and discernment
Intent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the
mind. It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.
On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from
wrong. It relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act
and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.
Distinction between intent and motive
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a
desired result – it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.
On the other hand, motive implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an
act.
When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a
crime may be committed without motive.
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the
instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is
to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.
Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not on the basis if what the offender says.
Look into motive to determine the proper crime which can be imputed to the accused
• Mistake of fact - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not criminally liable.
a. Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;
3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness
Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through
dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not
discuss mistake of fact
Mens rea
The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as
the gravamen of the offense. To a layman, that is what you call the “bullseye” of
the crime. This term is used synonymously with criminal or deliberate intent,
but that is not exactly correct.
Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only
detect the mens rea of a crime by knowing the particular crime committed.
Without reference to a particular crime, this term is meaningless. For example,
in theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent to gain.
In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent to pervert
the truth. It is not merely writing something that is not true; the intent to pervert
the truth must follow the performance of the act.
In criminal law, we sometimes have to consider the crime on the basis of intent.
For example, attempted or frustrated homicide is distinguished from physical
injuries only by the intent to kill. Attempted rape is distinguished from acts of
lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual intercourse. In robbery, the mens
rea is the taking of the property of another coupled with the employment of
intimidation or violence upon persons or things; remove the employment of
force or intimidation and it is not robbery anymore. Real concept of culpa
 ART. 4. CRIMINAL
LIABILITY.-- CRIMINAL
LIABILITY SHALL BE
INCURRED:
1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
In the first paragraph, two elements must be present:
1. A felony committed; and
2. The felony committed resulted in the commission of another felony.
The requirement however, must be, that the resulting other felony or felonies must be direct,
material and logical consequence of the felony committed even if the same is not intended or
entirely different from what was in the mind of the offender.
• Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of
events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessarily
produce the event.
Requisites:
a. the direct, natural, and logical cause
b. produces the injury or damage
c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
d. without which the result would not have occurred
• Proximate Cause is negated by:
a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
b. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
• Requisite for Presumption that the blow was cause of the death – Where there has been
an injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the
presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:
a. victim was in normal health
b. death ensued within a reasonable time
Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound
inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, the actor is liable.
This is true even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical
treatment, refusal of the victim to submit to surgical operation, or that the deceased was
suffering from tuberculosis, heart disease or other internal malady or that the resulting
injury was aggravated by infection.
There must however be no efficient intervening cause.
Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the
resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious
act.
• Causes which produce a different result:

a. Mistake in identity of the victim – injuring one person who is mistaken for another e.g., A intended to
shoot B, but he instead shot C because he (A) mistook C for B.

In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim upon
whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim How does error in personae affect
criminal liability of the offender?

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the
crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal
liability of the offender.

In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim,
error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the crime committed was
different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied.
In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where

Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona
is not a mitigating circumstance

In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended.

b. Mistake in blow – hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances (this
is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking together. A wanted to shoot B, but he instead
injured C.

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow
landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the
scene of the crime.
If the actor intended the commission of several felonies with a single act, it is not
called aberratio ictus or mistake of blow, simply because there was no mistake.
Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow,
but he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The
distinction is important because the legal effects are not the same.
In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but
because of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime,
unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a
single act as against the intended victim and also giving rise to another felony as
against the actual victim. If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you
cannot complex. In other words, aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex
crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the
maximum period.
c. Injurious result is greater than that intended – causing injury graver than intended
or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure B. However, B died.
In praeter intentionem, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious
disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law,
intent of the offender is determined on the basis employed by him and the manner in
which he committed the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is in his mind; it
is disclosed in the manner in which he committed the crime.
2. By any person performing an act 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.
• Requisites:
a. Act would have been an offense against persons or property
b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of
a special penal law
c. There was criminal intent
d. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or
ineffectual means were employed.
 ART 5. DUTY OF THE COURT IN
CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH
SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT
WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE
LAW, AND IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE
PENALTIES. –
NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT
When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no
law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give
his opinion that the said act should be punished.
Article 5 covers two situations:
(1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not
constitute a crime. The proper judgment is acquittal, but the court is
mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject
of penal legislation and why.
(2) Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime, the
judge should impose the law (Dura lex sed lex). The most that he could
do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.
• Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law,
including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms or drugs. There
can be no executive clemency for these crimes.