NOTES ON RPC – REYES
Article 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 act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, and lack of skill.
FELONIES
Definition Acts and omissions punishable by the REVISED
PENAL CODE (RPC)
Elements 1. There must be an act or omission
2. That the act or omission is punishable by
the RPC
3. That the act is performed or the omission
incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
Classification 1. Intentional felonies
2. Culpable felonies
Important words and phrases in Article 3
1. “ACT”
a. must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it
being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
b. Must be one which is defined by the RPC as constituting a felony; or an overt act of that felony
i. External act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed.
c. ONLY EXTERNAL ACT IS PUNISHED
2. “OMISSION”
a. Inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.
b. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.
c. EXAMPLES:
i. Abandonment of persons in danger (Art.275, par.1)
ii. Illegal exaction (Art. 213, par.2[b])
iii. Misprision of treason (Art.116)
d. Omission must be punishable by law. (NOT IN RPC, NOT FELONY)
3. “PUNISHABLE BY LAW”
a. “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” = there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
b. should be understood to mean: “punished by the Revised Penal Code”
Intentional felonies vs Culpable felonies
Intentional Felonies Culpable Felonies
WITH Malice WITHOUT Malice
Offender has the intention to cause an Injury caused by the offender is
injury to another “unintentional”
Requisites of 1. Freedom
1. Freedom
Voluntariness 2. Intelligence
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of
3. Intent
Foresight, or Lack of Skill
Imprudence vs. Negligence
Imprudence Negligence
Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception
Fails to take necessary precaution to avoid injury Fails to pay proper attention and to use due
to person or damage to property diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused
Usually involves lack of skill Usually involves lack of foresight
INTENT
a. Shown by the overt acts of a person
b. Criminal Intent
a. presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
b. Necessary in felonies committed by dolo
c. Does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful.
d. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention
were so.
MISTAKE OF FACT
e. Ignorantia facti excusat
f. Relieves the accused from criminal liability
g. A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another.
h. NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRIMINAL INTENT
i. REQUISITES:
i. The act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
ii. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
iii. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
j. Act done would have constituted:
i. A justifying circumstance under Art. 11
ii. An absolutory cause, such as that contemplated in Art. 247,par2
iii. An involuntary act.
Mistake of Fact vs. Ignorance of the Law
MISTAKE OF FACT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Ignorantia facti excusat Ignorantia legis non excusat
Relieves of criminal liability NON COMPLIANCE NOT EXCUSED
A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice or fault, is not criminally liable under the RPC. But the
act done must be lawful.
Third Class of Crimes = those defined and penalized by special laws
Includes municipal or city ordinances
Dolo is not required. Intent to perpetrate the act is sufficient.
Intent to commit a crime vs. Intent to perpetrate the act
Intent to commit a crime Intent to perpetrate the act
Criminal intent is present It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously
Mala in se Mala prohibita
Why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made such by statutory enactment:
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare
and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
General Rule: Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws
Exceptions:
Temporary, incidental, casual or harmless possession or control of a firearm
MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
Wrongful from their nature Wrong merely because prohibited by statute
Ex. Theft, rape, homicide Ex. Illegal possession of firearms
Crimes are those so serious in their effects on society as Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to
to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
members
Intent governs Only inquiry: “has the law been violated?”
Refers generally to felonies defined and penalized by RPC Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws
Acts that are inherently immoral, even if punished under
special law
INTENT VS. MOTIVE
INTENT MOTIVE
the purpose to use a particular means to effect such The moving power which impels one to action for a
result definite result
Not an essential element of a crime
MOTIVE, WHEN RELEVANT AND WHEN NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED
1. IDENTITY OF ACCUSED
NECESSARY NOT NECESSARY
Identity of the accused is in dispute (very Commission of the crime has been proven and
relevant) the evidence of identification is convincing
Doubt as to the identity of the assailant Accused has been positively identified
Identification of the accused proceeds from an Defendant admits the killing
unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive and not free from doubt
2. ANTAGONISTIC THEORIES
a. Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the
killing.
3. NO EYEWITNESS
a. Where there are no eyewitness to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of
persons motive is relevant and significant.
4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
a. Merely circumstantial = motive necessary
b. Sufficient evidence = not indispensable
How motive is proved:
Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after
the commission of the offense. Such deeds or words may indicate the motive.
Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction. It is not a sufficient proof of guilt.
Article 4 – Criminal Liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against person or property, were
it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Rationale: El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado = (“he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
evil caused”)
Important words and phrases in paragraph 1 of Article 4
1. “COMMITTING A FELONY”
a. Must be an intentional felony (by means of dolo) because the wrongful act done may be different
from that which he intended.
2. “ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED”
a. The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are:
i. Mistake in the identity of the victim – error in personae
ii. Mistake in the blow – aberration ictus
1. Offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another
iii. The act exceeds the intent – praeter intentionem
1. The injurious result is greater than that intended
Requisites of paragraph 1 of Article 4
1. That an intentional felony has been committed; and
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender
Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something
resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.
Proximate Cause
a. That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
Cause and Effect relationship is not altered or changed because of the ff:
a. The pathological condition of the victim (las condiciones patologica del lesionado)
b. The predisposition of the offended party (la constitucion fisica del herido)
c. The concomitant or concurrent conditions such as the negligence or fault of the doctor (la falta de medicos para
sister al herido)I
d. The conditions supervening the felonies act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene.
NOT PROXIMATE CASE OF THE RESULTING INJURY WHEN
a. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active
force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
Not efficient intervening causes:
1. Weak or diseased physical condition of the victim
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim
4. Neglect of the victim or third person
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment
6. Delay in the medical treatment of the victim
Death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, when the following facts
are established:
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time
A person is not liable for ALL possible consequences which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for such as
are proximate.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor.
Requisites of an impossible crime:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual.
4. that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC
IMPORTANT WORDS IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 4
“Performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property”
1. intends to commit a felony against persons or a felony against property
2. felony should not actually be performed.
Felonies against persons:
a. Parricide
b. Murder
c. Homicide
d. Infanticide
e. Abortion
f. Duel
g. Physical Injuries
h. Rape
Felonies against property:
a. Robbery
b. Brigandage
c. Theft
d. Usurpation
e. Culpable insolvency
f. Swindling and other deceits
g. Chattel mortgage
h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction
i. Malicious mischief
“Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment”
Types of impossibility
1. Legal impossibility
2. Physical impossibility
“Employment of inadequate means”
*if means were adequate, it would be a frustrated felony
“employment of ineffectual means”
Article 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 – Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
”in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law”
A trial of a criminal case requires the following:
1. Act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the
reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
“nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” – there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
“in cases of excessive penalties”
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly
excessive because
a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice, and/or
b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive clemency.
Executive Clemency - It refers to the Commutation of Sentence, Conditional Pardon and Absolute Pardon maybe
granted by the president upon recommendation of the Board.
Theft:
1. The taking of personal property
2. Property belongs to another
3. Taking away was done with intent to gain
4. Taking away was done without consent of the owner
5. Taking away is accomplished without violence, or intimidation nor force upon things