CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM
 CRIMINAL
LAW
A branch of municipal law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature
and provides for their punishment.
 Limitations on the Power of Congress to
Enact Penal Laws (ON)

1.         Must be general in application.

2.         Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
3.         Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
4.         Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or
excessive fines.
 Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. General – the law is binding to all persons who reside in the Philippines

2. Territorial – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National Territory of
the Philippines

3. Prospective – the law does not have any retroactive effect.

Exception to Prospective Application: when new statute is favorable to the accused.

 Effect of Repeal of Penal Law to Liability of Offender
Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal— As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the
liability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or
whether the repeal is partial or relative only.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been
decriminalized by the repeal.  Because of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a
crime is no longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized
subversion.
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a
crime inspite of the repeal.  This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting
the crime under the repealed law.  The modification may be prejudicial or beneficial to the
offender. 
 Consequences if Repeal of Penal Law is Total or Absolute
(1)     If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall be dismissed,
even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.

(2)      If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final judgment, if the
convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation
clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal.  But if there
is no reservation, those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will
receive the benefit of the repealing law.  They are entitled to release.

If they are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the
legality of their continued confinement in jail.

If the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delinquent, he will continue serving the sentence in spite
of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed.  This is so
because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual
delinquents. 
 Consequences if Repeal of Penal Law is Partial or Relative
(1)           If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing
law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him.  So whether he is a
habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to
apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of
action.

(2)      If a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final
judgment, even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a
crime.  Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so that if the
repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them.

Under Article 22, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is
beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with Rule 5 of
Article 62.
Consequences if Repeal of Penal Law is Express
or Implied
(1)         If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. 
So the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again
be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable.          
       
(2)        If the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so the act or omission
will no longer be penalized.

These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have automatic termination.   An example is
the Rent Control Law which is revived by Congress every two years.
 Theories of Criminal
Law
Classical Theory – Man is essentially a moral
creature with an absolute free will to choose
between good and evil and therefore more stress is
placed upon the result of the felonious act than
upon the criminal himself.

Positivist Theory – Man is subdued occasionally

by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary
to his volition.
 Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy
This combines both positivist and classical thinking.  Crimes
that are economic and social and nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. 

Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus,

capital punishment
 BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW
Doctrine of Pro Reo
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same.This is true to
civil law countries, but not to common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. 
No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining
the act, the same is not considered a crime.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.  This is true to a
felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa.  This
maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or
those that result from negligence.

Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the
protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers.  The courts,
therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct
the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is
directed against acts and omissions which the society does not approve. 
Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes
an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to
apply the full harshness of the special law. 
 Utilitarian Theory or
Protective Theory
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal
law is the protection of society from actual and
potential wrongdoers.  The courts, therefore, in
exacting retribution for the wronged society, should
direct the punishment to potential or actual
wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts
and omissions which the society does not approve. 
Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita
principle which punishes an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to
apply the full harshness of the special law. 
 Sources of Criminal
Law
1. The Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws – Acts enacted of the
Philippine Legislature punishing offenses or
omissions.
 Construction of Penal Laws
1. Criminal Statutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. This means that no
person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official
translation.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law
 MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or
bad or per se wrongful.  On the other hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.

Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita.  While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it
does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.  Even if the crime is
punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore,
good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is
required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.
When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the same.
Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and
crimes punished under special laws
1.           As to moral trait of the offender
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why
liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act.
In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is enough that
the prohibited act was voluntarily done.
2.         As to use of good faith as defense
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense;
unless the crime is the result of culpa
In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense
3.          As to degree of accomplishment of the crime
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into
account in punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the
commission of the crime.
In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated; there are
no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration
of the crime.
4.        As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into
account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered.
In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account
in imposing the penalty.
5.        As to degree of participation

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal

Code, when there is more than one offender,
the degree of participation of each in the
commission of the crime is taken into account
in imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are
classified as principal, accomplice and
accessory.

In crimes punished under special laws, the

degree of participation of the offenders is not
considered.  All who perpetrated the
prohibited act are penalized to the same
extent.  There is no principal or accomplice or
accessory to consider.
Test to determine if Violation of Special law is
malum prohibitum or malum in se

Q1. Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there

is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you
remove the law, will the act still be wrong?
If the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word “willfully”, then
malice must be proven. Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

In violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act.
Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an
omission.

When given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the Revised
Penal Code or a special law.
Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932.
Art. 2. 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, 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)
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) 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.

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.
Under international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is
considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever the pirates
may go, they can be prosecuted.
US v. Bull
A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territory
and continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. Hence within the
jurisdiction of the local courts.

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.
Paragraph 5 of Article 2, use the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.”
This is a very important part of the exception, because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national
security) does not include rebellion.

Art 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.

• Acts – an overt or external act
• Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law. 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
• Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law
 What requisites must concur before a felony may be committed?

There must be (1) an act or omission; (2) punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the act is
performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
How felonies are committed:
1. by means of deceit (dolo) – There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.
Requisites:
1. freedom
2. intelligence
3. intent
Examples: murder, treason, and robbery
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.
In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:
(1) General criminal intent; and
(2) Specific criminal intent.
General criminal intent  Specific criminal intent 
is presumed from the mere is not presumed because it is an
doing of a wrong act.  This ingredient or element of a crime,
does not require proof.  The like intent to kill in the crimes of
burden is upon the wrong doer attempted or frustrated
to2020
prove that he acted without homicide/parricide/murder.  The
such criminal intent.  prosecution has the burden of
2022
proving the same.
 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.
1. by means of fault  (culpa) – There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
2. Imprudence – deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road.  He hit B because
it was raining – reckless imprudence.
3. Negligence – deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually
involves lack of foresight
4.        Requisites:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
4. Lack of intent
The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the person performing or failing to perform an act.  If the danger
impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of reckless
imprudence.  But if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not
clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence.
● 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.
 Example:  United States v. Ah Chong.
Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by placing a
chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody
who was trying to open the door.  He asked the identity of the person, but he did
not receive a response.  Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of
bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter.  At that
moment, the chair struck him.  Believing that he was attacked, he seized a knife
and fatally wounded the intruder.
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. 
Art. 4.  Criminal liability shall be incurred:
            1.  By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
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:
Mistake in identity of the victim – injuring one person who is mistaken for
another (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) 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
2. 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.
     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.
3. 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.
         praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13.  In
order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable
disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony
● In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated by
criminal intent.
Requisites:
1. the felony was intentionally committed
2. the felony is the proximate cause of the wrong done
● 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:
1. the direct, natural, and logical cause
2. produces the injury or damage
3. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
4. without which the result would not have occurred
● Proximate Cause is negated by:
1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused,
which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
      proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the
offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief
that made him risk himself.
 Requisite for Presumption 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:

1. victim was in normal health

2. death ensued within a reasonable time

       The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable.  The one
who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory
or sometimes totally not liable.
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: (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property
2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law
3. There was criminal intent
4. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were employed.

Notes:
1. Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another
who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
2. The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
3. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
• Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.
• Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.
• Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just sleeping.  B was already dead.  A shot B. 
A is liable.  If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the
crime could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set
of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be
an attempted felony.
• Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived
because A used small quantities of poison – frustrated murder.
• Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empty. A is liable.
Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an
impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked
is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”, then you judge that question on the basis of the
facts. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible
crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.
• If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a
catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the
act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised
Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be
prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him.
• this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, just to teach the
offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he could be taught of
the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act,
then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe, you state there that
although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal
law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be
punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Art 5. 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 subject of
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.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

• Development of a crime
1. Internal acts – intent and plans; usually not punishable
2. External acts
1.Preparatory Acts – acts tending toward the crime
2. Acts of Execution – acts directly connected the crime
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
• Development of a crime
1. Internal acts – intent and plans; usually not punishable
2. External acts
1. Preparatory Acts – acts tending toward the crime
2. Acts of Execution – acts directly connected the crime
 Stages of Commission of a Crime
Attempt Frustrated Consummated
• Overt acts of
execution are started
• Not all acts of
execution are present
• Due to reasons other
than the spontaneous
desistance of the
perpetrator
• All acts of execution
are present
 Stages of Commission of a Crime
Attempt Frustrated Consummated
• Crime sought to be
committed is not
achieved
• Due to intervening
causes independent of
the will of the
perpetrator
• All the acts of
execution are present
• The result sought is
achieved
 Stages of a Crime does not apply in:
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the otherwise is provided
for.
2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt. Examples: attempt to flee to an enemy
country, treason, corruption of minors.
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement. Examples:       betting in sports
(endings in basketball), corruption of public officers.
Desistance
        Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted
stage.  Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony.  If under the
definition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of
desistance will negate criminal liability.
         The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but
not necessarily all criminal liability.  Even though there was desistance on the part of
the offender, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a
felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act
           In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there
are three criteria involved:
(1)           The manner of committing the crime;
(2)           The elements of the crime; and
(3)           The nature of the crime itself.
 Applications:
1. A put poison in B’s food.  B threw away his food.  A is liable – attempted murder.
2. A stole B’s car, but he returned it.  A is liable – (consummated) theft.
3. A aimed his gun at B.  C held A’s hand and prevented him from shooting B – attempted
murder.
4. A inflicted a mortal wound on B.  B managed to survive – frustrated murder.
5. A intended to kill B by shooting him.  A missed – attempted murder.
6. A doused B’s house with kerosene.  But before he could light the match, he was caught
– attempted arson.
7. A cause a blaze, but did not burn the house of B – frustrated arson.
8. B’s house was set on fire by A – (consummated) arson.
9. A tried to rape B.  B managed to escape.  There was no penetration – attempted rape.
10. A got hold of B’s painting.  A was caught before he could leave B’s house – frustrated
robbery.
           The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective phase of execution of a felony. 
On the subjective phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of
an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. 
If he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the
crime has already passed the subjective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted.  The
moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should
follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated.  If the felony does
not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated.  If the felony follows as a consequence,
it is consummated.
        although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a
consequence, if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not
proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime, Supreme
Court said the subjective phase has passed.
NOTES ON ARSON;
         The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated
stage.  The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premises has
started to burn.  On the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has
blackened, in law, arson is consummated.  This is because consummated arson does not require
that the whole of the premises be burned.  It is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how
small, has begun to burn.
ESTAFA VS. THEFT
         In estafa, the offender receives the property; he does not take it.  But in receiving the
property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only
the physical or material possession of the object.  It can only be estafa if what was transferred to
him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well.
          When you are discussing estafa, do not talk about intent to gain.  In the same manner that
when you are discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of damage.
Nature of the crime itself
          In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide, homicide, and murder – in the
definition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded.  Under
the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of
execution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a
consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then
that death will follow.
         If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted.  The reason is that the wound
inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a
consequence; it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which
would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result. 
         An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase.  The Supreme Court has
decided cases which applied the subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that
he had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is
already in the frustrated stage.
         The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are
punished as principals.  This notion is no longer absolute.  In the case of People v.
Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator
merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such
that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co-
conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only.
Art. 7.  Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.
Examples of light felonies: slight physical injuries; theft; alteration of boundary marks; 
malicious mischief; and intriguing against honor.
In commission of crimes against properties and persons, every stage of execution is
punishable but only the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories
are not.
 
 THANK
YOU!
Prepared by:
Prof. Pio S. Jagurin, MBA, J.D