Criminal Law Reviewer

Criminal Law Review I. Fundamental Principles A. Definition of Criminal Law Criminal Law is that branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. 1. Principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege a. Villareal vs People. G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012 Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this case the general condemnation of a hazing-related death, they are still bound to observe a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system "[N]o act constitutes a crime unless it is made so by law." Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as immoral or injurious, it cannot be considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its commission. As interpreters of the law, judges are called upon to set aside emotion, to resist being swayed by strong public sentiments, and to rule strictly based on the elements of the offense and the facts allowed in evidence.

b. Rubrico vs Arroyo. G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010

Doctrine of command responsibility The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, "command responsibility," in its simplest terms, means the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict." In this sense, command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his

Page 1 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). Doctrine of command responsibility; part of international law but no Philippine law provides for criminal liability under the doctrine The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification. While there are several pending bills on command responsibility, there is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. No ruling on criminal liability based on doctrine of command responsibility in Amparo proceedings Xxx it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings (Amparo) the doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. Xxx the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. As the Court stressed in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (Manalo), the writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and effective procedural relief against violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life, liberty, and security of persons; the corresponding amparo suit, however, "is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt x x x or administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings." Of the same tenor, and by way of expounding on the nature
Page 2 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

and role of amparo, is what the Court said in Razon v. Tagitis: It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or extra-judicial killings]. xxxx As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are criminal x x x are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact. x x x Import of command responsibility in Amparo proceedings for enforced disappearances If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier, however, the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances, if there be any.

B. Characteristics of Criminal Law 1. Generality Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, regardless of nationality, gender, or other personal circumstances. a. Art 14, Civil Code
Page 3 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. b. Rule applied to foreigners People vs Galacgac, C.A. O.G. 1027 Facts: Enrique Galacgac was a naturalized U.S. citizen. He visited his wife in the Philippines and in his possession was a gun which he intended to give to his wife as a gift. Upon reaching his in-laws home, he and his wife had a fight, which caused his brother-in-law to hit him in the head. In retaliation, he fired indiscriminately wounding his wifes brothers and sisters. He was charged with attempted parricide but defended that the Philippines had no jurisdiction over him since he is an American citizen. Issue: Whether Galacgac, a US citizen, may be prosecuted under Philippine law. Held: Yes. No foreigner in this country enjoys extra-territorial rights so as to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with the exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of customary law of nations, are not subject to Philippine territorial jurisdiction. c. Rule as applied to military personnel U.S vs Sweet, G.R. No. 448, September 20, 1901 Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US Army stationed in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US military deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish him. Issue: Whether the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try a military personnel of the United States. Held: Yes. An assault committed by a military personnel upon a prisoner of war is a violation of
Page 4 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

the general penal law. As such, criminal liability is incurred. Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by special legislation to the contrary. NOTE: Under the RP-US Visiting Forces Accord (VFA) signed on February 10, 1998, the citizenship is immaterial on the issue of whether one may be prosecuted or not for offenses not against the security, property or person of US personnel. What is material is ones membership to the U.S. Armed Forces (either as a military personnel or a civilian personnel connected to the US military operations). d. Exceptions (1) Principles of international law By virtue of the principles of international law, the following people possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country: Absolute exemptions i. ii. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges daffaires, ambassadors extraordinary (under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Protocol)

Relative exemptions iii. Consuls and vice consuls: honorary consuls not exempted. NOTE: i. ii. Public international law and treaties are deemed part of the law of the land; For a person to be immune, he/she must be able to invoke a provision of public international law/treaty, law of preferential application or customary international law.
Page 5 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

(a)

Schneckenburger vs Moran, G.R. No. L-44896, July 31, 1936 Facts: Schneckenburger was a duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila. He was charged in the CFI of Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Philippines the court had no jurisdiction to try him. Issue: Whether the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try a consul. Held: It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. Courts of First Instance were vested with original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls.

(2) Treaty stipulations Example: Bases agreement between the RP and US and RP-US Visiting Forces Accord (1998) (a) Nicholas vs Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009 Facts: Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, member of the US Armed Forces, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the RTC of Makati. The court ordered Smith detained at the Makati City Jail until further orders.
Page 6 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

On December 19 and 22, 2006, Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador Kristie Kenney executed agreements that pursuant to the VFA, Smith be returned to the US military custody and be detained at the first floor, Rowe Building, US Embassy Compound. Held: The Court ruled that the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not by Philippine authorities. Article V, Section 10 of the VFA provides that the confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of the United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities. NOTE: Art. 5, Sec 10 of the VFA provides that the confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of US personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance. (3) Laws of preferential application An example of laws of preferential application is Republic Act No. 75, An Act to Penalize Acts Which Would Impair the Proper Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants of the Philippines of the Immunities, Right, and Privileges of Duly Accredited Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Agents in the Philippines

Page 7 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

(a) R.A. 75 extended the diplomatic privilege to the members of the household and domestic servants of those enjoying exemptions (see I.B.1.d.(1)) that were registered with the DFA.

2. Territoriality As a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. If the power to define crimes is the power of the sovereign, it must be followed that such sovereign can only exercise such power within its jurisdiction/territory. NOTE : For purposes of criminal law, jurisdiction only extends to the territorial sea (i.e. 12 miles plus 12 miles contiguous zone) a. Art. 2, RPC 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;chan robles virtual law library 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,

Page 8 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

b. Foreign merchant vessels (1) In transit U.S. vs Look Chaw, G.R. No. L5889, July 12, 1911 Facts: The defendant was charged with unlawful possession and sale of opium while aboard the steamship Errol, which was of English nationality, coming from Hong Kong and bound for Mexico via the port of Manila. The defense moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the courts have no jurisdiction since the act does not constitute a crime. Issue: Whether the courts have jurisdiction over the defendant. Held: Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in the Philippines, because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order. The mere possession of opium on such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not bring about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates on avoiding. But our courts acquire jurisdiction when the opium are landed from the vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open violation of Philippine laws. (2) Not in transit U.S. vs Ah Sing, G.R. No. L-13005, October 10, 1917 Facts: Ah Sing is a fireman of the steamship Shun Chang, a foreign steamer, docked at the port of Cebu.
Page 9 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

Defendant brought eight cans of opium and upon inspection, authorities found said substances in his person. A charge of illegal importation was served against him. Issue: Whether the crime of illegal importation of opium in the Philippines was committed Held: When a foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board the vessel is liable for importation of opium. Importation is completed when the ship anchored in the Philippine port. It is not necessary that the opium be discharged or taken from the ship. (3) People vs Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922 Facts: Wong Cheng was accused of having illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city. In his demurrer, the defendant contended lack of jurisdiction of the court of the said crime. Issue: Whether the Philippine court had jurisdiction over the crime committed by Wong Cheng Held: Yes. The crime was committed in our internal waters thus our courts have jurisdiction over the offense committed. The court said having the opium smoked within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is a breach of public order, because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious effects in our territory.

Page 10 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

NOTE : Compare with US vs Ah Sing where mere possession within our territory does not constitute an offense triable in our courts. 3. Prospectivity Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. a. Art. 22, RPC Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. b. People vs Moran, G.R. No. L-17905, January 27. 1923 Facts: Moran was found to have violated the election code and was sentenced by the lower court. He sought reconsideration and filed a special motion alleging that the crime complained of had prescribed under the provision of Sec 71, Act 3030, enacted by the legislature after his conviction. Issue: Whether penal laws providing prescription may be given retroactive effect. Held: Yes. The provisions of Act 3030 declaring the offenses resulting from the violations of the Administrative Code shall prescribe one year after their commission must be given retroactive effect the same being favorable to the accused. An exception to the prospectivity of penal laws is when giving retroactive effect would favor the accused. c. People vs Feloteo, G.R. No. 124212, June 5, 1998 Facts: In 1995, Wilfredo Feloteo was found guilty by the trial court of murder under Art 248 of the RPC and illegal possession of firearms, a violation
Page 11 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

of Sec 1 of PD 1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and 20 years respectively. 15 days after the June 21, 1997 publication, R.A. 8294 took effect, amending P.D. 1866 and reducing the penalties for simple and aggravated forms of illegal possession of firearms. Issue: May the law be given retroactive effect Held: Yes. The enactment of R.A. No. 8294 can be given retroactive effect as it favors the appellant. XXX The plain precept contained in article 22 of the Penal Code, declaring the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable to persons accused of a felony, would be useless and nugatory if the courts of justice were not under obligation to fulfill such duty, irrespective of whether or not the accused has applied for it, just as would also all provisions relating to the prescription of the crime and the penalty.

C. Theories of Criminal Law 1. Classical Theory An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. oculo pro oculo, dente pro dente. Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious acts than upon the man. Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. The purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made to suffer the wrong he has done. There is scant regard for the human element.

2. Positivist Theory Man is occasionally subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenon which pushes him to do wrong in spite or contrary to his volition. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon, it cannot be created and checked by application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor imposition of penalties, fixed and determined a priori. Rehabilitation by means of individual measures on case to case basis.
Page 12 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

3. Mixed A mix of the classical and positivist theories D. Sources of Criminal Law 1. Revised Penal Code 2. Special Penal Laws a. Penal provisions of non-penal laws (e.g. Labor Code, NIRC, etc) b. Penal ordinances 3. Distinctions between crimes punished under the RPC and crimes punished under special laws. a. As to the moral trait of the offender In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered. That is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. Dolo (or malice) with deliberate intent Culpa ( or fault) imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill 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. b. As to good faith as a 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. (1) Mala in se vs mala prohibita Mala in se - Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code. When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established
Page 13 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. Mala prohibita those acts defined and penalized by special penal laws and where criminal intent is not, as a rule, necessary, it being sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. It is punishable because the prohibited act is so injurious to the public welfare that it is the crime itself. (2) Garcia vs CA. G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006

c. As to degree of accomplishment/stages in the commission 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 the crime only when it is consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalizes the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. d. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances In crimes punishable 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 under the special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. e. As to degree of participation In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one offender, the degree
Page 14 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

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 punishable under special laws, the degree of participation of 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. 4. Suppletory application of RPC a. Art. 10, RPC Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. b. People vs Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994 Facts: Oct. 22, 1988, Pampanga. Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 AII 4 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) through a NARCOM poser-buyer. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up & evidence was inadmissible. Issue: Whether the correct penalty was applied. Held: No. There was an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason of its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more. The same error has been committed with respect to the other prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said Section 20. To harmonize such conflicting provisions in order to give effect to the whole law, the Court held that the penalty to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule in criminal law that all doubts
Page 15 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

should be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.

E. Construction of penal laws 1. Strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused People vs Purisima. G.R. No. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978 Ratio: Penal statutes must be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. The reason for this is that "the tenderness of the law of the rights of individuals; the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to which mankind would be safe, and the discretion of the court limited." The purpose is not to enable a guilty person to escape punishment through a technicality but to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts. Criminal statutes are to be construed strictly. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not made clearly so by the statute. 2. Spanish text controlling a. People vs Mangulabnan, G.R. No. L-8919, September 28. 1956 Facts: During a robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits fired his gun upward in the ceiling, not knowing that the owner of the house was there. The slug penetrated the ceiling, hit the owner and was killed. Art 294 par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides, according to English text, that the crime is robbery with homicide when by reason or on occasion of a robbery the crime of homicide shall have been committed. The Spanish text of the same provision reads as follows: Cuando con motive o con ocasion del robo resultare homicido.

Page 16 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

Held: In view of the Spanish text which must prevail, the crime committed is homicide, even if the homicide supervened by mere accident. 3. Repeal is the abrogation or destruction of a law by a legislative act. Effects of Repeal 1. If the new law makes the penalty lighter, it shall be applied except if the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is inapplicable to a pending action or existing causes of action. 2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. 3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law making the act not punishable, the crime is obliterated.

a. Absolute repeal People vs Pimentel. G.R. No. 100210, April 1, 1998 Facts: 1983. Tujan was charged with subversion under RA 1700. On June 5, 1990, Tujan was arrested and found in his possession was a .38 caliber revolver. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion under PD 1866.Tujan filed a motion to quash invoking double jeopardy. Issue: Whether a charge under PD 1866 may be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy in view of the previous charge under RA 1700. Held: No.1. Art III of the Constitution & Rule 117 of the Rules of Court state that for double jeopardy to attach, acquittal, conviction or dismissal in previous cases must have occurred. In this case, the first charge was not even arraigned yet. 2. They are different offenses. RA 1700 punishes subversion while PD 1866 punishes illegal possession of firearms. But, RA 7636 totally repealed subversion or RA 1700, and since this is favorable to the accused, Tujan can no longer be charged with a violation of
Page 17 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

RA 1700 even if the defense did not raise this as an issue. b. Repeal with re-enactment Benedicto vs CA, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001 Facts: On December 27, 1991, Mrs. Imelda Marcos and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were indicted for violation of Section 10 of Circular No. 960 1 in relation to Section 34 of the Central Bank Act (Republic Act No. 265, as amended) in five Informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 91101879 to 91-101883, the charge sheets alleged that the trio failed to submit reports of their foreign exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to register with the Foreign Exchange Department of the Central Bank within the period mandated by Circular No. 960. Said Circular prohibited natural and juridical persons from maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad without prior authorization from the Central Bank. On August 11, 1994, petitioners moved to quash all the Informations filed against them in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883; 91-101884 to 91-101892, and 91-101959 to 91-101969. Their motion was grounded on lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, absence of a preliminary investigation and extinction of criminal liability with the repeal of Circular No. 960. On September 6, 1994, the trial court denied petitioners' motion. A similar motion filed on May 23, 1994 by Mrs. Marcos seeking to dismiss the dollar-salting cases against her due to the repeal of Circular No. 960 had earlier been denied by the trial court in its order dated June 9, 1994. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, but the trial court likewise denied this motion on October 18, 1994. Issue: Whether the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Republic Act No. 265 by Circular No. 1353 and Republic Act No. 7653 respectively, extinguish the criminal liability of petitioners.

Page 18 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

Held: No. In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960, Circular No. 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving earnings or profits from non-trade foreign exchange transactions. Even the most cursory glance at the repealing circulars, Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 shows that both contain a saving clause, expressly providing that the repeal of Circular No. 960 shall have no effect on pending actions for violation of the latter Circular. A saving clause operates to except from the effect of the repealing law what would otherwise be lost under the new law. In the present case, the respective saving clauses of Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 clearly manifest the intent to reserve the right of the State to prosecute and punish offenses for violations of the repealed Circular No. 960, where the cases are either pending or under investigation.

F. Limitations of the power of Congress to enact penal laws 1. Due process and equal protection a. Secs. 1 and 14(1), Art III, 1987 Constitution Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

2. Prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder a. Sec. 22, Art III, 1987 Constitution Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. Ex-post facto law is a law that: 1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such act;

Page 19 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; 3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; 4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law requires at the time of the commission of the offense; 5. Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and 6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled; such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. Bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt b. In re: Kay Villegas Kami, G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, 1970 Facts: Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of Sec 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 saying that it is an ex post facto law. The said law prohibits the petitioners nominee to be nominated to the constitutional convention since represents a party. Issue: Whether said law is an ex post facto law Held: No. The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal matters, not to laws which concern civil matters. Although Sec 18 penalizes a violation of any of the provisions of R.A. No. 1632, the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval and not those perpetuated prior thereto.

c. Bureau of Customs Employees Association vs Teves, G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011 Facts: On January 25, 2005, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. No.
Page 20 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

9335 which took effect on February 11, 2005. BOCEA filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9335, otherwise known as the Attrition Act of 2005, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional, and the implementation thereof be enjoined permanently. BOCEA argued that RA 9335 is unconstitutional because it violates Sec 22, Art III of the 1987 Constitution. Held: R.A. No. 9335 is not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial. Bills of attainder are an ancient instrument of tyranny. In England a few centuries back, Parliament would at times enact bills or statutes which declared certain persons attainted and their blood corrupted so that it lost all heritable quality (Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366 [1867]). In more modern terms, a bill of attainder is essentially a usurpation of judicial power by a legislative body. It envisages and effects the imposition of a penalty the deprivation of life or liberty or property not by the ordinary processes of judicial trial, but by legislative fiat. While cast in the form of special legislation, a bill of attainder (or bill of pains and penalties, if it prescribed a penalty other than death) is in intent and effect a penal judgment visited upon an identified person or group of persons (and not upon the general community) without a prior charge or demand, without notice and hearing, without an opportunity to defend, without any of the civilized forms and safeguards of the judicial process as we know it 3. Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, excessive fines a. Sec. 19, Art III, 1987 Constitution Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
Page 21 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

b. Perez vs People, G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008 What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has not been exactly defined. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the source of Section 19, Article III of the Bill of Rights of our own Constitution, has yet to be put to the test to finally determine what constitutes cruel and inhuman punishment. Cases that have been decided described, rather than defined, what is meant by cruel and unusual punishment. This is explained by the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court that "[t]he clause of the Constitution, in the opinion of the learned commentators, may be therefore progressive, and is not fastened to the obsolete, but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice." In Wilkerson v. Utah, Mr. Justice Clifford of the United States Supreme Court opined that "[d]ifficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, x x x and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the constitution." In In Re: Kemmler, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller of that same Court stated that "[p]unishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It
Page 22 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

implies x x x something more inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life."

c. R.A. 9346, AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines

Metro Manila Thirteenth Congress Second Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of July, two thousand and five. Republic Act No. 9346 June 24, 2006 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed. (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. SEC. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at least one a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation of the names of persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment by reason of this Act who are being considered or recommend for commutation or pardon; Provided, however, That nothing herein shall limit the power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitutions.

Page 23 of 24

Criminal Law Reviewer

SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation. Approved, FRANKLIN DRILON President of the Senate JOSE DE VENECIA JR. Speaker of the House of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2254 and House Bill No. 4826 was finally passed bu the Senate and the House of Representative on July 7, 2006. OSCAR G. YABES Secretary of Senate ROBERTO P. NAZARENO Secretary General House of Represenatives

Approved: June 24, 2006 GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO President of the Philippines

Page 24 of 24