ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
from crim prosecution even if criminal
liability has been incurred.
(INSERT HAND WRITTEN NOTES
HERE)
<END CRIMINAL LGISLATION NOT
INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABLITY>
LIKE PRESIDENT OF TE PHILIPPINES
DURING HIS TEURE OR THE SENATE
MEMBERS EXEMPTION TO LIBEL
CASES
Remember case of Estrada v. Desierto?
International Convention that PH
adhered to which created the
international criminal court. Creation of
Rome court.
Philippine law on genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity found in
Rome Statute .
 Also provided the immunity of heads
of state
 Chief executive cannot be
proceeded in International court
unless stripped of his position by
way of ___
There is a class of persons who may
claim exemption from the application of
our penal legislation under principles of
international law or treaties or on our
hierarchy of laws (laws of preferential
application, which requires primacy over
our criminal legislation) or certain
immunities by virtue of position held
(remember congress)
To incur criminal liability is different from
criminal prosecution. Govt are refraining
 Case Oakwood mutiny, SC held
that even army can incur liability
impossible to Civilians regardless
of the nature that they are held.
So they are prosecuted under
military courts and civilian courts.
However Civilian may not be
brought to Military Courts (an
example here is Ninoy Aquino
who was not brought before the
Military Courts and were under
Military Commission, which tries
Military law, under Articles of
War) [but then again, he was
brought, that’s why he has been
famous for being a “martyr”]
CRIMINAL LAW
- Operating within a specific
territorial context
- As of territorial application
- Sovereign is only sovereign w/in
its own sphere
However Public International Law also
applies in some cases, in RPC Art 2, it
was held that PH may enforce even
beyond boarders of our territory.
1.) Crimes on board PH ships
2.) Forging or counterfeiting
obligations and securities of PH
govt (money)
3.) Introduction of counterfeit of
obligations and securities to PH
4.) Employment of the government.
5.) Committing crimes against
national security and law of
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
nations (treason, proposal and
conspiracy to commit treason,
espionage, provoking war,
crimes of piracy)
People vs . Lolo and Sarao
 Crime of piracy committed in
Indonesia
 Participants of piracy were on
vacation in Tawi-tawi, spotted and
held in courts of Hulo
 Tried and convicted before SC the
validty of courts exercise of
jurisdiction under principle of
territoriality (since crime is of
Indonesia)
 SC held this is a crime against all
man kind, they may be prosecuted
for crime of piracy wherever they
may be found
 High seas and other countries may
be beyond jurisdictions over country
but it is recognized by all civilized
countries that crime of piracy may be
prosecuted wherever they may be
found. (DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL
JURISDICTION)
 For as long as one is found in a
country who is a signatory in the
Rome statute, he may be
prosecuted.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON
THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)
- Exercise of jurisdiction of courts
only plenary if w/in territorial sea
- But beyond, criminal jurisdiction
is diminished
- High seas, only crimes admitting
international jurisdiction
POS vs. Fauler
 PH tanker, a lot of people are killed
some of whom were just discovered
were found a long time after
 Even if we concede that crimes are
committed on board shop, we cannot
substitute to our jurisdiction
 Non-suseptible of criminal
prosecution of courts in ph
 Flagstate of vessel, country of which
has jurisdiction
US vs. BULL
 Vessels that coast through Formosa
and PH
 On board were cattle from PH
 PH adheres to protection of animals
 Animals exposed to ailments and
such treatment constituted
maltreatment to animals
 Can captain bull be prosecuted
before PH courts for violation of such
law?
 SC held that rule applicable to
merchant vessels different, those
travelling w/in territorial seas
 Crime violates PH laws, can PH
assert jurisdiction?
 According to Article 2, crimes in PH
ships, can be prosecuted. YES
 But merchant is not ship, it is
merchant, therefore cannot be said
to be made in PH ship.
 French Rule
This crimes are not triable before
territorial courts unless they affect
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
peace and security of state or
endanger safety of PH
 English Rule
Triable unless they affect only
internal management of vessel.
 BUT THIS IS NOT AFFECTING
ONLY INTERNAL MANAGEMENT
OF THE VESSEL.
 NOT SOMETHING THAT IS
SOLELY CONCERNED WITH
INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF
VESSEL AND IS SUSEPTIBLE OF
BEING PROSECUTED BEFORE PH
COURTS . WE FOLLOW THE
ENGLISH RULE
(FOR AS LONG AS FOREIGN
MERCHANT VESSEL IS WITHIN
PH TERRITORIES, WE MAY
ASSERT OUR JURISDICTION)
US. VS. LOCK CLAW
 Vehicle merely in transit and crew
prosecuted before PH courts for
transporting contraband
 If vehicle merely in transit and no
intent to unload, then there is no
violation of PH laws.
US. Vs. ASING
 Vessel Cebu to Vietname vice versa
 Transportation of contraband, opium
 Can you regard mere possession of
opium cannot be prosecuted in PH
 SC: even if opium not landed, for as
long as vessel bought opium to
country, its possession on vessel is
in PH. Remember vessel destined to
PH court, then by logic it can be
asserted that it means bringing and
unloading such opium to ph.
PEOPLE vs. TUDING
 PD 5832 piracy over ph waters
applied with extra-terriorial means
course for vessel taken from
batangas brought to Singapore
which is to be refurbished and sold
by pirates.
 “Piracy is PD 5832 is nonetheless is
subject to 4th subdivision of art 2
where law may be applied with extra-
territorial means
HUMAN SECURITY ACT
 Sec 58, subj to provision of an
existing treaty, and laws on pref
application.
ART 4:
ART 204:
Acountability for public
funds/public property.—
presumption of malversation:
Presumption that money was
given to him was applied to his
own benefit
U.S VS CATOLICO
 Presumption in Art 204 was not
used. Act does not amount to
unlawful conduct or a crime .
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
Therefore: Intent which is a very ( Children under 9)—Exempt Still
important element of crime does in process of developing
not simply appear but is discernment
something that must be inferred
from the conduct of the accused.
(looking at the mind of a person) (Over 15-under 18)--- Liable if
 Conduct does not amount to a acted with discernment
crime.
Criminal intent distinct concept of
what makes up a crime.

BURDEN OF PROOF: *** remember elements of crime

Person accusing crime. There is
something as “presumption of ART 12 (1) refers to person
innocence” exempt from criminal liability due
- Rule that requires in criminal to insanity/lack of criminal
cases proof beyond reasonable intelligence.
doubt
- Incumbent upon person to prove HOW YOU REASON OUT?
his cause by preponderance of - Citing precedents
evidence/substantial evidence - Identify where your reasoning
-Proof of unlawful conduct shifts operates
presumption of unlawful intent.
(SHIFTS BURDEN OF PROOF) INTENT MOTIVE
LIES IN MIND OF A PERSON
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE Element of crime Not element of
crime.
Purpose to be Power that moves
achieved by a person
Person who does not know what criminal (like intent
is right and wrong can be to kill)
regarded as insane. (American Lies ahead What is behind the
Law Test) act
Not always the
Possession of intelligence as an concern of criminal
law
element of criminal responsibility.
Person’s act may appear as
crime to others but if there exists US VS TANEO
lack of intelligence, there’s no
crime.  Sleeping
RE: Juvenile  No control over his actions
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
 Absence of motive to kill his wife
whom he dearly loved and is bearing
a child
 Kill his parents in law
 NO MOTIVE: CREDENCE TO HIS
STORY THAT BY AN
UNFORTUNATE REASON HE
BECAME ALMOST INSANE
PEOPLE VS. DORICO
 No compelling motive
 Positive identification of accused
 Motive as explained by court is not
essential for criminal prosecution
 True that no motive has been show
why he would kill victim. But motive
is only material when there is doubt
with regard to the doer of crime.
 Her Dionisio was identified. Proof of
motive not essential.
 Proof of motive is important in
completing evidence of guilt
PEOPLE v. GOCOSUY
-
INTENTIONAL CULPA
FELONIES
ACT VOLUNTARY IN CHARACTER
MALA PROHIBITA
VOLUNTARY
(INSERT HAND WRITTEN NOTES
HERE)
<END CRIMINAL LGISLATION NOT
INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABLITY>
LIKE PRESIDENT OF TE PHILIPPINES
DURING HIS TEURE OR THE SENATE
MEMBERS EXEMPTION TO LIBEL
CASES
Remember case of Estrada v. Desierto?
International Convention that PH
adhered to which created the
international criminal court. Creation of
Rome court.
Philippine law on genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity found in
Rome Statute .
 Also provided the immunity of
heads of state
 Chief executive cannot be
proceeded in International court
unless stripped of his position by
way of ___
There is a class of persons who may
claim exemption from the application of
our penal legislation under principles of
international law or treaties or on our
hierarchy of laws (laws of preferential
application, which requires primacy over
our criminal legislation) or certain
immunities by virtue of position held
(remember congress)
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
To incur criminal liability is different from
criminal prosecution. Govt are refraining
from crim prosecution even if criminal
liability has been incurred.
 Case Oakwood mutiny, SC held
that even army can incur liability
impossible to Civilians regardless
of the nature that they are held.
So they are prosecuted under
military courts and civilian courts.
However Civilian may not be
brought to Military Courts (an
example here is Ninoy Aquino
who was not brought before the
Military Courts and were under
Military Commission, which tries
Military law, under Articles of
War) [but then again, he was
brought, that’s why he has been
famous for being a “martyr”]
CRIMINAL LAW
- Operating within a specific
territorial context
- As of territorial application
- Sovereign is only sovereign w/in
its own sphere
However Public International Law also
applies in some cases, in RPC Art 2, it
was held that PH may enforce even
beyond boarders of our territory.
6.) Crimes on board PH ships
7.) Forging or counterfeiting
obligations and securities of PH
govt (money)
8.) Introduction of counterfeit of
obligations and securities to PH
9.) Employment of the government.
10.) Committing crimes against
national security and law of
nations (treason, proposal and
conspiracy to commit treason,
espionage, provoking war,
crimes of piracy)
People vs . Lolo and Sarao
 Crime of piracy committed in
Indonesia
 Participants of piracy were on
vacation in Tawi-tawi, spotted
and held in courts of Hulo
 Tried and convicted before SC
the validty of courts exercise of
jurisdiction under principle of
territoriality (since crime is of
Indonesia)
 SC held this is a crime against all
man kind, they may be
prosecuted for crime of piracy
wherever they may be found
 High seas and other countries
may be beyond jurisdictions over
country but it is recognized by all
civilized countries that crime of
piracy may be prosecuted
wherever they may be found.
(DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL
JURISDICTION)
 For as long as one is found in a
country who is a signatory in the
Rome statute, he may be
prosecuted.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON
THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
- Exercise of jurisdiction of courts
only plenary if w/in territorial sea
- But beyond, criminal jurisdiction
is diminished
- High seas, only crimes admitting
international jurisdiction
POS vs. Fauler
 PH tanker, a lot of people are
killed some of whom were just
discovered were found a long
time after
 Even if we concede that crimes
are committed on board shop, we
cannot substitute to our
jurisdiction
 Non-suseptible of criminal
prosecution of courts in ph
 Flagstate of vessel, country of
which has jurisdiction
US vs. BULL
 Vessels that coast through
Formosa and PH
 On board were cattle from PH
 PH adheres to protection of
animals
 Animals exposed to ailments and
such treatment constituted
maltreatment to animals
 Can captain bull be prosecuted
before PH courts for violation of
such law?
 SC held that rule applicable to
merchant vessels different, those
travelling w/in territorial seas
 Crime violates PH laws, can PH
assert jurisdiction?
US. Vs. ASING
 According to Article 2, crimes in
PH ships, can be prosecuted.
YES
 But merchant is not ship, it is
merchant, therefore cannot be
said to be made in PH ship.
 French Rule
This crimes are not triable before
territorial courts unless they affect
peace and security of state or
endanger safety of PH
 English Rule
Triable unless they affect only
internal management of vessel.
 BUT THIS IS NOT AFFECTING
ONLY INTERNAL
MANAGEMENT OF THE
VESSEL.
 NOT SOMETHING THAT IS
SOLELY CONCERNED WITH
INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF
VESSEL AND IS SUSEPTIBLE
OF BEING PROSECUTED
BEFORE PH COURTS . WE
FOLLOW THE ENGLISH RULE
(FOR AS LONG AS FOREIGN
MERCHANT VESSEL IS WITHIN
PH TERRITORIES, WE MAY
ASSERT OUR JURISDICTION)
US. VS. LOCK CLAW
 Vehicle merely in transit and crew
prosecuted before PH courts for
transporting contraband
 If vehicle merely in transit and no
intent to unload, then there is no
violation of PH laws.
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
 Vessel Cebu to Vietname vice
versa
 Transportation of contraband,
opium
 Can you regard mere possession
of opium cannot be prosecuted in
PH
 SC: even if opium not landed, for
as long as vessel bought opium
to country, its possession on
vessel is in PH. Remember
vessel destined to PH court, then
by logic it can be asserted that it
means bringing and unloading
such opium to ph.
PEOPLE vs. TUDING
 PD 5832 piracy over ph waters
applied with extra-terriorial
means course for vessel taken
from batangas brought to
Singapore which is to be
refurbished and sold by pirates.
 “Piracy is PD 5832 is nonetheless
is subject to 4th subdivision of art
2 where law may be applied with
extra-territorial means
HUMAN SECURITY ACT
 Sec 58, subj to provision of an
existing treaty, and laws on pref
application.
 REMOTE CAUSE, SUFFICIENT
INTERVENING CAUSE THAT
COULD BREAK THE CHAIN OF
CAUSATION
 Notion of an impossible crime
- Embodies a notion of criminal
responsibility.
 Criminal mind that causes social
danger, that indicates degree of
criminal perversity of offender.But
impossibility by means not
possible to produce criminal act.
ART 59
- Impossible penalty
ART 5
- Principle of legality
- Regards from viewpoint of what
court should do when confronted
with acts that should have been
repressed but not penalized by
any law.
- Anglo American legal system,
took some time where judges
were given right to define crimes
- Common law judges were able to
define crimes and provide for
their punishment.
- HOWEVER IN PH, what prevails
is the principle of legality. There
can be no crime when there is no
law punishing it..
- In the framework of Art 5 (1)
whenever an act appears to be
worthy of social
condemnation/punishment, all
that a judge can do is dismiss the
case and make recommendation
to the legislature, that there
should be a law that should cover
this conduct.
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
- Art 5 (2) court is required to
submit to chief executive without
suspending enforcement of law.
(Clearly excessive penalty taking
into account degree of malice)
- Court has no discretion to “not
apply the law” even if it appears
to the court to be a clearly
excessive penalty. (Not
prevented from making
recommendation to executive
through department of justice to
reduce penalty)
- Nonetheless, even violations of
special penal legislations take
into account degree of
malice/injury.
- “appear to be clearly excessive
for estafa made”(Corpuz) --- court
ruled that it is not for court to
legislate about the imposition of
penalty
*** EXAM GRAVE, LESS GRAVE
CHEMERUT (ART 9)
RA 951 act adjusting
amount/value/property in which penalty
of crime is based.
 Judge regardless of opinion, obliged
to promulgate law as provided for by
congress. If he cannot impose
penalty, he should resign for failure:
Duty to impose what the law deems
to be imposed.
ART 6
Various cases for execution of felony.
ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED,
--Manner of classification with regard to
crimes susceptible of being categorized.
Excluded : FORMAL CRIMES SUCH
AS LIBEL
Material crimes- susceptible of
categorization
3 steps:
 PEOPLE vs CAGOCO
What is critical is whether or not such
act has capacity to produce crime
intended.
 DOES NOT FOR REASONS
INDEPENDENT OF WILL OF
CRIMINAL- FRUSTRATED
 IF FROM THE BEGINNING,
DON’T HAVE CAPACITY TO
KILL--- ONLY ATTEMPTED
STAGE.
There is an attempt when offender
commences crime: through overt
acts (acts that should be manifested
in external world) --- constitute an
attempt.
“What is done and what is intended
to be produced”
 U.S vs SIMEON
- Mere act of raising bolo merely
constitute threatening another
with a weapon. Not an overt act
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
CRIMINAL LAW NOTES
that will eventually lead to crime While she was sleeping man with ski
of murder. BUT ACT of raising mask entered room. Identifiable clothes:
bolo causing fear – threatening
another with weapon. Trying to lay her down on the floor.
Holding handkerchief with chloroform
PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG but woman was determined to resist
effort. Eventually grabbed man’s private
: store also dwelling part and squeezed it. Man ran away.
Policeman saw lamahang saw him From the perspective of woman, it was
removing planks of wood but have not rape.
succeeded in entering the store ---
Attempted robbery. Lower courts:: attempted rape

BUT IS the very act of removing wooden
planks—robbery?
---- but crime is still indeterminate
((((READ THIS))))
SC::: way ahead of themselves.
Circumstances do not indicate right to
rape. Unjust vexation

One cannot classify it as robbery yet

while it is necessary to enter the store, it
does not indubitably result to robbery—
may be trespassing. Crime only
attempted trespass to dwelling

US v. E…

-woman undresses

-possible for offender to do something

else

Curtis? Vs people

-one of the female borders complained

of attempted rape

When asked to tell story: