This document provides notes from a lecture on criminal law jurisprudence. It covers topics such as rape, theft, homicide, estafa, arson and other crimes. Key points include how rape is now a crime against persons, the stages of execution for different crimes, and discussions of qualifying circumstances, exceptional circumstances and the doctrine of absorption as they relate to criminal liability under Philippine law.

1. Criminal Law Jurisprudence
Notes for Lecture By Atty. Modesto Ticman, Jr
JURISTS REVIEW CENTER
August 16, 2015

2. Notes
• This is not a complete transcript of the lecture
• The slides are limited to brief annotations, which the author humbly
found remarkable and especially enlightening.
• Made these slides to combat sleepiness and be productive, so forgive
some typographical and grammatical lapses

3. Prepared by:
Lawrence Villamar
Special thanks to Panky Obbania

4. Foreplay
• No answer in the bar requires “It depends.”
• If question goes like this, “What kind did the accused commit?” Could
be phrased in a leading answer, “Did the accused commit direct
assault?” Answer always in the negative. Supply the missing element.
• “Does the offender have criminal liability?” Always, yes. As a negative
answer requires scanning the provisions of the RPC?

5. Rape
• Since Oct. 2007, rape declassified fromcrime against chastity to crime
against persons. Legal implication: (1) now, public crime (any person
may institute the charge); and, (2) pardon of private party dos not
extinguish the right to institute criminal action (what remains is
marriage of the offender to the victimL.
• Can now be committed against a man. Rape through sexual assault.
• Statutory rape, carnal knowledge with victim age 12 years old and
below.

6. Insertion of Finger
• Insertion of finger to the sexual organ of woman constitutes rape by
sexual assault (formerly acts of lasciviousness)
• SC: “Insertion of tongue to vagina is rape by sexual assault”.

7. Mala Inse vs Mala Prohibita
• See Estrada vs Sandiganbayan (2004)
• Above case renders traditional distinction less defined (see racio
decidendi)
• MIND: Lack of intent to perpetuate the crime

8. Technical Malversation
• Illegal use of public funds (this time, for another public purpose for
which the fund was not originally intended)
• SC: Malum prohibitum (though punished under RPC)
• By reason of public policy and convenience

9. Mistake of Fact
• Has not been asked in the bar for 41 years, but there is a recent
decision of the SC (reviewing a case from Sandiganbayan! Research!)
• Three element: (1) belief in truthfulness of the fact; (2) otherwise
lawful act; (3) due diligence

10. Criminal Liability
• Impossible crime – punishable to supress criminal tendency of the
crime (most recent case than Inton (firing upon house where
intended victim is not located): Jacinto vs People)
• Ex: Check payable for cash but was not honored presented for
payment by housemaid not intended to be recipient thereof.
• REMEMBER: Must not be a crime punishable in RPC

11. Criminal Liability
• SC: Treachery may be appreciated in slight physical injury
• Treachery is an inherent circusmtance in Rape,can not be appreciated
(“deprived of reason, inelligence, or otherwise unconscious”)

12. Stages of Execution
• People vs Almazen
• REMINDER: May depend on wound (mortal or otherwise)
• RAPE – no frustrated stage, no middle ground as mere touching of the
sexual organ (Carnal knowledge (Black: “Mere bodily connection”) is
not equal to sexual intercourse (deeper daw!))
• People vs Kampuhan
• THEFT – SC (in Valenzuela): “Crime of theft has only two stage:
attempted and consummated”. Permanence of possession is not
required. Mere disturbance of proprietary right.

13. Attempted Rape
• Intent to lie (insert his penis), otherwise acts o lasciviousness.
• But if accidentally inserted, see Art 4(1) (Remember: if act is unlawful)

14. Defense of Property Rights
• Requisites
• SC (People vs Apolinar overturned in Navartes): “Unlawful aggression
may exists in defense of property rights even if not coupled with
aggression against the person defending that property right.”
• But mind, “reasonable necessity of means used”.

15. State of Necessity
• Ty vs People (see codal provision)

16. Minority
• 15 years of age or below – absolute
• More than 15 years of age but below 18 – with or without
discernment – if yes, full responsibility (but see procedural aspects
such as suspension)
• SC: 15 years of age = birth anniversary or before

17. Duress
• Offender no oppourtunity to escape or to depend himself
• People vs Lising: Here, one of the accomplices, claimed to be under
duress but was given a gun he could have used to escape or defend
himself from any agression from the other members.
• People vs Shao: “(performing sexual act twice at gun point)”
• Passion Or Obfuscation: may not be appreciated simulataneously, but
appreciated at the same time if arising from different acts (see People
vs Genosa)

18. Confession (Mitigating Circumstance)
• Requisites: People vs Dawanon that the confession was to the crime
he was charged.
• Example: Pleading guilty to ho micide oin a charge of
murder.confession not appreciated as mitigating
• Reverse trial; confession happened before prosecution presents
evidence

19. Surrender
• People vs Karaya: “Provided an information is yet to be filed in court
OR before an arrest warrant is issued”
• Devera vs Devera: “Element in Karaya not indispensible.”

20. Cattle Rustling
• People vs Canta: “Stolen carabao returned to policeman, owner
informed but subsequently filed qualified theft (remember this
involves large cattle). “ Mitigating: Voluntary Surrender (take note this
is a violation of a special penal law (presidential decree) but
mitigating is appreciated).
• Recent case: Confession and voluntary surrender appreciated
separately (reference Canta, where only v.s. was appreciated)

21. Special Aggravating Circumstance
• Definition: “special condition”
• Can not be offset by mitigating (People vs Palaganas)
• People vs Tapan: “In contempt/insult to public authorities” (In the
case, shooting was committed in front of teacher (a PIA under the
law). But SC said, teacher only PIA if he is a victim of direct assault).

22. Treachery
• Robbery with homicide: Treachery appreciated in homicide,but not
robbery. (People vs Ancheta)
• Treachery to be appreciated: must have deliberately adopted the
means of attack (not reasonably expected)

23. Ignominy
• May only be appreciated in crimes of chastity
• Appreciated in rape though now crime against person

24. Disguise
• People vs Feliciano: Ski masks used upon entering, but afterwards it
was removed. Still appreciated, as it shos intent to conceal identity.

25. Intoxication
• Not habitual, not intentional = mitigating
• Otherwise, it is mitigating
• But under the influence of drugs, always aggravating

26. Relationship
• In robbery with homicide, relationship is always mitigating in crimes
against property (remember in rimes against property, relationship is
absolutory)

27. Principal By Inducement
• May be committed by “words of command” (so efficacious as to be
equivalent to physical or moral coercion. Note the other requisites.)
• “Bahala na kayo.” Ambiguous and capable of two interpretation, that
favorable to the accused should b adopted (NOTE: must be direct)

28. Accomplice
• Keyword: “ community of design”

29. Accessory
• No accessory to light felonies – “The law does not deal with trifles.”

30. Subsidiary Imprisonment
• From P8 to highest minimum wage

31. Death of the Accused
• PEOPLE vs Bayotas – criminal liability extinguised, but not civil liability
• If before conviction, civil and criminal liability.

32. Prescription
• Art. 90
• BP 22 – reckoning period – from lapse of grace period (5 banking days
from notice of dishonor). NOTE: See Vaca (J. Mendoza)
• Prescription of Penalty – Art. 92. Convict must have started serving
his service (entry to penal institution).

33. Exceptional Circumstance
• People vs Abarca (Bar Reviewee) (Classic, asked in the bar for 4times)
• PERSONAL NOTE: What is remarkable in this case is the significant
interval of time between the discovery and manifested outrage
(clearly, the fiscal spotted this as he was charged with murder due to
evident premeditation). In Abarca, SC expands definition of
“immediately thereafter”. Additionally, the collateral victims (see
reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide. Two other victims
were killed,otherthanthe paramour)
• Not penalty but rather absolutory cause. Destierro is for protection of
offending party against retaliation

34. Exceptional Circumstance
• Prefaratory act is included, with reasonable ground that the are about
to commit sexual intercourse or even after the sexual intercourse (But
for the former,please see commentary of Reyes)

35. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
• Must be alleged in the information
• Proof required: beyond reasonable doubt

36. Death in a Tumultuous Affray
• People vs Ulmagara/People vs Sison
• “Rambol”
• If one can be identified, he is liable for death (no death in tumultuous
affray)

37. Kidnapping Etc
• Kidnapping (Art 267) vs Arbitraty Detention
• SC: “If public officer unlawful arrest or in excess of authority with
primary purpoe of depriving liberty, may be guilty of Art 267.”
• SC in People vs Enriquez (2013,Ransom): “Demand for ransom is not
an essential Element in kidnapping.” Ransom is a qualifying,penalty to
be imposed in maximum period.
• If without attendant circumstance in Art 267 and without ransom,
then slight illegal detention.
• Art 269 – Unlawful arrest – Cedric Lee/Security Guard

38. Kidnapping
• Kidnapping with intent to kill – kidnapping with murder (complex
crime uner Art 48)
• If without intent, but victim died: kidnapping or hiomicide (in the
process, not yet in custody). If in custody, death is absorbed in
kidnapping

39. Robbery With Homicide
• Robbery vs theft – see similarities/differences
• Robbery with homicide – homicide in generic sense (no such thing as
robbery with murder nor robbery with infanticide nor robbry with
parricide!)
• If taking is an afterthought to homicide/murder,theft only as the
vicyim is dead and no need to use force. Two crimes, and not
complexed.
• If robbery with homicide,plus rape – rape only aggaravating
• If robbery with rape – rape only in generic sense, even if multiple rape
or attendant acts of lasciviousness

40. Rape
• If a woman is rape and personal property is taken (such as panty as
souvenir), rape with unjust vexation (no bodily harm, but annoy, vex).
Not theft!

41. By A Band (Art 296)
• Aggravating only, not a crime in itself so can not be complexed. So no
crime such as “Robbery by a band” just mere robbery aggaravated by
manner of commisser “by a band”

42. Direct Assault
• Gelig vs People: A teacher called the son of Mrs Gelig a sissy. So Mrs
Gelig attacked the teacher while the latter was preparing lessons plan
After class hours. Three weeks later, the teacher suffered a
miscarriage. Charge was complex crime of direct assault with
unintentional abortion.
• SC: Preparing lesson plan part of performance nof duties as teacher.
Guilty of direct assault only. Unintentional abortion dropped as
prosecution unable to prove that it was a result of the attack.
• Persons in Authority – Art 152

43. Direct Assault
• Slapping the traffic officer (not a persons in authority) not direct
assault

44. Libel
• Vasquez vs Jajalandini
• If truth is proven, then may be acquitted (NOTE: In previous cases, the
SC has saifd truth is not a defense, but observe tha these cases are
attendant with malice).

45. Slander by Deed
• Told “Panget mo!” only (oral defamation/libel)
• Joke time: “Ang gwapo mo. You are hurt. Because, the truth hurts.
• Slapping – slander by deed /slight physical injury w/ maltreatment
• Moral pain (humiliation) – slander by deed
• Dirty finger – SC: Slander by Deed (In Villanueva, there was no
physical contact).
• JOKE: No anal defamation!
• “Praise underserved is slander in disguised.”

46. Unjust Vexation
• May not be productive of physical harm
• But produce annoyance, vexation, disturbance
• Peeping Tom/Voyeurism
• Renato Valeros vs People: “Valeros, a medical student in UST, is the
suitor of Malou Albano. One evening, around 11 pm awaken to find
someone is pressing clothes on her face soaked with chemicals to
induce sleep. Valeros charged and convicted by trial court of
attempted rape, coincurred by CA but reversed by SC. SC held that
the fact of the case did not point to intention of rape. Still has clothes.
Intention is unknown. But held liable of unjust vexation.”

47. Stalking
• RA 9262 – Vawc if victim is female (higher)
• If man stalked by female, only stalking in RPC pebalized with arresto
mayor

48. Doctrine of Absorption
• Common crimes absorbed in rebellion (Enrile case).

49. Estafa (Art 315)
• If no damage yet, attempted estafa only.
• Damage must be capable oft pecuniary estimation.
• By abuse of confidence vs qualified theft (Artb310, with grave abuse
of confidence)
• Merely phisical/material,estafa. If juridical, qualified theft.

50. Qualified Theft
• Motor vehicle – qualified theft
• If other type of motorized vehicle such as car – Anti Car Napping Law
of 1972
• Case: People vs Butinera

51. Arson
• “By means of fire” qualifying aggaravating in crime of murder (see
People vs Mai)
• Qualified arson – if no intent to kill but someone died in the arson
• If burned the house to conceal person killed, two crimes: arson and
murder
• IMPORTANT: If what was charged in the information is wrong, then
accussed is entitled to acquittal

53. Inundation
• By drowning, need not be flood.
• Example: Drum
• Recent: Pemberton.