Information
AI Chat

This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.

(CLJ) Criminal BOOK LAW (Article 1-113)

This is my criminal law 1

Course

Criminology (2400)

94 Documents

Students shared 94 documents in this course

University

University of Luzon

Academic year: 2022/2023

Uploaded by:

Anonymous Student

This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.

University of Luzon

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Preview text

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.

Crime – is an act committed or omitted in violation of criminal law forbidding or commanding it.

Accused – is a person formally charged in coou9rt for having violated a penal law, either the RPC or a special law.

Felony – if punishable by the revised penal code**.**

Offense – if punishable by the special laws (ex. Republic act, presidential decree)

Infraction – if punishable by ordinance

Law - is a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by competent authority for

Common observance and benefits.

Omission - means inaction, failure to do a positive duty, which one is bound to do.

Act - means any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON)

Must be general in application.
Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law 1. The RPC (Act No. 3815) and its amendments. 2. Republic Acts 3. Presidential decrees 4. Executive Orders

Legal Maxims

Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law that defines and punishes it.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act.
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. This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused

and consistent with the presumption of innocence of the accused. 5. El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado – He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (People v. Ural, G. No. L- 30801).

Characteristics of Criminal Law:

Generality – the law is binding to all persons who reside in the Philippines Exception to Generality Application: A. Principles of public international laws. ● Chief of states ● Ambassador ● Minister residents ● Charges d’ affaires B. Treaties or treaty stipulations C. Laws of preferential application
Territoriality – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National Territory of the Philippines Exception to Territorial Application : Instances enumerated under Article 2. A. Should commit an offense while on Philippines ship or airship. B. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines. C. Should be liable for acts connected with the introductions into the Philippines of the on obligations and securities on no.
Prospective – the law does not have any retroactive effect. (Jan. 1 1941) Exception to Prospective Application: A. when new statute is favorable to the accused. B. If the accused is a habitual delinquent

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

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.

Sources of Criminal Law

The Revised Penal Code
Special Penal Laws – Acts enacted of the Philippine Legislature punishing offenses or omissions.

Construction of Penal Laws

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.
The original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official translation.
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.

Mala in se – are crimes, which are wrong from their nature, such as murder, theft, rape. etc. ● Acts punished by the RPC ● Are those serious in their effects on society as to call for the outmost condemnation of its members.

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

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. Time when Act takes effect - This Code shall take

effect on January 1, 1932.

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;

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., 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.

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.

Specific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The prosecution has the burden of 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.

by means of fault (culpa) - There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. -Not intentional a. Imprudence - deficiency of action; e. A was driving a truck along a road. He hit B because it was raining - reckless imprudence. b. Negligence - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually involves lack of foresight c. 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.

Freedom – without it, not human but tool, negated by:

1. Irresistible force 2. Uncontrollable fear Intelligence – is the moral capacity to determine right from wrong and to realize the consequences of ones act; negated by: 1. Minority 2. Insanity 3. Imbecility Intent – presumed from the commission of the unlawful acts; negated by:

● 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.

Classification of felonies

1. according to manner or mode of execution: A. Intentional felonies – committed by means of deceit or malice B. Culpable felonies – where the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. 2. According to stages of of execution: A. Consummated - when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. B. 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.

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.

c. Injurious result is greater than that intended (praeter intentionem ) – 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., 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 : a. the felony was intentionally committed b. 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 : a. the direct, natural, and logical cause b. produces the injury or damage c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause d. without which the result would not have occurred

● Proximate Cause is negated by: a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause. b. 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: a. victim was in normal health b. 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) a. Act would have been an offense against persons or property b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law c. There was criminal intent d. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were employed. e. That the act performed should not continue violation of another provision of the prc c;

● Notes: a. 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. b. The law intends to punish the criminal intent. c. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

● Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, abortion, duel, physical injuries, rape,etc.

● Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, Brigandage, culpable insolvency, chattel mortgage, malicious mischief, 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.

Art. 6. Consummated felonies, as well as those which are

frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

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 a. Preparatory Acts – acts tending toward the crime b. 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 ● 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., 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: a. A put poison in B’s food. B threw away his food. A is liable - attempted murder. 1 b. A stole B’s car, but he returned it. A is liable - (consummated) theft. c. A aimed his gun at B. C held A’s hand and prevented him from shooting B - attempted murder. d. A inflicted a mortal wound on B. B managed to survive - frustrated murder. e. A intended to kill B by shooting him. A missed - attempted murder. f. A doused B’s house with kerosene. But before he could light the match, he was caught - attempted arson. g. A cause a blaze, but did not burn the house of B - frustrated arson. h. B’s house was set on fire by A - (consummated) arson. i. A tried to rape B. B managed to escape. There was no penetration - attempted rape. j. A got hold of B’s painting. A was caught before he could leave B’s house - frustrated robbery. 2

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

1 The difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are found in Articles 248 and 249, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.

2 The difference between theft and robbery will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are found in Title Ten, Chapters One and Three, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.

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.

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are

punishable only in the cases in which the law specially

provides a penalty therefore.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide

to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to

commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person

or persons.

● Conspiracy is punishable in the following cases : treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.

● Conspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a crime. In both cases there is an agreement but mere conspiracy to commit a crime is not punished EXCEPT in treason, rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason is actually committed, the conspiracy will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspiracy to commit treason.

Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime

Conspiracy Proposal Element s

● Agreement among 2 or more persons to commit a crime ● They decide to commit it

● A person has decided to commit a crime ● He proposes its commission to another

Crimes 1. Conspiracy to commit sedition 2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion 3. Conspiracy to commit treason

Proposal to commit treason
Proposal to commit rebellion

● Mere conspiracy in combination in restraint of trade (Art. 186), and brigandage (Art. 306).

Two ways for conspiracy to exist:

(1) There is an agreement.

(2) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.

Two kinds of conspiracy:

(1) Conspiracy as a crime; and (2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

When conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy; otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d’etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable.

When the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. For as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. But when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co- conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind.

Was this document helpful?

Premium

This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.

(CLJ) Criminal BOOK LAW (Article 1-113)

Course: Criminology (2400)

94 Documents

Students shared 94 documents in this course

University: University of Luzon

Was this document helpful?

This is a preview

Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 135 pages

Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades

Upload

Share your documents to unlock

Already Premium?

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which defines crimes,

treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.

Crime – is an act committed or omitted in violation of criminal law

forbidding or commanding it.

Accused – is a person formally charged in coou9rt for having violated a

penal law, either the RPC or a special law.

Felony – if punishable by the revised penal code.

Offense – if punishable by the special laws (ex. Republic act,

presidential decree)

Infraction – if punishable by ordinance

Law - is a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by

competent authority for

Common observance and benefits.

Omission - means inaction, failure to do a positive duty, which one is

bound to do.

Act - means any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the

external world.

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.

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law

1. The RPC (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.

2. Republic Acts

3. Presidential decrees

4. Executive Orders

Legal Maxims

1. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime

when there is no law that defines and punishes it.

2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot

be criminal unless the mind is criminal.

3. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an act

done by me against my will is not my act.

4. 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.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that

all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused