DLSU LAW

TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

Notes for CrimRev:

No matter how immoral an act is, if there is no law, it is not punishable.

o A borrows money from B. A makes a check in favor of B. B encashes the check
the following day. Check bounced. If A is in bad faith, he can be held liable for
Estafa.

o A borrows money from B. A makes a check in favor of B. A says hell text B when
he can encash it. Check was dishonored. A although in good faith, can be held
liable for BP 22.

If there is a pre-existing obligation, there is no estafa.

You cannot be held liable for BP 22 if you are not the drawer.
o A issued his check to B; B gives P10K. A says do not deposit, no funds yet. B
goes to C to whom he is indebted. B gives the check from A to C. C goes to D
and borrows P9K. Check is dishonored. What are the consequences?
C can be held liable for estafa because he made a misrepresentation to
D that the check is good and for which D lost P9K. C cannot be held
liable for BP 22 because he is not the drawer of the check.
B is not liable for estafa because B has a pre-existing obligation to C. B
cannot be held liable for BP 22 because he is merely an indorser.
A is not liable for estafa because he was in good faith when she issued
the check. A can be held liable for BP 22 because she is the drawer.

Overt acts = physical act/activity; more than a mere planning or a preparation indicating
an intention to commit a crime.
o A told B to go to a grocery store to buy poison and kill his wife. Policemen heard
As plan and followed them. Policemen charged A with the crime of Attempted
Parricide. Is this correct?
No. The mere act of going to a drug store and buy rat poison is not
constitutive of Attempted Parricide.
BUT if A put the poison to his wifes food and the policemen caught him,
there is a crime of Attempted Parricide.

o Policeman saw two accused (A & B). There were bars in a store and they were
loosening the bars around 2am, creating a hole. Policeman arrested A and B for
Attempted Robbery. Was the policeman correct?
No. The mere act of loosening the bars is not indicative of an overt act of
Attempted Robbery. Attempted act of Trespassing is the correct crime.

o If there is voluntary desistance before the overt act is perpetrated, that will make
such person not liable. It is because he harkened to the call of his conscience.
As long as the overt act is not completed, either by fear or reason, there is no
criminal liability.

There is such thing as Frustrated Arson.

o A used a torch. Before he could fire the building, policemen caught him. What is
the crime? Frustrated Arson.

o A placed dry woods and leaves. He burned the woods and leaves. Before the fire
could reach any part of the house, he was apprehended. What is the crime?
Frustrated Arson.

o A used rags soaked in gasoline, lights is, but before it burns any part of the
place, he was caught. What is the crime? Frustrated Arson.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

A and B had a quarrel. A was going to say something offensive to B but C covered As
mouth. What is the crime? None. It cannot be attempted oral defamation.

A fired a shot into the air in public. He committed the crime of Alarms and Scandals for
which the law prescribes the penalty of arresto menor/fine. So when F saw the policemen
coming for A, F rescued A. F is liable as an accessory BUT note that light felonies are
only punishable when consummated. Thus, F is not liable.

A, B, C and D are friends. They all conspired to kill X. A was tasked to bring the guns; B
was tasked to monitor people around the area; C was to talk to the security guard; and D
was to call the policemen to mislead them. Did they commit conspiracy to commit
murder? No. No law punishes such crime of conspiring to commit murder.

A, B, C and D conspired to commit rebellion. Are they liable? Yes. There is a law
punishing it under Art. 136 RPC.

Suppose in the abovementioned example, A and B committed rebellion, while C and D

did not. Would you still punish A and B for conspiracy to commit rebellion? No more. A
and B are no longer liable for Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion for it is absorbed by
Rebellion. C and D limited their acts to conspiracy to commit rebellion unlike A and B who
proceeded to commit it. Can C and D be punished for Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion?
No. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. So you will no longer punish C and D
because if A and B committed Rebellion, it is as if C and D committed the same.

If you assist in the escape of the principal (a relative) in committing a crime, you are not
liable under Art. 20 of the RPC as an accessory. But under PD 1829, if you assist, you
can be held liable for Obstruction of Justice. The law does not mention that if you are a
relative, you are not liable.

Justifying Circumstances
o A brandishes his knife and points at B. B shoots A. Is B liable? No. Art. 11 (1).

o X, a Saudi Arabian man, invited B, a homosexual man, to have some good time
in his suite. When X was trying to remove Bs drawers, B stabbed him. Is B
liable? No. Self-defense. Defense of honor, NOT defense of person because
there was no strangulation but grave coercion on the part of X.

o Someone forced open your house. Your Dad killed the intruder. Your Dads act is
justified since it is done in Defense of Home.

o A and B came from a movie house. X shot A but missed. If A shoots X and kills
him, there is self-defense. If X shouts at B and tells him hes next to be killed. B
can also shoot him and invoke self-defense. Xs words are constitutive of a
positively strong threat.

o A attacked B with a knife without any provocation. B was slightly injured on his
left arm. He was able to get possession of As knife. B stabbed A. Can B invoke
self-defense? No. There was no reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel As attack because A was already weaponless.

o A visited his lot. There was a fence. A got mad accusing B of putting up a fence
on As property without his consent. B got his knife and rushed to A. A can kill B
for his (A) provocation was not sufficient for B to attack him.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

o JP Laurel kissed Castillos girlfriend. Castillo got furious and confronted Laurel.
Castillo swung a piece of wood at Laurel and just when he was about to the
latter, Laurel got his knife from his pocket and stabbed him. SC said there was
unlawful aggression on the part of Castillo and Laurel can validly kill him.

o G, an old, retired and well-respected teacher, was drinking at a party. G

approached a group of young men to ask for lechon. One of the men shouted
ikaw ang le-lechonin namin! and the others laughed. G left and upon returning
to the party, brought his axe with him. SC said there was no valid self-defense.
However, the Court also said that there was sufficient provocation on the part of
the young men.

o As brother named B was attacked by X using a knife. For A to invoke self-

defense in the event that he kills X, he must use a knife as well.

o H (husband) and W (wife) have no issue. W died. X attacked F (Ws father). H

defended F by killing X. SC said Hs act constitutes defense of stranger because
when W died, the marriage vinculum between H and W ceased to exist. They
didnt have kids so there wasnt any connection between H and F upon Ws
death.

o There was an order to shoot on side of a notorious man. X shot some guy
sleeping who looked like the notorious man. X cannot invoke self-defense.

Mitigatting Circumstances
o A man was raping a six-year old child who was struggling to break away. So the
man held her neck so she couldnt get out successfully. The child died. The man
was charged with Homicide with Rape. A invoked Article 13 (3). Is A correct?
Check page 39 of J.Sandovals book. No. At the time of the commission
of the crime, he was holding the neck so hard that you can presume
there was intent to kill.

o A and B are neighbors. They soon became mortal enemies. One season, A was
thinking to himself why he and B are in bad terms. He decided to make up for
everything and prepared caldereta and offered the dish to B. A and B drank til
dawn. A strangled B when they got drunk. A was charged with Homicide. Article
13 (3) cannot be invoked.
When do you reckon the intent, before commission or during the
commission of the crime? Whether there was intent to commit so grave a
wrong, the reckoning point should be during the commission of the crime
so that when A was strangling B, there was intent to kill the latter.

o A told everyone in class that B has syphillis. This caused ridicule and humiliation
on the part of B. B waited for A to get out of class for one hour. Can B invoke Art.
13 (4)?
No. One hour does not fall under the terms immediately preceding the
act.

o As sister, B, was raped by X. After several days, A shot X. Can A invoke Art. 13
(5)? Yes.

o As father, B, was killed by X. After 2-3 days, A killed X. Can A invoke Art. 13 (5)?
Yes. Still in the proximate vindication of a grave offense.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

o A (maid) had sex with her boyfriend B, at the masters bedroom. The employer of
caught them in the act and said mean things to A, even cursing at her. A killed
her employer. Can A invoke Art. 13 (6)? No.

o A (Mayor of Batangas) went to the market in Manila. B, a Batangueno, stabbed C

in front of A. B surrendered to A. The SC said that B can invoke Art. 13 (7). B,
who only finished Grade 3, cannot be expected to know that A is not a person in
authority in Manila.

o A, B, C and D went to a safehouse. Policemen were able to see their safehouse

and guarded the vicinity. A, B, C and D had no choice but to surrender. Thus,
Article 13 (7) does not apply to them.

o According to the SC, Kleptomacy is only a MC because it diminishes willpower.

o A public officer who committed Malversation but later on returened the money
malversed, is entitled to Article. 13 (10).

o A teenage girl killed her infant to hide her shame or dishonor is entitled to avail
MC.

Exempting Circumstances
o Insanity must occur at the time you committed the crime.

o X, who was driving without a license, rammed into G thereby killing him. Article
12 (4) cannot be appreciated because driving without a license is unlawful.

o Driving with license and in the right lane = lawful. Article 12 (4) can be
appreciated.

o A person aged 70 y/o and above = not necessarily at the time he committed the
crime; like when the accused was convicted and then he appealed the case until
he turned 73 y/o at the time the judgment was promulgated.

Aggravating Circumstances
o A policeman wanted to kill someone in Forbes Park. He noticed that if you enter
the subdivision in car or jeep, the guards would interrogate you. And so, he wore
his police uniform and passed the other way and waived at the security guards.
He was then able to kill the victim. This is a prime example of Art. 14 (1).

o Four law students were drinking wine near the house of the Chief of Police
(CoP). CoP was being berated by his wife because there was a rumor that he
had impregnated a policewoman. And so, he left the house and saw the students
who were having some merriment at the restaurant. The CoP got annoyed at
them and informed them that there is an ordinance in the municipality, which
prohibits drinking. CoP began arresting the students. One of them tried to
escape, which prompted the CoP to shoot him. Is there AC? Yes. Article 14 (1).

o Policeman approached A and B who were fighting. A and B continued fighting

until A killed B. Is there AC? None. Policeman is only an agent in authority.

o If the difference in rank is so wide that respect is inherent to the one occupying
the position, there is AC.
A (janitor) assaulted B (clerk). Is there AC? None.
Deputy Customs Commissioner assaulted Customs Commissioner. Is
there AC? None.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

o The test is when the age differences are so wide that one could be a son or a
father of another, there is AC.
A (35 y/o) assaulted B (45 y/o). Is there disregard of age? None.
A (65 y/o) assaulted B (70 y/o). Is there disregard of age? None.
A (35 y/o) assaulted B (8 y/o). Is there disregard of age? Yes.
A (35 y/o) assaulted B (60 y/o). Is there disregard of age? Yes.

o A was overtaken by B. A blocked the pathway. A taunted B (woman). Is there

disregard of sex? Yes. Women are the lesser sex.

o Even if A owns several houses, if he is killed in one of his houses, AC of dwelling

may still be appreciated.

o Even if the person attacked is not the owner of the house, AC may still be
appreciated.

o A told B (driver) to bring As daughter G to a friends birthday. B raped G. Is there

AC? None. G did not have confidence with the driver. The offended party must
be the one who has confidence and that such confidence was betrayed.

o A was aided by B when he had no place to go. B fed A; dressed him up; drank
with him. Upon leaving Bs house, A raped Bs wife. Is there AC? Yes. Obvious
ungratefulness.

o In a place where authorities are canvassing votes, if a crime was committed

there, then there is AC.

o A, B, C, and D - who were all carrying firearms attacked E, F, G, H, I, J, and K

who were armed as well. Is there AC? None. If the two groups are almost equally
armed, do not consider Art. 14 (6).

o A man invited his girlfriend to see the setting of the sun by means of a banca. At
a distance of 1KM from the shore, where ships/boats were passing by, the man
killed his GF. Is there AC? Yes. Despite the passing of the ships, the call for help
of the girl cannot be reasonably responded to by anyone. There is AC of an
uninhabited place.

o A, who was at a dance party (in a place which was sufficiently illuminated), killed
B at 12 MN. Is there AC of nighttime? None.

o A, B, C, and D conspired to rob a bank. A, B, C, and D commissioned X to get

arms. They all agreed that D would be arriving at 5AM. D arrived on time. A, B,
C, and D waited for darkness prior to robbing the bank. Is there AC? Yes. They
purposely sought the darkness of the night to consummate the crime.

o A and B are mortal enemies. There was an earthquake. A knew that B was going
down to check the condition of his surroundings. A shot B. os there AC? Yes. Art.
14 (7).

o A was charged with Robbery on June 1990. He was convicted on June 1995. A
was again charged with Theft on June 2009. A is considered a recidivist.

o A was meted out the penalty of Reclusion Temporal, but because of the
presence of one MC, he was sentenced to Prision Mayor for committing
Homicide. Subsequently, he was sentenced to Reclusion Temporal for
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

committing Duel. Was there reiteracion? Yes. It is the penalty imposable that is
material in Article 14 (10).

o Eddie Fernandez was convicted of Homicide. While serving his sentence, he was
found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms. Is he a quasi-recidivist? No.

o A was found guilty on June 1990 of Falsification. A was found guilty on June
1999 of Estafa. A was found guilty on June 2002 of Serious Physical Injuries.
A is NOT a recidivist. Crimes were not embraced in the same title of the
RPC.
A, however, is a habitual delinquent. You compute the 10-year period
from the first to the second conviction, 3rd to the 4th conviction.

o A approached B and told the latter that she will kill C. B told A, OK. If you will kill
C, I will give you money. The following day, A demanded the money from B for
he had already killed C. Was the killing attenuated by Art. 14 (11)?
No. The price or reward must be the primary reason why A proceeded to
commit the crime.

o A poured gasoline over a retardates body to make fun of him. He lit the shirt of
the retardate. The retardate was killed. Was Art. 14 (12) present?
No. There was no intent on the part of A to kill the retardate by means of
fire.

o To consider poison as an AC, the purpose must be to use the poison to kill the
person.

o A told B, Ill kill you by Sunday. A forgot about what he said the following day.
Come Sunday, A saw B in a basketball game. A shot B. Was there evident
premeditation?
None. There must be proof that A has tenaciously planned the killing of
B.

o A, B, and C hailed for a cab. They looked wealthy for they were well dressed
and well-mannered. It is for this reason that the cab driver, D, stopped for them,
hoping he can get a big tip. In the middle of the ride, A, B, and C took out their
guns and held up D. Was Article 14 (14) present?
Yes. They employed craft in making themselves appear as bona fide
passengers when in truth, they werent.

o A, whose mouth was covered with a handkerchief, pointed his gun to B and told
the latter to give him Bs belongings. However, the handkerchief fell down,
exposing As face. Was Article 14 (4) present? Yes.

o Treachery must be present at the commencement of the crime.

A invited B to engaged in a brawl/fight. They both wielded their knives. B
ran to avoid A and fell in prone position. A stabbed B from the back. Was
there treachery? None. No treachery at the beginning of the crime
because they both knew what they got themselves into.
A (Governor) and B were fighting in As office. B put out his gun and shot
A, hitting the latters arm. A kicked the table in between them that
outbalanced B. A ran towards the corridor and placed himself behind the
door. B knew where A was going and followed him. B shot A. Was there
treachery? Yes. Although there was no treachery at the beginning of the
assault, there was a lull, and so what is important is when the final blow
was inflicted, treachery was attendant.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

A, for days, have planned on killing his mortal enemy, B. After two days
of planning, A already knew Bs movement. A saw B boarding a jeepney.
A armed with his gun, followed B. B got down of the jeep and proceeded
to a restroom. A, who was outside the CR, saw B-1 (Bs twin) on his way
out of the CR. A told B-1 to prepare his gun for he was going to shoot the
latter. Just when B-1 was about to get his gun, A shot him. Was there
evident premeditation? None. In cases of mistake of persons, there is no
evident premeditation.
Suppose in the abovementioned example, A who was waiting for B
outside the CR, hid behind a drum and shot B-1. Was there treachery?
Yes. Whether the person killed is not the person intended to be killed,
consider treachery.

o A (robber) robbed the house of X and raped Xs maid using the dog-style
position. Was there AC? Yes.

o The breaking of a wall, roof, floor, door or window must be used to commit the
offense. Do not consider this circumstance when the crime is Robbery through
Force Upon Things.

o A mayor was abducted by his political aides. He was brought to a forest and tied
to a tree. His ears were cut and grilled. His penis was also cut. His intestines
were slashed (Pp v. Pena). This is an example of Cruelty for the acts of the
perpetrators prolonged the suffering of the mayor.

o A was stabbed four times, sustaining four fatal wounds. Was there cruelty? If
there is no proof that the second and subsequent blows were inflicted while the
victim was still alive, there is no cruelty. The essence of cruelty is to prolong the
suffering of the victim.

Alternative Circumstances
o S and B are siblings. B had no money and lived in the house of S. B wanted to
get money from Ss aparador and passed through the window of Ss room. He
saw the money of his sister. He got it by breaking the window. Is he liable
criminally? Yes. The crime is Robbery so Art. 332 will not apply.

o A (mistress) of B (married to C). A stole Bs watch. A was charged with Theft. Is

A liable? SC said A is not liable. Art. 332 still applies. The degree of confidence
or trust between husband and wife are the same as that of a mistress and her
partner.

Who are liable for all kinds of offenses?

o A fired his revolver in the air during Election Ban (and was given exemption).
What is the crime? Alarms and scandals which is a Light Felony. The policemen
were looking for A. F assisted A in his escape. F is an accessory. Is he liable as
an accessory to As escape? No. Because accessories are not punished for
doing acts provided in Art. 19 for light felonies. Under Art. 16, accessories are not
liable for light felonies except for crimes against persons or property.

o A, B, C, and D conspired to kill X. They all proceeded to Xs house after drinking.

When they reached Xs house, D told A, B and C that he will not go with them
inside the house to guard onlookers. A, B, and C went inside the house. B told A
and C that he will not go with them to guard onlookers. Only A and C entered Xs
room. It was only C who shot X. A was prepared with gun in the event that X
retaliates.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

Is A liable as Principal by Direct Participation (DP)? Yes. How about D?

Yes. Principal by DP. Those who conspired with each other and
personally proceeded to the scene of the crime in order to execute what
they agreed upon all their acts tending to do the same end.

o Suppose E who was related to A, B, C, and D was initially invited to go with them
to kill X. E suffered cold feet and told them that he will just pee, when in truth, he
escaped and went home. Would you still consider E as principal by DP? Not
anymore. While he went to the scene of the crime, he didnt do acts which tended
to the same end.

o A threw a knife to B. A told B to stab C. A will be held liable as a Principal by

Inducement. B is liable as a Principal by DP.

o A approached B, his classmate and told him that he will salvage X. B told that
hes also pissed at X. And so B told A that if he will kill X, B will give him P10K.
The following day, A went to B and asked for the money. B gave A P10K.
Is A liable as Principal by DP? Yes. How about B? Not liable because his
price/consideration was not the primordial or overmastering purpose of A
to kill X.

o Accomplice
F approached A to borrow the latters gun to kill X. A lent his gun to F. F
began hunting down X. F saw Y, another enemy, and shot Y using As
gun. F is a principal by DP. A, on the other hand, is not liable as an
accomplice. A lent his gun to F for the purpose of killing X and not Y.

A and B were stabbing C. D wanted to stop A and B from such act. E

warded off D and kicked him so as to prevent him from stopping A and B.
E is liable as an accomplice for subsequent acts.

o Accessory
A (watch collector) was approached by B (thief) to buy from the latter a
rolex for P250K. A agreed. Is he an accessory? Yes. He assisted B to
profit from the effects of the crime of theft.

In PD 1612, theft/robbery is an essential element. This is necessary to

prove. On the other hand, if you are charged as an accessory under Art.
19, you need not prove theft/robbery.

A and B are friends. B stabbed D. A put a knife at Ds hand to conceal

the fact of B killing D. A is considered an accessory under Art. 19 (2).

Article 19 (3):
Public officer = harbors, assists, conceals, the escape of the
principal of the crime.
Private person = author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, attempt to take the life of Chief Executive, or
habitually guilty of some other crime.

K borrowed a gun from G to kill D. G approached M (mayor) to help G

escape. Is M guilty as an accessory? No. Because M assisted an
accomplice (G), and not the principal (K) of the crime. But he is liable
under PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice).
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

A killed D. F (friend of A) assisted A in his escape. A was charged as

principal in the murder of D. F is charged as an accessory. However, A
was able to prove that it was because of self-defense thats why he killed
D. F is not liable as an accessory. There is no crime.

A killed D. F (friend of A) assisted A in his escape. A, during trial, was

proved to be insane. A was acquitted. F is still liable as an accessory
because there is still murder.

A and B were riding in tandem. When they passed by X, A shot X. A and

B were charged with Murder in conspiring with one another to kill X. A
was able to escape. B was apprehended. RTC held B to be liable as an
accessory. While B was serving his sentence, A was caught after several
years. RTC judge acquitted A on the ground of reasonable doubt. B
came to know of As acquittal. B filed a petition for habeas corpus. SC
denied the petition. In the instant case, there was murder whether A is
the killer or not, there was someone killed. B still assisted whoever he is
who killed X. X is still guilty as an accessory.

Penalties
o ISL
Violation of Special Law = 1-5 years imprisonment
Sentence shall be: minimum of 1 year up to a maximium of 5
years.

Violation of RPC provisions

Maximum: that period after considering all the AC/MC.
Minimum: any range within the penalty next lower in degree.

Minor (17 y/o) was found guilty of Homicide (rec temporal: 12 yrs. and 1
day 20 yrs.). He committed the crime inside the Dwelling (AC) of the
victim.
In determining the maximum period, consider MC/AC.
MC in this case is Minority. So from Reclusion Temporal, the
penalty is now Prision Mayor (1 degree lower).
AC in this case is Dwelling. Divide the Prision Mayor (6 years
and 1 day 12 years) in three (3) periods, i.e. (6/minimum period
+ 2)
o Minimum = 6 yrs. 1 day - 8 (6/3 + 2) yrs.
o Medium = 8 yrs. 1 day 10 (8+2) yrs.
o Maximum = 10 yrs. 1 day 12 (10+2) yrs.
Minimum should be within the range of penalty next lower in
degree, i.e. Prision Correcional (6 mos 1 day 6 yrs.)
Sentence: 6 mos 1 day 12 yrs.

ISL is beneficial both to the accused and to the Government.

A was convicted of Robbery for evading sentence. He will be sentenced

to a straight penalty.

A (concubine) was sentenced to destierro (ex. For 2 years, she is not

allowed to be within 25KM from the place where concubinage was
committed). If A commits Homicide within the prohibited period and
within the prohibited distance, she is to be sentenced to a straight
penalty because A is considered to have evaded service of sentence.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

o Pardon
A shot L (lady) but misssed. A was charged with Attempted Homicide.
He approached L and said that he didnt really mean to shoot L because
he wanted to shoot X not L. A and L later on became close and got
married. Judge sentenced A to a penalty of prision correcional. Is the
judge correct? Yes. Pardon does not affect As criminal liability. Accused
will not be released.

In cases of CASARA (Concubinage, Adultery, Seduction, Acts of

Lasciviousness, Rape, Abduction)
Pardon was granted BEFORE the case is filed in court. Offender,
as a result, is not liable criminally if he commits any of the
abovementioned crimes.
Exception to the exception:
o A (husband) raped L (wife). This is a case of marital
raoe. In case of pardon by L at ANY TIME (even after
the case, even while A is serving sentence), the court
may dismiss the case.

o Art. 45: Confiscation and Forfeiture of Proceeds/Instruments of the Crime

A killed B with his gun. A was charged with Homicide. Judge will order
confiscation of the gun afterwards.

Bank was robbed. X (robber) was convicted. Court ordered the forfeiture
of the money in favor of the government. This is incorrect because a 3rd
party (Bank) is involved. Banks counsel should have gotten the money
right away; otherwise, forfeiture will become final and executory.

o Art. 48: Complex Crimes

Compound Crime
A shot E but missed, hitting B (As father). A is liable under Art.
48. The single act of squeezing the trigger constituted Attempted
Homicide (Less Grave Felony) and Parricide (Grave Felony).

Complex Crimes are applicable to Reckless Imprudence cases.

Continuing Crime

A stole Bs cock on Monday. A stole Cs cock on Tuesday. A

stole Ds cock on Wednesdat.
o A is guilty of Multiple Theft. There is NO continuing crime
here because A was not impelled by the same criminal
resolution in committing the various thefts on three (3)
separate days.

A robbed eight (8) houses in one subdivision in one day.

o A is guilty of delito continuado. The series of acts
robbing 8 houses is because A was impelled by one
criminal resolution.

o No such crime as Estafa with Falsification of Private Document.

o A is convicted of Homicide. A was granted Pardon and commits Rape. He is

considered a Recidivist.
DLSU LAW
TRICIA CRUZ GO2 | 2015-2016
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | JUSTICE SANDOVAL

o A was found guilty of Homicide. He was sentenced to a penalty of 14 years. He

escaped and was re-arrrested. He was charged with Evasion of Service (1-3
years). While serving sentence, A was granted Absolute Pardon. A filed a petition
for Habeas Corpus against Director of Prisons. SC said while A was granted
Absolute Pardon for Homicide, he still wasnt granted AP for Evasion. Thus, A
still needs to serve his sentence for the latter crime.

o Suppose its Rebellion and not Homicide in the case abovementioned. While
serving his sentence, he was granted Amnesty. A is correct because by having
been granted Amnesty by the President, its as if A is a newborn baby, no record
of any crime whatsoever.

o Prescription of Crime
A saw B kill X. A is not related to X. A decided not to tell anyone about it.
Crime will never prescribe. If A goes to the police and report about the
incident, 20 years and 1 day after, case will still prosper.
Commencement of the prescriptive period starts from discovery of the
crime.

o Prescription of Penalty
If you commit a crime before the expiration of the prescriptive period, the
period or penalty will not run.
If you go to a foreign country to evade charges, prescriptive period will
also not run.

o Marriage
A commits Frustrated Homicide against L (lady). A and L got married.
Can the court continue with case? Yes. Marriage of the offender and the
offended party applies extinguishes the crime in cases of SARA only.

A, B, C, and D are friends. A raped W. Y provided the place. Y is an

accomplice. X assisted their escape. X is an accessory. A married W.
Can B, C, Y and X invoke the marriage of A and W as a mode of
extinguishing their liability? Yes. No multiple rape. Only A raped W.

A raped W. A married W. A left W. W filed a motion to reinstate the case.

A was charged again. Is this correct? Yes. In order to be considered as a
mode of extinguishing criminal liability, marriage must be made in Good
Faith.

o Under PD 603, if a child is adjudged exempt from criminal liability, his or her civil
liability will be shouldered by his/her father.