Criminal Law
State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give its legal effects.
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual. The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are: (a) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators; (b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as co-conspirators; and (c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
What is an impossible crime?
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with?
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are: (a) That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged; (b) That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment; and (c) That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. b) Suppose after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.
(a) Jose, Domingo and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et al., G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995) (b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide.
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct penalty?
(1) The crime committed; (2) Stage of execution and degree of participation; (3) Determine the penalty; (4) Consider the modifying circumstances; (5) Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not.
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly.
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is in the eyes of the law a lawful act. What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof may be applied extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
Is an impossible crime really a crime?
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency or propensity although no crime was committed.
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities.
Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution, but include reparation of damages caused, the indemnification for consequential damages, as well as fines and cost of the proceedings. Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the proceedings.
What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly.
The CLASSICAL THEORY, which simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense. The POSITIVIST THEORY, which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired into.
What are the elements of "corpus delicti"?
The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact made up of two things: (1) The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and (2) The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result. (3) The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti.
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy?
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit?
The public school teacher committed only coup d'état for his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'état under the new firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of another crime.
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain.
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because the felonious act of running was the proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037)
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed. (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans to get even with Cesar". Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him a two inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day. Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which developed twenty five days later was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop from the victim's right palm and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why?
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street Manila, Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide. Is there conspiracy in this case?
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain.
Yes. A, B, C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in said case, which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was intended.
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances.
• Pseudonym for literary purposes. • Use of aliases in cinema and television entertainment. • In athletics and sports activities (RA. 6085). • Under the witness protection program a person may adopt a different identity (RA. 6981). • When he has been baptized or customarily known by such alias. • When authorized by a competent court (CA. No. 142, as amended by RA. 6085). • When properly indicated in a Certificate of Candidacy (Omnibus Election Code).
Define "corpus delicti".
Corpus Delicti literally means "the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People vs. Pascual, 44 OG 2789)
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G died. F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F?
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A, B, C and D was to kill F only. Since B, C and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing. For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C should be held liable therefor. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D however although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end. (People vs. Tomoro, et al. 44 Phil. 38) In the same breath, E cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?
A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when - (a) it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier penalty; (b) it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and (c) it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any.
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the crime was committed.
Distinguish clearly but briefly between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code.
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act. COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed.
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store where they knew C would be sleeping and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled while A went on to stab C to death, put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any?
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their criminal plan. That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned and commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?
We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our Code.
