Criminal Law (2)

FELONY, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME

Felony
A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as a felony. Do not use this term in reference to a violation of special law.

Offense
A crimes punished under a special law is called as statutory offense.

Misdemeanor
A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor.


Crime
Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used.


SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of applications:
(1) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code within the Philippine territory;
(2) Extraterritorial – refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory.


Intraterritorial application

In the intraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code, Article 2 makes it clear that it does not refer only to Philippine archipelago but it also includes the atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. So whenever you use the word territory, do not limit this to land area only.

As far as jurisdiction or application of the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime zones or interior waters, the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. So the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modified by the rule. Any crime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws although committed on board a foreign merchant vessel.

A vessel is considered a Philippine ship only when it is registered in accordance with Philippine laws. Under international law, as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters of a foreign country, Philippine laws shall govern.


Extraterritorial application

Extraterritorial application of the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Philippine ship or airship refers only to a situation where the Philippine ship or airship is not within the territorial waters or atmosphere of a foreign country. Otherwise, it is the foreign country’s criminal law that will apply.

However, there are 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.


The French Rule

The French Rule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies, unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel.


The American or Anglo-Saxon Rule

This rule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied, except if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered.

Both the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. If that vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there is no occasion to apply the two rules. If it is not within the jurisdiction of any country, these rules will not apply.


Question & Answer

A vessel is not registered in the Philippines. A crime is committed outside Philippine territorial waters. Then the vessel entered our territory. Will the Revised Penal Code apply?

Yes. Under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure, for our courts to take cognizance of any crime committed on board a vessel during its voyage, the vessel must be registered in the Philippines in accordance with Philippine laws.
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, the requirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Philippine laws has been deleted from Section 25, paragraph c of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The intention is to do away with that requirement so that as long as the vessel is not registered under the laws of any country, our courts can take cognizance of the crime committed in such vessel.

More than this, the revised provision added the phrase “in accordance with generally accepted principles of International Law”. So the intention is clear to adopt generally accepted principles of international law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course of its voyage. 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.

Prior to the revision, the crime would not have been prosecutable in our court. With the revision, registration is not anymore a requirement and replaced with generally accepted principles of international law. Piracy is considered a crime against the law of nations.

In your answer, reference should be made to the provision of paragraph c of Section15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The crime may be regarded as an act of piracy as long as it is done with “intent to gain”.


When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their functions

The most common subject of bar problems in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being public officers or employees, [they] should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions:”

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.

Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty.

Illustration:

A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his official duties. However, if the second marriage was celebrated within the Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines.


Question & Answer

A consul was to take a deposition in a hotel in Singapore. After the deposition, the deponent approached the consul’s daughter and requested that certain parts of the deposition be changed in consideration for $10,000.00. The daughter persuaded the consul and the latter agreed. Will the crime be subject to the Revised Penal Code? If so, what crime or crimes have been committed?

Yes. Falsification.

Normally, the taking of the deposition is not the function of the consul, his function being the promotion of trade and commerce with another country. Under the Rules of Court, however, a consul can take depositions or letters rogatory. There is, therefore, a definite provision of the law making it the consul’s function to take depositions. When he agreed to the falsification of the deposition, he was doing so as a public officer in the service of the Philippine government.

Paragraph 5 of Article 2, use the phrase “as defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.”
This is a very important part of the exception, because Title I of Book 2 (crimes against national security) does not include rebellion. So if acts of rebellion were perpetrated by Filipinos who were in a foreign country, you cannot give territorial application to the Revised Penal Code, because Title I of Book 2 does not include rebellion.

Illustration:

When a Filipino who is already married in the Philippines, contracts another marriage abroad, the crime committed is bigamy. But the Filipino can not be prosecuted when he comes back to the Philippines, because the bigamy was committed in a foreign country and the crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of Article 2. However, if the Filipino, after the second marriage, returns to the Philippines and cohabits here with his second wife, he commits the crime of concubinage for which he can be prosecuted.

The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to any other crime committed in a foreign country which does not come under any of the exceptions and which is not a crime against national security.


HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE

Punishable by the Revised Penal Code

The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised Penal Code. When the crime is punishable under a special law you do not refer to this as a felony. So whenever you encounter the term felony, it is to be understood as referring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code
.
This is important because there are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is used, which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws. A specific instance is found in Article 160 – Quasi-Recidivism, which reads:

A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty.

Note that the word "felony" is used.


Questions & Answers

1. If a prisoner who is serving sentence is found in possession of dangerous drugs, can he be considered a quasi-recidivist?

No. The violation of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) is not a felony. The provision of Article 160 specifically refers to a felony and felonies are those acts and omissions punished under the Revised Penal Code.

2. Is illegal possession of bladed weapon a felony?

No. It is not under the Revised Penal Code.


An act or omission

To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of body movement that produces change in the outside world. For example, if A, a passenger in a jeepney seated in front of a lady, started putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness, that is already an act in contemplation of criminal law. He cannot claim that there was no crime committed. If A scratches something, this is already an act which annoys the lady he may be accused of unjust vexation, not malicious mischief.


Dolo or culpa

However, It does not mean that if an act or omission is punished under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is already committed. To be considered a felony, it must also be done with dolo or culpa.

Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is deceit. This is no longer true. At the time the Revised Penal Code was codified, the term nearest to dolo was deceit. However, deceit means fraud, and this is not the meaning of dolo.

Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the offender as to the act done by him.

The term, therefore, has three requisites on the part of the offender:
(1) Criminal intent;
(2) Freedom of action; and
(3) Intelligence.

If any of these is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional felony.


Question & Answer

What requisites must concur before a felony may be committed?

There must be (1) an act or omission; (2) punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.


But although there is no intentional felony, there could be a culpable felony. Culpa requires the concurrence of three requisites:

(1) criminal negligence on the part of the offender , that is, the crime was the result of negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;

(2) freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is, he was not acting under duress; and

(3) Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Between dolo and culpa, the distinction lies on the criminal intent and criminal negligence. If any of these requisites is absent, there can be no dolo nor culpa. When there is no dolo or culpa, a felony cannot arise.


Question & Answer

What do you understand by “voluntariness” in criminal law?

The word voluntariness in criminal law does not mean acting in one’s own volition. In criminal law, voluntariness comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and the fact that the act was intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no voluntariness if either freedom, intelligence or imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill is lacking. Without voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, two persons went wild boar hunting. On their way, they met Pedro standing by the door of his house and they asked him where they could find wild boars. Pedro pointed to a place where wild boars were supposed to be found, and the two proceeded thereto. Upon getting to the place, they saw something moving, they shot, unfortunately the bullet ricocheted killing Pedro. It was held that since there was neither dolo nor culpa, there is no criminal liability.

In US v. Bindoy, accused had an altercation with X. X snatched the bolo from the accused. To prevent X from using his bolo on him, accused tried to get it from X. Upon pulling it back towards him, he hit someone from behind, instantly killing the latter. The accused was found to be not liable. In criminal law, there is pure accident, and the principle damnum absque injuria is also honored.

Even culpable felonies require voluntariness. It does not mean that if there is no criminal intent, the offender is absolved of criminal liability, because there is culpa to consider.


Criminal Intent

Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest translation is deliberate intent.

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

(1) General criminal intent; and

(2) Specific criminal intent.

General criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.

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. For example, a husband came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with a former suitor. Thereupon, he got a knife. The moving force is jealousy. The intent is the resort to the knife, so that means he is desirous to kill the former suitor. Even if the offender states that he had no reason to kill the victim, this is not criminal intent. Criminal intent is the means resorted to by him that brought about the killing. If we equate intent as a state of mind, many would escape criminal liability.

In a case where mother and son were living in the same house, and the son got angry and strangled his mother, the son, when prosecuted for parricide, raised the defense that he had no intent to kill his mother. It was held that criminal intent applies on the strangulation of the vital part of the body. Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not on the basis if what the offender says.

Look into motive to determine the proper crime which can be imputed to the accused. If a judge was killed, determine if the killing has any relation to the official functions of the judge in which case the crime would be direct assault complexed with murder/homicide, not the other way around. If it has no relation, the crime is simply homicide or murder.

Omission is the inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which he is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.

Distinction between negligence and imprudence
(1) In negligence, there is deficiency of action;
(2) in imprudence, there is deficiency of perception.

Mens rea

The technical term mens rea is sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of the offense. To a layman, that is what you call the “bullseye” of the crime. This term is used synonymously with criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not exactly correct.

Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the crime. You can only detect the mens rea of a crime by knowing the particular crime committed. Without reference to a particular crime, this term is meaningless. For example, in theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent to gain. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent to pervert the truth. It is not merely writing something that is not true; the intent to pervert the truth must follow the performance of the act.

In criminal law, we sometimes have to consider the crime on the basis of intent. For example, attempted or frustrated homicide is distinguished from physical injuries only by the intent to kill. Attempted rape is distinguished from acts of lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual intercourse. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another coupled with the employment of intimidation or violence upon persons or things; remove the employment of force or intimidation and it is not robbery anymore.


Mistake of fact

When an offender acted out of a misapprehension of fact, it cannot be said that he acted with criminal intent. Thus, in criminal law, there is a “mistake of fact”. When the offender acted out of a mistake of fact, criminal intent is negated, so do not presume that the act was done with criminal intent. This is absolutory if crime involved dolo.

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. When the felonious act is the product of dolo and the accused claimed to have acted out of mistake of fact, there should be no culpa in determining the real facts, otherwise, he is still criminally liable, although he acted out of a mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is only a defense in intentional felony but never in culpable felony.


Real concept of culpa

Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed. A felony may be committed or incurred through dolo or culpa. Culpa is just a means by which a felony may result.

In Article 365, you have criminal negligence as an omission which the article definitely or specifically penalized. 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. Because of Article 365, one might think that criminal negligence is the one being punished. That is why a question is created that criminal negligence is the crime in itself.

In People v. Faller, it was stated indirectly that that criminal negligence or culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability. In this case, the accused was charged with malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code. The provision expressly requires that there be a deliberate damaging of property of another, which does not constitute destructive arson. You do not have malicious mischief through simple negligence or reckless imprudence because it requires deliberateness. Faller was charged with malicious mischief, but was convicted of damage to property through reckless imprudence. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the allegation in the information charged the accused with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an information, covers not only dolo but also culpa because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.

In Quezon v. Justice of the Peace, Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented and claimed that criminal negligence is a quasi-offense, and the correct designation should not be homicide through reckless imprudence, but reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The view of Justice Reyes is sound, but the problem is Article 3, which states that culpa is just a mode by which a felony may result.


Question & Answer

Is culpa or criminal negligence a crime?

First, point out Article 3. Under Article 3, it is beyond question that culpa or criminal negligence is just a mode by which a felony may arise; a felony may be committed or incurred through dolo or culpa.

However, Justice J.B.L. Reyes pointed out that criminal negligence is a quasi–offense. His reason is that if criminal negligence is not a quasi-offense, and only a modality, then it would have been absorbed in the commission of the felony and there would be no need for Article 365 as a separate article for criminal negligence. Therefore, criminal negligence, according to him, is not just a modality; it is a crime by itself, but only a quasi-offense.

However, in Samson v. CA, where a person who has been charged with falsification as an intentional felony, was found guilty of falsification through simple negligence. This means that means that culpa or criminal negligence is just a modality of committing a crime.

In some decisions on a complex crime resulting from criminal negligence, the Supreme Court pointed out that when crimes result from criminal negligence, they should not be made the subject of a different information. For instance, the offender was charged with simple negligence resulting in slight physical injuries, and another charge for simple negligence resulting in damage to property. The slight physical injuries which are the result of criminal negligence are under the jurisdiction of the inferior court. But damage to property, if the damage is more than P2,000.00, would be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court because the imposable fine ranges up to three times the value of the damage.

In People v. Angeles, the prosecution filed an information against the accused in an inferior court for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence and filed also damage to property in the Regional Trial Court. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of slight physical injuries. When he was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, he invoked double jeopardy. He was claiming that he could not be prosecuted again for the same criminal negligence. The Supreme Court ruled that here is no double jeopardy because the crimes are two different crimes. Slight physical injuries and damage to property are two different crimes.

In so ruling that there is no double jeopardy, the Supreme Court did not look into the criminal negligence. The Supreme Court looked into the physical injuries and the damage to property as the felonies and not criminal negligence.

In several cases that followed, the Supreme Court ruled that where several consequences result from reckless imprudence or criminal negligence, the accused should be charged only in the Regional Trial Court although the reckless imprudence may result in slight physical injuries. The Supreme Court argued that since there was only one criminal negligence, it would be an error to split the same by prosecuting the accused in one court and prosecuting him again in another for the same criminal negligence. This is tantamount to splitting a cause of action in a civil case. For orderly procedure, the information should only be one. This however, also creates some doubts. As you know, when the information charges the accused for more than the crime, the information is defective unless the crime charged is a complex one or a special complex crime.


CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Since in Article 3, a felony is an act or omission punishable by law, particularly the Revised Penal Code, it follows that whoever commits a felony incurs criminal liability. In paragraph 1 of Article 4, the law uses the word “felony”, that whoever commits a felony incurs criminal liability. A felony may arise not only when it is intended, but also when it is the product of criminal negligence. What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4 confusing is the addition of the qualifier “although the wrongful act be different from what he intended.”


Questions & Answers

1. A man thought of committing suicide and went on top of a tall building. He jumped, landing on somebody else, who died instantly. Is he criminally liable?

Yes. A felony may result not only from dolo but also from culpa. If that fellow who was committing suicide acted negligently, he will be liable for criminal negligence resulting in the death of another.

2. A had been courting X for the last five years. X told A, “Let us just be friends. I want a lawyer for a husband and I have already found somebody whom I agreed to marry. Anyway there are still a lot of ladies around; you will still have your chance with another lady." A, trying to show that he is a sport, went down from the house of X, went inside his car, and stepped on the accelerator to the limit, closed his eyes, started the vehicle. The vehicle zoomed, running over all the pedestrians on the street. At the end, the car stopped at the fence. He was taken to the hospital, and he survived. Can he be held criminally liable for all those innocent people that he ran over, claiming that he was committing suicide?

He will be criminally liable, not for an intentional felony, but for culpable felony. This is so because, in paragraph 1 of Article 4, the term used is “felony”, and that term covers both dolo and culpa.

3. A pregnant woman thought of killing herself by climbing up a tall building and jumped down below. Instead of falling in the pavement, she fell on the owner of the building. An abortion resulted. Is she liable for an unintentional abortion? If not, what possible crime may be committed?

The relevant matter is whether the pregnant woman could commit unintentional abortion upon herself. The answer is no because the way the law defines unintentional abortion, it requires physical violence coming from a third party. When a pregnant woman does an act that would bring about abortion, it is always intentional. Unintentional abortion can only result when a third person employs physical violence upon a pregnant woman resulting to an unintended abortion.


In one case, a pregnant woman and man quarreled. The man could no longer bear the shouting of the woman, so he got his firearm and poked it into the mouth of the woman. The woman became hysterical, so she ran as fast as she could, which resulted in an abortion. The man was prosecuted for unintentional abortion. It was held that an unintentional abortion was not committed. However, drawing a weapon in the height of a quarrel is a crime of other light threats under Article 285. An unintentional abortion can only be committed out of physical violence, not from mere threat.