Criminal Law (5)

Elements of the crime

In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. For the crime of estafa to be consummated, there must be misappropriation already done, so that there is damage already suffered by the offended party. If there is no damage yet, the estafa can only be frustrated or attempted.

On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. The mere intent to derive some profit is enough but the thinking must be complete before a crime of theft shall be consummated. That is why we made that distinction between theft and estafa.

If the personal property was received by the offender, this is where you have to decide whether what was transferred to the offender is juridical possession or physical possession only. If the offender did not receive the personal property, but took the same from the possession of the owner without the latter’s consent, then there is no problem. That cannot be estafa; this is only theft or none at all.

In estafa, the offender receives the property; he does not take it. But in receiving the property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the object. It can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but juridical possession as well.

When you are discussing estafa, do not talk about intent to gain. In the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft, do not talk of damage.

The crime of theft is the one commonly given under Article 6. This is so because the concept of theft under the Revised Penal Code differs from the concept of larceny under American common law. Under American common law, the crime of larceny which is equivalent to our crime of theft here requires that the offender must be able to carry away or transport the thing being stolen. Without that carrying away, the larceny cannot be consummated.

In our concept of theft, the offender need not move an inch from where he was. It is not a matter of carrying away. It is a matter of whether he has already acquired complete control of the personal property involved. That complete control simply means that the offender has already supplanted his will from the will of the possessor or owner of the personal property involved, such that he could exercise his own control on the thing.

Illustration:

I placed a wallet on a table inside a room. A stranger comes inside the room, gets the wallet and puts it in his pocket. I suddenly started searching him and I found the wallet inside his pocket. The crime of theft is already consummated because he already acquired complete control of my wallet. This is so true when he removed the wallet from the confines of the table. He can exercise his will over the wallet already, he can drop this on the floor, etc.
But as long as the wallet remains on the table, the theft is not yet consummated; there can only be attempted or frustrated theft. If he has started lifting the wallet, it is frustrated. If he is in the act of trying to take the wallet or place it under, attempted.

“Taking” in the concept of theft, simply means exercising control over the thing.

If instead of the wallet, the man who entered the room pretended to carry the table out of the room, and the wallet is there. While taking the table out of the room, I apprehended him. It turned out that he is not authorized at all and is interested only in the wallet, not the table. The crime is not yet consummated. It is only frustrated because as far as the table is concern, it is the confines of this room that is the container. As long as he has not taken this table out of the four walls of this room, the taking is not complete.

A man entered a room and found a chest on the table. He opened it found some valuables inside. He took the valuables, put them in his pocket and was arrested. In this case, theft is consummated.

But if he does not take the valuables but lifts the entire chest, and before he could leave the room, he was apprehended, there is frustrated theft.

If the thing is stolen from a compound or from a room, as long as the object has not been brought out of that room, or from the perimeter of the compound, the crime is only frustrated. This is the confusion raised in the case of US v. Diño compared with People v. Adio and People v. Espiritu.

In US v. Diño, the accused loaded boxes of rifle on their truck. When they were on their way out of the South Harbor, they were checked at the checkpoint, so they were not able to leave the compound. It was held that what was committed was frustrated Theft.

In People v. Espiritu, the accused were on their way out of the supply house when they were apprehended by military police who found them secreting some hospital linen. It was held that what was committed was consummated theft.

The emphasis, which was erroneously laid in some commentaries, is that, in both cases, the offenders were not able to pass the checkpoint. But why is it that in one, it is frustrated and in the other, it is consummated?

In the case of US v. Diño, the boxes of rifle were stocked file inside the compound of the South Harbor. As far as the boxes of rifle are concerned, it is the perimeter of the compound that is the container. As long as they were not able to bring these boxes of rifle out of the compound, the taking is not complete. On the other hand, in the case of People v. Espiritu, what were taken were hospital linens. These were taken from a warehouse. Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and brought out of the hospital. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where the owner or the possessor had placed it, the control is complete. You do not have to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control.

This is very decisive in the problem because in most problems given in the bar, the offender, after having taken the object out of the container changed his mind and returned it. Is he criminally liable? Do not make a mistake by saying that there is a desistance. If the crime is one of theft, the moment he brought it out, it was consummated. The return of the thing cannot be desistance because in criminal law, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already in the consummated stage. If the offender has already acquired complete control of what he intended to take, the fact that he changed his mind and returned the same will no longer affect his criminal liability. It will only affect the civil liability of the crime because he will no longer be required to pay the object. As far as the crime committed is concerned, the offender is criminally liable and the crime is consummated theft.

Illustration:

A and B are neighbors. One evening, A entered the yard of B and opened the chicken coop where B keeps his fighting cocks. He discovered that the fighting cocks were not physically fit for cockfighting so he returned it. The crime is consummated theft. The will of the owner is to keep the fighting cock inside the chicken coop. When the offender succeeded in bringing the cock out of the coop, it is clear that his will completely governed or superseded the will of the owner to keep such cock inside the chicken coop. Hence, the crime was already consummated, and being consummated, the return of the owner’s property is not desistance anymore. The offender is criminally liable but he will not be civilly liable because the object was returned.

When the receptacle is locked or sealed, and the offender broke the same, in lieu of theft, the crime is robbery with force upon things. However, that the receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing to do with the stage of the commission of the crime. It refers only to whether it is theft or robbery with force upon things.


Nature of the crime itself

In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide, homicide, and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. Under the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.

If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence; it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result.

An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective phase. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the 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.


CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMITE A FELONY

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.


Question & Answer

Union A proposed acts of sedition to Union B. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union B accepts the proposal, will your answer be different?

There is no crime committed. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code.

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.

When the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement. On the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself.

Illustration:

A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion, the crime of all is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion itself. This subsists even though the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion.

This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. If the conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the co-conspirators would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for as long as anyone shall desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed, such a desistance would negate criminal liability.

Illustration:

Three persons plan to rob a bank. 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.

We have to observe the distinction between the two because conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

When the conspiracy is just a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. This was the ruling in People v. Pinto, 204 SCRA 9.

Although conspiracy is defined as two or more person coming to an agreement regarding the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it, the word “person” here should not be understood to require a meeting of the co-conspirator regarding the commission of the felony. A conspiracy of the second kind can be inferred or deduced even though they have not met as long as they acted in concert or simultaneously, indicative of a meeting of the minds toward a common goal or objective.

Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will not consider the same.

In People v. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489, it was held that it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures or speculations.

In Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious objective.

When several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. Do not think that participants are always known to each other.

Illustrations:

A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. She hired some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable.

A law student resented the fact that his brother was killed by A. He hired B to kill A and offered him P50,000.00. He disclosed to B that A was being arraigned in the City Hall of Manila and told him to execute the plan on the following day. In the evening of that same day, the law student changed his mind so he immediately went to the police and told them to dispatch police officers to prevent B from committing the crime. Unfortunately, the police were caught in traffic causing their delay, so that when they reached the place, B had already killed A. In this case, there was no proposal but a conspiracy. They have conspired to execute a crime but the crime involved here is murder and a conspiracy to commit murder is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for incurring criminal liability. This is just a preparatory act, and his desistance negates criminal liability.

Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.

As pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage.

The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. “When a person has set foot to the path of wickedness and brings back his foot to the path of righteousness, the law shall reward him for doing so.”

Where there are several persons who participated, like in a killing, and they attacked the victim simultaneously, so much so that it cannot be known what participation each one had, all these participants shall be considered as having acted in conspiracy and they will be held collectively responsible.
Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of participation of each conspirator because the act of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal criminal responsibility.


Question & Answer

There are several offenders who acted simultaneously. When they fled, a victim was found dead. Who should be liable for the killing if who actually killed the victim is not known?

There is collective responsibility here. Without the principle of conspiracy, nobody would be prosecuted; hence, there is the rule on collective responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the victim.

There is conspiracy when the offenders acted simultaneously pursuing a common criminal design; thus, acting out a common criminal intent.

Illustration:

A, B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. On several occasions, they even visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of this, A, B and C became hostile with one another. One day, D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. Eventually, the young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned about this, they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. When A looked back at the young lady with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that instance, A stabbed D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that conspiracy was present.

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. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder form of responsibility upon an offender. So it is no longer accurate to think that when there is a conspiracy, all are principals.

Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy, a co-conspirator may be held liable only as an accomplice. That means the penalty which shall be imposed upon him is one degree lower.
For example, there was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. There, the conspirators told the taxi driver that they are going to use his taxicab in going to the place of robbery. The taxi driver agreed but said, “I will bring you there, and after committing the robbery I will return later”. The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. At most, what he only extended was his cooperation. That is why he was given only that penalty for an accomplice.

A, B, and C, under the influence of marijuana, broke into a house because they learned that the occupants have gone on an excursion. They ransacked the house. A got a colored TV, B saw a camera and took that, and C found a can of salmon and took that. In the crime of robbery with force upon things, the penalty is based on the totality of the value of the personal property taken and not on the individual property taken by him.
In Siton v. CA, it was held that the idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.


Composite crimes

Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. For example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical injuries.

In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime.

Illustrations:

A, B, and C decided to commit robbery in the house of D. Pursuant to their agreement, A would ransack the second floor, B was to wait outside, and C would stay on the first floor. Unknown to B and C, A raped the girl upstairs. All of them will be liable for robbery with rape. The crime committed is robbery with rape, which is not a complex crime, but an indivisible felony under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Even if B and C did not know that rape was being committed and they agreed only and conspired to rob, yet rape was part of robbery. Rape can not be separated from robbery.

A, B and C agreed to rob the house of D. It was agreed that A would go the second floor, B would stay in the first floor, and C stands guard outside. All went to their designated areas in pursuit of the plan. While A was ransacking the second floor, the owner was awakened. A killed him. A, B and C will be liable for robbery with homicide. This is because, it is well settled that any killing taking place while robbery is being committed shall be treated as a single indivisible offense.

As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are distinct crimes.

Exception to the exception: In acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such crime. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act.

The rule would be different if the crime committed was not a composite crime.

Illustration:

A, B and C agreed to kill D. When they saw the opportunity, A, B and C killed D and after that, A and B ran into different directions. C inspected the pocket of the victim and found that the victim was wearing a ring – a diamond ring – and he took it. The crimes committed are homicide and theft. As far as the homicide is concerned, A, B and C are liable because that was agreed upon and theft was not an integral part of homicide. This is a distinct crime so the rule will not apply because it was not the crime agreed upon. Insofar as the crime of theft is concerned, C will be the only one liable. So C will be liable for homicide and theft.


CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified?

What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore, the examiner was after the classifications under Articles 3, 6 and 9.

Felonies are classified as follows:

(1) According to the manner of their commission

Under Article 3, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

(2) According to the stages of their execution

Under Article 6., felonies are classified as attempted felony 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; frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator; and, consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present.

(3) According to their gravity

Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional; and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.

Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light?

To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. In other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that was not applied.

If the penalty is fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Article 9.

If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Article 26.

If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article 26. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.

This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes.

In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. After two months, the state loses the right to prosecute unless the running period is suspended. If the offender escapes while in detention after he has been loose, if there was already judgment that was passed, it can be promulgated even if absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. If the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.


SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 10 is the consequence of the legal requirement that you have to distinguish those punished under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to Article 10, observe the distinction.

In Article 10, there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special laws”. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an injustice. If no justice would result, do not give suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law.

For example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. His violation caused damage or injury to a private party. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes, because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party. Article 100 states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an injustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him.

In People v. Rodriguez, it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special law. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code.
In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. Hence, two prosecutions can be had: (1) sedition; and (2) illegal possession of firearms.

But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a special law. For example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-rustling, is not a special law. It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. Thias was the ruling in People v. Martinada.

The amendments of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. 7659, which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.


Circumstances affecting criminal liability

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:

(1) Justifying circumstances;
(2) Exempting circumstances;
(3) Mitigating circumstances;
(4) Aggravating circumstances; and
(5) Alternative circumstances.

There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

(1) Absolutory cause; and
(2) Extenuating circumstances.

In justifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. When an accused invokes them, he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.

Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies.


Absolutory cause

The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12.

Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished:

Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment;
Service of the sentence;

Amnesty;

Absolute pardon;

Prescription of the crime;

Prescription of the penalty; and

Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.

Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.

Under Article 219, discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized.

Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties.

Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.


Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, the crime is committed with dolo. It is confused with entrapment.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

Difference between instigation and entrapment

In instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties.

On the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. It did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.

Illustrations:

An agent of the narcotics command had been tipped off that a certain house is being used as an opium den by prominent members of the society. The law enforcers cannot themselves penetrate the house because they do not belong to that circle so what they did was to convince a prominent member of society to visit such house to find out what is really happening inside and that so many cars were congregating there. The law enforcers told the undercover man that if he is offered a cigarette, then he should try it to find out whether it is loaded with dangerous drugs or not. This fellow went to the place and mingled there. The time came when he was offered a stick of cigarette and he tried it to see if the cigarette would affect him. Unfortunately, the raid was conducted and he was among those prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Is he criminally liable? No. He was only there upon instigation of the law enforcers. On his own, he would not be there. The reason he is there is because he cooperated with the law enforcers. There is absence of criminal intent.

If the law enforcer were able to enter the house and mingle there, nobody would offer him a cigarette because he is unknown. When he saw somebody, he pleaded to spare him a smoke so this fellow handed to him the cigarette he was smoking and found out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug. He arrested the fellow. Defense was that he would not give a cigarette if he was not asked. Is he criminally liable? Yes. This is a case of entrapment and not instigation. Even if the law enforcer did not ask for a cigarette, the offender was already committing a crime. The law enforcer ascertained if it is a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The means employed by the law enforcer did not make the accused commit a crime. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause because in entrapment, the offender is already committing a crime.

In another instance, a law enforcer pretended to be a buyer of marijuana. He approached a person suspected to be a pusher and prevailed upon this person to sell him two kilos of dried marijuana leaves and this fellow gave him and delivered them. He apprehended the fellow. Defense is instigation, because he would not have come out for the marijuana leaves if the law enforcer had not instigated him. It is a case of entrapment because the fellow is already committing the crime from the mere fact that he is possessing marijuana. Even without selling, there is a crime committed by him: illegal possession of dangerous drugs. How can one sell marijuana if he is not in possession thereof. The law enforcer is only ascertaining if this fellow is selling marijuana leaves, so this is entrapment, not instigation. Selling is not necessary to commit the crime, mere possession is already a crime.

A fellow wants to make money. He was approached by a law enforcer and was asked if he wanted to deliver a package to a certain person. When that fellow was delivering the package, he was apprehended. Is he criminally liable? This is a case of instigation; he is not committing a crime.

A policeman suspected a fellow selling marijuana. The law enforcer asked him, “Are you selling that? How much? Could you bring that to the other fellow there?” When he brought it there, the person, who happens to be a law enforcer, to whom the package was brought to found it to be marijuana. Even without bringing, he is already possessing the marijuana. The fact that he was appointed to another person to find out its contents, is to discover whether the crime is committed. This is entrapment.

The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness.

If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have been a criminal. If the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. In instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate.

If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be criminally liable.

In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law.

Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. On the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It is not even mitigating.

In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. He is moving like a robot, unaware of what he is doing. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. Somnambulism is an absolutory cause. If element of voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12, refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause.

Mistake of fact is not absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. So in mistake of fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is justified. If not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mistake of fact anymore. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act.