READING 1
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA
COLLEGE OF LAW
Intramuros, Manila
DCP Nikki Rose D. Esperanza
Academic Year 2021-2022, 1st Sem
COURSE SYLLABUS IN CRIMINAL LAW 1
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
a. Definition
b. Sources: Philippine Constitution (1987), Art II, Sec 5; Art. VI, Sec. 1
Cases: People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil 124 (1922)
US vs Pablo, 35 Phil 94 (1916)
c. Purpose/Theories
Case: Magno vs. CA, GR. No. 96132, June 26, 1992
d. Limitations: Philippine Constitution, Art III, Secs 1, 14
2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule. 115
Civil Code, Art. 2
Other Laws such as VFA or EDCA
Cases: Romualdez vs. COMELEC, GR 167011, April 30, 2008
Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, READ FULL TEXT
GR 178552, October 5, 2010
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560,
November 19, 2011
People vs. Dacuycuy, GR No. L-45127, May 5, 1929
Pesigan vs. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174 (1984)
e. Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. Diplomatic Immunity
Minucher vs. Scalzo, G.R. no. 142396 Feb. 11, 2003
Liang vs. People, G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2011
2. Retroactivity
People vs. Lacson, GR 149453, April 1, 2003
Go vs. Dimagiba, GR 151876 June 21, 2005
3. Territoriality
PD 1599; UNCLOS
Article 2, RPC
Constitution (1987), Article I
UFA, Article V
US v. Ah sing, 36 Phil 978 (1917)
Miquiabas vs. Commanding General, 80 Phil 267 (1945)
US v. Bull, 15 Phil. 7
People v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729
People v. Look Chow, 18 Phil. 573
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil. 19
f. Jurisdiction
a. Sec. 15, Rule 110, Rules of Court
French Rule.
English Rule
NOTES:
1. Theories
a. Positivist
b. Classical
c. Eclectic
d.
UTILITARIAN THEORY or PROTECTIVE THEORY- penalties or punishment is given for
the protection of the society against bad ferson char hahahha (you can add up here na kaya
“People vs____” yung sa cases ay dahil state ang petitioner since criminal offenses ay threat
sa state)
2. Date of Effectiveness
ARTICLE 3. DEFINITION OF FELONY
a. Dolo vs. Culpa
People v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 257
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257
People v. Pugay, GR L-74324 Nov. 17, 1988
People v. Garcia, GR 153591 February 23, 2004
Garcia v. CA, GR 157171 March 14, 2006
Manuel v. People, GR 165842 Nov. 29, 2005
People v. Delim, GR 142773, January 28, 2003
Ivler s. San Pedro, GR No. 172716, November 17, 2010
Calimutan vs. People, GR No. 152133, February 9, 2006
PROXIMATE CAUSE- that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred
Diego v. Castillo, A.M RTJ-02-1673, August 11, 2004
US v. Valdez (41 Phil 497)
Padilla vs Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988)
b. Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita
People v. Bayona, 61 Phil. 181
US v. Chico, 14 Phil. 128
Padilla v. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988)
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, November 19, 2011
ARTICLE 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Check Proximate Cause again.
People v. Iligan, 191 SCRA 643
People v. Mananquil, 132 SCRA 198
Quinto vs. Andres, et. al. GR 155791 March 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 511
People v. Gona, 54 Phil 605
People v. Mabug-at, 51 Phil 697
People v. Quianzon, 62 Phil. 162
Urbano vs. IAC, GR 72964, January 7, 1988
Belbis v. People, November 14, 2012
People v. Ulep, GR L-36858, June 20, 1998
People v. Toleng, et al, GR L-333535, January 17, 1975
Impossible Crimes - accomplishment is inherently impossible
(Fiscal will ask situational question)
Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52
People v. Domasian, 219 SCRA 245
People v. Enoja, GR 102596, December 17, 1999
Jacinto v. People, GR 162540, July 13, 2009
ARTICLE 6. STAGES OF FELONIES
Attempted/Frustrated/Consummated, overt acts, acts of execution
Differentiate Attempted, Frustrated, and consummated (Situational Question)
Internal vs External Act
Preparatory (planning or preparation) vs Overt Acts (the deed or activity
indicating that a crime will be committed- if carried out this will definitely
consummate the crime)
a. Subjective and Objective phase of a felony
SUBJECTIVE- beginning of the commission up to the point where u still have
control of the act (kasama even the natural course as long as it was cause by
the commission)
NOTE: Attempted will NOT pass subjective phase, if it lumagpas na sa
subjective automatic na frustrated/consummated na
U.S. v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209
b. Rape
People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 306
People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (LANDMARK WHEN IT COMES TO
RAPE)
May attempted rape ba? None.
Kelan nagiging rape? As long as there is a slight penetration of the
female genitalia, so pumasok man fully or hindi, napunit man ang
hymen or not as long as may penetration sa labia, it is rape.
-Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Rape = What distinguishes is the intent to
lie.
Baleros v. People, GR No. 138033, February 22, 2006
Cruz v. People, GR No. 166441, October 8, 2014
c. Theft
Valenzuela vs. People, 525 SCRA 306
d. Robbery
People v. Lamahang, 62 Phil. 703
People v. Salvillam, 184 SCRA 671
e. Murder
-There is an intent to kill
How to prove ITK:
1. Motive
2. Number of wounds inflicted (and if saan located, kung fatal
ba)
3. Weapon used
4. Manner
MURDER v. HOMICIDE (You will not discuss it thoroughly since sa Crim II pa
ito)
-What differentiate Murder vs Homicide
Murder= qualifying circumstance (Treachery, Public Calamity,
Vessel/Vehicle, Reward, Evident Premeditation, Cruelty) **so pag ang
homicide ay may qualifying cir. Automatic na murder na sya.
Epifanio vs. People, GR 157057, June 26, 2007 (This case will mention
ITK)
People v. Sy Pio, 94 Phil. 885
People v. Ravelo, 202 SCRA 655
Velasco v. People, GR No. 166479, February 28, 2006 (Mentions
treachery= element of murder)
People v. Almazan, GR Nos. 138943-44, September 17, 2001
f. Homicide
People v. Kalalom, 559 Phil. 715
People v. Listerio, GR No. 122099, July 5, 2000
g. Estafa
US v. Dominguez, 41 Phil. 409
h. Bribery
Pozar v. CA, GR L-62439, October 23, 1984
i. Arson
People v. Hernandez, 54 Phil 122
US v. Valdez, 39 Phil. 240
ARTICLE 8
1. Conspiracy to a Felony
2. Conspiracy as a Manner incurring criminal liability.
Direct proof NOT NEEDED. (Note: Fiscal will ask if may indirect conspiracy—Yes.
HAHAHAHA napahamak grades ko dito kaya pls yes ang sagot)
regardless of the extent and character of their participation because, the act of one
conspirator is the act of all.
Fernan Jr, et al vs. People, GR 145927, August 24, 2007
People vs. Comadre, GR No. 153559, June 8, 2004
Li vs. People, GR No. 127962, April 14, 2004
Garcia vs. CA, GR No. 124036, October 23, 2001
People vs. Tabuso, GR No. 113708, October 26, 1999
People vs. Pugay, GR L-74324 Nov. 17, 1988
ARTICLE 10
Ladonga vs. People, GR 141066, February 17, 2005
People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555
Go-Tan vs. Tan, GR 168852, September 30, 2008
BOOK REFERENCES
1. Revised Penal Code Annotated, Luis B. Reyes
