Understanding Stages of Criminal Liability

Okay, so we're going to be discussing Article 6 to 10. We'll start first with Article 6. So what is Article 6? Article 6 pertains to the stages of execution, consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. So why do we have to determine all of these stages of execution? So that the court may be able to impose the proper penalty. So this is a crime. This is under the revised Penal Code and we determine the stages of execution as well as the persons criminally liable, the principals, accomplices, and accessories in order to arrive at the proper penalty to be imposed. So Article 6 states that in so far as consummated felonies, when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. We do not also have a frustrated felony in our zone. So there is no frustrated our zone as well. But the general rule is that we follow all this. So let's go to the development of a crime. So we have the internal acts, external acts, and under the external acts are preparatory acts, and after that will be the acts of execution. So the question is, are internal acts punishable? Are internal acts punishable? No. Is that a general rule or an absolute rule? That is an absolute rule, meaning to say there's no exception. So you can think of any crime for as long as it stays in your mind. No external overt act, then you're not a criminal. So it's not punishable. for as long as it stays in your mind. Now remember in Dolo, we have mens rea and actus rea. So the criminal mind and a criminal act must go hand in hand. So those two must concur. Magkasama sila. If one only has a criminal mind but do not have any criminal act, then no criminal liability. So for as long as no external acts are manifested. Now, if one, can there be a criminal act? Yes. Without a criminal mind? Yes. In the absence of intelligence. For example, a 10-year-old boy who killed his classmate, a 10-year-old boy. Is there a criminal act? Yes. Somebody was stabbed. Is there a criminal mind? No. Because the age of the child is only 10 years old. So according to Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, if the age of the child is 15 years old and below, there is no criminal liability. So internal acts are not punishable. And it's an absolute rule. If in the bar examination, you were asked, are external acts punishable? Are external acts punishable? It's not. Well, it depends. It depends. Because there are two types of external acts. Preparatory acts and acts of execution. So, the question is, are preparatory acts punishable? No. Right? Is this an absolute rule or a general rule? No, this is just a general rule, meaning to say there is an exception. And what is the exception? The exception is when there is a law that punishes such act. A person is not liable for... attempted, frustrated, or consummated felony because these are just preparatory acts. If you were going to say that is there criminal liability, yes, and the basis is because of that law. That law violated, that law that punishes that particular act. Are external acts of execution punishable? Yes. When you talk about acts of execution, you talk about attempted, frustrated, and consummated felonies. So if it's already an act of execution, then it's punishable. It probably would be an attempted, a frustrated, or a consummated felony. Now, if that is a preparatory act, of course, it's a general rule. You just check if there's a law that punishes it. if there's no law that punishes the same, then it's not criminal liability. So, say for example, husband, aged husband intended to kill his wife. The way to kill his wife is to use an insecticide. which he will place on perhaps the food of the Balew and etc. And his intention to kill his wife was made known to the police officers. So when he was in 7-Eleven and after buying an insecticide, he was apprehended by the police. And he was arrested because the police said, we know your criminal intent. You know your criminal intent to kill your wife. That is why you bought this insecticide. It's not going to be used for the insects, but you're going to use it to poison your wife. And so we are now arresting you. Question. Is the actuation of the police officer in arresting age? proper or not? The answer is not. Why? Because buying an insecticide is just a preparatory act. And there is no law that punishes the buying of an insecticide. When you're asked, then that's your answer. There is no law that punishes the same. So preparatory acts are not punishable. Illustration number two, R intended to rob X by going inside the house of, he planned to get inside to break the door so that he will be able to get inside the house of X at two o'clock in the morning because he knows that at that time, X is asleep, deeply asleep. So to break this door, he had in his possession a possession of pick locks. So may pick locks here. The purpose is to get inside so that he'll be able to enter, open this door and commit the crime of robbery. Now, once he was in possession of pick locks, R was apprehended. Question, is he criminally liable? or the first question is he liable for an attempted felony attempted robbery okay liable basha so on tatano is that a preparatory act or an or only acts of execution so at that time it's just a preparatory act So he's not liable for attempted robbery because that is not deemed as an act of execution. He's just at home. He's not at the premises of House X. Question. Okay. But is he liable for any crime? Yes. What? Illegal possession of picklocks. Why? Because there is a law that punishes that act of possession of picklocks. So illegal possession of pick locks is his liability. The person has criminal liability because there is a law that punishes that particular act. But he will not be liable for attempted robbery because that is not part of an act of execution. It's still a preparatory act. Remember that. Now let's go to subjective phase. and the objective phase. Okay, this should be a straight line. When you talk about a subjective face, it usually refers to the attempted stage. When you talk about an objective face, it refers to a frustrated one or probably could refer to a consummated. When is there an attempted felony? The time that he... convinces the commission of defense up to the time that he still has control. He can exercise control. He can control the consequence of his act. So that if he desisted, if he desisted, then he will not be liable, not liable for attempted felony. Now, if it passes through the objective phase, when you talk about the objective phase, when a person no longer has control, no control. It means to say, it's no longer dependent upon him, the consequences. So, this could... be frustrated or, as I mentioned, consummated. So if AIM pointed his gun on B and he still has control, he desisted. So he'll not be liable, right? He is for attempted because it is what? based on his spontaneous resistance. Remember, it's attempted. Go to the code of provision. When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt act and does not perform all acts of execution which would produce the felony, what is the reason why it was not? produced for reasons other than his spontaneous resistance. So the crime was not produced for reasons not attributable to his resistance. So he has nothing to do with it. So if the crime was not produced because... it is because of his own spontaneous desistance, then he will be not liable for attempted. Kung merong spontaneous desistance, no attempted. If the crime is not produced because of reasons other than his spontaneous desistance, then there's attempted. So eto, anywhere in this phase, where he still has control and if he desisted then attempted the person has no control like if it's if if the one inflicted is a mortal wound he has no control so that's an objective phase now to make it clear let's go to attempted As I've said, number one, the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt. So there must be an overt act or acts. And he does not perform what? all acts of execution which would produce the felony. So number three, crime is not produced. The crime is not produced or it's not consummated. What is the reason why the crime was not produced? For reasons, as I mentioned, and this is important, is other than his spontaneous desistance. Again, if there's spontaneous desistance, then it's not attempted. How will you compare this one to... to frustrated felony so frustrated he had what he had performed all acts of execution So there lies the basic difference between the two. Se attempted, the magic word is does not perform all acts of execution. In frustrated, he had performed all acts of execution. On the third element, the same thing, it's not produced. But the reason why it was not produced is different. So what is the reason why it was not consummated or produced? For reasons what? independent of the will of the perpetrator. Okay? So remember that. So the reason why it was not produced is because it is independent of the will of the perpetrator, meaning to say it has nothing to do with it. If the crime is not produced because it is dependent upon him, it's not frustrated. But for as long as he performed all acts of execution, insofar as attempted is concerned, he... does not perform all acts of execution. And the reason, and it was not produced, the crime was not produced because other than his spontaneous disease, thanks. Okay. What am I, I cleared it, sorry. What I'm trying to drive at, I'm trying to drive out is, the reason why it was not consummated inattempted is that for reasons other than his spontaneous. continuous resistance. In frustrated, the reason it was not produced is for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator. Now do not interchange one from the other. Do not interchange one from the other. There are students who interchange the definition of one from the other. We don't talk about spontaneous resistance in the frustrated stage. If there is a frustrated person, and there is spontaneous resistance, that is already immaterial. Spontaneous resistance has nothing to do with it. It will not be appreciated. It will only be appreciated in the frustrated... It will only be appreciated in the attempted felony. So it will be wrong if you argue your answer that we're talking about frustrated felony and what you keep on saying spontaneous desistance. That's a common mistake. You will argue with the frustrated whether it is dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator. Remember that. Now, frustration number one. A pointed his gun on the person of B. There was intent to kill. If there was intent to kill, it could be a homicide or murder. But when he pointed his gun on the person of B, to kill B, He suddenly had a change of heart. So he said, he thought that if I kill B, then I will only be prosecuted and I'll just spend the rest of my life in jail. So in other words, he desisted already. He did not shoot B. So question. Is A criminally liable? Liable ba si A? He pointed his gun and he desisted from killing B. Okay? Question. Is he liable for attempted murder? Or attempted homicide? This is the case, baby. May attempted felony barrito? Now you check on the elements. Okay, did he commence the commission of a felony directly by overtak? Yes, because he had a gun and he pointed his gun on the person of B. So, check. Second, did he perform all acts of execution or did not perform all acts of execution? He did not perform all acts of execution. Why? He only pointed his gun on the person of B. Check. Okay. So the crime was not produced. B was not killed. What is the reason? Is it based on other than his own spontaneous desistance? Or he has spontaneous desistance? He has spontaneous desistance, right? He desisted from shooting B. So it cannot fall under other than his own spontaneous resistance. Ergo, he's not liable for attempted felony. So he's not liable for attempted homicide or attempted murder as the case may be. Did he commit any crime? If he did not commit an attempted felony, is he liable for any other crime? Is he criminally liable for any crime? He is. And what is that? He's liable for grave threat. Because the act of pointing a gun on another person, that already constitutes the crime of grave threat. But he is not liable for attempted felony. Why? Because there was spontaneous resistance on his part. What is the significance of spontaneous resistance? Because it is a form of a reward given to a person who is about to commit a crime, but he hid the call of his conscience and returned to the path of righteousness. That is also allowed in our law. Second, This time, almost the same, A, with intent to kill, pointed his gun on the person of B. For example, this is a wall. He fired a shot. So he shot B. But he missed. He hit the wall. It did not hit B. Is A criminal liable for attempted? Okay. Let's go back again to the elements of the crime which I've shown you before. Did he or did he not commence the commission of the crime? by any overt act? Yes. The same argument as that of the one, he pointed his gun on the person of B already. He had a gun and pointed his gun. Secondly, did he perform all acts of execution or not? He did not. He did not because he missed. So, pagka nag-miss ka, it means to say that you're not able to perform all acts of execution to kill another person. So you need to shoot him again and hoping that this time it will hit me. So in this case, UK would consider, because there's something left to be done still, then it will be deemed as attempted. He did not perform. all acts of execution. So is he liable for attempted felony? Yes. All the elements are here. B is still alive. It's because A missed and it is not because of any spontaneous desistance on the part of A. I hope this is clear to you. Next, third, A intent to kill. Pare-pareho sila. Almost the same but not identical. The part again is gun on the person of B. And it hit B. Saan tinamahan si B? Sa finger lang. Dito lang sa finger. Or is it just on the fingertip? Just here? Will B die or not? Is it fatal or not? No, right? So is there something left to be done again to kill B? If A leaves, would B survive? Yes, because it's only a minor injury. So it's not fatal, not mortal. or not fatal, as others say. It's not fatal, it's not mortal. So, is there something left to be done? Yes. Because here, he did not perform all acts of execution because the one inflicted is not immortal. So, these two would be the same. We would arrive at the same conclusion that it's still attempted. And I'm just trying to emphasize so that you will understand what is the meaning of the word does not perform all acts of execution. If the injury is not fatal, it's not mortal. And that we would deem that the person had not performed all acts of execution, which would produce the felony. Okay, number four. A shot B. Again, with intent to kill. Okay, this time around, the nature of the injury is different. So, A shot B several times, three times, and it hit what? It hit his major organs, the heart. The kidney, the intestine, and even the brain. What could be the nature of the injury? It's a mortal wound. If you don't know what a mortal wound is, watch the squad game. There are so many mortal wounds. It's not time for you to watch it because there are seven episodes. You might not be able to study. We're already chasing criminal law. So, good luck because I'm now lecturing. This time, it's a mortal wound. Let's go to the elements of frustrated fellow me. So frustrated, he performed all acts of execution, which would produce the felony. You remember that earlier. And secondly, for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator. So let's look at the frustrated. Or in the attempted, the nature of each injury is mortal wounds. So did he or he did not perform all acts of execution? So he performed all acts of execution, right? Right? So it could never be unattempted anymore. So titignan mo na lang if the other element of frustrated felony is present. Because it already satisfies the first requisite, which is he performed all acts of execution, which would produce the felony. So it's a mortal wound. Now, next is, is it? The question is, is it dependent or independent? Dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? Or the will of the accused in this case? If it's a mortal wound, check. Then here, dependent or independent? So let's add some more facts. If a... lives would be die of course why because it's a mortal wound now what if say for example b was brought to the hospital who brought him to the hospital a bystander somebody saw what happened to b B was already lying on the floor, unconscious. And a bystander, a good Samaritan, brought him to the hospital. And because of the doctor, the timely medical attention given by the doctor, B survived. He was alive. So let's go. Let's go back to the last element of frustrated. Is it dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? It is independent of the will. Because who brought me to the hospital? Was it A? No. It was a bystander, the good Samaritan. And why did B survive? Because of the medical attention provided by the hospital through its doctor. Now, A has nothing to do with this. Why B survived? So it is deemed as independent of the will of the perpetrator. And so therefore, this is a clear case of frustrated felony. All the requisites are there. Next illustration. remember this illustration uh say a number one intended to kill b desisted not liable so not liable for attempted however he is liable for the crime that he committed because there is a law that punishes that act no The act of pointing a gun against another person constitutes the crime of grave threat, but not attempted ones. So, second one, A shot B and he missed, that's attempted. Or if A shot B and only inflicted not a mortal wound, it's still attempted. But if A shot B and he missed, that's attempted. be and be sustained a mortal wound checked and be survived independent of the will of the perpetrator or A, because somebody, a stranger brought me to the hospital and B survived, then it constitutes as independent of the will of the perpetrator. So this case is frustrated. I will give you a last illustration, number five. Let's make the story beautiful. H and W. H is the husband and W is the wife. H has G. Who is G? Paramour. But he cannot marry G. Why? Because he's already married to W. So G said that H knows that he's dead. I'm sorry, you cannot marry me. You're a thug. So, H is in panic. You should not be with G. You're a contraband in the whole world. Okay. What happened? He said, I will file a petition for nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Okay. Unfortunately, that petition was denied by the court. And when Jay knew about it, then he said, sorry, I have to go. Wait, wait, wait, said H. He said, I still have one mission. And that's where he entertained already. A criminal mind. That is what? To kill W. To commit the crime of parasite. So if he kills his wife, Then H can get married to G. Mas lalong huwag kayong magiging H. Ingatan yung puso nyo na hindi umimig ng sobra-sobra. Kung kayo talina. Lalo na kung alam nyo mahina ang puso nyo at mapusok kayo sa pag-ibig. Okay. So sabi niya, happy day H. Okay, I'll do it. Once we celebrate our anniversary, they dined in at an expensive restaurant. H is a physician. He's a doctor. He's a physician. So he placed an antidote to the wine of W while they were celebrating their 10th year. And true enough. Because of that poison that he placed on the glass of wine of W. So W was at the point of death. Nangisay siya in front of H. So nalaglag siya sa seat, sa chair. So nangisay siya. And at that point in time, biglang nang-recollect sa... ang bilis sa mind niya, na-recollect niya, na oops, minahal ko rin minsan itong babaeng ito. Biglang nag-flashback lahat. Yung pagbibigay niya ng mga bulaklak sa kanya. At number two, she's also the mother of our two children. Kawawa naman yung aking mga anak, na mahal niya rin. So what he gave is, since he's a physician, he placed an antidote to this uh to w he placed that on on the mouth of the w was uh w was dying in uh in front of him and because of this antidote okay w survived so nilason yun nalang si g ne joke lang okay mahal niya si g hindi niya magagawa yun but w survived The question is, is age criminally liable for an attempted or frustrated felony? Okay, let's go to the elements of attempted. Given that, the first element is okay. He commenced the commission of crime by overtaking. Okay, he was poisoned, he was given, he was given to his wife. Number two. Did he perform, did he or did he not perform all acts of execution which would produce the felon? That's what we're going to discuss if we're tempted or frustrated. So you will ask the question, what is the nature of the wound inflicted upon the Balyo? Is it mortal or not mortal? Someone asked me, sir, is it mortal or immortal? Is it mortal or not mortal? Or not fatal? It is fatal. Right? It's fatal. It means he's dying. So would you consider that he performed or not performed all acts of execution? He performed all acts of execution. So A is X, right? He attempted. X attempted. It will not fall under attempted because in attempted, He did not perform all acts of execution. So, pasok tayo sa frustrated. It meant already the first element of frustrated. Now, let's go to the last element. The last element is that the crime was not produced. For reasons what? Dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? So, that's the thing that you'll have to ask. Did W survive? because age has something to do with it or not. Did he? Yes. He gave him an antidote because he's a physician. And because were it not for the antidote, W would have survived at that time. So meaning to say, yung acne age is what? It's the reason why W survived. So it is dependent upon the will of age. The perpetrator in this case. And since it is dependent upon age, is it frustrated or not? Not also. So from this equation, he's not liable either for attempted as well as for frustrated felony. So does it follow that H is scot-free, has no criminal liability? No, H is still criminally liable. Not for attempted parasite, neither for a frustrated parasite, but they would be liable for physical injuries. Depending on the injury, it's a serious physical injury, committed by H against W, but not for attempted nor frustrated. So you have to memorize all these elements and understand. all these elements. When you will be asked in the bar examination, when you will be asked in my exams, I will be looking for your argument and your argument is based upon the legal basis, the requisites, the elements of attempted or frustrated and be able to apply the same. Let's go to another one. which is conspiracy. Conspiracy. The law provides that when there are how many? You cannot conspire with yourself, right? There should be at least two or more persons who come to what? An agreement? What is that agreement all about? To commit a felony or a crime. And there is a decision to commit the same. And they decide to commit the same. So there is an agreement as well as the decision to commit the same. What are the principles? Principles in conspiracy. Number one is that near conspiracy is not punishable. mere conspiracy is not possible why what is the reason because it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability. So if you're asked, is conspiracy punishable? No, mere conspiracy is not punishable because it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability. But this is a general rule, meaning to say there is an exception. There's an exception where mere agreement and a decision to commit a felony is already punishable. What is the exception? Except when there is a law that punishes the same. So we call it, what, conspiracy as a crime itself. Conspiracy as a crime itself. So whenever there is a general rule, and the exception. Now you check on the exception. Because if it... If the exception is not applicable, most probably we apply the general rule. Bawa, let's give an example. A and B conspired to kill X. The conspiracy is to commit the crime of murder. On the day that they have to execute... the crime of murder. B appeared. A was absent. But pursuant to their agreement, B killed X. And subsequently, X was arrested. So the question is, is A criminally liable? No doubt for B, B is liable for murder. He committed it. He died. What about A? Because subsequently the prosecutor upon investigation found out that A was also a co-conspirator. So since he's a conspirator, they charge him also of the crime. Now, the question is, is A liable? So the question is, did A perform any acts of execution? Aside from the mere conspiracy, did A commit any overt act in addition to the agreement? None, right? Well, on the day that they should execute the crime, A was absent. So A is not liable for any... for any other act because there's no overt that he committed he's not liable for murder but it would a be liable as a conspirator or or for conspiring to murder x no why because there is no law that there is no law that punishes conspiracy to commit murder Is there? No. None, right? So this is a mere conspiracy is not punishable. Remember that our jurisdiction is that there is no crime when there is no law punishing such act. There is no crime when there is no law punishing the act. No crime, no law, no law. Next question. Almost the same. But what was the crime that they conspired to commit? The crime is rebellion. Earlier, their conspiracy was murder. This time around, it's rebellion. So they said, September 1, they conspired, A and B conspired, to commit the crime of rebellion. And they will execute it on September 25. Come September 25, A did not appear, only A appeared. And pursuant to their agreement, B committed acts of rebellion. Nagpasabog siya ng bomba sa Malacanang, but he was apprehended. Now upon investigation, they realized, they discovered that A is also a conspirator. So question. What will be the criminal liability of A and B? A did not appear, right? So B is only the one who committed an overt act of rebellion. So B is liable for rebellion. What about A? What is the liability of A? Was there any overt act committed by A? None. His participation is only to conspire. So he's not liable for rebellion. Remember that there's acts of execution. There are no acts of execution. He's absent. But he's a criminally liable. Yes. For what crime? Conspiracy to commit rebellion. Because there is a law that punishes mere conspiracy. So he will be liable for... Conspiracy to commit rebellion while B is liable for rebellion. Sir, the act of one is the act of all. Yes. But in the case of A, he doesn't have an overt act. So it won't apply to him. For as long as A was not present. So that principle, the act of one is the act of all. Can you give an example, sir, where there is the act of one is the act of one? Because that's one of the principles also in conspiracy. So mere conspiracy is not punishable, except when there's a law that punishes the same. And secondly, number two, is that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. The act of one is the act of all. So how will you illustrate that? Tung di applicable, sir, itong dito. Because this one, the act of one is the act of all, not applicable because A did not appear. So what will be the example of the act of one is the act of all? A, B, and C. Conspired to commit the crime of rebellion. Ganun pa rin. Pursuant to the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, they will commit the crime of rebellion in Malacanang by throwing hand grenade to overthrow the government of the Philippines. So the participation of B is to be the driver, A will be the one to throw the hand grenade. And then his task is to, if that is an un-grenade, he will use his M16 automatic rifle to kill all the government officials in Malacanang. And that is to be, they plan on June 1 and they to take effect on the following one, July 1. Comes July 1. What picture? What did we see? July 1st arrived. On June 1st, they planned. July 1, what happened? To A, B, and C. Okay. A did not appear. Nowhere to be found. And his task is to fire his automatic rifles. People there. So, since... A was not present. Okay lang, they pursued. So A drove C to, driver lang siya to Malacanang. And once inside Malacanang, C threw a hand grenade. And he did. C was able to throw the hand grenade, but he was apprehended. The purpose is to overthrow the government. Question. What will be the criminal liability of A, B, and C? Si A, anong criminal liability? The person who did not appear. Is he liable for rebellion? No. But he is liable for what? Conspiracy to commit rebellion. Because that is a mere agreement to commit a crime of rebellion is already punishable. So conspiracy to commit rebellion is a specific crime. What about B and C? B and C are liable for actual rebellion. B questioned that decision. He said, it's unfair. Unfair. I was the one who drove. I didn't do anything. It was C who threw the hand grenade. If there is any liability on my part, it is only to what? As an accomplice. Is the argument raised by B tenable or not? Because it's only the driver. It was C who threw the hand grenade. The argument raised by B is not tenable. Why? This is where we apply. The act of one is the act of all. The act of C in throwing the hand grenade. And to overturn the government is the same act of B, although his participation is only the driver. And the driver of B is also the act of C. Why? Because there is conspiracy prior. And B performed his act pursuant to the agreement, pursuant to their conspiracy. So in other words, parang pursuant yan sa script nyo. Itong script mo, B, itong plinano natin, B, driver ka. Dadalhin mo kami sa Malacanang. Ako mag-throw ng ingredient, A, ikaw mga bumaril. Wala si A. Pero B, perform his act pursuant to their conspiracy. So he cannot escape from liability because he performed his role in the conspiracy, as agreed upon. And since there is... conspiracy the act of c is also the act of b but that principle the aqua one is that of all is not applicable to a why because he was not present now or to be found okay very clear next a person is only uh Mahaba ba ang lecture na ito? Liable for the crime that they conspired or agreed to commit. So you're liable to the crime that you agreed to commit. Ergo. So in other words, it is limited only. Liability is only limited to the crime that they agreed to commit. So if there's a separate act, in other words, he is not liable for the act or the acts which is not agreed upon. Or in other words, if there is an independent act, which is aside from the crime that they agreed, then that person alone is liable. The person who committed that act is alone liable. So general rule, this is the rule, general rule and the exception. Person is liable for the crime, for all the acts committed pursuant to the conspiracy that they agreed to commit. liable only for the crime that they conspired to commit. If among the co-conspirators, one performed an act independent, separate, or not subject of the agreement, he alone should be liable for that specific act, but not all. I discussed it in my lecture in Caso Discurso. I don't know if you can still remember the exception. So if A and B and C agreed to commit the crime of theft, they are friends of the victim X. They are the barcadas. So they cannot commit the crime of robbery because they are invited guests. They will enter. Okay, let's go. He said, our barcada classmate is rich. He said, okay, you what you will do is we will all get personal properties of X. So you, you go to the laptop. This is for the iPhone. And then perhaps this one is for the jewelries. He knows that there are some jewelries hidden in the X table. So when they celebrate, they drank. But you know, these are the thieves. They're able to get hold of this laptop. A and B got hold of the iPhone, C got hold of the jewelries of X. But C went further. What did C do? In addition to stealing, committing the crime of theft, C molested, committed acts of lasciviousness against X. So they were able to escape. but they were apprehended. So the question is, what will be the criminal liabilities of A, B, and C? Okay, what is the crime that they conspired to commit? Theft. Did they perform all of this according to their role? Yes. Were able to get hold of these items? Yes. So it's a consummated theft. So A. B and C will be liable for the crime of theft. Theft and theft. CCDN. Bakit? Because that is the crime that they conspired to commit. So a person is liable for the crime that they conspired to commit. Check. What about the act of C molesting X? So meron ganun eh. Diba? Anong gagawin natin sa act of molesting X? as lasciviousness committed by C against X. C, in addition, would be liable for that independent act, which is acts of lasciviousness. He's making C and X liable. So C alone should be liable, but not A and B. Why? Because that's not part of the agreement. The rule is that a person is liable only... for the crime that they conspired to commit. In this case, no, it was only theft. But acts of lasciviousness is not part of our agreement, then C.L.O. will be liable for that independent separate act. Okay, next. Is that an absolute rule? No, there's an exception. The exception is what I've said if there is a special complex crime. Special complex crime. Special complex crimes. Example of this which is under Article 294 which is robbery with homicide. Next, robbery with rape. robbery with intentional mutilation among others what does the law provides what does the law provide If by reason or on occasion somebody gets killed, somebody dies, or somebody was killed, then all of them will be liable for robbery with homicide. Although the killing or the homicide is not... part of the agreement for as long as it is by reason or location of robbery. We've said earlier that the general rule is that a person is liable for the crime that I only agreed to commit. Independent act, not liable. Okay. Except when the crime is a special complex crime because it has its own rule. under Article 294. And that is sinami, if by reason or in occasion of robbery, somebody gets killed, all of them will be liable for robbery with rape, even if, I'm sorry, robbery with homicide, even if homicide or the killing is not part of the agreement. What does that mean, sir? That's all. So, requisites. I will grab this to you. Number one, since the start, is that there is intent to gain. That's the essential element of robbery or theft is intent to gain. And then what? Intent to gain before, during, or immediately after the robbery. somebody dies and that would already satisfy young word now by reason or on the occasion of robbery again now let me explain another similar and when you submit certain reason or occasion of robbery if that is the start there is intent intent to gain or intent to rub somebody dies before or somebody dies during somebody dies immediately after the robbery, then all of them will be liable for robbery with homicide. Now, even if that is not planned, and even if that results intentionally or unintentionally. The homicide referred to here is used in a generic sense. It's not the homicide in the RPC after the murder. There is no crime of robbery with murder. Why? Because it's used again in homicide here is used in a generic sense. Whether the killing is intentional or unintentional, it will fall under robbery with homicide, even if the homicide is not part of the plan. Example, A, B, and C intended to rob X. in his house for so on to their agreement no intent to rob lang wala nang iba marangal lang kanilang hangarin no kumuha lang ng magamit para merong pantawid gutom a is the driver for someone to their conspiracy b is the lookout c is the one charged to amass all the personal belongings of X. Ang intent is to commit robbery. So she was successful in amassing all of these personal properties, the watches. So pagpasok na nalina ito, they forcibly opened the door. So robbery yan. And he took all the personal properties, watches, necklaces. I'm bracelets of X. Sabi niya, parang logy ako ah. Bakit sila, bakit ako lang? Sabi niya gano'n. So there's a risk on my part because if magising si X, then he will be able to identify me. So she decided to stab and kill the X. And he did. Question. For what crime or crimes would A and B and C be liable for? They were charged with robbery with homicide. Nagreklamo si A. Teka-teka mo, sabi ni A. Teka muna, that was not part of the agreement. Si A pala ay naging estudyante ni Dean Pestin. Kaya lang nung nilelecture niya ito, absent siya. Of course, hindi siya estudyante ng eskwelahan na ito. He went to another school. So, he said, that's right. He studied it. A person is liable only for the crime that they conspired to commit. Since we only conspired to commit robbery, C alone should be liable for killing X. So, he will be liable for robbery with homicide? Said A. For us, we're not liable. Question. Is the argument raised by A? Correct or not? The answer is not correct. Why? Because it falls specifically under special complex crime of robbery with homicide. And it provides that if by reason or location of robbery somebody dies, then all of them will be liable for robbery with homicide. Even if the killing is not part of the conspiracy. Okay, that's number one. Number two, almost similar but not identical. A, driver. B, look out. C, assigned to get inside. But this time around, he was able to get all the jewelries. But this time around, after A, B, and C were in the act of escaping, they were caught by X. X followed after them. But unfortunately for X, X fell down from the stairs and died. And they were charged with robbery with homicide. A opposed, contested the charge against them because, you know, it's only robbery, he said. We did not kill X. X died accidentally. Is the argument, question, is the argument of A? tenable or not it's not why because it is by reason or an occasion of robbery even if that is unintentional no liable for robbery homicide third illustration all the the same facts no except This time around, it was C. Sabi ni C, after amassing all those personal properties. And he was so excited. So he hurriedly went down from the stairs. Unfortunately, nalaglag siya. Patay si C. They were charged with robbery with homicide. Sabi ni A, this time around... This time around, we are not liable. Why? Because number one, we did not intend to kill anybody. Number two, somebody dies accidentally. Number three, the person who died is not X. The person who died is our brother. Our brother. The co-conspirator. Number four. We did not kill our brother. Why should we do that? He died accidentally. He fell from the stairs. He died because he was stupid. That's all he said. Question. Is the argument of a tenable? The answer is still the same because it was happened by reason or on occasion of robbery. Somebody dies, then it's robbery with homicide. But if it does not fall, class, if it does not fall under any of these special complex crimes, then we go back to the general rule that the person is liable only for the crime that they conspired to commit. Now, remember, this is the trick in the bar. These requisites must be present. All of these requisites must be present. You will remember this. To fall on robbery with homicide or robbery with rape. There was intent to gain in robbery with rape, but... Somebody was raped before, during, or immediately after. Eh, sir, paano kung ganito? Let's go back to this arrestation sa baba. X natin yung intention nila. They do not intend to commit robbery. This time, they intend to kill. They intend to murder X. So the same. A is the driver. B is the lookout. C is assigned. to stab and kill X. Okay. And X successfully killed C. After killing C, he saw that C had a jewelry box that he was hiding. And he forcibly opened this jewelry box. And alas, he was able to get hold of the... those expensive jewelries of uh sea so they escaped again and they were apprehended what will be the criminal liability of a b and c question is there a very bit homicide none what was the intent and there was intent to heal it's not intent to gain so x the two x then okay So we will now follow the general rule. So A, B, and C will be liable for all the crime that they conspired to commit, which is to murder the victim. So murder A, B, murder, C, murder. And the act of one is the act of all. Kahit na driver lang siya, ang act na C, act niya rin. Because they acted for so-and-so conspiracy. Next, what about the act of robbery? The act of robbery will all, she alone should be liable for the act of robbery. Why? Because it was not part of the plan. A and B will not be liable for robbery because it was that plan. She performed that independent separate act. So, CLO should be liable. Kung later on, binigyan niya lang si ANB sa kotse, Uy, nakakuha pala ako ng jewelry. Ito pala, oh. Ay, thank you. May bonus pa tayo. Then, the ANB will be liable as an accessories. As accessories to the crime of robbery. Eh, sir, paano kung rape? Ito. So, balik tayo sa illustration, ha. This time around, they still intend to commit the crime of robbery. Their crime is robbery. A is the driver, B is the lookout, C is the one charged to rob. He was successful. He was able to rob. Then he was caught. He said, this is nice. He raped her. And they were able to escape, but they were apprehended. So what will be the criminal liability of A, B, and C? They were charged with robbery with rape. He said, wait a minute. C, C, C, C only raped. We didn't. A and B are angry. How can we charge them with rape? We just want to get some jewelry to sell and eat. But not to rape. She alone should be liable. Is the argument of a tenable? No. Because there is such crime of special complex crime of robbery with rape. by reason or intention or by reason or an occasion of robbery somebody Was raped when? Before the robbery, during the robbery, or immediately after the robbery. Then all will be liable for robbery with rape. So A and B and C liable for robbery with rape. So A is angry with B. C is angry with C. No, I'm just joking. That's not included. Okay. But let's go back. Those are the principles. conspiracy. Next, kinds of conspiracy. Kinds of conspiracy could be expressed and implied. When it's expressed, it's hard to prove express because you have to prove the actual agreement. and the decision to do that. So usually, by experience, you need to get the testimony of a co-conspirator who will turn to be a state witness and pinpoint out the responsibilities of each and everyone. And it's hard. Now implied, you cannot prove the actual agreement, but... You know, the conspiracy can be deduced. You can deduce the conspiracy how? Deduce, okay, by if there is a commonality of criminal design. They acted or they act. acted in concert, which has the same criminal objective. So there's commonality of criminal design. They acted in concert for the same criminal objective. So that's it. Now, you've got to remember that there's still another principle in conspiracy. Conspiracy, which I failed to mention. Please add that to your note. Conspiracy must be proven, must be proved as the crime itself. It cannot be based on mere conjectures, suspicion, nor you or God feel. You can't just feel that you're a conspirator. You can't do that. You can't just feel the gut, suspicion, and conjecture. But it must be proved as the crime itself. In conspiracy, you prove that the act of one is the act of all. You prove that there's murder. But you will also prove the conspiracy as the crime itself so that all the responsible can be held accountable. Okay, I will give you two illustrations and tell me if there's express conspiracy. A and B are friends. Pakinggan nyo ha, huwag mo na antukin. A and B are friends. And while they're walking along the street, they saw X. Yung pala, B and X had an existing grudge against each other. Since high school. They're enemies. So, A and B are friends. And then B... They chance upon X. By chance lang naman to. So B and X had an altercation. Saan na? Di ba? Nagburahan sila. Siraulo ko pala. Mga ganon. Until it became a heated argument to the point that A, B slapped X in his face. Bigla na lang sinampal ni B si X. And All of a sudden, all of a sudden, A went at the back of C. and stab C repeatedly for 20 times. Another squad game question. Is there implied conspiracy between A and B to kill C at that point in time? Is there implied conspiracy? Meaning that their acts show criminality as commonality of criminal design. acted in concert. There is acted in unison. There's unity of purpose and execution. Those are the descriptions expressed by implied conspiracy. Let's go back. Is there implied conspiracy? No, there is not. There's no implied conspiracy in this case. It's not clear whether they have the same criminal objective. The act of A is liable for killing C because the wounds inflicted shows that he has criminal intent to kill C because he inflicted 20 wound stabs. no stab wounds what about a what about b what is the act of b only to slap c nothing more and nothing less right so in this case um since there's no conspiracy if there is no conspiracy another principle please write this down if there is no conspiracy a person is liable only for their own individual act individual act or acts. So A would be liable for, in this case, since there's no conspiracy, A will be liable for his act of killing or stabbing C, which causes death. B will be liable only for the crime of slapping C, which may constitute slander by deed, but not liable for the death of C. Next, illustration. Almost the same. A and B chanced upon X. B and X had an existing grudge. They had an altercation. But this time around, instead of slapping X, he pulled a knife and stabbed him repeatedly for 30 times. Lumabas ang ano. The heart, intestine, kidney, liver, all of that came out. Red. I don't know if you're able to listen to the actual case in my lecture yesterday. It's actual, right? Liver was eaten by a pig. Then they went out. It's a true story. And then, they separated, they removed the head, right? And then, they chopped his body into a gruesome one. This, for me, is not a true story. But that is a true story which I mentioned yesterday. And then, so, there. Stub wounds, mortal wounds, of course. A went at the back of X and got hold of an iron pipe. And hit X in his head repeatedly until it came out. The brain of X. Okay. So what will be the liability of A and B? Is there implied conspiracy? That's exaggerated. But very clear, right? There is. Implied conspiracy. There is a commonality of criminal design. There's unity of purpose and execution. And what is the same criminal objective? To kill X. Why? Because the wound inflicted by B against X is very clear. Now it's a mortal wound. It's a fatal wound. What about the wound inflicted by A against X? It's also a fatal or mortal wound. Thus, Now, there's conspiracy, the act of A and B. The act of A is also the act of B. The act of B is the act of A. We will apply the act of one is the act of all since there is conspiracy. Now, if there's conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. If there is no conspiracy, then they are all liable for their own separate or independent acts committed. So when this is asked in a bar, you have to determine, is there really an implied conspiracy or not? Because you will arrive at a separate, at a different conclusion. Okay, so we end with conspiracy. The other ones would just be a codal provision, light felonies. So Article 6, 7, 7. Light felonies are only punishable when they are consummated. Ergo, there is no light felony of what? There is no attempted nor frustrated. felony. There is no attempted or frustrated felony. Why? Because light felonies are only punishable when they are consummated. And what is a light felony? Light felony is when a person is punishable with what is the penalty? Arresto minor. When you talk about arresto minor, it's only one month. One day to 30 days. Or a fine of how much? 40,000 pesos. Or both. That's a light felony. Now, we say that light felonies are not punishable. Light felonies are only punishable when they are consummated. So there's no attempted or frustrated felony. There's no attempted or frustrated light felony. Except when it is a crime against persons or property. Ergo, so therefore, there is an attempted light felony of... crimes against persons. There's a frustrated light felony in crimes against persons or property. So, you will have to memorize what are those crimes against persons or property. Not light felony only. Because there could be unattempted or frustrated ones. Now, if it does not fall against crimes against property or crimes against persons, then if there's a light felony, then it should only be punishable when they are consummated. Okay, next. Nine. Okay, grave felonies. Grave felonies, classification of felonies. You have grave, less grave, and you have light. Light is... when the punishment is what capital or afflictive light when it is uh when it is correctional nothing like the arrest of menorah in canina and the final not exceeding 40 000. when you talk about uh capital talk about that afflictive memorizing your tone will be uh so reclusion perpetua so reclusion perpetua is not a capital punishment it is merely afflicted reclusion perpetua or you have got a reclusion temporal You got perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. You have perpetual or temporary special disqualification. You have prisión mayor. Correctional, you have prisión correccional, arresto mayor, suspension, and destero. When you talk about light, you talk about... arresto menor. Debt and reclusion perpetua are just, so you would know, they are indivisible penalties. Meaning to say there is no minimum, medium, or maximum period. So how can you divide the capital punishment? So there is no debt in its maximum period, debt in its minimum period. Maybe, if you remove the head, it's maximum. If you only remove half, it's medium. If you still have it, it's minimum period. There's no such thing. So, there's no such thing as perpetual reclusion. Though it carries the penalty of 20 years. one day to 40 years. Yet, the Supreme Court said that it's not a divisible penalty. Declusion temporal is a divisible penalty. It carries the penalty of 12 years, one day to 20 years. When I say divisible, I'm giving you an average eye view. You divide this equally into three. You have the minimum, you have the medium, and we have the maximum period. 12 years, one day to 20 years. Now, let's go to prison correctional. Prison correctional carries the penalty of... I'm sorry. Prison mayor carries the penalty of six years, one day to 12. years and then prison correctional is six months one day to six years. Arresto mayor is one month one day to six months and arresto menor is only one day to 30 days. So pag-arresto menor walang mat-mat-mat, yan o, days. One day to 30 days. Then arrest of mayor, one month, one day to six months. Then prison correctional, six months, one day to six days. So, sir, bakit may one day? Eh, para di mag-overlap, right? So, if it's six months, then they will overlap with prison correctional as well. So, we finish this one. Let's go to Article 10. It only simply means that, well, they have different rules, they have different characters, the Vice Penal Code and that of crimes punished under the special penal laws. But the RPC has a statutory character in the special penal laws. Now, let's discuss on the differences between the two. RPC, crimes committed under the Vice Penal Code. compared with that of crimes committed under special penal laws. RPC and special penal laws. So we say that in RPC it's bala in se. In special penal laws it's bala. prohibita or malum prohibitum what does it fall what does it mean when you talk about malign says malign says who knows that it is evil in its nature evil in its nature so i don't know is it killing a person killing a person is evil in its nature you know raping raping somebody is evil in this nature what about carrying a gun carrying a gun is not evil in its nature why you can protect your family yourself by using a gun now you will only commit a crime if you uh if that gun is not uh registered so because or not licensed because you can be church of illegal possession of firearms so union it's not even there It's only there's a crime because there is a law that punishes that act. And the person is guilty for voluntarily violating that law. Number two, since it's malayense, therefore, there is, as I mentioned, criminal intent is an element. Here, it's not an element. No, prosecution does not have to prove the criminal intent of the offender. In the RPC, you've got to prove. Like intent to gain in robbery, like in killing a person, intent to kill is an element of the crime. So there's specific intent for specific crimes. Next. Since it's malign, therefore good faith is a proper defense. Can you recall my previous lecture? Since in RPC there's criminal intent, then you can negate it by showing good faith. SPL, good faith is not a proper defense. Say, if you're carrying a gun, I'm carrying a gun to protect myself. No, it's not a proper defense. Good faith. No, it's not a proper defense. Sir, let's go back to the first one, sir. Will there be cases where although it's an RPC, yet it's not mala inse, but it's mala prohibita? Yes. But this is the general rule. RPC is mala inse. So give an example where it's an RPC and yet it is mala prohibita. Technical malversation. Technical malversation is mala prohibita, although it's punished under their vice penal code. Yes, because in technical malversation, under the RPC, we call it as illegal use of public funds. So there's no misappropriation in technical malversation. So there is a law that allocates for the use of a public fund. There's a public fund allocated by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose. Example, in a local government, in a municipality, where a public fund is allocated for the construction of a public library. Number two, that public fund is used for another public use other than for which it was intended. construction of a public library it was set aside for because there is a law passed upon by the local government in a certain municipality now what happened is that there was assuming that there was an earthquake no and that fund was used for rehabilitation of the municipality so there was no base appropriation except that it was that public fund intended for a public construction of a public building was used for rehabilitation purposes. So good faith naman. Can you raise the mayor as well as the local sanggunian? Can they raise good faith as a defense? No. Because it is, although it's an RPC, it is deemed as mala prohibita. Sir, meron bang SPL which is... Not mala prohibita, but it's mala in se. Yes. Plunder. Just like the lecture I'd made in Casa Discurso. Plunder is... An S is a special penal law, and yet it is mala in se. It is evil in its nature. So there's criminal intent that prosecution has to prove, and that the accused may raise good faith as a matter of defense. So remember that. What else? The stages of execution. And number five, persons criminally liable. When you talk about stages of execution, the ones that we lectured earlier, it's the consummated, frustrated, and attempted stages. When we talk about persons criminally liable, we're talking about the principles, the accomplices, and the accessories. Why do we have to determine that? in crimes punishable in the RPC in order to arrive at the proper penalty. And so far as SPL is concerned, this is not applicable because the offender is deemed, the stage is deemed to be in a consummated stage and there's also no persons criminally liable. because the offender is deemed to be a principal. Unless the SPL uses this. Unless the SPL uses this. There are certain SPLs that uses the stages of execution, that uses persons criminally liable. but generally uh the offenders are only the principles and it is deemed to be have been committed in a consummated stage just so you know panama you have although we will be discussing this uh just so that you will have an idea so consummated frustrated attempted how do we determine the penalty to be imposed at all straight to illustrate the tongue Once you make it frustrated and attempted, then we have the principals, the accomplices, and the accessories. The penalties provided for under the revised penal code is deemed to be imposed upon a person. upon a principal on a consummated stage. So, that's it. Deemed to be imposed upon a principal on a consummated stage. So, if it is committed by an accomplice, it's one degree lower. Then that imposed upon a principal on a consummated stage. Accessories is two degrees lower. Then that imposed upon a principal on a consummated stage. If it is committed in a frustrated stage, it's one degree lower. If it's attempted, it's 2 degrees lower. Ito lang yun. So that you would know. That's how we compute. No, that's why we determine the stages, the person's criminal liability, because it will affect the proper penalty to be imposed. Next. Number six would be the rule. of offsetting, rule of offsetting, or the appreciation of what we call as the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Now, Articles 11 to 12, justifying, exempting, we will go into Article 13, which are the mitigating circumstances. We will be discussing after that Article 14, which are the aggravating circumstances. Why do I have to study that? When I was in law school, I was studying that. I was reading it. What's the significance of studying all these mitigating and aggravating circumstances? Simple. Because it's also used to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. Let me illustrate this one. So you will be compelled to memorize because if you're not able to memorize what are the mitigating, aggravating, when we reach the final, after midterms, you will find it difficult how to offset. And you cannot arrive because when it comes to finals... Now we will be discussing on penalties. Zero mitigating, zero, we're talking about divisible penalties. This is significant. This rule is for divisible penalties. Now from reclusion, temporal, down. So if zero mitigating, zero aggravating, we impose the medium period. Oh, it's not working. Zero mitigating, one aggravating. We impose the maximum period. Maximum period, this is maximum. If it's zero-zero medium in the middle, when it is one mitigating, zero aggravating, then it is on the minimum. and then you offset. So assuming if there are three mitigating as against one aggravating, then you will apply the rule of setting, then apply it in the minimum period. That's why we determine that. The same thing, penalty, four, five, and six. Now with respect to number six, this one, NA also, not applicable. So even if there is a plea of guilt, which is, I will entertain the question after my lecture. Assuming that there are mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt, voluntary surrender, but the crime is SPL, we do not appreciate that. or increase the penalty. Next. Dean, sorry po. Sorry po to interrupt. Nawala po yung screen nyo. Oh, talaga? Opo, black screen na po siya sa amin. Sayang, kanina pa to. We just noticed now lang din po. Kala po namin lag lang kami. Yes, the majority of the class has said that they black screened. Oh, okay. I mean, you black screened. Okay. Can you see me? Yes. Okay. So it's not black. It's me, right? I mean, your share screen black screened. I thought you just black screened. Oh, this one? Yan po, Dean. Okay na po. Thank you po. You didn't see all of these tables? No, Dean. Nakita naman po namin. Yung sa ano lang po. Dun sa table po ng color, pakalawang red po. Ah, sa divisible. This one. Apo, apo. Okay. So, zero, zero. Zero mitigating, zero aggravating, medium. Zero mitigating, one aggravating, maximum. One mitigating, zero aggravating, minimum. And then you offset number four. Just in case, there are three mitigating as against one, then it's in the minimum period. This is the rule of offsetting. That's why we study that. At least now you would know the beauty of this. Why do we have to study the mitigating and aggravating? Because this will help us understand on how to arrive at the proper penalty to be imposed. Why do we have to study the principles, accomplices, and accessories? What will be the significance? Because the penalties are different for those who committed the crime as a principal, as an accomplice, or an accessory. Why do we have to determine the stages of execution which we discussed a while ago? So that we would know if we... what penalty to impose upon them because there's specific rules and formula as shown this on how to arrive. But that's specifically for RPC and not for SPL as a general rule. Now, lastly, nomenclature of penalties of RPC. This is peculiar to RPC only, but not for SPL. What do you mean, sir? um like reclusion perpetua versus life imprisonment this was this this was asked in the bar exam before how distinguish rp uh reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment reclusion perpetua is a nomenclature of penalties under the revised penal code life in life imprisonment is under special penal law and our piece reclusion perpetua carries the penalty karina as i've mentioned uh 20 years one day to 40 years life imprisonment none because it's actually literal life imprisonment so this reclusion perpetua pressure my own reclusion correction correctional these are penalties under the rpc and not spl spl there's a specific penalty provided for by law Unless, unless, that is only the general rule, unless the SPL adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the revised penal codes. So we end now with Article 10 and thank you. We can now stop sharing the, we can stop recording already.

This is under the revised Penal Code and we determine the stages of execution as well as the persons criminally liable, the principals, accomplices, and accessories in order to arrive at the proper penalty to be imposed. So Article 6 states that in so far as consummated felonies, when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. We do not also have a frustrated felony in our zone. So there is no frustrated our zone as well.

But the general rule is that we follow all this. So let's go to the development of a crime. So we have the internal acts, external acts, and under the external acts are preparatory acts, and after that will be the acts of execution.

So the question is, are internal acts punishable? Are internal acts punishable? No. Is that a general rule or an absolute rule?

That is an absolute rule, meaning to say there's no exception. So you can think of any crime for as long as it stays in your mind. No external overt act, then you're not a criminal. So it's not punishable. for as long as it stays in your mind.

Now remember in Dolo, we have mens rea and actus rea. So the criminal mind and a criminal act must go hand in hand. So those two must concur. Magkasama sila. If one only has a criminal mind but do not have any criminal act, then no criminal liability.

So for as long as no external acts are manifested. Now, if one, can there be a criminal act? Yes.

Without a criminal mind? Yes. In the absence of intelligence. For example, a 10-year-old boy who killed his classmate, a 10-year-old boy. Is there a criminal act?

Yes. Somebody was stabbed. Is there a criminal mind? No.

Because the age of the child is only 10 years old. So according to Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, if the age of the child is 15 years old and below, there is no criminal liability. So internal acts are not punishable.

And it's an absolute rule. If in the bar examination, you were asked, are external acts punishable? Are external acts punishable? It's not. Well, it depends.

It depends. Because there are two types of external acts. Preparatory acts and acts of execution. So, the question is, are preparatory acts punishable?

No. Right? Is this an absolute rule or a general rule? No, this is just a general rule, meaning to say there is an exception.

And what is the exception? The exception is when there is a law that punishes such act. A person is not liable for... attempted, frustrated, or consummated felony because these are just preparatory acts. If you were going to say that is there criminal liability, yes, and the basis is because of that law.

That law violated, that law that punishes that particular act. Are external acts of execution punishable? Yes.

When you talk about acts of execution, you talk about attempted, frustrated, and consummated felonies. So if it's already an act of execution, then it's punishable. It probably would be an attempted, a frustrated, or a consummated felony.

Now, if that is a preparatory act, of course, it's a general rule. You just check if there's a law that punishes it. if there's no law that punishes the same, then it's not criminal liability.

So, say for example, husband, aged husband intended to kill his wife. The way to kill his wife is to use an insecticide. which he will place on perhaps the food of the Balew and etc. And his intention to kill his wife was made known to the police officers. So when he was in 7-Eleven and after buying an insecticide, he was apprehended by the police.

And he was arrested because the police said, we know your criminal intent. You know your criminal intent to kill your wife. That is why you bought this insecticide. It's not going to be used for the insects, but you're going to use it to poison your wife.

And so we are now arresting you. Question. Is the actuation of the police officer in arresting age?

proper or not? The answer is not. Why?

Because buying an insecticide is just a preparatory act. And there is no law that punishes the buying of an insecticide. When you're asked, then that's your answer. There is no law that punishes the same.

So preparatory acts are not punishable. Illustration number two, R intended to rob X by going inside the house of, he planned to get inside to break the door so that he will be able to get inside the house of X at two o'clock in the morning because he knows that at that time, X is asleep, deeply asleep. So to break this door, he had in his possession a possession of pick locks.

So may pick locks here. The purpose is to get inside so that he'll be able to enter, open this door and commit the crime of robbery. Now, once he was in possession of pick locks, R was apprehended. Question, is he criminally liable? or the first question is he liable for an attempted felony attempted robbery okay liable basha so on tatano is that a preparatory act or an or only acts of execution so at that time it's just a preparatory act So he's not liable for attempted robbery because that is not deemed as an act of execution.

He's just at home. He's not at the premises of House X. Question. Okay. But is he liable for any crime? Yes.

What? Illegal possession of picklocks. Why? Because there is a law that punishes that act of possession of picklocks. So illegal possession of pick locks is his liability.

The person has criminal liability because there is a law that punishes that particular act. But he will not be liable for attempted robbery because that is not part of an act of execution. It's still a preparatory act. Remember that. Now let's go to subjective phase.

and the objective phase. Okay, this should be a straight line. When you talk about a subjective face, it usually refers to the attempted stage. When you talk about an objective face, it refers to a frustrated one or probably could refer to a consummated. When is there an attempted felony?

The time that he... convinces the commission of defense up to the time that he still has control. He can exercise control.

He can control the consequence of his act. So that if he desisted, if he desisted, then he will not be liable, not liable for attempted felony. Now, if it passes through the objective phase, when you talk about the objective phase, when a person no longer has control, no control.

It means to say, it's no longer dependent upon him, the consequences. So, this could... be frustrated or, as I mentioned, consummated.

So if AIM pointed his gun on B and he still has control, he desisted. So he'll not be liable, right? He is for attempted because it is what? based on his spontaneous resistance.

Remember, it's attempted. Go to the code of provision. When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt act and does not perform all acts of execution which would produce the felony, what is the reason why it was not?

produced for reasons other than his spontaneous resistance. So the crime was not produced for reasons not attributable to his resistance. So he has nothing to do with it.

So if the crime was not produced because... it is because of his own spontaneous desistance, then he will be not liable for attempted. Kung merong spontaneous desistance, no attempted. If the crime is not produced because of reasons other than his spontaneous desistance, then there's attempted. So eto, anywhere in this phase, where he still has control and if he desisted then attempted the person has no control like if it's if if the one inflicted is a mortal wound he has no control so that's an objective phase now to make it clear let's go to attempted As I've said, number one, the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt.

So there must be an overt act or acts. And he does not perform what? all acts of execution which would produce the felony.

So number three, crime is not produced. The crime is not produced or it's not consummated. What is the reason why the crime was not produced?

For reasons, as I mentioned, and this is important, is other than his spontaneous desistance. Again, if there's spontaneous desistance, then it's not attempted. How will you compare this one to...

to frustrated felony so frustrated he had what he had performed all acts of execution So there lies the basic difference between the two. Se attempted, the magic word is does not perform all acts of execution. In frustrated, he had performed all acts of execution.

On the third element, the same thing, it's not produced. But the reason why it was not produced is different. So what is the reason why it was not consummated or produced?

For reasons what? independent of the will of the perpetrator. Okay?

So remember that. So the reason why it was not produced is because it is independent of the will of the perpetrator, meaning to say it has nothing to do with it. If the crime is not produced because it is dependent upon him, it's not frustrated. But for as long as he performed all acts of execution, insofar as attempted is concerned, he...

does not perform all acts of execution. And the reason, and it was not produced, the crime was not produced because other than his spontaneous disease, thanks. Okay. What am I, I cleared it, sorry. What I'm trying to drive at, I'm trying to drive out is, the reason why it was not consummated inattempted is that for reasons other than his spontaneous.

continuous resistance. In frustrated, the reason it was not produced is for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator. Now do not interchange one from the other. Do not interchange one from the other. There are students who interchange the definition of one from the other.

We don't talk about spontaneous resistance in the frustrated stage. If there is a frustrated person, and there is spontaneous resistance, that is already immaterial. Spontaneous resistance has nothing to do with it.

It will not be appreciated. It will only be appreciated in the frustrated... It will only be appreciated in the attempted felony. So it will be wrong if you argue your answer that we're talking about frustrated felony and what you keep on saying spontaneous desistance. That's a common mistake.

You will argue with the frustrated whether it is dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator. Remember that. Now, frustration number one. A pointed his gun on the person of B.

There was intent to kill. If there was intent to kill, it could be a homicide or murder. But when he pointed his gun on the person of B, to kill B, He suddenly had a change of heart. So he said, he thought that if I kill B, then I will only be prosecuted and I'll just spend the rest of my life in jail.

So in other words, he desisted already. He did not shoot B. So question.

Is A criminally liable? Liable ba si A? He pointed his gun and he desisted from killing B. Okay?

Question. Is he liable for attempted murder? Or attempted homicide?

This is the case, baby. May attempted felony barrito? Now you check on the elements.

Okay, did he commence the commission of a felony directly by overtak? Yes, because he had a gun and he pointed his gun on the person of B. So, check.

Second, did he perform all acts of execution or did not perform all acts of execution? He did not perform all acts of execution. Why? He only pointed his gun on the person of B. Check.

Okay. So the crime was not produced. B was not killed. What is the reason? Is it based on other than his own spontaneous desistance?

Or he has spontaneous desistance? He has spontaneous desistance, right? He desisted from shooting B. So it cannot fall under other than his own spontaneous resistance.

Ergo, he's not liable for attempted felony. So he's not liable for attempted homicide or attempted murder as the case may be. Did he commit any crime? If he did not commit an attempted felony, is he liable for any other crime? Is he criminally liable for any crime?

He is. And what is that? He's liable for grave threat. Because the act of pointing a gun on another person, that already constitutes the crime of grave threat.

But he is not liable for attempted felony. Why? Because there was spontaneous resistance on his part.

What is the significance of spontaneous resistance? Because it is a form of a reward given to a person who is about to commit a crime, but he hid the call of his conscience and returned to the path of righteousness. That is also allowed in our law. Second, This time, almost the same, A, with intent to kill, pointed his gun on the person of B.

For example, this is a wall. He fired a shot. So he shot B. But he missed. He hit the wall.

It did not hit B. Is A criminal liable for attempted? Okay.

Let's go back again to the elements of the crime which I've shown you before. Did he or did he not commence the commission of the crime? by any overt act?

Yes. The same argument as that of the one, he pointed his gun on the person of B already. He had a gun and pointed his gun.

Secondly, did he perform all acts of execution or not? He did not. He did not because he missed. So, pagka nag-miss ka, it means to say that you're not able to perform all acts of execution to kill another person. So you need to shoot him again and hoping that this time it will hit me.

So in this case, UK would consider, because there's something left to be done still, then it will be deemed as attempted. He did not perform. all acts of execution. So is he liable for attempted felony? Yes.

All the elements are here. B is still alive. It's because A missed and it is not because of any spontaneous desistance on the part of A. I hope this is clear to you. Next, third, A intent to kill.

Pare-pareho sila. Almost the same but not identical. The part again is gun on the person of B. And it hit B.

Saan tinamahan si B? Sa finger lang. Dito lang sa finger. Or is it just on the fingertip?

Just here? Will B die or not? Is it fatal or not?

No, right? So is there something left to be done again to kill B? If A leaves, would B survive?

Yes, because it's only a minor injury. So it's not fatal, not mortal. or not fatal, as others say.

It's not fatal, it's not mortal. So, is there something left to be done? Yes.

Because here, he did not perform all acts of execution because the one inflicted is not immortal. So, these two would be the same. We would arrive at the same conclusion that it's still attempted. And I'm just trying to emphasize so that you will understand what is the meaning of the word does not perform all acts of execution. If the injury is not fatal, it's not mortal.

And that we would deem that the person had not performed all acts of execution, which would produce the felony. Okay, number four. A shot B. Again, with intent to kill. Okay, this time around, the nature of the injury is different.

So, A shot B several times, three times, and it hit what? It hit his major organs, the heart. The kidney, the intestine, and even the brain. What could be the nature of the injury? It's a mortal wound.

If you don't know what a mortal wound is, watch the squad game. There are so many mortal wounds. It's not time for you to watch it because there are seven episodes.

You might not be able to study. We're already chasing criminal law. So, good luck because I'm now lecturing. This time, it's a mortal wound. Let's go to the elements of frustrated fellow me.

So frustrated, he performed all acts of execution, which would produce the felony. You remember that earlier. And secondly, for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator. So let's look at the frustrated.

Or in the attempted, the nature of each injury is mortal wounds. So did he or he did not perform all acts of execution? So he performed all acts of execution, right?

Right? So it could never be unattempted anymore. So titignan mo na lang if the other element of frustrated felony is present. Because it already satisfies the first requisite, which is he performed all acts of execution, which would produce the felony.

So it's a mortal wound. Now, next is, is it? The question is, is it dependent or independent?

Dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? Or the will of the accused in this case? If it's a mortal wound, check. Then here, dependent or independent?

So let's add some more facts. If a... lives would be die of course why because it's a mortal wound now what if say for example b was brought to the hospital who brought him to the hospital a bystander somebody saw what happened to b B was already lying on the floor, unconscious. And a bystander, a good Samaritan, brought him to the hospital. And because of the doctor, the timely medical attention given by the doctor, B survived.

He was alive. So let's go. Let's go back to the last element of frustrated. Is it dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? It is independent of the will.

Because who brought me to the hospital? Was it A? No. It was a bystander, the good Samaritan. And why did B survive?

Because of the medical attention provided by the hospital through its doctor. Now, A has nothing to do with this. Why B survived? So it is deemed as independent of the will of the perpetrator. And so therefore, this is a clear case of frustrated felony.

All the requisites are there. Next illustration. remember this illustration uh say a number one intended to kill b desisted not liable so not liable for attempted however he is liable for the crime that he committed because there is a law that punishes that act no The act of pointing a gun against another person constitutes the crime of grave threat, but not attempted ones. So, second one, A shot B and he missed, that's attempted. Or if A shot B and only inflicted not a mortal wound, it's still attempted.

But if A shot B and he missed, that's attempted. be and be sustained a mortal wound checked and be survived independent of the will of the perpetrator or A, because somebody, a stranger brought me to the hospital and B survived, then it constitutes as independent of the will of the perpetrator. So this case is frustrated.

I will give you a last illustration, number five. Let's make the story beautiful. H and W. H is the husband and W is the wife. H has G.

Who is G? Paramour. But he cannot marry G.

Why? Because he's already married to W. So G said that H knows that he's dead. I'm sorry, you cannot marry me.

You're a thug. So, H is in panic. You should not be with G. You're a contraband in the whole world.

Okay. What happened? He said, I will file a petition for nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Okay. Unfortunately, that petition was denied by the court.

And when Jay knew about it, then he said, sorry, I have to go. Wait, wait, wait, said H. He said, I still have one mission. And that's where he entertained already.

A criminal mind. That is what? To kill W.

To commit the crime of parasite. So if he kills his wife, Then H can get married to G. Mas lalong huwag kayong magiging H. Ingatan yung puso nyo na hindi umimig ng sobra-sobra.

Kung kayo talina. Lalo na kung alam nyo mahina ang puso nyo at mapusok kayo sa pag-ibig. Okay.

So sabi niya, happy day H. Okay, I'll do it. Once we celebrate our anniversary, they dined in at an expensive restaurant.

H is a physician. He's a doctor. He's a physician.

So he placed an antidote to the wine of W while they were celebrating their 10th year. And true enough. Because of that poison that he placed on the glass of wine of W. So W was at the point of death. Nangisay siya in front of H.

So nalaglag siya sa seat, sa chair. So nangisay siya. And at that point in time, biglang nang-recollect sa... ang bilis sa mind niya, na-recollect niya, na oops, minahal ko rin minsan itong babaeng ito. Biglang nag-flashback lahat.

Yung pagbibigay niya ng mga bulaklak sa kanya. At number two, she's also the mother of our two children. Kawawa naman yung aking mga anak, na mahal niya rin. So what he gave is, since he's a physician, he placed an antidote to this uh to w he placed that on on the mouth of the w was uh w was dying in uh in front of him and because of this antidote okay w survived so nilason yun nalang si g ne joke lang okay mahal niya si g hindi niya magagawa yun but w survived The question is, is age criminally liable for an attempted or frustrated felony? Okay, let's go to the elements of attempted.

Given that, the first element is okay. He commenced the commission of crime by overtaking. Okay, he was poisoned, he was given, he was given to his wife. Number two. Did he perform, did he or did he not perform all acts of execution which would produce the felon?

That's what we're going to discuss if we're tempted or frustrated. So you will ask the question, what is the nature of the wound inflicted upon the Balyo? Is it mortal or not mortal? Someone asked me, sir, is it mortal or immortal? Is it mortal or not mortal?

Or not fatal? It is fatal. Right?

It's fatal. It means he's dying. So would you consider that he performed or not performed all acts of execution?

He performed all acts of execution. So A is X, right? He attempted.

X attempted. It will not fall under attempted because in attempted, He did not perform all acts of execution. So, pasok tayo sa frustrated. It meant already the first element of frustrated. Now, let's go to the last element.

The last element is that the crime was not produced. For reasons what? Dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? So, that's the thing that you'll have to ask.

Did W survive? because age has something to do with it or not. Did he? Yes. He gave him an antidote because he's a physician.

And because were it not for the antidote, W would have survived at that time. So meaning to say, yung acne age is what? It's the reason why W survived.

So it is dependent upon the will of age. The perpetrator in this case. And since it is dependent upon age, is it frustrated or not?

Not also. So from this equation, he's not liable either for attempted as well as for frustrated felony. So does it follow that H is scot-free, has no criminal liability? No, H is still criminally liable.

Not for attempted parasite, neither for a frustrated parasite, but they would be liable for physical injuries. Depending on the injury, it's a serious physical injury, committed by H against W, but not for attempted nor frustrated. So you have to memorize all these elements and understand. all these elements. When you will be asked in the bar examination, when you will be asked in my exams, I will be looking for your argument and your argument is based upon the legal basis, the requisites, the elements of attempted or frustrated and be able to apply the same.

Let's go to another one. which is conspiracy. Conspiracy.

The law provides that when there are how many? You cannot conspire with yourself, right? There should be at least two or more persons who come to what?

An agreement? What is that agreement all about? To commit a felony or a crime. And there is a decision to commit the same.

And they decide to commit the same. So there is an agreement as well as the decision to commit the same. What are the principles? Principles in conspiracy. Number one is that near conspiracy is not punishable.

mere conspiracy is not possible why what is the reason because it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability. So if you're asked, is conspiracy punishable? No, mere conspiracy is not punishable because it is only a manner of incurring criminal liability. But this is a general rule, meaning to say there is an exception.

There's an exception where mere agreement and a decision to commit a felony is already punishable. What is the exception? Except when there is a law that punishes the same. So we call it, what, conspiracy as a crime itself.

Conspiracy as a crime itself. So whenever there is a general rule, and the exception. Now you check on the exception. Because if it... If the exception is not applicable, most probably we apply the general rule.

Bawa, let's give an example. A and B conspired to kill X. The conspiracy is to commit the crime of murder.

On the day that they have to execute... the crime of murder. B appeared.

A was absent. But pursuant to their agreement, B killed X. And subsequently, X was arrested.

So the question is, is A criminally liable? No doubt for B, B is liable for murder. He committed it.

He died. What about A? Because subsequently the prosecutor upon investigation found out that A was also a co-conspirator. So since he's a conspirator, they charge him also of the crime.

Now, the question is, is A liable? So the question is, did A perform any acts of execution? Aside from the mere conspiracy, did A commit any overt act in addition to the agreement? None, right?

Well, on the day that they should execute the crime, A was absent. So A is not liable for any... for any other act because there's no overt that he committed he's not liable for murder but it would a be liable as a conspirator or or for conspiring to murder x no why because there is no law that there is no law that punishes conspiracy to commit murder Is there?

No. None, right? So this is a mere conspiracy is not punishable. Remember that our jurisdiction is that there is no crime when there is no law punishing such act.

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the act. No crime, no law, no law. Next question. Almost the same.

But what was the crime that they conspired to commit? The crime is rebellion. Earlier, their conspiracy was murder. This time around, it's rebellion. So they said, September 1, they conspired, A and B conspired, to commit the crime of rebellion.

And they will execute it on September 25. Come September 25, A did not appear, only A appeared. And pursuant to their agreement, B committed acts of rebellion. Nagpasabog siya ng bomba sa Malacanang, but he was apprehended. Now upon investigation, they realized, they discovered that A is also a conspirator. So question.

What will be the criminal liability of A and B? A did not appear, right? So B is only the one who committed an overt act of rebellion.

So B is liable for rebellion. What about A? What is the liability of A? Was there any overt act committed by A?

None. His participation is only to conspire. So he's not liable for rebellion.

Remember that there's acts of execution. There are no acts of execution. He's absent.

But he's a criminally liable. Yes. For what crime?

Conspiracy to commit rebellion. Because there is a law that punishes mere conspiracy. So he will be liable for... Conspiracy to commit rebellion while B is liable for rebellion. Sir, the act of one is the act of all.

Yes. But in the case of A, he doesn't have an overt act. So it won't apply to him.

For as long as A was not present. So that principle, the act of one is the act of all. Can you give an example, sir, where there is the act of one is the act of one?

Because that's one of the principles also in conspiracy. So mere conspiracy is not punishable, except when there's a law that punishes the same. And secondly, number two, is that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

The act of one is the act of all. So how will you illustrate that? Tung di applicable, sir, itong dito. Because this one, the act of one is the act of all, not applicable because A did not appear.

So what will be the example of the act of one is the act of all? A, B, and C. Conspired to commit the crime of rebellion. Ganun pa rin. Pursuant to the agreement.

Pursuant to the agreement, they will commit the crime of rebellion in Malacanang by throwing hand grenade to overthrow the government of the Philippines. So the participation of B is to be the driver, A will be the one to throw the hand grenade. And then his task is to, if that is an un-grenade, he will use his M16 automatic rifle to kill all the government officials in Malacanang. And that is to be, they plan on June 1 and they to take effect on the following one, July 1. Comes July 1. What picture? What did we see?

July 1st arrived. On June 1st, they planned. July 1, what happened?

To A, B, and C. Okay. A did not appear. Nowhere to be found.

And his task is to fire his automatic rifles. People there. So, since... A was not present. Okay lang, they pursued.

So A drove C to, driver lang siya to Malacanang. And once inside Malacanang, C threw a hand grenade. And he did.

C was able to throw the hand grenade, but he was apprehended. The purpose is to overthrow the government. Question.

What will be the criminal liability of A, B, and C? Si A, anong criminal liability? The person who did not appear. Is he liable for rebellion? No.

But he is liable for what? Conspiracy to commit rebellion. Because that is a mere agreement to commit a crime of rebellion is already punishable.

So conspiracy to commit rebellion is a specific crime. What about B and C? B and C are liable for actual rebellion.

B questioned that decision. He said, it's unfair. Unfair. I was the one who drove.

I didn't do anything. It was C who threw the hand grenade. If there is any liability on my part, it is only to what? As an accomplice.

Is the argument raised by B tenable or not? Because it's only the driver. It was C who threw the hand grenade.

The argument raised by B is not tenable. Why? This is where we apply.

The act of one is the act of all. The act of C in throwing the hand grenade. And to overturn the government is the same act of B, although his participation is only the driver. And the driver of B is also the act of C.

Why? Because there is conspiracy prior. And B performed his act pursuant to the agreement, pursuant to their conspiracy.

So in other words, parang pursuant yan sa script nyo. Itong script mo, B, itong plinano natin, B, driver ka. Dadalhin mo kami sa Malacanang.

Ako mag-throw ng ingredient, A, ikaw mga bumaril. Wala si A. Pero B, perform his act pursuant to their conspiracy. So he cannot escape from liability because he performed his role in the conspiracy, as agreed upon. And since there is...

conspiracy the act of c is also the act of b but that principle the aqua one is that of all is not applicable to a why because he was not present now or to be found okay very clear next a person is only uh Mahaba ba ang lecture na ito? Liable for the crime that they conspired or agreed to commit. So you're liable to the crime that you agreed to commit. Ergo.

So in other words, it is limited only. Liability is only limited to the crime that they agreed to commit. So if there's a separate act, in other words, he is not liable for the act or the acts which is not agreed upon.

Or in other words, if there is an independent act, which is aside from the crime that they agreed, then that person alone is liable. The person who committed that act is alone liable. So general rule, this is the rule, general rule and the exception.

Person is liable for the crime, for all the acts committed pursuant to the conspiracy that they agreed to commit. liable only for the crime that they conspired to commit. If among the co-conspirators, one performed an act independent, separate, or not subject of the agreement, he alone should be liable for that specific act, but not all. I discussed it in my lecture in Caso Discurso. I don't know if you can still remember the exception.

So if A and B and C agreed to commit the crime of theft, they are friends of the victim X. They are the barcadas. So they cannot commit the crime of robbery because they are invited guests. They will enter. Okay, let's go.

He said, our barcada classmate is rich. He said, okay, you what you will do is we will all get personal properties of X. So you, you go to the laptop.

This is for the iPhone. And then perhaps this one is for the jewelries. He knows that there are some jewelries hidden in the X table. So when they celebrate, they drank. But you know, these are the thieves.

They're able to get hold of this laptop. A and B got hold of the iPhone, C got hold of the jewelries of X. But C went further.

What did C do? In addition to stealing, committing the crime of theft, C molested, committed acts of lasciviousness against X. So they were able to escape. but they were apprehended. So the question is, what will be the criminal liabilities of A, B, and C?

Okay, what is the crime that they conspired to commit? Theft. Did they perform all of this according to their role?

Yes. Were able to get hold of these items? Yes.

So it's a consummated theft. So A. B and C will be liable for the crime of theft. Theft and theft. CCDN. Bakit?

Because that is the crime that they conspired to commit. So a person is liable for the crime that they conspired to commit. Check.

What about the act of C molesting X? So meron ganun eh. Diba?

Anong gagawin natin sa act of molesting X? as lasciviousness committed by C against X. C, in addition, would be liable for that independent act, which is acts of lasciviousness. He's making C and X liable.

So C alone should be liable, but not A and B. Why? Because that's not part of the agreement.

The rule is that a person is liable only... for the crime that they conspired to commit. In this case, no, it was only theft.

But acts of lasciviousness is not part of our agreement, then C.L.O. will be liable for that independent separate act. Okay, next. Is that an absolute rule? No, there's an exception. The exception is what I've said if there is a special complex crime.

Special complex crime. Special complex crimes. Example of this which is under Article 294 which is robbery with homicide. Next, robbery with rape. robbery with intentional mutilation among others what does the law provides what does the law provide If by reason or on occasion somebody gets killed, somebody dies, or somebody was killed, then all of them will be liable for robbery with homicide.

Although the killing or the homicide is not... part of the agreement for as long as it is by reason or location of robbery. We've said earlier that the general rule is that a person is liable for the crime that I only agreed to commit. Independent act, not liable.

Okay. Except when the crime is a special complex crime because it has its own rule. under Article 294. And that is sinami, if by reason or in occasion of robbery, somebody gets killed, all of them will be liable for robbery with rape, even if, I'm sorry, robbery with homicide, even if homicide or the killing is not part of the agreement.

What does that mean, sir? That's all. So, requisites. I will grab this to you.

Number one, since the start, is that there is intent to gain. That's the essential element of robbery or theft is intent to gain. And then what?

Intent to gain before, during, or immediately after the robbery. somebody dies and that would already satisfy young word now by reason or on the occasion of robbery again now let me explain another similar and when you submit certain reason or occasion of robbery if that is the start there is intent intent to gain or intent to rub somebody dies before or somebody dies during somebody dies immediately after the robbery, then all of them will be liable for robbery with homicide. Now, even if that is not planned, and even if that results intentionally or unintentionally. The homicide referred to here is used in a generic sense. It's not the homicide in the RPC after the murder.

There is no crime of robbery with murder. Why? Because it's used again in homicide here is used in a generic sense.

Whether the killing is intentional or unintentional, it will fall under robbery with homicide, even if the homicide is not part of the plan. Example, A, B, and C intended to rob X. in his house for so on to their agreement no intent to rob lang wala nang iba marangal lang kanilang hangarin no kumuha lang ng magamit para merong pantawid gutom a is the driver for someone to their conspiracy b is the lookout c is the one charged to amass all the personal belongings of X. Ang intent is to commit robbery. So she was successful in amassing all of these personal properties, the watches.

So pagpasok na nalina ito, they forcibly opened the door. So robbery yan. And he took all the personal properties, watches, necklaces.

I'm bracelets of X. Sabi niya, parang logy ako ah. Bakit sila, bakit ako lang?

Sabi niya gano'n. So there's a risk on my part because if magising si X, then he will be able to identify me. So she decided to stab and kill the X.

And he did. Question. For what crime or crimes would A and B and C be liable for? They were charged with robbery with homicide. Nagreklamo si A.

Teka-teka mo, sabi ni A. Teka muna, that was not part of the agreement. Si A pala ay naging estudyante ni Dean Pestin.

Kaya lang nung nilelecture niya ito, absent siya. Of course, hindi siya estudyante ng eskwelahan na ito. He went to another school.

So, he said, that's right. He studied it. A person is liable only for the crime that they conspired to commit. Since we only conspired to commit robbery, C alone should be liable for killing X. So, he will be liable for robbery with homicide?

Said A. For us, we're not liable. Question. Is the argument raised by A?

Correct or not? The answer is not correct. Why?

Because it falls specifically under special complex crime of robbery with homicide. And it provides that if by reason or location of robbery somebody dies, then all of them will be liable for robbery with homicide. Even if the killing is not part of the conspiracy. Okay, that's number one.

Number two, almost similar but not identical. A, driver. B, look out.

C, assigned to get inside. But this time around, he was able to get all the jewelries. But this time around, after A, B, and C were in the act of escaping, they were caught by X.

X followed after them. But unfortunately for X, X fell down from the stairs and died. And they were charged with robbery with homicide.

A opposed, contested the charge against them because, you know, it's only robbery, he said. We did not kill X. X died accidentally. Is the argument, question, is the argument of A?

tenable or not it's not why because it is by reason or an occasion of robbery even if that is unintentional no liable for robbery homicide third illustration all the the same facts no except This time around, it was C. Sabi ni C, after amassing all those personal properties. And he was so excited. So he hurriedly went down from the stairs.

Unfortunately, nalaglag siya. Patay si C. They were charged with robbery with homicide.

Sabi ni A, this time around... This time around, we are not liable. Why?

Because number one, we did not intend to kill anybody. Number two, somebody dies accidentally. Number three, the person who died is not X. The person who died is our brother.

Our brother. The co-conspirator. Number four. We did not kill our brother.

Why should we do that? He died accidentally. He fell from the stairs.

He died because he was stupid. That's all he said. Question. Is the argument of a tenable? The answer is still the same because it was happened by reason or on occasion of robbery.

Somebody dies, then it's robbery with homicide. But if it does not fall, class, if it does not fall under any of these special complex crimes, then we go back to the general rule that the person is liable only for the crime that they conspired to commit. Now, remember, this is the trick in the bar.

These requisites must be present. All of these requisites must be present. You will remember this. To fall on robbery with homicide or robbery with rape.

There was intent to gain in robbery with rape, but... Somebody was raped before, during, or immediately after. Eh, sir, paano kung ganito? Let's go back to this arrestation sa baba. X natin yung intention nila.

They do not intend to commit robbery. This time, they intend to kill. They intend to murder X. So the same. A is the driver.

B is the lookout. C is assigned. to stab and kill X.

Okay. And X successfully killed C. After killing C, he saw that C had a jewelry box that he was hiding. And he forcibly opened this jewelry box.

And alas, he was able to get hold of the... those expensive jewelries of uh sea so they escaped again and they were apprehended what will be the criminal liability of a b and c question is there a very bit homicide none what was the intent and there was intent to heal it's not intent to gain so x the two x then okay So we will now follow the general rule. So A, B, and C will be liable for all the crime that they conspired to commit, which is to murder the victim. So murder A, B, murder, C, murder.

And the act of one is the act of all. Kahit na driver lang siya, ang act na C, act niya rin. Because they acted for so-and-so conspiracy. Next, what about the act of robbery?

The act of robbery will all, she alone should be liable for the act of robbery. Why? Because it was not part of the plan.

A and B will not be liable for robbery because it was that plan. She performed that independent separate act. So, CLO should be liable. Kung later on, binigyan niya lang si ANB sa kotse, Uy, nakakuha pala ako ng jewelry.

Ito pala, oh. Ay, thank you. May bonus pa tayo.

Then, the ANB will be liable as an accessories. As accessories to the crime of robbery. Eh, sir, paano kung rape?

Ito. So, balik tayo sa illustration, ha. This time around, they still intend to commit the crime of robbery. Their crime is robbery. A is the driver, B is the lookout, C is the one charged to rob.

He was successful. He was able to rob. Then he was caught. He said, this is nice.

He raped her. And they were able to escape, but they were apprehended. So what will be the criminal liability of A, B, and C?

They were charged with robbery with rape. He said, wait a minute. C, C, C, C only raped. We didn't. A and B are angry.

How can we charge them with rape? We just want to get some jewelry to sell and eat. But not to rape.

She alone should be liable. Is the argument of a tenable? No.

Because there is such crime of special complex crime of robbery with rape. by reason or intention or by reason or an occasion of robbery somebody Was raped when? Before the robbery, during the robbery, or immediately after the robbery.

Then all will be liable for robbery with rape. So A and B and C liable for robbery with rape. So A is angry with B. C is angry with C. No, I'm just joking.

That's not included. Okay. But let's go back. Those are the principles. conspiracy.

Next, kinds of conspiracy. Kinds of conspiracy could be expressed and implied. When it's expressed, it's hard to prove express because you have to prove the actual agreement.

and the decision to do that. So usually, by experience, you need to get the testimony of a co-conspirator who will turn to be a state witness and pinpoint out the responsibilities of each and everyone. And it's hard.

Now implied, you cannot prove the actual agreement, but... You know, the conspiracy can be deduced. You can deduce the conspiracy how? Deduce, okay, by if there is a commonality of criminal design. They acted or they act.

acted in concert, which has the same criminal objective. So there's commonality of criminal design. They acted in concert for the same criminal objective. So that's it. Now, you've got to remember that there's still another principle in conspiracy.

Conspiracy, which I failed to mention. Please add that to your note. Conspiracy must be proven, must be proved as the crime itself. It cannot be based on mere conjectures, suspicion, nor you or God feel.

You can't just feel that you're a conspirator. You can't do that. You can't just feel the gut, suspicion, and conjecture.

But it must be proved as the crime itself. In conspiracy, you prove that the act of one is the act of all. You prove that there's murder.

But you will also prove the conspiracy as the crime itself so that all the responsible can be held accountable. Okay, I will give you two illustrations and tell me if there's express conspiracy. A and B are friends. Pakinggan nyo ha, huwag mo na antukin. A and B are friends.

And while they're walking along the street, they saw X. Yung pala, B and X had an existing grudge against each other. Since high school.

They're enemies. So, A and B are friends. And then B...

They chance upon X. By chance lang naman to. So B and X had an altercation. Saan na? Di ba?

Nagburahan sila. Siraulo ko pala. Mga ganon. Until it became a heated argument to the point that A, B slapped X in his face. Bigla na lang sinampal ni B si X.

And All of a sudden, all of a sudden, A went at the back of C. and stab C repeatedly for 20 times. Another squad game question. Is there implied conspiracy between A and B to kill C at that point in time? Is there implied conspiracy?

Meaning that their acts show criminality as commonality of criminal design. acted in concert. There is acted in unison.

There's unity of purpose and execution. Those are the descriptions expressed by implied conspiracy. Let's go back. Is there implied conspiracy?

No, there is not. There's no implied conspiracy in this case. It's not clear whether they have the same criminal objective. The act of A is liable for killing C because the wounds inflicted shows that he has criminal intent to kill C because he inflicted 20 wound stabs. no stab wounds what about a what about b what is the act of b only to slap c nothing more and nothing less right so in this case um since there's no conspiracy if there is no conspiracy another principle please write this down if there is no conspiracy a person is liable only for their own individual act individual act or acts.

So A would be liable for, in this case, since there's no conspiracy, A will be liable for his act of killing or stabbing C, which causes death. B will be liable only for the crime of slapping C, which may constitute slander by deed, but not liable for the death of C. Next, illustration. Almost the same.

A and B chanced upon X. B and X had an existing grudge. They had an altercation.

But this time around, instead of slapping X, he pulled a knife and stabbed him repeatedly for 30 times. Lumabas ang ano. The heart, intestine, kidney, liver, all of that came out. Red.

I don't know if you're able to listen to the actual case in my lecture yesterday. It's actual, right? Liver was eaten by a pig.

Then they went out. It's a true story. And then, they separated, they removed the head, right? And then, they chopped his body into a gruesome one. This, for me, is not a true story.

But that is a true story which I mentioned yesterday. And then, so, there. Stub wounds, mortal wounds, of course. A went at the back of X and got hold of an iron pipe. And hit X in his head repeatedly until it came out.

The brain of X. Okay. So what will be the liability of A and B?

Is there implied conspiracy? That's exaggerated. But very clear, right?

There is. Implied conspiracy. There is a commonality of criminal design.

There's unity of purpose and execution. And what is the same criminal objective? To kill X.

Why? Because the wound inflicted by B against X is very clear. Now it's a mortal wound.

It's a fatal wound. What about the wound inflicted by A against X? It's also a fatal or mortal wound. Thus, Now, there's conspiracy, the act of A and B.

The act of A is also the act of B. The act of B is the act of A. We will apply the act of one is the act of all since there is conspiracy.

Now, if there's conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. If there is no conspiracy, then they are all liable for their own separate or independent acts committed. So when this is asked in a bar, you have to determine, is there really an implied conspiracy or not? Because you will arrive at a separate, at a different conclusion.

Okay, so we end with conspiracy. The other ones would just be a codal provision, light felonies. So Article 6, 7, 7. Light felonies are only punishable when they are consummated. Ergo, there is no light felony of what? There is no attempted nor frustrated.

felony. There is no attempted or frustrated felony. Why?

Because light felonies are only punishable when they are consummated. And what is a light felony? Light felony is when a person is punishable with what is the penalty? Arresto minor.

When you talk about arresto minor, it's only one month. One day to 30 days. Or a fine of how much?

40,000 pesos. Or both. That's a light felony.

Now, we say that light felonies are not punishable. Light felonies are only punishable when they are consummated. So there's no attempted or frustrated felony.

There's no attempted or frustrated light felony. Except when it is a crime against persons or property. Ergo, so therefore, there is an attempted light felony of...

crimes against persons. There's a frustrated light felony in crimes against persons or property. So, you will have to memorize what are those crimes against persons or property.

Not light felony only. Because there could be unattempted or frustrated ones. Now, if it does not fall against crimes against property or crimes against persons, then if there's a light felony, then it should only be punishable when they are consummated.

Okay, next. Nine. Okay, grave felonies.

Grave felonies, classification of felonies. You have grave, less grave, and you have light. Light is...

when the punishment is what capital or afflictive light when it is uh when it is correctional nothing like the arrest of menorah in canina and the final not exceeding 40 000. when you talk about uh capital talk about that afflictive memorizing your tone will be uh so reclusion perpetua so reclusion perpetua is not a capital punishment it is merely afflicted reclusion perpetua or you have got a reclusion temporal You got perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. You have perpetual or temporary special disqualification. You have prisión mayor. Correctional, you have prisión correccional, arresto mayor, suspension, and destero.

When you talk about light, you talk about... arresto menor. Debt and reclusion perpetua are just, so you would know, they are indivisible penalties. Meaning to say there is no minimum, medium, or maximum period.

So how can you divide the capital punishment? So there is no debt in its maximum period, debt in its minimum period. Maybe, if you remove the head, it's maximum. If you only remove half, it's medium. If you still have it, it's minimum period.

There's no such thing. So, there's no such thing as perpetual reclusion. Though it carries the penalty of 20 years. one day to 40 years. Yet, the Supreme Court said that it's not a divisible penalty.

Declusion temporal is a divisible penalty. It carries the penalty of 12 years, one day to 20 years. When I say divisible, I'm giving you an average eye view.

You divide this equally into three. You have the minimum, you have the medium, and we have the maximum period. 12 years, one day to 20 years. Now, let's go to prison correctional. Prison correctional carries the penalty of...

I'm sorry. Prison mayor carries the penalty of six years, one day to 12. years and then prison correctional is six months one day to six years. Arresto mayor is one month one day to six months and arresto menor is only one day to 30 days.

So pag-arresto menor walang mat-mat-mat, yan o, days. One day to 30 days. Then arrest of mayor, one month, one day to six months. Then prison correctional, six months, one day to six days.

So, sir, bakit may one day? Eh, para di mag-overlap, right? So, if it's six months, then they will overlap with prison correctional as well.

So, we finish this one. Let's go to Article 10. It only simply means that, well, they have different rules, they have different characters, the Vice Penal Code and that of crimes punished under the special penal laws. But the RPC has a statutory character in the special penal laws.

Now, let's discuss on the differences between the two. RPC, crimes committed under the Vice Penal Code. compared with that of crimes committed under special penal laws.

RPC and special penal laws. So we say that in RPC it's bala in se. In special penal laws it's bala.

prohibita or malum prohibitum what does it fall what does it mean when you talk about malign says malign says who knows that it is evil in its nature evil in its nature so i don't know is it killing a person killing a person is evil in its nature you know raping raping somebody is evil in this nature what about carrying a gun carrying a gun is not evil in its nature why you can protect your family yourself by using a gun now you will only commit a crime if you uh if that gun is not uh registered so because or not licensed because you can be church of illegal possession of firearms so union it's not even there It's only there's a crime because there is a law that punishes that act. And the person is guilty for voluntarily violating that law. Number two, since it's malayense, therefore, there is, as I mentioned, criminal intent is an element. Here, it's not an element. No, prosecution does not have to prove the criminal intent of the offender.

In the RPC, you've got to prove. Like intent to gain in robbery, like in killing a person, intent to kill is an element of the crime. So there's specific intent for specific crimes. Next.

Since it's malign, therefore good faith is a proper defense. Can you recall my previous lecture? Since in RPC there's criminal intent, then you can negate it by showing good faith. SPL, good faith is not a proper defense. Say, if you're carrying a gun, I'm carrying a gun to protect myself.

No, it's not a proper defense. Good faith. No, it's not a proper defense.

Sir, let's go back to the first one, sir. Will there be cases where although it's an RPC, yet it's not mala inse, but it's mala prohibita? Yes. But this is the general rule.

RPC is mala inse. So give an example where it's an RPC and yet it is mala prohibita. Technical malversation.

Technical malversation is mala prohibita, although it's punished under their vice penal code. Yes, because in technical malversation, under the RPC, we call it as illegal use of public funds. So there's no misappropriation in technical malversation.

So there is a law that allocates for the use of a public fund. There's a public fund allocated by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose. Example, in a local government, in a municipality, where a public fund is allocated for the construction of a public library.

Number two, that public fund is used for another public use other than for which it was intended. construction of a public library it was set aside for because there is a law passed upon by the local government in a certain municipality now what happened is that there was assuming that there was an earthquake no and that fund was used for rehabilitation of the municipality so there was no base appropriation except that it was that public fund intended for a public construction of a public building was used for rehabilitation purposes. So good faith naman.

Can you raise the mayor as well as the local sanggunian? Can they raise good faith as a defense? No. Because it is, although it's an RPC, it is deemed as mala prohibita. Sir, meron bang SPL which is...

Not mala prohibita, but it's mala in se. Yes. Plunder. Just like the lecture I'd made in Casa Discurso. Plunder is...

An S is a special penal law, and yet it is mala in se. It is evil in its nature. So there's criminal intent that prosecution has to prove, and that the accused may raise good faith as a matter of defense.

So remember that. What else? The stages of execution. And number five, persons criminally liable.

When you talk about stages of execution, the ones that we lectured earlier, it's the consummated, frustrated, and attempted stages. When we talk about persons criminally liable, we're talking about the principles, the accomplices, and the accessories. Why do we have to determine that?

in crimes punishable in the RPC in order to arrive at the proper penalty. And so far as SPL is concerned, this is not applicable because the offender is deemed, the stage is deemed to be in a consummated stage and there's also no persons criminally liable. because the offender is deemed to be a principal. Unless the SPL uses this.

Unless the SPL uses this. There are certain SPLs that uses the stages of execution, that uses persons criminally liable. but generally uh the offenders are only the principles and it is deemed to be have been committed in a consummated stage just so you know panama you have although we will be discussing this uh just so that you will have an idea so consummated frustrated attempted how do we determine the penalty to be imposed at all straight to illustrate the tongue Once you make it frustrated and attempted, then we have the principals, the accomplices, and the accessories.

The penalties provided for under the revised penal code is deemed to be imposed upon a person. upon a principal on a consummated stage. So, that's it. Deemed to be imposed upon a principal on a consummated stage. So, if it is committed by an accomplice, it's one degree lower.

Then that imposed upon a principal on a consummated stage. Accessories is two degrees lower. Then that imposed upon a principal on a consummated stage.

If it is committed in a frustrated stage, it's one degree lower. If it's attempted, it's 2 degrees lower. Ito lang yun. So that you would know. That's how we compute.

No, that's why we determine the stages, the person's criminal liability, because it will affect the proper penalty to be imposed. Next. Number six would be the rule. of offsetting, rule of offsetting, or the appreciation of what we call as the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Now, Articles 11 to 12, justifying, exempting, we will go into Article 13, which are the mitigating circumstances.

We will be discussing after that Article 14, which are the aggravating circumstances. Why do I have to study that? When I was in law school, I was studying that.

I was reading it. What's the significance of studying all these mitigating and aggravating circumstances? Simple.

Because it's also used to determine the proper penalty to be imposed. Let me illustrate this one. So you will be compelled to memorize because if you're not able to memorize what are the mitigating, aggravating, when we reach the final, after midterms, you will find it difficult how to offset. And you cannot arrive because when it comes to finals...

Now we will be discussing on penalties. Zero mitigating, zero, we're talking about divisible penalties. This is significant. This rule is for divisible penalties.

Now from reclusion, temporal, down. So if zero mitigating, zero aggravating, we impose the medium period. Oh, it's not working. Zero mitigating, one aggravating.

We impose the maximum period. Maximum period, this is maximum. If it's zero-zero medium in the middle, when it is one mitigating, zero aggravating, then it is on the minimum.

and then you offset. So assuming if there are three mitigating as against one aggravating, then you will apply the rule of setting, then apply it in the minimum period. That's why we determine that.

The same thing, penalty, four, five, and six. Now with respect to number six, this one, NA also, not applicable. So even if there is a plea of guilt, which is, I will entertain the question after my lecture.

Assuming that there are mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt, voluntary surrender, but the crime is SPL, we do not appreciate that. or increase the penalty. Next.

Dean, sorry po. Sorry po to interrupt. Nawala po yung screen nyo. Oh, talaga? Opo, black screen na po siya sa amin.

Sayang, kanina pa to. We just noticed now lang din po. Kala po namin lag lang kami.

Yes, the majority of the class has said that they black screened. Oh, okay. I mean, you black screened. Okay. Can you see me?

Yes. Okay. So it's not black.

It's me, right? I mean, your share screen black screened. I thought you just black screened.

Oh, this one? Yan po, Dean. Okay na po.

Thank you po. You didn't see all of these tables? No, Dean. Nakita naman po namin. Yung sa ano lang po.

Dun sa table po ng color, pakalawang red po. Ah, sa divisible. This one.

Apo, apo. Okay. So, zero, zero.

Zero mitigating, zero aggravating, medium. Zero mitigating, one aggravating, maximum. One mitigating, zero aggravating, minimum.

And then you offset number four. Just in case, there are three mitigating as against one, then it's in the minimum period. This is the rule of offsetting. That's why we study that.

At least now you would know the beauty of this. Why do we have to study the mitigating and aggravating? Because this will help us understand on how to arrive at the proper penalty to be imposed. Why do we have to study the principles, accomplices, and accessories? What will be the significance?

Because the penalties are different for those who committed the crime as a principal, as an accomplice, or an accessory. Why do we have to determine the stages of execution which we discussed a while ago? So that we would know if we... what penalty to impose upon them because there's specific rules and formula as shown this on how to arrive. But that's specifically for RPC and not for SPL as a general rule.

Now, lastly, nomenclature of penalties of RPC. This is peculiar to RPC only, but not for SPL. What do you mean, sir? um like reclusion perpetua versus life imprisonment this was this this was asked in the bar exam before how distinguish rp uh reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment reclusion perpetua is a nomenclature of penalties under the revised penal code life in life imprisonment is under special penal law and our piece reclusion perpetua carries the penalty karina as i've mentioned uh 20 years one day to 40 years life imprisonment none because it's actually literal life imprisonment so this reclusion perpetua pressure my own reclusion correction correctional these are penalties under the rpc and not spl spl there's a specific penalty provided for by law Unless, unless, that is only the general rule, unless the SPL adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the revised penal codes.

So we end now with Article 10 and thank you. We can now stop sharing the, we can stop recording already.

Transcript for:Understanding Stages of Criminal Liability

Transcript for:
Understanding Stages of Criminal Liability