REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK I
Oral Revalida Reviewer
Articles 1-13
RPC QUESTIONS ANSWERS
Provisions
Article 2 What are the exceptions 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
to the territoriality or airship;
principle under Article 2 2.) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Revised Penal of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
Code? issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3.) Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into those Islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4.) While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5.) Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
Article 3 What are the elements 1.) That there must be an act or omission
of felonies under Article 2.) That the act or omission must be punishable by the
3 of the Revised Penal Revised Penal Code.
Code? 3.) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by
means of dolo or culpa.
Article 3 What is the difference In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender
between culpable felony is malicious, with deliberate intent, and has the intention
from intentional felony? to cause an injury to another while culpable felonies, the
act or omission of the offender is not malicious and the
injury caused by the offender to another person is
unintentional.
Article 3 4. What are the He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting
requisites of dolo or to do an act;
malice? He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or
omitting to do an act;
He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to
do the act.
Article 2 5. What is the exception Whenever a new law is more favorable to the accused.
to the prospectivity
principle under Article 2
of the Revised Penal
Code?
Article 2 6. What are the He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting
requisites of culpable to do an act;
felonies? He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or
omitting to do an act;
He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS
FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or omitting to
the act.
Article 4 What is an impossible An act which would be an offense against persons or
crime? property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
Article 4 What are the three 1) Error in personae or mistake in identity
situations contemplated 2) Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow
under paragraph 1 of 3) Praeter Intentionem or that the injurious result is
Article 4 of the Revised greater than that intended
Penal Code?
Article 4 Distinguish Aberratio 1.) Aberratio Ictus or Mistake in the blow is when the
Ictus, Error in Personae, offender intending to do an injury to one person actually
and Praeter Intentionem inflcts it on another;
2.) Error in Personae or Mistake in the Identity of the
victim is where the offender actually hit the person to
whom the blow was directed but turned out to be
different from, and not the victim intended.
3.) Praeter Intentionem happens when there is lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong and the injury
resulting therefrom is greater than the injury intended to
be caused by the offender.
Article 4 What is the penalty for The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a
impossible crime? fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Article 5 What legal maxim did nullum crimen, nulla phoena sine lege
Paragraph 1 Article 5 of
the R.P.C based on?
Article 6 Distinguish the ff: a.) A felony is consummated when all the elements
a. Consummated felony necessary for its execution and accomplishment
b. Frustrated Felony are present
c. Attempted Felony b.) It is frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do
not produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
c.) There is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly or over acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Article 6 How to determine (1) You need to determine the NATURE of the offense.
whether the crime is (2) The ELEMENTS constituting the felony.
only attempted, (3) The MANNER of committing the same must be
frustrated, or it is considered.
consummated?
Article 6 What are the external The external acts pertain to:
acts pertained to in the (1) preparatory acts, and (2) acts of execution.
Revised Penal Code?
Briefly explain each. Preparatory acts are acts that are done in preparation
of a commission of a crime. They are ordinarily not
punishable, unless they are, by themselves, independent
crimes by law.
On the other hand, acts of execution, which are
comprised of three stages, are punishable under Article
6 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
Article 6 What are the elements (a.) The offender performs all the acts of execution
of frustrated felony? (b) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence (c) But the felony is not produced
(d) By reason of some causes independent will of the
perpetrator
Article 6 Distinguish the Subjective Phase is when the execution of the acts is
Subjective Phase and still in control of the offender. Therefore, in attempted
Objective Phase felony, the crime is still in subjective phase.
While in Objective Phase, all necessary performance for
execution is done. No control of the offender.
Article 8 What are the requisites 1. That two or more persons come to an agreement;
of conspiracy? 2. That the agreement concerns the commission of a
felony; and
3. That the execution of the felony is decided upon."
Article 8 When are conspiracy When the law specially provides a penalty therefore/
and proposal to commit when it is provided by law
a felony punishable?
Article 9 Distinguish the a.) GRAVE FELONIES are those to which the law
following: attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any
a. Grave Felonies; of their periods are afflictive.
b. Less Grave Felonies; b.) On the other hand, LESS GRAVE FELONIES are
c. Light Felonies those which the law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period are correctional
c.) while LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law
for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor
or a fine not exceeding P200, or both, is provided.
Article 9 What penalties are a. Reclusion Perpetua;
considered afflictive b. Reclusion Temporal;
c. Prision Mayor
under the Revised Penal
Code?
Article 11 What are the rights 1. Defense of Person (Life and Limb)
included in self-defense 2. Defense of Property (only if there is also an actual
or the kinds of self- and imminent danger on the person of the one
defense? defending)
3. Defense of Rights Protected by Law (Civil, political
and natural)
4. Defense of Chastity
5. Defense of Honor/Reputation (Defense in case of
libel)
Article 11 What requisites must For complete self-defense to apply, there must be a
concur in order to concurrence of all three requisites.
invoke self-defense?
1. Unlawful Aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent and repel it.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
Article 11 What requisites must be In order to invoke defense of relatives, certain conditions
met in order to claim the must be met such as;
defense of relatives?
1. Unlawful aggression,
2. Reasonable necessities of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
3. In case of provocation was given by the person
attacked, and the one making a defense had no part
therein.
Article 10 If an act or omission is The special law shall be applied. Article 10 of the
punished by a special Revised Penal Code states that offenses which are
law, which law shall be or in the future may be punishable under special
applied, the said special laws are not subject to its provisions. It is the special
law or the Revised Penal law in question that shall be applied, with the Revised
Code? Penal Code only being suppletory.
Article 10 Are offenses punishable No. Article 10 is composed of two clauses. In the first,
under special law it is provided that offenses under special laws are not
subject to the subject to the provisions of the Code. The second makes
provisions of the the Code supplementary to such laws.
Revised Penal Code?
Article 11 Who are the relatives •Spouse
included in the •Ascendants
enumeration of relatives •Descendants
mentioned in Paragraph •Legitimate, natural or Adopted brothers and sisters
2 of Article 11 of the •Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
Revised Penal Code? •Relatives by consanguinity within fourth civil
degree
Article 13 James was found in his No, because accordingly for voluntary surrender, the
paragraph possession, of illegal accused must have not been arrested.
7 drugs through a valid
warrantless search but
he already stops using
Illegal drugs months
before the arrest.
Without any form of
resistance, the law
enforcement authorities
arrested him.
Can James claim any
mitigating
circumstance?
Article 12, What repealed Article Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
Paragraph 12, par. 3 by raising the Welfare Act of 2006
3 age of absolute
irresponsibility from
nine (9) to fifteen (15)
years old?
Article 12, What are the 2 requisites a. offender is an imbecile
Paragraph of the Article 12, b. offender was insane at the time of the commission
1 Paragraph 1? of the crime
Article 12, What is the difference Insanity is a mental illness that can affect a person's
paragraph between insanity and ability to discern right from wrong when they commit a
1 imbecility under the crime.
Revised Penal Code? While, Imbecility is a mental deficiency that can render
a person incapable of understanding the consequences
of their actions.
Article 13, What are the requisites 1. Offender not actually arrested
Paragraph of voluntary surrender in 2. Offender surrendered to a person in authority or the
7 Article 13, Paragraph 7? latter's agent
3. Surrender was voluntary
Article 12, What is the meaning of It is the mental capacity to understand what is right and
Paragraph the word discernment in wrong.
3 art.12 paragraph 3?
Article 12, If a mentally challenged First paragraph in Article 12 states that a person who is
Paragraph person stabs another mentally challenged is criminally exempted although
1 person, what is the there is civil liability
penalty?
Article 13, Is praeter intentionem a Yes, according to Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Revised
paragraph mitigating circumstantial Penal Code the offender had no intention to commit so
3 case? grave a wrong as that committed.
Article 13, How can passion or When the will power is diminished due to strong
Paragraph obfuscation be a emotional excitement or losing of reason and sel-control;
6 mitigating so that the accused acted upon impluse if and only the
circumstance? impulse is so powerful that it naturally produced passion
or obfuscation in him.
Article 13 Distinguish Ordinary 1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance can be offset by a
Mitigating from generic aggravating circumstance, while Privileged
Privileged Mitigating Mitigating Circumstances cannot.
Circumstances
2. In Ordinary mitigating circumstance, one existence
of such, if not offset by a generic aggravating
circumstance, is imposed the minimum penalty, while
with Privileged Mitigating Circumstances, one
existence of such has the effect of lowering the penalty
by one or two degrees lower than that prescribed by law.
Given questions with answers from Atty. Romano:
1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and mala prohibita.
Answer: In concept, crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions penalized are intently bad, evil, or
wrong that they are almost universally condemned. Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts penalized
are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for public good, public welfare, or interest and whoever
violate the prohibition are penalized. In legal implications, in crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal
intent or negligence is a defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is
not a defense; it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated. Also, criminal liability is generally incurred
in crimes mala in se even when the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohibita, criminal
liability is generally incurred only when the crime is consummated. Also, in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
aggravating circumstances are appreciated in imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala prohibita, such
circumstances are not appreciated unless the special law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under
the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense in mala in se except when the crime results
from criminal negligence. Such defense is not available in cases of mala prohibita.
2. State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each.
Answer: The characteristics of criminal law are as follows: 1. Generality – that the law is binding upon all persons
who reside to sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal circumstances. 2.
Territoriality – that the law is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of Philippine territory, which
includes its atmosphere interior water and maritime zone. (Art. 2) 3. Prospectivity – that the law does not have
any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law
otherwise provides.
3. Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and
Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in
Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
Answer: No. Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized
in Singapore, hence, such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may
be applied extraterritoriality. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
4. After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel Beer and taking two plates of “pulutan”, Binoy, a Filipino
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific”, an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V “Princess of the Pacific”
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to
the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the judge,
will you grant the motion? Why?
Answer: Yes. The motion to quash the information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction
over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board
a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US v. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) It is the registration of the vessel
in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship.
The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
5. What is an impossible crime? b. Is an impossible crime really a crime?
Answer: Impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
(Art. 4, par. 2, RPC). b. No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives
rise to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal
tendency or propensity although no crime was committed
6. Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day,
Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian to ask for poison on the pretext that
he was going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was intending to poison Pula, the Vet instantly gave
Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. What crime, if any,
did Puti commit?
Answer: Puti committed an impossible crime of murder. Puti, with intent to kill Pula, unknowingly employed
ineffectual means to accomplish the intended felony, that is, using a non-toxic solution.
7. Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
Answer: Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor,
not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting
circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability
8. Q: BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack,
drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his
defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending
that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense
prosper? Reason briefly
Answer: No, AA's defense will not prosper. The act of the victim's son, ST, appears to be a legitimate defense
of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act
to defend his father's life and to stop BB and CC achieve their criminal objective cannot be regarded as an evil
inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was a lawful defense, not greater evil. Likewise,
AA’s defense will not prosper because in this case there was a conspiracy among the three of them, hence, the
act of one is the act of all.
9. When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun
and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's
honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances?
Answer: No. A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape was
already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against and
no defense to speak of. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel
an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists. A may,
however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave
offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Art. 13 of the RPC.
10. Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut
beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her
husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the
man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied
himself, he said “Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was
not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When
tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why?
Answer: No. Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor
had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under Art. 11(1) of the RPC, it is required inter
alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person
making a defense. Otherwise, the attack made is a retaliation and not a defense. Hence, Osang's act of stabbing
Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of
a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
11. A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to
stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged
the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a
stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why
Answer: Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the
fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was induced by revenge,
resentment or any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par. 3, Art. 11 of the RPC
12. While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade
5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping with
a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing what
she had caused, Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to
the school principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she
executed a statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye. Is
Katreena criminally liable? Why?
Answer: No. Katreena is not criminally liable due to her minority. She is exempted from criminal liability for being
a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although over nine (9) years of age. Nonetheless is she civilly liable.
13. What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from
an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating
circumstance.
Answer: Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate the criminal liability of the accused by
graduating the imposable penalty for the crime being modified to one or two degrees lower. These circumstances
cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete justification or exemption (when
majority of the conditions are present), and the circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted
with discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstance. The distinctions between ordinary and privileged
mitigating circumstances are as follows: a. Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (RPC, Art. 64),
the presence of a mitigating circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating circumstance, has the effect of applying
the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the
presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one to two degrees lower;
b. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating
circumstances are not subject to the off-set rule.
14. When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender?
Answer: A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to
submit unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
a. Spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional;
b. Made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the offender's whereabouts;
and
c. Made to a person in authority or the letter's agents
15. In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with?
Answer: For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged;
2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment; and 3. That such
plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
16. After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced
and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty
but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his
plea to that of guilty. Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be
considered in favor of the accused?
Answer: Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too long a time to
consider the surrender as spontaneous (People v. Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990). For sure the
government had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in looking for the accused. Plea of guilty
can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the prosecution had already started with the
presentation of its evidence (Art. 13[7], RPC)
