CRIMINAL LAW

LAST MINUTE TIPS1

Prepared by Prosecutor PHILGER NOEL B. INOVEJAS2
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE
MALA PROHIBITA
Felonious acts committed byConsidered wrong because they are
means of dolo or culpa asprohibited by special laws
defined in RPC
The prosecution must proveCriminal intent is not required; the
criminal intent.3
prosecution need only to prove intent to
perpetrate the act, that the offender did
intend to commit an act, and that act is
prohibited by law.4
Good faith is a defense5
Good faith or absence of criminal intent is
not a valid defense.6
The following offenses are mala prohibita: violation of R.A. 8042 (Illegal Recruitment), 7 Bouncing
Checks Law (B.P. 22),8 R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Law), 9 P.D. 957 (Regulating the Sale of
Subdivision Lots and Condominiums), 10 P.D. 1602 (Anti-Fencing Law), 11 R.A. 8282 (SSS Law),12 and
P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives).
While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession
of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the
part of the accused.13
Lack of license to possess a firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of P.D. 1866 as
amended by Republic Act No. 8294, or as a special aggravating circumstance in the felony of
homicide or murder.14
Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. As a
consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge
or animus possidendi.15
Having been caught in flagrante delicto (in possession of prohibited drugs), there is prima facie
evidence of animus possidendi on accused-appellants part. 16
The finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned by the appellant raised the
presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to convict. 17
When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the
ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not
necessary.18
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is
expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention. Furthermore, there is
the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no
departure.19
Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a
statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation
would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurb or would
lead to an injustice.20
Penal statutes may not be enlarged by implication or intent beyond the fair meaning of the language
used; and may not be held to include offenses other than those which are clearly described,
notwithstanding that the Court may think that Congress should have made them more

comprehensive. Words and phrases in a statute are to be construed according to their common
meaning and accepted usage.21
Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. A law should be interpreted with a view to
upholding rather than destroying it.22
The Courts function, in the face of this seeming dissonance, is to interpret and harmonize the
Probation Law and the Local Government Code. Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus
interpretandi.23
Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the State. 24
Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguire debemos, x x x if the law does not distinguish, so We must
no distinguish.25
Conformably with the principle of exclusio unius est exclusio alterius, the relationship of the offender,
as being just a step-grandfather of the victim, cannot be deemed embraced by the enumeration
(qualified rape).26
The particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of
its parts. 27
Negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are
merely directory. . . . the use of the term shall further emphasizes its mandatory character and
means that it is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced. x x x And where the
law does not distinguish the courts should not distinguish; where the law does not make exception the
court should not except.28
GENERALITY
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones territory is immune
from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. 29
Penal laws are obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. Since the Constitution
itself provides for the immunities from the general application of our criminal laws which a Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives may enjoy, it follows that any expansion of such immunities
must similarly be based upon an express constitutional grant. 30
TERRITORIALITY
Piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the
rule on territoriality in criminal law. 31
PROSPECTIVITY / EX POST FACTO LAW
Favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda, penal laws which are favorable to the accused are
given retroactive effect32 except in the case of a habitual criminal as provided for in Article 22 of the
Revised Penal Code.33
The following statutes have prospective application: R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law), 34 Republic Act
No. 7890 (Increasing the Penalty for Grave Coercion), 35 R.A. 8353 (The New Rape Law), 36 Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 (Re: Penalty for B.P. 22) 37 and R.A. No. 7691 (An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts). 38
The following statutes have retroactive application: R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006),39 the favorable provisions of R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law), 40 RA 9346 (Anti-Death Penalty
Law),41 the Constitution42 and the favorable provision of R.A. 8294 (Firearms Law). 43
In People v. Rolando Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999, the accused used an unlicensed
firearm in the commission of four (4) counts of murder. R.A. 8294 was applied retroactively in favor of
the accused who is not a habitual delinquent insofar as the use of unlicensed firearm is no longer
considered a separate offense. However, the provision of the R.A. 8294 that the use of unlicensed
firearm is considered as aggravating circumstance was not applied retroactively against the
accused since the same has the effect of increasing the penalty (ex post facto).

EQUAL PROTECTION
Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and
among persons similarly situated; it is equality among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons
who are classified based on substantial differences in relation to the object to be accomplished. When
things or persons are different in fact or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently. 44
It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws
is not equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.
And the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be
germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must
apply equally to all members of the same class.45
DUE PROCESS
The due process clause, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, requires that citizens are given sufficient notice or warning of what is
lawful and unlawful conduct under a penal statute. To enforce this guarantee, courts have developed
the void for vagueness doctrine. The void for vagueness doctrine expresses the rule that for an act to
constitute a crime, the law must expressly and clearly declare such act a crime. 46
Substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the governments action.
x x x the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. x x x police power cannot be
exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically as its exercise is subject to a qualification, limitation
or restriction demanded by the respect and regard due to the prescription of the fundamental law,
particularly those forming part of the Bill of Rights. Individual rights, it bears emphasis, may be
adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public
interest or public welfare. Due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to his life, liberty and property. 47
NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is
not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies x x x something more
inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life. 48
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be
obnoxious to the Constitution ... to come under the ban, the punishment must be flagrantly and
plainly oppressive wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of
the community. Mere severity does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 49
BILL OF ATTAINDER
A bill of attainder has been defined as a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. 50
EX POST FACT LAWS
An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it
greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes
penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and (6) deprives a person
accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. 51
CLASSIFICATIONS OF FELONIES
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury. Test- Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is guilty of negligence.52
A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless
imprudence. And in People v. Castillo, we held that that there can be no frustrated homicide through

reckless negligence inasmuch as reckless negligence implies lack of intent to kill, and without intent
to kill the crime of frustrated homicide cannot exist. 53
A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless
imprudence. What qualifies an act as one of reckless or simple negligence or imprudence is the lack
of malice or criminal intent in the execution thereof. Otherwise stated, in criminal negligence, the
injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act done
without malice but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence, and which has harmed society
or an individual.54
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person COMMITTING A FELONY (by means of DOLO or
CULPA) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 55
Petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence, the fact
that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter petitioners liability for his death. 56
Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching Lucrecio, his uncle who was much older than him,
and even if he did not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must be held guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted provision. He who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused.57
Victorianos act of physically maltreating his spouse is definitely not a lawful act. 58 The accused was
held guilty of Parricide.
A person who commits a felony is liable for the direct, natural and logical consequences of his
wrongful act even where the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. Hence, an accused
who originally intended to conceal and to bury what he thought was the lifeless body of the victim can
be held liable as a principal, not simply as an accessory, where it is proven that the said victim was
actually alive but subsequently died as a direct result of such concealment and burial. 59
In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to
commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator. Here, there is
no doubt appellant in beating his son Noemar and inflicting upon him physical injuries, committed a
felony. As a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child, he expired. Appellants criminal
liability for the death of his son, Noemar, is thus clear. 60
ABERRATIO ICTUS

ERROR
PERSONAE

IN PRAETER
INTENTIONEM

mistake in the blow

mistake in identity

where the consequence

went
beyond
that
intended or expected

The offender delivered a

blow at his intended
victim but missed, and
instead
such
blow
landed
on
an
61
unintended victim.

The offender actually

hit the person to whom
the blow was directed
but turned out to be
different from and not
the victim intended.62

There is a notorious
disparity between the act
and
the
means
employed
by
the
offender
and
the
resulting felony, i.e., the
resulting felony could not
be
reasonably
anticipated or foreseen
by the offender from the
act or means employed
by him.63

Results
in
complex
crimes the attempt on
the intended victim and
the consequence on the
unintended victim (Art.

The criminal liability of Mitigating under Art. 3

offender is not affected, par. 3
unless the mistake in
identity resulted to a
crime different from

49)

what
the
offender
intended to commit, in
which case, the lesser
penalty between the
crime intended (Art. 49)

The following DO NOT INCUR any criminal liability (not committing a felony): (1) anyone who acts in
defense of his person or rights, or in defense of relatives or strangers; (2) any person who, in order to
avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another; (3) any person who acts in the
fulfillment of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and, (4) any person who acts in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. 64
Here, the accused-appellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the
deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, RPC) is not murder. We
cannot therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the
Amparados. This does not mean, however, that the accused-appellant is totally free from any
responsibility. Granting the fact that he was not performing an illegal act when he fired shots at the
victim, he cannot be said to be entirely without fault. While it appears that before firing at the
deceased, he uttered warning words (an waray labot kagawas,) that is not enough a precaution to
absolve him for the injuries sustained by the Amparados. We nonetheless find negligence on his part.
Accordingly, we hold him liable under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less
serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence. 65
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred. The autopsy report indicated that the cause of the victims death is multiple organ
failure. X x x Thus, it can be concluded that without the stab wounds, the victim could not have been
afflicted with an infection which later on caused multiple organ failure that caused his death. The
offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or
contributed to the death of the victim.66
On September 28, 1993 the accused punched Tomelden. The blow caused Tomeldens nose to
bleed and rendered him unconscious. X x x October 2 and 7, 1993, Tomelden went back to the
hospital complaining of dizziness, headache, and other pains. The attending doctors observed the
patient to be in a state of drowsiness and frequent vomiting. X x x Tomelden died at 9:00 p.m. of
October 10 due, per Dr. Arellano, to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with
resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident. 67 The lucky punch was the proximate of
Tomeldens death.
The resulting death/injury was not the proximate cause of the defendants act in the following
instances: (1) Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall and hit
a wall divider. As a result of Lydias violent assault, Gemma suffered a contusion in her maxillary
area, x x x and to have suffered incomplete abortion. X x x Gemma was admitted and confined in a
hospital for incomplete abortion on August 28, 1981, which was 42 days after the July 17, 1981
incident. This interval of time is too lengthy to prove that the discharge of the fetus from the womb of
Gemma was a direct outcome of the assault. Her bleeding and abdominal pain two days after the
said incident were not substantiated by proof other than her testimony. Thus, it is not unlikely that the
abortion may have been the result of other factors. 68 (2) The defendant struck the deceased a blow
on the mouth. Defendant was held liable only for Slight Physical Injuries and not Parricide since the
wife died of diarrhea. (3) On January 23, 2002, accused x x x stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruzs
body using a sharpened bamboo stick. The bamboo stick broke and was left in Cruzs body. X x x on
January 23, 2002, he was taken to the Tondo Medical Center, where he was treated as an outpatient. Cruz was only brought to the San Lazaro Hospital on February 14, 2002, where he died the
following day x x x liable for slight physical injuries for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. The
proximate cause of Cruzs death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. 69
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Impossible crime applies only to a crime which would be an offense against PERSONS or
PROPERTY were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. If the act performed constitutes a violation of the

Revised Penal Code or Special Laws, then the offender is liable for the crime committed and not for
an impossible crime.70
The accused who unlawfully took a check belonging to Mega Foam without the latters consent but
was not able to appropriate the amount of the check since the same was dishonored upon
presentment was held guilty of an impossible crime. 71
STAGES OF EXECUTION
ATTEMPTED RAPE

ACTS
LASCIVIOUSNESS

OF UNJUST VEXATION

The lascivious act is The lascivious act is NOT

coupled with intent to lie coupled with intent to lie
(to
have
carnal with the woman
knowledge)
with
the
woman72

Committed under the

following circumstances:
by using force, threat or
intimidation; when the
offended
party
is
deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
by means of fraudulent
machination or grave
abuse of authority; or
when the offended party
is under 12 years of age
or is demented.

Any act that cause

annoyance, irritation,
torment, distress, or
disturbance to the
mind of the person to
whom it was directed
is unjust vexation73

Committed
under
the
following circumstances:
by using force, threat or
intimidation; when the
offended party is deprived
of reason or otherwise
unconscious; by means of
fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
or when the offended
party is under 12 years of
age or is demented.

Offended part is a Offended party either man Offended party is

woman (in
rape
by or woman
either man or woman
sexual
assault,
the
offended party is of either
sex)
TOLENTINO can only be liable for attempted rape. X x x TOLENTINO had commenced the
commission of the crime of rape by (1) directing RACHELLE to lie down, (2) removing his shorts and
hers, and (3) trying to force his sex organ into RACHELLEs sex organ. But there is no conclusive
evidence of the penetration, however slight, of RACHELLEs sex organ. 74
The appellants penis did not penetrate, but merely touched (i.e., naidikit), AAAs private part. In
fact, the victim confirmed on cross-examination that the appellant did not succeed in inserting his
penis into her vagina. The appellant was held guilty of attempted rape. 75
The accused was held guilty of attempted rape since there was no introduction of the penis of
accused-appellant into the aperture or within the pudendum of the vagina of private complainant. 76
Removing her pants is not attempted rape but unjust vexation. 77
In theft and in robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, the offense is consummated
the moment the offender takes, possession of the personal property with intent to gain. He need not
dispose or take away the property in order to consummate the offense. What is important is whether
or not there was asportacion or unlawful taking. There is no felony of frustrated Theft. 78
In robbery with force upon things, the offender must ENTER the building in order to commit the
crime.79 The crime is consummated once the offender takes possession of the personal properties
therein. But if the property taken is a LOCKED or SEALED FURNITURE or RECEPTACLE he

must TAKE AWAY from the building said locked or sealed furniture or receptacle (to be broken or
forced open outside the place of robbery) in order to consummate the felony. 80
When the accused uttered the words Pag hindi mo ibiniga8UIJy ang hinihingi namin sa iyo ay
papatayin ka namin, it clearly appears that appellant and her companions had the intention of
robbing the victim and were bent on resorting to violent means to attain their devious ends. It could
have been the P500.00 which Ubaldo Pimentel left with the victim the previous night, or some other
valuables, or perhaps, even some merchandise. Since there is no proof or reasonable certainty that
anything was successfully taken from the deceased, the appellant should be convicted only of
attempted robbery with homicide penalized under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. 81
Estafa is consummated when deceit and damage on the victim are present; frustrated when the
money taken has not be appropriated or spent and there is deceit; and attempted when there is
deceit but no money was taken.
Undoubtedly, petitioners commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but they failed to perform
all the acts of execution which would produce the crime, not by reason of their own spontaneous
desistance but because of their apprehension by the authorities before they could obtain the amount.
Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself had been shown, the RTC and the
CA correctly convicted petitioners of attempted estafa. 82
Corruption of public officer is consummated by the mere agreement of the parties. The offense is
attempted corruption of public officer if the public officer to be corrupted does not agree to the
proposal of the offender.
The accused was held guilty of attempted murder since he has intent to kill and the wounds inflicted
upon the victims were not considered fatal.83
CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not
in itself amount to conspiracy. 84
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears
that they endeavored to prevent the same.85
MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
RECIDIVISM
(Art. 14. No. 9)

REITERACION
OR
HABITUALITY
(Art. 14 No. 10)

QUASIRECIDIVISM
(Art. 169)

HABITUAL
DELINQUENT
(Art. 62 no. 5)

Ordinary
aggravating

Ordinary
aggravating

Special
aggravating86

Punished
with
additional penalty

Previously
convicted by final
judgment
of
another
crime
embraced in the
same title of the
RPC87

Previously
punished for an
offense to which
the law attached
an
equal
or
greater penalty or
for two or more
crimes to which it
attache a lighter
penalty88

Commits
a
felony
before
beginning
to
serve or while
serving
his
89
sentence.
Pardoned at the
age of 70 if not
habitual
delinquent

within a period of
ten
years90 from
the date of his
release or last
conviction of any of
the
crime
of
serious or less
serious
physical
injuries,
robbery,
theft, estafa or
falsification,
the
offender is found
guilty of any of said
crimes a third time
or oftener.

Reiteracion and quasi-recidivism cannot aggravate the felony at the same time since in reiteracion,
the offender has already served his sentence while in quasi-recidivism the offender is serving his
sentence.
In reiteracion or habituality, it is essential that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has
served the sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or provides for an equal or greater
penalty than that attached by law to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law
attaches a lighter penalty. 91
If recidivism or reiteracion are both present, the proper aggravating circumstance is recidivism
since reiteracion requires that the previous offenses should not be embraced in the same title of the
Code. 92
Recidivism and habitual delinquency can aggravate the offense at the same time. 93 A habitual
delinquent is necessarily a recidivist.94
A felony can be aggravated by recidivism, quasi-recidivism and habitual delinquency at the same
time.
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the maximum of the penalty
for the new offense. It makes no difference, for the purpose of the effect of quasi-recidivism under
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, whether the crime for which an accused is serving sentence
at the time of the commission of the offense charged, falls under the said Code or under special law.
Quasi-recidivism is punished with more severity than recidivism proper because the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism, as any other aggravating circumstance, may be offset by a mitigating
circumstance present in the commission of the crime, whereas, in a case of quasi-recidivism the
maximum degree of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed should always be imposed
irrespective of the presence of any mitigating circumstance. 95
Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of
the sentence convicting an accused. 35The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not
prove that final judgment had been rendered against him. 96
If the offender is granted absolute pardon by the President, the felony pardoned shall still be
considered in determining the offenders subsequent liability for recidivism, reiteracion, quasirecidivism and habitual delinquency. 97
But if the President, with the concurrence of Congress grants amnesty to the offender, the offense
included in the amnesty will not be considered in determining his liability for recidivism, reiteracion,
quasi-recidivism and habitual delinquency because IN AMNESTY, THE CRIME IS TOTALLY
OBLITERATED.98
The crime committed by a child in conflict with law who was placed under suspended sentence and
who was subsequently discharged by the court should not be taken into consideration in determining
his subsequent liability for recidivism, reiteracion, quasi-recidivism and habitual delinquency because
in (automatic) SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE the court does not pronounce the judgment of
conviction.99
If the accused was granted probation and subsequently discharged by the court, the crime committed
should be taken into consideration in determining his subsequent liability for recidivism because
probation does not erase the previous conviction of the accused.
If the accused was granted probation and subsequently discharged by the court, the crime committed
should not be taken into consideration in determining his subsequent liability for reiteracion because
the latter required that the accused had previously served his sentence. In probation, the convict does
not serve his sentence.
The convict who is released on parole (after serving the minimum sentence) and who committed an
offense before his final release or discharge is NOT a quasi-recidivist since he is not yet serving his
sentence at the time of the commission of the offense.
A habitual delinquent cannot avail of beneficent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 100 He
cannot also avail of the retroactive effect of a law that is favorable to him. 101

CONTINUING CRIMES
A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single crime, consisting of a series of
acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one
crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be imposed. 102
Examples of continuing crimes (1) the taking of six roosters at the same place and time, 103 (2)
squatting,104 (3) concubinage105 and (4) robbery committed against several persons at the gasoline
station.106
The following are NOT continuing crimes (multiple crimes were committed) (1) estafa committed
against different persons and in different occasions, 107 (2) Estafa under Art. 315, para 1 (b),
RPC,108 (3) falsification and malversation, 109 (4) qualified theft committed on different occasions, 110 (5)
adultery since every act of sexual congress is a separate crime, 111 (6) falsification of private
document,112 and (7) grave threats against several individuals in different occasions. 113
Only one crime was committed and only one penalty was imposed in the following: (1) estafa through
multiple falsification of mercantile documents, 114 (2) estafa through falsification of public
documents115 and (3) violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) were the
legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen. 116
In People v. Alberto Basao, et al., G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012 the accused were held guilty of
one (1) crime of robbery in band although they have two victims.
DELICTO
CONTINUADO,
or CONTINUING OFFENSE
continuous crime or continued crime
Is a term use to denote as only one
crime a series of felonious acts arising
from a single criminal resolution, not
susceptible of division, which are carried
out in the same place and at about
the same time, and violating one and
the same penal provision.117

Continuing crime is one whose

essential ingredients took place in
more than one municipality or city,
so much so that the criminal
prosecution may be instituted and
the case tried in the competent
court of any one of such
municipality or city.

Only one information should be filed More

pertinently
used
with
against the offender although a series of reference to the venue where the
felonious acts were performed
criminal action may be instituted
Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. In such
crimes, some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in
one municipality or territory and some in another, in which event, the court of either has jurisdiction to
try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case excludes the other.
Hence, a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory
where the offense was in part committed.118 Estafa is also a transitory offense.119
COMPLEX CRIMES (ART. 48, RPC)
COMPOUND CRIMES
(delito compuesto)

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER

(delito complejo)

A single act constitutes grave or less An offense is a necessary means of

grave felonies.120
committing the other.121
Example the single act of throwing a
hand grenade constitute a crime of
Murder
with
multiple
attempted
murders,122 direct
assault
with
homicide, parricide with unintentional
abortion123

Example In estafa through

falsification of public document, the
offender falsifies a deed of dale in
order to commit estafa, forcible
abduction with rape

Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a
single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or
others).124

There was only one forcible abduction with rape and that was the one allegedly committed on the
truck or jeep. Any subsequent acts of intercourse in the house against her will would be only separate
acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with
rape.125
In People v. Erland Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012 the accused was held guilty of rape
and NOT complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape since the objective of the abduction was to
commit the rape. Under the circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.
Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365, RPC 126
There is no complex crimes where the killing was not shown to have been committed by a single
discharge of firearms. The accused was held liable for the separate crimes of four murders and two
attempted murders not complex crimes of multiple murder with double frustrated murder. 127
There is no complex crime where there was more than one gunman involved, and the act of each
gunman is distinct from that of the other. The accused was held liable for four counts of murder. 128
The accused was held liable for 50 counts of violation of B.P. 22. Each act of drawing and issuing a
bouncing check constitutes a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. 129
Each act of carnal knowledge is a separate and distinct crime of rape. 130
In People v. Ito Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8, 2011, however, the accused took off his own pants
and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain. He withdrew his penis after about ten (10)
seconds but inserted it again after ten (10) seconds. After five (5) seconds, he withdrew it again but
inserted it once more after five (5) seconds. He also inserted his finger and licked her vagina. X x x
although the penis was thrice inserted in her private organ, the same constituted one (1) count of
rape.
Rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the
Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. 131
Distinction should be made as to when the crimes of estafa and falsification will constitute as one
complex crime and when they are considered as two separate offenses. The complex crime of estafa
through falsification of documents is committed when one has to falsify certain documents to be able
to obtain money or goods from another person. In other words, the falsification is a necessary means
of committing estafa. However, if the falsification is committed to conceal the misappropriation, two
separate offenses of estafa and falsification are committed. In the instant case, when accused
collected payments from the customers, said collection which was in her possession was at her
disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries which she made on the duplicate copies of the receipts
were contrived to conceal some amount of her collection which she did not remit to the company
xxx.132
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses, the resulting crime is
called a special complex crime.
The following constitutes special complex crimes: (1) When by reason or on occasion
of ROBBERY the crime of homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, arson or serious physical injuries are
inflicted.133 (2) When by reason or occasion of RAPE, the crime of homicide is committed. 134 (3) When
the victim in KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION is killed or dies as a consequence
of detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts. 135 When the owner, driver or
occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission
of CARNAPPING or on occasion thereof.136
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing
was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no
longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. 137

In People v. Teofilo Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012 (J. Brion), People v. Samuel
Algarme, G.R. No. 175978, February 12, 2009 (J. Brion) and in People v. PO1 Felipe dela Cruz, et
al., G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008 (J. Brion) the accused were found guilty of special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.
In People v. Michael Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010 the accused was held liable for
special complex crime of robbery with homicide (not rape with homicide and robbery).
Once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they
would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery,
unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. The
rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of
a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape,
although not all of them took part in the rape. 138
No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with
rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are
regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one
single penalty. 139
In robbery with rape, rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery and not the other
way around.140
If the taking of personal property was not the original evil plan but was only an afterthought following
the rape, the crime is rape and theft, and not robbery with rape. 141
In People v. Venacio Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010 the accused was held guilty of the (1)
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder, (2) carnapping and
(3) theft.
In People v. Alberto Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011 the accused was held guilty of
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, defined in and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
In People v. Dima Mondanir, et al., G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011 the accused was held liable for
kidnapping with homicide.
In People v. Edmundo Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012 the accused was held liable for
special complex crime of rape with homicide.
There is no complex crime of rape with frustrated homicide. 142
The accused was held liable for rape and frustrated homicide. The physical injuries were inflicted
after the rape and were not a necessary means to commit the same. 143
In People v. Joey Toriaga, G.R. No. 177145, February 9, 2011 the accused was held guilty of rape
and frustrated homicide. (not a special complex crime).
In People v. Ermilito Alegre, G.R. No. 184812, July 6, 2010 the accused was held guilty of rape and
frustrated
murder. (not a special complex crime).
People v. Conrado Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011 the accused was found guilty of complex
crime of rape with homicide, and a separate crime of frustrated homicide.
Forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime under Article 48, not a special complex crime. 144
In the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the
essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the
killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof.145
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack,
or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must
present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. For this reason, Dannys observation that
one of the men was pulling an object from his waist is not a convincing proof of unlawful aggression.
A threat, even if made with a weapon or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not
sufficient. An intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough. 146
Ordinarily, as pointed out by the lower court, there is a difference between the act of drawing ones
gun and the act of pointing ones gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. In People v. Borreros, We ruled that for unlawful aggression to
be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an
actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude x x x. Here, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist
cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal
safety of appellant.147
The unlawful aggression started when the appellant immediately fired at the victim as the latter
alighted from a tricycle and continued when the appellant fired at the victim six (6) times. 148
Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely
threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and
immediate threat to ones life. The unlawful aggression may constitute an actual physical assault, or
at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury upon the accused. In case of a threat, it must be
offensive and strong, positively showing the x x x intent to cause injury. x x x the victim was unarmed
when he went to the house of the appellant. 149
The number of wounds the victim suffered, 26 in all (a number of which were located in vital parts of
the body), belies the appellants claim that he acted in self- defense. The location and severity of
these wounds also negate the claim of self-defense; these circumstances point to a determined effort
to kill, and not simply to defend.150
SELF DEFENSE

DEFENSE
HONOR

Unlawful
aggression
consists of actual physical
assault
or
threatened
physical
assault
of
imminent kind that brings
peril to ones life or limb151

Unlawful aggression
consists of attempting
to rape a woman or
violating her right to
chastity152

SELF-DEFENSE

OF DEFENSE
PROPERTY

OF

Unlawful
aggression
consists of unlawfully
taking the property of
another coupled with
an attack on the person
entrusted with the said
property153

RETALIATION

Unlawful aggression exists at the The unlawful aggression that has

time the aggressor was injured or begun has already ceased to exist.
disabled by the person making a The actor is liable criminally.
defense
SELF DEFENSE

IN FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

the deceased is killed while the actor is justified even if the deceased is
the unlawful aggression killed after the unlawful aggression already
exists
ceased154 (unlawful
aggression
is
not
required)
e.g. the escaped prisoner was running away
when the law shot the prisoner at the back
It is an aberration for the petitioner to invoke the two defenses at the same time because the said
defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in the
realm of criminal law.155
The aggression is lawful if the aggression consists in the lawful exercise of a right. An example of a
lawful aggression is the force used by an owner or a lawful possessor of a thing in repelling an actual

or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property or the aggression showed by
the husband who surprises his wife caught in the act of sexual intercourse with her paramour. 156
A person acting under any of the justifying circumstances does not commit a crime, however, if he
acted negligently, he may be held liable for culpa under 365, RPC 157 or entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense or incomplete fulfillment of duty. 158
In Francisco Sycip v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000 the accused issued post
dated checks in favor of the developer as amortization payment for his townhouse unit. The
developer failed to develop and complete the project; hence, the accused ordered the bank to stop
payments. As a result, the checks he issued bounced and he was accordingly charged for violation of
B.P. 22. The Supreme Court held that the accused is not liable for B.P. 22 because he is exercising
his lawful right to suspend payments.
BATTERRED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three
phases: (1) the tension-building phase (minor battering occurs); (2) the acute battering incident
(characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death); and (3) the tranquil / loving
phase (the woman and her batterer are emotionally dependent on each othershe for his nurturant
behavior, he for her forgiveness). This cycle must be repeated.
The justifying circumstance of battered woman syndrome was not applied in the case of Marivic
Genosa because the accused failed to present evidence with regard to the third phase of the cycle
that she felt that she provoked the violent incidents between her and her spouse; that she believe that
she was the only hope for her husband to reform; that she believe that she was the sole support of
his emotional stability and well-being, that she is dependent on him; that she feels helpless and
trapped in their relationship; that both regard death as preferable to separation.
Self-defense was not also appreciated in the case of Marivic Genosa because the unlawful
aggression has already ceased at the time the accused killed her batterer.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFYING

EXEMPTING

The circumstance affects the act, not the The circumstance

actor
actor, not the act

affects

the

The act is done within legal bounds, The act is felonious and hence a
hence, considered as not a crime
crime but the actor acted without
voluntariness
Since the act is not a crime, there is no Although there is a crime, there is
criminal
no criminal because the actor is
regarded only as an instrument of
the crime
There being no crime nor criminal, there There being a wrong done but no
is no criminal nor civil liability
criminal, there is civil liability but
no criminal liability
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL ACCIDENT
OR INJURY
Justifying circumstance but the actor Exempting circumstance. The actor is
is civilly liable.159
also exempt from civil liability. 160
In order to avoid greater evil or The actor causes an INJURY by mere
injury, the actor causes DAMAGE to accident while performing a lawful act
another
with due care
The evil which brought about the The actor must be free from fault or
greater evil must not result from a negligence
violation of law by the actor

INSANE
Has
interval

IMBECILE

FEEBLEMINDED

lucid Has NO lucid interval. Although Not exempted FROM

advanced in age, he has a mental criminal liability
development comparable to that
of 2 to 7 yrs old.161 He must be
completely deprived of reason or
discernment, and of freedom of
the will at the time of committing
the crime.162

In People v. Honorato Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, October 17, 1980 insanity was not appreciated
because the accused surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident. Such act is
incontestable proof that he knew that what he has done was wrong and that he was going to be
punished for it.
In People v. Edwin Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012 the defense of insanity was rejected
because the act of the accused of threatening the victim with death in case she reported her
ravishment indicated that he was aware of the reprehensible moral depravity of that assault and that
he was not deprived of intelligence.163
IRRISISTIBLE FORCE

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

The force, which consists of violence

or physical force coming from a third
person, must be irresistible that inspite
of all resistance, it reduces the actor to
a mere instrument164

Threat or intimidation is employed

to compel another to commit a
crime. The Fear must be grave,
actual, serious and of such kind one
would succumbed because of
reasonable fear of ones life or limb.
It must not speculative, fanciful or
remote fear.165

Elements of insuperable cause: 1. That the act is required by law to be done. 2. That a person fails to
perform such act. 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable
cause.166
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does
not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is
not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere
instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not
enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat. 167
DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
x x x surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person x x x in the
act or immediately thereafter x x x These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances,
to parents, with respect to their daughters under 18 years of age, and their seducer, while their
daughters are living with their parent.168
Art. 247, RPC is an exempting circumstance. Consequently, no punishment is inflicted upon the
accused. He is banished, but that is intended for his protection (destierro is not a penalty). Since
inflicting death under exceptional circumstance is not a punishable act, the same cannot be qualified
with either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances. The actor is NOT CIVILLY
LIABLE for the resulting death or physical injuries inflicted. 169 Nonetheless, the actor is criminally and
civilly liable for culpa under Art. 365, RPC if he was negligent in the performance of the lawful act. 170
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (R.A. 9344)
EXEMPT
LIABILITY

FROM

CRIMINAL NOT EXEMPT

Below 15 years of age171

Above 15 to below 18 acting WITH
Above 15 to below 18 acting DISCERNMENT172
WITHOUT discernment
(entitled to privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority)
A minor below 15 years old, or above 15 but below 18 acting without discernment, is exempt from
criminal liability but not from civil liability. He has to undergo intervention program. 173
In Robert Sierra v. People, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009, the Supreme Court accepted the
testimony child as evidence of his age.174
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong.175 Discernment means the mental capacity of a minor between 15 and 18 years of age to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. 176
Treatment of children:
1.
Intervention - the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years
old, who acted without discernment. The authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty
to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the
childs nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development officer who
will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the
child.177
2.
Diversion - If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with
discernment. If the imposable penalty for the crime charged is above six (6), diversion may be resorted to only
by the courts.178
Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is
found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which
may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application.179 If the child is above 18 but below 21 at the time of promulgation, he may still
apply for suspension of sentence.180
In People v. Hermie Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011, the child in conflict with the law was
found guilty of qualified rape punishable by death. Supreme Court considered the minority of the
accused as privilege mitigating circumstance. Notwithstanding the Anti-Death Penalty Law (R.A.
9346) and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the Supreme Court sentenced the
accused to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining the proper
penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of DEATH is still the
penalty to be reckoned with.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is not applicable in
physical injuries, to felonies by negligence, unintentional abortion and to defamation/slander. 181 The
weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted may show
that the accused intended the wrong committed. 182
PROVOCATION

VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

Directed against the

committing the felony
Need not be a grave offense

person Directed against the offenders relatives

The offended party have done grave
offense

The
provocation
or
threat The vindication of grave offense may
immediately preceeded the act
be proximate which admits an interval
of time between the grave offense done
by the offended party and the
commission of the crime by the
accused
PROVOCATION

VINDICATION
OF PASSION
GRAVE OFFENSE
OBFUSCATION

AND

Directed against the Directed against the The accused is provoked

person committing the offenders relatives
by the prior unjust or
felony
improper acts of the injured
party and
the
crime
committed is the result of a
sudden impulse of natural
and uncontrollable fury
Need not be a grave The offended party The
prior
unjust
or
offense
has
done
grave improper acts of the injured
offense
party
is
sufficient
to
produce a powerful impulse
The provocation or The vindication of
threat
immediately grave offense may be
preceded the act183
proximate
which
admits an interval of
time between the
grave offense done by
the offended party and
the commission of the
crime by the accused

The
offense
which
engenders perturbation of
mind
need
not
be
immediate. It is only
required that the influence
thereof last until the
moment the crime is
committed

Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause should be treated as one
mitigating circumstance. Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation. 184
In voluntary surrender, the surrender of the accused to the authorities must be unconditional, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture.185
Although Hermogenes went to Barangay Chairman Aloria of Bulihan after the killings, he did so to
seek protection against the retaliation of the victims relatives, not to admit his participation in the
killing of the victims. Even then, Hermogenes denied any involvement in the killings when the police
went to take him from Chairman Alorias house. As such, Hermogenes did not unconditionally submit
himself to the authorities in order to acknowledge his participation in the killings or in order to save the
authorities the trouble and expense for his arrest. 186
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up
and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save
the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. Without
these elements, and where the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest
and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous and, therefore, cannot be
characterized as voluntary surrender to serve as a mitigating circumstance. 187
In voluntary plea, the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt before a competent court prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 188
Although restitution is akin to voluntary surrender as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 13, in
relation to paragraph 10 of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code, restitution should be treated
as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused when the two circumstances are
present in a case, which is similar to instances where voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are both
present even though the two mitigating circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7, Article 13
of the Revised Penal Code. Considering that restitution is also tantamount to an admission of guilt on
the part of the accused, it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to have considered it as a separate
mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner.189
In Emilio Cimafranca v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94408, February 14, 1991, however. the Supreme
Court held that the return of the funds malversed is not a defense and will not be an exempting
circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the criminal liability of the accused but it can be a
mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. In the instant case, the return of the
property malversed was not mitigating because it took the accused several years before he returned
the government property. In fact, when the engine was returned, it was already scrap and the revolver
was rusty and had to be reblued.

The fact that the accused suffers from a physical defect, a severed left hand, does not mean that he
should automatically be credited with the mitigating circumstance. In order for this condition to be
appreciated, it must be shown that such physical defect limited his means to act, defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings to such an extent that he did not have complete freedom of
action, consequently resulting in diminution of the element of voluntariness. Such cannot be
appreciated where the accuseds physical condition clearly did not limit his means of action, defense
or communication, nor affect his free will. In fact, despite his handicap, the accused nevertheless
managed to attack, overcome and fatally stab his victim.190
In Jose Reyes v. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, August 12, 2010 the Supreme Court held that the
mitigating circumstance of old age under Article 13 (2) of the Revised Penal Code is applied only
when the offender was over 70 years at the time of the commission of the offense. The offender who
is 63 years old at the time he committed the offense is not entitled to such mitigating circumstance.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The circumstances in Article 14 nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20 are considered aggravating if the
same facilitated the commission of the offense or especially sought of by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or the offender took advantage thereof for purposes of impunity. 191
The following are special aggravating circumstances: (1) quasi-recidivism 192 (2) use of unlicensed
firearm in the commission of homicide or murder, 193 (3) use of illegally manufactured explosives in the
commission of any crime defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws which resulted in the
death of a person,194 (4) under the influence of dangerous drugs in the commission of crime 195 (5) that
advantage be taken by the offender of his public position 196 and (6) the crime was committed by an
organized or syndicated crime group.197
An organized or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any
crime.198 By definition, a drug syndicate is any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or
joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under RA 9165. 199
The circumstance that the public officer took advantage of his official position is not aggravating in
violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), in Plunder and Crimes committed by
Public Officers under the Revised Penal Code, and falsification of public documents by a public
officials.
The mere fact that the offender is a public officer or employee (even if he has not taken advantage of
his official position) is an aggravating circumstance in violations of R.A. 9165 (The Dangerous Drugs
Law),200 a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance in violation of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Law), 201 and
a QUALIFYING circumstance in violation of R.A. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). 202
Commission of a crime in a place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties is aggravating when the crime is committed at the police station where policemen were
discharging their public functions.203
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken into account only in crimes
against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect
shown to rank, age, or sex.204
The aggravating circumstances of rank, age or sex are not appreciated in robbery with homicide
since said aggravating circumstances apply only to crimes against persons or honor when in the
commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age or sex. It is not proper
to consider these aggravating circumstances in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the
robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. 205
Provocation in dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to
the commission of the crime.206
Also nighttime is considered an aggravating circumstance only when it is deliberately sought to
prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure escape. There must be proof that this was

intentionally sought to ensure the commission of the crime, and that the accused took advantage of it
to insure his immunity from captivity. 207
Dwelling is NOT absorbed in treachery. 208 Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation. 209
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation and and in robbery with rape. because
this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended partys house.210 It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. He who goes to anothers house to hurt
him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. 211 Dwelling is also
aggravating in forcible abduction when the offender entered the dwelling of the victim. 212
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified
theft (Art. 310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315) and qualified seduction (Art.
337).213
The prosecution failed to present evidence to show a relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force,
except for the showing that two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, attacked the victim. The
presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, is not per se indicative of abuse of
superior strength.214
To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the person attacked. 215 Abuse of superior strength is generic
aggravating in carnapping with homicide where the perpetrators took advantage of their superior
strength to kill the victim.216 It is also aggravating in rape with homicide. 217
Evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. However, in the crime of robbery with
homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing, evident premeditation is
aggravating.218
By a band, to be aggravating, the four armed persons must act together. 219 Band is aggravating in
robbery with homicide where the same is perpetrated by several armed men. 220
The following may be considered as generic aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide:
treachery, cruelty , disregard of respect due the victim on account of his rank, superior strength,
evident premeditation,221 and by a band. 222
Treachery is aggravating in slight physical injuries. 223
Treachery absorbs nighttime,224 by a band, with the aid of armed men, 225 means to weaken the
defense,226 evident premeditation,227craft,228 age and sex,229 poison,230 fraud and disguise.231
To be considered aggravating, the circumstances of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of
vessel, or intentional damage thereto, derailment of locomotive, or by use of any artifice involving
great waste and ruin must be used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal
purpose.232
In People v. Fernando Pugay, et al., G.R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988, the accused Samson and
Pugay made fun on the deceased, a mental retardate, by tickling him with a piece of wood. Not
content with what they were doing with the deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly took a can of
gasoline from under the engine of the ferns wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former.
Then, the accused Samson set the deceased on fire making a human torch out of him. It was
established that the accused have no intent to kill. There being no conspiracy between the two,
Supreme Court held Pugay liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for pouring gasoline
on the deceased while the accused Samson was held liable for homicide for lighting the clothes of the
deceased. FIRE was NOT considered as aggravating/qualifying circumstance.
As the killing, in this case, is perpetrated with both treachery and by means of explosives, the latter
shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal mode of attack. Reason
dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be considered
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.233

The breaking of the door, to be considered aggravating, must be utilized as a means to the
commission of the crime. If what was broken is the rope that was used to close the door and not the
door itself, the same is not aggravating.234
In People v. Edgar Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011, unlawful entry was not aggravating
since the accused freely entered the victims residence through the open kitchen door, which is
clearly intended for ingress and or egress.
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating if the same was used as a means to commit a crime, 235 or the
same facilitated the commission of the crime or the escape of the offenders 236
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES AS AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294)
If HOMICIDE or MURDER is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered asSPECIAL 237 aggravating circumstance.238
The use of unlicensed firearm is also aggravating in robbery with HOMICIDE.239
The use of unlicensed firearm is NOT aggravating in frustrated murder, 240 direct assault with
attempted homicide,241 in robbery,242 in violation of Comelec gun-ban,243 in kidnapping for
ransom244 and in rape.245
If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of
simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal
possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. 246
In People v. Pedro Cupcupin, G.R. No. 132389. November 19, 2002, the accused was held liable for
two separate offenses of violation of P.D. 1866, as amended and for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Law because the unlicensed firearm was merely found lying around, together with the prohibited
drugs, and therefore, was not being used in the commission of an offense. 247
Lack of license to possess a firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of PD 1866 as
amended by Republic Act No. 8294, or as a special aggravating circumstance in the felony of
homicide or murder.248
Even if the firearm used was properly licensed to the security agency, its unauthorized use by the
appellant aggravated his offense.249
A barangay captain is authorized to carry any kind of firearm under Sec. 389 of the Local Government
Code.250
The existence of the firearm may be established by testimonial evidence. 251
When a person commits ANY OF THE CRIMES defined in the RPC or special laws with the use of
unlawfully manufactured explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which RESULTS IN
THE DEATH OF ANY PERSONS, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 252
USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AS QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the USE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime
by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be
applicable.253
Subject to Section 15 (which penalizes the offense of use of dangerous drugs with six months
rehabilitation), any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of R.A. 9165 shall be
subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within 24 hours if the apprehending or arresting
officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of
physical signs and symptoms or other visible outward manifestation, is UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS. X x x254
R.A. 9165 AND MINOR OFFENDERS

Section 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. An accused who is over
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in Section 11 of this
Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when judgment should have been
promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits of
a suspended sentence, subject to the following conditions:
(a) He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act, or of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal
laws;
(b) He/she has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited
physician; and
(c) The Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be suspended.
While under suspended sentence, he/she shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance of the Board, under such conditions that the court may impose for a period ranging
from six (6) months to eighteen (18) months.
Upon recommendation of the Board, the court may commit the accused under suspended sentence
to a Center, or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician for at least six (6) months, with after-care
and follow-up program for not more than eighteen (18) months.
Xxx
Section 67. Discharge After Compliance with Conditions of Suspended Sentence of a First-Time
Minor Offender. If the accused first time minor offender under suspended sentence complies with
the applicable rules and regulations of the Board, including confinement in a Center, the court, upon a
favorable recommendation of the Board for the final discharge of the accused, shall discharge the
accused and dismiss all proceedings.
Xxx
Section 68. Privilege of Suspended Sentence to be Availed of Only Once by a First-Time Minor
Offender. x x x
Section 69. Promulgation of Sentence for First-Time Minor Offender. If the accused first-time minor
offender violates any of the conditions of his/her suspended sentence, the applicable rules and
regulations of the Board exercising supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over him, including the
rules and regulations of the Center should confinement be required, the court shall pronounce
judgment of convictionand he/she shall serve sentence as any other convicted person.
Section 70. Probation or Community Service for a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment.
Upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the accused under
probation, even if the sentence provided under this Act is higher than that provided under
existing law on probation, or impose community service in lieu of imprisonment. In case of
probation, the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall be undertaken by the Board through
the DOH in coordination with the Board of Pardons and Parole and the Probation Administration.
Upon compliance with the conditions of the probation, the Board shall submit a written report to the
court recommending termination of probation and a final discharge of the probationer, whereupon the
court shall issue such an order.
Xxx
If the sentence promulgated by the court requires imprisonment, the period spent in the Center by the
accused during the suspended sentence period shall be deducted from the sentence to be served.
In Michael Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008 the minor offender was convicted of
violation of Sec. 5, R.A. 9165 was denied probation. The Supreme Court held that Section 24 of R.A.
9165 is clear that any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation.
Under the law, any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty
imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968.
NOTE: some provisions of R.A. 9165 concerning minor offenders have been amended by R.A. 9344
particularly on the age of criminal responsibility, the juvenile justice and welfare system, suspension
of sentence and confinement in agricultural camps and training facilities.

APPLICATION AND NON-APPLICATION OF RPC PROVISIONS

(SEC. 98, R.A. 9165 IN RELATION TO ART. 10, RPC)
SEC. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended,
shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.Where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall
be reclusion perpetua to death. (emphasis supplied)
In People v. Bernardo Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, February 8, 2007 the Supreme Court held that sale
of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to
death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. The trial court and CA committed an ERROR
when they imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in accordance with
Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The lower courts should not have applied the provisions of
Article 63 (2), RPC. Since Section 98 of the Drugs Law contains the word "shall," the non-applicability
of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory, subject only to the exception in case the offender
is a minor.
In People v. Allen Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, the accused, a MINOR, was held
guilty of violation of Sections 5 (sale of dangerous drugs) and 11 (possession of dangerous drugs),
RA 9165. Section 5 is punishable with LIFE IMPRISONMENT TO DEATH. Pursuant to Section 98,
R.A. 9165 the penalty for violation of Section 5 by a minor is RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH.
One degree lower is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused was
sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In the case of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, the accused was sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to
eight (8) years, as maximum ofPRISON MAYOR and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300,000.00).
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
In People v. Restituto Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998 was held guilty of QUALIFIED
RAPE for raping his 17 year-old minor daughter. Relationship was NOT considered aggravating. The
father-daughter relationship in rape cases has been treated by Congress in the nature of a special
circumstance which makes the imposition of the death penalty mandatory.
In People v. Benjamin Soria, G.R. No. 179031, November 14, 2012 relationship was considered
aggravating in qualified rape since the minority of the victim was not proven. It is settled that "when
either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which
is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
In crimes involving violations of R.A. 7610, relationship is aggravating. 255 In crimes against chastity
like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating. 256
A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of
alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating
reason. In short, the defense must show that the intoxication is not habitual, and not subsequent to a
plan to commit a felony, and that the accuseds drunkenness affected his mental faculties. In this
case, the absence of any independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his mental faculties
militate against Victorianos claim that he was so intoxicated at the time he committed the crime to
mitigate his liability.257
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
RELATIONSHIP is absolutory cause in THEFT, ESTAFA or MALICIOUS MISCHIEF when the same
are committed or caused mutually by the: 1. spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
affinity in the same line. 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. Brothers
and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The offenders are only civilly
liability.258 If the crime committed estafa through falsification of public document, the relative is exempt
from criminal liability for estafa but not for the falsification. 259
PARDON and CONSENT of the offended party in adultery or concubinage is absolutory cause. 260

PARDON by the offended party and MARRIAGE is absolutory cause in seduction, abduction and acts
of lasciviousness. The marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned
crimes.261
MARRIAGE of the offender and the offended party is absolutory cause in rape. PARDON is
absolutory cause in rape if the offender is the legal husband except if the marriage is void ab initio.262
PARDON by the offended party is not an absolutory cause in BIGAMY. 263
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE/DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION
Principals

Accomplices

Accessories

They
are
coconspirators
and
each
actively
participated in the
actual commission
of the crime264
A co-conspirator is
not liable if he has
not participated in
the commission of
the crime.

An accomplice HAS
KNOWLEDGE about the
criminal design of the
principal
by
direct
participation AND HE
COOPERATES in the
execution of the offense
bysupplying materials to
be
used
in
the
commission
of
the
offense
or by
giving
moral aidto the principal
by direct participation in
the execution of the
crime265

An accessory has NOT

participated
in
the
commission of felony, but,
with knowledge of the
commission of the crime, he
subsequently takes part in
three ways: (a) by profiting
from the effects of the crime;
(b) by concealing the body,
effects or instruments of the
crime; and (c) by assisting in
the escape or concealment
of the principal of the crime,
provided he acts with abuse
of his public functions, or
whenever the author of the
crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or attempt
to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some
other crime.266

A private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty
of malversation. Note that a different rule prevails with respect to a stranger taking part in the
commission of parricide or qualified theft. In such cases, the stranger is not guilty of parricide or
qualified theft but only of murder or homicide, as the case may be, and simple theft, by reason of
paragraph 3, article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. 267
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The presence of conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances
where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense. Conspiracy is
sufficiently established when the concerted acts show the same purpose or common design and are
united in its execution. Moreover, when there is conspiracy, it is not important who delivered the fatal
blow since the act of one is considered the act of all. It matters not who among the accused actually
killed the victim as each of the accused is equally guilty of the crime charged. 268
His overt act of keeping himself around served no other purpose than to lend moral support by
ensuring that no one could give succor to the victim. His presence at the scene has no doubt,
encouraged Danny and increased the odds against the victim. One who participates in the material
execution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetration thereof is
criminally responsible to the same extent as the actual perpetrator. Moreover, the record is bereft of
any hint that Bingky endeavored to avert the stabbing of the victim despite the particular distance
between them. Under the circumstances, we can hardly accept that Bingky has nothing to do with the
killing. No conclusion can be drawn from the acts of Bingky except that he consented and approved
the acts of his co-accused in stabbing the victim. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one is
deemed the act of all. It matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim. 269

And by their concerted action of almost simultaneously opening fire at the jeepney from the posts
they had deliberately taken around the immediate environment of the suspects, conveniently affording
an opportunity to target the driver, they did achieve their object as shown by the concentration of
bullet entries on the passenger side of the jeepney at angular and perpendicular trajectories. 270
The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Simply put, the
circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.271
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (P.D. 1829)
The failure on the part of the arresting officer/s to arrest the person of the accused makes the latter a
fugitive from justice and is not equivalent to a commission of another offense of obstruction of
justice.272
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher
penalty shall be imposed.273
The accessories EXEMPT from criminal liabilities under Art. 20, RPC may be held criminally liable for
obstruction of justice for concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery or for
harboring/assisting in the escape of their relative in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and
conviction.
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prison mayor,
prision correctional and arresto, the accessory penalties thereto are also imposed upon the convict. 274
Indivisible penalties like reclusion perpetua shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. 275
No matter how many mitigating circumstances are present, the court cannot impose a penalty next
lower to that prescribed by law if there is a special aggravating circumstance. 276
ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW (R.A. 9346)
Persons convicted of offenses whose sentences is reduced to reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment by reason of R.A. 9346, shall not be eligible for parole. The law applies retroactively
to the offender who is not a habitual delinquent. 277
In People v. Hermie Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011, the child in conflict with the law was
found guilty of qualified rape punishable by death. Supreme Court considered the minority of the
accused as privilege mitigating circumstance. Notwithstanding the Anti-Death Penalty Law (R.A.
9346) and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the Supreme Court sentenced the
accused to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining the proper
penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of DEATH is still
the penalty to be reckoned with. The doctrine is reiterated in People v. Henry Arpon, G.R. No.
183563, December 14, 2011.
In People v. Alfredo Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006, the accused was convicted by the
lower court for Attempted Qualified Rape. Qualified Rape is punishable by Death. The Supreme Court
held that in computing for two degrees lower, the reckoning point is NOT the penalty of Death since
the imposition of death penalty is prohibited under R.A. 9346, but from reclusion perpetua. Two
degrees lower than reclusion perpetua is prison mayor. Thus, the penalty for Attempted Qualified
Rape is prison mayor.
PURPOSES OF PENALTY
The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others
from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him
or, in general, to maintain social order. 278
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
Unlike life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua carries with it accessory penalties provided in the
Revised Penal Code and has a definite extent and duration. Life imprisonment is invariably imposed

for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed in accordance
with the Revised Penal Code.279
DURATION OF PENALTY
Although reclusion perpetua has a duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, it is still indivisible. 280
APPLICATION OF PENALTY
If the penalty provided by law for the offense is reclusion perpetua to death, and there is no
aggravating and no mitigating circumstance that attended its commission, the penalty to be imposed
is reclusion perpetua.281 It is wrong for the trial court to impose a penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.282
Simple rape is punished with reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. 283
Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC, when the offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age acting
with discernment, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law is imposed (PRIVILEGE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY). Based on Article 61 (2) of the RPC,reclusion
temporal is the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death.284
Two mitigating, no aggravating, one degree lower. 285
The penalty is two (2) reclusion perpetua for two (2) counts of rape. 286
In Danilo Evangelista v. Hon. Pedro Sistoza, et al., G.R. No. 143881, August 9, 2001 the accused
was sentenced to prison mayor for robbery and prision correctional for illegal possession of firearm.
Sentence cannot be served simultaneously. In the service of two prison terms, the second sentence
did not commence to run until the expiration of the first.
The accused who is sentenced to suffer imprisonment is credited for the period of preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. 287
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. 4103)
RPC or special laws that carries the SPECIAL LAWS
penal nomenclature of the RPC
The maximum shall be that which, in view
of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of said
Code, and the minimum shall be within
the range of penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code.

The
maximum
of
the
indeterminate sentence shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by
the special law and the minimum
shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by law

DISQUALIFIED

QUALIFIED

those sentenced to suffer the penalty of

rehabilitation in a government center
and ESCAPED therein288 and those who
are
sentenced
to destierro and
ENTERED THE PROHIBITED AREA289

those who escaped from mental

institutions,290 the child in conflict
of law who was placed under
suspended but escaped from the
Center291

Recidivists are entitled to indeterminate sentence (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103). Habitual delinquents are
disqualified.292
Since the penalty provided in RA 7610 is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal
Code, it is covered by the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 293
The accused was convicted of attempted rape. The penalty for attempted rape is prison mayor (two
degrees lower from reclusion perpetua). The indeterminate sentence is six (6) years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum. 294

The accused was convicted of violation of R.A. 3019, special law. The imposable penalty is six years
and one month to 15 years. The indeterminate sentence is anywhere between 6 yrs and one month
to 15 yrs.295
Sec. 11, R.A. 9165 is punishable by imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years. It is wrong for
the trial to impose a straight penalty. 296 The indeterminate sentence is anywhere 12 years and one
day to 20 years.
Straight penalty is proper where the penalty imposed is less than one year. 297
The Indeterminate Sentence Law finds no application where the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua298 or arresto menor.299
One degree lower of prison mayor is prision correctional. 300
One degree lower of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua is prision mayor
medium to reclusion temporal minimum.301
One degree lower of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods is arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. 302
One degree lower of prision mayor minimum is prision correctional maximum. 303
THREE-FOLD RULE
The maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he
may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. 304
People v. Bernard Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011
In People v. Bernard Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011 the accused is convicted of four (4)
counts of Qualified Theft and accordingly sentenced to serve the penalties of four (4) of reclusion
perpetua. Applying Art. 70 of the RPC, accused shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period
not exceeding 40 years.
In Samuel Barredo v. Hon. Vicente Vinarao, G.R. No. 168728, August 2, 2007 the accused has to
serve the penalties imposed on him successively in the order of their severity. 22 Hence, he has to first
serve the more severe penalty, i.e., that imposed in the carnapping case (imprisonment for 17 years
and 4 months as minimum to 30 years as maximum). Only after he has served this will he commence
serving the less severe penalty imposed in the illegal possession of firearms case (imprisonment for 4
years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as maximum).
In People v. Eulalio Buhos, et al., G.R. No. L-40995 June 25, 1980 the Accused were convicted of
one (1) complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and sixteen (16) separate crimes of rape with
the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and use of a motor vehicle without any
mitigating circumstance. The accused were convicted of seventeen (17) death penalties.
In People v. Jaime Jose, G.R. No. L-28232 February 6, 1971 the accused were sentenced to suffer
the penalty of four (4) death sentences. The Supreme Court held that Article 70 of the Revised Penal
Code can only be taken into account in connection with the service of the sentence imposed, not in
the imposition of the penalty. 305
In the service of their respective sentences, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the threefold rule as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. 306
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
There is NO subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay civil indemnity arising from the crime 307 or
when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional. 308
The law on subsidiary imprisonment is applicable to BP 22 cases pursuant to Art. 10, RPC. 309

PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968, as amended)

First-time minor offender convicted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law may be placed on
probation even if the sentence provided under R.A. 9165 is HIGHER than that provided under
existing law on probation provided he is not convicted for drug trafficking or pushing. 310
Those convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under R.A.9165, regardless of the penalty imposed by
the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation. 311
The minor convicted for violation of law (except the Dangerous Drugs Law) may apply for probation
at ANY TIME, provided he is QUALIFIED(sentenced to suffer imprisonment of less than six years)
under the Probation Law.312
PAROLE UNDER
ISL (RA 4103,
amended)

PROBATION (PD 968, SUSPENSION

OF
as as amended)
SENTENCE
A
CHILD
IN
CONFLICT WITH THE
LAW UNDER R.A.
9344

The prisoner may be

released on parole after
serving the
minimum
penalty of his sentence
(Sec. 5)

The court pronounced

the
judgment
of
conviction but the service
sentence of the accused
is suspended (Sec. 4)313

Instead of pronouncing
judgment of conviction,
the court placed the
child under suspended
sentence without need
of application (Sec. 38)

Disqualified
are
prisoners convicted of
death, life imprisonment,
reclusion
perpetua,
conspiracy and proposal
to
commit
treason,
misprision of treason,
treason,
rebellion,
sedition,
espionage,
habitual delinquents, or
those who escaped from
confinement or evaded
sentence or violated the
conditions
of
their
pardon,
or
whose
maximum
term
of
imprisonment does not
exceed one year

Disqualified are those

sentenced to a maximum
term of imprisonment of
more than six (6) years,
those
convicted
of
subversion or any crime
against national security
or the public order; those
who
have
been
previously convicted by
final judgment of an
offense punished by
imprisonment of not less
than one month and one
day and/or fine of not
less than P200.00 and
those who have availed
of probation

Disqualified are those

who are more than 21
years old at the time of
promulgation.
Those convicted of
death,
reclusion
perpetua
or
life
imprisonment are not
disqualified.314

President grants parole Trial court grants the Family Court places
upon recommendation probation (Sec. 4)
the child in conflict with
of the Board (Sec. 5)
law under suspended
sentence (Sec. 38)
The period of parole is
equivalent
to
the
remaining portion of the
maximum
sentence
imposed upon him or
until final release and
discharge by the Board

Period of probation is
two
years
for
the
accused
who
is
sentenced to a term of
imprisonment
of
not
more than one year; in
all other cases, said
period shall not exceed
six years.
If the sentence is fine
onlyand the offender is
made to serve subsidiary
imprisonment in case of

Period of suspension of
sentence is until the
child reaches the age
of 18 years of age. The
court may extend the
suspension
of
sentence for a certain
specified period or until
the child reaches the
age of 21 years. (Sec.
40)

insolvency, the period of

probation shall not be
less than nor more than
twice the total number of
days
of
subsidiary
imprisonment.
The expiration of the
period of probation does
not
automatically
terminate the probation.
There must be an Order
from
the
court
terminating
the
315
probation.
If during the period of
surveillance
such
parolee
shall
show
himself to be a law
abiding citizen and shall
not violate any of the
laws of the Philippine
Islands, the Board may
issue a final certificate of
release (Sec. 6)

If the probationer has

fulfilled the terms and
conditions
of
his
probation, the court may
order the final discharge
of probationer and the
case
is
deemed
terminated. The
final
discharge
of
the
probationer shall operate
to restore to him all rights
lost or suspended as a
result of his conviction
and to fully discharge his
liability
for
anyfine imposed as to
the offense for which
probation was granted.
(Sec. 16)

Upon
the
recommendation of the
social worker who has
custody of the child,
the court shall dismiss
the case against the
child whose sentence
has been suspended
and against whom
disposition measures
have been issued, and
shall order the final
discharge of the child if
it
finds
that
the
objective
of
the
disposition measures
have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the
child in conflict with the
law shall not affect the
civil liability resulting
from the commission of
the offense, which shall
be
enforced
in
accordance with law.
(Sec. 39)

If he violates any
conditions of his parole,
the Board may issue an
order for his re-arrest
and he shall serve the
remaining
unexpired
portion of the maximum
sentence for which he
was originally committed
to prison unless the
Board grants a new
parole to said prisoner

If the probationer violates

any of the conditions of
his probation or commit
any offense during the
period of his probation,
he shall, after notice and
hearing,
serve
the
penalty imposed for the
offense under which he
was placed on probation
(Sec. 11 and 15)

If the court finds that

the objective of the
disposition measures
imposed upon the child
in conflict with the law
have not been fulfilled,
or if the child in conflict
with the law has
willfully failed to comply
with the conditions of
his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program,
the child in conflict with
the law shall be
brought before the
court for execution of
judgment. (Sec. 40)

In expressly enumerating offenders not qualified to enjoy the benefits of probation, the clear intent is
to allow said benefits to those not included in the enumeration. 316

The application for probation is considered a waiver upon his part to file an appeal. Judgment
becomes final.317 Exception: the accused is entitled to probation even if he appealed the judgment of
conviction considering that the stiff penalty (more than six years imprisonment) that the trial court
imposed on him denied him the choice between appeal and probation. 318
The expiration of the probation period does not automatically terminate the probation. Before final
discharge, the probation may be revoke for cause at any time. 319
The accused do not serve his sentence when place on probation (execution of sentence is
suspended).320
Although the execution of sentence is suspended by the grant of probation, it does not follow that the
civil liability of the offender, if any, is extinguished. 321
Those guilty of election offense under Section 264 of BP 881 are not entitled to probation. 322
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under R.A. 9165, regardless of the penalty
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential
Decree No. 968, as amended323 even if the applicant is a minor.324
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
In falsification of public document the reckoning period for prescription from the date of registration of
the instrument since the registration in a public registry is a constructive notice to the whole
world.325
The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy should be counted only from the day on which the
said crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents, as opposed to being
counted from the date of registration of the bigamous marriage. 326
Section 410 (c) of the Local Government Code provides: While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing
laws shall be interrupted upon filing the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive period
shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of
the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided, however, that such
interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong
barangay.
Section 28, R.A. 9344 provides: The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during
the effectivity of the diversion program, but not exceeding a period of two (2) years.
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The death of the accused during the pendency of his appeal extinguishes not only his criminal liability
for the crime but also his civil liability solely arising from or based on said crime. The claim for civil
liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a
source of obligation other than delict. An action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way
of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure as amended.327
Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he serves
the minimum term of his prison sentence. The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminal liability of
the offender. Parole is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of
the Revised Penal Code.328
The mere payment of an obligation before the institution of a criminal complaint for estafa does not,
on its own, constitute novation that may prevent criminal liability. 329
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES UNDER RPC
The filing of the complaint with the OCP effectively interrupted the running of the 60-day prescriptive
period for instituting the criminal action for slight physical injuries. 330
These trips abroad did not constitute the "absence" contemplated in Article 91. These trips were brief,
and in every case the private respondent returned to the Philippines. 331

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES PUNISHABLE UNDER SPECIAL LAW

ACT NO. 3326 entitled "An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and Municipal
Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin," as amended, is the law applicable on the
prescription of crimes punishable under special laws and NOT Arts. 90 to 93, RPC.
There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with
respect to the interruption of the period of prescription, that is, the institution of proceedings for
preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. 332
The prescriptive period for the crime which is the subject herein, commenced from the date of its
discovery in 1992 after the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans made an
exhaustive investigation because "it was well-high impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to
have known these crimes committed prior to the 1986 EDSA Revolution, because of the alleged
connivance and conspiracy among involved public officials and the beneficiaries of the loans." 333
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit
should EVADE THE SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCE (the convict must be imprisoned and escaped
from confinement). The period of prescription is interrupted if the defendant should give himself up,
be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty,
or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. 334
PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY
A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except in criminal cases of
adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness, or in rape committed by the
legal husband, and the same was extended by the offended party BEFORE THE INSTITUTION OF
CRIMINAL ACTION IN COURT.335
PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT vis. AMNESTY
Pardon by President

Amnesty

A pardon shall not work the

restoration of the right to hold public
office, or the right of suffrage, unless
such rights be expressly restored by
the terms of the pardon. A pardon
shall in no case exempt the culprit
from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence.336

Completely extinguishes the penalty

and all its effect337 Amnesty looks
backward and abolishes and puts into
oblivion the offense itself, it so
overlooks and obliterates the offense
with which he is charged that the
person released by amnesty stands
before the law precisely as though he
had committed no offense.338
Where the pardoning power is with
the concurrence of Congress, and is
in the nature of a general amnesty for
strictly political offenses, it has been
considered in the nature of a public
law, thus having the same effect on
the case as if the general law
punishing the offense had been
repealed or annulled.339

Granted by the President to a

particular person or group of persons
after conviction by final judgment
concerning ordinary crimes.340

Granted by the President with the

concurrence of Congress, before or
after conviction, to a group of persons
concerning political offenses

Since it is a private act by the it is a public act of which the courts

President it must be pleaded and should take judicial notice
proved by the person pardoned,
because the courts take no notice
thereof.
Pardon looks forward and relieves

the offender from the consequences

of an offense of which he has been
convicted, that is, it abolishes or
forgives the punishment, and for that
reason it does nor work the
restoration of the rights to hold public
office, or the right of suffrage, unless
such rights be expressly restored by
the terms of the pardon, and it in no
case exempts the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity
imposed
upon
him
by
the
sentence 341
The accused who violated the condition of his pardon is to serve his original sentence if the penalty
remitted by the pardon is more than six (6) years, otherwise, he suffers the penalty of prision
correctional for other cases of evasion of service of sentence. 342
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Piracy under Art. 122 & 123, Piracy under P.D. 532
RPC
Committed by attacking or
seizing a vessel,
or by seizing the whole or part of
the cargo of the said vessel, its
equipment
or
personal
belongings of its complement or
passengers

Committed by attacking or seizing any

vessel or watercraft,
or taking away the whole or part thereof,
or its cargo, equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force
upon things

Abetting piracy is punished as punished as accomplice under the RPC

accessory
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
The crime of ARBITRARY DETENTION can be committed through imprudence. 343
Vagrancy is not a legal ground to detain a person since the same has been decriminalized. 344
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with
a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the
latter.345
Sundays, Saturdays and holidays are excluded in the computation of the periods enumerated under
Art. 125, RPC (Arbitrary Detention).346
The crimes of maliciously obtaining search warrant and abuse in the service search warrant are
without prejudice to the liability of the offender for the commission of any other offense. 347
ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009 (R.A. 9745)
Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed
as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall
be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO OTHER CRIMINAL LIABILITY provided for by domestic and international laws. 348
The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public
official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime
of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or omission,
or negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly
or indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to
the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and

degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed
by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge,
did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission,
when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of such act,
whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals. 349
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this
Act. Moreover, if the commission of any crime punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons)
and Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code is attended
by any of the acts constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment as defined herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum period. 350
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION

INCITING
REBELLION

TO

COMMIT

person who proposes has decided to it is not required that the offender
commit rebellion
has decided to commit rebellion
act is done secretly

the act is done in public

Direct assault may also be committed by seriously INTIMIDATING or resisting any person in authority
or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance. If committed by employing force, the force employed need not be so serious if the
offended party is a person in authority but if the offended party is a mere agent of a person in
authority, it is necessary that the force used be serious in character as to show defiance of law and its
representative at all hazard.351 If the person in authority or agent of a person in authority suffers less
serious physical injuries by reason of the force employed, the offense results in a complex crime of
direct assault with less serious physical injuries.352
DELIVERING
FROM JAIL

PRISONERS INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF

PRISONERS

Committed by an outsider353

Committed by the public officer in

custody of the prisoner354

If the delivery of the prisoner was committed through bribery, the briber commits two separate
offenses of corruption of public officer and delivering prisoners from jail; the jailer in custody of the
prisoner, if he is a public officer, is liable for infidelity of the custody of prisoners and bribery, the
prisoner by final judgment commits evasion of service of sentence if he is already convicted by final
judgment.
If the crime committed by the prisoner for which he is confined or serving sentence is treason,
murder, or parricide, the offender who helped in the escape of the prisoner is liable
as accessory under Article 19 par. 3, RPC.
In proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have
breached the conditions of his pardon, the Executive Department has two options: (i) to proceed
against him under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code; or (ii) to proceed against him
under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code which imposes the penalty of prision
correccional, minimum period, upon a convict who "having been granted conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon." Here, the President has chosen
to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code. That choice
is an exercise of the President's executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. 355
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
FORGERY

FALSIFICATION

Committed by giving to a Committed

treasury or bank note or any counterfeiting
instrument payable to bearer or imitating

FALSE
CERTIFICATES
by The
documents
or falsified are medical
any certificates,

to order the appearance of a handwriting,

certificate of merit or
true and genuine document; or signature or rubric, service, etc.
by
erasing,
substituting, etc (refer to Art 171)
counterfeiting, or altering by
any means the figures, letters,
words or signs contained
therein
Introducing false medical certificates as evidence in judicial proceedings is punishable under the last
paragraph of Art. 172 and not under Art. 175.
There is no crime of estafa through falsification of private document because both have common
elements, that is, damage to third persons. The crime will be either estafa or falsification.
If the offender used a falsified document to affect the outcome of criminal investigation or proceeding,
the offender is liable for obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829 since the latter offense carries a higher
penalty.356
PERJURY is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered
by authority of law on a material matter.357
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY

USURPATION OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS

The
offender knowingly and falsely
represents himself to be an officer, agent
or representative of any department or
agency of the Philippine Government or of
any foreign government.

The
offender performs
any
act pertaining to any person in
authority or public officer of the
Philippine Government or any
foreign government, or any
agency thereof, without being
lawfully entitled to do so.

USING FICTITIOUS NAME

ANTI-ALIAS LAW (C.A. 142)

The offender publicly uses a fictitious

namefor the purpose of concealing a
crime, evading the execution of a
judgment or causing damage.

The offender publicly358 uses any

name different from the one with
which he was registered at birth in
the office of the local civil registry, or
with which he was baptized for the
first time, or, in case of an alien, with
which he was registered in the
bureau of immigration upon entry; or
such substitute name as may have
been authorized by a competent
court
The offender represents himself in
any public or private transaction, or
signs or executes any public or
private document without stating or
affixing his real or original name and
all names or aliases or pseudonym
he is authorized to use.

Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more, is not a criminal offense.
For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the RPC, the possession must be with intent to use
said false treasury or bank notes.359
The elements of the crime of falsification of commercial documents as found in paragraph 1, Article
172 of the RPC, are: 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not
take advantage of his official position; 2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in Article 171; and 3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial
document.360

If a person had in his possession (actual or constructive) a falsified document and made use of it,
taking advantage of it and/or profiting from such use, the presumption that he authored the
falsification also applies.361
More importantly, it must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood
under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. Thus, a mere
assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and
willful.362 Perjury is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit. 363
Unfair competition is punished not under Art. 189 but under the Intellectual Property Code. 364
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
A diplomat who imports to our country dangerous drugs is liable for importation of dangerous drugs.
The maximum penalty is imposed when he used his diplomatic passport or diplomatic facilities to
facilitate the unlawful entry of the dangerous drugs in the country. 365
The crimes of illegal possession of dangerous or possession of drug paraphernalia are aggravated
when the offender commits the same during parties, social gatherings or meetings or in the proximate
company of at least two persons.366
If, after the buy-bust operation, the arresting police officers recovered from the possession of accused
another plastic sachet containing dangerous drugs, the accused is liable for two (2) separate crimes
of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 367
If, after the buy bust operation committed in a certain place, the police poseur-buyer agreed to buy
and the accused-drug seller agreed to sell larger quantity of dangerous drugs for a bigger
consideration in the latters house and the second sale was consummated, the accused is liable for
two (2) separate crimes of sale of dangerous drugs because the first sale is different from the second
sale.
In People v. Joel Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, July 6, 2011, the police officers recovered from the
possession of the accused dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia during the buy-bust operation.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for three (3) separate crimes of sale of
dangerous drugs, illegal possession of drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test is criminally liable for illegal use of dangerous drugs. 368
If the offender uses a dangerous drug, the crime committed is only one crime of use of dangerous
drugs and not two separate crimes of use, and, possession of dangerous drugs.
If the offender is using a dangerous drug and he is also found to have in his possession such quantity
of any dangerous drug which is not only for use, the offender commits the crime of possession of
dangerous drugs and not the crime of use of dangerous drugs. 369
The non-compliance of Section 21 no. 1 of R.A. 9165 does not render the arrest of the accused illegal
or the items seized from him inadmissible as long as (1) the non-compliance is on justifiable grounds,
and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.370 In other words, even if the apprehending police officers failed to comply with
section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law the accused may, nonetheless be convicted if the
prosecution is able to prove that the dangerous drug presented in court is the very same dangerous
drug that was taken or confiscated from the accused. This is done by proving the chain of custody. In
Ruel Ampatuan v. People, G.R. No. 183676, June 22, 2011 the Supreme Court enunciated the links
that must be established in the chain of custody as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court.
The police officer who arrested a person without lawful ground, planted evidence, and demanded
money for the release of the person arrested, and the arrested person complied by giving money, is
liable for unlawful arrest and robbery under RPC and for planting evidence under R.A. 9165. Unlawful

arrest cannot be complex with planting with evidence because the latter offense is punished under
R.A. 9165. Section 98 of RA 9165 expressly provides for the non-applicability of RPC, except with
respect to minor offenders. (The crime also constitutes a complex crime of incriminating innocent
person through unlawful arrest but the same carries a lower penalty as compared to the crime of
planting evidence.)
In People v. Rolando Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, July 6, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the
conviction of the accused for attempted sale of dangerous drugs since the prosecution was able to
identify the buyer and seller as well as the object and consideration in the illegal transaction. The
accused intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime
by showing the substance to the police officers. However, the sale was interrupted when the police
officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested the accused and his live-in partner.
Thus, the sale was not consummated but merely attempted. The penalty, however, is the same as
that of a consummated sale.
In conspiracy (as a mode of committing the offense), it is necessary that a conspirator should have
performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime committed.
The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may
consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or
by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. Hence, the mere presence of an
accused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it,without any active participation in
the same, is not enough for purposes of conviction.371
R.A. 9165

OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE

R.A. 3019

RPC

Drug protector or
coddler is punished
under Sec. 4, R.A.
9165

Sec.
1
last
paragraph
provides: If the act
mentioned herein is
penalized by any
other law with a
high penalty, the
higher penalty shall
be imposed
Not liable since the
act of the offender
of using his position
in
shielding
or
harboring
or
facilitating
the
escape
of
the
suspected violator
of R.A. 9165 is
already punished
under R.A. 9165
with
a
higher
penalty

Sec.
3
provides:
In
addition to acts
or omissions of
public officers
already
penalized
by
existing laws x
x x
Not liable since
the act is not
punishable
under
R.A.
3019

Not punishable
as Accessory
under Art. 19,
RPC
since
Sec. 98 of R.A.
9165 expressly
provides
for
the
nonapplicability of
RPC to 9165

The public officer

who, after receiving
bribe
money,
misappropriated the
seized
dangerous
drugs
under
his
custody in order to
prevent the same
from
being
introduced
in
evidence
violates
Sec. 27, R.A. 9165

Offender is not
liable
for
Obstruction
of
Justice since the
same act is already
penalized
under
Sec. 27 of R.A.
9165 with a higher
penalty

The offender is
liable
for
violation
of
R.A. 3019 for
allowing
himself to be
persuaded,
induced
or
influenced to
violate a law in
connection
with the official
duties of the
latter

The offender is
also liable for
bribery if he
received bribe
money

CRIMES AGAINST MORALS

The crime of vagrancy has been decriminalized under R.A. 10158 which took effect in June 2012.
The law amended Article 202, RPC by removing vagrancy as a crime because of concerns that it only
targets the poor and the disadvantaged. The new law, nonetheless, continues to penalize women
engaged in prostitution.
Mere possession of obscene materials, without intention to sell, exhibit, or give them away, is not
punishable under Article 201, considering the purpose of the law is to prohibit the dissemination of
obscene materials to the public. The offense in any of the forms under Article 201 is committed only
when there is publicity. 32 The law does not require that a person be caught in the act of selling, giving
away or exhibiting obscene materials to be liable, for as long as the said materials are offered for
sale, displayed or exhibited to the public.372
CRIMES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
DIRECT BRIBERY

INDIRECT BRIBERY

The mere acceptance of the offer is

enough to consummate the crime.
If the act performed by the public
officer constitutes a crime, he is liable
for bribery and for the crime
committed.373

The public officer must receive the

gift or money to consummate the
crime.
The crime has no attempted or
frustrated stage.

Bribery is qualified when committed by any public officer entrusted with law enforcement and who
refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime.
The public officer may be held liable for direct/ qualified bribery and prevaricacion under Art. 208,
RPC at the same time.374
A police officer or prosecutor who received bribe money from the accused in consideration of the
unsuccessful prosecution or dismissal of drug cases and the accused was in fact acquitted is liable
for Qualified Bribery and for Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases under Sec. 92, R.A. 9165.
DIRECT BRIBERY

INDIRECT
BRIBERY

R.A. 3019

The public officer

agree to perform or
not to perform an act,
in connection with the
performance of his
official
duties,
in
consideration of any
offer, promise or gift

The public officer

accepts
gifts
offered to him by
reason of his
office

The public officer directly or

indirectly requests or receives
any gift or benefit in connection
with any contract or transaction
wherein he, in his official
capacity, has to intervene under
the law.375
The public officer, directly or
indirectly requests or receives
any gift from any person in
consideration of helping said
person secure any government
license or permit376

Public funds or property in MALVERSATION includes properties of government entities or

instrumentalities. It includes the property attached, seized or deposited by public authority even if
such property belongs to private individuals.377
Section 101(1) of P.D. No. 1445 which defines an accountable officer to be "every officer of any
government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or
property shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law." A
municipal treasurer is an accountable officer.378
While demand is not an element of the crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the application of the
presumption (The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence

that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use). Without this presumption, the
accused may still be proven guilty under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation. 379
Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or
passively through negligence by allowing another to commit such misappropriation. 380
The crime of MALVERSATION applies to private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have
charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator
or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if
such property belongs to a private individual.381
MALVERSATION

ESTAFA

Committed by an accountable public Committed by a non-accountable

officer involving public funds or public officer or private individual
property under his custody
involving funds or property for which
he is not accountable to the
government
Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public
purpose.382
The act of the jail warden of allowing a detainee to stay in the latters house at night and to return to
the municipal jail during the day constitutes a crime of infidelity of custody to prisoners. 383 Art. 88,
RPC provides: The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of
the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in
its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem
satisfactory to it.
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. 3019)
The public officer who commits any of acts punishable under R.A. 3019 may also be held criminally
liable for violation of the Revised Penal Code or any Special Laws for the same delictual act.384
The act of the Mayor, Municipal Engineer, and member of the PNP of destroying the subject fences
without giving any notice to the private complainant does not amount to manifest partiality and/or
evident bad faith. The same could not be considered evident bad faith as the prosecution evidence
failed to show that the destruction was for a dishonest purpose, ill will or self interest. 385
The mayor was held liable for violation of Section 3 (b) for demanding and receiving "grease money"
as a condition for the release of the final payment to the private complainant. 386
The elements of violation of Section 3(g), R.A. No. 3019 are: (1) that the accused is a public officer;
(2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such
contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. 387
The elements of the violation of Sec. 3 (h) of R.A. 3019 are as follows: 1) The accused is a public
officer; 2) he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction; 3) he either: a) intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such
interest, or b) is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by law. Edgar Teves, then
mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental, owned the cockpit in question. He is prohibited under Section
89(2) of the LGC of 1991.388
PLUNDER
Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling
under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public
treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the
National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
On the other hand, to constitute a series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling
under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation,
malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1).

Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it
would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.
As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan that this term is sufficiently
defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 x x x x under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the
law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to
enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must
either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly
understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which
the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaid
common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods
used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a
common goal.
Xxx
What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient to
form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at
least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in the Information
to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy
to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. To illustrate, supposing that the accused is
charged in an Information for plunder with having committed fifty (50) raids on the public treasury.
The prosecution need not prove all these fifty (50) raids, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least
two (2) of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at
least P50,000,000.00.
A reading of Sec. 2 in conjunction with Sec. 4, brings us to the logical conclusion that "pattern of overt
or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy" inheres in the very acts of
accumulating, acquiring or amassing hidden wealth. Stated otherwise, such pattern arises where the
prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts as defined in Sec. 1, par.
(d). Pattern is merely a by-product of the proof of the predicate acts. This conclusion is consistent
with reason and common sense. There would be no other explanation for a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts to stash P50,000,000.00 or more, than "a scheme or conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill gotten wealth." The prosecution is therefore not required to make a
deliberate and conscious effort to prove pattern as it necessarily follows with the establishment of a
series or combination of the predicate acts. 389
The contention of the accused that the information charges more than one offense, namely, bribery
(Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code), malversation of public funds or property (Article 217,
Revised Penal Code) and violations of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act (RA No. 3019) and Section 7(d) of
RA 6713 is patently unmeritorious. The said acts which form part of the combination or series of act
are described in their generic sense. Thus, aside from 'malversation' of public funds, the law also
uses the generic terms 'misappropriation', 'conversion' or 'misuse' of said fund. The fact that the acts
involved may likewise be penalized under other laws is incidental. The said acts are mentioned only
as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be taken or to
be understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the Revised Penal
Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees.390
HUMAN SECURITY ACT (R.A. 9372)
Sec. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall be a Bar to Another Prosecution under the Revised
Penal Code or any Special Penal Laws. - When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of
this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance
to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused
or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is
necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
In PARRICIDE, the relationship of the offender need not be legitimate with respect to his father,
mother or child but must be LEGITIMATE with respect to his other ascendants, descendants or
spouse 391

In People v. Noel Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011 the father who employed sadistic
beatings and inflicted fatal injuries on his children under the guise of disciplining them was held liable
for the crimes of parricide and slight physical injuries.
Assisting another to commit suicide is a felony. 392
Burning the corpse393 or sawing off the head, limbs, and torso of the dead body are modes of
outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim that qualifies the killing into Murder. 394
If the main objective of the offender is to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder. But if the main
objective is the burning of the building, the resulting homicide may be absorbed by the crime of
arson.395
The accused who burned a house for the purpose of killing two persons therein was held liable for
complex crime of double murder.396
The accused who used a hand grenade in killing a dozen of persons was held liable for complex
crime of multiple murders. The crime was qualified by the use of explosives although treachery also
attended the killing since the use of explosive was the principal mode of attack. Treachery was
merely considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. 397
In People v. Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011 the accused who stabbed (once)
his victim with a bamboo stick was held liable for Slight Physical Injuries aggravated by treachery.
The accused has no intent to kill and the stabbing was a remote cause in the victims death.
In People v. Cecilia Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012 the accused was held liable only for
Slight Physical Injuries as there no evidence as to the duration of the injuries sustained by the victim.
In People v. Rodrigo Salcedo, G.R. No. 178272, March 14, 2011 the accused was held liable for the
complex crime of Murder with unintentional abortion for stabbing a pregnant woman, killing the
woman and the unborn child in the process.
Force in rape cases is defined as "power, violence or constraint exerted upon or against a person." It
is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such a
character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to
consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 398
Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the
latter submits herself out of fear.399
In rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law
spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral
influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. 400
A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the
victims testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. Be that as it may,
in People v. Ortoa, where the medico-legal findings showed that the victim is still in a state of virginity
when she was examined, we held that: The lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual
intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen
of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape. x x x Penetration of the penis by
entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
conviction for rape.401
In the context that is used in the RPC, "carnal knowledge," unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual
intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be
ruptured.23 Thus, even granting that AAAs lacerations were not caused by Colorado, the latter could
still be declared guilty of rape, after it was established that he succeeded in having carnal knowledge
of the victim.402
In People v. Armando Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011 the accused inserted his finger into
the genitalia of his 10 year-old victim, thereafter he inserted therein his organ. The accused was
convicted for two (2) separate crimes of statutory rape and for rape by sexual assault.

The accused was held liable for acts of lasciviousness and not rape by sexual assault since there
was no actual insertion of the tongue.403
In People v. Joseph Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004, the victim Appellant ejaculated
twice during the time that he consummated the rape. Appellant did not withdraw his penis to insert it
again into the vagina or to touch the labia majora or the labia minora when he ejaculated the second
time. It is not the number of times that appellant ejaculated but the penetration or touching that
determines the consummation of the sexual act. 36 Thus, appellant committed only one count of rape.
In People v. Ito Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8, 2011, however, the accused undressed his victim
and removed her panty. Thereafter, he took off his own pants and inserted his penis into her vagina.
She felt pain. He withdrew his penis after about ten (10) seconds but inserted it again after ten (10)
seconds. After five (5) seconds, he withdrew it again but inserted it once more after five (5) seconds.
He also inserted his finger and licked her vagina. After consummating the act, appellant sent her
home and warned her not to tell anyone of the incident. X x x although the penis was thrice inserted
in her private organ, the same constituted one (1) count of rape.
Rape is qualified if the victim is below seven (7) years old, or, when the victim is a minor and the
offender is a parent, 404 ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse 405 of the parent of the victim.
The granduncle, or more specifically the brother of the victims grandfather, is a relative of the victim
in the fourth civil degree, and is thus not covered by Article 266-B, paragraph 5(1). 406
In rape with homicide, the original intention of the offender is to commit rape and it is immaterial that
the person killed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. In the special
complex crime of rape with homicide, the term homicide is to be understood in its generic sense,
and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the
rape.47 Hence, even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength and
evident premeditation) alleged in the information have been duly established by the prosecution, the
same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape with
homicide. As in the case of robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstance of treachery is to be
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only. 407
If the original intention of the offender is to rape a woman and the taking of the latters personal
property is a mere afterthought, the offender is liable for two separate crimes of rape and robber. In
Robbery with rape, the original intention of the offender is to rob. 408
A person is guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a
"borderline mental deficiency" (IQ between 70 to 89). The traditional but now obsolescent terms
applied to those degrees of mental retardation were (a) idiot, having an IQ of 0-19, and a maximum
intellectual factor in adult life equivalent to that of the average two-year old child; (b) imbecile by an IQ
of 20 to 49 and a maximum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average sevenyear old child; (c) moron or feebleminded, having an IQ of 50 to 69 and a maximum intellectual
function in adult life equivalent to that of the average twelve-year old child 409
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (R.A. 9262)
The acts of violence against women and their children may either be prosecuted under R.A. 9262 or
in the RPC410
The offended party is the wife, former wife, with whom the offender has sexual or dating relationship,
or has a common child.
R.A. 9262 Sec. 3 (a) provides: "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a
series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family
abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts: x x x

Sec. 6. Penalties. The crime of violence against women and their children, under Sec. 5 hereof shall
be punished according to the following rules:
(a) Acts falling under Sec. 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder
or homicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code;
If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal
Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of prison mayor; those
constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those
constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor;
Acts falling under Sec. 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the
prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no
case be lower than arresto mayor; x x x
ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009 (R.A. 9775)
The offender may be punished either under R.A. 7610, R.A. 9775 or under the RPC for the same
criminal act.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) "Child" refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or over, but is unable to fully take care
of himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.
For the purpose of this Act, a child shall also refer to:
(1) a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein;
and
(2) computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is
represented or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein.
(b) "Child pornography" refers to any representation, whether visual, audio, or written combination
thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of child engaged or
involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities.
Section 16. Common Penal Provisions.
(a) If the offender is a parent, ascendant, guardian, step-parent or collateral relative within the third
degree of consanguinity or affinity or any person having control or moral ascendancy over the child,
the penalty provided herein shall be in its maximum duration; Provided, That this provision shall not
apply to Section 4(g) of this Act; x x x
ANTI-HAZING LAW (R.A. 8049)
The crime is HAZING even if death, rape, sodomy or mutilation, physical injuries results therefrom 411
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as
principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein. The offenders are not
entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. 412
SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISCRIMINATION ACT (R.A. 7610)
The accused who, by means of intimidation, inserted his finger into the private organ of the child
above 12 but below 18 years old may be held liable either for Rape by Sexual Assault under Art. 266A RPC (penalty is prison mayor) or Acts of Lasciviousness under Sec. 5 (b), R.A. 7610 (penalty is
reclusion temporal) but not both.
The Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208) did not amend nor repeal R.A. 7610. 413
A person may be charged either under the R.A. 7610, RPC, R.A. 9208 or R.A. 9775 for the same
delictual act.
The offender who engaged in carnal knowledge with a child prostitute and a victim of human
trafficking under R.A. 9208 should be charged under Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 and not under
Section 11 of R.A. 9208 because R.A. 7610 provides a stiffer penalty.

Though the crimes were erroneously designated, the averments in the informations clearly make out
an offense of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Under the said law, "child abuse"
refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes psychological and
physical abuse, cruelty, emotional maltreatment or any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In the first
information, petitioner is charged with child abuse by uttering debasing, demeaning and degrading
words to the minor. In the second, he is charged with child abuse by inflicting physical injuries that
debase, demean and degrade the dignity of the children as human beings. 414
JUVENILE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (R.A. 9344)
SEC. 62. Violation of the Provisions of this Act or Rules or Regulations in General. - Any person who
violates any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation promulgated in accordance thereof shall,
upon conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a fine of not less than Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) or suffer imprisonment of
not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both such fine and imprisonment at
the discretion of the court, unless a higher penalty is provided for in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws. If the offender is a public officer or employee, he/she shall, in addition to such fine
and/or imprisonment, be held administratively liable and shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification.
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
In kidnapping with rape, the intention of the offender of forcibly dragging away the victim is to deprive
the woman of her liberty. 415
Appellants act of taking the three-year old Regelyn while the latter was playing near her house,
without the knowledge or consent of her parents, constituted the crime of kidnapping a minor. 416
In People v. Alberto Anticamara, et al., G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011 the accused was held liable
for kidnapping and serious illegal detention while his co-accused was held liable for complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape since he does not know about the rape committed
by his co-accused. The rule is, once conspiracy is established between several accused in the
commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by
anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored to
prevent the others from committing rape. Where the members of the band were not aware of
anothers lustful intent and his consummation thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent
the same, they cannot be held liable for the rape.
In People v. Estacio, G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009 (citing People v. Romeo Padica, et al., G.R. No.
102645, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 362) the Supreme Court held that where the taking of the victim
was incidental to the basic purpose to kill, the crime is only murder, and this is true even if, before the
killing but for purposes thereof, the victim was taken from one place to another. Thus, where the
evident purpose of taking the victims was to kill them, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
inferred that the latters purpose was actually to detain or deprive the victims of their liberty, the
subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder, hence the crime of kidnapping does
not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce the complex crime of
kidnapping with murder. In fact, as we held in the aforecited case of Masilang, et. al., although the
accused had planned to kidnap the victim for ransom but they first killed him and it was only later that
they demanded and obtained the money, such demand for ransom did not convert the crime into
kidnapping since no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved, hence the crime committed was
only murder.417
In People v. Felipe Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011 the Supreme Court held that
regardless of the number of rapes committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape,
the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are
regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one
single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter how many
times the victim was raped, like in the present case, there is only one crime committed the special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape. However, for the crime of kidnapping with rape, as in this
case, the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs, otherwise, it would be complex
crime of forcible abduction with rape. In People v. Garcia, we explained that if the taking was by
forcible abduction and the woman was raped several times, the crimes committed is one complex

crime of forcible abduction with rape, in as much as the forcible abduction was only necessary for the
first rape; and each of the other counts of rape constitutes distinct and separate count of rape.
In Judith Jatulan v. People, G.R. No. 171653, April 24, 2007, the Supreme Court held that ransom
means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that
would release him from captivity. No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of
kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the
victims freedom. Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received by the perpetrator is of no
moment.
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION if the kidnapping is less than three days and without the attending
circumstances enumerated in Art. 267, RPC.
The act of putting ones foot inside the door constitutes entry for purposes of trespass to dwelling. 418
In Joseph Anthony Alejandro, et al. v. Atty. Jose Bernas, et al., G.R. No. 179243, September 7, 2011
the accused were held guilty of unjust vexation for padlocking the rented Unit and cutting off its
electric, water and telephone facilities. The accused were not held liable for grave coercion it was
never alleged that the acts were effected by violence, threat or intimidation. The mere presence of the
security guards is insufficient to cause intimidation to the petitioners. There is intimidation when one
of the parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil
upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or
ascendants, to give his consent. Material violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation.
Intense fear produced in the mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the will is
sufficient.
ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT (R.A. 4200)
Extension telephone is not among the prohibited devices. The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable
or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or
recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or
the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the
spoken words.419
The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. 29 Since the
exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not
prohibited.420
It is illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly
record such communication by means of a tape recorder. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of
secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices
enumerated therein.421
ANTI-WIRE ATAPPING ACT (R.A. HUMAN SECURITY ACT (R.A.
4200)
9372)
Protects
any
citizen
against Protects
suspected
terrorists
unauthorized recording of private against the unauthorized recording
communications by any person
or surveillance committed by the
law enforcement officers
ANTI-TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS ACT OF 2003 (R.A. 9208)
R.A. 9208

R.A. 7610

RPC

Sec. 3 (a) Trafficking in

Persons - refers to the
recruitment,
transportation, transfer
or harboring, or receipt
of persons with or
without the victim's
consent or knowledge,

Sec. 7. Child Trafficking.

Any person who shall
engage in trading and
dealing
with
children
including, but not limited to,
the act of buying and selling
of a child for money, or for
any other consideration, or

Art. 340. Corruption

of minors. Any
person who shall
promote or facilitate
the prostitution or
corruption
of
persons underage
to satisfy the lust of

within or across national

borders by means of
threat or use of force, or
other forms of coercion,
abduction,
fraud,
deception, abuse of
power or of position,
taking advantage of the
vulnerability
of
the
person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments
or benefits to achieve
the consent of a person
having control over
another person for the
purpose of exploitation
which includes at a
minimum,
the
exploitation
or
the
prostitution of others or
other forms of sexual
exploitation,
forced
labor
or
services,
slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of
organs.
The
recruitment,
transportation, transfer,
harboring or receipt of a
child for the purpose of
exploitation shall also
be
considered
as
"trafficking in persons"
even if it does not
involve any of the
means set forth in the
preceding paragraph.

barter, shall suffer the

penalty of reclusion temporal
to reclusion perpetua. The
penalty shall be imposed in
its maximum period when
the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age.
Sec. 8. Attempt to Commit
Child Trafficking. There
is an attempt to commit child
trafficking under Sec. 7 of
this Act:
(a) When a child travels
alone to a foreign country
without valid reason therefor
and
without
clearance
issued by the Department of
Social
Welfare
and
Development
or
written
permit or justification from
the child's parents or legal
guardian;
(c) When a person, agency,
establishment or child-caring
institution recruits women or
couples to bear children for
the
purpose
of
child
trafficking; or
(d) When a doctor, hospital
or clinic official or employee,
nurse, midwife, local civil
registrar or any other person
simulates birth for the
purpose of child trafficking;
or
(e) When a person engages
in the act of finding children
among low-income families,
hospitals, clinics, nurseries,
day-care centers, or other
child-during institutions who
can be offered for the
purpose of child trafficking.
A penalty lower two (2)
degrees than that prescribed
for the consummated felony
under Sec. 7 hereof shall be
imposed upon the principals
of the attempt to commit
child trafficking under this
Act.

another, shall be
punished by prision
mayor, and if the
culprit is a pubic
officer or employee,
including those in
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations,
he
shall also suffer the
penalty of temporary
absolute
disqualification.
Art.
341.
White
slave trade. The
penalty of prision
mayor in its medium
and
maximum
period
shall
be
imposed upon any
person who, in any
manner, or under
any pretext, shall
engage
in
the
business or shall
profit by prostitution
or shall enlist the
services
of
any
other
for
the
purpose
of
prostitution

R.A. 9208 did not amend R.A. 7610.422

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
In People v. Ricky Hijada, G.R. No. 123696, March 11, 2004, the Supreme Court held that there is no
crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The crime is Robbery with
Homicide notwithstanding the number of homicides committed on the occasion of the robbery and
even if murder, physical injuries and rape were also committed on the same occasion. 423

In People v. Antonio Ortiz, et al., G.R. No. 179944, September 4, 2009 the victim was raped by
several men during the robbery. The Supreme Court held the accused liable for special complex
crime of robbery with rape, and not for robbery with multiple rapes.
In Teodolo Villanueva, Jr. G.R. No. 187152, July 22, 2009 the accused was held liable for robbery
with homicide, not robbery with murder but the Supreme Court considered treachery as generic
aggravating circumstance.424
In People v. Nonoy Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010 the Supreme Court held that when
homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the
killing, unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing / rape. 425
In People v. Ngano Sugan, et al., G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011 the Supreme Court held that the
proper designation of the offense is robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of band,
NOT robbery with homicide committed by a band.
In People v. Edgar Evangelio, et al., G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011 band and dwelling were
considered generic aggravating circumstances in robbery with rape.
People v. Alberto Basao, et al., G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012 the accused were held guilty of
robbery in band. At least five (5) people, including accused-appellants, carrying guns and a hand
grenade, barged into the home of, and forcibly took pieces of jewelry and other personal properties of
their victims. They were also held guilty of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention for
abducting their one of their victims, detaining him for seven (7) days and demanding ransom for his
release.
In People v. Rogelio Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002 the accused was held liable for two
(2) separate crimes of rape and theft, and not special complex crime of robbery with rape since the
taking of personal property was not the original evil plan of the accused. It was an afterthought
following the rape.
ROBBERY UNDER RPC

ROBBERY UNDER P.D. 532

the taking away of the property of

another by means of violence against
or intimidation of person or force upon
things of other unlawful means

seizing any person for ransom,

extortion or other unlawful purposes,
or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence
against or intimidation of person or
force upon things of other unlawful
means,

particular person

any person indiscriminately

Anywhere
highway)

(including

Philippine In Philippine highway

Punished as accessory

Punished as accomplice under the

RPC

if
homicide,
rape,
intentional
mutilation, arson, or serious physical
injuries are committed by reason or on
occasion
of
robbery
a special
complex crime is formed

(1) If physical injuries or other

crimes are committed, or (2) if
kidnapping for ransom or extortion,
or murder or homicide or rape is
committed as a result or on occasion
thereof, a higher penalty is imposed

BRIGANDAGE UNDER RPC

BRIGANDAGE UNDER P.D. 532

More than three (3) three armed persons

formed a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the
highway, or kidnapping persons for the
purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom

Brigandage under P.D.532 does

not require that there be at least
four armed persons forming a
band of robbers. Moreover, the
presumption in the Revised Penal

or for any other purpose to be attained

by means of force and violence
If any of the arms carried by any of said
persons be an unlicensed firearms, it
shall be presumed that said persons are
highway robbers or brigands (Art. 306,
RPC)

Code that said accused are

brigands if they use unlicensed
firearms does not obtain under
PD 532426

Punished by prision correctional in its Punished as accomplice under

medium period to prision mayor in its RPC (Sec. 4, P.D. 532)
minimum period (Art. 307, RPC)
THEFT

ESTAFA

The offender has physical/material or de The

offender
has
juridical
facto possession over the thing taken427 possession over the thing taken
In People v. Bernard Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011 the accused was held guilty of
qualified theft for misappropriating the checks given by the customers to the corporation as payment
for the goods received..As Branch Manager of UCC who was authorized to receive payments from
UCC customers, the accused gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by the
management of UCC.
In People v. Remedios Tanchanco, G.R. No. 177761, April 18, 2012 the accused, employed as a
legal secretary and liaison officer of a law office, was held guilty of qualified theft for misappropriating
the money intended for payment of capital gains and transfer taxes and for the processing of title.
Theft becomes qualified when it is committed with grave abuse of confidence.
People v. Olivia Cristobal, G.R. No. 159450, March 30, 2011 the accused, a bank teller, was held
guilty of qualified theft.
In Rommel Briones v. People, G.R. No. 156009, June 5, 2009 (J. Brion) the accused was held guilty
of theft, and not robbery in grabbing the security guards firearm and running away with it.
In People v. Cesar Conception, G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012, the accused was held guilty of theft,
and not for robbery with homicide, for snatching the bag from the victim. The accused was absolved
from criminal liability for the death of his companion since he did not perform or execute any act that
caused the latters death.
In People v. Abelardo Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001 the accused, a bank cashier, was
held guilty of a complex crime of qualified theft through falsification of commercial document for taking
P36,480.30 by forging the signatures of officers authorized to sign the check and thereafter
appropriating the amount of the check. The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier of
Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in the preparation but also in
the release of Metrobank cashiers checks suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he
gravely abused the confidence reposed in him by the bank as assistant cashier.
Carmina Brokmann v. People, G.R. No. 199150, February 6, 2012 (J. Brion) the Supreme Court held
that estafa is either by (a) abuse of confidence or (b) means of deceit. In estafa by abuse of
confidence, deceit is not an element of the offense.
In Andre Daigle v. People, G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012 the accused was held guilty of estafa
under par. 1 (b) for appropriating the property held in trust and for a particular purpose, that is, for the
fabrication of bending machines and spare parts for the corporation. The "failure to account upon
demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation."
Elsa Magtira v. People, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012 (J. Brion) the accused was held guilty of
estatfa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) elements for misappropriating the money held in trust under
the paluwagan agreement.428
In Dulce Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 172820, June 23, 2010 (J. Brion) the accused was held guilty
of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) for appropriating the diamond ring held in trust for sale on
commission basis.

In People v. Melissa Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012 the Supreme Court held that the
accused may be convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (a) at the same time.
Unlike in illegal recruitment where profit is immaterial, a conviction for estafa requires a clear showing
that the offended party parted with his money or property upon the offenders false pretenses, and
suffered damage thereby. 429
In estafa through falsification of public document, mere payment of an obligation before the institution
of a criminal complaint does not, on its own, constitute novation that may prevent criminal liability. 430
In Lea Sagan v. Juliano, G.R. No. 134120, January 17, 2005, the Supreme Court held that damage
and deceit are essential elements of the offense of Estafa under para. 2 (d) and must be established
with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed
prior to, or simultaneous with, the issuance of the bad check. The drawer of the dishonored check is
given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check, otherwise,
a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. Thus, if the complainant knew that the drawers account
was already closed at the time of the issuance of the check and that the parties treated the check as
mere evidence of indebtedness, the drawer cannot be held liable for estafa since there is no deceit
involved. He may, nonetheless, liable for violation of B.P. 22
In estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (d), the receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an
element of the offense. The presumption only dispenses with the presentation of evidence of deceit if
such notification is received and the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to
cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of the notice of dishonor of the check. The
presumption indulged in by law does not preclude the presentation of other evidence to prove
deceit.431
ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. 1612)
Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 432
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have shown that
the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and, (4) there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from
evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which
has been the subject of robbery or theft, and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property. The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely
corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of
fencing.433
If the subject property is derived from the proceeds of Estafa, the same does not constitute fencing.
But if the property is derived from the proceeds of carnapping, the same constitute fencing since
carnapping is essentially theft or robbery of a motor vehicle. 434
In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. 1612, it is NOT a complete defense for the accused to prove
that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his possession had been the subject of
robbery since dolo is not required in crimes punished by a special statute like the Anti-Fencing Law
of 1979 because it is the act alone, irrespective of the motives which constitutes the offense. Verily,
when it was proved that petitioner committed the unlawful acts alleged in the information, it was
properly presumed that they were committed with full knowledge and with criminal intent, and it was
incumbent upon him to rebut such a presumption Moreover, the presumption of fencing under Section
5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612 that: Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.435

The offender may punished either as accessory to theft or robbery under Art. 19, RPC or for violation
of the Anti-Fencing Law.436
BOUNCING CHECK LAW (B.P. 22)
Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates the presumption that the issuer of the check was aware of the
insufficiency of funds when he issued a check and the bank dishonored it. This presumption,
however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of
dishonor and that, within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or
to make arrangements for its payment. 437
Not only must there be a written notice of dishonor or demand letters actually received by the drawer
of a dishonored check, but there must also be proof of receipt thereof that is properly authenticated,
and not mere registered receipt and/or return receipt.438
In Susan Go and People v. Fernando Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005, the Supreme Court
held that SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, it may not be applied
retroactively in favor of the accused who is not a habitual delinquent under Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code. The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity and not
to cases already terminated by final judgment.
To establish the existence of the second element, the State should present the giving of a written
notice of the dishonor to the drawer, maker or issuer of the dishonored check. 439
As clarified by Administrative Circular 13-2001, the clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular
No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of
preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. 22. Where the circumstances of the
case, for instance, clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the
imposition of a fine alone may be considered as the more appropriate penalty. This rule of preference
does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators of B.P. 22. 440
ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972 (R.A. 6539)
If a person is entrusted with a car for test driving but failed to show up after the test-drive, he is
liable for carnapping and not for estafa since he must be deemed to have unlawfully "taken" the car
soon after the test-driving after he failed to return the vehicle. 441
If the motor vehicle stolen or robbed consists of roadrollers, trolleys, street-sweepers, sprinklers,
lawn mowers, amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles which run only
on rails and tracks, and tractors, trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used exclusively for
agricultural purposes, the crime is QUALIFIED THEFT under Art. 310, RPC and not carnapping. 442
In the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the
essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the
killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof."443
If attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed "in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof," then it must be deemed to fall under the clause (of Section
14) "when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person." 444
In People v. Elgin Latayada, G.R. No. 146865, February 18, 2004 the accused was held guilty of
homicide and not carnapping with homicide since the accuseds original design was not carnapping.
The elements of elements of complex crime of carnapping with homicide are: that 1) appellant took
the motorcycle; 2) his original criminal design was carnapping; 3) he killed Payla; and 4) the killing
was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." X x x
the prosecutions evidence does not prove that accused took the motorcycle.
In People v. Ricardo Cayanan, et al., G.R. Nos. 73257-58, June 16, 1995 the accused were held
guilty of qualified carnapping (the victim was killed) with the generic aggravating circumstances of
band and use of motor vehicle.
In People v. Marlon dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009 the Supreme Court held that
Carnapping refers specifically to the taking of a motor vehicle. It does not cover the taking of cash

or personal property which is not a motor vehicle. As the Court of Appeals noted, x x x Two (2)
articles were taken from TEOFILLO, SR., his tricycle and some cash. The taking of the tricycle
constitutes a violation of the anti-carnapping law, RA 6539, while the taking of the cash from
TEOFILO, SR. by hitting him with a stone and stabbing him in the chest constitutes the crime of
robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
In Elmer Diamante, et al. v. People, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009 the accused were held
guilty for carnapping by means of violence and intimidation and for robbery for taking the victims car,
cash and valuables at a gun-point.
In People v. Venancio Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010 the accused was held guilty of
carnapping for taking the car of the victim at gunpoint, kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
frustrated Murder for depriving the victim of her liberty and for mortally wounding her with intent to kill,
and theft for taking the victims cash and valuables while the latter was asleep.
ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. 1613)
There are two (2) categories of the crime of arson: DESTRUCTIVE ARSON under Art. 320, RPC and
ARSON under P.D. 1613.445 Said classification is based on the kind, character and location of the
property burned, regardless of the value of the damage caused. 30 Article 320 contemplates the
malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels,
aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any person or
group of persons. On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 1316 covers houses, dwellings,
government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other
industrial establishments446 A higher penalty is imposed if arson is perpetrated by two or more
persons or if death results.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON

SIMPLE ARSON

DESTRUCTIVE ARSON - Article

320 of The Revised Penal Code,
as amended by RA 7659,
contemplates the malicious burning
of structures, both public and
private, hotels, buildings, edifices,
trains, vessels, aircraft, factories
and other military, government or
commercial establishments by any
person or group of persons. If
death results, penalty is death.

SIMPLE ARSON - PD 1613 which

repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B, RPC - the
malicious burning of public and private
structures, regardless of size, not
included in Art. 320, as amended by RA
7659, and classified as other cases of
arson.
These
include houses,
dwellings, government buildings, farms,
mills,
plantations,
railways,
bus
stations, airports, wharves and other
industrial establishments. If death
results, penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death.

In People v. Julie Gil, G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008 the accused was held guilty of destructive
arson for setting fire on a residential house and adjacent houses located in Sampaloc, Manila.
In Climaco Amora, G.R. No. 154466, January 28, 2008 the accused was held guilty of destructive
arson since crime was committed in a place where bakeries, barber shops, tailoring shops and other
commercial and residential buildings were situated (in an urban and populated area).
In Joel Gonzales, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159950, February 12, 2007 the accused was held guilty of
simple arson under Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613 since the arson was committed in
an inhabited house or dwelling.
In People v. Dante Buebos, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008 the accused was held liable for arson
and not for destructive arson since the information failed to allege whether or not the burnt house is
inhabited or situated in a populated or congested area. The special aggravating circumstance that
accused-appellant was "motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned" was not appreciated since it appears that the accused was acting more on impulse, heat of
anger or risen temper rather than real spite or hatred that impelled him to give vent to his wounded
ego.
Conspiracy to Commit Arson is punishable.447

In People v. Ferdinand Baluntong, G.R. No. 96602, November 19, 1991 the Supreme Court
citing People v. Malngan, ruled that in cases where both burning and death occur, in order to
determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and
homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main
objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of
arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the
main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to
as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective
is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted
to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed
homicide/murder and arson. As it was not shown that the main motive was to kill the occupants of
the house, the crime would only be arson, the homicide being a mere consequence thereof, hence,
absorbed by arson.
In People v. Carlito de Leon, et al., G.R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009, the accused were held guilty of
arson with the special aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a syndicate (carried
out by a group of three or more persons).
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Adultery - is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not
her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if
the marriage be subsequently declared void.
A married woman who contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage and engage in sexual relation
with her second husband after the marriage is liable for two separate crimes of bigamy and adultery.
There two are separate offenses. The first is crime against civil status while the second is a crime
against chastity.
Concubinage - is committed by a husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or
shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife,
or shall cohabit with her in any other place. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
"Cohabit" means dwelling together as husband and wife, or in sexual intercourse, and comprises a
continued period of time. Hence the offense is not the single act of adultery; it is cohabiting in a state
of adultery; and it may be a week, a month, a year, or longer, but still it is one offense only. 448
A married man who contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage and thereafter cohabit with her
second wife after the marriage is liable for two separate crimes of bigamy and concubunage. There
two are separate offenses. The first is crime against civil status while the second is a crime against
chastity.449
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

SIMPLE SEDUCTION

Committed by any person in public authority, priest,

home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any
person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with
the education or custody of the woman seduced,
who has carnal knowledge with a virgin over twelve
years and under eighteen years of age
Also committed by any person who has carnal
knowledge with his sister or descendant, whether or
not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.

committed by any
person
who, by
means of deceit, has
carnal knowledge a
woman who is single
or a widow of good
reputation, over twelve
but under eighteen
years of age.

Among the persons who can commit qualified seduction is a "domestic". And a "domestic," for
purposes of said legal provision, has been interpreted judicially as persons usually living under the
same roof.450
In People v. Fernando Teodosio, G.R. No. 97496, June 3, 1991 the accused was held liable for
seduction for persuading the minor to give up her virginity on the false promise of marriage (by means
of deceit).
When force or intimidation is employed or when the offended party is less than 12 years old, the
crime is rape and not seduction.

KIDNAPPING
AND
ILLEGAL DETENTION

SERIOUS FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

The seizure or taking away of a The seizure or taking away of the

woman is to deprive her of her liberty woman is with lewd design
(without lewd design)
If several rapes were committed, the
results in a special complex crime of
kidnapping
and
serious
illegal
detention with rape451

If several rapes were committed, the

same results to a complex crime of
Forcible abduction with rape for the
first rape and separate counts of
rapes for the subsequent rapes.

If the primary purpose of the offender in abducting a woman is to rape her, the crime is rape (the
forcible abduction is absorbed in rape). 452
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

CONSENTED ABDUCTION

committed by any person who

abducts any woman (even under 12
years of age) against her will and
with lewd designs

committed by any person who

abducts a virgin over twelve years
and under eighteen years of age,
carried out with her consent and with
lewd designs.453

In People v. Lito Egan, G.R. No. 139338, May 28, 2002 the accused was held guilty of forcible
abduction. The attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness committed are absorbed in forcible
abduction.
The accused who forcibly abducted a woman and raped her thirteen (13) times is liable for one (1)
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and twelve (12) separate crimes of rape. 454
In People v. Ireneo Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011 the accused was held guilty of acts of
lasciviousness for touching the breasts and licking the vagina of her eight-year old. But if the tongue,
in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as
already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of
lasciviousness.
ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYERISM (R.A. 9995)
It is prohibited and unlawful for any person: (a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group
of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a
person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast
without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration; (c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or (d) To publish or
broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or
exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through
VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or
take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s.
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
MARRIAGE
AGAINST THE
LAWS

CONTRACTED PERFORMANCE
OF
ILLEGAL
P[ROVISION OF MARRIAGE CEREMONY

committed by any person who,

without being included in the
provisions of the next proceeding
article, shall contract marriage

committed by any Priest or minister

of any religious denomination or sect,
or civil authorities who shall perform
or authorize any illegal marriage

knowing that the requirements of the ceremony shall be punished in

law have not been complied with or accordance with the provisions of the
that the marriage is in disregard of a Marriage Law.
legal impediment.
In order to avail of the defense of Muslim religion in bigamy, the subsequent marriage must be
conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, or Presidential Decree No. 1083. 455
Judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or
else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. 456
The nullity of the first marriage is not a defense in bigamy if the second bigamous marriage was
celebrated before the declaration of absolute nullity of the first marriage. 457
The nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity not a defense in
bigamy.458
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
In Arturo Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999 the Supreme Court held that
in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary
that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person
attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object
of the libelous publication. X x x Identification is grossly inadequate when even the alleged offended
party is himself unsure that he was the object of the verbal attack.
In MVRS Publications, Inc., et al. v. Islamic Dawah, et al., G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003 the
petitioner was absolved from liability since the victim is not identifiable (the victims are Muslims in
general it pertained to large group of persons).
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party constitutes publication. 459
Absence of malice is a defense in libel.460
The presumption of malice is done away with when the defamatory imputation is a qualified privileged
communication.461
The pleading submitted before the investigating prosecutor during the preliminary investigation is a
privilege communication.462
The enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualified privileged communications since
fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged and constitute a valid defense
in an action for libel or slander.463
The news report that is a fair and true report made without malice is covered by the rule on privileged
matters under Article 354 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. 464
Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory statements is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation
is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the
imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. 465
In Erwin Tulfo v. People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008 (J. Brion) the accused, a news
reporter, cannot invoke the defense of qualified privilage communication (fair commentary on the acts
of public officials) since he made no effort to verify the information given by his source or even to
ascertain the identity of the public official he was accusing. 466
In Rodolfo Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118971, September 15, 1999, the Supreme Court
held that even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official
conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice
that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

A written letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and
circulated in public. Neither is the news item a fair and true report without any comments or remarks
of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings; there is in fact no proceeding to speak of. Nor
is the article related to any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions, for it
concerns only false imputations against Thoenen, a private individual seeking a quiet life. 467
When malice in fact is proven, assertions and proofs that the libelous articles are qualifiedly
privileged communications are futile, since being qualifiedly privileged communications
merely prevents the presumption of malice from attaching in a defamatory imputation. 468
Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral defamation or
slander as now understood, has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which
tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. There is
grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends
not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the
offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case. Indeed, it is a doctrine of ancient
respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other, depending not only upon their
sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also
upon the special circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party
and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. 469
If the defamatory statement was uttered in the heat of anger or with provocation on the part of the
offended party the crime constitute only Slight Slander. 470
In People v. Hong Din Chu, G.R. No. L-27830, May 29, 1970 the accused was held guilty of oral
defamation when he uttered: "Your daughteris a prostitute because you too are a prostitute".
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 expresses a preference for the imposition of a fine rather than
imprisonment. The Circular likewise allows the court, in the exercise of sound discretion, the option to
impose imprisonment as penalty, whenever the imposition of a fine alone would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice.471
QUASI-OFFENSES
Reckless imprudence, generally defined by our penal law, consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances
regarding persons, time and place. Imprudence connotes a deficiency of action. It implies a failure in
precaution or a failure to take the necessary precaution once the danger or peril becomes foreseen. Thus,
in order for conviction to be decreed for reckless imprudence, the material damage suffered by the
victim, the failure in precaution on the part of the accused, and the direct link between material damage
and failure in precaution must be established beyond reasonable doubt. We are morally convinced that
all three were established in this case in accordance with the required level of evidence in criminal
cases.472
The Supreme Court held in People v. Patrolman Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21,
2000 that the act of the accused of shooting at the victim not reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide because the shooting was intentional. Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge
brought about by negligent handling; or (2) discharging a firearm from the window of ones house and
killing a neighbor who just at the moment leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the defendant,
to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber pistol twice in the air, and, as the bout continued, he fired
another shot at the ground, but the bullet ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon thereafter. In
this case, appellant intended to fire AT the victim, and in fact hit ONLY the victim.
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or
severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the
penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no
splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first level
court.473

There can be no frustrated homicide through reckless negligence inasmuch as reckless negligence
implies lack of intent to kill, and without intent to kill the crime of frustrated homicide cannot exist. 474
To sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence on the
part of petitioners. There may be negligence attending the disbursement of public funds in favor of the
family of deceased indigents, such negligence is equally punishable in Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code.475