1

2015 GOLDEN BEACON

CRIMINAL LAW
By:
Dean MANUEL R. BUSTAMANTE
1. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (RA 9344)
Q: What
is
the
age
and
under

criminal
responsibility
of
fifteen
who
has
acted

a
child
over
nine
with
discernment?

years

of

A: He
is
exempt
from
criminal
liability. (Paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code has been repealed by Sec. 6 of RA 9344, which provides:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. --- A child
fifteen
(15) years
of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subject to an
intervention program pursuant
to
Section 20
of this Act.

Q: Define

intervention.

A: It refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that

caused
the child to commit an offense , in the form of an individualized
treatment program including
counseling,
skills training,
education
and
other
activities that will enhance his/her
psychological,
emotional
and
psycho-social
well-being.
Q: What
is
the
criminal
below 18 years
of age?

responsibility

of

A: He is likewise exempt from criminal liability

discernment. (Sec. 6 2nd par. Of RA 9344 provides:

child

above

unless

he

15

years

has

acted

but
with

A child above fifteen

(15) years but below eighteen (18) years of
age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
an intervention program, unless
he/she
has
acted
with
discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subject to the appropriate proceedings
in accordance with this Act.

Q: Over what
prosecution?

offenses

are

persons

below

eighteen

(18)

years

exempt

from

A: 1. Vagrancy and Prostitution under Art. 202 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Mendicancy under PD 1563
3. Sniffing of Rugby under PD 1619.
Such
prosecution
being
inconsistent
the Rights of
the Child. (Sec. 58).

PEOPLE

with

the

United

Nations

Convention

on

vs. HALIL GAMBAO, THIAN PERPETIAN et. al.

G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508

FACTS: Perpetian
was
17
years
old
the crime of
kidnapping with ransom
She
commission
is

was
convicted
of the crime.

as

At
the time
this case
already
31
years old.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether

Perpetian

(2) Whether

her

(3) Whether
sentence

she
of a

principal
was

is

minority
can
child

at
of

the
time
a
minor

of
son

due

her

reviewed

co-principal.

be

appreciated

in

to
by

as

the

the
of

commission
of
Lucia Chan.

presence
Supreme

mitigating

in

Court ,

the
she

circumstance.

avail
of
the
benefit of suspension of
conflict with the law under
RA 9344.

2
HELD: (1) NO. Perpetian is
not a
present
and
giving
moral
support
make a
person responsible as an
the
liable

principal but only

when
a
crime
is
accomplice in the

Her
presence
and
company
were
perpetration
of
the
kidnapping
as an accomplice.

not
with

an
accomplice. Being
being
committed
will
crime committed.

indispensable
and
essential
to
ransom ,
hence,
she
is
only

(2) NO. Her minority should be appreciated not as an exempting but

only
as
privileged
mitigating
circumstance.
Pursuant
to
the
passing
of
RA
9344,
a
determination
of
whether
she
acted
with
or
without
discernment
is
necessary.
Considering
that
Perpetian
acted
with
discernment
when
she
was 17 years old at
the time of
the commission of
the offense,
her
minority
should
be
appreciated
not
as
exempting
but
as
a
privileged
mitigating circumstance pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code.
(3)
NO.
Under
Section
38 of
RA 9344,
the suspension
of sentence
of
a child in conflict with the law shall
still
be
applied even she is
already
18
years
of
age
or
more
at
the
time
of
the
pronouncement
of her guilt.
Unfortunately, at her present age of
31 , Perpetian
can
no
longer
benefit
from
the
aforesaid
provision,
because
under
Article
40
of
RA 9344,
the suspension of sentence can be availed of until the
child
in conflict
of
law
reaches the
maximum age of
21 years.

2. What are the

of Criminal Law?
A:

The

three

three cardinal features

or main characteristics
Give the
exceptions thereto. (1978; 1988; 1998)

cardinal

principles

or

characteristics

of

criminal

law

are:

GENERALITY. Criminal laws apply to all persons who commit crimes in

Philippine territory regardless of their nationality, gender, age or other personal
circumstances. Exceptions to this are
treaty stipulations,
laws
of
preferential
application and principles of
public international law.
TERRITORIALITY.
Criminal
laws
apply
Philippine territory.
Exceptions
to
this
rule
the RPC which provides for
extraterritorial

to
all
offenses
committed
are
those
found
in
Art.
jurisdiction of our courts.

within
2
of

PROSPECTIVITY. Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner

in which it was not punishable when committed . Exception to this rule is
whenever
a
new
statute
dealing
with
a
crime
establishes
conditions
more
lenient
or
favorable
to
the
accused,
it
can
be
given
retroactive
effect.
However,
this
exception
has
no
application: 1) where
the
new
law
is
expressly made inapplicable to pending actions
or existing causes of action
and; 2) where the offender is a habitual criminal under Art. 62 RPC.

3. Distinguish

motive

from

intent. (1978; 1996; 1999; 2004)

A: Motive
is
the
reason
which
impels
definite result
while
intent
is
the
means
to
effect
such
result.
Intent
(except
in
unintentional
felonies), whereas

one
to
commit
an
act
for
a
purpose
to
use
a
particular
is
an
element
of
the
crime
motive
is
not.

4. ACCESSORY (PD 1829)

Q: When
will
another crime?
A: When he
is
a
special
law.
the
offenders
provided.

an

accessory

in

crime

be

liable

as

principal

in

an accessory whose act or omission is

also penalized in
In
crimes
under
special
laws
or
crimes
mala
prohibita,
generally
are
penalized
as
principals
unless
otherwise

Those
who
assist
the
principal
to
escape
PD
1829
on
obstruction
of
justice
not
principal, provided
that
a
separate
information
crime
of
obstruction.

may
be
prosecuted
under
as
accessory
but
as
a
shall
be
prepared
for
the

5. What do you understand by aberratio

and praeter intentionem?
Do they alter
the accused? (1989; 1993; 1994; 1999)

ictus, error in personae

the criminal liability of

3
A: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered
the
blow
at
his
intended
victim
but
missed,
and
instead
such blow
landed on an unintended victim. The situation generally brings about complex
crimes
where from a single act, two
or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted,
namely
the
attempt
against
the
intended
victim
and
the
consequences on the unintended victim.
As
complex
crimes,
the
penalty
for
the more serious crime shall
be
the one
imposed
and
in the
maximum
period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light
that
complex
crimes
do
not
result
and
the
penalties
are
to
be
imposed distinctly
for
each resulting crime.
Error in personae
or
mistake in identity
occurs
when
the
offender
actually
hit
the
person
to
whom
the
blow
was
directed
but
turned
out
to
be
different
from
and
not
the
victim
intended. The criminal
liability
of
the
offender
is
not
affected ,
unless
the
mistake
in
identity
resulted
to
a
crime
different
from
what
the
offender
intended
to
commit ,
in
which
case
the
lesser
penalty
between
the
crime
intended
and
the
crime committed shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).
Praeter
intentionem
or where the consequence went beyond
that intended
or
expected.
This
is
a
mitigating
circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC)
when
there is a notorious disparity between the act
or 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.

6. Distinguish mala

in

se

from

mala

prohibita.

(1988; 1997; 1998; 2001;

2003)
A: Mala in
se
is
a
wrong
from
its
very
nature ,
as
most
of
those
punished in the RPC. Hence, in its commission, intent is an element and
good
faith
is
a
defense.
The
test
to
determine
whether
an
offense
is
mala
in
se
is
not
the
law
punishing
it
but
the
very
nature
of
the
act
itself.
On the other hand, an act mala prohibita is a
prohibited
by law.
Without
the
law
punishing
the
considered a wrong. Hence,
the
mere
commission
of
constitutes
the
offense
punished
and
criminal
intent
for reason of
public policy.
Q: Is

an

election

offense

mala

in

wrong
because it is
act ,
it
cannot
be
that
act
is
what
will
be
immaterial

se?

A: YES. Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27 (b) are mala in se. For
otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue
would be punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed
within a limited amount of time ,
errors
and
mistakes
are
bound
to
happen. And it could not be intent of the law to punish unintentional election
canvass errors. However,
intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of
votes received by a candidate is inherently immoral , since it is done with
malice and intent to injure others. (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March
14, 2006, 484 SCRA 617)

Q: May

mala

in

se

felony

absorb

mala

prohibita

crimes?

A: A mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to

Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD 1067 ,
PD 984 and RA 7942). What makes the performer a
felony is criminal intent
(dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws
enacting them. (Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006, 482 SCRA 194).
Q:

Is

criminal

intent

material

in

crimes

mala

prohibita?

A:
It
is
hornbook
doctrine
in
mala
prohibita
crimes
only
inquiry is
whether
the
law
has
been
violated .
When
is
illegal,
the
intent of
the
offender
is immaterial .
We
held
States vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128, (1909) that:

that
the
the
act
in
United

It
is
not
necessary
that
the
appellant
should
have
acted
with
criminal
intent.
In
many
crimes
made
such
by
statutory
enactment,
the
intention
of
the
person
who
commits
the
crime
is
entirely immaterial.
This
is
necessarily
so. If
it
were
not,
the
statute
as
a
deterrent
influence
would
be
substantially
worthless.
It
would
be
impossible
of
execution.

4
In
many
cases,
the
act
complained
of
is
itself
that
which
produces
the
pernicious
effect
the
statute
seeks
to
avoid . In
those
cases
the
pernicious
effect
is
produced
with
precisely
the
same
force
and
result
whether
the
intention
of
the
person
performing
the
act
is
good
or
bad. (Ampo vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 1690991, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 562).

7. ANTI-FENCING LAW
Q: Convicted by the trial
court for violation of Anti-Fencing Law , Bam argued
for her acquittal on appeal, contending that
the prosecution failed to prove
that
she
knew
or
should
have
known
that
the
jewelry
recovered
from
her
were the proceeds of the crime of robbery
or theft.
Is the defense
valid?
A: NO. The defense is not valid because mere possession of any article
of
value
which
has
been
the
subject
of
theft
or
robbery
shall
be
prima
facie
evidence
of fencing. The burden is upon the accused to prove
that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. (Pamintuan vs. People, July 11, 1994)

8. What

is

an

A : It is an act
were
it
not
for
account
of
the
par. 2)

impossible crime ?

(1993; 2003)

which would be an offense against persons

or property,
the
inherent
impossibility
of
its
accomplishment ,
or
on
employment
of
inadequate
or
ineffectual
means. (Art. 4,

But
where
the
acts
performed
which
would
have
resulted
in
an
impossible
crime also 1)
constitute an offense under the RPC, or 2) would
subject
the
accused
to
criminal
liability
although
of
a
different
category ,
the penalty to be imposed
should be that for the latter and not
that
for
an
impossible
crime.

IMPOSSIBLE
GEMMA T.
G.R.

CRIME - CRIME

JACINTO vs.
No.

162540,

AGAINST PROPERTY

PEOPLE

July

13,

OF

2009,

THE

592

PHILIPPINES

SCRA

426

FACTS:
Gemma,
a
collector
of
Mega
Foam,
received
a
P10,000
check
from Baby, a client of
Mega. Instead of remitting the said collection , she
gave
the
check
to
Gener,
her
brother-in-law,
the
latter
deposited
it
to
his
bank
account,
however,
the
said
check
was
dishonored
by
the
bank
due to
lack of
sufficient funds.
ISSUE:

Whether

Gemma

is

criminally

liable

for

qualified

theft.

HELD: NO.
To
be liable
of
the
crime of
qualified
theft
under
Article
308
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code ,
the
penalty
to
be
imposed
on
the
accused
is dependent on
the
value
of
the
thing
stolen .
Since
Gemma
unlawfully
took
the
postdated
check
belonging
to
Mega
Foam
was
subsequently
dishonored,
the
same
was
apparently
without
value.
Gemma
is
guilty
of
impossible
crime
as
defined
in
Article
4,
paragraph
2
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code .
At
the
time
Gemma
took
possession
of
the
check
of
Mega
Foam,
she
had
performed
all
the
acts
to
consummate
the
crime
of
theft ,
which
is
a
crime
against
property,
had
it
not
been
impossible
of
accomplishment
because it
was
apparently
without
value
when
it
was
subsequently
dishonored.

SULPICIO

INTOD

vs.

G.R. No. 103119, October

with
time,

Sulpicio
intending
to
bullets,
but
since
no harm
came
to

kill
the
him.

COURT OF

APPEALS

21, 1992, 215

SCRA

52

a
person ,
peppered
the
latters
intended
victim
was
not
home

He
was
found
guilty
of
impossible
in
paragraph
2,
Article
4,
in
relation
Revised
Penal
Code,
because
of
the
the
crime
against
person.

crime as
defined
and
to
Article
59 ,
both
factual
impossibility
of

bedroom
at
the
penalized
of
the
producing

5
AMERICAN

JURISPRUDENCE
PEOPLE

vs.

OF
LEE

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
KONG

21 L.R.A. 626 (1898)

The
accused with
intent
to
kill ,
aimed
where
he
thought
public
officer
would
be .
that
the
latter
was
in
a
different
place.

STROKES

vs.

and
It

fired
turned

at
the
spot
out,
however,

STATE

21 L.R.A. 898 (1898)

victim
wait.

Where
the
accused
because
the
latter

failed
to
accomplish
his
intent
did
not
pass
by
the
place he

CLARK

vs.

to
kill
the
was
lying-in

STATE

17 S.W. 145 (1888)

found

The
accused
the
same

with
intent
to
gain
entered
to
be
desolated
and
there

STATE

vs.

the
was

house
where
nothing
to

he
rob.

MITCHELL

71 S.W. 175 (1902)

the
that

Where
the
accused,
with
intent
to
kill,
victims
room
thinking
that
the
latter
moment, the
victim was
in
another
part

AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE

vs.

fired
at
the
window
was
inside,
however,
of
the
house.

PHILIPPINE

of
at

JURISPRUDENCE

In
the
United
States,
where
the offender sought
to
be
committed
is
factually
impossible
or
accomplishment,
the
offender
cannot
escape
criminal
liability.
He
can
be
convicted
of
an
attempt
to
commit
the
substantive
crime where
the
elements
of
attempt
are
satisfied.
This
is
not
true
in
the
Philippines .
In
our
jurisdiction,
impossible
crime
is
recognized.
The
impossibility
of
accomplishing
the
criminal
intent
is
not
merely
a
defense ,
but
an
act
penalized
itself .
Furthermore, the
phrase inherent
impossibility
that
is
found
in
Article
4 (2)
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
makes
no
distinction
between
factual
or
physical
impossibility
and
legal
impossibility .
Ubic lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.

9. When is the benefit

not applicable? (1999; 2003)
A - The

Indeterminate

1. Persons
imprisonment;
2. Those
3. Those
espionage;

convicted

convicted

of

convicted

of

of

5. Those

who

habitual

who

shall

7. Those who violated

the Chief Executive;
8. Those

whose

the

does

Indeterminate

not

offenses

of

convicted
are

Law

treason,

4. Those

6. Those
sentence;
by

Sentence

of

apply

punishable

conspiracy

misprision

or

of

Sentence

Law

to:
with

death

proposal
treason ,

to

penalty
commit

rebellion,

or

life

treason;

sedition

or

piracy;
delinquents;

have
the

maximum

escaped
terms
term

of
of

from

the

conditional
imprisonment

confinement
pardon
does

or

granted
not

evaded
to

them

exceed

one

had

been

year;
9. Those who, upon approval
sentenced by
final
judgment;

of

the

law

(December

5,

1933)

6
10. Those
Q: What

is

sentenced

to

indeterminate

the

penalty

of

destierro

or

suspension.

Sentence?

A: It is a sentence with a minimum term and a maximum term , which the

court is mandated
to impose
for
the
benefit
of a guilty person who
is
not
qualified
therefore, when the maximum
imprisonment
exceeds
one (1)
year.
It applies to
both
violations
of
Revised
Penal
Code and special
laws.
Q: A
public
officer
is
convicted
of
falsification
of
official
document
penalized
by
prision
mayor . There
is
one
mitigating
circumstance
of
voluntary
surrender.
What
will
be
the
indeterminate
sentence?
A: MAXIMUM - prision mayor
mitigating circumstance.

considering

the

MINIMUM - prision correctional, in any of its period or

anywhere within
range of prision correctional without
reference
to
any
of
its
period.

the

Q: A was
aggravating
accomplish

MINIMUM range.
is

in

its

proper

period

after

convicted of homicide penalized by reclusion temporal . There is an

circumstance of nighttime which
purposely
sought
by A to better
his purpose.
What
will
be
the
indeterminate sentence?

A: MAXIMUM - reclusion
aggravating circumstance.

Q: What

minimum,

the

prision

temporal

mayor

purpose

of

in

its

any

of

Indeterminate

A: It is intended to favor the

shorten his term of imprisonment

MONINA PUCAY

in

vs.

maximum
its

period

period

Sentence

or

after

considering

anywhere

the

within

its

Law?

defendant in a criminal case

particularly
depending
upon
his behavior.

to

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 167084, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 411

The
indeterminate
penalty
of 4
years
and 2
months
of
prision
correccional
to 20 years
of reclusion temporal ,
in addition to the payment
of actual damages in the amount of P205,000.00. In this case, the penalty
of
prision correccional
in
its
maximum
period
to
prision
mayor
in
its
minimum period is the
impossible penalty
if the amount of the
fraud is
over
P12,000 but not over P22,000 .
If the amount of the
fraud exceeds
for
each
additional
P10,000. The
total
penalty,
however,
shall
not
exceed
twenty years.
To
get
the
maximum
period
of
the
indeterminate
sentence,
the
total
number
of
years
included
in
the
two
periods
should
be
divided
into
three.
The
division
of the time included in the
prescribed
penalty
should
be
divided into three equal periods of time , forming one
period for each of the three portions. The maximum, medium and minimum
periods penalty are therefore: Minimum period - 4 years, 2
months and 1
day
to
5
years ,
5
months,
and
10
days;
Medium
period - 5
years,
5
months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days; and Maximum
period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years.
However, the total
penalty should not exceed 20 years of imprisonment.

10. Distinguish

instigation

from

entrapment.

(1978; 1984;

1990;

1995;

2003)
A : Instigation
takes
place
when
a
peace
officer
induces
a
person
to
commit
a
crime.
Without
the inducement, the crime would not be committed.
Hence,
it is exempting by reason
of
public policy . Otherwise,
the peace
officer would be a co-principal.
On the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by
a peace officer to entrap
or
apprehend
a
person
who
has
committed
a
crime.
With
or
without
the
entrapment,
the
crime
has
been
committed
already. Entrapment
is
not
mitigating.

7
PEOPLE vs. YANG
423 SCRA 82 (2004)
INSTIGATION
or inducement is committed when the law enforcers
Accused into committing the offense in order to persecute him. It is
to public policy and considered
an
absolutory cause.

lure an
contrary

PEOPLE vs. DORIA

G.R.

No.

125299,

January

22,

1999

The
general
rule
is
that
it
is
no
defense
to
the
perpetrator
of
a
crime
that
facilitates
for
its
commission
were
purposely
placed
in
his
way, or
that
the
criminal
act
was
done
at
the
decoy
solicitation
of
persons
seeking
to
expose
the
criminal .
Mere
deception
by
the
detective
will
not
shield
defendant , if the
offense
committed
by
him,
free
from
the
influence
or
instigation
of
the
detective.

PEOPLE

vs.

RAMON

QUIAOIT,

JR.

G.R. No. 155094, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 474

The
general
rule
is
that
instigation
and
inducement
to commit
a
crime, for the purpose of filing criminal charges , is to be condemned as
immoral,
while entrapment, which is the employment
of
means
and
ways
for the purpose
of
trapping and capturing the law
breaker,
is sanctioned
and permissible.
And the reason is obvious. Under the first
instance,
no
crime
has
been
committed,
and
to
induce
one
to
commit
it
makes
the
instigator
a
co-criminal.
Under
the
last
instance,
the
crime
has
already
been
committed
and all that is done is to entrap and capture the law
breaker.

11. What
A:

The

is

the

purposes

purpose

of

the

of

the

Probation

Probation

Law

are:

a. To
promote
the
correction
and
providing him with
individualized treatment;
b. To provide
which
might
be
and
c.
Q:

To

What

prevent
is

A:

shall

the

commission

of

circumstances
be

denied

is

undue

3. Probation
committed.

A: The

offender

by

penitent offender
prison
sentence ;

offenses.

the

benefits

of

will

offenders
the

2. Convicted
of
security
or
the

the

a defendant,
imposed
by

probation
court

risk

of

finds

committing

depreciate

the

disqualified

from

serve

shall
a

subversion
or
public
order;

not

any

another

term

the

placed

of

be

crime;
of

extended

crime

denied?

treatment that can

an institution;

being

maximum

be

conviction
court
and

that:

seriousness

be

after
the

shall

need of correctional
his commitment to

Decree

1. Sentenced
to
more than 6 years;

when

if

offender is in
effectively by

2. There

are

an

opportunity
for
the reformation of a
probable
if
he
were
to
serve
a

the

1. The
provided

Q: Who

of

probation?

are

Probation

rehabilitation

an
less

A: Probation is a disposition under which

sentence, is released
subject
to
conditions
the supervision of a probation officer.
Q: What

Law? (1986; 1989)

on

to

offense

probation?

those:

imprisonment

against

the

of

national

and
to

8
3. Previously convicted by final judgment
by imprisonment
of
not
less
than
1
and/or fine
not
less
than
P200;
4. Who
substantive
Q: What

are

are
already
provisions
of
the

effects

of an offense
month
and

punished
1
day

serving
sentence
at
the
time
the
Decree
became
applicable.
of

violation

of

probation

the

order?

A: Upon failure of the probationer to comply with any of

the
conditions
prescribed
in
the
order,
or
upon
his
commission
of
another
offense,
he shall
serve
the
penalty imposed
for
the
offense
under
which
he
was
placed
on
probation.
Q: Ian was found guilty of violating Section
68 of PD 705 , as amended
(The
Revised
Forestry
Code)
for
having
in
their
possession
forest
products
without
the
requisite
permits. The
trial
court
sentenced
him
to
suffer
the
indeterminate
penalty
of
imprisonment
from two
(2) years, four
(4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as
minimum, to
eight
(8) years
of
prision
mayor,
as
maximum. He appealed
the
decision
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
which
affirmed
Ians
conviction
but
reduced
the
penalty
to
an
indeterminate
penalty
ranging
from
six
(6) months and
one
(1)
day
of
prision
correccional,
as
minimum,
to
one
(1)
year,
eight
(8)
months
and
twenty
one
(21) days
of
prision
correccional ,
as
maximum.
Ian
then
filed
an
application
for
probation arguing
that
he
only
became
eligible
for
probation
after
the
Court
of
Appeals
modified
the
judgment
of
the
trial
court
and
reduced
the
maximum
term
of
the
penalty
imposed.
Will
Ians
application
for
probation
be
granted?
A: NO, having
appealed
from
the
judgment
of
the
trial
court
and
having
applied
for
probation
only
after
the
Court
of
Appeals
had
affirmed
their conviction, Ian was
clearly
precluded
from
the
benefits
of
probation.
For
sure,
he
never
manifested
that
he
was
appealing
only
for
the
purpose
of
correcting
a
wrong
penalty -- to reduce it to within
probationable
range.
Hence,
upon
interposing
an
appeal,
more
so
after
asserting
his
innocence
therein ,
Ian
should
be
precluded
from
seeking
probation.
By
perfecting
his
appeal,
he
ipso
facto
relinquished
the
alternative
remedy
of
availing
of
the
Probation
Law ,
the
purpose
of
which
is
simply
to
prevent
speculation
or
opportunism
on
the
part
of
an
accused
who,
although
already
eligible,
does
not
at
once
apply
for
probation,
but
did
so
only
after
failing
in
his
appeal.
The
filing
of
the
application
shall
be
deemed
a
waiver
of
the
right
to
appeal. (Lagrosa vs. People, July 3, 2003).

URBANO MORENO vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006, 498 SCRA 547
Sec. 16
of
the
Probation
Law
provides
that the
final
discharge
of
the
probationer
shall
operate
to
him
all
civil
rights
lost
or
suspended
as
a
result
of
his
conviction
and
to
fully
discharge
his
liability
for
any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted .
It
is important to note
that the disqualification under Sec.
40
(a)
of the
Local
Government
Code
covers
offenses
punishable
by
one
(1)
year
or
more
of
imprisonment,
a
penalty
which
also
covers
probationable
offenses.
In
spite
of
this,
the
provision
does
not
disqualify
probationers
from
running
for
a
local
elective
office.

12. What

is

the

doctrine

of

implied

conspiracy?

(1998; 2003)

A:
The
doctrine
of
implied
conspiracy
holds
two
or
more
persons
participating in the
commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable
as co-conspirators although
absent any agreement to that effect,
when they
act
in
concert,
demonstrating
unity
of
criminal
intent
and
a
common
purpose
or
objective.
The
existence
of
a
conspiracy
shall
be
inferred
or
deduced
from
their
criminal
participation
in
pursuing
the
crime
and
thus
the
act
of
one
shall
be
the
act
of
all.

9
PEOPLE vs.

HENRY TOGAHAN

G.R. No. 174064, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 557

From a
commission of
united in its
crime
is
not
and
manner
the
acts
of
purpose
or
conspiracy is

legal
standpoint, there is
conspiracy
if,
at the time of the
the offense, the appellants had the same purpose and were
execution. Direct
proof
of
previous
agreement
to
commit
a
necessary.
Conspiracy
may
be
deduced
from
the
mode
in
which
the
offense
was
perpetrated ,
or
inferred
from
the
appellants themselves
when such acts point to a joint
design,
concerted
action,
and
community
of
intent.
Where
established, the act of one is the act of all.

13. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

Q: Is

threat

or

intimidation,

the

first

element

of

self

defense?

A: NO. Unlawful Aggression means an actual, sudden and unexpected attack

on the life and limb of a person
or
an
imminent attack on
the life
and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude. (Marzonia vs. People, 492 SCRA 636, June 26, 2006).

MANUEL

ORIENTE

vs.

PEOPLE

G.R. No. 155094, January 30, 2007, 513 SCRA 348

Unlawful
aggression,
a
primordial
element
of
self-defense,
would
presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on
the life and limb of a person -- not
a
mere
threatening or intimidating
attitude -- but most
importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken
against
the
aggressor.
To
invoke
self-defense successfully,
there
must
have
been
an
unlawful
and
unprovoked
attack
that
endangered
the
life
of
the
accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant
by
employing
reasonable
means
to
resist
the
attack.

14. Are reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment the

Can they be imposed interchangeably? (1991; 1994; 2001)

same ?

A - NO. Reclusion perpetua is penalty prescribed by the RPC , with a fixed

duration
of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years , and carries
with
it
accessory penalties.
Life
Imprisonment,
on
the
other
special
laws,
with
no
fixed
duration
accessory penalty.

hand,
is
a
penalty
of
imprisonment
and

15. What is a memorandum check? Is a

a memorandum check without sufficient
violating BP 22? (1994; 1995)

person
funds

prescribed by
without
any

who issues
guilty
of

A: A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word Memorandum,

Memo, or
Mem written across the check, signifying that the maker
or
drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely ,
thus partaking the nature
of
a promissory note.
It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange
within the purview of Sec. 185 of the Negotiable Instrument Law.
A person who issued a Memorandum Check without sufficient funds is
guilty of violating
BP
22
as
said
law
covers
all
checks
whether
it
is
an evidence of indebtedness,
or
in
payment
of
a
pre-existing
obligation ,
or
as
deposit or guarantee.
Q: What are
by
issuance
Revised Penal

the elements of estafa

of
a
post-dated
check
Code as
amended
by

thru false pretenses

under
par.
2
(d)
RA
4885?

or
Art.

fraudulent
315
of

act
the

A: The essential elements of

the felony
are:
(1)
a
check is postdated or
issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued;
(2)
lack
or
insufficiency of
funds
to cover
the
check;
and (3)
damage to
the
payee
thereof.
It
is
criminal
fraud
or
deceit
in
the
issuance
of
a
check
which
is
made
punishable
under
the
Revised
Penal
Code , and
not the non-payment of a debt. Deceit
is
the
false
representation
of
a
matter of
fact
whether by
words
or
conduct
by
false
or
misleading
allegations
or by concealment
of
that which should have been disclosed
which
deceives
or
is
intended
to
deceive another so that he shall
act
upon
it to
his
legal
injury.
Concealment
which
the
law
denotes
as
fraudulent
implies
a
purpose or
design
to
hide
facts
which
the other

10
party
ought
to
have.
The
post-dating
payment
of
an
obligation
when
the
bank
or
his
funds
deposited
therein
amount
of
the
check
is
a
false
(Recuerdo vs. People, 493 SCRA 532, June 27, 2006).
Q:
Is
issuance

good
faith
a
valid
defense
of
a
post-dated check?

or
issuing
of
a
check
offender
had
no
funds
in
are
not
sufficient
to cover
pretense
or
a
fraudulent
in

prosecution

for

estafa

in
the
the
act.
thru

A: YES. There can be

no
estafa
if the Accused acted in good faith
because
good
faith
negates
malice
and
deceit .
Good
faith
is
an
intangible
and
abstract
quality
with
no
technical
meaning
or
statutory
definition, and
it
encompasses,
among
another
things,
an honest
belief,
the
absence
of
malice
and
the
essence
of
design
to
defraud
or
to
seek
an
unsconscionable
advantage.
An
individuals
personal
good
faith
as
a
concept
of
his
own mind , therefore,
may
not
conclusively
be
determined
by
his
protestations
alone .
It
implies
honesty
of
intention
and freedom
from
knowledge
of
circumstances
which
ought
to
put
the
holder
upon
inquiry.
The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in
the
validity
of
ones
right,
ignorance
of
a
superior
claim
and
absence
of
intention
to
overreach
another.

16. As
a rule,
if the offender in a criminal case is
acquitted, his civil liability is also extinguished . What
are
the exceptions? (1975; 1984; 1988; 2000)
A - The exceptions
civil liability are:

to

the

rule

1. When the civil action

the act complained of as
2. When acquittal
on the ground that
doubt (Art. 29, NCC)
3. Acquittal

due

4. Where
the
merely involves a
5. Where
separate civil
31,

6. In
32,

that

acquittal

is
a

based on
felony;

from

criminal

obligations

case

not

extinguishes

arising

from

is based on reasonable doubt

or
acquittal is
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable

to

an

exempting

court
state
in
civil obligation;

there was
action;

proper

circumstance,
its

like

insanity;

judgment

reservation

for

that
the

cases of independent civil actions provided

33 and 34
of
the New Civil Code;

the

case

filing
for

of

in

Arts.

7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that

fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

the

8. Where
the
civil
liability
is
criminal action which the accused

the

not derived
is
acquitted.

or

based

on

*** Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely on the
offense
committed. Corollarily, 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, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts
and
quasidelicts. (People vs. Bayotas, G.R. 102007, September 2, 1994).

NUGUID

vs.

NICDAO

G.R. No. 150785, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 93

civil
that

Extinction of
penal action
does
not
carry with it
the
eradication
of
liability,
unless the extinction from a declaration in the final judgment
the fact which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

Acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases : (1) where
the
acquittal is
based
on
reasonable doubt
as
only
preponderance
of
evidence
is
required
in
civil
cases; (2) where
the
court
declared
the
accuseds
liability
is
not
criminal
but
only civil in nature
and (3)
where
the civil liability does not arise from
or is not based upon
the criminal
act
of
which the accused
was
acquitted.

11
DEATH

OF

ARTEMIO

THE

ACCUSED

VILLAREAL

vs.

PENDING

PEOPLE

OF

APPEAL

THE

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 519

FACTS: For
the
tragic
death
of
Lenny
Villa
due
to
hazing
initiation
rites, 26 members
of
Aquila Legis were
tried and
convicted .
On
appeal
before
the
Court
of
Appeals ,
only
Artemio
and
Fidelito
were
found
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
of
the
crime
of
homicide .
However, on
petition before
the
Supreme
Court,
Artemio died.
ISSUE: Whether
the death
of
Artemio
would
liabilities
as
well
his
pecuniary penalties.

totally

extinguish

his

criminal

HELD: YES. According

to
Article
89 (1)
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
criminal
liability
for
personal
penalties
is
totally
extinguished
by
the
death of
the
convict. In
contrast,
criminal
liability
for
pecuniary penalties
is
extinguished
if
the
offender
dies prior to
final
judgment . The
term
personal
penalties
refers
to
the
service
of
personal
or
imprisonment
penalties
while
the
term
pecuniary penalties
refers
to fines and
costs ,
including
civil liability
predicated on the criminal offense
complained.

PEOPLE

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 206832, January

vs.

ALFREDO

FACTS:
Alfredo
Morales was
convicted
of
illegal
dangerous
drugs by the
RTC and
was
affirmed
While this
case is pending
Morales
died
while
committed at
ISSUE:
Whether
extinguished.

the

civil

and

MORALES

21, 2015, 747 SCRA 490

sale
and
possession
by
the
CA.

appeal before
the
Supreme
the
Bureau of
Corrections.
criminal

liability

of

the

Court ,

of

Alfredo

accused

are

HELD:
YES.
Under
Article
89 (1)
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
criminal
liability
is
totally
extinguished:
By
the
death
of
the
convict,
as
to
the
personal
penalties,
and
as
to
pecuniary
penalties
liability
therefore
is
extinguished
only
when
the
death
of
the
offender
occurs
before
final
judgment.
Ordinarily,
both
the
civil
and
criminal
liabilities
are
extinguished
upon
the
death
of
the
accused
pending
appeal
of
his
conviction
by
the
lower courts.
No

However,
a
civil
liability

violation of
RA 9165
needs extinguishment.

PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192912,

June
4,
2014,
the
of conviction against

However,
tuberculosis
at
only
by
the

not

SC
the

any

vs. DEMOCRITO
with
CA

promulgated
its
accused-appellant.

civil

liability.

PARAS

179

rape
against
convicted
the

Democrito
Paras
died
on
January
the
New
Bilibid Prison.
The
said
SC
on August
27, 2014.

ISSUE:
Whether
the
Supreme
valid in line with the death

entail

October 22, 2014, 739 SCRA

FACTS:
Democrito
Paras
was
charged
year
old
minor.
The
RTC
and
the
penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
On
judgment

does

AAA ,
a
accused

17
the

affirming

the

Decision,

24,
2013
of
pulmonary
information was received

Courts
decision
dated
of accused-appellant.

June

4,

2014

still

HELD: NO. The

Supreme
Courts
decision
dated June 4, 2014
had been
ineffectual and therefore set
aside. The criminal case
against
the accused
must
be also be dismissed.
In
this
case, when the
accused-appellant
died
on January 24, 2013 ,
his
appeal
to
the
SC
was
still pending. The
Decision dated
June 4,
2014
was thereafter
promulgated
as the SC was not
immediately informed
of the accused-appellants
death.
The
death
of
the
accused-appellant
herein ,
liability
as
well
as
his
civil
liability
directly
solely
on the crime committed.

extinguished
arising
from

his
and

criminal
based

12

CANCELLATION
PENDENCY

OF
PAROLE
OF ANOTHER

UPON
CASE

ALEXANDER ADONIS vs. DIRECTOR VENANCIO TESORO

G.R. No. 182855, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 337
FACTS:
Adonis
was
convicted
for
libel
and
was
sentenced
indeterminate
sentence
of 5
months and 1 day
to
4 years ,
6
and 1 day.
While
he
began
serving
likewise filed
against him.
the

his

sentence,

Later,
the
Board of Pardons and
discharge on
Parole of
Adonis.

Parole

In
the
meanwhile, the SC
issued
setting the guidelines in the observance
imposition of
fine
in
libel cases.

second

(BPP)

libel

issued

case

an

order

was
for

Circular
No.
of preference

08-2000
in
the

In
view
of
these
developments,
Adonis
filed
with
the
Motion to
Reopen
Case
praying for
his
immediate
release
from
and
for
the
modification
of
his
sentence
to
payment
of
fine
to the
said
circular.

RTC
a
detention
pursuant

in

The
said
the
amount

motion
was
granted
of
P5,000.00.

Administrative
of
a
rule

to
an
months

and

he

was

After
posting
a
cash bond,
the
order of
to
Director
Tesoro
of
the
Davao
Prisons
and
release of
Adonis was not effected.
ISSUE:

Whether

Adonis

is

entitled

to

the

benefit

allowed

to

post

bail

the
Court was
served
Penal
Farm
but
the
of

parole.

HELD: NO. While

it
is
true
that
a
convict
may
be
released
from
prison
on
parole
when
he
had
served
the
minimum
period
of
his
sentence,
the
pendency
of
another
criminal
case ,
however,
is
a
ground
for
disqualification
of
such
convict
from
being
released
on
parole.

NOVATION

IS

NOT A
GROUND FOR
OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

NARCISO DEGAOS vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 162826,

OF

EXTINCTION

THE

PHILIPPINES

October 14, 2013, 707 SCRA 438

FACTS:
Lydia, a jeweler, entered into an agreement with Narciso
whereas Aida gave
instruction
to
Narciso
to
receive the
jewelry
items for
and
in
her
behalf
with
the condition
that
she
pay it
in cash, she should
return the
unsold
jewelry.
in

Narciso
got
her presence.

the

jewelry

from

Lydia

after

signing

the

and
and
could

pink

Aida,
gold
not

receipts

Narciso
and
Aida
were
able
to
pay
only
up
to
a
certain
point
until
receipt
nos.
614
to
745
were
no
longer
paid
and
Narciso
failed
to return
the jewelry covered
by such receipt . As
a result, Narciso was
charged
of
Estafa.
Narciso claims that his partial payments to Lydia
with her from agency to loan thereby converting his
to civil.
ISSUE:
criminal

Whether
to
civil.

Narcisos

partial

payments

novated

novated his
liability from
his

liability

contract
criminal
from

HELD: NO. The partial payments he made and his purported agreement to
pay
the
remaining
obligations
did
not
equate
to
a
novation
of
the
original contractual relationship
of
agency to one of
sale.
Novation is
the extinguishment of
an obligation by the substitution
or
change of the obligation by
a
subsequent
one
that
terminates
the
first ,
either
by
(1)
changing
the
object
or
principal
conditions;
or
(2)
substituting the
person of the debtor;
or
(3)
subrogating a
third person
in the rights of the creditor.

13
Novation
is
not
a
ground
under
the
law
to
liability. Article 89
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
lists
grounds
for
the
extinguishment
of
criminal
liability.

17. Distinguish generic aggravating

aggravating circumstance. (1984; 1999)
A: Generic
legal effect

aggravating
and
qualifying
and
weight,
as
follows:

extinguish
down
the

circumstance

circumstances

are

from

criminal
various

qualifying

distinguished

as

to

1.

A generic
aggravating
mitigating circumstance

circumstance
can
be
offset
by
an
ordinary
which is not so in a qualifying circumstance.

2.

A qualifying circumstance cannot be proved unless

information whereas a generic aggravating circumstance
even though not alleged.

3.

A
generic
aggravating
circumstance
not
offset
has
the
effect
of
increasing the penalty to the maximum but not beyond that provided
by law. A qualifying circumstance changes not only the nature but
also the name of the crime and the offender becomes liable for the
new offense which is more serious in nature.

18. What constitute a complex

delito continuado and continuing

crime?
offense.

alleged in the
may be proved

Distinguish
(1994;

2004;

it

from

2005)

A A
complex
crime
is
constituted
when
a
single
act
caused
two
or more grave or
less
grave
felonies or when an
offense
is
committed
as a
necessary means
to
commit
another
offense (Art. 48 RPC).
Delito continuado or continuous offense, on the other hand, is a term
used 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 .
The
acts
done
must
be
impelled
by
one
criminal
intent
or
purpose,
such
that
each
act
merely
constitutes
a
partial
execution
of
a
particular
crime,
violating a common
right,
a
common
penal
provision
and
impelled
by
a
single
criminal
impulse.
Meanwhile, a continuing offense 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.
The term continuous/continued crime or
crime
mandates
that
only
one
information
offender, the
term
continuing
crime
is
reference
to
the
venue
where
the
criminal

RAMISCAL,
G.R. No. 169727-28,

JR.

vs.

August

delito
should
more
action

continuado and complex

be
filed
against
the
pertinently
used
with
may
be
instituted.

SANDIGANBAYAN

18, 2006,

499

SCRA

375

A continuous crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts

arising
from
a
single
criminal
resolution
or
intent
not
susceptible
of
division, with each act in that series being merely the partial execution of
a single delict. What is involved herein are several completed and distinct
purported
criminal
acts
which
should
be
prosecuted
as
multiple
counts
of
the same type of offense.

COMPLEX
ROBBERY
PEOPLE

OF

THE

Howel
being

was
riding
mauled by

WITH

HOMICIDE

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 198022,

FACTS:
Januario

CRIME

a
two

April

7, 2014,

bicycle
persons.

on

vs.
721
his

SONNY
SCRA
way

GATARIN

16

home

when

he

saw

14
On
the
same
night ,
SPO3
Mendoza
and
PO1
Coronel
performing
their
routine
patrol
duty
when
they
met
the
accused
were
running
at
a
fast speed.
The
policemen
chased
them
but
were unsuccessful
in catching
them.

were
who
they

As
they
continued
their
patrol,
they
saw
Januario
lying
on
the
street,
severely
injured.
While
on
the
way
to
the
hospital ,
SPO3
Mendoza
asked
Januario
who hurt him . He answered that it was
Jay-R
and
his
uncle
who
stabbed
him.
Subsequently,
Januario
died
due
to
the fatal
wounds
he has sustained.
Maria,
the
deceaseds
wife,
from her husband.
The
accused
P20,000 from
Januario.

testified
allegedly

on
the
amount
allegedly
stolen
took
cash
money
amounting
to

ISSUES:
(1)
Whether
the
complex
present in
the case.
(2)

Whether

the

crime

crime

of

committed

robbery

instead

is

with

homicide

is

murder.

HELD: (1)
NO.
In
order
for
the
crime
of
robbery
with
homicide
to
exist, it
must
be
established
that
a
robbery
has
actually
taken place
and that,
as a
consequence
or the
occasion of
robbery,
a homicide is
committed.
Marys
testimony
was offered
by the
prosecutor
to
prove
that
her
husband
was a
victim
of
robbery
with
homicide .
However, it
can
be
inferred
from
her
testimony
that
she
obviously
was
not
at
the
scene of the
crime on
that
fateful
night
as
she
was
only
informed
that
the
incident
took
place.
It,
likewise,
appears
that
she
had
no
personal
knowledge
that
Januario
was
robbed.
While
she
claimed
that
P20,000
was
indeed
taken
from
him ,
no
evidence
was
presented
to
show
that
Januario
indeed
had
that
amount
at
that
time
and
that
the same
was in his possession.
Assuming
indeed that
robbery
was
indeed
committed , the
prosecution
must
establish
with
certitude
that
a
killing
was
a
mere
incident
to
the
robbery.
What
is
crucial
for
a
conviction
for
the
crime
of
robbery
with
homicide
is
for
the
prosecution
to
firmly
establish
the
offenders
intent
to take
personal property
before the
killing.
(2) YES. Abuse of
superior
strength
attended the
commission of the
crime
which
qualifies
the
offense
to
murder .
This
qualifying
circumstance
is
considered
whenever
there
is
a
notorious
inequality
of
forces
between the victim and the aggressor,
assessing
a
superiority
of
strength
notoriously
advantageous
for
the
aggressor
which
the
latter
selected
or
took
advantage of
in the commission of the crime.
In
this
case,
Januario
was
then
54 years
old
while appellant
was
only
40
years
old.
Accused
committed
the
crime
with
his
nephew .
Moreover,
assailants
were
armed
with
a
bladed
weapon,
while
Januario
was
unarmed.
These
two
accused
were
seen
by
Howel
as
the
persons
who mauled Januario.

PEOPLE

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 207950, September

FACT:
On
August
reasonable doubt
of
On

February

27,

19,
the

2011,
crime

2013,

the

vs. MARK

the
RTC
of
robbery
CA

JASON CHAVEZ

22, 2014, 735 SCRA 728

affirmed

found
Chavez
with
homicide.
the

trial

guilty

courts

beyond

decision.

The RTC
has
been established the
following circumstances,
first, that
accused
Chavez went to
the parlor of
the
victim at
around 1:00 oclock
in the
morning of 28 October 2006 and
was
allowed by the victim to
get
inside his
parlor.
Second,
the
victims
as
part of the
missing
to
SPO3
Casimiro
by
2006
when the
accused
at
the
police station.

two
(2)
units
of
cellular
phones
were
declared
personal
belonging
of the
victim ,
were
handed
the
mother
of
the
accused
on
05
November
voluntarily surrendered
accompanied by his
mother

Third,
on
28
October
2006
at
about
2:45
oclock
in the
morning ,
witness
Peamante,
who
arrived
from
his
work ,
positively
identified
the
accused
holding
and/or
carrying
something and about to get out of
the
door
of the house of
the victim.

15
Finally,
Dr.
Salens
finding
that
the
body
of
the
victim
was
dead
for
more
or
less
twelve
(12)
hours
when
the
victim
was
discovered
fatally
killed
on
28
October
2006
and
the
time
when
the
accused
decided on 27 October 2006 to patch up things with
the victim is not
so co-incidence.
ISSUES:
(1)
Whether
is guilty of

the
the

prosecution has
established
that the
crime of Robbery
with
Homicide.

(2)
Whether
an
accused
shall
accused
has
undergone
preventive
equal
to
the
possible
maximum
charged.
HELD: (1) NO.
The
circumstantial
evidence,

accused

be
released
whenever
an
imprisonment
for
a
period
imprisonment
of
the
offense

prosecution
has
equally
established,
that
the
accused had
indeed killed

based
on
the
victim.

the

It
is
imperative
and
essential
for
a
conviction
for
the
crime
of
robbery
with
homicide
is
for
the
prosecution
to
establish
the
offenders
intent to take personal property
before
the killing, regardless of the
time
when the homicide
is
actually carried
out, otherwise, no accused can be
convicted of robbery
with
homicide.
The
satisfactorily

circumstantial
establish
an

evidence
relied
original
design

by
the
lower
courts ,
do
by Chavez to commit
robbery.

The
22
stab
wounds in the front and back
of
strong
indication
that
assailants
made
sure
of
the
efforts to
kill
the victim
without
risk to
themselves.

not

the victim
is a
success
of
their

In
the
special complex crime of
robbery with
homicide , homicide
is
committed
in order
(a)
to
facilitate
the
robbery
or
the
escape
of
the
culprit; (b) to
preserve the possession by
the
culprit of
the loot ; (c) to
prevent
discovery
of the
commission
of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate
witnesses to the
commission of the crime.
22
number
conclude
property.
for

stab
wounds
would
be
overkill
of
stab
wounds
inflicted
on
an
original
criminal
intent
of

The
the

prosecution
proved
beyond
separate crime of
homicide.

for
these
purposes .
The
sheer
Barbie
makes
it
difficult
to
merely
taking
Barbies
personal

reasonable

doubt

the

guilt

of

Chavez

(2) YES.
Whenever
an
accused
has
undergone
preventive
imprisonment
for
a
period
equal to the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense
charged
to
which
he
may
be
sentenced
and
his
case
is
not
yet
terminated,
he
shall
be
released
immediately
without
prejudice
to
the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal.
If the same is
under
review for
computation
of
preventive
imprisonment
detention with good conduct
allowance.
However,
stage of the
accused.

if
the
accused
trial,
the
court

purposes of
immediate
shall
be
the
actual

is
absent
may motu

without
propio

Finally
excluded
from
this
coverage
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with
In
sentenced
preventive

case
the
is
destiero,
imprisonment.

the
of

cause
at
rearrest of

any
the

are
the
recidivists ,
heinous crimes.

maximum
penalty
to
which
the
accused
he
shall
be
released
after
thirty
(30)

DIRECT
PEOPLE

justifiable
order the

release ,
period

ASSAULT

WITH

vs. EX MAYOR CARLOS

G.R. No. 201565,

October

13,

habitual
may
days

be
of

MURDER

ESTONILO SR., et. al.

2014,

FACTS:
On
April 5,
2004, Floro Casas, while
duty as District
Supervisor of
public schools,
(7)
times
by
four (4) persons
that
caused

738

SCRA

204

in
the
performance
of his
was
shot
to
death seven
his
instant
death.

16
After
committing
the
crime,
the
assailants
went
to
the
Mayor
Estonilo, Sr.
and
told
the
latter
mission
accomplished,
thereafter
the
latter
told them to
escape.

vehicle
of
sir
and

ISSUE:
assault

of

Whether
the
with murder.

HELD:
YES.
authority
for
assault
with

crime

committed

was

complex

crime

When
the
assault
results in
the
killing
that
matter,
there
arises
the
complex
murder.

of a
crime

direct

person
in
of
direct

As to fact
of
Direct
Assault
under
Article
148 of the
RPC , the
elements
are
that
(1)
there
must
be
an
attack ,
use
of
force,
or
serious
intimidation
upon
a
person
in
authority ;
(2)
the
assault
was
made
when
the
said
person
was
performing
his
duties ;
and
(3)
the
accused
knew that
the
victim
is
a
person of
authority.
In
this
case,
Floro
Casas
was
Supervisor
of
Public Schools,
thus,
was
a
attack
or
assault
was
made
by
reason
duty
as the
District
Supervisor.

the
duly
appointed
person in
authority
of
the
performance

District
and the
of
his

As
to
the fact
of
Murder , the
accused were
proven
guilty of
crime
of
Murder
and
clearly
established
that
(1)
Floro
Casas
killed; (2) the five
accused
killed him ; (3)
the
killing
was
attended
the
qualifying
circumstances
of
evident
premeditation
as
well
treachery;
and
(4)
the
killing
of
Floro
Casas
was
neither
parricide
infanticide.
The
prosecution
witness
Servando
testified
that
he
was
the two occasions when
the accused
were
planning to
kill
His
categorical
and
straightforward
narration
proves
the
evident premeditation.
Treachery
also
attended
the
killing
successively
fired
seven
(7)
times
and
giving him
no chance at
all
to evade
from the
unexpected onslaught.

19.

SPECIAL
WHERE

COMPLEX

of
Floro
sustained
the
attack

the
was
by
as
nor

present
on
Floro Casas .
existence
of

Casas
as
he
was
13
gunshot
wounds
and
defend
himself

CRIME

THE PERSON KIDNAPPED IS

KILLED
IN THE COURSE
OF
DETENTION

PEOPLE OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

vs.

ARMANDO

DIONALDO

et.

al.

G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014, 731 SCRA 68

FACTS:
Roderick
dropped
his
brother
Edwin
off
at
the
Health
Is
Wealth
Gym.
A text message from
another brother
told him that
Edwin
had
been
kidnapped.
He
received
a
phone call from
Edwins kidnappers
who
threatened
to
kill
Edwin
if
he
should
report
the
matter
to
the
police and
demanded
P15M
as
ransomed
money . Roderick told
them
he
had no such
money.
After
negotiations,
the
kidnappers
agreed
to
release
Edwin
P110,000.00.
Roderick
was
then
instructed
to
bring
the
money
to
kidnappers
at
the
Libingan ng mga
Bayani.
Subsequently,
vehicle.
He
saw
uttering the word

an
orange
Mitsubishi
car
pulled
up
one of the four men take
a mobile
alat, the
men returned to
their car

for
the

in
front
of
his
phone and upon
and
drove away.

During
the
course
of
the
investigation ,
Rodolfo,
an
employee
of
the
Health gym, confessed that
he
was
part
of
the
plan
to kidnap Edwin ,
as
in
fact
he
tipped
off
the
kidnappers
on
the
conditions
that
he
will
be
given
a
share
in the
ransom money.
Rodolfo gave
to
their
arrest.
Batangas.
The
detention.

RTC

information
The
dead
convicted

the

on the
body
accused

whereabouts
of
Edwin
of

of his
cohorts
was
found
at

kidnapping

with

serious

leading
Laurel ,
illegal

17
ISSUE:
case?

What

is

the

crime

committed

by

the

HELD:
The
accused
are guilty of
Special
for Ransom with Homicide under
the
last
amended by RA 7659.

accused

in

Complex Crime
paragraph
of

Where
the
person
kidnapped
is
killed
in
detention,
regardless
of
whether
the
killing
was
merely
an
afterthought,
the
kidnapping
and
murder
longer
be
complexed
under
Art.
48 ,
not
to
be
crime.

the

instant

of
Kidnapping
Article
267 as

the
course
of
the
purposely
sought
or
or
homicide
can
no
treated
as
separate

20. Justifying and exempting circumstances have some similar

effects but are different concept. Discuss their similarities
and distinctions. (1978; 2004)
A: In justifying circumstance, the act committed is lawful, and the actor does
not
incur
any
criminal
liability
nor
civil
liability.
In
an
exempting
circumstance, a crime is committed but there is absent in the person of the
offender any of the elements of voluntariness, and so he is not criminally
liable but is civilly liable
except
in
the
exempting
circumstance
of
accident
and lawful or inseparable cause.

PEOPLE vs. ISAIAS CASTILLO

G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 215
Accident
is
an
affirmative
defense
which
the
accused
to
prove,
with
clear
and
convincing
evidence.
The
essential
this exempting circumstance, are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

A person is performing a lawful

act;
With
due care;
He causes an injury to another by
mere
Without fault or intention of causing it.

21. Distinguish
A:

Rebellion

rebellion

distinguished

from

from

coup

coup

is
burdened
requisites
for

accident;

detat.

(1991; 2004)

detat:

As to overt acts. In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up

arms
against
the
Government.
In
coup
detat,
public
uprising
is
not
necessary.
The
essence
of
the
crime
is
a
swift
attack ,
accompanied
by
violence,
intimidation,
threat,
strategy
or
stealth,
directed
against
duly
constituted
authorities
of
the
Government ,
or
any
military
camp
or
installation,
communication
network,
public utilities
or
facilities needed
for
the
exercise and continued possession of government power.
As to objective or
purpose. In rebellion,
the
purpose is to remove
from
the
allegiance
of
the
Philippines,
the
whole
or
any
part
of
the
Philippines
or
any
military or
naval camps deprive the Chief Executive
or
Congress
from
performing
their
functions .
In
coup detat,
the objective is
to seize or diminish state powers.
person
without

As to participation,
In
rebellion,
any
belonging to the military or police
or
civilian participation.

person.
holding

In coup detat,
any
public
office, with or

VICENTE LADLAD vs. VELASCO

G.R. No. 172074-76 & 175013, June 1, 2007, 523 SCRA 318
action

Rebellion is a crime
done in
furtherance

The

elements

of

1. That
against the
2. That

the

of
of

offense

the masses
or
political end.

a) to
laws:

purpose
remove

of
from

involving

crowd

(b)

taking

arms

is

either --

are:

there
be
a
(a)
government; and
the

multitudes

the
the

public
uprising

uprising
or

allegiance

and

movement
to

said

Government

or

its

18
(1) the
or

territory

(2) any

body

of

of

the

land,

Philippines
naval,

or

b) to
deprive
the
Chief
Executive
partially, of
any
of
their
powers

or
other

or
and

any

part

armed

thereof;

forces;

or

Congress,
wholly
prerogatives.

22. Is
it
necessary
that
the
principal
of
a
crime
convicted
first
before
one
may
be
found
guilty
punished as an accessory? Explain. (1978, 1981).

or

be
and

A - It
is
not
necessary
that
the
principal
be
convicted
before
accessory
be
found
guilty
and
punished .
Neither
the
letter
nor
spirit
of
the
law
(Art.
19,
RPC)
requires
that
the
principal
convicted
before
one
may
be punished as an
accessory . As long as
corpus delicti
is
conclusively
proved
and
the
accessorys
participation
established,
he
can
be
held
criminally
responsible
and
meted
corresponding
penalty.

23. Distinguish between recidivism and

delinquency from recidivism. (1986; 1998)

quasi-recidivism;

the
the
be
the
is
the

habitual

A:
In
recidivism,
the
convictions
of
the
offender
are
for
crimes
embraced
in
the
same
Title
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
and this
circumstance
is
generic
aggravating
and
therefore
can
be
offset
by
an
ordinary
mitigating
circumstance .
Whereas,
in
quasi-recidivism,
the
convictions
are
not
for
crimes
embraced
in
the
same
title
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
provided
that
it
is
a
felony
that
was
committed
by
the
offender
before
serving
sentence
by
final
judgment
for
another
crime
or
while
serving
sentence
for
another
crime
and
this
circumstance
is
a
special
aggravating
circumstance
which
cannot
be
offset
by
any
mitigating
circumstance.
the

Meanwhile,
following:

the

distinctions

between

habitual

delinquency

and

recidivism

1.

In
habitual delinquency, the crimes are specified, which are
theft, estafa,
falsification,
serious and less serious
physical
In recidivism, the crimes are embraced in the same title
Revised Penal Code.

2.

In
recidivism,
no
period
of
time
is
fixed
conviction
and the last
conviction. In habitual
of any of the specified crimes must take place
the last conviction or release.

3. In recidivism, it
is
enough
that
there
of
any
crime
embraced in the same title
crime.
In
habitual
delinquency,
there
must
conviction of any of the specified crimes.
4.

are

robbery,
injuries .
of the

between
the
former
delinquency, conviction
within 10 years from

be
a
second
conviction
of the last or the first
be
at
least
a
third

Recidivism
is
an
aggravating circumstance and if
to
increase
the
penalty.
Habitual
Delinquency
imposition of additional penalty.

not offset,
serves
provides
for
the

24.

Brig. General Danilo Lim heads an elite Scout Ranger unit . In

conspiracy
with other military officers,
he
planned
and
decided
to
lead
his
men
to
an opposition rally and call for President Arroyos resignation. He was then
arrested
and
charged
with
conspiracy
to
commit
coup
detat .
If
you
were
the
judge,
would
you
convict
Gen.
Lim
and
his
co-conspirators ?
Why
and
why
not?
A: If I
were
the
judge , I
will
not
convict
Gen.
Lim
and
his
coconspirators
of
the
crime
of
conspiracy
to
commit
coup detat .
While
Gen.
Lim,
a
person
belonging
to
the
military
is
actually
in
conspiracy
with other military officers,
and
their
conspiracy
is
directed
against
duly
constituted
authority
of
the
Philippines,
in
order
to
diminish
if
not
to
seize
state power, their conspiracy was only to stage
a
rally
that
would
call
for
the
resignation
of
the
President .
It
was
not
a
conspiracy to
make
a
swift
attack ,
accompanied
by
violence,
intimidation,
threat,
strategy,
or
stealth
as
in
coup
detat.
Hence,
conspiracy
to
commit
coup
detat
was
not
committed. (Art. 136, RPC).

19
25. ANTI-TERRORISM
OF 2007)
Q: Is

mere

conspiracy

A: YES.
Persons
suffer the penalty
Q: When

LAW

is

who
of

there

to

(RA

commit

conspire
40
years

9372 HUMAN
terrorism

to
of

mere

proposal

A: NO.
The
terrorism.
A
proposes
its
the
law.

to

commit

Q: Which
records?

Court

days
from
Appeals.

A: The
Justices
court
to
handle
Q: Are
applicable

the
to

may

offense?
terrorism

or
more
of
the
decide
to

shall

terrorism

persons
come
to
crime
of
terrorism
commit
the
same.

punishable

period
for
the
with
the
Public

the

termination

authorize

to

of
the
Court
anti-terrorism.

provisions
of
the
Anti-Terrorism

of

examine
of

Book
Law?

Bank

Appeals
1

of

commit
who
under

police
officer
to
Prosecutors
Office?
the

period
deposits ,

designated
the

an
as

offense?

only
conspiracy ,
not
proposal
to
has
decided
to
commit
terrorism
another
person
is
not
punishable

Q: What
is
the
prescriptive
criminal
complaint
for
terrorism
30
of

ACT

conspiracy?

law
punishes
person
who
execution
to

A: Within
the
Court

punishable

commit
the
crime
of
imprisonment. (Sec. 40).

A: There
is
conspiracy
when
two
agreement
concerning
the
commission
Defined
in
Section 3
thereof
and
Q: Is

SECURITY

Revised

granted
accounts

as

a
Penal

file
by
and

special
Code

A: YES,
by
express
provision
of
Sec.
52
of
the
law .
The
applicable
penalties
conform
to
the
classification
even
under
Book
II
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code.
Terrorism
is
inherently
evil,
and
is
therefore
a
crime
mala
in
se
governed
by
the
provisions
of
Book
I
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code.

26. P.D.

533 -

ANTI-CATTLE

RUSTLING

LAW

OF

1974

Conviction
for
cattle-rustling
necessitates
the
concurrence
of
the
following elements: (1)
large
cattle
is
taken;
(2)
it
belongs
to
another;
(3) the
taking
is
done without
the
consent
of the
owner
or
raiser;
(4)
the
taking
is
done
by
any
means ,
method
or
scheme;
(5)
the
taking
is
done
with
or
without
intent
to
gain ;
and (6)
the
taking
is
accomplished
with
or
without
violence
or
intimidation
against
persons
or
force
upon
things.
Considering that
the gravamen
of the crime is
of
large
cattle
or
taking
its
meat
or
hide
without
owner
or
raiser,
conviction
for
the
same
need
only
the fact of taking without the cattle owners consent .
No. 154941, July 9, 2007, 527 SCRA 76)

27. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF

the
taking
or
killing
the
consent
of
the
to be
supported
by
( Pil-ey vs. People, G.R.

FIREARMS

CELINO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 170562, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 195
When
the
other
offense
involved
is
one
of
those
enumerated
under
RA
8294,
any
information
for
illegal
possession
of
firearms
should
be
quashed
because
the
illegal
possession
of
firearm
would
have
to
be
tried
together
with
such
other
offense ,
either
considered
as
an
aggravating circumstance
in
murder
or
homicide,
or
absorbed
as
an
element
of
rebellion,
insurrection,
sedition
or
attempted
coup detat.

20

those
illegal

Conversely,
when
the
other
offense
involved
enumerated
under
RA
8294,
then
the
possession
of
firearm.

28. P.D.

705: FORESTRY

REFORM

is
not
separate

CODE OF

one
case

of
for

THE PHILIPPINES

TIGOY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 144640, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 539
There are two ways of violating the said Section 68 of PD
by
cutting,
gathering
and/or
collecting
timber
or
other
forest
without
a
license;
and
(2)
by
possessing
timber
or
other
forest
without the required legal documents.
In
offenses
considered
as
mala
act
is
prohibited
by
a
special
commission
of
the
prohibited
act
that
the
offender
has
the
intent
the
special
law
and
that
it
is

29. R.A. 7610:

CHILD ABUSE,

705 : (1)
products
products

prohibita or
when
the doing
of
an
law
as
in
the
present
case ,
the
is
the
crime
itself .
It
is
sufficient
to
perpetrate
the
act
prohibited
by
done
knowingly
and
consciously.

SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST

EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT
PEOPLE vs. DELANTAR

G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 115

Section
5,
Article
III
of
person
who
commits
the
lasciviousness
conduct
with
the
in
or
promote,
facilitate
or

RA
acts
child
induce

NAVARETTE

vs.

7610
of
but
child

punishes
not
only
the
sexual
intercourse
or
also
those
who
engage
prostitution.

PEOPLE

G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509

The law covers not only a situation in
which a
child
is
abused
for
profit
but
also
one
in
which
a
child ,
through
coercion
or
intimidation,
engages
in
any
lascivious
conduct.
The
very
title
of
Section 5,
Article III (Child
Prostitution and
Other
Sexual
Abuse )
of
RA
7610
shows
that
it
applies
not
only
to
a
child
subjected
to
prostitution but
also
to
a
child
subjected
to
other
sexual
abuse .
A
child
is
deemed
subjected
to
other
sexual
abuse
when
he
or
she
indulges
in
lascivious
conduct
under
the
coercion
or
influence
of
any
adult.
Here,
BBB
was
sexually
abused
because
she
was
coerced
or
intimidated
by
petitioner
(who
poked
her
neck
with
a
knife)
to
indulge
in
lascivious
conduct.

FELINA

ROSALDES

vs.

G.R. No. 173988,

PEOPLE OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

October 8, 2014, 737 SCRA 592

FACTS:
On February 13, 1996, seven year
old Michael Ryan , a
pupil,
was
hurriedly
entering
his
classroom
when
he
accidentally
the knee of his
teacher , Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a
sofa.

grade 1
bumped
bamboo

Roused from
sleep, Rosaldes
asked
Michael Ryan to apologize to her.
Michael Ryan
did
not
obey
but
instead proceeded to his seat . Rosaldes
went
to
Michael
and
pinched
him
on
his
thigh ,
held
him
up
by
his
armpits and
pushed him
to the floor causing him to hit a desk and ,
consequently, losing
his consciousness.
Rosaldes
contends
that
she
did
not
deliberately
inflict
the
physical
injuries
suffered
by
Michael
Ryan
to
maltreat
or
malign
him
in
a
manner
that
would
debase
or
degrade
his
dignity.
She
avers
that
her
maltreatment is only an act
of
discipline that she as
a school
teacher
could reasonably do towards the development
of the child.
ISSUE: Whether Rosaldes
under RA 7610.

is

guilty

of

the

crime

of

child

abuse

punishable

21
HELD:
YES.
Rosaldes
is
guilty
of
violation
of
RA
7610.
Although,
as
a
school teacher, she could
duly discipline Michael Ryan
as
her
pupil ,
her infliction of the physical injuries on him was
unnecessary , violent and
excessive.
The
boy
even
fainted
from
the
violence
he
suffered
at
her
hands.
Section
3
of
RA
7610
defines
child
abuse
as
maltreatment, whether
habitual or not, of the
child which
includes any of
the
following :
any
act
by
deeds
or
words
which
debases,
degrades
or
demeans
the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a
human being.
The act need not
be habitual. The physical pain experienced by the
victim
had
been
aggravated
by
an
emotional
trauma
that
caused
him to
stop
going
to
school
altogether
out
of
fear
of
Rosaldes,
compelling
his
parents to transfer
him to another school where he had to adjust again.
Such
established
Rosaldes
was
guilty
demeaned
the
intrinsic
being.

30.

circumstances
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
of
child
abuse
by
deeds
that
degraded
and
worth
and
dignity of
Michael
Ryan
as
a
human

PARRICIDE (ART. 246 of the RPC)

ELEMENTS OF PARRICIDE
1. That

2. That

the

person

is

deceased

killed.
is

killed

by

the

accused.

3. That
the
deceased
is
the
father,
mother
or
child,
or
illegitimate,
or
a
legitimate
other
ascendant,
or
spouse
of
the
accused.

IMPORTANT

NOTES

ABOUT

1. The
relationship
element of the felony.
or

2. Parents
and
descendants

of

4. The
offense
is
5.
or

child
should
infanticide.

Relationship

6. A stranger
homicide.

7.
killed
does

31.

Even
is
not

R.A.

must
who

ROLANDO

not

included

be

less

the

is

the

term

in

must
child

than

victim

be
may

the

essential

ascendants

legitimate.
On
be
legitimate

days

old ,

the
or

otherwise,

the

alleged.

cooperates

if
the
offender
his
son,
he
is
require
knowledge

3019:

with

or
descendant
mother
or
not

be

offender

are

3. The
other
ascendant
other
hand,
the
father,
illegitimate.

legitimate
legitimate

PARRICIDE

the

children

whether
the

in
did
still
of

ANTI-GRAFT
VALDERAMA

committing

parricide

is

not
know
that
the
liable
for
parricide
the
relationship.

AND

vs.

CORRUPT

PEOPLE

OF

liable

for

person
because

he
the

PRACTICES
THE

murder
had
law

ACT

PHILIPPINES

542 SCRA 423, G.R. No. 147578-85, January 28, 2008

To hold
a
person
liable
concurrence
of
the
following
doubt
by
the
prosecution:
(1) that
the
person
charged
in

under
must

Section
3
(e)
be
established

accused
is
a
conspiracy
with

public
officer
the
former;

of
R.A.
beyond
or

3019,
the
reasonable
private

22
(2)
that
the
said
public
officer
commits
the
prohibited
acts
during
the
performance
of
his
or
her
official
duties
or
in
relation
to
his
or
her
public
positions:
the

(3) that he or
government or

(4) that
evident
bad

she causes undue

a private party;

injury

any

party ,

the public officer has acted with manifest

faith
or
gross
inexcusable
negligence.

The
Sandiganbayan
found
that
petitioner
malicious
apprehension
and
impounding
of
respondent,
causing
him
undue
injury.

CONSPIRACY

to

OF

EDELBERT

PUBLIC

OFFICER

C. UYBOCO

vs.

participated
the
taxi

WITH

PEOPLE OF

FACTS: Uyboco, president of Gaikoku,

and Valencia,
found engaged
in
transaction
wherein there
was
purchase of
dump
trucks.

partiality ,

directly
in
unit
of

PRIVATE

G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014, 744

whether

the
the

INDIVIDUAL

THE PHILIPPINES
SCRA 688
a
an

public officer,
were
overpayment of the

These
dump
trucks
were
directly
imported
by
the
Provincial
Government from the distributor in
Japan. With this direct
importation, the
Provincial
Government
should
have
only
paid
the
tax-free
amount
of
P4,594,119.85.
Instead,
Valencia
had
already
authorized
and
caused
the
disbursement
of
P6,994,286
or
an
excess
of
P2,400,166.15
in
favor
of
Uybocos
company, Gaikoku.
This

transaction

ISSUE:
Whether
RA 3019.
HELD:
YES.
have
been
governor.

clearly

Uyboco,

Although
a
in
conspiracy

caused
a

unjust

private

injury

individual,

to
is

the
liable

private
individual ,
Uyboco
with
Valencia,
who
was

government.
for

violation

has
been
then
the

of

found
to
provincial

Under
Section
3 (e)
of
RA
3019,
it
provides
that
an
act
shall
constitute
corrupt
practices
if any
public
officer may
cause any
unduly
injury
to
any
party
including
the
Government
or
giving
any
private
party
unwarranted advantage
or
preference.
This

32.

transaction

clearly

MALVERSATION

caused

THROUGH
ESTEPA

vs.

unjust

injury

to

the

government.

NEGLIGENCE
SANDIGANBAYAN

182 SCRA 269, G.R. No.

59670,

February

15,

1990

In
the
crime
of
malversation ,
all
that
is
necessary
for
conviction is
proof
that
the
accountable
officer
had
received
the
public
funds and
that
he
did
not
have
them
in
his
possession
when
demand
therefore
was
made
and
he
could
not
satisfactorily
explain
his
failure so to
account.
An
accountable
officer
may
be
convicted
for
malversation
even
if
there
is
no
direct
evidence
of
personal
misappropriation,
where
he
has
not
been
able
to
explain
satisfactorily
the
absence
of
public
funds
involved .
Under
Article
217
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
there
is
prima
facie
evidence
of
malversation
where
the
accountable
public
officer
fails
to
have
duly
forthcoming
any
public
funds
with
which
he
is
chargeable
upon demand by duly
authorized
officer.
As this
Court
has
pointed
out,
this
presumption
juris
tantum
is
founded
upon
human
experience.

33. BP 22
ARTICLE

and

ESTAFA

315 -

JUDICIAL
IN

POSSESSION
ESTAFA

INDISPENSABLE

23
MARGIE

BALERTA

G.R. No.

vs.

205144,

PEOPLE OF

November

26,

THE

2014,

743

FACTS:
Margie
worked
as
one
of
the
three
used
to
receive
daily
remittances,
deposit
to
issue loans
in
connection
with Care
Philippines
Upon
internal
P185,000 being kept

audit,
BABMPC
found
allegedly
by
Margie.

Timonera,
the
manager
permission
of
Margie,
opened
the
use
of
duplicate
keys
cashiers.

166

cashiers in
the
bank,
account.

there

of
BABMPC,
the
table
and
kept
by
De

PHILIPPINES
SCRA

was

without
drawers
Asis ,

a
the
of
one

BABMPC.
withdraw
discrepancy

She
and
of

presence
and
Margie
through
of
the
three

Margie reported the

forced
opening of her
table and drawers to the
police station. She
also
informed
the
police that the amount
of
P5,000
kept
in the
drawer
was missing .
More
importantly,
she
can no
longer
find the
receipts, vouchers and
books
in
her
drawers showing the
cash
advances
of
Timonera.
Her
plea
for
the
conduct
of
an
independent
audit
also
fell
on
deaf
ears.
The
criminal
complaint
basis
of
the
findings
of
accountant.

for
an

estafa
internal

against
auditor

Margie
was
filed
on
the
and
not
an
independent

In
the
course
of
the
trial,
only
Timonera
appeared
to
testify.
When
the
proceeding
was
concluded ,
both
the
prosecution
and
the
defense
did
not
formally
offer
any
documentary
evidence.
ISSUES:
(1)
Whether
the
accused
is
entitled
to
an
considering
that
a
cashier
does
not
have
possession
over the
funds
she
holds.
(2)
Whether
doubt.

her

guilt

had

been

proven

beyond

acquittal
juridical
reasonable

HELD:
(1)
YES.
There
is
no
question
that
Margie
was
handling
the
funds
lent
by
Care
Philippines
to
BABMPC ,
however,
she
held
the
funds in
behalf of
BABMPC.
Over
the
funds,
she
had
mere
physical
or
material
possession,
but
she
held
no
independent
right
or
title,
which
she
can
set
up
against
BABMPC.
Margie
was
nothing
more
than
a
mere
cash
custodian ,
she
had
no
juridical
possession
over
the
allegedly
misappropriated
funds
as
an
element
of
the
crime
of
estafa
by
misappropriation.
She did
not
have
the sole
access
over
the
Consequently,
the
authorship
of
the
falsified
entries
cannot be
attributed
with
certainty to
Margie
alone.
records

Moreover,
Timonera
held
by Margie

(2) NO.
In
unless
his guilt

a
is

failed
to
state
with
were the
discrepancies.

criminal
shown

case, the accused

beyond
doubt.

records and
funds .
in
the
passbook

certainty
is

entitled

where

in

to

acquittal

an

the

At
the
outset,
it
is
significant
to
point
out
that
neither
the
prosecution nor
the
defense
had
made any
formal
offer
of
documentary
evidence.
The
two
passbooks,
ledger
and
three
demand
letters ,
while
mentioned
by
Timonera
in his
testimony, were
not
offered as evidence.
The
contending
parties
each
had
one
witness ,
namely,
Timonera,
for
the
prosecution
and
Margie,
for
the
defense.
Both
of
their
testimonies
were therefore
without
any
corroboration.
Considering the absence of formal
offer
of
evidence,
the
judgment
rendered
by
the
RTC
and
the
CA
solely
hinged on
who was more
credible
between the
two
witnesses.
Timoneras
testimony
is
incredible,
by
insufficient
to
discharge
the
burden
of
proof
criminal cases.

itself
alone
required
for

and
it
conviction

is
in

Margie
was
indicted
for
allegedly
misappropriating
the
amount
of
P185,584.06, however, Timonera
failed
to state
with certainty
where
in
the
records
held
by
Margie
were
the
discrepancies
shown .
Timonera
evaded
answering
the
question
by
emphasizing
that
he
is
not
an
accountant
and that Ambros
knew more
about the
matter.

24
Hence, Margie did
not
have the sole access
over the records and
funds.
Consequently,
the
authorship
of
the
falsified
entries
in
the
passbook cannot
be attributed with certainty to Margie alone. It
was thus
fatal
for
the
prosecutions
cause
that
Ambros,
the
internal
auditor,
Asis,
the
cashier
and
the
bank
personnel
did
not
take
the
witness
stand
especially
since
documentary
evidence
were
never
formally
offered
as
well.
The
RTC and
the
CA
faulted
Margie
for
not
offering
countervailing
evidence,
including
an
audit
conducted
in
her
own
behalf.
Still,
it
does
not
justify
a
conviction
to
be
handed
on
the
ground
because
the courts cannot
magnify
the
weakness
of the defense and overlook the
prosecutions
failure
to discharge
the onus probandi.
Concededly,
the
evidence
of
the
defense
is
weak
and
uncorroborated .
This,
however,
cannot
be
used
to
advance
the
cause
of
the
prosecution
as
the
evidence
for
the
prosecution
must
stand
or
fall
on
its
own
weight
and
cannot
be
allowed
to
draw
strength
from
the
weakness
of
the defense.
Moreover,
when
the
circumstances
are
capable
of
two
or
more
inferences, as
in this case,
such that one
of
which is
consistent
with
the
presumption
of
innocence
and
the
other
is
compatible
with
guilt ,
the
presumption of
innocence must
prevail
and the court
must
acquit.

BP
Evidence

of

1. Making,
2. Prima

22

knowledge
drawing
facie

ELEMENTS

of

and

evidence

insufficiency
issuance

of

of

knowledge

&

REMEDIES

of

fund:

check

which

of

is

insufficiency

refused.
of

funds.

Requisites:
a) Check

presented

b) Dishonored,
c) Failure
to
receiving notice

within

90

days.

and
make good the
of
dishonor.

check

within

banking

days

after

**

The
presumption
of
knowledge
can
exist
only
after
it
is
proved
that
the
issuer
had
received
the
notice
of
dishonor .
The
prosecution
must
prove
receipt,
i.e.,
registered
mail
or
authenticated
signature
on
registry
return
receipt.
The
registry
receipt
alone
is
insufficient .
Testimony
or
affidavit
of
person
mailing
the
letter
is
registered. (Ting
vs. CA (2000).

**

Verbal
(Domangsang

notice
of
vs. CA (2000).

dishonor

is

insufficient .

Must

**

What
the
law
prohibits is
issuance.
The
purpose
issuance
is
immaterial.
Issuance
is
malum
prohibitum.
was
issued
as
a
guarantee
is
immaterial ,
unless
the
issued
for
account
or
value. (Wong vs. CA (2001).

be

written.

or
conditions
of
That
the
check
check
was
not

**

BP 22
does
not
state
that
the
issuer
must
maintain
funds
for
only
90
days.
That
the
check
must
be
deposited
within
90
days
is
merely
one
of
the
conditions
for
the
presumption
of
knowledge
of
insufficiency.
It
is
not
an
element
of
the
offense.
Where
presentment
was
made
after
90
days,
only
the
presumption
was
lost.
Knowledge
could
still
be
proven
by
evidence .
By
current
banking
practice ,
the
check
must
be
presented
within
180
days.
Afterwards
it
becomes
stale.
Presentment
after
180
days
is
then
a
defense. (Wong vs. CA (2001).

**

Absence
of
the
notice
knowledge
of
insufficiency.
The
with
evidence.
Thus, the nature
prosecutions. (Young vs. CA (2005)

**

merely
prevents
the
prosecution
must
then
is
NOT
a
pre-requisite

presumption
of
prove
knowledge
for
a
BP 22

Payees
knowledge
of
insufficiency
of
funds
is
immaterial
because
deceit
is
not
an
element
of
BP 22 .
The
exception
is
when
there
was
no
intention
to
apply
said
checks
for
account
or
for
value.
(Young vs. CA (2005).

25
**

Responsibility
under
BP 22
is
personal
to
the
accused .
Hence,
the
nature
must
also
be
personal .
Thus,
if
the
issuer
is
a
corporation ,
notice
to
the
corporation is
not
notice
to
the
officer . (Marigomen vs.
People (2005).

PAYMENT
ARIEL

T.

G.R.

OF

LIM

vs.

190834,

DISHONORED
PEOPLE

November

26,

OF

CHECKS

THE

2914, 742

PHILIPPINES
SCRA

684

FACTS: Ariel
Lim issued two
(2)
checks
dated June 30,
14, 1998
payable
to CASH
in
the amount of
P100,000
Castor as his
campaign donation to the latters
candidacy.

1998
each

and July
to Willie

It
was
Castor
who
ordered
the
delivery
of
printing
materials
and
used Ariel Lims
checks for
payment
of
the
same . Due to late delivery
of
printing
materials,
Castor
instructed
Ariel
Lim
to
issue
a
Stop
Payment
order for
the
two checks.
and

The
that

checks
were
dishonored
said checks
were
drawn

Private
complainant
sent
complaint against
Lim before

by
the
bank
because
of
against insufficient
funds.

two
demand
letters
to
Ariel
the Office of
the Prosecutor.

said

order

and

filed

Lim

After the lapse of more than one month from receipt of the demand
letters,
and
upon
receipt
of
the
subpoena
from
the
Office
of
the
Prosecutor,
Ariel
Lim
issued
a
replacement
check
in
the
amount
of
P200,000. Private
complainant was able to encash said
replacement check.
Six
months
after
check,
two
informations
Manila.

Ariel
Lim
had
paid
were
filed
against

the
him

amount
before

of
the
bounced
the
MeTC
of

ISSUE:
Whether
the
accused
would
still
be
penalized
for
violation
BP 22 after having paid the
amount of the checks
upon
receipt of
subpoena from the Office of the City Prosecutor.

of
a

HELD:
NO.
The
fact
that
the
issuer
of
the
checks
had
already
paid
the
value
of the
dishonored
checks
after
having
received
the
subpoena
from
the
Office
of
the
Prosecutor
should
have
forestalled
the
filing
of
the
information in
court.
The spirit
of the
law
which, for B.P. 22,
is the protection
of the
credibility
and
stability
of
the
banking
system ,
would
not
be
served
by
penalizing people
who have evidently
made amends for
their
mistakes
and
made
restitution for
damages even before charges have been filed against
them.
In
effect,
information
has

MARCIANO

the
payment
already attained

TAN

of
the
checks
the
purpose of

before
the
the law.

filing

vs. PHIL. COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

G.R. No. 152666,

April 23, 2008,

552

of

the

BANK

SCRA 532

FACTS:
Marciano
applied
for
a
importation of
four
tourist
buses

Letter
of
Credit
with
with a
total
value
of

PCIB
for
US$430,000.

the

The
parties
entered
trustor and
Marciano
as

trust

with

as

into a
entrustee.

receipt

agreement

PCIB

When the tourist

buses
arrived,
Marciano issued 14
postdated
checks.
Of
the 14
checks,
only the first
five
checks
were honored ,
the other
nine
checks
were
dishonored
in the
amount of
P1,785,855.75.
Marciano
having
suffered
financial
reverses,
availed
of
Section
7
the Trust
Receipt
by
surrendering
the
buses
to PCIB.
At
the time
surrender, the buses were
estimated to be about 6.6
million pesos.
a

Subsequently, PCIB
sent
Marciano
criminal
complaint for
violation of

a
demand
B.P 22.

letter

and

followed

ISSUE:
Whether
the accused would still be liable for violation of
after
PCIB
had
received
and
keeping
in
possession
the
four
pursuant to Section 7
of
the
Trust
Receipt.

of
of
by

BP 22
buses

26
HELD: NO.
PCIB
already
exacted
its
proverbial
pound
of
flesh
by
receiving
and
keeping
in
possession
the
four
buses - trust
properties
surrendered
by
Marciano
pursuant
to
Section
7
of
the
Trust
Receipt
Agreement.
The
estimated
value
of
the
surrendered
buses
was
about P6.6
million
while the amount of
the
dishonored
checks
was P1,785,855.75 . It
is
clear
that
Marciano
had
more
than
fully
satisfied
the
amount
of
dishonored
checks
prior
to
the
receipt
of
the
demand
letter
from
PCIB.
In
of
the
accused.

keeping
with
jurisprudence , the
Court
dishonored
checks to have
obliterated

While
issuing
prosecution
is
not
reasonable
doubt
all

of
a
bouncing
excused
from
its
the
elements
of

Respecting
the
second
element
of
prove that the
accused
knew,
at
the
not have sufficient
funds
or
credit for
upon
its
presentment.

GEOFFREY

F. GRIFFITH

vs.

then considers such

the criminal
liability

check
is
malum
responsibility
of
the
offense.
the
time
the

payment
of
the

prohibitum ,
the
proving
beyond

crime ,
the
prosecution
of
issuance,
that
he
full
payment
of
the

COURT

OF

must
does
check

APPEALS

G.R. No. 129764, March 12, 2002, 379 SCRA 94

FACTS:
Griffith,
and issued two

president
of
Lincoln - Gerald, Inc.,
incurred
(2)
post-dated checks
in favor
of
Phelp

rental
Dodge.

arrearages

Due to four - week

labor
strike
that
paralyzed
the business operation
of
Lincoln Gerald,
the
checks
issued
were
not
funded
and
in
so
doing,
the
checks
when
presented
to
the
drawee
bank
for
payments
were
dishonored
on
the ground
of drawn against
insufficient
funds.
the
the

Phelp
Dodge
foreclosed
sale on
public
auction,
value of
the
two (2)

A
where
affirmed

criminal
case
for
the
latter
was
by
CA.

violation
convicted

ISSUE:
Whether
the debtors
offense
under
BP 22
after
than
sufficient
to cover the
HELD: NO.
cases for
only after
more
than
auction sale
Dodge.

the
properties
of
the
former
realized
checks
issued.
of
by

BP
22
MeTC ,

Lincoln Gerald
and
at
a
proceeds
more
than
was
filed
sustained

president
would
still answer for
a
criminal
two
years
the
creditor
had
collected
more
value of
checks
dishonored.

The
checks
were
dishonored
and
Phelp
Dodge
filed
criminal
violation of
BP 22 against
Griffith . But
this filing took place
Phelp
Dodge had
collected
the
amount
of the
checks ,
with
one
million
pesos
to
spare ,
through
notarial
foreclosure
and
of Lincoln - Gerald properties earlier
impounded
by
the
Phelp

The
Bouncing
Check
of
the
banking
systems
It
was
not
designed
enrich
themselves
through
of the law.
find
and

Law
was
designed
to
safeguard
the
interest
and the
legitimate
public checking
account user .
to
favor
or
encourage
those
who
seek
to
manipulation
and
circumvention
of
the
purpose

the

We
must
purpose of

the
also

Ratione cessat lex, et cessat lex

means
that
law
ceases. It
is
not the letter
alone
but
that
gives
it
life.

if
the
application
of
reason of
the
law.

PROOF
MA. ROSARIO P.

OF

NOTICE

OF

the

law

is

consistent

when
the
the spirit

of

with

reason
for
the law

DISHONOR

CAMPOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA

FACTS:
issued
agreed

against
Griffith
by
RTC
and

Campos
obtained
a
loan
several
post-dated
checks
installment
payments.

from
in

FWCC
favor

373

payable on
of
FWCC

installments .
to
cover

She
the

27
Fourteen
presented
for
account.

(14)
of
payment

these
checks,
however,
were
with the
drawee bank on
the

After
Campos
failed
to satisfy
despite
demand,
she
was
charged
B.P. 22.
The
MTC,
RTC
and
CA
violations of BP 22 and found
FWCC was received by
Campos.

dishonored
basis
of

when
closed

her
outstanding
obligation with FWCC
before
the
MTC
with
violations
of

found
Campos
guilty
of
14
counts
that the required Notice of
Dishonor

of
for

Campos denies having received a

notice of
dishonor
from FWCC
and
categorically declared that
she has
in her
favor evidence
to show
that
she
was
in
good
faith
and
indeed
made
arrangements
for
the
payment
of
her obligations
subsequently
after the dishonor of the
checks.
ISSUE:

Whether

the

notice

of

dishonor

was

received

by

the

accused.

HELD: YES. The

mere
presentation
of
registry
return
receipts
that
cover
registered
mail
was
not
sufficient
to
establish
that
written
notices
of
dishonor
had
been
sent
to
or
served
on
issuer
of
checks.
The
authentication
by
affidavit
of the
mailers
was
necessary
in
order
for
service
by
registered
mail
to
be
regarded
as
clear
proof
of
giving
of
notice of
dishonor
and to predicate the existence of the
second
element
of the
offense.
Campos
arrangement
for
checks
was
dishonor
from
arrangements
if
creditor
and
the bank and

declaration
that
she
subsequently
in
good
faith
made
the
payment
of
her
obligation
after
the
dishonor
of
the
a
confirmation
that
she
actually
received
the
notice
of
FWCC.
Campos
would
not
have
entered
into
the
alleged
she
had
not
received
a
notice
of
dishonor
from
her
had
no
knowledge
of
the
insufficiency
of
her
funds
with
the dishonor
of her checks.

Jurisprudence
has
emphasized
the
importance
of
proof
of
receipt
of
such notice of
dishonor, although not
as an element
of the offense, but
as
a
means
to
establish
that
the
issuer
of
a
check
was
aware
of
insufficiency
of
funds
when
he
issued
the
check
and
the
bank
dishonored
it,
in
relation
to
the
second
element
of
the
offense
and
Section 2
of
BP 22
which
creates
a
presumption
of
knowledge
of
insufficiency of
funds.

BP

22

TO

CONSTITUTE

ESTAFA

To
constitute
estafa
under
this
provision,
the
act
of
postdating
or
issuing
a
check
in
payment
of
an
obligation
must
be
the
efficient
cause
of
defraudation, and
as
such
it
should
be
either
prior
to
or
simultaneous
with
the
act
of
fraud.
The
offender
must
be
able
to
obtain
money
or
property
from
the
offended
party
because
of
the
issuance
of
a
check
whether
postdated
or
not.
That
is,
the
latter
would not have
parted
with
his
money
or
other
property
were it
not
for
the
issuance
of
the
check.

34.

LIBEL

ARTICLE

ELIZALDE S. CO

354
vs.

OF

RPC

LUDOLFO P. MUOZ, JR.

G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013, 711 SCRA 508

FACTS:
In several interviews with radio stations in Legazpi
City ,
Muoz,
a
contractor, revealed the anomalous government bidding as a call
of
public
duty of Elizalde Co ,
who is
a
public figure considering his
participation
in government
projects
and his prominence in
the
business
circles.
Muoz
interest and
ISSUE:

claimed
thus, a

Whether

HELD: NO.
In
of the crime.

Muoz
libel,

that
the
imputation
dealt
privileged communication.
be
the

held

liable

existence

of

for

with

matters

of

public

an

element

libel.

malice

is

essential

as

28
Article
354
of
the
RPC
states
that
malice
is
not
presumed
when
(1)
a
private
communication
made
by
any
person
to
another
in
the
performance
of
any
legal,
moral
or
social
duty;
(2)
fair
and
true
reports,
made
in
good
faith,
without
any
comments
or
remarks
of
any
judicial,
legislative
or
other
official
proceedings
which
are
not
of
confidential
nature,
or
of
any
statement,
report
or
speech
delivered
in
said proceedings or
any other
act
performed
by
public officers
in the
exercise of their functions.
Muoz
statements
were
considering that
Co is a
public
criticisms on
his
acts that are

protected
as
privileged
communications
figure and as
such , Co
is
subject to
imbued with
public
interest.

ALFONSO LAGAYA vs. PEOPLE &

G.R. No.

176251,

July

MARILYN MARTINEZ

25, 2012, 677 SCRA 478

FACTS:
Dr.
Lagaya
issued
a
memorandum addressed to the HPPs
Plant
Managers and
Staff
and
distributed
to the
different plants all
over
the
country
against
Dr.
Martinez
about
Disclosure
and
Misuse
of
Confidential
and
Classified
Information
and
a
salient
portion
thereof
states
that
Dr.
Martinez
needs to undergo psychological and psychiatric
treatment to prevent
deterioration
of her
mental and emotional stability.
that

On account of
the issuance
she was exposed to public

ISSUE:

Whether

the

subject

of the memorandum , Dr.

ridicule and humiliation.

memorandum

Martinez

claimed

libelous.

HELD: YES. The

subject
memorandum
dealt
more
abnormal
behavior
of
Dr.
Martinez
which
to
automatically means a
judgment
of mental deficiency.

on
an

the
supposedly
ordinary
reader

An
allegation is
considered
defamatory if
it
ascribes
to
a
person
the commission
of
a
crime,
the possession of
a
vice
or
defect,
real
or
imaginary
which
tends
to
dishonor
or
discredit
or
put
her
in
contempt.
The
element
Martinez
reputation

of
malice
was
was
injured
by

35. QUASI OFFENSES

in Physical Injuries

also
the

present
when
the
defamatory imputation.

right

of

Dr.

- Reckless Imprudence Resulting

DR. FERNANDO SOLIDUM vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014,
FACTS:
Gerald
he
underwent
large intestine
colostomy bag

718

SCRA

263

was born with imperforate anus .

Two
days
after his birth,
colostomy,
a
surgical
procedure
to
bring
one
end
of
the
out the abdominal wall, enabling him to excrete
through a
attached to the side of his body.

When Gerald was already three years old, he was admitted at

ng
Maynila
for
a
pull-through
operation.
Dr.
Solidum
assisted
the
team as one of the anesthesiologists.

Ospital
surgical

During
the
operation,
Gerald
experienced
bradycordia
and
went
into
a
coma. His coma lasted for two weeks but he regained consciousness only
after a month. He could no longer see, hear
or move.
Agitated by her sons helpless and unexpected condition,
complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
the attending physicians.
ISSUE: Whether Dr.
Res Ipsa Loquitor.

Solidum

HELD: NO.
The
principle
case.
It
is
necessary
elements:
1. the
duty
created by the

of
to

be

held

criminally

Res
Ipsa
prove
by

liable

Loquitor
is
competent

owed
by
the
physician
physician-patient relationship.

to

under

Luz
lodged a
injuries against
the

principle

not
applicable
evidence
the
the

patient

of

in
this
following
as

29

in

2. the
breach
of
duty
by
the
physicians
failing
accordance with the applicable standard of care;

3. there must be
between the negligent
and
4. the

damages

to

act

a reasonable
close and casual connection
act or omission and the resulting injury;

suffered

by

the

patient.

There
is no definition
of
the duty of
a
particular physician in a
particular
case
exists
and
the
standard
of
care
must
be
determined
in
every case,
with the judge
weighing the testimonies
of
experts
on both
sides to ultimate determine the standard, on
the trier of facts.

36.

THEFT

Crime

Against

Property

WORDWIDE WHITE WEB CORPORATION vs. PEOPLE

G.R. Nos. 161106/161266,
Use
be

of

Communications

For
theft
shown to

to be
exist:

(1)

the

taking

(2)

of

PLDT s

(3)

with

(4)

without

facilities

committed
by

in

to

the

without
this

consent

case,

the

constitutes
following

theft.

elements

property;

gain;

consent

of

(5) accomplished
without
intimidation of persons or

PLDT;

the
the

use
use

of
of

In
the light
of
Laurel vs. Abrogar,
PLDTs
communications
facilities
without
its
telephone services and business.

violence against or
force upon things.
held
that
constitutes

the
theft

It
is the use of these communications
facilities without
of
PLDT
that
constitutes
the
crime
of
theft ,
which
is
taking of the telephone services and business.

the
the

37.

FALSIFICATION OF
CRIME
CECILIA

must

petitioner;

personal

intent

& PLDT

January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 18

PUBLIC

INVOLVING

PAGADUAN

vs.

G.R. No. 206379,

it
was
consent

use
of

of
its

consent
unlawful

DOCUMENT

MORAL

TURPITUDE

CSC & REMA MARTIN SALVADOR

November

19, 2014,

741

SCRA

334

FACTS:
Cecilia
filed
a
complaint
with
CSC
against
Rema
on
the
ground
of
falsification
and
misrepresentation
of
facts
indicated
in
her
Personal
Data
Sheet
(PDS).
The
CSC
found
Rema
to
be
liable
for
simple
misconduct, ruling
that
her
act
was mere
error of judgment . As
a
penalty,
Rema was
suspended for
one
(1)
month.
Cecile
ceased her
pursuit
and
did not appeal the
CSC
decision.
Prior
to
CSC
order,
Cecile
filed
a
criminal
charge
against
Rema
with
the
MTCC
for
falsification
of
public
documents
for
making
false
statements
in
her
PDS.
Later,
MTCC
found
Rema
guilty
of
the
crime
charged.
Rema
did
not
appeal
and
then
applied
for
probation .
Her
application
was
granted
and
she
was
placed
under
probation
for
a
period of
one
(1)
year.
By
reason
of
the
administrative complaint for the
moral
turpitude.
an

The
error

CSC
and
of judgment

said
conviction,
Cecile
offense
of
conviction
of

CA
ruled
that
and
no moral

Remas
turpitude

filed
the
a
crime

second
involving

misrepresentation
is
involved.

was

crime

moral

ISSUES:
(1) Whether
turpitude.

Rema

was

convicted

of

involving

merely

30
(2)
Whether
her
conviction
and
probation prevent another administrative
her.
HELD: (1)
YES.
Not
every
The
crime
of
falsification
honesty
and good
morals
The
narration

court
found
of
facts
and

eventual
case to

discharge
from
be
filed against

criminal
act,
however,
involves
moral
of
public
document
is
contrary
to
and
therefore, involves
moral
turpitude.

that
she
perverted

made
an
untruthful
statements
in
the
truth
with a
wrongful intent.

Considering
that
the
principal
act
punished
in
falsification of
public document
is
the
violation of
the
the
destruction
of
truth
as
therein
solemnly
proclaimed ,
the
administrative
offense
of
conviction
of
a
crime
turpitude
clearly
exist
in
this
case.
(2)
conviction,

NO.
but

turpitude.
justice ,
a

the
crime
of
public faith
and
the
elements
of
involving
moral

Probation
does
not
erase
the
effects
merely
suspends the penalty imposed.

and

of

The
purpose
of
the
Probation
material,
unlike pardon,
probation
does
the person under
probation has been

Law
is
to
not
obliterate
convicted.

The
reform and
rehabilitation
of
the
government
service.
Furthermore,
liability of the
accused
and
not her

the probation cannot

justify
her in
probation
only
affects
the
criminal
administrative liabilities, if
any.

38.

ART.

218 -

CRIMES
ALOYSIUS

FAILURE TO
COMMITTED

save
the

fact

valuable
human
crime
for which

RENDER ACCOUNTS

BY

PUBLIC

OFFICERS

DAIT LUMAUIG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 166680,

July 7, 2014, 729

SCRA

191

FACTS:
In
1994,
Mayor
Lumauig
of
Alfonso
Lista
obtained
a
cash
advance
of
P101,736.00
intended
for
the
payment
of
freight
and
insurance
coverage of
12
units
of
motorcycles to
be
donated to the
municipality
by
the
City of
Manila.
and
the
the

However,
instead
of
motorcycles,
he
five
patrol cars. It
never came to
amount
advanced
since
the
vehicles
municipality.

He
claimed
that
he
was
neither
demand
from
COA
to
liquidate
his
while
he
was
claiming
for
separation
still
has an unliquidated
cash
advance.

was
able
to
his
mind to
were
already

secure
two
buses
settle
or liquidate
turned
over
to

informed
or
did
he
receive
any
cash
advances .
It
was
in
2001
pay when
he came to know he

And
so
as
not
to
prolong
the
issue ,
he
paid
the
amount
of
P101,736.00
to the
municipal
treasurer,
for
which
reason,
the
incumbent
Mayor Prudenciano
executed an Affidavit
of
Desistance.
The
Sandiganbayan
acquitted
Lumauig
for
the
violation of
RA
3019
but
convicted
him
for
the
felony
of
Accountable
Officer
to
Render
Accounts
under
Art. 218 of the
Revised Penal Code.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether
the
conviction under
(2) Whether
Article 218
HELD:
against

(1)
NO,
conviction

acquittal
Art.
218

prior
demand
of
the RPC.

under
RA
of
RPC.
is

3019

requisite

acquittal
from
violation
for
Article
218 of
the

for

of
RA
RPC.

bar

to

conviction
3019

is

his
under

not

bar

It
is
undisputed that
the two charges stemmed from the same incident .
However,
the
Supreme
Court
has
consistently
held
that
the
same
act
may
give rise to
two or
more separate and
distinct
charges.
RPC

The
are:

elements

of

the

felony

punishable

under

Article

218

of

the

31
(1)
that
the
offender
is
a
service or separated therefrom.
(2)
or

that
he
property.

(3) that
accounts

must

be

an

he
is
required
to the
COA or

public

officer

whether

accountable

officer

for

by
to a

law
or
provincial

is
a

not
element
of
law or regulation

Since
Lumauig
received
the
subject
he
was, thus, required to
liquidate the
1995.
Further,
to
avoid
liability
under
liquidated
the cash
advance
two months
on before March 20, 1995.

public

of

two

the
offense
requiring the

the
funds

regulation
to
auditor;
and

(4) that
he
fails
to
do
so
for
a
period
after
such
account
should be rendered.
(2) NO,
demand
sufficient that there is
render an
account.

in

render
months

and
that
it
public officer

is
to

cash
advance
sometime
in
1994,
same on
or
before January 20,
Article
218,
he
should
have
from the time it
was due , or

In
the
case
at
bar ,
Lumauig
liquidated
the
subject
only on June 4, 2001 . Hence, as
correctly
found
by
the
he was
liable for violation of
Article 218 because it
took
years before
settling his
accounts.

cash
advance
Sandiganbayan ,
him over six

Considering the
two mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender
and
return
or
full
restitution
of
the
funds,
Lumauig
is
sentenced
to
a
straight penalty of four months and one
day
of
arresto
mayor.

39.

ARTICLE

335

PREGNANCY
PEOPLE

OF

RAPE

IS

THE

NOT AN

ELEMENT

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192912,

June 4,

OF

RAPE

vs. DEMOCRITO

2014,

724

SCRA

PARAS

691

FACTS:
While
AAA
was
weeding
grass
at
her
employers
farm ,
Paras
approached
her
from
behind.
He
pulled
AAA
towards
the
lower
portion
of the
farm and pointed a
short
firearm
at
her
mouth .
AAA
struggled
and
tried to
kick
but proved
futile as
Paras
was
physically
stronger.
Since
AAA
was
afraid
of
Paras
and that she
was also afraid
to
kill
a person,
she did not
strike him with the
bolo
she was holding .
While
struggling,
AAA
even
threw
stones
at
the
accused .
As
a
result
of
such incident, AAA
got
pregnant.
ISSUES:
(1)

Whether

the

(2)

Whether

pregnancy

HELD:
(1)
YES,
knowledge of AAA

accused
is

the
accused
without
her

is
an

guilty

of

the

essential

crime

element

of

of

rape.

rape.

is
guilty
of
rape
by
having
consent
using
force
or
intimidation.

carnal

The
court a quo relied
on
the
testimony of AAA and her positive
identification of
the
accused. AAA
was
indeed categorical
who pointed
a
gun to
her
mouth
and
forcibly
had
sexual intercourse
with
her.
(2)
NO.
Pregnancy
is
not
an
essential
element
of
the
crime
rape. Whether the child which the
rape victim bore
was fathered by
accused
or
by
some
unknown
individual
is
of
no
moment .
What
important and
decisive is that
the
accused
had
carnal
knowledge of
victim
against
the
latters
will
or
without
her
consent,
and
such
was
testified to by
the
victim in a truthful manner.

40

- ARTICLE
RENE

352 - PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL

MARRIAGE CEREMONY

RONULO

vs.

G.R. No. 182438,

PEOPLE

OF

July 2, 2014,

THE

PHILIPPINES

728 SCRA 675

of
the
is
the
fact

32
FACTS:
Joey
and
Claire
were
scheduled
Rosa
Catholic
Church.
However,
on
the
refused
to
solemnize
the
marriage upon
to secure a
marriage
license.

to
marry
each
other
at
Sta.
day
of
wedding ,
Fr.
Ragaza
learning that the
couple
failed

As
recourse,
Joey
and
Claire,
together
with
their
parents,
sponsors
and
guests,
proceeded
to
the
Independent
of
Aglipayan
Church .
They
requested
Priest
Ronulo
to
perform
a
ceremony
to
which
the
latter
agreed
despite
having
been
informed by the couple
that
they have no
marriage
license.
the

Fr. Ronulo
bride, the

conducted
the
ceremony
in
the
parents, the
sponsors and
invited

ISSUE:
Whether
Ronulo is
solemnizing illegal marriage.

guilty

of

violating

presence
guests.

Article

352

of
of

the
the

groom ,
RPC

on

HELD:
YES.
Fr.
Ronulo
is
guilty of
violating
Article
352
of the
RPC
on
solemnizing
illegal
marriages.
The
elements
of
the
crime
are
as
follows: (1) that the accused has
the
authority
of the solemnizing officer ;
and (2) that he
performs
an
illegal
marriage
ceremony .
In
the
present
case, Fr.
Ronulo
admitted that he has
authority to solemnize
marriage.
The
law
sets
the
minimum
requirements
constituting
a
marriage
ceremony: first, there
should be the personal appearance
of
the contracting
parties
before
a
solemnizing
officer;
and
second,
their
declaration
in
the
presence of not less
than two
witnesses that they
take each
other
as
husband and wife.
As
to
the
first requirement,
Fr.
Ronulo
admitted
that
the
parties
appeared before him.
Second, the contracting parties personally
declared
that
they take each other
as husband and wife.
Undoubtedly,
Fr.
Ronulo
conducted
the
marriage
ceremony
despite
knowledge
that
the
essential
and
formal
requirements
set
by
law
were
lacking as the couple had no marriage license.
of

41

The
marriage
ceremony,
therefore,
was
illegal.
Fr.
Ronulos
knowledge
the absence of these requirements negates his
defense of good
faith.

ARTICLE

151 -

RESISTING
ARREST
DISOBEDIENCE

AND

RA - ANTI-DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING ACT OF 2013

EDMUND

SYDECO

G.R. No. 202692,

vs.

PEOPLE

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

November 12, 2014, 740 SCRA

288

FACTS:
Edmund,
together
with
the
cook
and
waitress
of
were
on
their
way
home
on
board
his
pick
up
when
manning
a
checkpoint
signaled them to stop.

his
restaurant ,
police
officers

According
to the policemen ,
they spotted
that his vehicle
had been
swerving and this
prompted them to flag it
down .
They
asked Edmund
to
alight from the vehicle so that he
could take a rest at
the police
station situated nearby before
he resumes
driving.
Their
flashlights
trained
up
inside
of
the
vehicle
and
its
occupants ,
the policemen
then
asked Edmund to open the vehicles door
and alight
for
a
body and vehicle
search ,
a
directive he refused to heed
owing
to
a
previous
extortion
experience .
Instead,
he
opened
the
vehicles
window, uttering, plain view
lang boss, plain view lang.
then
beer

Obviously irked
by this
remark,
one of the policemen,
P/Insp.
told Edmund
that
he
was drunk pointing to three cases of
bottles in the trunk of the vehicle.

Aguilar
empty

Edmunds
explanation
about
being
sober
and
that
the
empty
bottles
adverted
to came
from
his
restaurant
was
ignored as
P/Insp.
Aguilar
suddenly
boxed
him
in
the
mouth,
poked
a
gun
at
his
head
and
blurted curse words against him. The officers then pulled Edmund out
of
the
drivers
seat
and
pushed
him
into
the
police
mobile
car .
The
policemen then brought
Edmund
to
a
hospital
when
they
succeeded
in
securing
a
medical
certificate
depicting
Edmund
as
positive
of
alcoholic
breath.

33
ISSUES:
(1)
Whether
the
disobedience
under
case.
(2)
RA

elements
Art.
151

of
RPC

resistance
and
present
in
the

Whether
the
accused
Edmund
be held
10586 or the Anti-Drunk Driving Act of

serious
instant

liable under
2013.

HELD: (1) NO. The two key element of

resistance and serious
punished
under
Art.
151
of
the
RPC
are :
(1)
that
a
authority
or
an
agent
is
engaged
in
the
performance
of
or
gives a
lawful
order
and
(2)
that
the offender
resists
disobeys
such
person
or
his
agent.

new
disobedience
person
in
official
duty
or
seriously

There
can
be
no
quibble
that
P/Insp.
Aguilar
and
his
apprehending
team
as
persons
in
authority
manning
a
legal
checkpoint .
However,
the
officers
involved
appeared
not
to
have
performed
their
duties
as
required by
law.
They
spotted
Edmunds
purported
swerving
vehicle.
Then
they signaled him to stop , which he
obeyed.
But they did
not
demand
the
presentation
of
the
drivers
license
or
issue
any
ticket
or
similar
citation paper as
required by
Sec. 29 of
RA 4136.
Moreover, Edmunds
act
searches
to
be
conducted
equated to disobedience let
of
Art. 151
of
the RPC.

of
exercising
in
the
middle
alone resisting

ones
right
against unreasonable
of the
night ,
in
context, be
a lawful order in contemplation

(2) NO.
The legal situation has of course changed with
the
approval
in
May
2013
of
the
Anti-Drunk
and
Drugged
Driving
Act
of
2013
(RA
10586)
which also penalizes driving under
the
influence of alcohol
(DUIA),
a
term defined under its Sec. 3
(e) as the act of operating a
motor
vehicle while the
drivers blood
alcohol concentration level
has , after being
subjected
to
a
breath
analyzer
test
reached
the
level
of
intoxication
as
established
jointly by the
DOH, the Napolcom and the
DOTC.
Viewed
from
the
prism
of
RA
10586 ,
Edmund
cannot
plausibly
convicted
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
for
the
obvious
reason :
had not
been tested beyond
reasonable
doubt , let
alone
conclusively,
reaching during
the
period
material
the threshold
level
of
intoxication
under
the
law
for DUIA, i.e.,
a
BAC
of 0.05%
or
over.

42

be
he
for
set

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW

OF THE STATE
VIOLATION

EDIGARDO

OF

DOMICILE

GEROCHE et. al. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 179080, November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA 514

FACTS:
On
May
14,
1989
at
10 oclock
in
the
evening ,
from
sleep
inside
his
house
when
Geroche ,
a
Barangay
and Marfil, members of CAFGU,
who were not
armed with
suddenly entered the house by destroying the main door.
The
accused
mauled
caused his
injuries. They
away his airgun.

Limbag
roused
captain,
Garde
search warrant ,

Limbag,
striking
him with
a
garand
rifle
which
looked for firearms but instead found and took

ISSUES:
(1)

What

(2)

Whether

HELD: (1) The

of the Revised

is

the
the

crime
Penal

crime
accused

committed?
are

criminally

committed is
Code (RPC).

Violation

liable.
of

Domicile

under

Article

128

Violation of
Domicile is
committed by any public officer
or
employee,
not
being
authorized
by
judicial
order ,
shall
enter
any
dwellings
against
the
will
of
the
owner
thereof ,
search
papers
or
other
effects
found
therein
without
the
previous
consent
of
such
owner ,
or
having
surreptitiously
entered
said
dwelling,
and
being
required
to
leave
the
premises,
shall refuse to do so.
(2) YES.
They are guilty
of
judicial admissions that
they were
and part of
CAFGU
(in the case
By

holding

such

positions,

*** NOTHING

IS

they

violation of
domicile
considering
their
Barangay captain
(in case of
Geroche)
of Garde and Marfil).
are

considered

IMPOSSIBLE

public

officers/employees.

WITH GOD ***