Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant
vessel passing through the territorial sea of another state has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein. However, a coastal state such as the Philippines can exercise
jurisdiction over any crime committed on board such ship in the following cases: (1) if
1 | Page
2 | Page
In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not contemplated
in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-38930, June 28,
1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967). However, praeter intentionem and evident
premeditation can be independently appreciated. there is no incompatibility between
evident premeditation and no intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is
based on the state of mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the
crime (Reyes; People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
The three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-building
phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving or non-violent
phase (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). The basis of the
irresistible impulse to make a defense against the batterer is the womans experiencing
two battering episodes.
6 | Page
The elements of Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense are as follows: (1) the
woman is subjected to cumulative abuse by the victim, with whom she has marital,
sexual or dating relationship; and (2) the cumulative abuse or battery is the act of
inflicting physical harm resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress.
Since the abuse must be cumulative, there must be at least two episodes involving the
infliction of physical harm. If the first episode is infliction of physical harm and the
second episode is verbal abuse, the accused cannot avail Battered Woman Syndrome
as a defense.
7 | Page
8 | Page
17. Voluntary confession - A plea of guilty made after the prosecution had
begun presenting its evidence cannot be considered voluntary since it was made only
after the accused realized that the evidence already presented by the prosecution is
enough to cause his conviction (People vs. Montinola, G.R. No. 131856-57, July 9, 2001).
10 | P a g e
B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the
provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied
supplementarily. Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for violation of
BP Blg. 22 on the basis of conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066,
February 17, 2005). The principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No. 9262. Thus,
a person (such as mother-in-law), who has no marital, sexual or dating relationship
with the victim, can be held liable for violence against woman on the basis of
conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
If there is conspiracy, the act of the public officer in violating RA No. 3019 is
imputable to the private individual although there are not similarly situated in relation
to the object of the crime. Moreover, Section 9 provides penalty for public officer or
private person for crime under Section 3. Hence, a private individual can be
prosecuted for violation of RA No. 3019 (Go vs. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007). Even if the public officer, with whom the private
individual allegedly conspired, died, the latter can still be prosecuted for violation of
RA No. 3019. Death extinguishes the criminal liability but not the crime. Hence, if
there is proof of the crime and conspiracy between the dead public officer and private
individual, the latter can still be convicted of violation of RA No. 3019 (People vs. Go,
GR NO. 168539, March 25, 2014). However, if the public officer with whom the private
individual allegedly conspired is acquitted, the latter should also be acquitted (Marcos
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998).
Mayor, treasurer and planning coordinator approved the overpayments in favor
of a private individual for the construction of public market. The public officers caused
undue injury to the government through manifest partiality and evident bad faith in
violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. The private individual, who was overpaid, is
11 | P a g e
24. Fencing In fencing, the property, which the accused possesses with intent
to gain, must be derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Ong vs. People, GR No.
190475, April 10, 2013). The concept of carnapping is the same as that of theft or
robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001). Thus, carnapping can
be considered as within the contemplation of the word theft or robbery in PD No.
1612 (Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). If the property is derived
from the proceeds of malversation or estafa, fencing is not committed. But the accused
can be held liable as an accessory if he profited or assisted other to profit from this
misappropriated property.
Actual knowledge that the property is stolen is not required. Fencing is
committed is the accused should have known that the property is stolen taken into
consideration the attending circumstances such as (1) the price of the property is so
cheap; (2) expensive jewelry is being offered for sale at midnight in a street; (3) accused
knew that the car he bought was not properly documented (Dimat vs. People, supra);
or (4) new tires are being peddled in the streets by an unknown seller (Ong vs. People,
supra). Furthermore, mere possession of stolen property shall be prima facie evidence
of fencing (Section 6 of PD No. 1612).
25. Obstruction of justice Obstruction of justice can only be committed by a
person other than the one being investigated or tried in a criminal proceeding.
Although this is not expressly required in PD No. 1829 to make one liable for
obstruction of justice, a principal himself cannot be held liable for obstruction of
justice (Angeles vs. Gaite, G.R No. 165276, November 25, 2009).
The criminal actor, who threwthe body of murdered victim into the river to
destroy the corpus delicti, is liable for murder qualified by the circumstance of
employment of means to afford impunity.The one who assisted in in throwing the body
is liable as an accessory to murder for destroying the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery (People vs. Devaras, G.R. Nos. 100938-39, December 15, 1993)or a principal
in the crime of obstruction of justice for destroying it to impair its availability as
evidence in a criminal proceeding.
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
If the offender is a child, the applicable rule for crediting the period of
commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344, which
provides that the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of juvenile
delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.
27. Immediate release If the period of preventive imprisonment is equal to
the imposable maximum imprisonment of the offense charged, the detention prisoner
shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the case, except
for the following: 1) recidivist; 2) habitual delinquent; 3) escapee; and 4) person charged
with heinous crimes. Such period shall include good conduct time allowance (Article 29
of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592).
Breaking the window of a house and taking property inside without entering
constitutes theft. Breaking the window is not a circumstance that will qualify the
taking into robbery by using force upon thins since this crime requires that the
breaking of window is a means to enter the building (People vs. Adorno, CA 40 O.G.
567; People vs. Jaranilla. G.R. No. L-28547, February 22, 1974). Breaking the window
to commit theft is an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
Using picklock to open a locked cabinet and taking property therein is not
robbery by using force upon thing. To constitute robbery by using force upon thing,
the picklock must be used to open the building and not merely a lockedfurniture (US
vs. Macamay, G.R. No. 11952, September 25, 1917). Entrusted key is not a false key in
robbery by using force upon thing.
In Sebastian case, when the elements of both robbery by means of violence and
intimidation and robbery by using force upon thing are present, the accused shall be
held liable of the former since the controlling qualification is the violence and
16 | P a g e
22 | P a g e
If the crime is punishable bythe Revised Penal Code or a special law, the
institution of judicial proceeding(e.g. filing of complaint or information in court) or
executive proceeding (e.g. filing of complaint for preliminary investigation) interrupts
the running of prescription such as the filing of complaint: (1) for violation of BP Blg.
22 in the prosecutors office - People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13,
2012;Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008; (2)
for violation of Revised Securities Act in Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC
vs. Interport Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008; or (3) violation
of RA No. 3019 in the Ombudsman - Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24
and 174764-65, September 11, 2013.
The PCGG has no power to investigate cronies of Marcos for violation of RA No.
3019 not involving ill-gotten wealth. Such investigation for being voidab initiowould not
interrupt the running of prescription (People vs. Romualdez and Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 166510, April 29, 2009).
Ifthe crime is punishable by an ordinance, only the institution of judicial
proceeding shall interrupt itstwo-month prescriptive period. The provision in the Rules
on Criminal Procedure regarding the interruption of prescription by institution
criminal action is not applicable to violation of ordinance because it is covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure. Hence, the filing of complaint involving violation of
ordinance for preliminary investigation will not interrupt the running of the
prescription (Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Lidua, Sr., GR No. 169588, October
7, 2013).
36. Probation -Probation shall suspend the execution of principal penalty of
imprisonment, and accessory penalty of disqualification(Villareal vs. People, G.R. No.
151258, December 01, 2014) but not the implementation of the civil aspect of the
judgment (Budlong, vs. Palisok, GR No. 60151, June 24, 1983).
When a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is
appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a
probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on
the modified decision before such decision becomes final. This notwithstanding, the
accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek a review of the modified
decision which already imposes a probationable penalty (Section 4 of PD 968 as
amended by RA No. 10707). In Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13,
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e
44. Rape - If the relationship between the accused and the victim of rape is
uncle and niece, the Information must alleged that the offender is a relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree because there are niece-uncle
relationships which are beyond the third civil degree.
However, a sister-brother
The place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the
internet is not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is printed and first
published. To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be prevented by the
amendment to Article 360, and that was the indiscriminate laying of the venue in
libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas, to harass an accused. At any rate,
Article 360 still allow offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for internet
libel in their respective places of residence (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149,
G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).
54. Incriminating an innocent person - As a general rule, planting of
evidence to incriminate an innocent person constitutes the crime of incriminating an
innocent person under Article 363 of RPC. However, if the incriminatory evidence
planted is dangerous drugs or unauthorized explosives, loose firearm or ammunition,
the crime committed is planting of evidence under RA 9165 for the dangerous drug,
PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516 for the explosive and RA No. 10591 for loose
firearm.
If unlawful arrest is committed to plant incriminatory evidence, the crime
committed is complex crime of incriminating innocent person through unlawful arrest
(People vs. Alagao, G.R. No. L-20721, April 30, 1966). If incriminatory evidence is
planted to justify an unlawful arrest, the crime committed is complex crime of
unlawful arrest through incriminating an innocent person. But if the incriminatory
evidence is dangerous drugs, explosive or loose firearm, unlawful arrest and planting
of evidence are separate crimes. Complex crime is not committed since planting of
evidence, which is punishable under special law, cannot be made a component of a
complex crime.
Stealing property and planting the stolen property to impute to the victim the
crime of theft constitutes complex crime of incriminating an innocent person through
theft.
Planting of live bullet by NAIA personnel to extort money from a passenger of
an airline constitutes separate crime of planting of evidence and consummated or
attempted robbery.
55. BP 22 - Demand letter was given with the security guard without proof
that it reached accused and through registered mail which was returned with the
notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05". Since there is proof that accused received the
notice of dishonor, he was acquitted However, he is still civilly liable (San Mateo vs.
People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013).
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, notice of dishonor is not required where
the drawer has no right to expect that the bank will honor the check. Since bank
account of accused was already closed even before the issuance of the subject check,
he had no right to expect the drawee bank to honor his check. Hence, he is not
37 | P a g e
Payment of check before the filing of information is a defense. The spirit of B.P.
Big 22, which is to protect the stability of the banking system, would not be served by
penalizing people who have corrected their mistakes and restituted damages even
before charges have been filed against them. In sum, by making payment of the check
before the filing of the information, the purpose of the law has already been attained.
Payment of check after the filing of informationis not a defense. Since there is no
showing of intention to mitigate the bad effects of his issuance of the unfunded check,
then there is no equitable reason to preclude the prosecution of accused. In such a
case, the letter of the law should be applied to its full extent (Lim vs. People, G.R. No.
190834, November 26, 2014).
Suspension of payment order issued by SEC before the check was presented for
payment is a defense in BP Blg. 22. Considering that there was a lawful Order from
the SEC, the contract is deemed suspended. Thus, the accused has no obligation to
fund the check and the complainant has no right to present it for payment (Gidwani
vs. People, GR No. 195064, January 15, 2014).Suspension of payment order issued by
SEC after three months from receipt of notice of dishonor is not a defense in BP Blg.
22. The accused has the obligation to make good of the check after he received the
letter prior to the issuance of suspension order (Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No. 133608,
August 26, 2008).
56. RA No. 7610 - The Family Code prohibits the infliction of corporal
punishment by teacher. A schoolteacher in employing unnecessary violence on her
minor student, who even fainted, is liable for child abuse under RA No. 7610 (Rosaldes
vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014). Accused saw the victim and his
companions hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused struck minor-victim at the
back with his hand and slapped his face. Since the accused committed the act at the
spur of the moment, they are perpetrated without intent to debase his "intrinsic worth
and dignity" as a human being, or to humiliate or embarrass him. Without such
38 | P a g e
39 | P a g e
For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that
the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority.
However, mere possession of dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of
40 | P a g e
41 | P a g e
42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
46 | P a g e