Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

CRIMINAL LAW

2016 PRE-WEEK HANDOUT

Justice Mario V. Lopez


DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to
immunity is the determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic
nature. Only diplomatic agents, under the terms of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal
suits. The Convention defines diplomatic agents as the heads of missions or members
of the diplomatic staff, thus impliedly withholding the same privileges from all others .
(Minucher v. Scalzo, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003)

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS:

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
There is no double jeopardy in the following:
(1) Estafa through falsification of a public document under the RPC and
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x It is clear then that
one may be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in addition to a felony under the
Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent
to being charged with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August 18, 2006 )
(2) Falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements shows that there is neither
identity nor exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No double jeopardy attaches, as
long as there is a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The
constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a second
prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one. The differences
between the elements needed to establish the commission of the two charges imply
that the evidence required to prove the guilt or the innocence of the accused would
likewise differ in each case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408 January 31, 2005)
(3) Direct bribery under the RPC and violation of Section 3(b) of RA
3019. There is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses.
While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one
offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. 2
(Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007)
Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law
Libel by means of writing or similar means is already punishable under the
1 For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the
modes of falsification. On the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused are
public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the
performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party, whether the
Government or a private party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
(5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
2 The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019 are: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he requested or received a
gift, present, share, percentage or benefit; (3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) the request or
receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the government and (5) he has the right to intervene, in an official
capacity under the law, in connection with a contract or transaction has the right to intervene. On the other hand, direct bribery has the
following essential elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by
himself or through another; (3) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to
committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to
refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do and (4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is
connected with the performance of his official duties.
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 1 of 23

RPC. Cybercrime Law merely establishes the computer system as another means of
publication, hence, online libel is not a new crime. Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely
expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to include
identical activities in cyberspace. ACPAs definition of child pornography in fact already
covers the use of electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.
Thus, charging the offender under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
(Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in
se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be
clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is
committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are
not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are
forbidden. Here, tampering, increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a
candidate in any election or refusal, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the
correct votes or deduct such tampered votes is inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It
is mala in se requiring criminal intent of the accused. (Garcia v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006)
Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the
act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. It is mala prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
192330, November 14, 2012)
CRIMINAL INTENT
General Intent is presumed in the commission of a felony. Specific Intent must
be proven as an element of a felony. Motive is the reason which impels one to commit
an act for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect
such result. Intent is an element of a crime, whereas motive is not.
Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external
manifestations, to wit: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location,
and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors
before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the
circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.
(Fantastico, et. al. v. People, Malicse, Sr., G.R. No. 190912, Jan. 12, 2015)
If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is
homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks
particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor
responsible for all the consequences thereof. (Wacoy v. PP/Quibac vs. People, G.R.
No. 213792 / G.R. No. 213886, June 22, 2015)
ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE
Proximate Cause - that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately
or by setting other events in motion all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events xxx such that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily
prudent and intelligent person, have the reasonable ground to expect at that moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. Thus,
the hacking of the victim's head though inflicting a superficial wound, which cause the
victim to fall down and seconds later a vehicle run over him. (People v. Iligan, 191
SCRA 843)
In aberratio ictus, treachery applies to the unintented victim. Logically, Bulanan's
death was random and unintentional and the method used to kill her, as she was killed
by a stray bullet, was, by no means, deliberate. Pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio
ictus, which imposes criminal liability for the acts committed in violation of law, the
accused is liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom. While
it may not have been Adriano's intention to shoot Bulanan, it was the natural and direct
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 2 of 23

consequences of Adriano's felonious deadly assault against Cabiedes. The presence of


the aggravating circumstance of treachery, although Bulanan's death was by no means
deliberate, qualified both killings to murder. (People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228,
July 15, 2015)
CONSPIRACY
The wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub)
dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke
typically interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the
spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in
the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the other spokes,
there are multiple conspiracies.
An illustration of wheel conspiracy wherein there is only one conspiracy involved
was the conspiracy alleged in the information for plunder filed against former President
Estrada and his co-conspirators. Former President Estrada was the hub while the spokes
were all the other accused individuals. The rim that enclosed the spokes was the
common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, accumulation and acquisition
of ill-gotten wealth. (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. People, GR 220598, July 19,
2016) Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to
and growing out of the purpose intended. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534,
April 4, 2011)
All the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all. Evidence as to
who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow is therefore no longer indispensable
since in conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another. (People
v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for failing to inflict mortal
wounds, both appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable for attempted murder since
they were shown to have acted in conspiracy with each other although Ventura did not
directly participate in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants' original objective may have
only been the killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was correctly held liable for murder
with appellant Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to death who just shouted for
help after seeing his husband in mortal danger. (People v. Ventura, G.R. No.
188601, June 29, 2010)
Accused-appellant who took no part in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in
the common criminal plan, is not liable for carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that coconspirators are liable only for acts done in pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other
acts done outside their contemplation or which are not the necessary and
logical consequence of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919
and 143876, February 4, 2003) There was no evidence to prove that all the
appellants assisted Robito in killing Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime do not affect the other accused. Co-conspirators
are criminally liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy on how and
what are the necessary and logical consequences of the intended crime.
(People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30, April 2, 2003)
Physical participation at the scene of the crime is not always necessary in
conspiracy. Even though there is no showing of a prior agreement among the accused,
their separate acts taken and viewed together show unity of criminal design and
purpose. Tangian's complicity was manifest from the fact that he personally transported
the stolen items. Yongco was seen to be in connivance because of his failure to demand
a gate pass. And lastly, Laojan was tagged to be the instigator who marshaled the
entire scheme. Despite Laojan's lack of physical participation in hauling the items to
Tangian's truck and bringing them to the junk shop, the act of giving the thumbs-up
sign is a clear proof of meeting of minute between Laojan and Tangian thus he can still
be liable for Qualified Theft via conspiracy. (Yongco vs. People, G.R. No. 209373,
July 30, 2014)
Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy. It must be
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 3 of 23

shown that the person concerned has performed an overt act in pursuant or furtherance
of the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without
the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove conspiracy. There
must be positive and conclusive factual evidence indicating the existence of conspiracy,
and not simple inferences, conjectures and speculations speciously sustained because it
cannot be mere coincidence. (Salapuddin v. CA, G.R. No. 184681, February 25,
2013)
SELF-DEFENSE
Accused-appellants' flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were
committed, their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their
non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to
the police authorities fully warranted the RTCs rejection of their claim of self-defense
and defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18,
2012)
The primordial element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an
actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.
In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent
to cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011) A
threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
(People v. Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011)
Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that
was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in
self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
(People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013) Batulan, albeit the initial
aggressor against Dulin, ceased to be the aggressor as soon as Dulin has dispossessed
him of the weapon. In retaliation, the aggression that the victim started already ceased
when the accused attacked him, but in self-defense, the aggression was still continuing
when the accused injured the aggressor. As such, there was no unlawful aggression on
the part of Batulan to justify his fatal stabbing by Dulin. (Dulin v. People, G.R. No.
171284, June 29, 2015)
EXERCISE OF DUTY OR RIGHT
There can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and his apprehending team are
persons in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint.
However, the officers involved appeared not to have performed their duties as required
by law. They spotted the petitioner's purported swerving vehicle. They then signaled
him to stop which he obeyed. But they did not demand the presentation of the driver's
license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under
the particular premises of Sec. 29 of RA 4136. Moreover, petitioner's act of exercising
one's right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the night
cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in
contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. (Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692,
November 12, 2014)
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
For such defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future
injury is not enough. In the instant case, while the records show that Manansala was
apprehensive in committing a falsity in the preparation of the subject report as she did
not know the repercussions of her actions, nothing would show that Lacanilao, or any of
her superiors at UMC for that matter threatened her with loss of employment should she
fail to do so. As there was an absence of any real and imminent threat, intimidation, or
coercion that would have compelled Manansala to do what she did, such a circumstance
cannot be appreciated in her favor. (Manansala vs. People, G.R. No. 215424, Dec.
9, 2015)
LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong is obtaining
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 4 of 23

when there is notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting crime
committed. It is extremely far-fetched that Maglian could accidentally pour kerosene on
his wife and likewise accidentally light her up and cause third-degree burns to 90% of
her body. Maglian knew the fatal injuries that he could cause when he poured kerosene
all over his wife and lit a match to ignite a fire. There was no disparity between the
means he used in injuring his wife and the resulting third degree burns on her body.
(People v. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011)
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave
offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity. (People v.
Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011)
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the commission
of the murder and in fact accompanied the chief of police to the scene of the crime,
without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing did not
amount to voluntary surrender. (People v. Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November
23, 2001) The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the
accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that
may be incurred for his search and capture. (People v. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834,
March 30, 2011)
DWELLING
In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is
aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. (People v.
Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011) In robbery with force upon things,
dwelling is inherent.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than
the intended victim was killed (or wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the
conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who
may help him put a violent resistance. Here, Raymundo Roque provided such violent
resistance against the conspirators, giving the latter no choice but to eliminate him from
their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004,
citing People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583) However, when there is an error in persona,
evident premeditation cannot be appreciated.
When it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much
time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.
It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the
moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation,
calculation, reflection or persistent attempt. (People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731,
July 18, 2013)
TREACHERY
The situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was killed
while tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery
was present in the commission of the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No.
178771, June 8, 2011)
Treachery may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was
not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that
neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or
become aware of it. (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011)
Treachery applies to robbery with homicide as a generic aggravating circumstance. The
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and construing the penal code,
which are accorded respect and persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have consistently
applied treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. It
does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex crime
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 5 of 23

because treachery is applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
constituent crime of "robbery". (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)
Treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated, or where the
sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a
sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the
victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. In this case, the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses all point to the fact that the shooting and
stabbing of Sareno was actually a spur of the moment incident, a result of the brawl
that happened during the barrio dance. The prosecution failed to show that the
accused-appellant and his brother Jerome deliberately planned the means by which they
would harm Sareno. (People v. Likiran, G.R. No. 201858, June 4, 2014) The
suddenness of an attack does not of itself, suffice to support the finding of alevosia,
even if the purpose was to kill so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the
victim's helpless position was accidental. Also, where the meeting between the accused
and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is, no treachery,
even if the attack was suddenly and unexpectedly and while the accused was running
away with his back towards the accused.
That the victim was still able to run the first blow does not obliterate the
presence of treachery. The unsuspecting Balano did not have the opportunity to resist
the attack when Gabrino, without warning, suddenly sprang out from behind the
coconut tree and stabbed him. The fact that Balano was able to run after he was
stabbed by Gabrino does not negate the fact the treachery was committed. Clearly,
Gabrino employed treachery in stabbing and killing Balano. (People v. Gabrino, G.R.
No. 189981, March 9, 2011)
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance, robbery with homicide
being a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal
Code. (People v.Torres, G.R. No. 189850, Sept. 22, 2014) Like treachery, the
homicide will not be qualified to murder.
To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. While it is true
that superiority in number does not per se mean superiority in strength, De Jesus and
Morales in this case did not only enjoy superiority in number, but were armed with
weapons, while the victim had no means with which to defend himself. Hence, De Jesus
and Morales took advantage of their number and weapons, as well as the condition of
the victim, to commit the crime. (People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528, Jan. 26,
2011)
Victim need not be completely defenseless in order for abuse or superior
strength to be appreciated. Treachery and evident premeditation could not be
appreciated because the eyewitness account did not disclose the events immediately
preceding the attack. However, the crime committed is still murder since the killing is
qualified by abuse of superior strength. In this case, the victim, while being restrained
by Vilbar, was simultaneously stabbed by Paling and Ernie. Not only did the perpetrators
outnumber their victim, more importantly, they secured advantage of their combined
strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. Therefore, the accused must be
convicted of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. (People v.
Paling, et. al., G.R. No. 185390, March 16, 2011)
ACCESSORY TO THE CRIME
Article 19, paragraph 2 defines accessories as those who, with knowledge of
the commission of the crime and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or
destroying the body of the crime, its effects of instruments, in order to prevent its
discovery. Under this provision, the punished acts should have been committed for the
purpose of preventing the discovery of the crime. Here, the crime punishable under P.D.
705 the illegal possession of lumber had already been discovered at the time the
petitioners took the truck. This discovery led to the confiscation of the truck and the
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 6 of 23

loaded lumber on November 15, 2002. The petitioners took the truck on November 16,
2002, after its confiscation. Obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829 constitutes the crime.
(Padiermos, et. al. vs. People, G.R. No. 181111, Aug. 17, 2015)
ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE
Appellants and their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security escorts died
while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds
in different parts of their bodies. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their
respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute
distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Obviously,
appellants and their co-accused performed not only a single act but several individual
and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not include single
impulse. (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)
Distinctions between a composite crime and a complex or compound crime under
Article 48:
In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a
complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but
generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means
to commit the other.
For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is
specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the
most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period.
A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony
that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject
of a separate information. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012)
If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit
estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed
without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.
(Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006
The phrase necessary means in Article 48 does not mean indispensable;
otherwise, the offense as a necessary means to commit another would be an
indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof. For instance, the
crime of simple estafa is ordinarily committed in the manner to facilitate and insure the
commission of estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification. (David v. People, G.R. No. 208320, Aug. 19, 2015)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Dionaldo, et. al. G.R.
No.. 207949, July 23, 2014)
What is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of robbery with
homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offender's intent to take personal
property before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried
out. 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.
The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts do not satisfactorily
establish an original criminal design by Chavez to commit robbery. The 22 stab wounds
would be overkill for these purposes. The sheer number of stab wounds inflicted on
Barbie makes it difficult to conclude an original criminal intent of merely taking Barbie's
personal property but rather strengthens an intention to kill and ensures his death.
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 7 of 23

There is no evidence showing that the death of the victim occurred by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery. (People v. Chavez alias Noy, G.R. No.. 207950,
September 22, 2014)
DELITO CONTINUADO
Delito continuado exists when there is a plurality of acts performed during a
period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose,
which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one
and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose
or aim.
The amended informations should be consolidated into a single information for
they charge what is known as delito continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes
referred to as "continuous crime." The informations charged petitioner with performing
a single criminal act that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not
qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The informations reproduced verbatim
the allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in the
original information each amended information states the name of the individual whose
stay was legalized. Moreover, the Amended Informations aver that the offenses were
committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay
of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was
embodied in the same document.(Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266,
December 2, 1993) When there is delito continuado, the crime cannot be splitted into
two or more crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in.
ARTICLE 62(2), REVISED PENAL CODE
Article 62 of the RPC mandates that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if
the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated
crime group which is a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or
mutually helping one another for the purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
Here, while the existence of conspiracy among appellants in selling shabu was
duly established, there was no proof that they were a group organized for the general
purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of the aggravating
circumstance of organized/syndicated group. (People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735,
October 24, 2012, citing People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November 28,
2007)
PROBATION
Amended by R.A. No. 10707
Grant of Probation;
xxx [W]hen 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. The application for probation
based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court
where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case involving several defendants where
some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by
submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the
judgment of conviction.
The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the execution of the
sentence imposed in the judgment.
xxx
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a
fine only. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
Disqualified Offenders;
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 8 of 23

The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:


a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
b. convicted of any crime against the national security;

c.

who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by


imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of
more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
d.

who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and

e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this
Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
Termination of Probation;
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil
rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his
criminal liability as to the offense for which probation was granted.
Related Cases:
Accused who appeals may still apply for probation. (Colinares v. People, G.R.
No. 182748, December 13, 2011) Probation Law is not applicable to drug traffickers.
(Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)
The Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends
the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer does
not serve the penalty imposed upon him including the accessory penalties like
disqualification to run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550,
August 10, 2006)
Probation does not erase the effects and fact of conviction, but merely suspends
the penalty imposed. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his
retention in the government service. Probation only affects the criminal liability of the
accused, and not his administrative liabilities, if any. (Pagaduan v. CSC and
Salvador, G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014)
Multiple conviction in one decision, the total penalty does not determine
probation. Where the trial court sentenced the accused for several offenses in one
decision and multiple prison terms are imposed on him, the multiple prison terms
should not be added together in determining whether or not the accused would be
eligible for probation. The prison terms are distinct from each other, and if none of the
terms exceeds the limits of six (6) years set out in the Probation Law, the accused is not
disqualified by the penalty. The number of offenses is immaterial as long as all the
penalties imposed taken separately are within the probationable penalty. Section 9(a) of
the Probation Law as amended, uses the word maximum not total, when it states that
the benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those xxx sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years. Evidently, the law does not
intend to sum up the penalties imposed but to take each penalty separately and
distinctly with the others. (Francisco v. CA, April 1995)
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
In the prosecution of cases of behest loans, the prescriptive period should be
reckoned from the discovery of such loans. The reason for this is that the government,
as aggrieved party, could not have known that those loans existed when they were
made. The behest loans could only have been discovered after the 1986 EDSA
Revolution when the people ousted President Marcos from office. And, prior to that date,
no person would have dared question the legality or propriety of the loans. (Republic
v. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012, citing Republic of the
Philippines v. Desierto, 438 Phil. 201, 212 [2002]; see also Republic v.
Desierto, 416 Phil. 59, 77-78 [2001]; Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil.
265, 294 [2004])

2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 9 of 23

Penalty for the crime proved, not charged, determines the applicable prescriptive
period. Thus, where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense
includible within the graver offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser
offense if it has already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction a
circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accussing the
defendant of the graver offense. (Damasco v. Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September
30, 1988, citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 13, 1983)
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
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 of
(i.e., civil liability ex delicto). However, civil liability based on a source of obligation
other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable through a
separate civil action. (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012)
Novation is not one of the means whereby criminal liability can be extinguished;
hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal liability or to
cast doubt on the true nature of the original petition, whether or not it was such that its
breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to
appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise. (Milla v. People, G.R. No. 188726,
January 25, 2012)
Novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22.
The fact that the petitioner had already made substantial payments to the respondent
and that only P25,000.00 out of his total obligation in favor of the respondent remains
unpaid is immaterial to the extinguishment of criminal liability. (Medalla v. Laxa, G.R.
No. 193362, January 18, 2012)
PRESIDENT'S PARDONING POWER
Not limited by legislative action:
The absolute pardon granted to former President Joseph Estrada fully restored all
his civil and political rights which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office.
Articles 363 and 414 of the Revised Penal Code cannot, in any way, serve to abridge or
diminish the exclusive power and prerogative of the President to pardon. They should be
construed in a way that will give full effect to the executive clemency granted by the
President. All that the said provisions impart is that the pardon of the principal penalty
does not carry with it the remission of the accessory penalties unless the President
expressly includes said accessory penalties in the pardon. Thus, Articles 36 and 41 only
clarify the effect of the pardon so decided upon by the President on the penalties imposed
in accordance with law. xxx A rigid and inflexible reading of the above provisions of law
will defeat or unduly restrict the power of the President to grant executive clemency.
xxx
A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada
shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties
are included in the pardon. The first sentence refers to the executive clemency extended
to former President Estrada who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and
imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned
which relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence that followed, which states that "(h)e
is hereby restored to his civil and political rights," expressly remitted the accessory
penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we
apply Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the
pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute
3 ART. 36. Pardon; its effects. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold publicoffice, or the right of suffrage,
unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
4 ART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal Their accessory penalties. The penalties of reclusion perpetua and
reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may
be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 10 of 23

disqualification were expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion
perpetua. (Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015)
FALSIFICATION
One is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and
personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the
approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. In other
words, leaving a question blank in the PDS/SALN is falsification. (Galeos v. People,
G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011)
Conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the
law that applies in a particular case. It is a proposition not arrived at by any process of
natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts stated but by the application of the
artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On the other hand, a narration of facts is
merely an account or description of the particulars of an event. It is a recital of things
accomplished, of deeds, occurrence or happening.
Disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a narration of facts. Statements concerning
relationship is descriptive and may be proved as to its truth or falsity.
A certification that one was "eligible or qualified is a conclusion of law
although it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is an expression of belief or
mistake of judgment.
ESTAFA
In estafa under paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, the act of postdating or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. This means
that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by
reason of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the
prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have
parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check of the
offender. (People v. Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013)
Estafa under P.D. 115 (trust receipts law) not applicable in contracts of loan. In the
case at bar, the real intent of the parties was simply to enter a loan. The subject goods
were not being held for sale, as in the case of Trust Receipt transactions where the
entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the entruster the price of the sale, but rather to
be used for the fabrication of steel communication towers in accordance with his
contracts with his clients. In these contracts, he was commissioned to build, out of the
materials received, steel communication towers, not to sell them. As such, PD 115 does
not apply. Thus, the petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged and was only held civilly
liable for the loan contracted with Asiatrust. (Ng vs. People, G.R. No. 173905, April
23, 2010)
MALVERSATION
Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation
or passively through negligence. Even when the Information charges willful
malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if
the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. The dolo or the
culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. (Torres
v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011)
The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a public corporation or a government agency
or instrumentality with juridical personality, which does not fall within the constitutional
prohibition in Article XII, Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments to its charter.
Not all corporations, which are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be
considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or
chartered institutions which are otherwise known as public corporations. These
corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government
which are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic viability but to
different criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and
objectives and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 11 of 23

Departments or Offices. (Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit,


G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011)
In technical malversation, public fund or property is considered appropriated if it
had been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no
technical malversation after the general fund of the municipality, intended by internal
arrangement for use in paying a particular road, was applied instead to the payrolls of
different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69,
November 19, 2013) COA's approval of petitioner's disbursements only relates to the
administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the
Ombudsman's authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be
prosecuted for which petitioner is answerable. While the COA may assist in gathering
evidence to substantiate a charge of malversation, any determination made by it will
not be conclusive as to whether adequate cause exists to prosecute a case. This is so
because the Ombudsman is a given the power to investigate on its own an illegal act or
omission of a public official. (Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, Nov. 28, 1996)
Unliquidated cash advance is not malversation. To have custody or control of the
funds or property by reason of the duties of his office, a public officer must be a cashier,
treasurer, collector, property officer or any other officer or employee who is tasked with
the taking of money or property from the public which they are duty-bound to keep
temporarily until such money or property are properly deposited in official depository
banks or similar entities; or until they shall have endorsed such money or property to
other accountable officers or concerned offices. Petitioner was not shown to have been
such public officer, even temporarily, in addition to his main duties as mayor. Needless
to say, he was not accountable for any public funds or property simply because it never
became his duty to collect money or property from the public. Therefore, petitioner
could not have appropriated, taken misappropriated or consented, or, though
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. (Panganiban vs.
People, G.R. No. 211543, Dec. 9, 2015)
RAPE
The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only
on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each
other. And physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapists
advances because of fear for her life and personal safety, or the exercise of the moral
ascendancy of the rapist over the victim. (People v. Besmonte, G.R. No. 196228,
June 4, 2014)
In rape by force or intimidation, the degree of resistance that the victim may put
up against the rapist need not be tenacious. It is settled that force need not be
irresistible but just enough to bring about the desired result. It is not necessary that the
rape victim resisted unto death. The rule is that resistance may be proved by any
physical overt act in any degree from the offended party. Article 266-D of the RPC
provided presumptions that: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the
act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A. (People v.
Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012)
The failure of a rape victim to shout, fight back or escape from the scoundrel is
not tantamount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation to exhibit
defiance or present proof of struggle. (People v. Linsie, G.R. No. 199494, November
27, 2013)
Medical evidence is dispensable and merely corroborative in proving the crime of
rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011) The presence of
hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape. (People v. Otos,
G.R. No. 189821, March 23, 2011)
It is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape
because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 12 of 23

will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco,
G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011)
Although the penis was thrice inserted in her private organ, the same constituted
one (1) count of rape. xxx During trial, the victim testified that appellant inserted his
penis into her vagina and withdrew his penis after about ten (10) seconds but inserted
it again after ten (10) seconds. After five (5) seconds, he withdrew it again but inserted
it once more after five (5) seconds. (People v. Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8,
2011)
Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate
with the mental age below 12 years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason.
(People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011)
The accused cannot be convicted of rape through sexual assault, although proven
during trial, if what was charged in the information is rape through carnal knowledge.
This violated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. It is proper to convict the accused of acts of
lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No.
196051, October 2, 2013)
Sexual assault is committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or
anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the narrower
"homosexual rape." (People v. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013)
RAPE INVOLVING SPOUSES (MARITAL RAPE)
Husbands do not have property rights over their wives' bodies. Sexual intercourse,
albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. xxx Clearly, it is now
acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who
penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon
her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDAW and its accompanying
Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353. A woman is no
longer the chattel-antiquated practices labeled her to be. A husband who has sexual
intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property, he is fulfilling a marital
consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He
cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act
without her full and free consent. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21,
2014)
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
In rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the person killed is someone other
than the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5,
2011) The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is
due to the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of
the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In contrast, the legislative intent on the
import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer to a killing that occurs
immediately before or after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or
consummated rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than
the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape became
evident. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012)
KIDNAPPING
In the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, it matters not that no
ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient that a demand for it was made. (People v.
Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10, 2013)
The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty,
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. (Con-ui,
et. al., G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013) When the victims were taken from
their respective houses, the purpose of the armed men was to kill them and not to
deprive them of their liberty. The objective of the assailants was to force the victims to
surrender the firearms allegedly in their possession and not to deprive them of their
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 13 of 23

liberty. Accordingly, the accused should be liable for two separate crimes of murder.
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. (People v.
Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011) [N.B. The primary purpose is
kidnapping.]
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No.
187534, April 4, 2011)
ROBBERY
The crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim refused to
give his money to the accused and no personal property was shown to have been taken.
It was for this reason that the victim was shot. Accused can only be found guilty of
attempted robbery with homicide. (People v. Barra, G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if its commission
was (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 in the commission of the crime. As long as there
is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in
a place other than the situs of the robbery. (People v. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733,
February 8, 2012)
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to
commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators
and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized. (People v. Diu,
et. al. G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013) Whenever homicide has been committed by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did
not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing.
(People v. Sugan, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011)
There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band. If robbery with
homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as
robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the RPC. The element of band would be
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. (Id.) The homicide or murder or
physical injuries, irrespective of their number, committed on occasion or by reason of
robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult, or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her rank, age, sex may
be properly considered only in crimes against persons. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident
of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.
CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
In proving the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be
proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (People v. Nocum, et. al.,
G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013)
QUALIFIED THEFT
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 14 of 23

Art. 70 of the RPC on successive service of sentences shall apply to an accused


convicted of four (4) counts of Qualified Theft with corresponding four penalties of
reclusion perpetua. Despite these, the accused shall suffer imprisonment for a period
not exceeding 40 years. (People v. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011)
Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave abuse of confidence. The fact that
accused-appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks
and had access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Metrobank
cashier's checks suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely abused
the confidence reposed to him by the bank.
Here, the accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by forging the
signature of officers authorized to sign the subject check and had the check deposited in
the account of Firebrake Sales and Services, a fictitious payee without any legitimate
transaction with Metrobank. (People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001.
See also PNB v. Tria, G.R. No. 193250, April 25, 2012)
Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of the felony of qualified theft, must
be the result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance,
between the accused and the offended party that might create a high degree of
confidence between them which the appellant abused. Here, the petitioner, as sales
clerk/agent of PCS, is duty-bound to remit to Ingan the payments which she collected
from the customers of PCS. She would not have been able to take the money paid by
the customers if it were not for her position in PCS. In failing to remit to Ingan the
money paid, the petitioner gravely abused the confidence reposed on her. (Ringer v.
People, G.R. No. 198904, December 11, 2013)
There is material possession only if the sum of money was received by an
employee in behalf of an employer. The material possession of an employee is adjunct,
by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the
employer. So long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to
the employee-perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or
otherwise. (Matrido v. People, G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009, citing Roque v.
People, 486 Phil. 288, 307 [2004])
BIGAMY
The crime of bigamy was already consummated the moment the accused
contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared
null and void,. xxx [T]he subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage
would not change the fact that the accused contracted the second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage. (Montaez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October
22, 2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013)
The second spouse is only an accomplice in Bigamy. Only if the second spouse
had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be
included in the information as a co-accused. Here, given that petitioner knew of the first
marriage, she was validly charged with bigamy. However, her punishment as a principal
to the crime is wrong. This is because a person, whether man or woman, who knowingly
consents or agrees to be married to another already bound in lawful wedlock is guilty as
an accomplice in the crime of bigamy. (Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July
15, 2015)
LIBEL
Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against
a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the
truth of the allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even
though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for
justifiable ends. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011)
In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary
meaning as they would naturally be understood by the persons reading them, unless it
appears that they were used and understood in another sense in the instant case, the
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 15 of 23

letters tag respondent as a reknown black mailer, a vengeful family member who filed
cases against his mother and siblings, and with nefarious designs. Even an impartial
mind reading these descriptions would be led to entertain double on the person's
character, thereby affecting that person's reputation. (Alejandro Almendras, Jr. v.
Alexis Almendras, G.R. No. 179491, Jan. 14, 2015)
Publication in Libel means making known the defamatory imputation to some
other person other than the person of whom it is written. There is no publication if the
defamation is sent straight to the person of whom it is written or where it is the
complainant himself who communicated or by his acts caused the communications of
the defamatory imputations to a third person. (Allonzo vs. CA, 241 SCRA 51)
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. No. 9344)
Automatic suspension of sentence should apply to a child in conflict with the law
regardless of the crime committed. (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16,
2011) Suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the
law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches the maximum age of 21. (People v.
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011)
Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is
a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion
perpetua to death. This means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted
the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. (Jose
v. People, G.R. No. 162052, January 13, 2005)
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, the law
clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one's birth date and not
the mental age as argued by accused-appellant Roxas. (People v. Roxas, G.R. No.
200793, June 4, 2014)
Amendments under R.A. No. 10630:
Minimun Age of Criminal Responsibility: a child is deemed to be fifteen (15)
years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate. [Sec. 3]
Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From Criminal
Responsibility: A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years
of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal
detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive
arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses
under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable
by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child
under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in
a special facility within the youth care faculty or Bahay Pag-asa called the
Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). [Sec. 6]
Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes: Any person who, in the
commission of a crime, makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of
children, including any person who abuses his/her authority over the child or who, with
abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce,
threaten or instigate the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the penalty
prescribed by law for the crime committed in its maximum period. [Sec. 6]
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
If the crime is punished by the RPC, the Court shall sentence the
indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which,
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of
minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next
prescribed by the Code for the offense.

accused to an
in view of the
RPC, and the
lower to that

When the offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 16 of 23

maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same. (See People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164 June 22, 2009)
Prescribed penalty refers to the initial penalty as a general prescription for the
felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the penalty as modified after considering the
attending and modifying circumstances; Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed
penalty chosen by the court from the imposable penalty.
Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to 6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is
not applicable when the penalty prescribed is not more than 1 year. In this case,
straight penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed.
ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019)
Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that it shall be unlawful for a public officer to
directly or indirectly request or receive any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit,
for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law. The term transaction is limited only to
contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has
the authority to intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a transaction under the law.
(People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013)
The good faith of heads of offices in signing a document will only be appreciated
if they, with trust and confidence, have relied on their subordinates in whom the duty
is primarily lodged. The defense will not apply when the accused is being held for
gross and inexcusable negligence in performing the duties primarily vested in him
by law. (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013)
The Court has already interpreted "undue injury" as "actual damage". Such
"actual damage" must not only be capable of proof; it must be actually proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. A finding of "undue injury" cannot be based on flimsy
and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture, or guesswork.
(Posadas, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and 169000, November
27, 2013)
Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g)
of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has
died prior to the filing of the information, the private person may be indicted alone.
(People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) Private persons may be charged
with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officer. This is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Pracvtices Act which is
"to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto. (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013)
Acquittal from violation of R.A. No. 3019 is not a bar against conviction for Article
218 of the RPC for failure to render an account. 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. The
glaring differences between the elements of these two offenses necessarily imply that
the requisite evidence to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused would certainly
differ in each case. Hence, petitioner's acquittal in the anti-graft case provides no
refuge for him in the present case given the differences between the elements of the
two offenses. (Aloysius Dait Lumauig v. People, G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA (PD 1869)
The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as
defined in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or
swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation
results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of
rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)," or farmers associations or of funds
solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 17 of 23

There is no syndicated estafa, regardless of the number of the accused, when (a)
the entity soliciting funds from the general public is the victim and not the means through
which the estafa is committed, or (b) the offenders are not owners or employees who
used the association to perpetrate the crime, in which case, Article 315 (2)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code applies. Here, the crime committed is only simple estafa because the
case was filed by a commercial bank as the offended party against the five accused who,
as clients, defrauded the bank. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187919,
February 20, 2013)
HIGHWAY ROBBERY (PD 532)
The accused was guilty only of robbery with homicide, not of robbery on the
highway as defined in P.D. 532. Conviction for the crime of highway robbery requires
proof that several accused organized themselves for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately, preying upon innocent and defenseless people on the highway. Here,
the prosecution proved only one act of robbery. (People v. Samoy, G.R. No. 193672,
January 18, 2012)
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610)
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited
in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed upon xxx those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided,
That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case
may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period
RA 7610 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. (Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013) Intent to
degrade the dignity of a child is required in child abuse. Not every instance of the laying
of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse, except when it is intended to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human
being. (Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013)
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 are as
follows: (1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and (3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Section 32, Article XIII, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610 defines
lascivious conduct as follows: [T]he intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of
the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
It is deemed that a child is sexually abused under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,
when he or she is subjected to other lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence
of any adult. There must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which
subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will. In this case, the prosecution
established that Gerandoy again entered the room where AAA was sleeping and
performed lascivious acts against her. Despite AAA's objection, Gerandoy touched
parts of her body. He continued his sexual advances by undressing AAA and forced her
to lie down. He kissed AAA's lips, mounted himself on top of her and touched and
sucked AAA's nipple. (People v. Julito Gerandoy, G.R. No.. 202838, September
17, 2014)
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 18 of 23

Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in child abuse cases. A child exploited in


prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual
intercourse with another person. It is mala prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No.
198732, June 10, 2013)
It was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the
applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the
passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law. Thus, sexual assault
committed against a minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized under RA 7610 which
prescribed a higher penalty. (People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011)
COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS & AMMUNITION (RA 10591)
The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is lower, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearm shall be imposed.
If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is equal to that imposed for
illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall
be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection
with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d etat, such violation
shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real
firearm and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance with
this Act.
[N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was published sometime in July 2013.
Accordingly, the old law which is more favorable to the accused should be applied to any
violations committed prior to its effectivity.]
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (RA 9165)
Under the RPC, there is an attempt to commit a crime when the offender
commences its commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance. This definition has essentially been adopted in
the crime of attempt to sell shabu e.g. overt act of the accused in showing the
substance to the poseur-buyer. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified
themselves and placed the accused under arrest. (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No.
186141, April 11, 2012) There is attempt to sell shabu when there is overt act of
showing the substance to the poseur-buyer. (People v. Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, July
6, 2011)
The essential element of transportation is the movement of the dangerous drug
from one place to another or that the accused had moved the drugs some distance.
"Transport" means the movement of the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from one
place to another. Here, the accused were arrested inside a car which was not in transit.
The car was parked and stationary. The prosecution failed to show that any distance
was travelled. The conclusion that the accused transported the drugs merely because
they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and is mere speculation. (San Juan v.
People, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011) Transportation of Drugs is committed
when the accused was apprehended while boarding his flight with drugs in his
possession. While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel
some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 19 of 23

presence at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or
moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another. (People v. Lara, G.R. No.
199938, January 28, 2013) Transporting dangerous drugs is malum prohibitum;
proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge is not required. (People v. Morilla, G.R.
No. 189833, February 5, 2014)
The essential elements of importation of dangerous drugs are: (1) the
importation or bringing into the Philippines of any dangerous drugs; and (2) the
importation or bringing into the Philippines of said drugs was without authority of law.
There is no importation unless it is proven that the dangerous drugs are brought into
the Philippines from a foreign origin. The crime of illegal possession is an element of
and is necessarily included in illegal importation of dangerous drugs. (People v. Liu,
G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015)
Drug Selling is consummated upon the delivery of the drugs to the poseurbuyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. (People v. Hong Yen
and Chua, G.R. No. 181826, January 9, 2013) The essential elements are: (1)
Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; (2) Delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. When there is no payment, the crime may be
delivery of drugs. The essential elements of delivery of dangerous drugs are: (1) the
accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise,
and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
in relation to Section 21 of RA 9165
The chain of custody in its simplest terms refers to the movement of the
evidence from the time it is recovered from the crime scene up to the time it is offered
in evidence in court. The purpose is to authenticate the evidence as exactly that
evidence recovered in the crime scene, that it has not been substituted or altered up to
its appearance in court.
It is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed
at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of
evidence. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014) When there is a
search warrant, marking and inventory shall be at the place where the search was
conducted. In a buy-bust operation, the marking and inventory may be done
immediately or at the nearest police station.
Non-compliance with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited justifiable grounds, and when the
prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized
had been preserved. (Id.)
It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate
operations on account of the law enforcer's failure to maintain close coordination with
the PDEA. (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012)
[N.B. Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule affects the credibility of the
evidence and will not invalidate arrest or render inadmissible the items seized.]
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)
"Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in
the bearing of a common child. On the other hand, "Dating relationship" exists even
without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved.
While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship
with the offended woman, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 20 of 23

consequence of such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether the relationship had


ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence
of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was
committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013)
The law punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against
women. This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into
violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children.
Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. (Ang
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010)
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, as amended)
Money laundering is committed by any person who performs any of the
punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,5 knowing that any monetary instrument or
property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is
also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council fails to do so.
Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of
money laundering and the unlawful activity. The prosecution of any offense or
violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the
unlawful activity.
[N.B. Terrorism under RA 9372 is one of the predicate crimes; also RA 9165, Dangerous
Drugs Act]
The AMLC may file an ex parte petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If there
is probable cause that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an
unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective
immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the
circumstances of the case.
If there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within
the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A
person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the
court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. No court shall
issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order,
except the Supreme Court.
The AMLC may also inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment,
including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution
upon order of any competent court based on an ex parte application when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to
an unlawful activity.
Application to inquire into or examine any deposit or investment filed with the
Court of Appeals shall be acted upon within twenty-four (24) hours from filing.
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (RA 9203)
The accused can be convicted of trafficking in persons even if AAA admitted that
she works as a prostitute. Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under
the law. As defined under Section 3(a) of R.A. NO. 9208, trafficking in persons can still
5 (a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;
(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or property;
(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said
monetary instrument or property;
(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)
above; and
(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 21 of 23

be committed even if the victim gives consent. The victim's consent is rendered
meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or
deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will. (People
v. Shirley Casio, G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014)
PREMATURE MARRIAGE
On March 13, 2015, R.A. No. 10655 was approved into law repealing the crime of
premature marriage committed by a woman under Article 351 of Act No. 3815,
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. This is, however, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Family Code on paternity and filiation.
ANTI-HAZING LAW (RA 8049)
Presumption of Actual Participation; Conspiracy;
Classes of Persons liable as Principals and Accomplices;
Remedies of the offended party
xxx
Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in accordance with
Section 4 of the law, which provides different classes of persons who are held liable as
principals and accomplices.
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing.
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical
injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie
evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the punishable
acts.6
The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or
alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned
the hazing. Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting
hazing were committed, they shall still be liable as principals. The provision took in
consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former
officers or alumni.
The third class of principals would be officers or members of an
organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat. These
officers or members are penalized, not because of their direct participation in the
infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing
the victim to attend the hazing.
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser
who was present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and
failed to take action to prevent them from occurring. The liability of the adviser
arises, not only from his mere presence in the hazing, but also his failure to prevent the
same.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or
members of the fraternity, group, or organization. The hazing must be held in the
home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge
of the hazing conducted in their homes and failed to take any action to avoid the
same from occurring.
The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The school
authorities, including faculty members, who consented to the hazing or who have actual
knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring
6 The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of injury inflicted to the victim. The penalties appear to be
similar to that of homicide, serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, and slight physical injuries under the RPC,
with the penalties for hazing increased one degree higher. Also, the law provides several circumstances which would
aggravate the imposable penalty.
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 22 of 23

shall be punished as accomplices. Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing
was conducted can also be an accomplice to the crime. The owner of the place shall be
liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and he failed to
take any steps to stop the same. (Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1,
2015)
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (RA 9372)
Definition;
Any person who commits the predicate crimes (as enumerated in Section 3,
like Piracy, Rebellion or Insurrection, Coup d' Etat, Murder, etc. ) thereby sowing and
creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand
shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years
of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole.
Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest; 3 days
The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary
notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who, having been duly
authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person
charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of
detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected
person to the proper judicial authority within a period of three days counted from the
moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested,
detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement personnel:
Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7 and
examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.
xxx
Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement
personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension
or arrest: Provided ,That where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays
or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge
nearest the place where the accused was arrested. (Section 18)
Period of Detention in the Event of an
Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack; more than 3 days
In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not
be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a
municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or
judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of
the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during
Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law
enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence of any of
the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested.
The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law
enforcement personnel concerned within five days after the date of the detention of the
persons concerned: Provided, however, That within three days after the detention the
suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established, shall be
released immediately. (Section 19)
Double Jeopardy;
When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid
complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of
the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any
offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.
(Sec. 49)

--GOOD LUCK--

2016 Criminal Law Pre-week Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review
Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.
Page 23 of 23