2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES

2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA

territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The
PRO REO general, territorial and prospective
characteristics of criminal law are
In dubio pro reo is means "when in principles that define and demarcate the
doubt, for the accused. Intimately related scope and limitation of the operation of
to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule criminal law. Under these three principles,
of lenity. The rule applies when the court is the operation or enforceability of criminal
faced with two possible interpretations of a law is limited to wrongful acts committed
penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the on or after its effectivity (prospectivity)
accused and another that is favorable to within the territory of the Philippines
him. The rule calls for the adoption of an (territoriality) by person living and
interpretation which is more lenient to the sojourning therein (generality).
accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs.
People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, GENERALITY - Generality
2010). principle is akin to territoriality principle
in the sense that the demarcating factor of
POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL both principles is the territory of the
THERORY Philippines. Under generality principle,
criminal law is enforceable to person living
The positivist theory states that the or sojourning in the territory of the
basis for criminal liability is the sum total Philippines. Under the territoriality
of the social and economic phenomena to principle, criminal law is applicable only to
which the offense is expressed. The purpose criminal act committed within the territory
of penalties is to secure justice. The of the Philippines. But the concept of
penalties imposed must not only be generality is different from territoriality.
retributive but must also be reformative, to The applicability of territoriality principle
give the convict an opportunity to live a new or generality principle will depend on the
life and rejoin society as a productive and issue raised by the accused in questioning
civic-spirited member of the community. the jurisdiction of the court. If the accused
The adoption of the aspects of the Positivist attacks the jurisdiction of the court
theory is exemplified by the indeterminate because of the unique characteristic of his
sentence law, impossible crime, privilege person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military,
mitigating circumstance of minority and hermit, primitive, ambassador, legislator,
modifying circumstances, rule on President), the applicable principle is
imposition of penalties for heinous and generality. If the accused attacks the
quasi-heinous crimes) (Joya vs. Jail Warden jurisdiction of the court due to the unique
of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418- characteristic of the place where the crime
19, December 10, 2003;). was committed (e.g. the place of
commission is foreign vessel, embassy or
Under the classical theory, man is high sea) etc, the applicable principle is
essentially a moral creature with an territoriality.
absolutely free will choose between good
and evil. When he commits a felonious or 1. Military officers - The Revised
criminal act, the act is presumed to have Penal Code and special criminal laws are
been done voluntarily, i.e. with freedom, enforceable against military men living or
intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, sojourning in the Philippines. However, CA
should be adjudged or held accountable for 408 (Articles of War) which vests
wrongful acts so long as free will appears jurisdiction over members of the AFP to
unimpaired (People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. the courts-martial. RA 7055 (AN ACT
130487, June 19, 2000). Since the Revised STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
Penal Code is based on the classical school OVER THE MILITARY) did not divest the
of thought, it is the identity of the mens rea military courts of jurisdiction to try cases
which is considered the predominant involving "service-connected crimes or
consideration and, therefore, warrants the offenses" under CA 408 (Example: Mutiny
imposition of the same penalty for or sedition, quarrels, frays; disorders,
conspirators on the consequential theory breaking an arrest or escaping from
that the act of one is thereby the act of all confinement, releasing prisoners without
(Hon. Sandiganbayan, Honrado, G.R. No. proper authority, wrongful appropriation of
115439-41, July 16, 1997). Under this captured property, corresponding with, or
theory, the criminal liability is based on the aiding the enemy, spies, dueling, fraud
result of the felonious act (proximate cause against the government affecting matters
rule). and equipment). In fact, RA No. 7055
mandates that these service-connected
CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW crimes shall be tried by the court-martial
(Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318,
There are three characteristics of October 25, 2004). CA 408 is a law of
criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2) preferential application since it excludes
1|P ag e
members of the AFP from the operation of effect therein. It is the English rule that
the Revised Penal Code and special obtains in this jurisdiction.
criminal laws if the crimes committed by
them are service-connected as defined by 3. Convention of the law of the
RA 7055. Sea - Under the Convention on the Law of
the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant
2. Consular officers - Despite the vessel passing through the territorial sea
ruling in Schneckenburger vs. Moran, has jurisdiction over crimes committed
consular officers and employees are now therein. However, the Philippines can
enjoying immunity from criminal exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person
prosecution of acts performed in the or to conduct any investigation in
exercise of consular function under 1967, connection with any crime committed on
Convention on Consular Relation. Slander board the ship during its passage in the
(Liang vs. People, GR NO 125865, January following cases: (1) if the consequences of
28, 2000) or reckless imprudence resulting the crime extend to the coastal State; (2) if
in homicide is not function-related. Consul the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace
is liable for committing this crime. of the country or the good order of the
territorial sea; (3) if the assistance of the
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: local authorities has been requested by the
Under the principle of territoriality, the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent
Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes or consular officer of the flag State; or (4) if
committed inside its territory except as such measures are necessary for the
provided in the treaties and laws of suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic
preferential application. drugs or psychotropic substances.
1. Embassy - The ground occupied 4. Drug trafficking - Following the

by US embassy is in fact the territory of English rule, the Philippines has no
the USA to which the premises belong jurisdiction over transportation of opium
through possession or ownership. A in a foreign vessel in transit in territorial
person who committed a crime within the water of our country because possession of
premises of an embassy will be prosecuted opium does not have a pernicious effect on
under the law of Philippines because of the our country (U.S. vs. Look Chaw). But
principle of territoriality (See: Reagan vs. under the Convention of the law of the
Commission on Internal Revenue, 30 Sea, the Philippines can exercise
SCRA 968, En Banc; Answers to 2009 Bar jurisdiction to arrest any person or to
Examination Questions by UP Law conduct any investigation involving
Complex). However, jurisdiction of the transportation of dangerous drugs since
Philippines over the embassy is limited or this is a measure necessary for the
restricted by the principles of inviolability suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic
of diplomatic premises, which is a drugs or psychotropic substances.
generally accepted principle of
international law. Warrant of arrest cannot EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - Under
be served inside US embassy without the principle of extra-territoriality, the
waiver of American government of its right Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes
under the principle of inviolability. committed outside its territory for those
five instances mention in Article 2 such as
2. English rule - There are two crime committed in vessel of Philippines
fundamental rules in International Law registry (ownership is not material),
regarding crimes committed aboard a function-related crime committed by
foreign merchant vessel (not military public officer (such as corruption or direct
vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile bribery), crimes against national security
territorial water (not internal or archipelagic (such as treason, espionage; rebellion is
water or high seas) of the Philippines to not a crime against national security), and
wit: (1) French rule - Crimes committed crime against law of nation such as piracy
aboard a foreign merchant vessel within and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin, G.R. No.
the territorial water of the Philippines are 111709, August 30, 2001- Piracy is an
subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state exception to the rule on territoriality in
(extra-territoriality principle) unless their criminal law (Article 2). The same principle
commission affects the peace and security applies even if accused were charged, not
of our country. (2) English rule Crimes with a violation of qualified piracy under
committed aboard a foreign merchant the penal code but under a special law, PD
vessel within the territorial water of the No. 532 which penalizes piracy in
Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of Philippine waters. It is likewise, well-
the Philippines (territoriality principle) settled that regardless of the law
unless their commission does not affect its penalizing the same, piracy is a
peace and security, or has no pernicious reprehensible crime against the whole
world.
2|P ag e
jurisdiction to punish persons charged
PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC with a violation of the old penal law prior
- If the court in trying an accused, who to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil.
committed a crime prior to the passage of 1000; Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; U.S. vs. Reyes,
the law, should give retroactive effect to 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. Academia, 10 Phil.
the law provided that: (1) it is favorable to 431; Arizala vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
the accused and (2) the accused is not a 43633, September 14, 1990; Almuete, et
habitual delinquent (Article 22). Ex post al., G.R. No. L-265, February 27,19 76).
facto law - Congress in passing a law can The intention of the new law is to
insert retroactive effect provision therein decriminalize an act punishable of old law.
subject to the Constitution of ex post facto Thus, person cannot be punished for
law. If the retroactive provision of the law subversion under RA 1700, which was
has passed the constitutional test on repealed by RA 7637, even though he is a
prohibition against ex post facto law, the habitual delinquent. New regulation -
court must give retroactive effect to this Repeal with re-enactment of a penal law
law even if the accused is a habitual does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction
delinquent. Nullum crimen poena sine lege to punish persons charged with a violation
If the law repeals a previous law or of the old penal law prior to its repeal.
provision defining a crime, the applicable Such repeal even without a saving clause
principle is not Article 22 of RPC but would not destroy criminal liability of the
nullum crimen poena sine lege (There is no accused (U.S. vs. Cana, 12 Phil. 241). The
crime when there is no law punishing it). intention of the new law is not to
Since the intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law
decriminalize an act punishable by the but merely to provide new regulation. If
repealed law, the accused should be the new law is favorable to the accused,
acquitted or released if the already who is not a habitual delinquent, it shall
convicted, even though he is a habitual be given retroactive effect. Example: A
delinquent. was charged for the crime of rape under
Article 336 of RPC for raping his minor
X committed crime under RA No. daughter. However, RA 8353 expressly
6425, the penalty for which is life repealed Article 336 but re-enacted the
imprisonment. RA No. 7659 amended RA provision on rape by reclassifying it as a
No. 6425 by prescribing the penalty of crime against person, redefining it and
reclusion temporal. Should RA No. 7659 be prescribing a graver penalty for the
given retroactive effect? Answer: Yes. The commission thereof. The repeal of Article
maximum duration of reclusion temporal is 336 does not deprive the courts of
40 years of imprisonment while life jurisdiction to try and punish A for rape
imprisonment has no duration. Thus, under Article 336. RA No. 8353 shall not
reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than be given retroactive effect since it is not
life imprisonment. The amendatory law, favorable to the accused.
being more lenient and favorable to the
accused than the original provisions thereof DECRIMINALIZATION OF VAGRANCY BY
should be accorded retroactive application RA NO. 10158
(People vs. Morilla, GR No. 189833,
February 05, 2014). Article 202 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA No. 10158
RA No. 9346 prohibits the provides:
imposition of death penalty, prescribes
reclusion perpetua in lieu of death penalty Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. -
or life imprisonment if the special law does For the purposes of this article, women who,
not use the nomenclature of the penalties for money or profit, habitually indulge in
under RPC and declares a person sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
sentenced to reclusion perpetua as a deemed to be prostitutes.
prescribed or reduced penalty is ineligible
for parole. This law has a retroactive effect. Any person found guilty of any of
Penal laws which are favorable to accused the offenses covered by this article shall be
are given retroactive effect. This principle punished by arresto menor or a fine not
is embodied under Article 22 of RPC, exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of
which provides: Penal laws shall have a recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the period to prision correctional in its minimum
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000
habitual criminal (People vs. Talaro, et.al., pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
GR No. 175781, March 20, 2012, Justice
Peralta). RA No. 10158 has decriminalized
vagrancy by omitting portions of Article 202
REPEAL: Decriminalization - Repeal involving such crime. A reading of the
of a penal law deprives the courts of Senate deliberation pertaining to the
3|P ag e
passage of law decriminalizing vagrancy committed a crime on a mistaken belief, to
shows that they considered vagrants as enjoy the benefit of the justifying
victims of poverty and that the law on circumstance of self-defense (United States
vagrancy serves to oppress the very people vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488), defense of
that the government sought to protect. In person and right (US vs. Bautista, G.R. No.
view of the new policy of the State 10678 August 17, 1915), defense of honor
decriminalizing vagrancy, which is (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil. 391),
embodied in RA No. 10158, ordinance, performance of duty, (People vs.
which punishes vagrancy, should Mamasalaya, G.R. No.L-4911, February
be declared as contrary to law, and hence, 10, 1953), and the exempting
invalid. Settled is the rule that what the circumstance of obedience of an order of
national legislature expressly allows by law, superior officer (People vs. Beronilla, G.R.
a local legislature may not disallow by No. L-4445, February 28, 1955). In Ah
ordinance or resolution (Lina vs. Pana, G.R. Chong, the accused, who believed that the
No. 129093, August 30, 2001). The spring victim was a robber and that his life was in
cannot rise higher than its source. As aptly danger because of the commencement of
explained by Justice Nachura in his book, unlawful aggression, was acquitted due to
An ordinance must not be contrary to the mistake of fact doctrine in relation to the
Constitution or law. Prohibited activities may rule on self-defense. In Oanis vs. Galanta,
not be legalized in the guise of regulation; the accused, who believed that the
activities allowed by law cannot be sleeping victim is a notorious criminal to
prohibited, only regulated. Moreover, be arrested by them, was held guilty of
Section 4 of RA No. 10158 provides that All murder for shooting him since the mistake
laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, of fact principle in relation to performance
rules and regulations and other issuances, of duty is not applicable. Second element
or any part thereof, inconsistent with this is not present since they did not ascertain
Act are hereby repealed, modified or first his identify despite opportunity. The
amended accordingly. An ordinance on first element is not likewise present since
vagrancy is a law, which is inconsistent the killing of victim believed to be a
with RA No. 10158. Hence, such local criminal was not necessary consequence of
statute is deemed repealed. the due performance of duty of the
accused as police officers.
RA No. 10158 shall be given
retroactive effect even if the offender or The gist of the theft is the intent to
accused is a habitual delinquent. Section 2 deprive another of his property in a
of the said law provides All pending cases chattel, either for gain or out of
under the provisions of Article 202 of the wantonness or malice to deprive another of
Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its his right in the thing taken. This cannot be
amendment by this Act shall be dismissed where the taker honestly believes the
upon effectivity of this Act while Section 3 property is his own or that of another, and
thereof states All persons serving sentence that he has a right to take possession of it
for violation of the provisions of Article 202 for himself or for another, for the
of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior protection of the latter. However, the belief
to its amendment by this Act shall be of the accused of his ownership over the
immediately released upon effectivity of this property must be honest and in good faith
Act: Provided, That they are not serving and not a mere sham or pretense. If the
sentence or detained for any other offense or claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, taking
felony. Article 22 of the Revised Penal the property of another will not protect the
Code, which requires that the offender taker (Gaviola vs. People, G.R. No. 163927,
must not be a habitual delinquent to give January 27, 2006). This belief of
retroactive effect to a penal law, is not ownership as a defense in theft is in
applicable since Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. accordance with the mistake of fact
10158 expressly provide retroactive doctrine.
application to the law without distinction,
whether the offender is a habitual X informed the authorities regarding
delinquent or not. armed rebel elements on board a vehicle in
a certain barangay. Several policemen,
MISTAKE OF FACT PRINCIPLE: Barangay officers and members of the Civil
Home Defense Force (CHDF) responded to
Requisites: (1) That the acts done information and set a check point. X
would have been lawful had the facts been pointed at an approaching jitney occupied
as the accused believed them to be (2) that by rebels. They flagged down the vehicle but
the mistake of fact is not due to negligence the same did not stop. They attacked the
or unlawful intent of the offender. The vehicle with automatic weapons by firing
Supreme Court in several cases had directly thereat. One died and another was
applied the mistake of fact doctrine, wounded. It turned out however that the
which allowed the accused, who victims are unarmed innocent civilians. Are
4|P ag e
those responsible for the death and injuries CRIMINAL INTENT To be held
of the victims liable for homicide? Is the liable for intentional felony, the offender
doctrine of mistake of fact applicable? must commit the act prohibited by RPC
with specific criminal intent and general
Answer: They are liable for homicide criminal intent. General criminal intent
and attempted homicide. The duty of those (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element of
manning the check point is to identify the all crimes but malice is properly applied
occupants of their suspect vehicle and only to deliberate acts done on purpose
search for firearms inside it to validate the and with design. Evil intent must unite
information they had received; they may with an unlawful act for there to be a
even effect a bloodless arrest. While, felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives
rebellion is a continuing offense, they rise to a presumption of malice by intent.
cannot open fire at or kill the suspects On the other hand, specific intent is a
under any and all circumstances. There is definite and actual purpose to accomplish
no evidence showing that they were placed some particular thing. In estafa, the
in real mortal danger in the presence of the specific intent is to defraud, in homicide
victims. Hence, the mistake of fact principle intent to kill, in theft intent to gain
is not applicable since there is negligence or (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217,
bad faith on their part (Yapyucu vs. June 27, 2006, ). In the US vs. Ah Chong,
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 120744-46, June the accused was acquitted because of
25, 2012, Justice Peralta). mistake of fact principle even though the
evidence showed that he attacked the
VOLUNTARINESS Concurrence deceased with intent to kill (United States
of freedom, intelligence and intent makes vs. Apego, G.R. No. 7929, November 8,
up the criminal mind behind the 1912; Dissenting opinion of J. Trent),
criminal act. Thus, to constitute a crime, which was established by the statement of
the act must, generally and in most cases, the accused "If you enter the room I will kill
be accompanied by a criminal intent. you." Article 249 (homicide) should be read
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No in relation to Article 3. The accused was
crime is committed if the mind of the acquitted not because of the absence of
person performing the act complained of is intent to kill (specific intent) but by reason
innocent (People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. of lack of general intent (dolo or malice).
104238-58, June 3, 2004). Voluntariness
is an element of crime, whether committed PRESUMED MALICE - The general
by dolo or culpa or punishable under criminal intent (malice) is presumed from
special law. The act to be considered a the criminal act and in the absence of any
crime must be committed with freedom general intent is relied upon as a defense,
and intelligence. In addition to such absence must be proved by the
voluntariness, intentional felony must be accused (Ah Chong case, the accused was
committed with dolo (malice), culpable able to rebut the presumption of general
felony with culpa, and mala prohibita criminal intent or malice). Generally, a
under special law with intent to perpetrate specific intent is not presumed. Its
the act or with specific intent (such as existence, as a matter of fact, must be
animus possidendi in illegal possession of proved by the State just as any other
firearm). Presumption of voluntariness: In essential element. This may be shown,
the determination of the culpability of however, by the nature of the act, the
every criminal actor, voluntariness is an circumstances under which it was
essential element. Without it, the committed, the means employed and the
imputation of criminal responsibility and motive of the accused (Recuerdo vs.
the imposition of the corresponding People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006, ).
penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. The There are other specific intents that are
human mind is an entity, and presumed. If a person died due to violence,
understanding it is not purely an intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
intellectual process but is dependent to a Intent to gain is presumed from taking
large degree upon emotional and property without consent of owner.
psychological appreciation. A mans act is
presumed voluntary. It is improper to MOTIVE
assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were
done unconsciously, for the moral and Doubt as to the identity of the
legal presumption is that every person is culprit - Motive gains importance only
presumed to be of sound mind, or that when the identity of the assailant is in
freedom and intelligence constitute the doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the
normal condition of a person (People vs. prosecution does not need to prove the
Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, motive of the accused when the latter has
2004). been identified as the author of the crime.
The accused was positively identified by
witnesses. Thus, the prosecution did not
5|P ag e
have to identify and prove the motive for the accused. Thus, the acts are not
the killing. It is a matter of judicial constitutive of attempted coercion. Note:
knowledge that persons have been killed for The accused were found guilty of illegal
no apparent reason at all, and that detention. Taking the victim reveals the
friendship or even relationship is no evident intention of the accused to deprive
deterrent to the commission of a crime. The the liberty of the latter, which is the mens
lack or absence of motive for committing rea in illegal detention. In U.S. vs. Simeon,
the crime does not preclude conviction G.R. No. 1603, April 15, 1904 - Raising a
where there are reliable witnesses who fully bolo and hacking the victim with it are
and satisfactorily identified the petitioner as acts of execution in homicide or murder.
the perpetrator of the felony (Kummer vs. Such acts together with other
People, GR No. 174461, September 11, circumstance may reveal intent to kill.
2013). However, raising bolo alone is susceptible
to different interpretation. The intention of
Circumstantial or inconclusive the offender may either to kill the victim or
evidence - Indeed, motive becomes merely to threaten him. Since doubt
material when the evidence is should be interpreted in favor of the
circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is accused, such act should be considered to
some doubt on whether a crime has been have been made with intent to threaten
committed or whether the accused has the victim. Thus, the crime commit is
committed it. The following circumstantial merely threat and not attempted homicide;
evidence is sufficient to convict accused: 1.
Accused had motive to kill the deceased PROXIMATE CAUSE
because during the altercation the latter
slapped and hit him with a bamboo, Proximate cause is the primary or
prompting Romulo to get mad at the moving cause of the death of the victim; it
deceased; 2. Accused was chased by the is the cause, which in the natural and
deceased eastward after the slapping and continuous sequence unbroken with any
hitting incident; 3. Said accused was the efficient intervening cause produces death
last person seen with the deceased just and without which the fatal result could
before he died; (4) Accused and Antonio not have happened. It is the cause, which
Trinidad surrendered to police authorities is the nearest in the order of responsible
with the samurai; (5) Some of the wounds causation (Blacks Law Dictionary).
inflicted on the deceased were caused by a Intervening cause - The direct relation
bolo or a knife. (Trinidad vs. People, GR No. between the intentional felony and death
192241, June 13, 2012, Justice Peralta). may be broken by efficient intervening
cause or an active force which is either a
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
DOCTRINE In People vs. Lamahang, the felonious act of the offender. Lightning
G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935, En Banc that kills the injured victim or tetanus
- Accused who was caught in the act of infecting the victim several days after the
making an opening with an iron bar on the infliction of injuries, or voluntary
wall of a store was held guilty of attempted immersing the wounds to aggravate the
trespassing and not attempted robbery. crime committed by accused is an
The act of making an opening on the wall intervening cause. Thus, the accused is
of the store is an overt act of trespassing liable for physical injuries because of the
since it reveals an evident intention to intervening cause rule. On the other hand,
enter by means of force said store against carelessness of the victim, or involuntary
the will of its owner. However, it is not an removal of the drainage, lack of proper
overt act of robbery since the intention of treatment is not an intervening cause.
the accused once he succeeded in entering Hence, the accused is liable for the death
the store is not determinate; it is subject to because of the proximate cause rule.
different interpretations. His final objective
could be to rob, to cause physical injury to If the victim died due to tetanus of
its occupants, or to commit any other which he was infected when the accused
offense. In sum, the crime the he intended inflicted injuries upon him, the crime
to commit inside the store is committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel,
indeterminate, and thus, an attempt to G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the
commit it is not punishable as attempted victim died due to tetanus of which he was
felony. In People vs. Crisostomo, et al., infected after the accused inflicted injuries
G.R. No. L-19034, February 17 1923 The upon him, the crime committed is physical
accused dragged the victim to a rice field. injuries. The accused is not liable for
Fortunately, she was saved from her homicide because tetanus is an efficient
captors. It was held that the purpose of intervening cause. Thus, the proximate
the accused in taking away the offended cause of the death of the victim is not the
party could be to injure or affront her or to infliction of injuries. In Villacorta vs.
compel her through force to marry one of People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7,
6|P ag e
2011, there had been an interval of 22 days to mistake of blow. The crime committed
between the date of the stabbing and the against the intended victim and victim
date when victim was rushed to hospital, injured due to aberratio ictus shall be
exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus made a complex crime (compound crime).
infection. Since the victim was infected of The court shall impose the penalty for the
severe tetanus, he died the next day. The most serious crime in its maximum period.
incubation period of severe tetanus is less
than 14 days. Hence, he could not have The circumstance of aberratio ictus
been infected at the time of the stabbing (mistake in the blow) can neither exempt
since that incident occurred 22 days before the accused from criminal responsibility
the victim was rushed to the hospital. The nor mitigate his criminal liability. Under
infection of victims stab wound by tetanus Article 4 of RPC, criminal liability is
was an efficient intervening cause. The incurred by any person committing a felony
accused was held liable for physical although the wrongful act done be different
injuries. from that which he intended (Matic vs.
People, G.R. No. 180219, November 23,
Proximate cause has been defined 2011).
as "that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case
efficient intervening cause, produces the of praeter intentionem, person is
injury, and without which the result would criminally responsible for committing an
not have occurred." Although there was no intentional felony although its wrongful
direct injury on his vital organs of the consequence is graver than that intended.
victim, his wounds affected his kidneys, Requisites: In order to make a person
causing multiple organ failure and criminally liable under Article 4 (1) in case
eventually his death. Accused is liable for of praeter intentionem, the following
homicide. Without the stab wounds, the requisites must be present: (1) Offender
victim could not have been afflicted with an committed an intentional felony; (2) The
infection which later on caused multiple wrongful act done, which is graver than
organ failure that caused his death. The that intended, is the direct, natural and
offender is criminally liable for the death of logical consequence of the felony
the victim if his delictual act caused, committed by the offender. Praeter
accelerated or contributed to the death of intentionem may be appreciated as
the victim (Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
181052, November 14, 2012, Justice commit so grave a wrong than that
Peralta). committed.
ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of When death resulted, even if there was

error in personae, person is criminally no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
responsible for committing an intentional physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of
felony although the consequent victim is personal violence the penal law looks
different from that intended due to particularly to the material results following the
mistake of identity. Requisites: In order to unlawful act and holds the aggressor
make a person criminally liable in case of responsible for all the consequences thereof. He
error in personae, the following requisites who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
must be present: (1) Offender committed the evil caused (Seguritan vs. People, G.R.
an intentional felony; (2) The consequent No. 172896, April 19, 2010).
victim against whom the felony was
directed is different from that intended due 1. Mitigating circumstance - The
to mistake of identity. If the penalty for the mitigating circumstance that the offender
intended crime is different from that of the had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
committed crime, the court shall impose as that committed or praeter intentionem is
the penalty for the intended crime or obtaining when there is a notable disparity
committed crime, whichever is lesser. between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the
ABERRATIO ICTUS - In case of resulting crime committed. The intention of
aberratio ictus, person is criminally the accused at the time of the commission
responsible for committing an intentional of the crime is manifested from the weapon
felony although the consequent victim is used, the mode of attack employed and the
different from that intended due to injury sustained by the victim (People vs.
mistake of blow. Requisites: In order to Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30,
make a person criminally liable in case of 2011).The mitigating circumstance of praeter
aberratio ictus, the following requisites intentionem cannot be appreciated if the acts
must be present: (1) Offender committed employed by accused were reasonably sufficient
an intentional felony; (2) The consequent to produce and did actually produce the death
victim against whom the felony was of the victim (People vs. Sales, G.R. No.
directed is different from that intended due 177218, October 3, 2011).
7|P ag e
because it is the natural, direct and logical
2. Evident premeditation- In case consequence of an act committed with
of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the criminal intent.
SC did not appreciate evident
premeditation since the victim, who was a. With intent to hide the body of
actually killed, is not contemplated in the the crime In People vs. Ortega, Jr., G.R.
premeditation of the accused (People vs. No. 116736, July 24, 1997 - Ortega
Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-38930, June 28, stabbed the victim. Garcia assisted Ortega
1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967; in concealing the body of the victim by
People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, throwing the body into the well. Victim
June 28, 1988). However, praeter died due to drowning. Issue: Is Garcia
intentionem and evident premeditation can liable for the death of the victim as
be independently appreciated. there is no principal in homicide even if his intention
incompatibility between evident was not to kill the victim but merely to
premeditation and no intention to commit assist Ortega in concealing his dead body
so grave a wrong since the latter is based not knowing that the victim was still alive
on the state of mind of the offender while at that time? In assisting Ortega carry the
the former manner of committing the body of victim to the well, Garcia was
crime (Reyes; People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. committing an intentional felony;
536). concealing the body of the crime to prevent
its discovery makes him liable as an
3. Treachery - If accused employed accessory in homicide. Hence, Garcia
means to render the victim defenseless, should be held liable for the direct, natural
treachery shall be appreciated even if the and logical consequence of his felonious
killing is due to error in personae (People act of assisting Ortega in hiding the body
vs. Del Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, of the victim. Since proximate cause of
April 30, 1984) or aberratio ictus (People death of the victim is the felonious and
vs. Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, accessory act of throwing the victim into
1926, En Banc) or with the circumstance the well, Garcia should be held liable for
of praeter intentionem (People vs. Cagoco, the death as principal in homicide.
G.R. No. 38511, October 6, 1933)
b. With intent to threaten In US
4. Conspiracy - Conspirators, who vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 16486, March 22,
conspired to kill a particular parson, are 1921, En Banc - The accused in rage he
equally liable for the killing of another moved towards victim with a big knife in
person due to error in personae (People vs. hand, threatening to stab him. Victim
Pinto, Jr. and Buenaflor, G.R. No. No. believing himself in great and immediate
39519, November 21, 1991). However, peril jumped into the water where he was
conspirator, who never even fired a single drowned. The accused was found guilty of
shot and whose only participation was to homicide. The act of threatening to stab
drive their getaway vehicle and to lend his victim constitutes a felony of threat.
firearm to his back rider so that the latter Hence, accused is liable for the direct,
could finish off the target victim was not natural and logical consequence of his
found accountable for the injury sustained intentional and felonious act. It was held
by the unintended victim was just a star- that: "If a man creates in another man's
crossed bystander who was accidentally mind an immediate sense of danger which
hit in the process (aberratio ictus) (People causes such person to try to escape, and in
vs. Herbias, G.R. No. 112716-17, so doing he injures himself, the person who
December 16, 1996; People vs. Flora and creates such a state of mind is responsible
Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000). for the injuries which result."
INTENT TO KILL: Intent to kill is d. Intent to inflict injury -

an element of homicide and murder. But Intentional infliction of injury resulting in
even if offender had no intent to kill, he death of the victim constitutes homicide or
would be held just the same liable for murder. In People vs. Pugay, et al., No
homicide or murder if his felonious act is 74324, November 17, 1988, the deceased,
the proximate cause of the death of the a retardate, and the accused Pugay were
latter. Even if there is no intent to kill, friends. Deceased used to run errands for
offender is liable for homicide or murder if Pugay and at times they slept together.
the victim died as a result of the felonious During a town fiesta fair was held in the
act of the former. The offenders act is public plaza. Accused, Pugay and Samson
considered felonious if it is accompanied with several companions, who appeared to
with criminal or evil intent such as intent be drunk, made the deceased dance by
to inflict injury, intent to hide the body of tickling him with a piece of wood. Not
the crime, intent to threaten victim, intent content with what they were doing with
to silence the hold-up victim, or intent to the deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly
rape. Offender is liable for homicide took a can of gasoline from under the
8|P ag e
engine of the Ferris wheel and poured its populated. In People vs. Nocum, G.R. No.
contents on the body of the former. Then, L-482, 25 February 1947, En Banc - There
the accused Samson set victim on fire was a fistic fight between two persons.
making a human torch out of him. Pugay Desiring to stop the encounter, accused
and Samson were stunned when they shouted at the combatants. As these paid
noticed the deceased burning. Crime him no attention, he drew a .45 caliber
committed by Samson: There is no intent pistol and shot twice in the air. The bout
to kill. The act of the Accused was merely continued, however; so he fired another
a part of their fun-making that evening. shot at the ground, but unfortunately the
Accused merely intended to set the bullet ricocheted, and hit an innocent by-
deceased's clothes on fire. His act, stander, resident of the place. Victim died.
however, does not relieve him of criminal It was held that: The mishap should be
responsibility. Burning the clothes of the classed as homicide through reckless
victim would cause at the very least some imprudence, the slaying having been
kind of physical injuries on his person, a unintentional. It is apparent that defendant
felony. Since such felony of physical willfully discharged his gun-for without
injuries resulted into a graver offense, he taking the precautions demanded by the
must be held responsible therefor. (Note: circumstance that the district was
The crime is not murder qualified by populated, and the likelihood that his bullet
means of fire because the fire was not use would glance over the hard pavement of the
to kill but merely to inflict injury). Manila thoroughfare. Note: The accused
should have foreseen that the slug after
e. Recklessness Even if there is hitting the pavement would recoil and
no intent to kill and evil intent, offender is might hit somebody.
liable for culpable felony if the victim died
as a result of the recklessness of the IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
former. Crime committed by Pugay: Having
taken the can from under the engine of the Offender shall be held liable for
Ferris wheel and holding it before pouring impossible crime if the following requisites
its contents on the body of the deceased, are present: (1) offender performing an act
this accused knew that the can contained which would have been an offense against
gasoline. The stinging smell of this person or property; (2) offender performed
flammable liquid could not have escaped an act with evil intent; (3) offender did not
his notice even before pouring the same. commit the offense because of the
Clearly, he failed to exercise all the impossibility of its accomplishment or
diligence necessary to avoid every employment of inadequate or ineffectual
undesirable consequence arising from any means; and (4) offender in performing an
act that may be committed by his act is not violating another provision of the
companions who at the time were making law (Luis B. Reyes).
fun of the deceased. The accused is only
guilty of homicide through reckless Impossible crime of theft - X,
imprudence. employee of Mega Inc., received check from
the customer of her employer. Instead of
f. Accident - If there is no intent to remitting the check to her employer, X
kill, evil intent and recklessness on the deposited the check under her account.
part of the accused, he is not liable for his However, the drawee bank dishonored the
intentional act, which caused the death of check because of insufficiency of funds.
the victim. In United States vs. Tanedo (15 What is the crime committed by X? Answer:
Phil. Rep., 196), deceased went with the The crime committed is impossible crime of
accused to hunt wild chickens at the qualified theft. Qualified theft is a crime
forest. While hunting, the accused came against property. The act of depositing the
upon a wild chicken, and, not seeing check is committed with evil intent. The
deceased about and not knowing or having mere act of unlawfully taking the check
any reason to believe that he was in that meant for Mega Inc. showed her intent to
vicinity shot the chicken. The bullet that gain or be unjustly enriched. There is
hit the chicken recoiled and hit the factually impossibility to accomplish the
deceased. It was held that accused is not crime of qualified theft since the check is
criminally liable. Life was taken by unfunded. (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No.
misfortune or accident while in the 162540, July 13, 2009, Justice Peralta).
performance of a lawful act executed with
due care and without intention of doing Intod principle - In Intod vs. Court
harm. Note: The accused could not have of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21,
foreseen that the slug after hitting the 1992 Outside the house of the victim,
chicken would recoil and hit deceased. The accused with intent to kill fired at the
principle enunciated in Tanedo case will bedroom, where the victim is supposed to
not apply if the place where the accused be sleeping. No one was in the room when
lawfully discharged his firearm is the accused fired the shots. No one was hit
9|P ag e
by the gun fire. The accused were ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED
convicted of impossible crime. Accused STAGES: In attempted felony, the offender
shoot the place where he thought his performs directly an overt act, which
victim would be, although in reality, the consists of one or more acts of execution,
victim was not present in said place and but not enough to consequently produce
thus, the accused failed to accomplish the felony. In frustrated felony, the
their end due to its factual impossibility. offenders perform all the acts of execution
In the United States, criminal laws are that would produce the felony as a matter
silent regarding impossible crimes; hence of consequence. To determine whether the
where the offense sought to be committed felony is at the attempted or frustrated
is factually impossible of accomplishment, stage, acts of execution of execution of a
the offender shall be liable for attempted felony must be identified. Example: The
crime. On the other hand, where the acts of execution that would produce
offense is legally impossible of homicide or murder are infliction of mortal
accomplishment, the actor cannot be held wounds upon the victim. If the wounds
liable for any crime. In the Philippines, the inflicted upon the victim with intent to kill
crime committed is impossible crime if the are non-mortal, the crime committed is
offense sought to be committed is factually attempted homicide; if wounds are mortal,
or legally impossible. Killing a dead person the crime committed is frustrated
is impossible crime because of legal homicide.
impossibility. Putting the hand inside an
empty pocket with intention to steal a In attempted felony and frustrated
wallet is impossible crime because of felony, the external acts performed by the
factual impossibility. offender and the intended felony must
have a direct connection; but in an
Raping a dead person - Prior to RA attempted felony, the offender failed to
8353, rape is a crime against chastity. perform all the acts of execution; thus his
Thus, if a person raped a dead person external acts would not produce the
believing that she was just sleeping, felony as a consequence; on the other
offender could not be held liable for hand in a frustrated felony, the offender
impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino). In performed all the acts of execution; thus,
impossible crime the act could have his external acts would produce the
constituted the crime against person or felony as a consequence.
property if its accomplishment was not
impossible. Rape is neither a crime against FRUSTRATED AND
person nor against property. However, RA CONSUMMATED - In frustrated and
8353 reclassifies rape from crime against consummated felony, the accused
chastity to crime against person. Hence, performed all acts of execution that would
an offender for raping a dead person produce the felony as a consequence. If the
without knowing that she was already felony is not produced due to external
dead may now be held liable for impossible cause, the crime committed is frustrated
crime. felony; if the felony is produced the crime
committed is consummated.
Committing another crime - A
discharged shotgun at B from a distance In frustrated felony, the offender
of 300 yards; but because of the limited performed all the acts of execution but the
range of the firepower of the shotgun, it felony was not produced as a consequence
would be impossible for A to harm B. due to extraneous cause. However, there
A is liable of discharged of firearm and are felonies, the commission of which has
not impossible crime. Where the offender no frustrated stage since the performance
unlawful entered the house and took a of all the acts of execution immediately
watch that turned out to be his own, he is consummates the felony. In homicide or
liable for trespass to dwelling and not murder case, once the offender inflicted
impossible crime (Criminal Law mortal wound on the victim, all the acts of
Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). execution are considered performed.
If the accused administered abortive drugs However, what consummates homicide or
upon his girlfriend whom he believed to be murder is not the infliction of mortal
pregnant, which turned out not to be true, wounds but the death of the victim as a
but the woman became ill for more than consequence of the mortal wound inflicted.
30 days, the accused will be liable for Thus, if the mortally wounded victim did
serious physical injuries and not not die due to medical intervention,
impossible crime of abortion (Criminal Law homicide or murder is only at the
Reviewer by Gregorio). frustrated stage. On the other hand, in
rape once the offender sexually penetrate
STAGES the labia of the vagina of the victim, all the
acts of execution are considered
performed. But since sexual penetration
10 | P a g e
consummates rape, there are no occasions undo what was done. Offender would not
where the offender performed all the acts be absolved from criminal liability even if
of execution and yet the felony was not he had done something that will mitigate
produced as a consequence. In sum, there the effects of the felonious act. Example:
is no such thing as frustrated rape since (1) Restitution of funds malversed
the performance of all the acts of execution immediately and voluntarily made before
immediately consummates rape. the case was instituted is not an
absolutory cause (Navarro vs. Meneses III,
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE In CBD Adm. Case No. 313, January 30,
attempted felony and frustrated felony, the 1998, En Banc). (2) A stole chicken
offender failed to accomplish his criminal under the house of B one evening.
objective by reason of extraneous causes; Realizing that what he did was wrong, A
if the causes are not extraneous, the returned the chicken to the place under
accused will be absolved from criminal the house of B. Since the crime of theft
liability. was already consummated, the return of
the stolen property does not relieve A of
a. Negative Act - In the attempted criminal responsibility. A had already
stage of the execution of a felony, the performed all the acts of execution, which
offender must do a negative act to be produced the crime of theft before he
exempt from criminal liability for returned the chicken (Reyes). (3) The fact
attempted felony; since the offender has that the accused abandoned victim after
not yet performed all the acts of execution six days of captivity does not lessen his
that would produce the felony as a criminal culpability much less exempt him
consequence, he must spontaneously from criminal liability for the kidnapping
desist from further doing criminal acts and detention of victim (Baldogo, G.R. No.
that will complete all the acts of execution. 128106-07, January 24, 2003, En Banc).
Example: A with intent to kill shot B;
B sustained non-mortal wound. To be Frustrated homicide or murder
exempt from criminal liability for The intent to kill, as an essential element of
attempted homicide or murder, A must homicide at whatever stage, may be before
spontaneously desist from further shooting or simultaneous with the infliction of
B in order not to inflict mortal injury injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill
upon him. may consist of, inter alia, the means used;
the nature, location and number of wounds
b. Positive Act If the offender sustained by the victim; and the conduct of
performs all the acts of execution, which the malefactors before, at the time of, or
would produce the felony as a immediately after the killing of the victim
consequence, offender is not exempted (Escamilla vs. People, GR No. 188551,
from liability for frustrated felony even if February 27, 2013).
he voluntary desisted from further doing
criminal act. Spontaneous desistance is a X opened the door and while still in
defense in attempted felony but not in the car drew a gun and shot A once, hitting
frustrated felony. In the frustrated stage of him just below the left armpit. X sped away.
the execution of a felony, the offender The wound sustained by A is not fatal.
must do a positive act to be exempt from What is the crime committed? Answer: X
criminal liability; since the offender has only shot the victim once and did not hit
performed all the acts of execution that any vital part of the latter's body. If he
would produce the felony as a intended to kill him, X could have shot the
consequence, he must do something to victim multiple times or even ran him over
prevent, or thwart the production of the with the car. Since intent to kill is lacking
felony. Example: A with intent to kill shot but wounds are inflicted upon the victim,
B; B sustained mortal wound. To be the crime is not attempted murder but
exempt from criminal liability for physical injuries only (Pentecostes, Jr. vs.
frustrated felony, it is not enough that A People, GR No. 167766, April 07, 2010,
would desist from further shooting B. Justice Peralta).
The spontaneous desistance is not a valid
defense since A had already inflicted X was charged with frustrated
mortal wound on B that would cause his murder for hacking the neck of victim with
death as a consequence. Thus, A must the use of a scythe. Invoking the doctrine in
save the life of B by treating his wound. Pentecostes, Jr., X claimed that had he
If B did not die because As medical intended to kill victim, he could have
treatment, the latter will not be held liable repeatedly hacked him to ensure the latters
for frustrated felony because the homicide death. Is the argument tenable? Answer:
was not produced due to the will of A. No. Pentesoste Jr. case is not applicable
since the victim in that case was shot in the
c. Not absolutory cause If the arm, a non-vital part of the body. In this
felony is consummated, offender cannot case, the use of a scythe against victims
11 | P a g e
neck was determinative of the homicidal intercourse with his daughter but failed to
intent of X. A single hacking blow in the make a penetration into her sexual organ
neck could be enough to decapitate a not because of his spontaneous desistance
person and leave him dead. Refraining from but because of the relatively small size of
further hacking the victim does not negate her orifice. He is guilty of attempted rape.
intent to kill. What could have been a fatal
blow was already delivered and there was COMPLEX CRIME
no more desistance to speak of (People vs. Killing persons and injuring two
Abella, G.R. No. 198400, October 07, 2013). more by treacherously detonating a hand
grenade in a dancing place constitutes the
Using a gun, he shot the victim in complex crime of multiple murders with
the chest. Despite a bloodied right upper double attempted murder. Single act of
torso, the latter still managed to run detonating an explosive device may
towards his house to ask for help. quantitatively constitute a cluster of several
Nonetheless, petitioner continued to shoot separate and distinct offenses, yet these
at him three more times, albeit component criminal offenses should be
unsuccessfully. The wound sustained by considered only as a single crime in law on
the victim is fatal. The crime committed is which a single penalty is imposed because
frustrated homicide (Escamilla vs. People, the offender was impelled by a single
GR No. 188551, February 27, 2013). criminal impulse which shows his lesser
degree of perversity. Even though the other
Attempted rape In People vs. victim did not suffer mortal wounds, the
Castillo, GR No. 193666, February 19, 2014 crime committed is not physical
- Accused mashed the breast of his injuries, because accused was motivated by
daughter, kissed and licked her vagina, the same intent to kill when he detonated
inserted his finger in her sex organ, and the explosive device inside the dancing
rubbed his sex organ against hers but he place (People vs. Barde, G.R. No.
did not penetrate her vagina. 183094, September 22, 2010).
Jurisprudence dictates that in order for
rape to be consummated, there must be RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
penetration of the penis into the vagina. A
grazing of the surface of the female organ or Accused was convicted of crime RA
touching the mons pubis of No. 8282 for his failure to remit SSS
the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute contributions of his employees and was
consummated rape. Absent any showing of sentenced to suffer up to 20 years of
the slightest penetration of the female reclusion temporal. The penalty is excessive
organ, i.e, touching of either labia of since he already paid his delinquent
the pudendum by the penis, there can be no contribution. Under Article 5 of the Revised
consummated rape; at most, it can only be Penal Code, the courts are bound to apply
attempted, if not acts of lasciviousness. the law as it is and impose the proper
This Court is aware of cases where the penalty, no matter how harsh it might be.
conviction of the accused for consummated The same provision, however, gives the
rape has been upheld even if the victim Court the discretion to recommend to the
testified that there was no penetration and President actions it deems appropriate but
the accused simply rubbed his penis in the are beyond its power when it considers the
victim's vagina. However, in those cases, penalty imposed as excessive. Although an
there were pieces of evidence such as the accused is convicted under a special penal
pain felt by the victim, injury to the sex law, the Court is not precluded from giving
organ of the victim (e.g., hymenal the Revised Penal Code suppletory
laceration), and bleeding of the victim's application in light of Article 10 of the same
genitalia. Here, the victim not only Code (Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No.
categorically stated that there was no 183891, October 19, 2011).
penetration, she also stated that she felt no
pain and her vagina did not bleed. Thus, CONSPIRACY
the appellant cannot be convicted for
qualified rape by sexual intercourse. IMPLIED CONSPIRACY - In People
However, his conviction cannot be vs. Dollendo, G.R. No. 181701, January 18,
downgraded to qualified attempted rape. 2012 -The evidence of a chain of
The prosecution has alleged and proved circumstances, to wit: that appellant went
that there was qualified rape by sexual inside the house of Romines to ascertain
assault when the accused-appellant kissed that the victim was there; that he fetched
and licked his daughter's vagina and Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave
inserted his finger in her sex organ. the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime;
and that they both fled after the stabbing,
In People vs. Castillo, GR No. taken collectively, shows a community of
193666, February 19, 2014 the accused criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently,
commenced the act of having sexual
12 | P a g e
there was conspiracy in the commission of sense of security and encouragement on
the crime. the part of the material executor or may
serve as deterrence against possible
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY - It defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No.
is immaterial whether appellant acted as a 133887, May 28, 2002, En Banc).
principal or as an accomplice because the
conspiracy and his participation therein SPECIAL LAW - B.P. Blg. 22 does
have been established. In conspiracy, the not expressly proscribe the supplementary
act of one is the act of all and the application of the provisions RPC including
conspirators shall be held equally liable for the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule
the crime (People vs. Siongco, G.R. No. may be applied supplementarily. Thus, a
186472, July 5, 2010). non-issuer of bum check can be held liable
for violation of BP Blg. 22 on the basis of
DISSOCIATION - To exempt himself conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No.
from criminal liability, a conspirator must 141066, February 17, 2005). The principle
have performed an overt act to dissociate or of conspiracy may be applied to RA No.
detach himself from the conspiracy to 9262. Thus, a person (such as mother-in-
commit the felony and prevent the law), who has no marital, sexual or dating
commission thereof (People vs. Ebet, G.R. relationship with the victim, can be held
No. 181635 November 15, 2010). liable for violence against woman on the
basis of conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R.
MASTERMIND - To be held liable as No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
conspirator, it must also be shown that the
accused performed an overt act in Anti-graft law - May a private
furtherance of the conspiracy except in the person be indicted for conspiracy in
case of the mastermind of a crime (People vs. violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if
Vera, GR No. 128966, August 18, 1999). the public officer, with whom he was
One who plans the commission of a crime is alleged to have conspired, has died prior to
liable as conspirator and principal by the filing of the Information? Answer: Yes.
inducement (People vs. Comiling, G.R. No. The death of the public officer does not
140405, March 4, 2004, En mean that the allegation of conspiracy
banc).Notwithstanding, the fact that one between him and private individual can no
was not at the crime scene, evidence proved longer be proved or that their alleged
that he was the mastermind of the criminal conspiracy is already expunged. The only
act or the principal by inducement. What is thing extinguished by the death of the
important is that inducement was the public officer is his criminal liability. His
determining cause of the commission of the death did not extinguish the crime nor did
crime. The command or advice made by it remove the basis of the charge of
principal by inducement was of such conspiracy between him and private
nature that, without it, the crime would not individual (People vs. Go, GR NO. 168539,
have materialized (People vs. Janjalani, March 25, 2014, en banc).
G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011).
Robbery with rape When a
PRESENCE - Accused, unarmed, homicide takes place by reason of or on the
appeared in the company of his employer, occasion of the robbery, all those who took
and another person. His employer shot and part shall be guilty of the special complex
killedthe victim. Accused did nothing to crime of robbery with homicide whether
prevent the killing. Accused fled together they actually participated in the killing,
with his employer and other person.The unless there is proof that there was an
fact that accused appeared together with endeavor to prevent the killing. The records
employer and another and fled with them are bereft of any evidence to prove, or even
proves a certain degree of participation and remotely suggest, that appellant attempted
cooperation in the execution of the to prevent the killing. Therefore, the basic
crime. However, there is doubt as to principle in conspiracy that the "act of one
whether accused acted as a principal or is the act of all," applies in this case (People
just a mere accomplice. Such doubt should vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15,
be resolved in favor of the milder form of 2010, Justice Peralta; People vs. De Leon,
criminal liabilitythat of a mere accomplice GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009, Justice
(People vs. Tomas, G.R. No. 192251, Peralta; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449,
February 16, 2011). If the accused is armed April 03, 2013)
at the time, he could be held liable as
principal on the basis of implied If a robber tries to prevent the
conspiracy. The fact that the companion of commission of homicide after the
the criminal actor is armed may mean that commission of the robbery, he is guilty only
the former is supplying moral assistance to of robbery and not of robbery with
the latter. The armed presence of homicide. All those who conspire to commit
conspiratorial companion may prove a robbery with homicide are guilty as
13 | P a g e
principals of such crime, although not all (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10,
profited and gained from the robbery. One 2013).
who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
criminal designs of his co-conspirators and The essential elements of the crime
can no longer repudiate the conspiracy of fencing under PD No. 1612 are as
once it has materialized (People vs. Ebet, follows: (1) A crime of robbery or theft has
GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010, been committed; (2) The accused, who is
Justice Peralta; People vs. Diu, GR No. not a principal or accomplice in the
201449, April 03, 2013). commission of the crime of robbery or theft
(or carnapping but not malversation or
Kidnapping with rape - A, B and C estafa), buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
kidnapped X from her house, and then acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
detained her in a safe house for purpose of buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
extorting ransom. While C went to Jolibee any article, item, object or anything of
to buy food, A raped X in the presence of B. value, which has been derived from the
What is the crime committed by A, B and proceeds of the said crime; (3) The accused
C? Answer: A is liable for special complex knows or should have known that the said
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal article, item, object or anything of value
detention with rape. Since X is a female, has been derived from the proceeds of the
taking her away from her house against her crime of robbery or theft; and (4) There is
will and holding her as captive constitute on the part of the accused, intent to gain
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. for himself or for another (Francisco vs.
Raping the kidnapped victim is a qualifying People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004).
circumstance. These two crimes should be
integrated together to form a composite a. Proving robbery or theft
crime where the law prescribes a single Commission of robbery or theft by the
penalty. principal as an element of fencing should
be proven beyond reasonable doubt to
B is also liable for special complex convict the fencer. One may not be
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal convicted of the crime of fencing if the
detention with rape. Since conspiracy is complainant did not lodge a criminal
established between A and B in the complaint against the principal in the
commission of kidnapping, the latter is crime of theft. This will create doubt if
responsible for the rape committed by theft was really committed (Tan vs. People,
former since there is no showing that B G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999) Failure
endeavored to prevent A from raping X to show finality of conviction of theft
(People vs. Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, against the principal is fatal to prosecution
June 08, 2011, Justice Peralta). for fencing. In Francisco vs. People, G.R.
No. 146584, July 12, 2004, - The decision
C is only liable for kidnapping and of the trial court convicting the principal of
serious illegal detention. Since there is no theft does not constitute proof against the
evidence that he is aware of the commission accused for the crime of fencing, that the
of rape, he could not have prevented A from principal had, indeed, stolen the jewelry.
raping the victim. Hence, he is not There is no showing that the said decision
responsible for the rape (People vs. was already final and executory when the
Anticamaray, supra, Justice Peralta). trial court rendered its decision in the
fencing case. Accused was acquitted.
FENCING
b. Knowledge - In Dimat vs. People,
The essential elements of the crime G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012 But
of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law
robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the and, therefore, its violation is regarded
accused, who is not a principal or on as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof
accomplice in the commission of the crime of criminal intent. Of course, the
of robbery or theft, buys, receives, prosecution must still prove that accused
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells knew or should have known that the
or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any Nissan Safari he acquired and later sold to
manner deals in any article, item, object or complainant was derived from theft or
anything of value, which has been derived robbery and that he intended to obtain
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or some gain out of his acts. Accused knew
theft; (3) the accused knew or should have that the Nissan Safari he bought was not
known that the said article, item, object or properly documented. He said that
anything of value has been derived from the Tolentino showed him its old certificate of
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; registration and official receipt. But this
and (4) there is, on the part of one accused, certainly could not be true because, the
intent to gain for oneself or for another vehicle having been carnapped, Tolentino
had no documents to show. That Tolentino
14 | P a g e
was unable to make good on his promise to 1612 (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April
produce new documents undoubtedly 10, 2013).
confirmed to accused that the Nissan Safari
came from an illicit source. Still, accused c. Presumption: Section 6 of PD No.
sold the same to complainant who 1612 provides: Mere possession of any
apparently made no effort to check the good, article, item, object, or anything of
papers covering her purchase. That value which has been the subject of
complainant might herself be liable for robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
fencing is of no moment since she did not evidence of fencing.Possession is not
stand accused in the case. limited to actual manual control of the
offender over the stolen property but
Accused was in the business of buy extends to power and dominion over it.
and sell of tires for the past 24 years,] ought
to have known the ordinary course of Circumstances normally exist to
business in purchasing from an unknown forewarn, for instance, a reasonably vigilant
seller. Admittedly, Go approached accused buyer that the object of the sale may have
and offered to sell the 13 tires (which were been derived from the proceeds of robbery
stolen) and he did not even ask for proof of or theft. Such circumstances include the
ownership of the tires. The entire time and place of the sale, both of which
transaction, from the proposal to buy until may not be in accord with the usual
the delivery of tires happened in just one practices of commerce. The nature and
day. His experience from the business condition of the goods sold, and the fact
should have given him doubt as to the that the seller is not regularly engaged in
legitimate ownership of the tires the business of selling goods may likewise
considering that it was his first time to suggest the illegality of their source, and
transact with Go and the manner it was therefore should caution the buyer. This
sold is as if Go was just peddling the 13 justifies the presumption found in Section 5
tires in the streets. Accused was convicted of P.D. No. 1612 that mere possession of
of fencing (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, any goods, object or anything of value which
April 10, 2013). has been the subject of robbery or thievery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Accused knew the requirement of This presumption is reasonable for no other
the law in selling second hand tires. natural or logical inference can arise from
Section 6 of P.D. 1612 requires stores, the established fact of possession of the
establishments or entities dealing in the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft
buying and selling of any good, article, (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10,
item, object or anything else of value 2013).
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier thereof to secure the necessary The accessory in theft should
clearance or permit from the station materially benefit from it. Riding in a
commander of the Integrated National stolen vehicle is not profiting within the
Police in the town or city where that store, contemplation of Article 17 of the Revised
establishment or entity is located before Penal Code since it does not improve his
offering the item for sale to the public. In economic position. Profiting is not
fact, accused has practiced the procedure synonymous to intent to gain as an
of obtaining clearances from the police element of theft (Gregorio). However, in
station for some used tires he wanted to violation of PD No. 1612, use of stolen
resell but, in this particular transaction, he property gives rise to the presumption of
was remiss in his duty as a diligent fencing. Hence, the user may be held liable
businessman who should have exercised for fencing even though he did not
prudence (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, materially benefit from crime of theft.
April 10, 2013).
The presumption of theft is
The issuance of a sales invoice or disputable. The presumption of fencing
receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction may be overcome by showing proof that
and may be raised as a defense in the accused bought the item from a licensed
charge of fencing; however, that defense is dealer of second-hand items (Hizon-
disputable. In this case, the validity of the Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. No. 11414, July
issuance of the receipt was disputed, and 11, 1994) or by showing official receipts
the prosecution was able to prove that Gold covering the purchases of property, which
Link and its address were is the subject of fencing (D. M Consunji,
fictitious. Accused failed to overcome the Inc. vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. 118590, July
evidence presented by the prosecution and 30, 1996).
to prove the legitimacy of the transaction.
Thus, he was unable to rebut the prima d. Recently stolen property If
facie presumption under Section 5 of P.D. suspect is found in possession of recently
stolen property, he should be charged as
15 | P a g e
principal in the crime of theft or robbery. investigation and prosecution of a criminal
Under Section 3 (j), Rule 131, a person case. In fact, even though the suspect did
found in possession of a thing taken in the not commit a crime, obstruction of justice
doing of recently wrongful act is the taker is committed if he knowingly obstructs,
and the doer of the whole act. Settled is impedes, or frustrates the said
the rule that unexplained possession of investigation and prosecution.
recently stolen property is prima facie
evidence of guilt of the crime of theft ( US c. Obstructing criminal
vs. Ungal, 37 Phil., 835). If the subject investigation or prosecution - Public
property is not recently stolen, the officer, who destroyed dangerous drugs as
presumption under Section 3 (j), Rule 131 evidence for monetary consideration, is
will not arise. However, the possessor is liable for obstruction of justice in addition
still presumed to have violated PD No. to graft and corruption and direct bribery
1612 even if the property being possessed (2005 Bar Exam)
was not recently stolen. Under the law,
mere possession of stolen property gives If a respondent in a preliminary
rise to the presumption of fencing. investigation altered the allegation in the
complaint-affidavit as to the date of
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE criminal incident to make it appear that
the crime, with which he was charged, had
Obstruction of justice under PD No. prescribed, the alteration is constitutive of
1829 is committed by any person who the crime of falsification of document
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, under Article 172 of the Revised Penal
frustrates or delays the apprehension of Code and obstruction of justice under PD
suspects and the investigation and No. 1829.
prosecution of criminal cases by (1)
altering, destroying, suppressing or d. Principal of the crime - A and
concealing any paper, record, document, B killed X. After the slaughter, A and
or object, with intent to impair its verity, B burned the dead body of X in the
authenticity, legibility, availability, or forest to prevent its discovery. Can A and
admissibility as evidence in any B be charged as accessory of the crime to
investigation of or official proceedings in, murder or obstruction of justice? A and
criminal cases, or to be used in the B are principals by direct participation in
investigation of, or official proceedings in, the crime of murder qualified by
criminal cases; (2) harboring or concealing, employment of means to afford impunity.
or facilitating the escape of, any person he Hence, they cannot be charged as
knows, or has reasonable ground to accessories. Under the Revised Penal
believe or suspect, has committed any Code, accessories must not have
offense under existing penal laws in order participated in the commission of the
to prevent his arrest prosecution and crime as principals. However, in addition
conviction; to murder, they can be charged with the
crime of obstruction of justice for
a. Commission of crime, not an destroying an object to impair its
element - To be held liable as accessory availability as evidence in a case. Under
under the Revised Penal Code, it is PD No. 1829, it is not required that the
required that the crime was committed by offenders must not have participated as
the principal. To be held liable for principals.
obstruction of justice, it is not necessary
that the crime was committed by a e. Suspicion - An accessory under
criminal suspect. Example: A committed Article 19 (3) of the Revised Penal Code
suicide. To make it appear that B must have knowledge of the commission of
murdered A, C placed the gun used in the crime by the principal. Entertaining
perpetrating suicide inside the bag of B. suspicion is not itself proof of knowledge
C committed the crime of obstruction of that a crime has been committed.
justice for having obstructed the Knowledge and suspicion are not
investigation of a criminal case involving synonymous. The word suspicion is
the death of A. C cannot be held liable defined as being the imagination of the
as accessory because murder was not existence of something without proof, or
really committed. upon very slight evidence or upon no
evidence at all (Reyes). On the other hand,
b. Knowledge - An accessory the offender may violate Section 1 (c) of PD
under Revised Penal Code must have No. 1829 even though he has no
knowledge of the commission of the crime knowledge of the commission of the crime
by the principal. To commit obstruction of as long as he has reasonable ground to
justice, what is important is not knowledge believe or suspects that the person he
of the commission of a crime but assisted has committed a crime. In some,
awareness of an ongoing or impending
16 | P a g e
mere suspicion is enough to establish the of the 2000 revision of the Rules of Criminal
second element of the offense. Procedure that embodied the requirement
(People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321,
d. Preventing an illegal arrest February 9, 2011).
Harboring or concealing a criminal suspect
in order to prevent a lawful warrantless TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
arrest or the implementation of a warrant POSITION - The mere use of service firearm
of arrest constitutes obstruction of justice. is not enough to constitute taking
However, harboring or concealing a advantage of public position. Fact that
criminal suspect to prevent an illegal arrest accused made use of firearms which they
is not a crime. The term arrest in Section were authorized to carry or possess by
1 (c) of PD No. 1829 contemplates a lawful reason of their positions, could not supply
arrest (Posadas vs. the Hon. Ombudsman, the required connection between the office
G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000) and the crime.The crime in question, for
example, could have been committed by the
e. Accessory To make a person defendants in the same or like manner and
liable as accessory under the Revised with the same case if they had been private
Penal Code, it is required that he is a individuals and fired with unlicensed
public officer, who acted with abuse of his weapons (People vs. Mandolado, G.R. No. L-
public functions, or that the person 51304, June 28, 1983; People vs. Joyno,
assisted is guilty as principal in treason, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999, En
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take Banc; People vs. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899,
the life of the Chief Executive or a April 27, 2000; People vs. Villamor, G.R.
principal, who is known to be habitually Nos. 140407-08 and 141908-09, January
guilty of some other crime. This 15, 2002, En Banc; and People vs.
requirement is not applicable if the Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004,
accused is charged with obstruction of En Banc).
justice.
IGNONIMY - After killing the victim,
f. No exempting circumstance - the accused severed his sexual organ.
Accessories are exempt from criminal Should ignominy be appreciated? No. For
liability if the principal merely committed a ignominy to be appreciated, it is required
light felony (Article 16 of the Revised Penal that the offense be committed in a manner
Code). Accessories of the second or third that tends to make its effect more
kind are exempt also from criminal humiliating, thus adding to the victims
responsibility if they are related to the moral suffering. Where the victim was
criminal actor (Article 20 of the Code). already dead when his body or a part
However, if the accessories of the crime thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot
were charged with the crime of obstruction be taken against the accused (People vs.
of justice, they cannot claim criminal Cachola, G.R. Nos. 148712-15, January 21,
exemption under the Revised Penal Code. 2004, )`
PD No. 1829 has no provision on criminal
exemption. TREACHERY To appreciate
treachery, two (2) conditions must be
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES present, namely, (a) the employment of
means of execution that gives the person
Generic aggravating circumstances attacked no opportunity to defend himself
has the effect of increasing the penalty for or to retaliate, and (b) the means of
the crime to its maximum period, but it execution were deliberately or consciously
cannot increase the same to the next higher adopted. Treachery is not present because
degree. It must always be alleged and accused chased victim before the latter was
charged in the information, and must be hacked; hence, it cannot be concluded that
proven during the trial in order to be accused employed means of execution
appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset by which gives victim no opportunity to
an ordinary mitigating circumstance (People retaliate or escape. Moreover, the location
vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, of the hack wound on the left side of the
2009, Justice Peralta). face of the victim will also show that a
frontal attack was made (People vs. Duavis,
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of GR No. 190861, December 07, 2011,
Court has expressly required that qualifying Justice Peralta).
and aggravating circumstances be
specifically alleged in the information. Due The fatal stabbing of Rosalino by
to such requirement being pro reo, the Ramon was immediately preceded by two
Court has authorized its retroactive altercations between Ramon and Virgilio,
application in favor of even those charged on one hand, and Rosalino, on the other.
with felonies committed prior to December The first altercation occurred right after the
1, 2000, which is the date of the effectivity near-collision of the tricycles, while the
17 | P a g e
other happened shortly after Ramon and murder qualified by employment of means
Virgilio had blocked Rosalinos of affords impunity.
tricycle. During the second altercation,
Rosalino stood face to face with Ramon and NIGHTTIME - Thus, treachery
Virgilio. It was then when Ramon stabbed absorbs nighttime where had it not been at
the victim twice, the sequential method of night the offender, with his cohorts, would
attack being borne out in the necropsy not have been able to approach the
report showing that Rosalino had sustained deceased without the latter's becoming
two fatal stab wounds in the chest and aware of his presence and guessing his
abdomen. Under the circumstances, intention; If they were able to catch victim
Rosalino was rendered completely aware of completely unawares, it was due to the
the imminent danger to himself from darkness of the night which covered them
Ramon and Virgilio, rendering their assault (People vs. Gumarang , GR N. 46413,
far from sudden and unexpected as to put October 6, 1939).
Rosalino off his guard against any deadly
assault. To stress, treachery cannot be As a general rule, nighttime is
appreciated if the victim was forewarned of aggravating because the darkness of the
an impending danger and could have night facilitated the commission of the
foreseen the aggression of the accused crime or insured impunity. Thus, nighttime
(People vs. Placer, GR No. 181753, October cannot aggravate the crime if it is
09, 2013). committed in a lighted place although at
the wee hours of the night (People vs.
Treachery is not a qualifying Clario, G.R. NO. 134634, July 31, 2001).
circumstance but a generic aggravating The darkness of the night and not nighttime
circumstance to robbery with homicide per se is important in appreciating it as
although said crime is classified as a crime modifying circumstance (People vs.
against property and a single and indivisible Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15,
crime (People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 2004). But if the offender purposely
188601, June 29, 2010). selected the wee hour of the night when
neighbors and occupants of the house
As the killing, in this case, is including the victim were sleeping to
perpetrated with both treachery and by facilitate the commission of the crime or to
means of explosives, the latter shall be afford impunity, nighttime is appreciable
considered as a qualifying even if the place of commission is lighted.
circumstance since it is the principal mode (People vs. Demate, G.R. No. 132310,
of attack. Reason dictates that this January 20, 2004, En Banc).While accused
attendant circumstance should qualify the were already outside the victims house at
offense while treachery will be considered around 11:00 p.m., they purposely waited
merely as a generic aggravating until 2:00 a.m. before breaking into the
circumstance (People vs. Barde G.R. No. residence so as not to call the attention of
183094, September 22, 2010). the victims, household members and/or
their neighbors. Taking advantage of the
EMPLOMENT OF MEANS TO fact that the victim and household
WEAKEN DEFENSE - If the employment of members were asleep, accused entered the
means to weaken the defense of the victim well-lighted bedroom and killed the victim.
renders the victim defenseless, treachery Nighttime should be appreciated since
absorbs circumstance of employing means accused took advantage of the silence of the
to weaken defense (People vs. Tunhawan, night (People vs. Ventura and Ventura, G.R.
G.R. NO. L-81470, October 27, 1988). No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per Curiam).
DISGUISE - If the accused covers ABUSE OF SUEPRIOR STRENGHT

his face with a handkerchief when he - The fact that there were two persons
treacherously killed the victim, the crime who attacked the victim does not per se
committed is murder qualified by treachery establish that the crime was committed with
and aggravated by disguise (People vs. abuse of superior strength, there being no proof
Piring, G.R. No. 45053, October 19, 1936). of the relative strength of the aggressors and
If the accused covers his face with a the victim. The evidence must establish that
handkerchief when he killed the victim, the the assailants purposely sought the advantage,
crime committed is murder qualified by or that they had the deliberate intent to use
employment of means of affords impunity. this advantage (People vs. Beduya, G.R. No.
175315, August 9, 2010). Abuse of superior
If the accused treacherously stabbed strength is an aggravating circumstance if
the victim, and the crime committed is the accused purposely uses excessive force
murder qualified by treachery and out of proportion to the means of defense
aggravated by disguise. If the accused available to the person attacked, or if there
covers his face with a handkerchief when is notorious inequality of forces between the
he killed the victim, the crime committed is victim and aggressor, and the latter takes
18 | P a g e
advantage of superior strength (People vs. appreciated, the following [requisites must
Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, concur]: (1) the time when accused
2012).The victim need not be completely [decided] to commit the crime; (2) an overt
defenseless in order for the said aggravating act manifestly indicating that [he] has clung
circumstance to be appreciated (People vs. to his determination; and, (3) sufficient
Paling, G.R. No. 185390 March 16, 2011)If lapse of time between [such a determination
the victim is completely defenseless, and the actual] execution to allow the
treachery should be appreciated. When the accused time to reflect upon the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength consequences of his act (People vs. SPO1
concurs with treachery, the former is Alawig, GR No. 187731, September 18,
absorbed in the latter (People vs. Rebucan, 2013). The essence of evident premeditation
G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011). is that the execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by cool thought and
As regards the abuse of superior reflection upon the resolution to carry out
strength as aggravating circumstance, what the criminal intent during a space of time
should be considered is not that there were sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
three, four or more assailants as against (People vs. Alinao, GR No. 191256,
one victim, but whether the aggressors took September 18, 2013).
advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. To take Accused, in razing victims house in
advantage of superior strength is to use order to drive him out and shooting him the
excessive force out of proportion to the moment he appears at his front door,
means available to the person attacked to clearly had a previously and carefully
defend himself, and in order to be crafted plan to kill his victim. The time it
appreciated it must be clearly shown that took accused and his son to device their
there was deliberate intent on the part of plan, plot where the gasoline should be
the malefactors to take advantage thereof poured, and procure the gasoline and the
(People vs. Del Prado, GR No. 187074, firearms, as well as the time it took to go to
October 13, 2009, Justice Peralta). victims house, and even the time when
they waited for victim to come out of the
Del Prado, together with his co- house, all afforded accused sufficient
accused, abused their superior strength in opportunity to reflect upon the
killing victim. Victim was unarmed and consequences of his act to kill his brother-
defenseless at the time Del Prado and his in-law and his determination to commit the
co-accused bludgeoned his head and body cold-blooded deed from the time of its
with a baseball bat, hit him with a stone, conception until it was carried out (People
and stabbed him twice. The number of vs. Alinao, GR No. 191256, September 18,
assailants and the nature of the weapons 2013).
used against victim show a notorious
inequality of force between victim and his Evidence shows that Luague had a
aggressors. The actuations of Del Prado and grudge against Porferia, and that their last
his co-accused in inflicting injury confrontation occurred a day before the
successively furthermore show that they shooting. The involvement of appellants
purposely used excessive force to ensure Dearo and Toledo was shown by the
the killing of victim (People vs. Del Prado, testimony of Jose Santiago that the two
GR No. 187074, October 13, 2009, Justice were with Luague three days before the
Peralta). shooting. Appellant Dearo then vowed to
kill Emeterio. These uncontroverted pieces
The victim, who was 16 year old, of evidence clearly showed the instances
unarmed and pregnant, was stabbed by the when appellants resolved to commit the
appellant with a sharp bladed and pointed felony. The space of time from the
instrument while she was lying on her resolution to the actual execution allowed
back. The Court has consistently held that them to contemplate on the matter, or
an attack made by a man with a deadly maybe even reconsider. Evident
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless premeditation attended the killing of the
woman constitutes the circumstance of victim (People vs. Dearo, et.al., GR No.
abuse of that superiority which his sex and 190862, October 09, 2013).
the weapon used in the act afforded him,
and from which the woman was unable to The essence of evident
defend herself. The crime committed is premeditation is that the execution of the
complex crime of murder with criminal act must be preceded by cool
unintentional abortion (People vs. Salcedo, thought and reflection upon the resolution
GR No. 178272, March 14, 2011, Justice to carry out the criminal intent during a
Peralta). space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.[ For it to be appreciated, the
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION - In following must be proven beyond
order for evident premeditation to be reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the
19 | P a g e
accused determined to commit the crime; accomplices who take part in minor
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the capacity, directly or indirectly (People vs.
accused clung to his determination; and (3) Lozano, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September
sufficient lapse of time between such 29, 2003, En Banc) and (2) that the
determination and execution to allow him accused availed himself of their aid or relied
to reflect upon the circumstances of his act. upon them when the crime was committed.
The altercation between accused and victim Thus, this circumstance should not be
took place at around 3:00 p.m. and the appreciated were armed men acted in
hacking incident took place at around 5:30 concert to ensure the commission of the
p.m. of the same day. The lapse of time crime (People vs. Carino, G.R. No. 131117,
between the decision and the execution is June 15, 2004).
not sufficient to allow appellant to fully
reflect upon the consequences of his act In aid of armed men, the men act
and to effectively and efficiently prepare as accomplices only. They must not be
and plan his actions prior to the acting in the commission of the crime
commission of the crime (People vs. Duavis, under the same purpose as the principal
GR No. 190861, December 07, 2011, accused, otherwise they are to be regarded
Justice Peralta). as co-principals or co-conspirators (People
vs. Enoja, GR No. 204894, March 10,
DISREGARD OF SEX: Robbery with 2014).
homicide is essentially a felony against
property. The aggravating circumstance of CRUELTY: The crime is not
disregard of the victims age is applied only aggravated by cruelty simply because the
to crimes against persons and honor. victim sustained ten stab wounds, three of
Moreover, the bare fact that the victim is a which were fatal. For cruelty to be
woman does not per se constitute disregard considered as an aggravating circumstance
of sex. For this circumstance to be properly there must be proof that, in inflicting
considered, the prosecution must adduce several stab wounds on the victim, the
evidence that in the commission of the perpetrator intended to exacerbate the pain
crime, the accused had particularly and suffering of the victim. The number of
intended to insult or commit disrespect to wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof
the sex of the victim. In this case, the of cruelty (Simangan vs. People, G.R. No.
appellant killed the victim because the 157984. July 8, 2004, ).
latter started to shout. There was no intent
to insult nor commit disrespect to the The crime was qualified by
victim on account of the latters sex (People treachery. The victim, who was barely
vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, April 13, 2004. thirteen years old, was helpless and unable
to defend himself. His feet and hands were
The circumstances of disregard of tied while the appellant mauled and kicked
sex, age or rank should be taken singly or him, and hit him with a piece of wood. The
together. But the circumstance of dwelling appellant was so depraved that he even
should be considered independently from electrocuted the victim by placing a live
the circumstance of disregard of age, sex wire on the latters palms and burying him
and rank since these circumstances alive. This is borne by the autopsy report of
signify different concepts. In the latter, the Dr. Suzette Yalung, which indicates that
disrespect shown by offender pertains to the victim died because of cardiac arrest
the person of the offended due to her rank, due to asphyxiation. By his detestable
age and sex. In the former, the disrespect acts, the appellant intended to exacerbate
pertains to the dwelling of the offended the suffering of the victim. Hence, cruelty
party due to the sanctity of privacy which was attendant to the commission of the
the law accords it. In People vs. Puno, G.R. crime. However, cruelty is absorbed by
No. L-33211, June 29, 1981, En Banc - treachery (People vs. Chua, G.R. No.
Disregard of rank and dwelling were 149538, July 26, 2004, ).
appreciated independently.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
In robbery with violence and
intimidation against persons, dwelling is MINORITY - In People vs. Agacer,
aggravating because in this class of G.R. No. 177751, January 7, 2013
robbery, the crime may be committed Accused is entitled to the privileged
without the necessity of trespassing the mitigating circumstance of minority, which
sanctity of the offended party's graduates the penalty one degree lower. The
house(People vs. Evangelio, G.R. No. rationale of the law in extending such
181902, August 31, 2011). leniency and compassion is that because of
his age, the accused is presumed to have
AID OF ARMED MEN: Aid of armed acted with less discernment. This is
men or persons affording immunity regardless of the fact that his minority was
requires (1) that the armed men are not proved during the trial and that his
20 | P a g e
birth certificate was belatedly presented for contemplation of the law. Besides, there
our consideration, since to rule accordingly was no spontaneity, because they only
will not adversely affect the rights of the surrendered after a warrant of their arrest
state, the victim and his heirs. had already been issued (Belbis, Jr. vs.
People, GR No. 181052, November 14,
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER 2012, Justice Peralta).
Voluntary surrender is a circumstance that
reduces the penalty for the offense. Its VENDICATION: The mitigating
requisites as a mitigating circumstance are circumstance of having acted in the
that: (1) the accused has not been actually immediate vindication of a grave offense
arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself was, likewise, properly appreciated. The
to a person in authority or the latters appellant was humiliated, mauled and
agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary almost stabbed by the deceased. Although
(People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, the unlawful aggression had ceased when
January 18, 2012; People vs. Placer, GR the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was
No. 181753, October 09, 2013). nonetheless a grave offense for which the
appellant may be given the benefit of a
The surrender made after 14 days mitigating circumstance. But the mitigating
from the date of killing cannot be circumstance of sufficient provocation
considered voluntary since his act did not cannot be considered apart from the
emanate from a natural impulse to admit circumstance of vindication of a grave
the killing or to save the police officers the offense. These two circumstances arose
effort and expense that would be incurred from one and the same incident, i.e., the
in his search and incarceration. (People vs. attack on the appellant by Anthony, so that
Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, they should be considered as only one
2011). mitigating circumstance (People vs. Torpio,
G.R. No. 138984, June 4, 2004, ).
Surrender is not voluntary where
the accused went to Barangay Chairman In vindication of grave offense,
after the killings to seek protection against criminal exemption of accessories,
the retaliation of the victims relatives, not alternative circumstance of relationship
to admit his participation in the killing of and defense of stranger, the concept of
the victims (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. relationship is the same. It refers to (1)
169084, January 18, 2012). spouse, (2) ascendants, (3) descendants, or
(4) legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
The appellants are not entitled to or sisters or (5) of his relatives by affinity in
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary the same degrees. However, in defense of
surrender. The evidence shows that the relative, there is an additional concept of
appellants were arrested when the police relationship. It includes relatives by
officers manning the checkpoint stopped consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
the passenger jeepney driven by appellant Thus, an uncle is a relative within the
Ronald and arrested the appellants. The concept of defense of stranger (Reyes).
fact that the appellants did not resist but However, relationship of uncle and niece is
went peacefully with the peace officers does not an alternative circumstance (People vs.
not mean that they surrendered voluntarily Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February 23,
(People vs. Castillano, G.R. No. 139412, 2004).
April 2, 2003).
PASSION - The following essential
The essence of voluntary surrender requirements must be present: (1) there
is spontaneity and the intent of the accused was an act that was both unlawful and
to give himself up and submit himself to the sufficient to produce such condition
authorities either because he acknowledges (passion or obfuscation) of the mind; and
his guilt or he wishes to save the (2) such act was not far removed from the
authorities the trouble and expense that commission of the crime by a considerable
may be incurred for his search and length of time, during which the perpetrator
capture. Without these elements, and might have recovered his normal
where the clear reasons for the supposed equanimity (People vs. Comillo, G.R. No.
surrender are the inevitability of arrest and 186538, November 25, 2009). Four days
the need to ensure his safety, the surrender after the victims attempted on the virtue of
is not spontaneous and, therefore, cannot his wife, accused killed them. The period of
be characterized as "voluntary surrender" four days was sufficient enough a time
to serve as a mitigating circumstance. In within which accused could have regained
the present case, when the petitioners his composure and self-control. Hence,
reported the incident and allegedly passion should not be appreciated (People
surrendered the bladed weapon used in the vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27,
stabbing, such cannot be considered as 2011).
voluntary surrender within the
21 | P a g e
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
Alternative circumstances are those commit the subject felony (People vs.
which must be taken into consideration as Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July 6,
aggravating or mitigating according to the 2011).
nature and effects of the crime and other
conditions attending its commission. Based
on a strict interpretation, alternative REPETITION
circumstances are thus not aggravating
circumstances per se. (People vs. Orilla, Differences of recidivism, quasi-
G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004, recidivism, reiteracion and habitual
En banc). delinquency:
If the offender has committed a (a) Nature of crime In recidivism,

felony in a state of intoxication, this the first crime, and the aggravated second
circumstance may be mitigating or crime are embraced in the same Title of the
aggravating. If the intoxication is habitual Revised Penal Code; In quasi-recidivism,
or intentional, the circumstance is the nature of the first crime and aggravated
aggravating (People vs. Patelan, G.R. No. second crime is not material. In reiteration,
182918, June 6, 2011). If the intoxication is the penalty for the first crime is equal or
not habitual, and not subsequent to a plan greater than that for the aggravated second
to commit a felony, and that the accused's crime or the penalty for the first two crimes
drunkenness affected his mental faculties, is lighter than that for the aggravated third
the circumstance is mitigating (People vs. crime. In habitual delinquency, the first,
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, second and third crimes must be a
2010). For intoxication to be considered as habitual-delinquency crime, and that is,
a mitigating circumstance, it must be serious or less serious physical injuries,
shown that the intoxication impaired the theft, robbery, estafa or falsification of
willpower of the accused that he did not document.
know what he was doing or could not
comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts (b) Time element In recidivism, the
(People vs. Patelan, supra). The absence of accused was convicted of the first crime by
any independent proof that his alcohol final judgment at the time of trial of the
intake affected mental faculties of the second crime. In quasi-recidivism, the
accused militates against a claim of the accused has been convicted by final
mitigating circumstance of intoxication judgment of the first offense but before
(People vs. Dela Cruz, supra). beginning to serve his sentence or while
servicing of his sentence, he committed the
EVIDENT PEMIDITATION second crime. In reiteration, the accused
For evident premeditation to be was convicted of the first crime (or first two
appreciated, the following must be proven crimes) and served his sentences at the
beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when time he was convicted of the second crime
the accused determined to commit the (or third crime). In habitual delinquency,
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused was convicted of first habitual-
the accused clung to his determination; and delinquency crime; within 10 years after
(3) sufficient lapse of time between such conviction or release, he was found guilty of
determination and execution to allow him habitual-delinquency crime for the second
to reflect upon the circumstances of his act time; within 10 years after conviction or
(People vs. Duavis, G.R. No. 190861, release he was found guilty of habitual-
December 7, 2011).Accused told witness delinquency crime for the third time or
that they were going to kill the doctor. oftener.
After less than thirty minutes, the accused
killed the victim, who is a doctor. Evident (c) Nature of the aggravating
premeditation should not be appreciated. circumstance - Recidivism and reiteration
The span of time (less than thirty minutes), are ordinary aggravating circumstances, the
from the time the accused showed their presence of any of which will trigger the
determination to kill the victim up to the application of the penalty for the second
time they shot the victim, could not have crime committed in its maximum period
afforded them full opportunity for unless it is off-set by mitigating
meditation and reflection on the circumstance. Quasi-recidivism is special
consequences of the crime they committed aggravating circumstance, the presence of
(People vs. Patelan, G.R. No. 182918, June which will trigger the application of the
6, 2011).Unlike evident premeditation, penalty for the second crime or third crime
there is no requirement for conspiracy to in its maximum period regardless of the
exist that there be a sufficient period of presence of mitigating circumstance.
time to elapse to afford full opportunity for Habitual delinquency is an extraordinary or
meditation and reflection. Instead, special aggravating circumstance, the
conspiracy arises on the very moment the presence of which will trigger the imposition
22 | P a g e
of additional penalty for the third or lifted from the shoulders of the State, which
subsequent crime. This is not subject to the carries it until the end of the proceedings.
off-set rule. In other words, only the onus
probandi shifts to the accused, for self-
SELF-DEFENSE defense is an affirmative allegation that
must be established with certainty by
SELF-HELP PRINCIPLE - In People sufficient and satisfactory proof. He must
vs. Apolinar, CA, 38 O.G. 2870, it was held: now discharge the burden by relying on the
Defense of property is not of such strength of his own evidence, not on the
importance as right to life, and defense of weakness of that of the Prosecution,
property can be invoked as a justifying considering that the Prosecutions evidence,
circumstance only when it is coupled with even if weak, cannot be disbelieved in view
an attack on the person of one entrusted of his admission of the killing (People vs.
with said property. However, in People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110, July 31, 2013).
Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20,
1983, the SC found the presence of Unlawful aggression is a
unlawful aggression despite the fact that condition sine qua non for the justifying
the invasion of his property right was not circumstance of self-defense. Without it,
coupled by an attack against the accused. there can be no self-defense, whether
The accused has the right to resist complete or incomplete, that can validly be
pursuant Article 429 of the Civil Code, invoked. There is an unlawful aggression
which provides: The owner or lawful on the part of the victim when he puts in
possessor of a thing has the right to actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or
exclude any person from the enjoyment and right of the person invoking self-defense.
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may There must be actual physical force or
use such force as may be reasonably actual use of a weapon. It is present only
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or when the one attacked faces real and
threatened unlawful physical invasion or immediate threat to ones life. It must be
usurpation of his property. However, since continuous; otherwise, it does not
the means employed to resist the invader constitute aggression warranting self-
(killing) is not reasonable, the accused is defense (People vs. Gamez, GR No. 202847,
merely given the benefit of incomplete self- October 23, 2013). Accordingly, the
defense. Justice Florenz Regalado stated accused must establish the concurrence of
that the rule in Apolinar case may be three elements of unlawful aggression,
deemed to have been superseded by namely: (a) there must be a physical or
Narvaez case. material attack or assault; (b) the attack or
assault must be actual, or, at least,
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION The imminent; and (c) the attack or assault
essential requisites of self-defense are the must be unlawful (People vs. Roman, GR
following: (1) unlawful aggression on the No. 198110, July 31, 2013).
part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel Kinds of aggression - Unlawful
such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or
provocation on the part of the person material unlawful aggression; and (b)
resorting to self-defense. Verily, to invoke imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or
self-defense successfully, there must have material unlawful aggression means an
been an unlawful and unprovoked attack attack with physical force or with a weapon,
that endangered the life of the accused, an offensive act that positively determines
who was then forced to inflict severe the intent of the aggressor to cause the
wounds upon the assailant by employing injury. Imminent unlawful aggression
reasonable means to resist the attack means an attack that is impending or at the
(Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 181052, point of happening; it must not consist in a
November 14, 2012, Justice Peralta). mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
merely imaginary, but must be offensive
The rule consistently adhered to in and positively strong (like aiming a revolver
this jurisdiction is that when the accuseds at another with intent to shoot or opening a
defense is self-defense he thereby admits knife and making a motion as if to attack).
being the author of the death of the victim, Imminent unlawful aggression must not be
that it becomes incumbent upon him to a mere threatening attitude of the victim,
prove the justifying circumstance to the such as pressing his right hand to his hip
satisfaction of the court. The rationale for where a revolver was holstered,
the shifting of the burden of evidence is accompanied by an angry countenance, or
that the accused, by his admission, is to be like aiming to throw a pot (People v. Del
held criminally liable unless he Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18,
satisfactorily establishes the fact of self- 2012; People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110,
defense. But the burden to prove guilt July 31, 2013).
beyond reasonable doubt is not thereby
23 | P a g e
Ordinarily there is a difference body, that accused was defending himself.
between the act of drawing ones gun and It would have been different if the wounds
the act of pointing ones gun at a target. inflicted were located in the front portion of
The former cannot be said to be unlawful the victim's body. Thus, the first element of
aggression on the part of the victim. For self-defense is not present (Belbis, Jr. vs.
unlawful aggression to be attendant there People, GR No. 181052, November 14,
must be a real danger to life or personal 2012, Justice Peralta).
safety. Unlawful aggression requires an
actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or Necessary means - The means
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a employed by a person claiming self-defense
threatening or intimidating attitude. Here, must be commensurate to the nature and
the act of the victim in drawing a gun from the extent of the attack sought to be
his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful averted, and must be rationally necessary
aggression. Such act did not put in real to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
peril the life or personal safety of appellant. In the present case, four stab wounds that
The facts surrounding the case must, are the product of direct thrusting of the
however, be differentiated from current bladed weapon are not necessary to prevent
jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. what the accused claim to be the
Accused was justified in defending himself continuous unlawful aggression from the
considering that victim was a trained police victim as the latter was already without any
officer and an inebriated and disobedient weapon. In connection therewith, having
colleague. Even if the victim did not point established that there was no unlawful
his firearm at accused, there would still be aggression on the part of the victim when
a finding of unlawful aggression on the part he was stabbed, accused cannot avail of the
of the victim (Nacnac vs. People, G.R. mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
No. 191913, March 21, 2012). defense (Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No.
181052, November 14, 2012, Justice
In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. Peralta).
177743, January 25, 2012 - Indeed, had
victim really attacked accused, the latter Under doctrine of rationale
would have sustained some injury from the equivalence, plea of self-defense would
aggression. It remains, however, that no prosper if there is a rational equivalence
injury of any kind or gravity was found on between the means of attack by the
the person of accused when he presented unlawful aggressor and the means of
himself to the hospital. In contrast, the defense by the accused that would
physician who examined the cadaver of characterize the defense as reasonable. The
victim testified that he had been hit on the doctrine of rational equivalence
head more than once. The plea of self- presupposes the consideration not only of
defense was thus belied, for the weapons the nature and quality of the weapons used
used by accused and the location and by the defender and the assailantbut of
number of wounds he inflicted on victim the totality of circumstances surrounding
revealed his intent to kill, not merely an the defense vis--vis, the unlawful
effort to prevent or repel an attack from aggression. Clearly, this continuous
victim. We consider to be significant that attack by accused despite the fact that
the gravity of the wounds manifested the aggressor already was neutralized by the
determined effort of the accused to kill his blow constitutes force beyond what is
victim, not just to defend himself. reasonably required to repel the
aggressionand is therefore unjustified
Ceased aggression - The unlawful (Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No.
aggression on the part of the victim ceased 181071, March 15, 2010).
when accused Rodolfo was able to get hold
of the bladed weapon. Although there was BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME:
still some struggle involved between the "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a
victim and accused, there is no doubt that scientifically defined pattern of
the latter, who was in possession of the psychological and behavioral symptoms
same weapon, already became the unlawful found in women living in battering
aggressor. Retaliation is not the same as relationships as a result of cumulative
self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression abuse (Section 3 of RA No. 9262). Each of
that was begun by the injured party already the phases of the cycle of violence must be
ceased when the accused attacked him, proven to have characterized at least two
while in self-defense the aggression still battering episodes between the accused
existed when the aggressor was injured by and her intimate partner and such final
the accused. Such an aggression can also episode produced in the battered persons
be surmised on the four stab wounds mind an actual fear of an imminent harm
sustained by the victim on his back. It is from her batterer and an honest belief that
hard to believe based on the location of the she needed to use force in order to save
stab wounds, all at the back portion of the her life. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No.
24 | P a g e
135981, January 15, 2004). The three unlawful action (People vs. Jacinto, G.R.
phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome No. 182239, March 16, 2011).
are: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the
acute battering incident; and (3) the SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE -
tranquil, loving or non-violent phase While Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that
(People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, suspension of sentence can still be applied
January 15, 2004; Answer to the 2010 Bar even if the child in conflict with the law is
Examination Questions by UP Law already 18 years of age or more at the time
Complex). The essence of this defense of of the pronouncement of his/her guilt,
Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense Section 40 of the same law limits the said
is that battered woman, who suffers from suspension of sentence until the child
physical and psychological or emotional reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the
distress, is acting under an irresistible child in conflict with the law, who reached
impulse to defend herself although at the 21 years, cannot avail of privilege of
time of commission of the crime the suspension of sentence. However, the child
batterer-victim had not yet committed in conflict with the law may, after
unlawful aggression. In Genosa supra, it conviction and upon order of the court, be
was held that it is crucial to the BWS made to serve his sentence, in lieu of
defense is the state of mind of the battered confinement in a regular penal institution,
woman at the time of the offense. She must in an agricultural camp and other training
have actually feared imminent harm from facilities (People vs. Mantalba, G.R. No.
her batterer and honestly believed in the 186227, July 20, 2011).
need to kill him in order to save her life.
That is why even in the absence of actual CREDIT OF THE PREVENTIVE
aggression or any other element of self- IMPRISONMENT OF CHILD - Under
defense, a woman, who is found to be Article 29 of RPC, a convicted recidivist is
suffering from battered woman syndrome not entitled to a full or 4/5 credit of his
is not criminally liable for killing her preventive imprisonment. However, if the
husband. convict is a child, the applicable rule for
crediting the period of commitment and
IRRESISTABLE FORCE detention is not Article 29 of RPC but
Section 41, RA 9344. Under the said
A person who acts under the provision, the full time spent in actual
compulsion of an irresistible force, like one commitment and detention of juvenile
who acts under the impulse of an delinquent shall be credited in the services
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater of his sentence.
injury, is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with INSANITY
freedom. Actus me invite factus non est
meus actus. An act done by me against my Acts penalized by law are always
will is not my act. The force contemplated presumed to be voluntary, and it is
must be so formidable as to reduce the improper to conclude that a person acted
actor to a mere instrument who acts not unconsciously in order to relieve him of
only without will but against his will. The liability, unless his insanity is conclusively
duress, force, fear or intimidation must be proved (People vs. Pambid, GR No. 124453,
present, imminent and impending, and of March 15, 2000).Insanity is the exception
such nature as to induce a well-grounded rather than the rule in the human
apprehension of death or serious bodily condition. The presumption, under Article
harm if the act be done. A threat of future 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human
injury is not enough. The compulsion must is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting
be of such a character as to leave no circumstance of insanity bears the burden
opportunity for the accused for escape or of proving it with clear and convincing
self-defense in equal combat (People vs. evidence. It is in the nature of confession
Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, and avoidance. An accused invoking
2011) insanity admits to have committed the
crime but claims that he or she is not guilty
MINORITY because of insanity (People vs. Tibon, G.R.
No. 188320, June 29, 2010).
To exempt a minor, who is 15 years
old or more, from criminal liability, it must Insanity as an exempting
be shown that he committed the criminal circumstance must relate to the time
act without discernment. Choosing an immediately preceding or coetaneous with
isolated and dark place to perpetrate the the commission of the offense with which
crime, to prevent detection and boxing the accused is charged (People vs. Tibon,
victim to weaken her defense are indicative supra).
of accuseds mental capacity to fully
understand the consequences of his
25 | P a g e
COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION No criminal liability is incurred by
TEST - The case of Formigones established the stepfather who commits malicious
two distinguishable tests to determine the mischief against his stepson; by the
insane condition of the accused: stepmother who commits theft against her
stepson; by the stepfather who steals
(a) The test of cognition whether something from his stepson; by the
there was a complete deprivation of grandson who steals from his
intelligence in committing the criminal act grandfather; by the accused who swindles
After satisfying his lust, accused threatened his sister-in-law living with him; and by the
the victim. This implies that accused knew son who steals a ring from his mother
what he was doing, that it was wrong, and (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. People,
wanted to keep it a secret. It also indicated G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). The
that the crime was committed during one of absolutory cause applies to theft, swindling
his lucid intervals. Accused is not exempt and malicious mischief. It does not apply to
from liability for failure to pass the theft through falsification or estafa through
cognition test (People vs. Alipio, G.R. No. falsification (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs.
185285, October 5, 2009) and People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11,
2010). There are two viewson whether the
Evidence tended to show that extinguishment of marriage by death of the
accused was not deprived of reason at all spouse dissolves the relationship by affinity
and can still distinguish right from wrong for purpose of absolutory cause. The first
when, after satisfying his lust, he holds that relationship by affinity
threatened victim. This single episode terminates with the dissolution of the
irresistibly implies, for one, that accused marriage, while the second maintains that
knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, relationship continues even after the death
and wanted to keep it a secret. And for of the deceased spouse. The principle of pro
another, it indicated that the crime was reocalls for the adoption of the continuing
committed during one of lucid intervals of affinity view because it is more favorable to
accused (People vs. Alipio, supra). the accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs.
People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11,
(b) The test of volition whether 2010).
there was a total deprivation of freedom of
the will. In the Bonoan case, schizophrenic INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT
accused, who acted under irresistible
homicidal impulse to kill (volition test), was Instigation means luring the
acquitted due to insanity. This is not accused into a crime that he, otherwise,
anymore a good rule. Even if the mental had no intention to commit, in order to
condition of the accused had passed the prosecute him." It differs from entrapment
volition test, the plea of insanity will not which is the employment of ways and
prosper unless it also passed the cognition means in order to trap or capture a
test. The controlling test is cognition (People criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent
vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March to commit an offense originates from the
17, 2004). inducer and not from the accused who had
no intention to commit and would not have
In recent Supreme Court cases, the committed it were it not for the prodding of
plea of insanity of person, who is suffering the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal
from schizophrenia, was rejected because of intent or design originates from the accused
failure to pass the cognition test. In sum, a and the law enforcers merely facilitate the
schizophrenic accused must be deprived apprehension of the criminal by using ruses
completely of intelligence to be exempt from and schemes. Instigation results in the
criminal liability (See: People vs. Medina, acquittal of the accused, while entrapment
G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People may lead to prosecution and conviction.
vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24,
1993).If a person (such as sex maniac, Instigation means luring the
homicidal maniac or kleptomaniac)had accused into a crime that he, otherwise,
merely passed the volition test but not the had no intention to commit, in order to
cognition test, he will only be given the prosecute him. It differs from entrapment
benefit of mitigating circumstance of which is the employment of ways and
illness. Diminution of freedom of the will is means in order to trap or capture a
enough to mitigate the liability of the criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent
offender suffering from illness (See: People to commit an offense originates from the
vs. Rafanan, Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. inducer and not from the accused who had
No. 54135, November 21, 1991). no intention to commit and would not have
committed it were it not for the prodding of
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE IN CRIME the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal
AGAINST PROPERTY intent or design originates from the accused
and the law enforcers merely facilitate the
26 | P a g e
apprehension of the criminal by using ruses result. He directly perpetrated the acts,
and schemes. Instigation results in the which constitute the crime. With or
acquittal of the accused, while entrapment without conspiracy, the chief actor is a
may lead to prosecution and conviction principal by direct participation.
(People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 180919,
January 9, 2013). Criminal participator - Criminal
participator is the offender who
In People vs. Espiritu et. Al., G.R. participated in committing a crime by
No. 180919, January 9, 2013 - Here, the indispensable or dispensable act. He
evidence clearly established that the police performed an act, which is not constitutive
operatives employed entrapment, not of felony but intended to give moral or
instigation, to capture appellant and her material aid to the chief actor.
cohorts in the act of selling shabu. It must
be recalled that it was only upon receipt of (1) With conspiracy - If there is
a report of the drug trafficking activities of conspiracy, the criminal participator or
Espiritu from the confidential informant cooperator is a principal by direct
that a buy-bust team was formed and participation. The act of the chief actor
negotiations for the sale of shabu were is considered the act of the criminal
made. Also, appellant testified that she participator.
agreed to the transaction of her own free
will when she saw the same as an (2) Without conspiracy - If there is no
opportunity to earn money. Notably too, conspiracy, criminal participator may
appellant was able to quickly produce a be held liable as principal by
sample. This confirms that she had a ready indispensable cooperation, accomplice
supply of the illegal drugs. Clearly, she was or accessory depending upon the nature
never forced, coerced or induced through and time of participation. A criminal
incessant entreaties to source the participator may participate in the
prohibited drug for Carla and PO3 Cario commission of the crime by previous,
and this she even categorically admitted simultaneous and/or subsequent acts.
during her testimony.
(a) Previous or simultaneous acts
Moreover, a police officers act of The criminal participator by
soliciting drugs from appellant during the previous or simultaneous acts is
buy-bust operation, or what is known as liable either as principal by
the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by indispensable cooperation or
law and does not invalidate the buy-bust accomplice. If the cooperation is
operation. in a prosecution for sale of illicit indispensable, the participator is a
drugs, any of the following will not principal by indispensable
exculpate the accused: "(1) that facilities for cooperation; if dispensable an
the commission of the crime were accomplice.
intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that
the criminal act was done at the solicitation (b) Subsequent acts The
of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to criminal participator by subsequent
expose his criminal act; or (3) that the acts is liable as an accessory. An
police authorities feigning complicity in the accessory does not participate in the
act were present and apparently assisted in criminal design, nor cooperate in the
its commission." commission of the felony, but, with
knowledge of the commission of the
Hence, even assuming that the crime, he subsequently takes part
PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to by any of the three modes under
sell them shabu, appellants defense of Article 19.
instigation will not prosper. This is
"especially true in that class of cases where The liability of accessory and
the offense is the kind that is habitually principal should also be considered as
committed, and the solicitation merely quasi-collective. It is quasi-collective in the
furnished evidence of a course of conduct. sense that the principal and the accessory
Mere deception by the police officer will not are liable for the felony committed but the
shield the perpetrator, if the offense was penalty for the latter is two degrees lower
committed by him free from the influence or than that for the former.
instigation of the police officer."
ACCOMPLICE AND CONSPIRATOR
PARTICIPATION - In People vs. PO1 Eusebio G.R. No.
182152, February 25, 2013 - It noted that
Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor victim had only three gunshot wounds
is the person who actually committed the despite the many shots fired at him. Since
crime. He is the one who committed or Bongon shot victim thrice at very close
omitted the act, which causes the criminal range, causing him to fall, it appears that it
27 | P a g e
was only Bongon who inflicted those relation between the acts done by the
wounds. And, considering that the principal and those attributed to the person
prosecution evidence did not show that the charged as accomplice (People vs. Gambao,
shots three other accused fired from their GR No. 172707, October 01, 2013).
guns made their marks, there is doubts
that the three agreed beforehand with Accused entered the room where the
Bongon to kill victim. It cannot rule out the victim was detained and conversed with
possibility that they fired their guns merely kidnappers regarding stories unrelated to
to scare off outside interference. the kidnapping. Accused should be held
liable as accomplice. The defenses raised by
Because witnesses are rarely accused are not sufficient to exonerate her
present when several accused come to an criminal liability. Assuming arguendo that
agreement or conspired to commit a crime, she just came to the resort thinking it was
such agreement is usually inferred from a swimming party, it was inevitable that
their "concerted actions" while committing she acquired knowledge of the criminal
it. On the other hand, accomplices are the design of the principals when she saw
persons who, not being principals, victim being guarded in the room. A
cooperate in the execution of the offense by rational person would have suspected
previous or simultaneous acts. something was wrong and would have
reported such incident to the police.
The line that separates a Accused, however, chose to keep quiet; and
conspirator by concerted action from an to add to that, she even spent the night at
accomplice by previous or simultaneous the cottage. It has been held before that
acts is indeed slight. Accomplices do not being present and giving moral support
decide whether the crime should be when a crime is being committed will make
committed; but they assent to the plan and a person responsible as an accomplice in
cooperate in its accomplishment. The the crime committed. It should be noted
solution in case of doubt is that such doubt that the accused-appellants presence and
should be resolved in favor of the accused. company were not indispensable and
It was held that when there is doubt as to essential to the perpetration of the
whether a guilty participant in a homicide kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only
performed the role of principal or liable as an accomplice. Moreover, in case
accomplice, the Court should favor the of doubt, the participation of the offender
"milder form of responsibility." He should be will be considered as that of an accomplice
given the benefit of the doubt and can be rather than that of a principal (People vs.
regarded only as an accomplice. Hence, in Gambao, GR No. 172707, October 01,
the case at bar, the other three accused 2013).
should be granted the benefit of doubt and
should considered merely as accomplices. X and Y did not participate when
the victim was forcibly abducted. However,
It is immaterial whether accused they owned the safehouse, the basement of
acted as a principal or an accomplice. What their house, where the kidnapped victim
really matters is that the conspiracy was was detained. X assisted the kidnappers
proven and he took part in it. Without the when the victim the basement stairs of the
participation of accused, the offense would safehouse. Y brought foods to the
not have been committed. He was the one safehouse. Are X and Y liable as accomplice
who paved the way for victim to board the or principal by direct participation? They
vehicle and his closeness with the victim are liable as principals because of
led the latter to trust the former, thus, conspiracy. Their participations are of
accomplishing their devious plan of minor importance. These acts pertain to
kidnapping him. Consequently, the those committed by mere
conspirators shall be held equally liable for accomplices. However, their acts coincide
the crime, because in a conspiracy the act with their ownership of the safehouse. They
of one is the act of all (People vs. Cruz, Jr., provided the place where the victim is to be
GR No. 168446, September 18, 2009). detained, which is logically a primary
consideration in a conspiracy to commit the
ACCOMPLICE - In order that a crime of kidnapping for ransom. Ownership
person may be considered an accomplice, of the safehouse and their participations
namely, (1) that there be community of reasonably indicate that they were among
design; that is knowing the criminal design those who at the outset planned, and
of the principal by direct participation, he thereafter concurred with and participated
concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) in the execution of the criminal design
that he cooperates in the execution by (People vs. Salvador, GR No. 201443, April
previous or simultaneous act, with the 10, 2013).
intention of supplying material or moral aid
in the execution of the crime in an RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE
efficacious way; and (3) that there be a IMPRISONMENT
28 | P a g e
also be composed of single period. If the
If the law was amended to change penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor
the penalty from life imprisonment to in its maximum period, the penalty next
reclusion perpetua, the amendatory law, lower in degree is arresto mayor in its
being more lenient to the accused than the medium period. If the penalty is composed
previous law, should be accorded of two periods, the graduated penalty must
retroactive application. The penalty of also be composed of two periods. If the
reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than penalty prescribed by law arresto mayor in
life imprisonment. (People vs. Pang, G.R. its maximum period to prision correctional
No. 176229, October 19, 2011). in its minimum period, the penalty next
lower in degree is arresto mayor in its
ISLAW minimum and medium periods. If the
penalty is composed of three periods, the
RA 9165 provides that illegal graduated penalty must also be composed
possession of less than five (5) grams of of three periods.
shabu is penalized with imprisonment of 12
years and 1 day to 20 years. The court First Exception: Fixed penalty with
sentenced the accused to suffer a straight period and penalty components If the
penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 fixed penalty is composed of period
day. Is the penalty imposed by the court component and penalty component, the
correct? No. The indeterminate Sentence graduated penalty must be composed of
Law mandates that, in case of a special law, three period components. Example: The
the accused shall be sentenced "to an penalty prescribed by law is reclusion
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
of which shall not exceed the maximum perpetua. This penalty has a period
fixed by said law and the minimum shall component and a full penalty. Hence, one
not be less than the minimum term degree lower than this penalty must
prescribed by the same." (Asiatico vs. composed of three periods, and that is:
People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, Prision mayor in its maximum period to
2011) reclusion temporal in its medium period
GRADUATION OF PENALTY SPECIAL MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCE: Under Article 64 (5), the
GRADUATING FACTORS - Under presence of two or more mitigating
these provisions, the fixed penalty shall be circumstances will graduate the divisible
graduated by one or more degrees on the penalty prescribed by law to one degree
basis of the following factors: lower. This is called special mitigating
circumstance. However, the appreciation
FACTORS
DEGREES
NUMBER OF of this circumstance is subject to two
Stage of Execution conditions: (1) the penalty prescribed by
Frustrated stage ---------------------------------------------------- 1
Attempted stage --------------------------------------------------- 2 law must be divisible; and (2) there must
Except: Frustrated homicide, parricide, murder ------ 1 or 2
Attempted homicide, parricide, murder -----1 or 2
be no aggravating circumstance. In People
Nature of Participation vs. Takbobo, G.R. No. No. 102984, June
Accomplice -------------------------------------------------------- 1
Accessory ---------------------------------------------------------- 2 30, 1993 - Accused was found guilty of
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance
Minority -----------------------------------------------------------------1
parricide punishable by the penalty of
Incomplete justification or exemption ---------------------------1 or 2 reclusion perpetua to death. Applying
(Except: Accident)
Article 63, when the penalty is composed
of two indivisible penalties, the penalty
The composition of a graduated cannot be lowered by one degree, no
penalty will depend on the composition of matter how many mitigating
the penalty fixed by law. circumstances are present. The rule on
special mitigating circumstance is found in
General Rule: Single Penalty - Article 64 (5) which provides the "rules for
Graduated penalty is generally a single the application of penalties which contain
penalty. Example If the fixed penalty is three periods," meaning, divisible
death, the penalty next lower in degree is penalties. Article 64 (5) is inapplicable.
reclusion perpetua; if the fixed penalty is Thus, the rule applicable in said case is
reclusion perpetua, the penalty next lower found in Article 63, and not in Article 64.
in degree is reclusion temporal; if the fixed
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the If there are two mitigating
penalty next lower in degree is also circumstances, the penalty prescribed law
reclusion temporal. The graduated penalty shall graduated to one degree lower, and
of reclusion temporal is a single penalty. the graduated penalty shall be applied in it
medium period. If there are three mitigating
First exception: Fixed penalty in circumstances taken as special mitigating,
period If the penalty is composed of the penalty prescribed law shall graduated
single period, the graduated penalty must to one degree lower, and the graduated
29 | P a g e
penalty shall be applied in it minimum meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of
period. Reason: The two mitigating the next preceding article, he shall be
circumstances were taken to constitute subject to a subsidiary personal liability at
special mitigating circumstance; while the the rate of one day for each amount
remaining mitigating circumstance was equivalent to the highest minimum wage
used to apply the graduated penalty in its rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time
minimum period. of the rendition of judgment of conviction
by the trial court, subject to the following
GRADUATING DEATH PENALTY - rules:
For purposes of graduating penalty, the
penalty of death is still the penalty to be 1. If the principal penalty imposed
reckoned with. RA No. 9346, which be prision correctional or arresto and fine,
prohibits the imposition of death penalty, he shall remain under confinement until
does not exclude death penalty in the order his fine referred in the preceding paragraph
of graduation of penalties. In qualified rape, is satisfied, but his subsidiary
the penalty for accomplice is reclusion imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of
perpetua, the penalty next lower in degree the term of the sentence, and in no case
than death prescribed for the crime (See: shall it continue for more than one year,
People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March and no fraction or part of a day shall be
16, 2011). counted against the prisoner.
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION - A 2. When the principal penalty

special law prescribes the penalty of 10 imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary
years of imprisonment for violation thereof imprisonment shall not exceed six months,
while another law prescribes the penalty of if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for
arresto mayor. Can the rules on graduation a grave or less grave felony, and shall not
of penalties or application of penalty on its exceed fifteen days, if for a fight felony.
proper imposable period under RPC
applicable to violation of these special 3. When the principal penalty
laws?(a) Where the special law has not imposed is higher than prision correctional,
adopted the Spanish penalties (10 years of no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imprisonment) under RPC, rules on imposed upon the culprit.
graduation of penalties or application of
penalty on its proper imposable period is 4. If the principal penalty imposed is
not applicable. Article 10 of RPC on not to be executed by confinement in a
suppletory effects of the Code cannot be penal institution, but such penalty is of
invoked where there is a legal or physical fixed duration, the convict, during the
impossibility of such supplementary period of time established in the preceding
application (People vs. Mantalba, G.R. No. rules, shall continue to suffer the same
186227, July 20, 2011). The penalty of 10 deprivations as those of which the principal
years of imprisonment can neither be penalty consists.
graduated by decrees nor divided into three
periods. (b) Where the special law has 5. The subsidiary personal liability
adopted the Spanish penalty (arresto which the convict may have suffered by
mayor) under RPC, rules on graduation of reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
penalties or application of penalty on its him from the fine in case his financial
proper imposable period are applicable. circumstances should improve.
Where the penalty under a special law is
actually taken from the Revised Penal Code Special law - In Escalante vs.
in its technical nomenclature, the penal People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013 -
system under the Code is necessarily The penalty for election offense is
applicable to this law (See: People vs. imprisonment of not less than one year but
Mantalba, supra). This adoption reveals the not more than six years. Under ISLAW, if
statutory intent to give the provisions on the offense is punished by special law, the
penalties for felonies under RPC the court shall sentence the accused to an
corresponding application to said special indeterminate sentence, the maximum term
law, in the absence of any express or of which shall not exceed the maximum
implicit proscription in these special laws fixed by said law and the minimum shall
(See: People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, not be less than the minimum term
July 29, 1994). prescribed by the same. Applying the
ISLAW, the imposable penalty for violation
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY UNDER RA No. of the election gun ban should have a
10159 maximum period, which shall not exceed
six (6) years, and a minimum period which
Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code shall not be less than one (1) year.
as amended by RA No. 10159 provides: If
the convict has no property with which to
30 | P a g e
Dangerous drugs law - Section 98 confession and privilege mitigating
of RA No. 9165 provided that, where the circumstance of minority cannot be given
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts suppletory effect (People vs. Simon, G.R.
punishable by life imprisonment to death No. 93028, July 29, 1994). Moreover,
provided in the same law shall be reclusion Section 98 of RA No. 9165 provides that the
perpetua to death. Basically, this means provisions of RPC shall not apply to the
that the penalty can now be graduated as it provisions of this Act, except in the case of
has adopted the technical nomenclature of minor offenders. Since there is no showing
penalties provided for in the Revised Penal that X is a minor, the circumstance of
Code. Since the privilege circumstance of confession and minority will not be
minority is present, the proper penalty appreciated in favor of X.
should be one degree lower than reclusion
perpetua, which is reclusion temporal. (b) Applying the second rule of the
Necessarily, also applying the ISLAW, the maximum indeterminate
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the penalty must not exceed 20 years and the
minimum penalty should be taken from the minimum penalty must not be less than 12
penalty next lower in degree which years and 1 day. If I am the judge, I will
is prision mayor and the maximum penalty sentence the accused to suffer 14 years of
shall be taken from the medium period imprisonment as minimum penalty to 18
of reclusion temporal, there being neither years as maximum penalty.
ordinary mitigating circumstance nor
aggravating circumstance (People vs. (c) Since X is a minor, the provisions
Udtojan GR No. 186227, July 20, 2011, of RPC including those on modifying
Justice Peralta). circumstances are applicable to crime
punishable under RA No. 9165. Hence,
X was in possession of marijuana mitigating circumstance of confession and
and shabu. Can the accused be convicted privilege mitigating circumstance of
of two counts of illegal possession of minority should be appreciated in favor of X
dangerous drugs? Absent any clear (People vs. Montalaba, G.R. No. 186227,
interpretation as to the application of the July 20, 2011, Justice Peralta);
penalties under RA No. 9165, the same
shall construe it in favor of the accused for (d) The penalty prescribed for the
the subject provision is penal in nature. It crime committed is 12 years and 1 day to
is a well-known rule of legal hermeneutics 20 years. This is equivalent to reclusion
that penal or criminal laws are strictly temporal. Since privilege mitigating
construed against the state and liberally in circumstance of minority and mitigating
favor of the accused. Thus, an accused circumstance of confession are present, the
may only be convicted of a single offense of penalty should be graduated to prision
possession of dangerous drugs if he or she mayor to be applied in its minimum period.
was caught in possession of different kinds The maximum penalty under the ISLAW
of dangerous drugs in a single occasion. If shall be taken from minimum period of
convicted, the higher penalty shall be prision mayor, which has a range from 6
imposed, which is still lighter if the accused years and 1 day to 8 years, while the
is convicted of two (2) offenses having two minimum penalty shall be fixed within the
(2) separate penalties. This interpretation duration of the penalty of prision
is more in keeping with the intention of the correccional, the penalty one degree lower
legislators as well as more favorable to the than that prescribed by law, which has a
accused (David vs. People, Gr No. 181861, ranged from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
October 17, 2011, Justice Peralta). If I am the judge, I will sentence the
accused to suffer 4 years of prision
X confessed to the crime of illegal correccional as minimum penalty to 7 years
possession of dangerous drugs where of prision mayor as maximum penalty.
Section 11 of RA No. 9165 prescribes the
penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. If THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS
you were the judge trying the case: (a) can LIMITATION RULE
you appreciate the mitigating circumstance
of confession? (b) What penalty would you Simultaneous service - When the
impose on X? (c) Would your answer be the culprit has to serve two or more penalties,
same regarding the appreciation of the he shall serve them simultaneously if the
modifying circumstance, if X is a minor? (d) nature of the penalties will so permit. Thus,
What penalty would you impose on X? convict could serve simultaneously arresto
mayor and fine, prision correccional and
Answer: (a) Since the penalties perpetual absolute disqualification, or
under RA No. 9165 are different from those reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction. In
under RPC, the rules for the application of sum, while lingering in prison, convict
penalties and other relevant provisions could pay fine, return the property
such as mitigating circumstance of confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote
31 | P a g e
or to act function as a public officer. In the length of time corresponding to the
Rodriguez vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. most severe of the penalties imposed upon
L-35386, September 28, 1972, En Banc - him. No other penalty to which he may be
Penalties which could be served liable shall be inflicted after the sum total
simultaneously with other penalties, are of those imposed equals the said maximum
perpetual or temporary absolute period. Such maximum period shall in no
disqualification, perpetual or temporary case exceed forty years. Applying said
special disqualification, public censure, rule, despite the four penalties of reclusion
suspension from public office and other perpetua for four counts of qualified theft,
accessory penalties. There are only two accused-appellant shall suffer
modes of serving two or more (multiple) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40
penalties: simultaneously or successively. years (People vs. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479,
Successive service When the culprit has to October 19, 2011).
serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them successively if the nature of the SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
penalties will not permit simultaneous
service. Convict must serve multiple Kidnapping with homicide - Old
penalties successively: (1) where the rule: (1) Where the accused kidnapped the
penalties to be served are destierro and victim for the purpose of killing him, and he
imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties was in fact killed by his abductor, the crime
to be served are imprisonment. However, committed was the complex crime of
the successive service of sentences is kidnapping with murder as the kidnapping
subject to the three-fold rule and 40-year of the victim was a necessary means of
limitation rule. committing the murder. (2) Where the
victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of
a. Three-fold rule - The maximum killing him but was subsequently slain as
period of the imprisonment that convict an afterthought, two (2) separate crimes of
must suffer in serving multiple penalties kidnapping and murder were committed.
must not exceed threefold the length of Where there is no actual detention (People
time corresponding to the most severe of vs. Masilang, 1986) or intent to deprive
the penalties imposed upon him. A was liberty (People vs. Estacio Jr., G.R.
sentenced to suffer penalty of 7 years of No. 171655, July 22, 2009, En Banc)
prision mayor for serious physical injuries, killing the person is murder. Demand for
6 years of prision correccional for qualified ransom will not convert the crime into
less serious physical injuries, 5 years of kidnapping.
prision correccional for robbery and 5
years of prison correccional for theft. The Present rule: Where the person
total duration of the penalties imposed on kidnapped is killed in the course of the
him is 23 years. The most severe penalty detention, regardless of whether the killing
imposed on him is 7 years of prision was purposely sought or was merely an
mayor. Thus, threefold the length of time afterthought, the kidnapping and murder
corresponding to the most severe of the or homicide can no longer be complexed,
penalties is 21 years. A will be nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall
imprisoned for 21 years because of the be punished as a special complex crime
three-fold rule. (People vs. Ramos, G.R. No.
118570, October 12, 1998, En Banc, People
b. Forty-year limitation rule vs. Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3,
The maximum period of the imprisonment 2004, En Banc; People vs. Montanir, GR
that convict must suffer in serving No. 187534, April 04, 2011, Justice Peralta)
multiple penalties must not exceed forty
years. A was sentenced to suffer three If kidnapping is a necessary means
penalties of 15 years of reclusion temporal to commit frustrated murder, special
for three counts of homicide and the complex crime of kidnapping and serious
penalty of 10 years of prision mayor for illegal detention with frustrated homicide.
serious physical injuries. The total Homicide as a component of special
duration of the penalties imposed on him complex crime must be at the
is 55 years. The most severe penalty consummated stage. In this situation, the
imposed on him, is 15 years of reclusion crime committed is complex crime of
temporal. Thus, threefold the length of time kidnapping and serious illegal detention
corresponding to the most severe of the with frustrated murder (See: People vs.
penalties is 45 years. A will be Roxas, GR No. 172604, August 17, 2010,
imprisoned for 40 years because of the Justice Peralta)
forty year limitation rule.
COMPLEX CRIME
Article 70 provides that the
maximum duration of the convicts There are two kinds of complex
sentence shall not be more than threefold crimes. The first is known as compound
32 | P a g e
crime, or when a single act constitutes two information alleges that the accused shot
or more grave or less grave felonies. The the victim, but it does not allege that he did
second is known as complex crime proper, so several times. However, the evidence
or when an offense is a necessary means for show that accused shot her and her
committing the other (People vs. Rebucan, father several times. Can X be convicted of
G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011).The separate crimes of murder and attempted
underlying philosophy of complex crimes in murder or complex crime? Answer: On the
the Revised Penal Code, which follows the basis of evidence, X committed separate
pro reo principle, is intended to favor the crimes of murder and attempted murder.
accused by imposing a single penalty Several shootings rule out the application of
irrespective of the crimes committed. The the concept of complex crime. However,
rationale being, that the accused who evidence does not conform to the
commits two crimes with single criminal Information, which contains no allegation
impulse demonstrates lesser perversity accused shot the victims several times. In
than when the crimes are committed by the absence of a clear statement of several
different acts and several criminal shootings in the Information, the accused
resolutions (People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. may be convicted only of the complex crime
168050, September 19, 2008) of murder with attempted murder. After all,
the concept of complex crimes is
COMPLEX CRIME AND intended to favor the accused by imposing a
COMPOSITE CRIME - A composite crime, single penalty irrespective of the number of
also known as a special complex crime, is crimes committed. Information merely
composed of two or more crimes that the states that accused shot the victims. This is
law treats as a a compound crime since murder and
single indivisible and unique offense for attempted murder was produced by a single
being the product of a single criminal act of shooting. To rule that the accused
impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific should be convicted of two separate
penalty provided by law. The distinctions offenses of murder and attempted murder
between a composite crime, on the one pursuant to the evidence presented but
hand, and a complex or compound crime contrary to the allegations in the
under Article 48 are as follows: (1) In a Information is to violate the right of the
composite crime, the composition of the accused to be informed of the nature and
offenses is fixed by law; In a complex or cause of the accusation against him (People
compound crime, the combination of the vs. Bernardo, GR No. 198789, June 03,
offenses is not specified but generalized, 2013).
that is, grave and/or less grave, or one
offense being the necessary means to DELICTO CONTINUADO
commit the other; (2) For a composite
crime, the penalty for the specified In order that continuous crime may
combination of crimes is specific; for a exist, there should be: (1) plurality of acts
complex or compound crime, the penalty is performed separately during a period of
that corresponding to the most serious time; (2) unity of criminal intent and
offense, to be imposed in the maximum purpose and (3) unity of penal provision
period; and (3) A light felony that infringed upon or violated (Santiago vs.
accompanies a composite crime is Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December
absorbed; a light felony that accompanies 2, 1993).
the commission of a complex or compound
crime may be the subject of a separate a. Single occassion - In People vs.
information (People vs. Villaflores, G.R. Tumlos, G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939,
No. 184926, April 11, 2012). En Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows
owned by six owners involved thirteen (13)
COMPOUND CRIME acts of taking. However, the acts of taking
took place at the same time and in the
The single act of pitching or rolling same place; consequently, accused
the hand grenade on the floor of the performed but one act. The intention was
gymnasium which resulted in the death of likewise one, namely, to take for the
one victim and injuries to other victims purpose of appropriating or selling the
constituted a complex crime under Article thirteen cows which he found grazing in
48 of RPC which states that when a single the same place. The fact that eight of said
act constitutes two or more grave or less cows pertained to one owner and five to
grave felonies, the penalty for the most another does not make him criminally
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to liable for as many crimes as there are
be applied in its maximum period (People owners, for the reason that in such case
vs. Mores, GR No. 189846, June 26, 2013). neither the intention nor the criminal act
is susceptible of division.
X was charged with complex crime
with murder and attempted murder. The
33 | P a g e
X as punong barangay was lust upon his victim and, after he has
angered when he discovered a tap from the regained his strength, he would again rape
main line of the public water tank. On the victim. When the accused decided to
separate occasions, X threatened to kill commit those separate and distinct acts of
and crack the skulls of A, B, and C, sexual assault upon victim, he was not
who suspected to be responsible for the motivated by a single impulse, but rather
tapping of water line. There is no continued by several criminal intents. Hence, his
crime since the three crimes of grave threat conviction for three (3) counts of rape is
were not committed under a single criminal indubitable.
impulse. Xs intent to threaten A, B,
and C with bodily harm arose only when In People vs. Crisostomo, GR No.
he chanced upon each of his victims. 196435, January 29, 2014 Accused on
Several threats can only be considered as the same occasion inserted a lit cigarette
continued crime if the offender stick into genital orifice of victim (6 years of
threatened three individuals at the same age) and her anal orifice, and had sexual
place and at the same time (Paera vs. People, intercourse with her. He is guilt for two
G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011). In People counts of rape by sexual assault and rape
vs. Tumlos, G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, through sexual intercourse.
En Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows
owned by six owners involved thirteen (13) b. General plan - In People vs.
acts of taking. However, the acts of taking Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-1745, May 23, 1950,
took place at the same time and in the it was held that ransacking several houses
same place; consequently, accused located within the vicinity of a sugar mill
performed but one act. The intention was while two of the bandits guarded the
likewise one, namely, to take for the victims with guns leveled at them is a
purpose of appropriating or selling the continued crime of robbery. Several acts of
thirteen cows which he found grazing in the robbery were made pursuant to general
same place. The fact that eight of said cows plan to despoil all those in the said place,
pertained to one owner and five to another which is an indicative of a single criminal
does not make him criminally liable for as design.
many crimes as there are owners, for the
reason that in such case neither the Accused intended only to rob one
intention nor the criminal act is susceptible place; and that is the Energex gasoline
of division. station. That they did; and in the process,
also took away by force the money and
In People vs. Aaron, G.R. NOS. valuables of the employees working in said
136300-02, September 24, 2002 - The gasoline station. Clearly inferred from these
accused inserted his penis into the victims circumstances are the series of acts which
vagina; he then withdrew it and ordered the were borne from one criminal resolution. A
latter to lie down on the floor and, for the continuing offense is a continuous,
second time, he inserted again his penis unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by
into the victims vagina; the accused, a single impulse and operated by an
thereafter, stood up and commanded the unintermittent force, however long a time it
victim to lie near the headboard of the may occupy. The perpetrated acts were not
makeshift bed and, for the third time, he entirely distinct and unconnected from one
inserted again his penis into the victims another. Thus, there is only single offense
vagina and continued making pumping or crime (People vs. De Leon, GR No.
motions. Accused is convicted of only 179943, June 26, 2009, Justice Peralta).
one count of rape. Accused thrice
succeeded in inserting his penis into the c. Foreknowledge doctrine - In
private part of victim. However, the three Gamboa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054,
penetrations occurred during one November 28, 1975 - Accused cannot be
continuing act of rape in which the accused held to have entertained continuously the
obviously motivated by a single criminal same criminal intent in making the first
intent. Accused decided to commit those abstraction on October 2, 1972 for the
separate and distinct acts of sexual assault subsequent abstractions on the following
merely because of his lustful desire to days and months until December 30,
change positions inside the room where the 1972, for the simple reason that he was
crime was committed. not possessed of any fore-knowledge of any
deposit by any customer on any day or
In People vs. Lucena, GR No. occasion and which would pass on to his
190632, February 26, 2014 - Accused possession and control. At most, his intent
thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into to misappropriate may arise only when he
the private part of victim. The three (3) comes in possession of the deposits on
penetrations occurred one after the other at each business day but not in future, since
an interval of five (5) minutes wherein petitioner company operates only on a
the accused would rest after satiating his day-to-day transaction. As a result, there
34 | P a g e
could be as many acts of misappropriation Enrile in the evening of December 1, 1989.
as there are times the private respondent It was held that the theory of absorption in
abstracted and/or diverted the deposits to rebellion cases must not confine itself to
his own personal use and benefit (People common crimes but also to offenses under
vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. L-16943, October special laws, which are perpetrated in
28, 1961). furtherance of the political offense. Hence,
rebellion absorbs obstruction of justice
DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION - (Enrile vs. Amin, G.R. No. 93335,
Crime is absorbed if it is a mere incident September 13, 1990).
in the commission of another crime. In the
case of U.S vs. Sevilla (1 Phil. 143), the MULTIPLE DEATHS
accused, who struck the offended parties
while simultaneously threatening to kill SINGLE ACT RULE - If there is
them if they would not return him the more than one death resulting from
jewelry they have lost, was held liable for different acts there is no compound crime
slight physical injuries. The threat was of multiple homicides or murder. Article 48
considered as part of the assault. In People speaks of a single act. In People vs. Toling,
vs. Yebra (109 Phil. 613), it was held that G.R. No. L-27097, January 17, 1975 - Twin
defamatory statement uttered in the brothers, who ran amok like juramentados
course of committing the crime of threat is in a passenger train, and killed their eight
not a separate crime. The defamation was co-passengers, were held liable for eight (8)
just a part of the crime of threat. The letter murders and one attempted murder. The
containing the libelous remarks is more conduct of the twins evinced conspiracy
threatening than libelous; the intent to and community of design. The eight killings
threaten is the principal aim and object of and the attempted murder were perpetrated
the letter. The libelous remarks are merely by means of different acts. Hence, they
preparatory remarks culminating in the cannot be regarded as constituting a
final threat. complex crime under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, which refers to cases
What is the effect of the elimination where "a single act constitutes two or more
of the overt acts of violence in Article 135 grave felonies, of, when an offense is a
by RA No. 9668? In People vs. Hernandez, necessary means for committing the other.
G.R. No. L-6025, July 18, 1956 The
Supreme Court justified the doctrine of In People vs. Punzalan G .R. No.
absorption in rebellion since murder, 199892, December 1, 2001 - Appellant was
robbery, and arson are just a part of the animated by a single purpose, to kill the
engaging in war against the forces of the navy personnel, and committed a single act
government", "committing serious violence", of stepping on the accelerator, swerving to
and destroying property in Article 135. the right side of the road ramming through
However, RA No. 6968 eliminated the the navy personnel, causing the death of
phrases "engaging in war against the forces two persons and, at the same time,
of the government", "committing serious constituting an attempt to kill others. The
violence" and destroying property in crime committed is complex crime of
Article 135. According to Florenz Regalado, multiple murders and attempted murder.
the amendment of Article 135 does not
affect the accepted concept of rebellion and SINGLE IMPULSE RULE Several
these overt acts of violence are deemed acts committed by several offenders with one
subsumed in the provision on rebellion in criminal impulse resulting in several deaths
Article 134. Under this principle of constitute one crime: the compound crime of
subsumption, engaging in combat against multiple homicides or murders. In People vs.
the forces of the Government, destroying Lawas, L-7618-20, June 30, 1955 -
property or committing serious violence is an Members of the Home Guard, upon order of
essential ingredient of rebellion. their leader, Lawas, simultaneously and
successively fired at several victims. After a
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was short time, the firing stopped immediately
charged for rebellion under the Revised when Lawas ordered his men to cease fire.
Penal Code and obstruction of justice under As a result of the firing, fifty (50) persons
PD No. 1829. The obstruction of justice died. It was held that the evidence
case is based on the allegation that Enrile positively shows that the killing was the
entertained and accommodated Col. result of a single impulse, which was
Gregorio Gringo Honasan, fugitive from induced by the order of the leader to fire,
justice, by giving him food and comfort on and continued with the intention to comply
December 1, 1989 in his house. The therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as
rebellion case is based on the alleged fact the leader gave the order to that effect.
that fugitive Col. Honasan and some 100- There was no intent on the part of the
rebel soldiers attended the mass and accused either to fire at each and every of
birthday party held at the residence of the victims as separately and distinctly
35 | P a g e
from each other. If the act or acts depends upon the singularity of the act,
complained of resulted from a single thus the definitional phrase "a single act
criminal impulse, it constitutes a single constitutes two or more grave or less grave
offense - compound crime of multiple felonies." To apply the first half of Article
homicides. 48, there must be singularity of criminal
act; singularity of criminal impulse is not
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY written into the law.
RULE - Under the Lawas principle, if
accused fired their guns killing several SINGLE PURPOSE RULE - In
victims pursuant to a single impulse, they People vs. Abella, 93 SCRA 25, the Lawas
shall be held liable for continued crime of principle was applied despite the presence
murder. The Lawas principle should only be of conspiracy. In the said case, sixteen
applied in a case where (1) there is no prisoners, who are members of the OXO
conspiracy (People vs. Hon. Pineda, G.R. gang, were able to break into the cell of
No. L-26222, July 21, 1967) and (2) it is Sigue-Sigue gang and killed fourteen (14)
impossible to ascertain the number of inmates. All accused were convicted for a
deaths caused by each accused (People vs. compound crime. It was held: Where a
Tabaco, G.R. No. 100382-100385, March conspiracy animates several persons with a
19, 1997). In conspiracy, each conspirator single purpose, their individual acts done in
is not only liable for deaths attributable to pursuance of that purpose are looked upon
him but also for deaths caused by others as a single act, the act of execution, giving
because in conspiracy the act of one is the rise to a complex offense. Various acts
act of all. Thus, the Lawas doctrine should committed under one criminal impulse may
not be applied if there is conspiracy since constitute a single complex offense. Basis -
the number of victims actually killed by The single purpose rule was actually
each conspirator is not anymore material if adopted in consideration of the plight of the
there is conspiracy (People vs. Elarcosa, prisoners. Requisites -There are two
G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010). requisites to apply the Abella principle: (1)
there must be a conspiracy, which
In People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. animates several persons to commit crimes
184500. September 11, 2012 - Significantly, under a single criminal purpose; and (2) the
there was no conspiracy in Lawas case. offenders committed crimes in prison
However, the Lawas doctrine is more of an against their fellow prisoners (People vs.
exception than the general rule. With the Pincalin, et al., G.R. No. L-38755, January
presence of conspiracy in the case at 22, 1981).
bench, appellants had assumed joint
criminal responsibility the act of one is In People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No.
the act of all. The ascertainment of who 184500. September 11, 2012 - The
among them actually hit, killed and/or application of the Abella doctrine, has
caused injury to the victims already already been clarified in Pincalin, thus:
becomes immaterial. Collective where several killings on the same occasion
responsibility replaced individual were perpetrated, but not involving
responsibility. The Lawas doctrine, prisoners, a different rule may be applied,
premised on the impossibility of that is to say, the killings would be treated
determining who killed whom, cannot be as separate offenses. If the killings did not
applied. involve prisoners or it was not a case of
prisoners killing fellow prisoners, Abella
In Lawas, this Court was merely would not apply.
forced to apply Article 48 of RPC because of
the impossibility of ascertaining the MULTIPLE KIDDNAPPINGS
number of persons killed by each accused.
Since conspiracy was not proven therein, In People v Tadah, G.R. No. 186226,
joint criminal responsibility could not be February 1, 2012 (5 victims)- Since the
attributed to the accused. Each accused prosecution adduced proof beyond
could not be held liable for separate crimes reasonable doubt that the accused
because of lack of clear evidence showing conspired to kidnap the victims for ransom,
the number of persons actually killed by and kidnapped and illegally detained them
each of them. until they were released by the accused
after the latter received the P2,000,000.00
In conspiracy, the act of one is the ransom xxx Appellant Yusop Tadah is
act of all. It is as though each one found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 5
performed the act of each one of the counts of kidnapping.
conspirators. Each one is criminally
responsible for each one of the deaths and NOVATION
injuries of the several victims. The severalty
of the acts prevents the application of The novation theory may perhaps
Article 48. The applicability of Article 48 apply prior to the filing of the criminal
36 | P a g e
information in court by the state is the existence of contractual relationship
prosecutors because up to that time the between the offender and the victim. Defense
original trust relation may be converted by of novation is applicable to estafa through
the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor misappropriation because the contractual
situation, thereby placing the complainant trust relationship between the parties can
in estoppel to insist on the original trust. be validly novated or converted by the
But after the justice authorities have taken parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor
cognizance of the crime and instituted situation, thereby placing the complainant
action in court, the offended party may no in estoppel to insist on the original trust
longer divest the prosecution of its power to (People vs. Nery, G.R. No. L-19567,
exact the criminal liability, as distinguished February 5, 1964, En Banc). Novation
from the civil. The crime being an offense cannot be used as a defense in case of theft
against the state, only the latter can or estafa through falsification of document.
renounce it (Degaos vs. People, GR No. In theft case, there was no contractual
162826, October 14, 2013). relationship or bilateral agreement which
can be modified or altered by the parties
It may be observed in this regard (People vs. Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924,
that novation is not one of the means April 29, 1968, En Banc).In estafa through
recognized by the Penal Code whereby falsification of public documents, the
criminal liability can be extinguished; liability of the offender cannot be
hence, the role of novation may only be to extinguished by mere novation (Milla vs.
either prevent the rise of criminal liability or People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25,
to cast doubt on the true nature of the 2012).
original basic transaction, whether or not it
was such that its breach would not give rise In People v. Bayotas, the Court laid
to penal responsibility, as when money down the rules in case the accused dies
loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or prior to final judgment:
other similar disguise is resorted to
(Degaos vs. People, GR No. 162826, 1. Death of the accused pending
October 14, 2013). appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability
Although the novation of a contract based solely thereon. As opined by Justice
of agency to make it one of sale may relieve Regalado, in this regard, the death of the
an offender from an incipient criminal accused prior to final judgment terminates
liability, that did not happen here, for the his criminal liability and only the civil
partial payments and the proposal to pay liability directly arising from and based
the balance the accused made during solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil
the barangay proceedings were not at all liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.
incompatible with Degaos liability under
the agency that had already attached. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil
Rather than converting the agency to sale, liability survives notwithstanding the death
therefore, he even thereby confirmed his of accused, if the same may also be
liability as the sales agent of the predicated on a source of obligation other
complainants. The acceptance of partial than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code
payments, without further change in the enumerates these other sources of
original relation between the complainant obligation from which the civil liability may
and the accused, cannot produce novation. arise as a result of the same act or
For the latter to exist, there must be proof omission: law; contracts; quasi-contracts;
of intent to extinguish the original quasi-delicts;
relationship, and such intent cannot be
inferred from the mere acceptance of 3. Where the civil liability survives,
payments on account of what is totally due. as explained in Number 2 above, an action
Much less can it be said that the for recovery therefor may be pursued but
acceptance of partial satisfaction can effect only by way of filing a separate civil action
the nullification of a criminal liability that is and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
fully matured, and already in the process of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
enforcement. Thus, this Court has ruled amended. This separate civil action may be
that the offended partys acceptance of a enforced either against the
promissory note for all or part of the executor/administrator or the estate of the
amount misapplied does not obliterate the accused, depending on the source of
criminal offense (Degaos vs. People, GR obligation upon which the same is based as
No. 162826, October 14, 2013). explained above.
DEATH OF THE ACCUSED 4. Finally, the private offended party

need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file
Novation can only be used as a this separate civil action by prescription, in
defense in a crime where one of its elements cases where during the prosecution of the
37 | P a g e
criminal action and prior to its extinction, avert criminal prosecution by satisfying
the private-offended party instituted the amount of the check or making
together therewith the civil action. In such arrangement for its payment within five
case, the statute of limitations on the civil day grace period.
liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case, conformably Moreover, the running of
with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil prescription for crime punishable under
Code, that should thereby avoid any special law shall be interrupted upon filing
apprehension on a possible privation of of complaint with prosecutor office for
right by prescription (People vs. Amistoso, preliminary investigation. It would be
GR No. 201447, August 28, 2013) absurd to consider the prescriptive period
for crime under BP Blg. 22 as already
PRESCRIPTION running even prior to the expiration of the
grace period despite the fact that the
The crime of falsification of a public complainant could not cause its
document involving a deed of sale which interruption by filing a complaint for
was registered with the Registry of Deeds, preliminary investigation since it is not yet
the rule on constructive notice can be actionable.
applied in the construction of Article 91.
Hence, the prescriptive period of the crime In People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No.
shall have to be reckoned from the time 152662, June 13, 2012 - This Court
the notarized deed of sale was recorded in reckons the commencement of the period of
the Registry of Deeds (People vs. Reyes, prescription for violations of BP Blg. 22
G.R. No. 74226, July 27, 1989). imputed to accused sometime in the latter
Constructive notice rule is not applicable part of 1995, as it was within this period
to registration of bigamous marriage in the that the accused was notified by the private
Office of the Civil Registrar. Furthermore, complainant of the fact of dishonor of the
P.D. 1529, which governed registration of subject checks and, the five (5) days grace
document involving real property, period granted by law had elapsed. The
specifically provides the rule on private complainant then had, pursuant to
constructive notice. On the other hand, Act 3326, four years there from or until the
Act No. 3753 or the Family Code, which latter part of 1999 to file her complaint or
governed registration of marriage do not information against the petitioner before
provide rule on constructive notice the proper court.
(Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
109454, June 14, 1994); hence the period INTERRUPTION OF
of prescription commences to run on the PRESCRIPTION - There is no more
date of actual discovery of the bigamous distinction between cases under the RPC
marriage. and those covered by special laws with
respect to the interruption of the period of
COMMENCEMENT - As a rule, prescription (People vs. Pangilinan, G.R.
period of prescription commence to run No. 152662, June 13, 2012). Under Article
from the date of discovery of its 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the running
commission. However, if the crime is not yet of the period of prescription of offense
actionable at the time of its commission, shall be interrupted by the filing of the
period of prescription will commence to run complaint or information. The text of
from the time it becomes actionable. In Article 91 did not distinguish whether the
false testimony, the crime was committed at complaint is filed in the court for
the time the accused falsely testified in preliminary. Hence, the filing of the
court. However, the period of prescription complaint with the Fiscals Office also
for false testimony commences to run from suspends the running of the prescriptive
the date of the finality of judgment of a case period of a criminal offense (Francisco and
in which the offender testified falsely. Prior Bernardino vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45674, May
to the date of finality, the crime is not yet 30, 1983). Under Act No. 3326, the
actionable (People vs. Maneja, G.R. No. running of the prescription of offense
47684, June 10, 1941). punishable under special law or ordinance
shall be interrupted when judicial
In violation of BP Blg. 22, the crime proceedings for investigation and
is consummated upon the dishonor of the punishment are instituted against the
check by the drawee bank (Bautista vs. guilty person. The proceeding is described
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, as judicial since when Act No. 3326 was
2001). However, the period of prescription passed on December 4, 1926, preliminary
for such crime commences to run from the investigation of criminal offenses was
date of the expiration of the five-day period conducted by justices of the peace.
from receipt of notice of dishonor by the Considering that preliminary investigation
drawer. Prior to that date, the crime is not in criminal case for purposes of
yet actionable since the offender can still prosecution has become the exclusive
38 | P a g e
function of the executive branch, the term pardon after conviction by final judgment;
proceedings should now be understood offender is eligible for parole after serving
either executive or judicial in character: the minimum of the indeterminate penalty.
executive when it involves the investigation (4) Offender, who was sentenced to suffer a
phase and judicial when it refers to the penalty of more than 6 years of
trial and judgment stage. Hence, imprisonment, is disqualified to apply for
institution of proceeding, whether probation. Offender, who was sentence to
executive or judicial, interrupts the suffer reclusion perpetua or death penalty,
running of prescriptive period. is not qualified for parole. However, the
Investigations conducted by the Securities President can pardon offender even if the
and Exchange Commission for violations of penalty imposed upon him is reclusion
the Revised Securities Act and the perpetua or death penalty.
Securities Regulations Code effectively
interrupts the prescription period because a. Mutual exclusive remedies -
it is equivalent to the preliminary Probation is not a right but a mere
investigation conducted by the DOJ in privilege, an act of grace and clemency
criminal cases (SEC vs. Interport conferred by the State, and may be granted
Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, by the court to a deserving defendant.
October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court En Accordingly, the grant of probation rests
Banc). Commencement of the proceedings solely upon the discretion of the court. It is
for the prosecution of the accused before to be exercised primarily for the benefit of
the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively organized society, and only incidentally for
interrupted the prescriptive period for the the benefit of the accused (Almero vs.
offenses they had been charged under BP People, GR No. 188191, March 12, 2014).
Blg. 22 (Panaguiton vs. Department of
Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, Probation is a special privilege
2008). To rule otherwise would deprive the granted by the state to a penitent qualified
injured party of the right to obtain offender. It essentially rejects appeals and
vindication on account of delays that are encourages an otherwise eligible convict to
not under his control (People vs. Olarte, immediately admit his liability and save the
G.R. No. L-22465, 28 February 1967). state of time, effort and expenses to jettison
Aggrieved parties, especially those who do an appeal. The law expressly requires that
not sleep on their rights and actively an accused must not have appealed his
pursue their causes, should not be allowed conviction before he can avail of probation.
to suffer unnecessarily further simply This outlaws the element of speculation on
because of circumstances beyond their the part of the accused to wager on the
control, like the accuseds delaying tactics result of his appeal that when his
or the delay and inefficiency of the conviction is finally affirmed on appeal he
investigating agencies (Panaguiton vs. now applies for probation as an escape
Department of Justice, supra). hatch thus rendering nugatory the
appellate court's affirmance of his
MARRIAGE IN RAPE conviction (Almero vs. People, GR No.
188191, March 12, 2014).
Marriage between the offended party
and the offender in seduction, abduction, Aside from the goals of according
acts of lasciviousness extinguishes the expediency and liberality to the accused,
criminal liability of the latter and his co- the rationale for the treatment of appeal
principals, accomplice and accessories and probation as mutually exclusive
(Articles 89 and 344 of RPC). But marriage remedies is that they rest on diametrically
between the offended part and offender in opposed legal positions. An accused
rape will only extinguishes criminal liability applying for probation is deemed to have
of the latter. Article 266-C did not expressly accepted the judgment. The application for
made applicable the extinction of criminal probation is an admission of guilt on the
action and penalty in rape case by reason of part of an accused for the crime which led
marriage to co-principals, accomplice and to the judgment of conviction. This was the
accessories. reason why the Probation Law was
amended: precisely to put a stop to the
PROBATION practice of appealing from judgments of
conviction even if the sentence is
Probation distinguished from parole probationable for the purpose of securing
and pardon (1) Grant of probation is an acquittal and applying for the probation
judicial while that of parole and pardon is only if the accused fails in his bid (Almero
executive. (2) Probation and parole are vs. People, GR No. 188191, March 12,
suspension sentence while pardon is 2014).
remission of penalty. (3) Offender can only
apply for probation within the period of While accused did not file an appeal
perfecting an appeal; offender is eligible for before applying for probation, he assailed
39 | P a g e
the validity of the conviction in the guise of the defendant has perfected the appeal from
a petition supposedly assailing the denial of the judgment of conviction. However, RA
probation. In so doing, he attempted to No. 9344 has expressly amended Section 4
circumvent P.D. No. 968, as amended by of PD No. 968 and provides that a child in
P.D. 1990, which seeks to make appeal and conflict with the law can apply for
probation mutually exclusive remedies probation at any time. Section 42 of RA
(Almero vs. People, GR No. 188191, March No. 9344 provides: The court may, after it
12, 2014). shall have convicted and sentenced a child
in conflict with the law, and upon
b. Non-probationable offense - application at any time, place the child on
The accused, who was convicted by the probation in lie of service of his/her
lower court of a non-probationable offense sentence taking into account the best
(frustrated homicide), but on appeal was interest to the child. For this purpose,
found guilty of a probationable offense Section 4 of Presidential Degree No. 968,
(attempted homicide), may apply for otherwise known as the Probation Law of
probation upon remand of the case to the 1976, is hereby amended
RTC because of the following reasons: (1) accordingly. The phrase at any time
The Probation Law never intended to deny mentioned in Section 42 means the child
an accused his right to probation through in conflict with the law may file application
no fault of his. The underlying philosophy for probation even beyond the period of
of probation is one of liberality towards the perfecting an appeal and even if the child
accused. Such philosophy is not served by has perfected the appeal from the
a harsh and stringent interpretation of the judgment of conviction.
statutory provisions; (2) If the accused will
not be allowed to apply for probation, he SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF CHILD IN
will be made to pay for the trial courts CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of
his right to apply for probation; (3) While it Persons who have been convicted
is true that probation is a mere privilege, and are serving sentence at the time of the
the accused has the right to apply for that effectivity of RA No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice
privilege; (4) It is true that under the and Welfare Act), and who were below the
probation law the accused who appeals age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the
"from the judgment of conviction" is commission of the offense for which they
disqualified from availing himself of the were convicted and are serving sentence,
benefits of probation. But, as it happens, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive
two judgments of conviction have been application of this law. They shall be
meted out to accused: one, a conviction for entitled to appropriate dispositions
frustrated homicide by the regional trial provided under this Act and their sentences
court, now set aside; and, two, a shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be
conviction for attempted homicide by the immediately released if they are so qualified
Supreme Court (Colinares vs. People, G.R. under this Act or other applicable law
No. 182748, December 13, 2011). (Section 68 of RA No. 9344; People vs.
Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30,
c. Right of possessor of 2013).
dangerous drugs to apply for probation -
The rule under Section 24 of RA No. 9165, While Section 38 of RA 9344
which disqualifies drug traffickers and provides that suspension of sentence can
pushers for applying for probations, does still be applied even if the child in conflict
not extend to possessor of dangerous with the law is already 18 years of age or
drugs. In Padua vs. People, G.R. No. more at the time of the pronouncement of
168546, July 23, 2008, it was held that: his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law
The law considers the users and limits the said suspension of sentence until
possessors of illegal drugs as victims while the child reaches the maximum age of
the drug traffickers and pushers as 21. Hence, the child in conflict with the law,
predators. Hence, while drug traffickers who reached 21 years, cannot avail of
and pushers, like Padua, are categorically privilege of suspension of
disqualified from availing the law on sentence. However, the child in conflict
probation, youthful drug dependents, with the law may, after conviction and upon
users and possessors alike, are given the order of the court, be made to serve his
chance to mend their ways. sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp
d. Right of child to apply for and other training facilities (People vs.
probation despite appeal - Section 4 of Mantalba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011,
PD No. 968 provides: Application for Justice Peralta; People vs. Monticalvo, G.R.
probation must be filed within the period of No. 193507, January 30, 2013).
perfecting an appeal and no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if
40 | P a g e
Under Section 38 of RA No. 9344, in accordance with Section 5, Rule 113 of
instead of pronouncing the judgment of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
conviction, the court shall place the child in the crime committed is unlawful arrest.
conflict with the law under suspended The essence of this crime is not violation of
sentence, without need of application even fundamental law of the law but deprivation
if he is already 18 of age or more at that of liberty of the victim.
time. However, under Section 40, the
sentence shall be suspended until the child USURPATION OF FUNCTION
reaches the maximum age of 21
years. Hence, once the child in conflict with Usurpation of authority is
the law has reached 21 years of age, or committed by knowingly and falsely
over, the application of Sections 38 and 40 representing himself to be an officer, agent
is moot and academic. But he even if or representative of any department or
already over 21 years old at the time of agency of the government or of any foreign
conviction, may still avail of the benefits of government. Usurpation of function is
being confined in an agricultural camp and committed by performing any act under
other training facilities instead of a regular pretense of official position pertaining to
penal institution in accordance with Section any person in authority or public officer of
51 (People vs. Salcedo, GR No. 186523, the government or any foreign government,
June 22, 2011, Justice Peralta). or any agency thereof, without being
lawfully entitled to do so (Ruzol vs.
UNLAWFUL ARREST AND ARBITRARY Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 186739-960, April
DETENTION 17, 2013).
In unlawful arrest, the private In Ruzol vs. Sandiganbayan, GR

individual or public officer in its private Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013 - Accused,
capacity arrests or detains the victim a mayor issued permits to
without reasonable ground or legal transport salvaged forest products.
authority for purpose of delivering him to According to prosecution, DENR is the only
the proper judicial authority. In arbitrary government instrumentality that can issue
detention, the public officer, who has the permits to transport salvaged forest
authority to make arrest, detains the victim products. The prosecution asserted that
without legal grounds (People vs. Bringas accused usurped the official functions that
G.R. No. 189093, April 23, 2010) for the properly belong to the DENR.
purpose of: (1) Delivering him to judicial
authority (U.S. us. Gellada, 15 Phil. 120); Accused chose to exercise the right
(2) Conducting criminal investigation to protect the environment and to share in
(People vs. Oliva, 95 Phil. 962; U.S. vs. this responsibility by exercising his
Agravante, G.R. No. 3947, January 28, authority as municipal mayoran act
1908); or (3) Determining if he committed or which was executed with the cooperation of
is committing a crime [U.S. vs. Hawchaw, non-governmental organizations,
G.R. No. L-6909, February 20, 1912]. stakeholders, and concerned citizens. His
acts may be invalid but it does necessarily
Arbitrary detention is a crime mean that such mistakes automatically
against fundamental law of the law or the justify his conviction.
Constitution. A public officer, who is vested
with the authority to detain or to order the There is no showing that accused
detention of a person accused of a crime, is possessed that criminal mind when he in
acting in behalf of the State in arresting or his capacity as mayor issued the subject
detaining a person. If such public officer permits. What is clear from the records is
detained a person in violation of his that accused, as municipal mayor, intended
constitutional right against unreasonable to regulate and monitor salvaged forest
seizure (or not in accordance with Section products in order to avert the occurrence of
5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of illegal logging in the area.
Criminal Procedure), the crime committed
is arbitrary detention. Unlawful arrest is a Good faith is a defense in criminal
crime against personal liberty and security. prosecutions for usurpation of official
A public officer, who is not vested with the functions. The requirement of permits to
authority to detain or to order the detention transport was accuseds decision alone; it
of a person (e.g. stenographer, researcher was a result of the collective decision of the
or municipal treasurer), is not acting in participants during the Multi-Sectoral
behalf of the State in making a warrantless Consultative Assembly. If, indeed, accused
arrest. Such public officer acting in his intended to usurp the official functions of
private capacity (or a private individual) the DENR, he would not have asked the
could not violate the Constitution (People vs presence of a DENR official who has the
Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18,1991); authority and credibility to publicly object
hence, if he arrests or detains a person not against accuseds allegedly intended
41 | P a g e
usurpation. Thus, the presence of DENR Leonardo, A.M. No. P-03-1675, 6 August
official during the Multi-Sectoral Assembly 2003,). A Provincial Adjudicator, who
strengthens accuseds claim of good faith. rendered judgment in DARAB Case in the
performance of a quasi-judicial function,
The DENR is not the sole closely akin to the function of a judge of a
government agency vested with the court of law, could not be held liable under
authority to issue permits relevant to the Article 241 of RPC, therefore, considering
transportation of salvaged forest products, that the acts constitutive of usurpation of
considering that, pursuant to the general judicial function were lacking herein (Reyes
welfare clause, LGUs may also exercise vs. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, August
such authority. 12, 2010). A clerk of court, who is not an
officer of the executive branch, cannot be
KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST held liable for usurpation of judicial
JUDGEMENT function. However, a clerk of court, who
usurped judicial prerogative of the judge by
To commit the offense of knowingly issuing the arrest of an accused in a
rendering an unjust judgment, the offender criminal case, is administratively liable for
must be a judge who is adequately shown grave misconduct (Albior vs. Auguis, A.M.
to have rendered an unjust judgment, not No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003).
one who merely committed an error of
judgment or taken the unpopular side of a MALVERSATION
controversial point of law. The term
knowingly means sure knowledge, The essential elements common to
conscious and deliberate intention to do an all acts of malversation under Article 217 of
injustice. Thus, the complainant must not the Revised Penal Code are: (1) That the
only prove beyond reasonable doubt that offender be a public officer; (2) That he had
the judgment is patently contrary to law or the custody or control of funds or property
not supported by the evidence but that it by reason of the duties of his office; (3) That
was also made with deliberate intent to he had the custody or control of funds or
perpetrate an injustice. Good faith and the property by reason of the duties of his
absence of malice, corrupt motives or office; (4) That those funds or property were
improper consideration are sufficient public funds or property for which he was
defenses that will shield a judge from the accountable; and (5) That he appropriated,
charge of rendering an unjust decision. In took, misappropriated or consented, or
other words, the judge was motivated by through abandonment or negligence,
hatred, revenge, greed or some other similar permitted another person to take them
motive in issuing the judgment. Bad faith (Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
is, therefore, the ground for liability. The 178626, June 13, 2012; Justice Peralta).
failure of the judge to correctly interpret the
law or to properly appreciate the evidence Accountable officer An
presented does not necessarily render him accountable public officer is one who has
administratively liable (Re: Verified custody or control of public funds or
Complaint for Disbarment of AMA LAnd property by reason of the duties of his
Inc. against CA Association Justice Bueser office. The nature of the duties of the
et.al., OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, March 11, public officer or employee, the fact that as
2014). part of his duties he received public money
for which he is bound to account and failed
USURPATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY to account for it, is the factor which
determines whether or not malversation is
Under Article 241 of the Revised committed by the accused public officer or
Penal Code, the crime of employee. Hence, a school principal of a
usurpation of judicial authority involves the public high school may be held guilty of
following elements: (1) that the offender is malversation if he or she is entrusted with
an officer of the executive branch of the public funds and misappropriates the same
government; and (2) that he assumes (Torres vs. People, GR No. 175074, August
judicial powers, or obstructs the execution 31, 2011, Justice Peralta).
of any order or decision rendered by any
judge within his jurisdiction. These The municipal mayor initiated the
elements were alleged in the information. request for obligation of allotments and
Mayor Irisari was an officer of the executive certified and approved the disbursement
branch (Munez vs. Arino, A.M. No. MTJ-94- vouchers. The municipal accountant
985, February 21, 1995). In usurpation of obligated the allotments despite lack of
judicial function, the accused, who is not a prior certification from the budget
judge, attempts to perform an act the officer. Municipal treasurer certified to the
authority for which the law has vested only availability of funds and released the money
in a judge (Mioso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P- even without the requisite budget officers
05-2067, 31 August 2005; Pace v. certification. The signatures of
42 | P a g e
beneficiaries, who supposed to have officer to turn over the funds at any given
received the money, were forged. Can the time sufficient to make even the prima
mayor and accountant be held liable for facie case. In fine, conversion must be
malversation even though they are not proved. However, an accountable officer
accountable officer? Yes. Ordinarily, a may be convicted of malversation even in
municipalitys mayor and accountant are the absence of direct proof of
not accountable public officers as defined misappropriation so long as there is
under the law. However, a public officer evidence of shortage in his account which
who is not in charge of public funds or he is unable to explain (Legrama vs.
property by virtue of his official position, or Sandiganbayan, GR No. 178626, June 13,
even a private individual, may be liable for 2012; Justice Peralta).
malversation if such public officer or private
individual conspires with an accountable Verily, in the crime of malversation
public officer to commit malversation. In of public funds, all that is necessary for
this case, combined acts of the mayor and conviction is proof that the accountable
accountant, and treasurer, an accountable officer had received the public funds and
officer, conspired to defraud the that he failed to account for the said funds
government (People vs. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. upon demand without offering sufficient
167860-65, June 17, 2008). explanation why there was a shortage. In
fine, petitioners failure to present
Intentional and culpable competent and credible evidence that would
malversation Malversation may be exculpate her and rebut the prima
committed either through a positive act of facie presumption of malversation clearly
misappropriation of public funds or warranted a verdict of conviction (Legrama
property, or passively through negligence. vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 178626, June
To sustain a charge of malversation, there 13, 2012; Justice Peralta).
must either be criminal intent or criminal
negligence, and while the prevailing facts of PARRICIDE
a case may not show that deceit attended
the commission of the offense, it will not Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is
preclude the reception of evidence to prove killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
the existence of negligence accused; and (3) the deceased is the father,
because both aree qually punishable for mother, or child, whether legitimate or
malversation (Torres vs. People, GR No. illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant
175074, August 31, 2011, Justice or other descendant, or the legitimate
Peralta).. spouse of the accused (People vs. Gamez,
GR No. 202847, October 23, 2013).
Even when the Information charges
intentional malversation, conviction for MURDER
malversation through negligence may still
be adjudged if the evidence ultimately Murder, the prosecution must prove
proves the mode of commission of the that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused
offense. Malversation is committed either killed him; (3) the killing was attended by
intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or any of the qualifying circumstances
the culpa present in the offense is only a mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing
modality in the perpetration of the felony. is neither parricide nor infanticide (People
Even if the mode charged differs from mode vs. Camat, G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012
proved, the same offense of malversation is
involved and conviction thereof is proper ATTEMPTED MURDER - Accused
(Torres vs. People, GR No. 175074, August opened the door of his vehicle and then
31, 2011, Justice Peralta). drew a gun and shot victim once, hitting
him just below the left armpit. Victim
Prima facie evidence of immediately ran at the back of the car,
malversation - More importantly, in while accused sped away. Is the accused
malversation of public funds, the liable for attempted murder? No. Accused
prosecution is burdened to prove beyond only shot the victim once and did not hit
reasonable doubt, either by direct or any vital part of the latters body. If he
circumstantial evidence, that the public intended to kill him, accused could have
officer appropriated, misappropriated or shot the victim multiple times or even ran
consented, or through abandonment or him over with the car. When such intent is
negligence, permitted another person to lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the
take public property or public funds under victim, the crime is not attempted murder
his custody. Absent such evidence, the but physical injuries only (Pentecoste, Jr.
public officer cannot be held criminally vs. People, G.R. No. 167766, April 7, 2010).
liable for malversation. Mere absence of
funds is not sufficient proof of conversion; EXCESSIVE CHASTISEMENT
neither is the mere failure of the public
43 | P a g e
X tied his son to a coconut tree vs. People, GR No. 165411, June 18, 2009,
and, there after hit on his right eye and Justice Peralta).
right leg. As a consequence, his son
sustained injuries that would heal in one X received from A jewelry with
week upon medication. Is X liable for obligation to return the same if unsold or
slight physical injuries despite the fact that deliver the proceeds of sale. In the
his intention in beating his son is merely to acknowledgement receipt, X is prohibited
discipline him? Yes. X cannot evade from selling jewelry the jewelry on credits or
criminal culpability by the circumstance giving it for safekeeping. X transferred the
that he merely intended to discipline his jewelry to Y, a subagent. Y failed to return
son (People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, the jewelry. Is X liable for estafa through
October 3, 2011). conversion?
ESTAFA Answer: No. It must be pointed out

that the law on agency in our jurisdiction
ESTAFA THROUGH allows the appointment by an agent of a
MISAPPROPRIATION The elements substitute or sub-agent in the absence of
of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the an express agreement to the contrary
Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) between the agent and the principal. In the
that money, goods or other personal case at bar, the appointment of sub-agent
property is received by the offender in trust was not expressly prohibited by A. Neither
or on commission, or for administration, or does it appear that X was verbally forbidden
under any other obligation involving the by A from passing on the jewelry to another
duty to make delivery of or to return the person. Thus, it cannot be said that X's act
same; (b) that there be misappropriation or of entrusting the jewelry to Y is
conversion of such money or property by characterized by abuse of confidence
the offender, or denial on his part of such because such an act was not proscribed
receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or and is, in fact, legally sanctioned.
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and (d) there is demand by the Since properties were given by X to
offended party to the offender (Tabaniag vs. Y to achieve the very same end for which
People, GR No. 165411, June 18, 2009, they were delivered to her in the first place,
Justice Peralta; Magtira vs. People, G.R. there is no conversion since the same were
No. 170964, March 7, 2012). However, not devoted to a purpose or use different
demand is not necessary if there is evidence from that agreed upon. Similarly, it cannot
of misappropriation. be said that X delivered them to Y "without
right." Aside from the fact that no condition
Misappropriation as an element of or limitation was imposed on the mode or
the offense of estafa connotes an act of manner by which X was to effect the sale, it
using, or disposing of, anothers property as is also consistent with usual practice for
if it were ones own, or of devoting it to a the seller to necessarily part with the
purpose or use different from that agreed valuables in order to find a buyer and allow
upon. Failure to account upon demand for inspection of the items for sale (Tabaniag
funds or property held in trust without vs. People, GR No. 165411, June 18, 2009,
offering any satisfactory explanation for the Justice Peralta).
inability to account is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation. Demand for Can X be held liable for estafa
the return of the thing delivered in trust through negligence? Answer: No. In estafa,
and the failure of the accused to account the profit or gain must be obtained by the
are similarly circumstantial evidence that accused personally, through his own acts,
the courts can appreciate (Magtira vs. and his mere negligence in permitting
People, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012). another to take advantage or benefit from
the entrusted chattel cannot constitute
The essence of estafa under Article estafa (Tabaniag vs. People, GR No. 165411,
315, par. 1(b) is the appropriation or June 18, 2009, Justice Peralta).
conversion of money or property received to
the prejudice of the owner. The words Can X be held liable for estafa on
"convert" and "misappropriate" connote an the basis of conspiracy? Answer: No. If an
act of using or disposing of another's agent acted in conspiracy with subagent in
property as if it were one's own, or of carrying out the actual misappropriation,
devoting it to a purpose or use different then the former would be answerable for
from that agreed upon. To misappropriate the acts of his co-conspirators. However,
for one's own use includes not only the mere fact that X failed to return the
conversion to one's personal advantage, but pieces of jewelry upon demand is not proof
also every attempt to dispose of the of conspiracy, nor is it proof of
property of another without right (Tabaniag misappropriation or conversion (Tabaniag
vs. People, GR No. 165411, June 18, 2009,
44 | P a g e
Justice Peralta). other estafas (Brokmann vs. People, G.R.
No. 199150, February 6, 2012).
ESTFA THROUGH ISSUANCE OF
BOUNCING CHECK - The essential ESTAFA AND OTHER DECEIT -
elements of estafa through bouncing check: What is the difference between estafa
(1) the accused shall defraud another by through false representation and other
issuing or postdating check in payment of deceit? The common elements of these two
an obligation contracted at the time the crimes are: (1) false pretense, fraudulent
check is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of act or pretense must be made or executed
funds to cover the check; (3) check was prior to or simultaneously with the
issued or postdated prior to or commission of the fraud; and (2) as a
simultaneously with the parting of money result, the offended party suffered damage
or property by the payee; and (4) damage to or prejudice. It is essential that such false
the payee thereof. statement or fraudulent representation
constitutes the very cause or the only
It is the criminal fraud or deceit in motive for the private complainant to part
the issuance of a check that is punishable, with her property. In estafa under Article
not the non-payment of a debt. Prima 315, the false representation is committed
facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon by using fictitious name, or falsely
proof that the drawer of the check failed to pretending to possess power, influence,
deposit the amount necessary to cover his qualifications, property, credit, agency,
check within three days from receipt of the business or imaginary transactions; or by
notice of dishonor. To be guilty of estafa the means of other similar deceits. Following
accused must have used the check in order the principle of ejusdem generis, other
to defraud the complainant. What the law deceit as a means to commit estafa must be
punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the similar to pretending to possess power,
mere issuance of the worthless check. imaginary transaction etc. If the deceit is
Accused could not be held guilty not similar to pretending to possess power
of estafa simply because he had issued the or imaginary transaction, the crime
check used to defraud complainant. The committed is other deceit under Article 318.
proof of guilt must still clearly show that it In Guinhawa vs. People, G.R. No. 162822
had been accused as the drawer who had August 25, 2005 () - Fraudulent
defrauded complainant by means of the representation of the seller that the van to
check. Complainant admitted that it was be sold is brand new constitutes other
another person who received the rice from deceit under Article 318. On the other
him and who delivered the bearer check to hand, in People vs. Rubaton, C.A., 65 O.G.
him (People vs. Reyes, GR No. 157943, 5048, issue of May 19, 1069, false
September 04, 2013). representation that accused has a palay by
In order to constitute estafa under this reason of which the victim parted his
statutory provision, the act of postdating or money in consideration of the palay
issuing a check in payment of an obligation constitutes estafa under Article 315. Unlike
must be the efficient cause of the in the Guinhawa case, the transaction in
defraudation. This means that the offender Rubaton case is imaginary.
must be able to obtain money or property
from the offended party by reason of the Authority to sell - Primelink
issuance of the check, whether dated or entered into joint venture agreement with
postdated. In other words, the Prosecution the owner of a certain land to develop a
must show that the person to whom the club. Accused represent to complainant on
check was delivered would not have parted October 10, 1996 Primelink will finished
with his money or property were it not for the Club by July 1998. Because of this
the issuance of the check by the offender representation complainant purchased a
(People vs. Reyes, GR No. 157943, Club share. However, the Club was not
September 04, 2013). completed because the owner of the
property mortgaged it in violation of their
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND agreement. The projected was aborted.
DECEIT - The offense of estafa, in Accused is not liable for estafa for such
general, is committed either by (a) abuse of representation. False pretense of power to
confidence or (b) means of deceit. The acts develop the Club resulting in damage to
constituting estafa committed with abuse of buyer is estafa. However, the law requires
confidence are enumerated in item (1) of that the false pretense be used prior to or
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as simultaneous with the execution of the
amended; item (2) of Article 315 fraud, and that is October 10, 1996. In this
enumerates estafa committed by means of case, there is no showing that Primelink
deceit. Deceit is not an essential requisite possessed no power (capability) to develop
of estafa by abuse of confidence; the breach the Club and that accused knew that the
of confidence takes the place of fraud or Club was a bogus project. Primelink is a
deceit, which is a usual element in the legitimate developer. In fact, it has already
45 | P a g e
released money for the initial funding of the make an express representation in the
project. The project was only aborted deed of conveyance that the property sold
because of the problem with the owner of or disposed of is free from any
the land, which occurred after October 10, encumbrance (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No.
1996. However, the false pretense made by 146770, February 27, 2003, ).
accused that Primelink was authorized to
sell membership shares is estafa. False FALSIFICATION
pretense of qualification (to sell securities) Commercial document -
is within the contemplation of the provision Commercial documents are, in general,
on estafa (Lopez vs. People, GR NO. documents or instruments which are used
199294, July 31, 2013) by merchants or businessmen to promote
or facilitate trade or credit transactions.
SUBSEQUENT FRAUD - Is the Promissory notes facilitate credit
fraudulent act committed by the accused transactions while a check is a means of
subsequent to the time the victim parted payment used in business in lieu of money
his money constitutes estafa? In the for convenience in business transactions.
prosecution for this kind of estafa, it is A cashiers check necessarily facilitates
indispensable that the false pretense or bank transactions for it allows the person
fraudulent act is committed prior to or whose name and signature appear thereon
simultaneously with the commission of the to encash the check and withdraw the
fraud, it being essential that such false amount indicated therein (Tanenggee vs.
statement or representation constitutes the People, GR No. 179448, June 26, 2013).
very cause or the only motive which
induces the offended party to part with his Is intent to cause damage an
money. In the absence of such requisite, element of falsification of public or official
any subsequent act of the accused, however document? No. In falsification of public or
fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, official documents, it is not necessary that
cannot serve as basis for prosecution for there be present the idea of gain or the
estafa (Ambito, vs. People, G. R. No. intent to injure a third person because in
127327, Feb. 13, 2009). the falsification of a public document, what
is punished is the violation of the public
REPRESENTATION OF FUTURE faith and the destruction of the truth as
PROFIT - When will a representation of a therein solemnly proclaimed (Regidor, Jr.,
future profits or income be considered as vs. People, G. R. Nos. 166086-92 Feb. 13,
an actionable fraud or estafa? Where one 2009).
states that the future profits or income of
an enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he What is the crime committed if
actually knows that there will be none, or private document is falsified as a necessary
that they will be substantially less than he means to commit or conceal estafa or
represents, the statements constitute an malversation?
actionable fraud where the hearer believes
him and relies on the statement to his Under the doctrine of common
injury. In the present case, it is abundantly element, an element used to complete one
clear that the profits which Elvira and her crime cannot be legally re-used to complete
co-conspirators promised the requisites of a subsequent crime
to Elizabeth would not be realized (Joson (Regalado). The common element of estafa
vs. People, G. R. No. 178836, July 23, or malversation and falsification is damage
2008). to the victim. Thus, falsification of private
document and estafa cannot co-exist. The
OTHER DECEIT- Other deceit use of damage as an element in falsification
under Article 316 (a) of RPC is committed precludes the re-use thereof to complete the
by any person who, knowing that the real elements of estafa, and vice versa.
property is encumbered, shall dispose of
the same, although such encumbrance be Falsification - If the offender
not recorded. The law was taken from committed falsification of private document
Article 455 of the Spanish Penal Code. as a means to commit estafa, he is liable for
However, the words "como libre" in the falsification only. Falsification absorbs
Spanish Penal Code, which means "free estafa. (See: U.S. vs Chan Tiao, G.R. No.
from encumbrance" do not appear in the 12609, October 30, 1917).
English text of RPC, nonetheless, the same
are deemed incorporated in the RPC. The Estafa or malversation If a person
gravamen of the crime is the disposition of falsified a private document to conceal
legally encumbered real property by the malversation or estafa, the crime is
offender under the express representation malversation or estafa only. Falsification of
that there is no encumbrance thereon. private document is not committed
Hence, for one to be criminally liable for because: (a) the use of damage as an
estafa under the law, the accused must element in estafa precludes the re-use
46 | P a g e
thereof to complete the elements of falsified public, official or commercial
falsification; and (b) the damage to third document to defraud another is estafa. But
person is not caused by the falsity in the the damage is caused by the commission of
document but by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the
estafa(See: People vs. Beng, 40 O.G. 1913). document. Therefore, the falsification of
Note: If falsification of private document the public, official or commercial document
was used as a means to commit estafa, the is only a necessary means to commit estafa.
former was committed ahead of the latter; Taken in its entirety, the proven facts show
hence, falsification absorbs the element of that petitioner could not have withdrawn
damage of estafa. If falsification of private the money without falsifying the questioned
document was used as a means to conceal documents. The falsification was,
estafa, the latter was committed ahead of therefore, a necessary means to commit
the former; hence, estafa absorbs the estafa, and falsification was already
element of damage of falsification. consummated even before the falsified
documents were used to defraud the bank.
What is the crime committed if The crime committed is complex crime of
public, official, or commercial document is estafa through falsification of commercial
falsified as a necessary means to commit or document (Tanenggee vs. People, GR No.
conceal estafa or malversation? 179448, June 26, 2013).
Complex crime - Since damage to In Patula vs. People, G.R. No.

third person is not an element of 164457, April 11, 2012 - According to the
falsification of public, official or commercial theory and proof of the Prosecution,
document, it consummates the very petitioner misappropriated or converted the
moment the offender falsifies the document. sums paid by her customers, and later
If the offender uses the falsified document falsified the duplicates of the receipts before
to defraud a third person or the turning such duplicates to her employer to
government, estafa or malversation is also show that the customers had paid less than
committed. Estafa or malversation the amounts actually reflected on the
consummates the moment the third person original receipts. Obviously, she committed
or government suffers damages. Since the falsification in order to conceal her
falsification is committed as a necessary misappropriation or conversion.
means to commit estafa or malversation, Considering that the falsification was not
complex crime under Article 48 is an offense separate and distinct from
committed. (See: Ambito, vs. People, G. R. the estafa charged against her, the
No. 127327, Feb. 13, 2009; People vs. Prosecution could legitimately prove her
Barbas, G.R. No. 41265, July 27, 1934). acts of falsification as its means of
establishing her misappropriation or
Separate crimes - If falsification of conversion as an essential ingredient of the
public, official or commercial document is crime duly alleged in the information. In
used as a means to conceal estafa or that manner, her right to be informed of the
malversation, two distinct crimes of estafa nature and cause of the accusation against
(or malversation) and falsification are her was not infringed or denied to her.
committed. There is nocomplex crime since
falsification is not a necessary means to THEFT
commit estafa or malversation since the
latter was already consummated when the QUALIFIED THEFT - The elements
former was committed (See: People vs. of the crime of theft are: (1) that there be
Monteverde, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, taking of personal property; (2) that said
2002). property belongs to another; (3) that the
taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that
When the offender commits on a the taking be done without the consent of
public, official or commercial document any the owner; and (5) that the taking be
of the acts of falsification as a necessary accomplished without the use of violence
means to commit another crime like estafa, against or intimidation of persons or force
theft or malversation, the two crimes form a upon things. Theft becomes qualified "if
complex crime. The falsification of a public, committed by a domestic servant, or with
official, or commercial document may be a grave abuse of confidence, or if the property
means of committing estafa, because before stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or
the falsified document is actually utilized to large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken
defraud another, the crime of falsification from the premises of a plantation, fish
has already been consummated, damage or taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if
intent to cause damage not being an property is taken on the occasion of fire,
element of the crime of falsification of earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
public, official or commercial document. In any other calamity, vehicular accident or
other words, the crime of falsification has civil disturbance (People vs. Bayon, GR No.
already existed. Actually utilizing that 168627, July 02, 2010, Justice Peralta).
47 | P a g e
If the subject matter of a crime
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE - To against property is specific or one described
warrant the conviction and, hence, with such particularity as to properly
imposition of the penalty for qualified theft, identify the offense charged, then an
there must be an allegation in the erroneous designation of the offended party
information and proof that there existed is not material and would not result in the
between the offended party and the accused violation of the accuseds constitutional
such high degree of confidence]or that the right to be informed of the nature and
stolen goods have been entrusted to the cause of the accusation against her. Such
custody or vigilance of the accused. In other error would not result in the acquittal of the
words, where the accused had never been accused (Senador vs. People, GR No.
vested physical access to, or material 201620, March 06, 2013).
possession of, the stolen goods, it may not
be said that he or she exploited such access Accused asserted that the person
or material possession thereby committing named as the offended party in the
such grave abuse of confidence in taking Information is not the same person who
the property (Viray vs. People, GR No. made the demand and filed the complaint.
205180, November 11, 2013). According to accused, the private
complainant in the Information went by the
In Zapanta vs. People, G.R. No. name Cynthia Jaime, whereas, during
170863, March 20, 2013 - Accused trial, the private complainant turned out to
betrayed the trust and confidence reposed be Rita Jaime. Applying the Uba principle,
on him when he, as project manager, the case should be dismissed. Is the
repeatedly took construction materials from argument tenable?
the project site, without the authority and
consent of Engr. Marigondon, the owner of Answer: No. The principle in People
the construction materials. He is liable for vs. Uba, 106 Phil. 332 is not applicable. In
qualified theft. Uba case, the appellant was charged with
oral defamation, a crime against honor,
Taking committed by accused wherein the identity of the person against
cannot be qualified by the breaking of the whom the defamatory words were directed
door, as it was not alleged in the is a material element. Thus, an erroneous
Information. Moreover, the same breaking designation of the person injured is
of the door does not constitute the material. On the contrary, in the instant
qualifying element of grave abuse of case, accused was charged with estafa, a
confidence. The very fact that accused crime against property that does not
forced open the main door because he absolutely require as indispensable the
was denied access to complainants house proper designation of the name of the
negates the presence of such confidence in offended party. Rather, what is absolutely
him by private complainant. Without ready necessary is the correct identification of
access to the interior of the house where the criminal act charged in the
the properties were taken, it cannot be said information. Thus, in case of an error in the
that complaint had a firm trust on designation of the offended party in crimes
accused and that the same trust facilitated against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the
taking of the personal properties (Viray vs. Rules of Court mandates the correction of
People, GR No. 205180, November 11, the information, not its dismissal.
2013).
In this case, the subject matter of
If the subject matter of a crime the offense does not refer to money or any
against property was money, identity of the other generic property. Instead, the
offended party is material and necessary for information specified the subject of the
the proper identification of the offense offense as various kinds of jewelry valued
charged. Since money is generic and has no in the total amount of P705,685.00. Thus,
earmarks that could properly identify it, the The error in the designation of the offended
only way that it (money) could be described party in the information is immaterial and
and identified in a complaint is by did not violate accuseds constitutional
connecting it to the offended party or the right to be informed of the nature and
individual who was robbed as its owner or cause of the accusation against her.
possessor. Thus, the erroneous designation
of the offended party would also be THEFT THROUGH
material, as the subject matter of the MISAPPROPRIATION - Misappropriation of
offense could no longer be described with personal property in possession of the
such particularity as to properly identify accused may constitute estafa or theft
the offense charged (Senador vs. People, GR depending upon the nature of possession. If
No. 201620, March 06, 2013). his possession of the property is physical or
de facto, misappropriation thereof is
constitutive of theft. If the possession is
48 | P a g e
juridical or legal, misappropriation thereof For being an employee, his possession of
is estafa through misappropriation. the jeepney is physical, and
misappropriation thereof is qualified theft.
A travelling sales agent, who failed In People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233,
to return to his principal the proceeds of June 8, 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed
goods he was commissioned or authorized the principle in Isaac case, but found the
to sell, is liable for estafa because his accused guilty of carnapping in view of the
possession is juridical. Under the Civil Code passage of RA No. 6539(Anti-Carnapping
Article 1914 of the Civil Code, an agent can Act).
even assert, as against his own principal,
an independent, autonomous, right to THEFT OF INTANGIBLE
retain money or goods received in PROPERTY - The term "personal property"
consequence of the agency; as when the in the Revised Penal Code should be
principal fails to reimburse him for interpreted in the context of the Civil Code.
advances he has made, and indemnify him Consequently, any personal property,
for damages suffered without his fault tangible or intangible, corporeal or
(Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703). incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be
On the other hand, branch manager of the the object of theft. Business may be
company, who misappropriate payments appropriated under Bulk Sales Law. Thus,
from customers that he collected and the business of providing
accepted, is liable for qualified theft. telecommunication and the telephone
Because of this employer-employee service is a personal property (Laurel vs.
relationship, he cannot be considered an Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, January 13,
agent of the company and is not covered by 2009,).
the Civil Code provisions on agency. Money
received by an employee in behalf of his The word "take" in the RPC includes
employer is considered to be only in the controlling the destination of the property
material possession of the employee(People stolen to deprive the owner of the property,
vs. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, such as the use of a meter tampering, use
2011). of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, and
the use of a jumper to divert electricity.
The receiving teller of a bank, who Appropriation of forces of nature which are
misappropriated the money received by him brought under control by science such as
for the bank, is liable for qualified theft. electrical energy can be achieved by
The possession of the teller is the tampering with any apparatus used for
possession of the bank. Payment by third generating or measuring such forces of
persons to the teller is payment to the bank nature, wrongfully redirecting such forces
itself. The teller has no independent right or of nature from such apparatus, or using
title to retain or possess the same as any device to fraudulently obtain such
against the bank (People v. Locson, G.R. forces of nature (Laurel vs. Abrogar).
No. L-35681, October 18, 1932). In one
case, a corporate officer received the A "phreaker" is one who engages in
property to be utilized in the fabrication of the act of manipulating phones and illegally
bending machines in trust from the markets telephone services. Phreaking
corporation and he has absolute option on includes the act of engaging in
how to use them without the participation International Simple Resale (ISR) or the
of the corporation. Upon demand, the unauthorized routing and completing of
officer failed to account the property. Since international long distance calls using
the corporate officer received the property lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave
in trust with absolute option on how to use frequency and connecting these calls
them without the participation of the directly to the local or domestic exchange
corporation, he acquired not only physical facilities of the country where destined
possession but also juridical possession (Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076,
over the equipment. He is liable for estafa February 27, 2006 and January 13, 2009).
through misappropriation (Aigle vs. People,
G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012). Can PLDT validly claim that the
long distance calls are its properties
Driver of jeepney under boundary stolen by the phreaker? No. International
arrangement, who did not return the long distance calls take the form of
vehicle to its owner, is liable for electrical energy. It cannot be said that
carnapping.In People v. Isaac G.R. No. L- such international long distance calls were
7561, April 30, 1955, the rules prohibits personal properties belonging to PLDT since
motor vehicle operator from allowing the the latter could not have acquired
use and operation of his equipment by ownership over such calls. PLDT merely
another person under a fixed rental basis. encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and
In the eye of the law the driver was only an transmits said calls using its complex
employee of the owner rather than a lessee. communications infrastructure and
49 | P a g e
facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007,
telephone calls, then it could not validly En Banc).
claim that such telephone calls were taken
without its consent (Laurel vs. Abrogar). THEFT OF CHECK - In Miranda vs.
Telephone calls belong to the persons People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012
making the calls. - Petitioner was entrusted with checks
payable to complainant by virtue of her
Can phreaker be held criminally position as accountant and bookkeeper.
liable for engaging in ISR involving the She deposited the said checks to the joint
telephone facilities of PLDT? Yes. Phreaker account maintained by complainant, then
can be held liable for access device fraud withdrew a total of P797,187.85 from said
under RA No. 8484 and theft under the joint account using the pre-signed checks,
Revised Penal Code.PLDTs business of with her as the payee. Petitioner argued
providing telecommunication or telephone that full ownership of the thing stolen
service is personal property which can be needed to be established first before she
the object of theft. While telephone calls are could be convicted of qualified theft. Held:
not properties belonging to PLDT that can The subject of the crime of theft is any
be stolen, it is the use of these personal property belonging to another.
communications facilities without the Hence, as long as the property taken does
consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime not belong to the accused, who has a valid
of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the claim thereover, it is immaterial whether
telephone services and business.The act of said offender stole it from the owner, a mere
conducting ISR operations by illegally possessor, or even a thief of the property.
connecting various equipment or apparatus
to PLDTs telephone system, through which ROBBERY
petitioner is able to resell or re-route
international long distance calls using Robbery with homicide exists when
respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes a homicide is committed either by reason,
acts of subtraction (taking)penalized under or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a
the said article(Laurel vs. Abrogar). conviction for robbery with homicide, the
prosecution must prove the following
THEFT OF BULKY GOODS - Is the elements: (1) the taking of personal
ability of the accused to freely dispose of property is committed with violence or
bulky goods stolen from the owner intimidation against persons; (2) the
determinative as to the consummation of property belongs to another; (3) the taking
theft? No. In Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and
No. 160188, June 21, 2007, the Supreme (4) on the occasion or by reason of the
Court En Banc expressly abandoned the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in
principle in Dio case. It was held that: The the generic sense, was committed.
ability of the offender to freely dispose of
the property stolen is not a constitutive a. Intent to rob - A conviction
element of the crime of theft. Such factor needs certainty that the robbery is the
runs immaterial to the statutory definition central purpose and objective of the
of theft, which is the taking, with intent to malefactor and the killing is merely
gain, of personal property of another incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob
without the latters consent. While the Dio must precede the taking of human life, but
dictum is considerate to the mindset of the the killing may occur before, during or after
offender, the statutory definition of theft the robbery (People vs. Ladiana, GR No.
considers only the perspective of intent to 174660, May 30, 2011, Justice Peralta).
gain on the part of the offender,
compounded by the deprivation of property Assuming that robbery was indeed
on the part of the victim. committed, the prosecution must establish
with certitude that the killing was a mere
Unlawful taking is deemed incident to the robbery, the latter being the
complete from the moment the offender perpetrators main purpose and objective.
gains possession of the thing, even if he has It is not enough to suppose that the
no opportunity to dispose of the same. purpose of the author of the homicide was
Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is
ones personal property, is the element not sufficient. Stated in a different
which produces the felony in its manner, a conviction requires certitude
consummated stage. At the same time, that the robbery is the main purpose, and
without unlawful taking as an act of objective of the malefactor and the killing
execution, the offense could only be is merely incidental to the robbery. The
attempted theft, if at all. Thus, theft cannot intent to rob must precede the taking of
have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be human life but the killing may occur
attempted or consummated (Valenzuela vs. before, during or after the robbery. What
is crucial for a conviction for the crime of
50 | P a g e
robbery with homicide is for the Justice Peralta; People vs. De Leon, GR
prosecution to firmly establish the No. 179943, June 26, 2009, Justice
offenders intent to take personal property Peralta; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449,
before the killing, regardless of the time April 03, 2013).
when the homicide is actually carried out
(People vs. Gatarin, GR NO. 198022, April In People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No.
07, 2014). 200922, July 18, 2012 - Accused snatched
victims shoulder bag which was hanging
b. Intent to kill and rob - on her left shoulder. No violence,
However, the law does not require that the intimidation or force was used in snatching
sole motive of the malefactor is robbery her shoulder bag. Given the facts, the
and commits homicide by reason or on the snatching of shoulder bag constitutes the
occasion thereof. In one case, it was ruled crime of theft, not robbery. Accuseds co-
that even if the malefactor intends to kill conspirator, who was driving the
and rob another, it does not preclude his motorcycle, died because he lost control of
conviction for the special complex crime of the motorcycle and crashed in front of a
robbery with homicide. The fact that the taxi. Since accused as passenger in the
intent of the felons was tempered with a motorcycle, did not perform or execute any
desire also to avenge grievances against act that caused the death of his companion,
the victim killed, does not negate the he cannot be held liable for homicide.
conviction of the accused and punishment
for robbery with homicide (People vs. e. Homicide through reckless
Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003). imprudence - In robbery with homicide,
the original criminal design of the
c. Robbing, killing and raping - A malefactor is to commit robbery, with
conviction for robbery with homicide is homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by
proper even if the homicide is committed reason of the robbery. The intent to commit
before, during or after the commission of robbery must precede the taking of human
the robbery. The homicide may be life. The homicide may take place before,
committed by the actor at the spur of the during or after the robbery. It is only the
moment or by mere accident. Even if two result obtained, without reference or
or more persons are killed and a woman is distinction as to the circumstances, causes
raped and physical injuries are inflicted on or modes or persons intervening in the
another, on the occasion or by reason of commission of the crime that has to be
robbery, there is only one special complex taken into consideration. There is no such
crime of robbery with homicide. What is felony of robbery with homicide through
primordial is the result obtained without reckless imprudence or simple negligence.
reference or distinction as to the The constitutive elements of the crime,
circumstances, cause, modes or persons namely, robbery and homicide, must be
intervening in the commission of the crime consummated (People vs. Ebet, GR No.
(People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April 181635, November 15, 2010, Justice
24, 2003). Peralta; People vs. De Leon, GR No.
179943, June 26, 2009, Justice Peralta;
d. One of the robbers is the victim People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03,
of homicide - It is immaterial that the 2013).
death would supervene by mere accident;
or that the victim of homicide is other than f. Failure to present the stolen
the victim of robbery, or that two or more property - Intent to rob is an internal act
persons are killed or that aside from the but may be inferred from proof of violent
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or unlawful taking of personal property. When
usurpation of authority, is committed by the fact of taking has been established
reason or on the occasion of the crime. beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the
Likewise immaterial is the fact that the accused is justified even if the property
victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the subject of the robbery is not presented in
felony would still be robbery with homicide. court. After all, the property stolen may
Once a homicide is committed by or on the have been abandoned or thrown away and
occasion of the robbery, the felony destroyed by the robber or recovered by the
committed is robbery with homicide. All the owner. The prosecution is not burdened to
felonies committed by reason of or on the prove the actual value of the property
occasion of the robbery are integrated into stolen or amount stolen from the victim.
one and indivisible felony Whether the robber knew the actual
of robbery with homicide. The word amount in the possession of the victim is of
homicide is used in its generic sense. no moment because the motive for robbery
Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, can exist regardless of the exact amount or
and infanticide (People vs. Laog, G.R. No. value involved (People vs. Ebet, GR No.
178321, October 5, 2011; (People vs. Ebet, 181635, November 15, 2010, Justice
GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010, Peralta; People vs. De Leon, GR No.
51 | P a g e
179943, June 26, 2009, Justice Peralta; with violence or intimidation against
People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, persons; (2) the property taken belongs to
2013). another; (3) the taking is characterized by
intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4)
g. Direct connection between the robbery is accompanied by rape (People
robbery and homicide - Essential for vs. Evangelio, GR No. 181902, August 31,
conviction of robbery with homicide is proof 2011, Justice Peralta).
of a direct relation, an intimate connection
between the robbery and the killing, The following circumstantial
whether the latter be prior or subsequent to evidence presented by the prosecution,
the former or whether both crimes were when analyzed and taken together, lead to
committed at the same time (People vs. the inescapable conclusion that the
Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, accused raped AAA: first, while two of the
2012). Homicide is said to have been robbers were stealing, appellant and one of
committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbers brought AAA inside the comfort
robbery if, for instance, it was committed to room; second, inside the comfort room, AAA
(a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the was stripped off her clothes and her
culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by panty; third, when AAA resisted and
the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent struggled, appellant and the other robber
discovery of the commission of the robbery; banged her head against the wall, causing
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the her to lose consciousness; fourth, when she
commission of the crime. As long as there is regained consciousness, the culprits were
a nexus between the robbery and the already gone and she saw her shorts and
homicide, the latter crime may be panty strewn at her side; and fifth, she
committed in a place other than the situs of suffered pain in her knees, head, stomach
the robbery (People vs. Ebet, GR No. and, most of all, in her vagina which was
181635, November 15, 2010, Justice then bleeding (People vs. Evangelio, GR No.
Peralta). 181902, August 31, 2011, Justice Peralta).
h. Claim of ownership - The 10th UNINHABITED HOUSE - In

floor unit of a building is owned by a Marquez vs. People, G.R. No. 181138,
corporation and served as the family December 3, 2012 - The records show that
residence prior to the death of the parents the store alleged to have been robbed by
of X and A. The unit, including the personal petitioners is not an inhabited house,
properties inside, is the subject of estate public building or building dedicated to
proceedings pending in another court and religious worship and their dependencies
is, therefore, involved in the disputed under Article 299 and as defined under
claims among the siblings. X armed with a Article 301. From Valderosas testimony, it
Board Resolution authorizing him to break can be deduced that the establishment
open the door lock system of 10th floor unit allegedly robbed was a store not used as a
of a building and to install a new door lock dwelling. In fact, after the robbery took
system went up to the subject unit to place, there was a need to inform Valderosa
implement said resolution. According to A, of the same as she was obviously not
X brought out from the unit her personal residing in the store. If the store was not
belongings. Is X liable for robbery? actually occupied at the time of the robbery
and was not used as a dwelling, since the
Answer: No. X took property openly owner lived in a separate house, the
and avowedly under that claim of robbery committed therein is punished
ownership. The fact that these properties under Article 302. Neither was the place
were taken under claim of ownership where the store is located owned by the
negates the element of intent to gain. One government. It was actually just a stall
who takes the property openly and rented by Valderosa from a private person.
avowedly under claim of title offered in good Hence, the applicable provision in this case
faith is not guilty of robbery even though is Article 302 and not Article 299 of the
the claim of ownership is untenable. X RPC.
should not be held liable for the alleged
unlawful act absent a felonious intent. CARNAPPING - Under the Anti-
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. A Carnapping Act, the penalty of reclusion
crime is not committed if the mind of the perpetua to death shall be imposed when
person performing the act complained of is the owner or driver of the vehicle is killed in
innocent (Sy vs. Gutierrez, GR No. 171579, the course of the commission of the
November 14, 2012, Justice Peralta). carnapping or on the occasion thereof. To
prove the special complex crime of
i. Robbery with rape - To be carnapping with homicide, there must be
convicted of robbery with rape, the proof not only of the essential elements of
following elements must concur: (1) the carnapping, but also that it was the original
taking of personal property is committed criminal design of the culprit and the killing
52 | P a g e
was perpetrated "in the course of the presumption that one intends the natural
commission of the carnapping or on the consequences of his act; and when it is
occasion thereof" (People vs. Nocum et. Al., shown that one has deliberately set fire to a
G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013). building, the prosecution is not bound to
produce further evidence of his wrongful
Under RA 9346, persons convicted intent. If there is an eyewitness to the crime
of offenses punishable with reclusion of arson, he can give in detail the acts of
perpetua or whose sentences will be the accused. When this is done the only
reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of substantial issue is the credibility of the
this law, shall not be eligible for parole. witness (People vs. De Leon, G. R. No.
180762, March 4, 2009).
THREATS
What is the difference among grave What is the crime committed if the
threats, light threats and other light offender burned the building and there is
threats? In grave threats, the wrong person who died? In the classification of
threatened amounts to a crime which may crimes committed by fire involving the
or may not be accompanied by a condition. killing of the victim, attention must be given
In light threats, the wrong threatened does to the intention of the author. Main
not amount to a crime but is always objective of the offender determines the
accompanied by a condition. In other light kind of crime committed. (a) Intent to burn
threats, the wrong threatened does not If the main objective is the burning of the
amount to a crime and there is no condition building or edifice, but death results by
(Calauag vs. People, (G. R. No. 171511, reason or on the occasion of arson, the
March 4, 2009). crime is simply arson (qualified by dead of
the victim), and the resulting homicide is
BLACKMAIL absorbed. (b) Intent to kill If the main
objective is to kill a particular person who
Blackmailing may constitute: (1) may be in a building or edifice, when fire is
Light threats under Article 283; (2) resorted to as the means to accomplish
Threatening to publish, or offering to such goal the crime committed
prevent the publication of, a libel for is murder only. When the Code declares
compensation under Article 356; and (3) that killing committed by means of fire is
robbery with intimidation against person. murder, it intends that fire should be
Example: X, DENR officer, threatened to purposely adopted as a means to that end.
confiscate the hot logs from complainant There can be no murder without a design to
and prosecute it for illegal logging unless take life. Murder qualified by means of fire
the latter will give her P100,000. absorbs the crime of arson since the latter
Complainant gave X the amount demanded. is an inherent means to commit the former
The crime committed is robbery with (People vs. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061,
intimidation (extortion). In robbery with March 15, 2010; People vs. Cedenio, G.R.
intimidation of persons, the intimidation No. 93485, June 27, 1994) (c) Intent to
consists in causing or creating fear in the conceal If the objective is to kill, and in
mind of a person or in bringing in a sense fact the offender has already done so, and
of mental distress in view of a risk or evil arson is resorted to as a means to cover up
that may be impending, real or imagined. the killing, the offender may be convicted of
Such fear of injury to person or property two separate crimes of either homicide or
must continue to operate in the mind of the murder, and arson.
victim at the time of the delivery of the
money. In this case, the P100,000.00 Article 320 of RPC contemplates the
"grease money" was taken by X from malicious burning of structures, both
complainant through intimidation. By using public and private, hotels, buildings,
her position as the DENR officer, X edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories
succeeded in coercing the complainants to and other military, government or
choose between two alternatives: to part commercial establishments by any person
with their money, or suffer the burden and or group of persons. Section 3 of PD No.
humiliation of prosecution and confiscation 1613, on the other hand, currently governs
of the logs (Sazon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. simple arson. P.D. No. 1613 contemplates
No. 150873, February 10, 2009). the malicious burning of public and private
structures, regardless of size, not included
ARSON in Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659. This law punishes
Is it necessary for the prosecution to simple arson with a lesser penalty because
prove wrongful intent to burn on the part of the acts that constitute it have a lesser
the accused to establish arson? No. degree of perversity and viciousness. Simple
Although intent may be an ingredient of the arson contemplates crimes with less
crime of arson, it may be inferred from the significant social, economic, political, and
acts of the accused. There is a national security implications than
53 | P a g e
destructive arson (People vs. Macabando, The crime has the following
GR No. 188708, July 31, 2013). Burning of elements: (1) the offender is a private
inhabited house or dwelling is simple arson individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains
under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1613, and not another, or in any manner deprives the
destructive arson under RPC. Burning latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention
personal property is also simple arson or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the
under Section 1 of PD No. 1613. commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present: (a) the
The nature of Destructive Arson is kidnapping or detention lasts for more than
distinguished from Simple Arson by the three days; (b) it is committed by simulating
degree of perversity or viciousness of the public authority; (c) any serious physical
criminal offender. The acts committed injuries are inflicted upon the person
under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him
constituting Destructive Arson are are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or
characterized as heinous crimes "for being detained is a minor, female or a public
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and official (People vs. Jacalney, GR No.
which, by reason of their inherent or 168552, October 03, 2011, Justice
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity Peralta).
and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and The essence of the crime of
norms of decency and morality in a just, kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the
civilized and ordered society." On the other victim's liberty, coupled with the intent of
hand, acts committed under PD 1613 the accused to effect it. It includes not only
constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a the imprisonment of a person but also the
lesser degree of perversity and viciousness deprivation of his liberty in whatever form
that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. and for whatever length of time. It involves
In other words, Simple Arson contemplates a situation where the victim cannot go out
crimes with less significant social, of the place of confinement or detention, or
economic, political and national security is restricted or impeded in his liberty to
implications than Destructive Arson (People move (People vs. Jacalney, GR No. 168552,
vs. Macabando, GR No. 188708, July 31, October 03, 2011, Justice Peralta).
2013).
X dragged A, a minor, to his house
The Information alleged that the after the latter refused to go with him. Upon
appellant set fire to his own house, and reaching the house, X tied her hands.
that the fire spread to other inhabited When A pleaded that she be allowed to go
houses. These allegations were established home, he refused. After more or less one
by evidence. The accused testified that his hour, X released A and instructed her on
burnt two-story house was used as how she could go home. What is the crime
a residence. That the appellants act committed? Answer: The crime committed
affected many families will not convert the is kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
crime to destructive arson, since the When X tied the hands of A, the former's
appellants act does not appear to be intention to deprive the latter of her liberty
heinous or represents a greater degree of has been clearly shown. For there to be
perversity and viciousness when compared kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is
to those acts punished under Article 320 of restrained from going home. Because of
the RPC. The established evidence only her tender age, and because she did not
showed that the appellant intended to burn know her way back home, she was then
his own house, but the conflagration spread and there deprived of her liberty. This is
to the neighboring houses (People vs. irrespective of the length of time that she
Macabando, GR No. 188708, July 31, stayed in such a situation. If the victim is a
2013). Note: Setting fire to his own property minor, the duration of his detention is
under circumstances which expose to immaterial (People vs. Jacalney, GR No.
danger the life or property of another is 168552, October 03, 2011, Justice
arson under Section 1 of PD No. 1613. Peralta).
KIDNAPPING X seized A, 9 years of age, him by

twisting his right arm, pointed a knife at
As for the crime of kidnapping, the him. X brought A to a in a place strange
following elements, as provided in Article and unfamiliar to him. Because of his
267 of the Revised Penal Code, must be tender age, he did not know the way back
proven: (a) a person has been deprived of home. X called victims mother to inform
his liberty, (b) the offender is a private her that the child is in his custody and of
individual, and (c) the detention is threatening her that she will no longer see
unlawful. (People vs. Jovel, G.R. No. her son if she failed to show his wife to him.
189820. October 10, 2012). In a case for kidnapping and serious illegal
detention, X argued s free to go home if he
54 | P a g e
wanted to because he was not confined, retardation, which includes (a) idiot
detained or deprived of his liberty. Is the (equivalent to two-year old child); (b)
argument tenable? Answer: No. For imbecile (seven-year old child); (c) moron or
kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that feebleminded (twelve-year old child) and (d)
the offender kept the victim in an enclosure borderline intelligence. A person is guilty of
or treated him harshly. Where the victim in rape when he had sexual intercourse with a
a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes female who was suffering from a "borderline
even more irrelevant whether the offender mental deficiency (People vs. Butiong, G.R.
forcibly restrained the victim. Leaving a No. 168932, October 19, 2011; G.R. No.
child in a place from which he did not know 140209, December 27, 2002, People vs.
the way home, even if he had the freedom Dalandas,)
to roam around the place of detention,
would still amount to deprivation of Intimidation - Mental retardation
liberty. For under such a situation, the was not alleged in the information.
childs freedom remains at the mercy and However, the accused can be convicted of
control of the abductor (People vs. Baluya, with rape though intimidation alleged in the
GR No. 181822, April 13, 2011, Justice Information. Having sex with a mentally
Peralta). retarded person even with consent
constitutes rape through intimidation
In this case, victim, a minor, was (People vs. Balatazo, G.R. No.
not locked up. However, she was seized and 118027, January 29, 2004).
taken from her house through force and
dragged to the mountain. Since then, she Demented person - The
was restrained of her liberty by and kept term demented refers to a person who has
under the control of accused. She was dementia, which is a condition of
prevented from going back home for a deteriorated mentality, characterized by
period of about six days. Accused is guilty marked decline from the individuals former
of kidnapping and illegally detaining victim intellectual level and often by emotional
even if she was not lock-up. Under the apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other
Spanish Penal Code, the modes of hand, the phrase deprived of
committing illegal detention is reason includes those suffering from mental
"Secuestrare" and "Encerrare". "Secuestrare" abnormality, deficiency, or
means sequestration. To sequester is to retardation. Thus, a mental retardate can
separate for a special purpose, remove or be properly classified as a person who is
set apart, withdraw from circulation. It also deprived of reason, and not one who is
means to lock-up or imprison. "Encerrare" demented.
is a broader concept than
secuestrare. Encerrare includes not only the Accused was charged in the
imprisonment of a person but also the Information with rape of a demented person
deprivation of his liberty in whatever form with a mental age of 7 years old. Evidence
and for whatever length of time (People vs. however shows that the victim is not
Baldago, G.R. No. 128106-07, January 24, demented but mentally retarded. The
2003). mistake will not exonerate accused. His
rights to be informed of the nature and
RAPE cause of the accusation against him were
violated. The allegation that the victim is a
It is commonly denominated as person with a mental age of 7 years old is
organ rape or penile rape and must be sufficient to inform accused of the nature of
attended by any of the circumstances the charges against him. Carnal knowledge
enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of of a woman who is a mental retardate is
paragraph 1. On the other hand, rape rape (People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041,
under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is June 05, 2013).
commonly known as rape by sexual
assault. The perpetrator, under any of the Accused was charged in the
attendant circumstances mentioned in Information with rape of a demented person
paragraph 1, commits this kind of rape by with mental capacity below 18 years old.
inserting his penis into another persons Evidence however shows that the victim is
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or not demented but mentally retarded.
object into the genital or anal orifice of Mistake in the information will not
another person. It is also called exonerate the accused he failed to raise this
instrument or object rape, also gender- as an objection, and the particular facts
free rape (People vs. Soria, G.R. No. I stated in the Information were protestation
79031, November 14, 2012). sufficient to inform him of the nature of the
charge against him (People vs. Ventura, Sr.
MENTAL RETARDATION - In rape, GR. No. 205230, March 12, 2014).
the phrase "deprived of reason" refers to
mental abnormality, deficiency or
55 | P a g e
Deafmute - The deprivation of it is shown that intimidation was used for
reason need not be complete. Mental the victim to have sex with the accused.
abnormality or deficiency is enough.
Cohabitation with a feebleminded, idiotic Time and again, we have taken into
woman is rape. Sexual intercourse with an consideration how rapists are not deterred
insane woman was considered rape. But a by the presence of people nearby, such as
deafmute is not necessarily deprived of the members of their own family inside the
reason. These circumstances must be same room, with the likelihood of being
proven. Intercourse with a deafmute is not discovered, since lust respects no time,
rape of a woman deprived of reason, in the locale or circumstance (People vs. Colorado,
absence of proof that she is an imbecile G.R. No. 200792, November 14, 2012)
(People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05,
2013). RAPE THROUGH FRAUDELENT
MACHINATION - In U.S. vs. Hernandez,
STATUTORY RAPE - In statutory 29 Phil. 109, accused Hernandez, who
rape, what the law punishes is carnal seduced a 15-year-old girl to live with him
knowledge of a woman below 12 years of by procuring the performance of a
age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the fictitious marriage ceremony with the help
age of the woman and whether carnal of Bautista, who pretended to be a
knowledge took place. The law presumes Protestant minister, was held liable for the
that the victim does not and cannot have a complex crime proper of simple seduction
will of her own on account of her tender (Art. 338) through usurpation of official
years (People vs. Dollano, Jr., GR No. function (Art. 177). Usurping the function
188851, October 19, 2011, Justice of a priest to solemnize marriage is a
Peralta). necessary means to seduce a minor.
Comment: The case of Hernandez was
Qualifying circumstance of decided prior to the effectivity of the RPC.
mental disability - The mere fact that the At that time, a religious official such as a
rape victim is a mental retardate does not bishop is a person in authority within the
automatically merit the appreciation of purview of the Old Penal Code (Smith, G.R.
qualifying circumstance. Under Article 266- No. 14057, January 22, 1919). However,
B (10) of RPC, knowledge by the offender of Article 152 of RPC does not include
the mental disability, emotional disorder, or religious minister as a person in authority.
physical handicap at the time of the Hence, performing the function of religious
commission of the rape is the qualifying minister in solemnizing marriage is not
circumstance. As such this circumstance usurpation of official function. It is
must be formally alleged in the information submitted that the crime committed by
and duly proved by the prosecution (People accused is rape through fraudulent
vs. Obogne, GR No. 199740, March 24, machination.
2014).
HOMICIDE - In the special complex
RPC punishes the rape of a mentally crime of rape with homicide, the term
disabled person regardless of the "homicide" is to be understood in its generic
perpetrators awareness of his victims sense, and includes murder and slight
mental condition. However, the physical injuries committed by reason or on
perpetrators knowledge of the victims occasion of the rape. Hence, even if the
mental disability, at the time he committed circumstances of treachery, abuse of
the rape, qualifies the crime (People vs. superior strength and evident
Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013). premeditation are alleged in the information
and duly established by the prosecution,
UNTENABLE DEFENSE - In crimes the same would not qualify the killing to
against chastity, the medical examination murder and the crime committed is still
of the victim is not an indispensable rape with homicide. However, these
element for the successful prosecution of circumstances shall be regarded as
the crime as her testimony alone, if ordinary aggravating (People vs. Laog, G.R.
credible, is sufficient to convict the accused No. 178321, October 5, 2011).
thereof (People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 186235,
January 25, 2012). HOMICIDE ON OCCASION OF
RAPE - The phrase by reason of the
In Sison vs. People, G.R. rape obviously conveys the notion that the
No. 187229, February 22, 2012 -While killing is due to the rape, which is the crime
petitioner was portraying AAA as a the offender originally designed to commit.
prostitute, the latter cried. AAA's crying The victim of the rape is also the victim of
shows how she might have felt after being the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide
raped by the petitioner and yet be accused and the rape (attempted or
of a woman of loose morals. The victim's consummated) is clear and admits of no
moral character in rape is immaterial where doubt. In contrast, the import of the
56 | P a g e
phrase on the occasion of the rape may not be a person who has legal relationship with
be as easy to determine. The phrase on the his ward. He must be legally appointed was
occasion of the rape as shown by Senate first (People vs. Flores G.R. No.
deliberations refers to a killing that occurs 188315, August 25, 2010).
immediately before or after, or during the
commission itself of the attempted or SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE AND
consummated rape, where the victim of the NOT VOLUNTARY DESISTANCE - The
homicide may be a person other than the term spontaneous is not equivalent to
rape victim herself for as long as the killing voluntary. Even if the desistance is
is linked to the rape, became evident (People voluntary, the same could not exempt the
vs. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, offender from liability for attempted felony if
2012). there is an external constraint. The term
spontaneous means proceeding from
A and B were walking along the natural feeling or native tendency without
rice paddies when X suddenly assaulted external constraint; it is synonymous with
them with a lead pipe. X killed A, and impulsive, automatic and mechanical
thereafter, raped B. X is liable for special (People vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71,
complex crime of rape with homicide. There January 24, 2003, En Banc).
is no doubt that X killed A to prevent
her from aiding B or calling for help once Accused had previously raped the
she is able to run away, and also to silence victim several times. During the subject
her completely so she may not witness the incident, accused was wearing a pair of
rape of B, the original intent of X (People short pants but naked from waist up. He
vs. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, entered the bedroom of victim, went on top
2011). of her, held her hands, removed her panty,
mashed her breasts and touched her sex
In People vs. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, organ. However, accused saw Rossel
November 21, 2012 - With respect to the peeping through the door and dismounted.
stabbings, it appears that Isla committed He berated Rossel for peeping and ordered
two acts. The first was while he was him to go back to his room and to sleep.
ravishing AAA. The Court considers this Accused then left the room of the victim.
and the rape as one continuous act, the Held: Accused intended to have carnal
stabbing being necessary, as far as he was knowledge of victim. The overt acts of
concerned, for the successful perpetration accused proven by the prosecution were not
of the crime. When he testified, Isla claimed merely preparatory acts. By the series of
that he had to use the knife so he could his overt acts, accused had commenced the
have sexual intercourse with her. The execution of rape, which, if not for his
second stabbing took place after desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape.
consummation of the rape act. According to Although accused desisted from performing
AAA, after her defilement, she noticed the all the acts of execution, however, his
knife bloodied and she tried to wrest it from desistance was not spontaneous as he was
him. In their struggle, she was stabbed impelled to do so only because of the
under her lower left breast but she was able sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel.
to force Isla to drop the knife. This second Hence, accused is guilty only of attempted
stabbing is a separate and distinct offense rape (People vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-
as it was not a necessary means to commit 71, January 24, 2003, En Banc).
the rape. It was intended to do away with
her life. ATTEMPTED RAPE - The elements
of the crime of acts lasciviousness are: (1)
QUALIFIED RAPE - In People vs. that the offender commits any act of
Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012 lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is
Rape is qualified when the offender knew done: (a) by using force and intimidation or
of the mental disability, emotional disorder (b) when the offended party is deprived of
and/or physical handicap of the offended reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c)
party at the time of the commission of the when the offended party is under 12 years
crime. However, the information in the of age; and (3) that the offended party is
present case merely stated that the victim another person of either sex (People vs.
was blind; it did not specifically allege that Rellota, GR No. 168103 , August 03, 2010,
the appellant knew of her blindness at the Justice Peralta).
time of the commission of the rape. Hence,
the crime committed is simple rape. X removed the towel wrapped in
the body of A, laid her on the sofa and
In qualifying circumstances of kissed and touched her. A testified that
minority and relationship in rape and X wanted to rape her. Is X liable for
special aggravating circumstance under attempted rape? No. The acts of X does
Section 31(c) of RA No. 7610 in sexual not demonstrate the intent to have carnal
abuse under Section 5, the guardian must knowledge of A; thus, dismissing the mere
57 | P a g e
opinion and speculation of A, based on boxed him several times. Is X liable for
her testimony, that X wanted to rape acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape?
her. Even so, the acts should not be left X should be held liable for attempted rape
unpunished as the elements of the crime of since it was not shown that his penis was
acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Rellota, able to penetrate vagina of victim however
G.R. No. 168103. August 3, 2010, Justice slight (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No.
Peralta) 129433, March 30, 2000, En Banc). Intent
to have sexual intercourse was clearly
What is the crime committed if the established in this case.
penis of the accused touched female organ
of the non-consenting victim?(a) If the In the following circumstances, the
touching" of the female organ constitutes accused were convicted of attempted rape:
the sliding of the penis into or the touching (1) kissing AAAs nape and neck;
of either labia majoraor labia minoraof the undressing her; removing his clothes and
pudendum, the crime committed is briefs; lying on top of her; holding her
consummated rape. Anything short of that hands and parting her legs; and trying to
will only result in either attempted rape or insert his penis into her vagina; (2) The
acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Publico, victim declared that the accused placed his
April 13, 2011, G.R. No. 183569). Sexual penis on her vagina; and claimed that it
penetration even without laceration of the touched her private parts. The victims
hymen or even the briefest of contact testimony is too ambiguous to prove the
consummates rape (People vs. Pangilinan, vital element of penile penetration; (3) The
G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011). victim testified that the accused placed his
However, the penis that touches the penis on top of her vagina, and that she felt
external genitalia must be capable of pain. There was no showing that the
consummating the sexual act to constitute accuseds penis entered the victims vagina.
consummated rape (People vs. Butiong, The pain that the victim felt might have
G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011). (b) If been caused by the accuseds failed
the touching merely constitutes an attempts to insert his organ into her vagina;
epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of (4) The victim did not declare that there was
organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the the slightest penetration, which was
penis on the external layer of the victims necessary to consummate rape. (5) The
vagina, or the mons pubis, the crime victim testified that the accused poked
committed is either attempted rape or acts her vagina. The Court could not discern
of lasciviousness (People v. Campuhan, from the victim's testimony that the
G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000). accused attained some degree of penile
Attempted rape is committed when the penetration, which was necessary to
touching of the vagina by the penis is consummate rape. (5) The victims
coupled with the intent to penetrate; statements that the accused was trying to
otherwise, there can only be acts of force his sex organ into mine and
lasciviousness. The difference between binundol-undol ang kanyang ari did not
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness prove that the accuseds penis reached the
lies in the intent of the perpetrator as labia of the pudendum of the victims
deduced from his external acts. (People vs. vagina (People vs. Pareja, G.R. No. 188979,
Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9, September 5, 2012).
2011; People vs. Collado G.R. Nos. 135667-
70, March 1, 2001). Consummated rape through
sexual assault - A, a child, testified that X
X opened the zipper and buttons touched her private part and licked it but he
of the victims shorts, touching her, and did not insert his finger inside her vagina.
trying to pull her from under the bed. Is X What is the crime committed? Answer: If
liable for acts of lasciviousness or the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus,
attempted rape?The acts of X manifested touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
lewd designs, not intent to lie with her. The should also be considered as already
evidence to prove that a definite intent to lie consummating the crime of rape through
with the victim motivated X was plainly sexual assault, not the crime of acts of
wanting, therefore, rendering him guilty lasciviousness. This testimony of the victim,
only of acts of lasciviousness (People vs. however, is open to various interpretation,
Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9, since it cannot be identified what specific
2011). part of the vagina was defiled by X. Thus, X
cannot be convicted of rape through sexual
Mother of the victim saw X was assault. Thus, X is liable for acts of
kneeling before victim whose pajamas and lasciviousness (People vs. Bonaagua, GR
panty were already removed, while his short No. 188897, June 06, 2011, Justice
pants were down to his knees. Accused was Peralta).
forcing his penis into victims vagina.
Horrified, she cursed the accused and
58 | P a g e
Conspiracy - Accused are liable dilability of the hymen varies from one
for two (2) counts of rape on account of a woman to another such that it may be so
clear conspiracy between them, shown by elastic as to stretch without laceration
their obvious concerted efforts to during intercourse, or on the other hand,
perpetrate, one after the other, the rapes. may be so resistant that its surgical
Each of them is responsible not only for the removal is necessary before intercourse can
rape committed personally by him but also ensue. In some cases even, the hymen is
for the rape committed by the other as well still intact even after the woman has given
(People vs. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, birth (People vs. Deligero, GR No. 189280,
March 21, 2012). April 17, 2013).
Variance rule - Information charged The absence of fresh lacerations in

the accused with rape through carnal victims hymen does not prove that
knowledge. Thus, accused cannot be found appellant did not rape her. A freshly broken
guilty of rape by sexual assault even hymen is not an essential element of rape
though it was proven during trial. This is and healed lacerations do not negate
due to the material differences and rape. In addition, a medical examination
substantial distinctions between the two and a medical certificate are merely
modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not corroborative and are not indispensable to
necessarily included in the second, and the prosecution of a rape case. The credible
vice-versa. Consequently, to convict disclosure of a minor that the accused
accused of rape by sexual assault when raped her is the most important proof of the
what he was charged with was rape sexual abuse (People vs. Broca, GR No.
through carnal knowledge, would be to 201447, January 09, 2013).
violate his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the Sweetheart theory - The
accusation against him. Nevertheless, sweetheart theory, as a defense, necessarily
accused may be convicted of the lesser admits carnal knowledge, the first element
crime of acts of lasciviousness under the of rape. This admission makes the
variance doctrine even though the crime sweetheart theory more difficult to defend,
charged against accused was for rape for it is not only an affirmative defense that
through carnal knowledge, he can be needs convincing proof; after the
convicted of the crime of acts of prosecution has successfully established
lasciviousness without violating any of his a prima facie case, the burden of evidence is
constitutional rights because said crime is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce
included in the crime of rape (People vs. evidence that the intercourse was
Pareja, GR No. 202122, January 15, 2014). consensual (People vs. Deligero, GR No.
189280, April 17, 2013).
Pardon - For crimes of seduction,
abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, Sweetheart defense will not
pardon and marriage extinguish criminal exculpate accused from liability for rape
liability. However, pardon should have been against mentally retarded person. In the
made prior to the institution of the criminal rape of a woman deprived of reason or
actions (People vs. Dollano, Jr., GR No. unconscious, the victim has no will. The
188851, October 19, 2011, Justice absence of will determines the existence of
Peralta). the rape. Such lack of will may exist not
only when the victim is unconscious or
Rape is no longer a crime against totally deprived of reason, but also when
chastity for it is now classified as a crime she is suffering some mental deficiency
against persons. Consequently, rape is no impairing her reason or free will. Carnal
longer considered a private crime or that knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect
which cannot be prosecuted, except upon a as to be incapable of legal consent
complaint filed by the aggrieved party. constitutes rape (People vs. Caoile, GR No.
Hence, pardon by the offended party of the 203041, June 05, 2013).
offender in the crime of rape will not
extinguish the offender's criminal liability A child was not capable of fully
(People vs. Bonaagua, GR No. 188897, understanding or knowing the import of her
June 06, 2011, Justice Peralta). actions and in consequence, remained
vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of
Hymen rapture, not required - It is adults. Unlike rape, therefore, consent is
possible for the victims hymen to remain immaterial in cases involving sexual absue
intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. under Section 5 of RA 7610. For purposes
Likewise, whether the accuseds penis fully of sexual abuse, the sweetheart defense is
or only partially penetrated the victims unacceptable. A child exploited in
genitalia, it is still possible that her hymen prostitution or subjected to other sexual
would remain intact because it was thick abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual
and distensible or elastic. The strength and
59 | P a g e
intercourse with another person (Caballo that the force or intimidation employed be
vs. People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013). so great or of such character as could not
be resisted. It is only necessary that the
ABDUCTION AND MULTIPLE force or intimidation be sufficient to
RAPES - What is/are the crime/s consummate the purpose which the
committed if the accused forcibly took the accused had in mind. Intimidation must be
victim and raped her on four viewed in the light of the victim's perception
occasions?When the objective of abduction and judgment at the time of the rape and
is to deprive the victim of his liberty, and not by any hard and fast rule. It is
thereafter, she was raped several times, the therefore enough that it produces fear --
crime committed is special complex crime of fear that if the victim does not yield to the
kidnapping with rape. No matter how many bestial demands of the accused, something
rapes had been committed in the special would happen to her at the moment or
complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the thereafter, as when she is threatened with
resultant crime is only one kidnapping with death if she reports the
rape. This is because these composite acts incident. Intimidation would also explain
are regarded as a single indivisible offense why there are no traces of struggle which
as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these would indicate that the victim fought off her
acts with only one single penalty. In a way, attacker (People vs. Leonardo G.R. No.
R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of 181036. July 6, 2010).
rape because no matter how many times
the victim was raped, like in the present TENACIOUS RESISTANCE - Is it
case, there is only one crime committed necessary in rape through intimidation to
the special complex crime of kidnapping show that the victim offered a tenacious
with rape (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. resistance against the accused?No. Victim
No. 186417, July 27, 2011). When the failure to offer tenacious and sufficient
abduction is made with lewd design, the resistance does not imply her submission to
crime committed is complex crime of the bestial demands of the accused. It is
forcible abduction with rape. For the crime not required that she resists his sexual
of kidnapping with rape, the offender advances. All that is necessary is that force
should not have taken the victim with lewd and intimidation were employed by the
designs; otherwise, it would be complex accused against her, which enabled him to
crime of forcible abduction with rape. If the commit the crime. Neither is it necessary
taking was by forcible abduction and the for the victim to sustain physical
woman was raped several times, the crimes injuries. She need not kick, bite, hit or
committed is one complex crime of forcible scratch the appellant with her fingernails to
abduction with rape, in as much as the prove that she had been defensive. It is
forcible abduction was only necessary for sufficient that she yielded because of a real
the first rape; and each of the other counts application of bodily harm (People vs.
of rape constitutes distinct and separate Torres, G.R. No. 134766, January 16,
count of rape (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., 2004).
G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011). Hence, Among the amendments of the law
the accused should be held liable for three on rape introduced under Republic Act No.
counts of rape and forcible abduction with 8353 (The Anti-Rape Act of 1997) is Section
rape. When the objective of the abduction 266-D, which adverts to the degree of
was to commit the rape, the offender cannot resistance that the victim may put up
be held guilty of the complex crime of against the rapist, viz: Article 266-D.
forcible abduction with rape. Under the Presumptions. - Any physical overt act
circumstances, the rape absorbed the manifesting resistance against the act of
forcible abduction (People vs. Sabadlab, rape in any degree from the offended party,
G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012). Hence, or where the offended party is so situated
the accused should be held liable for four as to render her/him incapable of giving
counts of rape. valid consent, may be accepted as evidence
in the prosecution of the acts punished
In forcible abduction with rape under Article 266-A (People vs. Sabadlab,
unlike in rape involving abduction, the G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012).
victim must be detained for appreciable
length of time. At the Bicameral Conference
Committee Meeting on the disagreeing
INTIMIDATION - It is a well- provisions of S.B. No. 950 and H.B. No.
entrenched law that intimidation in rape 6265, the forerunners of R.A. No. 8353, the
includes the moral kind of intimidation or legislators agreed that Article 266-D is
coercion. Intimidation is a relative term, intended to "soften the jurisprudence of the
depending on the age, size and strength of 1970's" when resistance to rape was
the parties, and their relationship with each required to be tenacious. The lawmakers
other. It can be addressed to the mind as took note of the fact that rape victims
well. For rape to exist it is not necessary cannot mount a physical struggle in cases
60 | P a g e
where they were gripped by overpowering with grave abuse of authority, which is now
fear or subjugated by moral authority. a new mode to commit the crime of rape.
Article 266-D tempered the case law
requirement of physical struggle by the In incestuous rape of a minor,
victim with the victim's fear of the rapist or actual force or intimidation need not even
incapacity to give valid consent. Thus, the be employed where the overpowering moral
law now provides that resistance may be influence of appellant, who is private
proved by any physical overt act in any complainants father, would suffice (People
degree from the offended party (People vs. vs. Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February
Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, July 23, 2002, 22, 2012) In rape committed by a father,
En banc) his moral ascendancy and influence over
the victim substitute for the requisite force,
In People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos. threat, and intimidation, and strengthen
148673-75, October 17, 2003, En Banc - At the fear which compels the victim to
around 10:00 oclock in the evening he laid conceal her dishonor (People vs. Ortega,
beside her daughter, Lorena, who was G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012; People
sleeping. Lorena was then 17 years old for vs. Broca, GR No. 201447, January 09,
[she was] born on October 3, 1982. He 2013). The absence of violence or offer of
touched her private parts, removed her resistance would not affect the outcome of
shorts and pant[y], undressed himself and the case because the overpowering and
laid on top of her. He inserted his penis into overbearing moral influence of the father
her vagina causing her pain. He then made over his daughter takes the place of
the up and down movement and ejected violence and offer of resistance required in
something hot from his penis. He told rape cases committed by an accused who
Lorena not to make any noise since her did not have blood relationship with the
siblings were sleeping in the same room. He victim (People vs. Osma, G.R. No. 187734,
warned her not to tell anyone about the August 29, 2012).
incident because, if she did, he would kill
her. AAAs failure to shout or to
tenaciously resist appellant should not be
The rule is that resistance may be taken against her since such negative
proved by any physical overt act in any assertion would not ipso facto make
degree from the offended party. Tenacious voluntary her submission to appellants
resistance, however, is not required. Neither criminal act. In rape, the force and
is a determined and persistent physical intimidation must be viewed in the light of
struggle on the part of the victim necessary. the victims perception and judgment at the
It is true that complainants testimony does time of the commission of the crime. As
not indicate that she put up any resistance already settled in our jurisprudence, not all
against the sexual advances of appellant. victims react the same way. Some people
This notwithstanding, proof of resistance is may cry out, some may faint, some may be
not necessary in light of appellants moral shocked into insensibility, while others may
ascendancy over the complainant. Being appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may
the father, appellants force or threat was offer strong resistance while others may be
sufficient to create fear in the mind of the too intimidated to offer any resistance at
complainant compelling her to submit to all. Moreover,resistance is not an element of
his sexual abuse. rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove
that she did all within her power to resist
Physical resistance need not be the force or intimidation employed upon
established in rape when threats and her. As long as the force or intimidation is
intimidation are employed, and the victim present, whether it was more or less
submits herself to her attackers because of irresistible is beside the point (People vs.
fear. The use of a weapon, by itself, is Rivera, GR No. 200508, September 04,
strongly suggestive of force or at least 2013; see: People vs. Rubio, G.R.
intimidation, and threatening the victim No. 195239, March 7, 2012; People vs.
with a gun is sufficient to bring her into Penilla, GR No. 189324, March 20, 2013).
submission. Thus, the law does not impose
upon the private complainant the burden of
proving resistance (People vs. Tubat, G.R. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS
No. 183093, February 1, 2012; People vs.
Penilla, GR No. 189324, March 20, 2013). The elements of acts of
lasciviousness, punishable under Article
Where the offended party is so 336 of the RPC, are: (1) That the offender
situated as to render her/him incapable of commits any act of lasciviousness or
giving valid consent, may be accepted as lewdness; (2) That it is done under any of
evidence in the prosecution of rape. This the following circumstances: a. By using
happens when the offender committed rape force or intimidation; or b. When the
offended party is deprived of reason or
61 | P a g e
otherwise unconscious; or c. When the
offended party is under 12 years of age; and CHILD PROSTITUION AND SEXUAL
(3) That the offended party is another ABUSE
person of either sex (People vs. Garcia, G.R.
No. 200529, September 19, 2012; (People Sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of
vs. Rellota, GR No. 168103 , August 03, R.A. No. 7610 has three elements: (1) the
2010, Justice Peralta). accused commits an act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the
The modes of committing acts of said act is performed with a child exploited
lasciviousness are the same as those of in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
committing rape under the old version. abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years
old.
CHILD PROSTITUTION
Sexual abuse and lascivious
The elements of paragraph (a) are: 1. conduct - "Sexual abuse" includes the
the accused engages in, promotes, employment, use, persuasion, inducement,
facilitates or induces child prostitution; 2. enticement or coercion of a child to engage
the act is done through, but not limited to, in, or assist another person to engage in,
the following means: a. acting as a procurer sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or
of a child prostitute; b. inducing a person the molestation, prostitution, or incest with
to be a client of a child prostitute by means children;
of written or oral advertisements or other
similar means; c. taking advantage of "Lascivious conduct" means the
influence or relationship to procure a child intentional touching, either directly or
as a prostitute; d. threatening or using through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
violence towards a child to engage him as a groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
prostitute; or e. giving monetary the introduction of any object into the
consideration, goods or other pecuniary genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
benefit to a child with intent to engage such whether of the same or opposite sex, with
child in prostitution; 3. the child is an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
exploited or intended to be exploited in degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
prostitution and 4. the child, whether male desire of any person, bestiality,
or female, is below 18 years of age (People masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
vs. Dulay, G.R. No. 193854. September 24, genitals or pubic area of a person (Section
2012). 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations on
the Reporting and Investigation of Child
In People vs. Dulay, G.R. No. Abuse Cases)
193854. September 24, 2012 - To be a
principal by indispensable cooperation, one Child exploited in prostitution or
must participate in the criminal resolution, subject to other sexual abuse - Children,
a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose whether male or female, who for money,
and cooperation in the commission of the profit, or any other consideration or due to
offense by performing another act without the coercion or influence of any adult,
which it would not have been syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
accomplished. Nothing in the evidence intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
presented by the prosecution does it show deemed to be children exploited in
that the acts committed by appellant are prostitution and other sexual abuse
indispensable in the commission of the (Section 5 of RA No 7610).
crime of rape. From the time appellant
convinced AAA to go with her until The averments in the information
appellant received money from the man against the accused clearly make out a
who allegedly raped AAA, are not charge for sexual abuse under Section 5(b)
indispensable in the crime of rape. Anyone of RA No. 7610 although the caption
could have accompanied AAA and offered charged him with child abuse under
the latter's services in exchange for money Section 10 (a). However, the character of
and AAA could still have been raped. Even the crime is not determined by the caption
AAA could have offered her own services in or preamble of the information nor from the
exchange for monetary consideration and specification of the provision of law alleged
still end up being raped. Thus, this to have been violated (People vs. Rayon,
disproves the indispensable aspect of the G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013)
appellant in the crime of rape. It must be
remembered that in the Information, as well Sexual intercourse or lascivious
as in the testimony of AAA, she was conduct under the coercion or influence of
delivered and offered for a fee by appellant, any adult exists when there is some form of
thereafter, she was raped by Speed. compulsion equivalent to intimidation
However, the appellant is liable for child which subdues the free exercise of the
prostitution.
62 | P a g e
offended partys free will (Caballo vs. (Alberto vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, GR No.
People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013). 182130, June 19, 2013). X cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act
Accused (23 years of age) repeatedly because his right against double jeopardy
assured the victim (17 years) of his love for will be prejudiced. A person cannot be
her, and even, promised to marry her. In subjected twice to criminal liability for a
addition, he also guaranteed that she would single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot
not get pregnant since he would be using be complexed with a violation of Section
the "withdrawal method" for safety. These 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of RPC, a
were meant to influence her to set aside her felony cannot be complexed with an offense
reservations and eventually give into having penalized by a special law (People v. Abay,
sex with accused, with which he succeeded. G.R. No. 177752, February 24, 2009;
The age disparity between an adult and a People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090,
minor placed accused in a stronger position Nov. 14, 2011, Justice Peralta, People v.
over the victim so as to enable him to force Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011,
his will upon the latter. An important factor People v. Matias, G.R. No. 186469, June
is that the victim refused accused's 13, 2012 and Alberto vs. Hon. Court of
incipient advances and in fact, asked him Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 20130.
to leave. However, the victim eventually
yielded. Thus, it stands to reason that she Child under 12 years Those who
was put in a situation deprived of the commit the act of sexual intercourse or
benefit of clear thought and choice. The lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
actuations of the accused may be classified prostitution or subject to other sexual
as "coercion" and "influence" within the abuse; Provided, That when the victims is
purview of Section 5 of RA 7610. Hence, under twelve (12) years of age, the
accused is guilty of sexual abuse (Caballo perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape
vs. People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013). and for rape or lascivious conduct, as the
case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
The Information alleged that lascivious conduct when the victim is under
accused committed acts of lasciviousness twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
upon the person of victim, a minor temporal in its medium period (Section 5).
subjected to sexual abuse. Can the accused
be convicted for sexual abuse under Section X taking advantage of his
5 (b) of RA No. 7610? Answer: No. Under ascendancy committed sexual intercourse
the law, committing lascivious conduct with his daughter (9 years of age). What
upon a child under coercion or influence of crime can X be prosecuted for? The child,
an adult or group is sexual abuse. There is who is under the influence of an adult, is
no allegation of coercion or influence, which under 12 years of age. Hence, X should be
is an indispensable ingredient of this crime. prosecuted for statutory rape. Section 5 (b)
It does not contain the essential facts of RA No. 7610 provides that when the
constituting the offense, but a statement victim (child subjected to sexual abuse) is
of a conclusion of law. Thus, accused under 12 years of age, the perpetrators
cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under shall be prosecuted for rape (People vs.
such Information. The information is void Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November
for being violative of the accuseds 16, 2001).
constitutionally-guaranteed right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the Accused was convicted of rape
accusation against him (People vs. through sexual assault committed against a
Pangilinan, GR No. 183090, November 14, 4 year old child. There is no allegation in
2011, Justice Peralta). the Information that the child is indulged in
lascivious conduct for money, profit, or any
Child 12 years of age or above X other consideration or due to the coercion
taking advantage of his ascendancy or influence of any adult, syndicate or
committed sexual intercourse with his group. Accused was punished under RPC.
daughter (15 years of age). What crime can In sum, the penalty under RA 7160 was not
X be prosecuted for? The child is under the imposed since the information failed to
influence of an adult. This is sexual abuse allege that the victim is exploited in
under RA No. 7610. The act is committed prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse
with psychological intimidation or grave (Pielago vs. People, GR No. 202020, March
abuse authority. This is rape. Hence, X can 13, 2013)
be prosecuted for either (1) sexual abuse
under violation of Section 5 (b) of RA No. Rape through sexual assault and
7610; or (2) rape. X should not be charged sexual abuse - X forced A, a minor, in an
for Rape in relation to sexual abuse. isolated place and inserted his finger into
Existing jurisprudence, however, proscribes her vagina. (a) For what crimes can X be
charging an accused for both crimes, prosecuted if A is 17 years of age at the
rather, he may be charged only for either time? Answer: X committed rape through
63 | P a g e
sexual assault, or object or instrument rape prescribed by RA No. 7610 for sexual abuse
under RPC since he inserted object, his (People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897,
finger, into the vaginal orifice of A by using June 6, 2011, Justice Peralta). The
force. The crime of sexual abuse under penalty under RPC should be imposed.
Section 5 of RA No. 7160 is also committed
since A is indulged in lascivious conduct CONSENT OF THE VICTIM - Is
under coercion of an adult. However, X can consent of the victim a defense in rape, or
only be prosecuted either for rape or sexual child prostitution or sexual abuse? A child
abuse. exploited in prostitution may seem to
"consent" to what is being done to her or
(b) Would your answer be the same him and may appear not to complain.
if the age A is 10 years old? Answer: Since However, a child who is "a person below
A, who is a child indulged in lascivious eighteen years of age or those unable to
conduct under coercion of an adult, is fully take care of themselves or protect
under 12 years of age, X should be themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
prosecuted for rape through sexual assault exploitation or discrimination because of
under RPC. Under Section 5 of RA No. their age or mental disability or condition"
7610, when the child subjected to sexual is incapable of giving rational consent to
abuse is under twelve (12) years of age, the any lascivious act or sexual intercourse
perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape (People vs. Dulay, GR No. 193854,
under RPC (People vs. Pangilinan, GR No. September 24, 2012, Justice Peralta;
183090, November 14, 2011, Justice People vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 169143,
Peralta). February 2, 2007). Submissiveness of child
under influence or psychological coercion of
(c) The penalty for rape through adult is not likewise a defense in sexual
sexual assault under RPC as amended by abuse (People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777,
RA No. 8353 is prision mayor while the October, 7 1998).
penalty under RA No. 7610 for acts of
lasciviousness committed against a child But if the sexual abuse is
subjected to sexual abuse, under 12 years committed as alleged in the information
of age, is reclusion temporal in its medium against a child, who indulges in sexual
period. If the age of A is 10 years old, would intercourse under coercion, the prosecution
you impose the penalty under RA No. 8353 must show lack of consent on the part of
or under RA No. 7610? Answer: One the victim. Showing that the child
who commits acts of lasciviousness in consented to the sexual intercourse will
relation to RA No. 7610 suffers the more negate coercion as an element of the
severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its crime (see: People vs. Abello,G.R. No.
medium period than the one who commits 151952, March 25, 2009).
rape through sexual assault, which is
merely punishable by prision mayor. This is CHILD PROSTITUTION
undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be
sure, it was not the intention of the framers The elements of child prostitution are:
of RA No. 8353, to have disallowed the
applicability of RA No. 7610 to sexual (1) The accused engages in, promotes,
abuses committed to children. Despite the facilitates or induces child prostitution;
passage of RA No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is (2) The act is done through, but not limited
still good law, which must be applied when to, the following means:
the victims are children (People vs. Chingh,
G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011, Justice (a) Acting as a procurer of a child
Peralta). The penalty under RA No. 7160 prostitute;
should be imposed. (b) Inducing a person to be a client
of a child prostitute by means of
(d) The penalty for qualified rape written or oral advertisements or
through sexual assault is reclusion other similar means;
temporal under RPC as amended by RA No. (c) Taking advantage of influence or
8353. If A is the 10 year-old daughter of X, relationship to procure a child as a
would you impose penalty penalty under prostitute;
RA No. 8353 or under RA No. 7610? (d) Threatening or using violence
Answer: Since the crime committed is rape towards a child to engage him as a
through sexual assault with qualifying prostitute; or
circumstance of minority and relationship, (e) giving monetary consideration,
the rationale of unfairness to the child goods or other pecuniary benefit
victim that Chingh case wanted to correct is to a child with intent to engage
absent because RPC as amended by RA No. such child in prostitution;
8353 already prescribes the penalty of
reclusion temporal for this crime. Hence, (3) The child is exploited or intended to be
there is no more need to apply the penalty exploited in prostitution and
64 | P a g e
(4) The child, whether male or female, is Section 10 (a) punishes not only
below 18 years of age (People vs. Dulay, GR those enumerated under Article 59 of PD
No. 193854, September 24, 2012, Justice No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a)
Peralta). child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child
exploitation and (d) being responsible for
X convinced A to accompany her. conditions prejudicial to the child's
When they reached Kubuhan, X suddenly development. We stress that Section 10
pulled A inside a room where Y. Y gives refers to acts of child abuse other than
money to X and tells her to look for a child prostitution and other sexual abuse
younger girl. Thereafter, Y wielded a knife under Section 5, attempt to commit child
and tied As hands to the papag and raped prostitution under Section 6, child
her. A asked for X's help when she saw the trafficking under Section 7, attempt to
latter peeping into the room while she was commit child trafficking under Section 8,
being raped, but X did not do so. After the and obscene publications and indecent
rape, X and Y told A not to tell anyone what shows under Section 9 (People vs. Rayon,
had happened or else they would get back G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013).
at her. What is the crime committed by X?
In Bongalon vs. People, G.R. No.
Answer: X is not liable as principal 169533, March 20, 2013 - Accused struck
by indispensable cooperation. From the minor-victim at the back with his hand and
time X convinced A to go with her until X slapped his face. His acts however are not
received money from Y are not constituted child abuse within the purview
indispensable in the crime of rape. Anyone of the Section 10 (a) of RA No. 7610. The
could have accompanied A and offered the records did not establish beyond reasonable
latter's services in exchange for money and doubt that his laying of hands on victim
A could still have been raped. Note: had been intended to debase his "intrinsic
Conspiracy was not alleged in the worth and dignity" as a human being, or
information. that he had thereby intended to humiliate
or embarrass him. The records showed the
X is liable for child prostitution laying of hands on victim to have been done
under Section 5 of RA No. 7610. X at the spur of the moment and in anger,
facilitated or induced child prostitution. indicative of his being then overwhelmed by
The act of X in convincing A, who was 12 his fatherly concern for the personal safety
years old at that time, to go with her and of his own minor daughters who had just
thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in suffered harm at the hands of victim and
exchange for money makes her liable for his companion. With the loss of his self-
child prostitution (People vs. Dulay, GR No. control, he lacked that specific intent to
193854, September 24, 2012, Justice debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic
Peralta). worth and dignity of a child as a human
being that was so essential in the crime of
CHILD ABUSE - Under Section 10 child abuse. It is not trite to remind that
(a) of RA No. 7610, child abuse or cruelty is under the well-recognized doctrine of pro
committed by any person who shall commit reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the
any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or accused. Thus, the Court should consider
exploitation or be responsible for other all possible circumstances in his favor. The
conditions prejudicial to the childs accused was convicted of slight physical
development including those covered by injuries.
Article 59 of PD No. 603 but not covered by
the RPC. BIGAMY
Under Section 3 (b), "child abuse" X married A, but during the

refers to the maltreatment, whether subsistence of such marriage X married B.
habitual or not, of the child which includes A filed a complaint for bigamy against X. X
any of the following: (1) Psychological and filed a petition for the annulment of his first
physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual marriage with A on the ground of
abuse and emotional maltreatment; (2) Any psychological incapacity which was
act by deeds or words which debases, granted. X moved for the quashal of the
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth information and dismissal of the criminal
and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) complaint alleging that his first marriage
Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs had already been declared void ab initio. (a)
for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) Is the argument tenable?
Failure to immediately give medical
treatment to an injured child resulting in No. Article 40 of the Family Code
serious impairment of his growth and has settled once and for all the conflicting
development or in his permanent incapacity jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration
or death. of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now
explicitly required either as a cause of
65 | P a g e
action or a ground for defense. It has been rule, no vested right may attach to, nor
held in a number of cases that a judicial arise from, procedural laws (Jarillo vs.
declaration of nullity is required before a People, GR No. 164435, June 29, 2010,
valid subsequent marriage can be Justice Peralta).
contracted; or else, what transpires is a
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and (d) Would your answer be the same
immoral. if the second marriage was the one declared
null and void?
What makes a person criminally
liable for bigamy is when he contracts a Yes. It is a settled rule that the
second or subsequent marriage during the criminal culpability attaches to the offender
subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to upon the commission of the offense, and
the marriage should not be permitted to from that instant, liability appends to him
judge for themselves its nullity, for the until extinguished as provided by law. It is
same must be submitted to the judgment of clear then that the crime of bigamy was
competent courts and only when the nullity committed by X from the time he contracted
of the marriage is so declared can it be held the second marriage with B. Thus, the
as void, and so long as there is no such finality of the judicial declaration of nullity
declaration, the presumption is that the of Xs second marriage does not impede the
marriage exists. Therefore, he who filing of a criminal charge for bigamy
contracts a second marriage before the against him (Walter vs. People, GR No.
judicial declaration of nullity of the first 183805, July 03, 2013, Justice Peralta).
marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy. Otherwise, a person (e) Would your answer be the same
who commits bigamy can simply evade if both the first marriage and the second
prosecution by immediately filing a petition marriage are declared null and void?
for the declaration of nullity of his earlier
marriage and hope that a favorable decision Yes. The subsequent judicial
is rendered therein before anyone institutes declaration of nullity of Xs two marriages
a complaint against him (People vs. cannot be considered a valid defense in the
Odtuhan, GR No. 191566, July 17, 2013, crime of bigamy. The moment X contracted
Justice Peralta). a second marriage without the previous one
having been judicially declared null and
(b) Would your answer be the same void, the crime of bigamy was already
if the declaration of nullity of the first consummated because at the time of the
marriage was obtained before the filing of celebration of the second marriage, first
the complaint for bigamy against X? marriage, which had not yet been declared
null and void by a court of competent
Yes. Settled is the rule that criminal jurisdiction, was deemed valid and
culpability attaches to the offender upon subsisting. Neither would a judicial
the commission of the offense and from that declaration of the nullity of second marriage
instant, liability appends to him until make any difference. Since a marriage
extinguished as provided by law and that contracted during the subsistence of a valid
the time of filing of the criminal complaint marriage is automatically void, the nullity
or information is material only for of this second marriage is not per se an
determining prescription (People vs. argument for the avoidance of criminal
Odtuhan, GR No. 191566, July 17, 2013, liability for bigamy. What the law penalizes
Justice Peralta). is the mere act of contracting a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence
(c) Would your answer be the same of a valid marriage" (Jarillo vs. People, GR
if the first marriage was contracted prior to No. 164435, September 29, 2009, Justice
the Family Code? Peralta)
Yes. Article 40, which is a rule of DEFAMATION

procedure, should be applied retroactively
because Article 256 of the Family Code Is truthful defamatory imputation
itself provides that said "Code shall have against private individual and government
retroactive effect insofar as it does not employee a defense in libel? Proof of truth
prejudice or impair vested or acquired of defamatory imputation against private
rights." The fact that procedural statutes individual is a defense if it is published with
may somehow affect the litigants' rights good motives and for justifiable ends. Proof
may not preclude their retroactive of the truth of defamatory imputation
application to pending actions. against government employees is a defense:
The retroactive application of procedural (1) if it is published with good motives and
laws is not violative of any right of a person for justifiable ends; or (2) if the act or
who may feel that he is adversely omission imputed constitutes a crime; or (3)
affected. The reason is that as a general if the imputation not constituting a crime is
66 | P a g e
related to the discharge of his duties. defamatory imputation is directed against a
Truthfulness of imputation of a crime or a public person in his public capacity, it is
function-related defamatory act against a not necessarily actionable. In order that
public officer is a defense even though he such defamatory imputation to a public
does not prove that the imputation was official may be actionable, it must either be
published with good motives and for a false allegation of fact or a comment
justifiable ends (Vasquez vs. CA, G.R. No. based on a false supposition. If the
118971, September 15, 1999). comment is an expression of opinion, based
on established facts, then it is immaterial
MALICE - What are the different that the opinion happens to be mistaken,
rules on presumption involving malice as as long as it might reasonably be inferred
an element of libel or oral defamation? 1. from the facts (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No.
Disputable presumption of malice - Every 126466, January 14, 1999).
defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious. Presumed malice is also known What is the difference between fair
as malice in law. However, the following and true report, and fair comment as a
circumstances negate the presumption of privilege communications? (1) In fair and
malice in a defamatory statement: (1) if true report, the accused makes a report on
there is a good intention and justifiable the function-related acts performed by
motive for making it is shown; (2) if the public officers without any comments or
defamatory statements is a qualified remarks. On the other hand, in fair
privilege communication such (a) A private comment, the accused is making a comment
communication made by any person to on the function-related acts performed by
another in the performance of any legal, public officers. (2) In fair and true report,
moral or social duty; and (b) A fair and true the prosecution must prove actual malice
report, made in good faith, without any i.e., such as the report was made in bad
comments or remarks, of any judicial, faith. In fair comment, the prosecution
legislative or other official proceedings must actual malice i.e., comment was made
which are not of confidential nature, or of with knowledge that comment was false or
any statement, report or speech delivered in with reckless disregard of whether it was
said proceedings, or of any other act false or not (Sulivan vs. Newyork Times
performed by public officers in the exercise doctrine; Guingguing vs. the Honorable
of their functions (Article 354 of RPC). The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959,
enumeration under Article 354 is not an September 30, 2005) Only false statements
exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged made with the high degree of awareness of
communications since fair commentaries on their probable falsity demanded by New
matters of public interest are likewise York Times may be the subject of either civil
privileged (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No. 126466 or criminal sanctions (Flor vs. People, G.R.
January 14, 1999). 2. Conclusive No. 139987, March 31, 2005). (3) In fair
presumption of lack of malice If the and true report, the report involving
defamatory statements are an absolute defamatory statement must be true. In fair
privilege communication, lack of malice is comment, the defamatory imputation in the
conclusively presumed. Thus, the person commentary is not true but the accused
making defamatory imputation is not has no knowledge that it is false and has
answerable for libel. Absolutely privileged not recklessly disregarded to know whether
communications are those which are not it is false or not.
actionable even if the author has acted in
bad faith such as speech or debate in the Is error or misstatement in
Congress or in any Committee thereof commentaries on function related acts of
(Philippine Journalists, Inc vs. Thoenen, public officer actionable in a news articles
G.R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005) or for being libelous? Even assuming that the
words uttered or published in the course of contents of the articles are false, mere
judicial proceedings, provided the error, inaccuracy or even falsity alone does
statements are pertinent or relevant to the not prove actual malice. Errors or
case (Malit vs. People, G.R. No. L-58681, misstatements are inevitable in any scheme
May 31, 1982). of truly free expression and debate.
Consistent with good faith and reasonable
FAIR COMMENT DOCTRINE - care, the press should not be held to
What is the doctrine of fair comment? account, to a point of suppression, for
Under this doctrine, fair commentaries on honest mistakes or imperfections in the
matters of public interest are privileged and choice of language. There must be some
constitute a valid defense in an action for room for misstatement of fact as well as for
libel or slander. The doctrine of fair misjudgment. Only by giving them much
comment means that while in general every leeway and tolerance can they courageously
defamatory and public imputation is and effectively function as critical agencies
deemed false, and every false imputation is in our democracy (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No.
deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the 126466, January 14, 1999).
67 | P a g e
not (Erwin Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No.
Brillante implicated Jejomar Binay, 161032, September 16, 2008).
then the OIC Mayor of Makati, and Dr.
Nemesio Prudente, then President of the The article in Bander newspaper
Polytechnic University of the Philippines in details the sexual activities of a certain
a planned assassination of Syjuco as well Miss S and one Philip Henson who had
as election-related terrorism. Is the doctrine a romantic liaison. The words used in the
of fair comment applicable in this libel article convey that Miss S is a sexual
case? The New York Times principle is not libertine with unusually wanton proclivities
applicable since the utterances are in the bedroom. Is the article defamatory
unrelated to a public officers performance and malicious? Is the writer liable for libel?
of his duties (Brillante vs. CA, G.R. Nos. Yes. In a society such as ours, where
118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004). modesty is still highly prized among young
Obviously, commission of murder and ladies, the behavior attributed to Miss S
terrorism is not related to the performance by the article in question had besmirched
of their duties as public officers. both her character and reputation. Since on
its face the article is defamatory, there is a
Cristy Fermin imputed to Annabelle presumption that the offender acted with
Rama Gutierrez an actress the crime of malice. However, the writer cannot be held
malversation and of vices or defects for liable for libel. The libelous article, while
being fugitives from the law and of being a referring to "Miss S," does not give a
wastrel. Is the doctrine of fair comment sufficient description or other indications
applicable in this libel case? No. It is which identify "Miss S." In short, the article
unrelated to public figures work (Fermin vs. fails to show that "Miss S" and complainant
People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008). are one and the same person. Although the
The defamatory imputation has nothing to article is libelous, complainant could not
do to with works of Annabelle as a as an have been the person defamed therein (Diaz
actress. v. People, G.R. No. 159787, May 25, 2007).
In his series of articles of Erwin INTERNET LIBEL - Under Article

Tulfo, he targeted one Atty. "Ding" So of the 355, a libel committed by means of writing,
Bureau of Customs as being involved in printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
criminal activities, and was using his public phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
position for personal gain. He went even cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
further than that, and called Atty. So an means. Is the internet used to post a
embarrassment to his religion, saying malicious defamatory imputation through
"ikawnayataangpinakagago at facebook within the contemplation of the
magnanakawsamiyembronito." He accused phrase any similar means in Article 355?
Atty. So of stealing from the government Yes. Writing, printing, lithography,
with his alleged corrupt activities. And engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
when Atty. So filed a libel suit against him, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
Tulfo wrote another article, challenging exhibition has a common characteristic,
Atty. So, saying, "Nagalititongtarantadongsi and that is, their permanent nature as a
Atty. So dahilbinabantayankosiya at in- means of publication, and this explains the
expose angkagaguhanniyasa [Bureau of graver penalty for libel than that prescribed
Customs]." In his testimony, Tulfo admitted for oral defamation (People vs. Santiago,
that he did not personally know Atty. So, G.R. No. L-17663, May 30, 1962). Hence,
and had neither met nor known him prior the phrase any similar means should be
to the publication of the subject articles. He understood in the lights of the said
also admitted that he did not conduct a common characteristic of the means to
more in-depth research of his allegations commit libel. Since nature of internet as a
before he published them, and relied only means of publication is likewise permanent,
on his source at the Bureau of Customs. Is it should be considered as a means to
Tulfo liable for Libel? Yes. Journalists bear commit libel.
the burden of writing responsibly when
practicing their profession, even when What is the venue for internet libel
writing about public figures or matters of committed? As a general rule, the venue of
public interest. The report made by Tulfo libel cases where the complainant is a
cannot be considered as "fair" and "true" private individual is limited to only either of
since he did not do research before making two places, namely: 1) where the
his allegations, and it has been shown that complainant actually resides at the time of
these allegations were baseless. The articles the commission of the offense; or 2) where
are not "fair and true reports," but merely the alleged defamatory article was printed
wild accusations. He had written and and first published (Article 360 of
published the subject articles with reckless RPC).However, the place where libelous
disregard of whether the same were false or article was accessed by the offended party
in the internet is not equivalent to the place
68 | P a g e
where the libelous article is printed and The Information failed to allege the
first published. To rule otherwise is to residence of complainant. While the
allow the evil sought to be prevented by the Information alleges that complainant is a
amendment to Article 360, and that was physician in Iloilo City, such allegation did
the indiscriminate laying of the venue in not clearly and positively indicate that he
libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung was actually residing in Iloilo City at the
areas, to harass an accused. At any rate, time of the commission of the offense. It is
Article 360 still allow offended party to file possible that complainant was actually
the civil or criminal complaint for internet residing in another place (Foz, Jr., vs.
libel in their respective places of residence People, GR No. 167764, October 09, 2009,
(Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149, Justice Peralta).
G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Libel is not a constitutionally
protected speech and that the government Following a vehicular collision in
has an obligation to protect private August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged with
individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyber reckless imprudence resulting in slight
libel is actually not a new crime since physical injuries for injuries sustained by
Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Maria and reckless imprudence resulting in
penal code, already punishes it. In effect, homicide and damage to property for the
Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that death of Nestor and damage to their vehicle.
online defamation constitutes similar Court convicted Jason for the first charged.
means for committing libel (Disini vs. Should the information for the second
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 20335, charge be quashed on the basis of the rule
February 18. 2014). on double jeopardy? Reckless imprudence
under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense
VENUE - The rules on venue for by itself and not merely a means to commit
libel in Article 360 of RPC are as follows: (1) other crimes; hence conviction or acquittal
Whether the offended party is a public of such quasi-offense bars subsequent
official or a private person, the criminal prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
action may be filed in the Regional Trial regardless of its various consequences. The
Court of the province or city where the essence of the quasi offense of criminal
libelous article is printed and first negligence under article 365 of the Revised
published; (2) If the offended party is a Penal Code lies in the execution of an
private individual, the criminal action may imprudent or negligent act that, if
also be filed in the Regional Trial Court of intentionally done, would be punishable as
the province where he actually resided at a felony. The law penalizes thus the
the time of the commission of the offense. negligent or careless act, not the result
(3) If the offended party is a public officer thereof. The gravity of the consequence is
whose office is in Manila at the time of the only taken into account to determine the
commission of the offense, the action may penalty. It does not qualify the substance of
be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the offense. And, as the careless act is
Manila. (4) If the offended party is a public single, whether the injurious result should
officer holding office outside of Manila, the affect one person or several persons, the
action may be filed in the Regional Trial offense criminal negligence remains one
Court of the province or city where he held and the same, and cannot be split into
office at the time of the commission of the different crimes and prosecutions (Ivler vs.
offense (Foz, Jr., vs. People, GR No. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
167764, October 09, 2009, Justice Peralta). November 17, 2010). Note: The principle in
Ivler case has abandoned the principle
Information alleged that the libelous (Ortega view) that culpa is just a modality
writings were published in Panay News, a by which a felony may be committed.
daily publication with a considerable
circulation in the City of Iloilo and that In People vs. Dumayag, G.R. No.
complainant (private individual) is a 172778, 26 November 2012 - The evidence
physician in Iloilo. Is the Information indubitably shows that before the collision,
quashable for improper venue? the passenger bus was cruising along its
rightful lane when the tricycle coming from
Answer: Yes. The allegations in the the opposite direction suddenly swerved
Information that "Panay News, a daily and encroached on its lane. The accident
publication with a considerable circulation would not have happened had Genayas, the
in the City of Iloilo" only showed that Iloilo tricycle driver, stayed on his lane and did
was the place where Panay News was in not recklessly try to overtake another
considerable circulation but did not vehicle while approaching a blind curve.
establish that the said publication was Section 37 of R.A. No. 4136 mandates all
printed and first published in Iloilo City. motorists to drive and operate vehicles on
the right side of the road or highway. When
69 | P a g e
overtaking another, it should be made only VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN
if the highway is clearly visible and is free Are the acts of attaching the face of
from oncoming vehicle. Overtaking while his ex-girlfriend on a nude body of a woman
approaching a curve in the highway, where in a picture, sending the picture to her
the drivers view is obstructed, is not through cell phone text message and
allowed. Corollarily, drivers of automobiles, threatening to post it in the internet for all
when overtaking another vehicle, are to see that caused substantial emotional
charged with a high degree of care and and psychological distress to her
diligence to avoid collision. The obligation constitutive of psychological violence
rests upon him to see to it that vehicles against woman under Section 5 (h) of RA
coming from the opposite direction are not No. 9262? Yes. Under Section 5 (h) of RA
taken unaware by his presence on the side No. 9262 the following conduct that caused
of the road upon which they have the right substantial emotional and psychological
to pass. distress to the woman with whom the
offender has a marital, sexual or dating
In the medical profession, specific relationship is punishable: (1) Stalking (2)
norms or standards to protect the patient Peering in the window or lingering outside
against unreasonable risk, commonly the residence of the woman or her child; (3)
referred to as standards of care, set the Entering or remaining in the dwelling
duty of the physician to act in respect of the against her will; (4) Destroying property and
patient. Unfortunately, no clear definition of inflicting harm to animals; and (5) Engaging
the duty of a particular physician in a in any form of harassment or violence;
particular case exists. Because most
medical malpractice cases are highly The acts described above are
technical, witnesses with special medical considered harassment within the
qualifications must provide guidance by contemplation of the phrase any form of
giving the knowledge necessary to render a harassment in Section 5 (h) (5) (Ang vs.
fair and just verdict. As a result, the The Honorable CA, G.R. No. 182835, April
standard of medical care of a prudent 20, 2010).
physician must be determined from expert
testimony in most cases; and in the case of Is habituality an element of
a specialist (like an anesthesiologist), the violence against women and their children
standard of care by which the specialist is under Section 5 (h)? No. Section 3(a) of R.A.
judged is the care and skill commonly 9262 punishes "any act or series of acts"
possessed and exercised by similar that constitutes violence against women.
specialists under similar circumstances. The This means that a single act of harassment
specialty standard of care may be higher contemplated in Section 5 (h), which
than that required of the general translates into violence, would be enough.
practitioner. The object of the law is to protect women
and children. Punishing only violence that
The standard of care is an objective is repeatedly committed would license
standard by which the conduct of a isolated ones (Ang vs. The Honorable CA,
physician sued for negligence or G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010).
malpractice may be measured, and it does
not depend, therefore, on any individual HAZING
physicians own knowledge either. In
attempting to fix a standard by which a The night before the
court may determine whether the physician commencement of the rites, the neophytes
has properly performed the requisite duty of AngGaling fraternity were briefed on
toward the patient, expert medical what to expect. They were told that there
testimony from both plaintiff and defense would be physical beatings, that the whole
experts is required. The judge, as the trier event would last for three days, that that
of fact, ultimately determines the standard they could quit anytime. A, a neophyte,
of care, after listening to the testimony of all consented to the initiation ritual, having
medical experts. asked his parents for permission to join the
fraternity. Even after going through the
Here, the Prosecution presented no fraternitys grueling tradition rituals
witnesses with special medical qualifications mainly being beaten by a paddle on the
in anesthesia to provide guidance to the arms and legsduring the first day, A
trial court on what standard of care was continued and completed the second day of
applicable. It would consequently be truly initiation. As consequence of the hazing, A
difficult, if not impossible, to determine died. What is the crime committed by
whether the first three elements of a members of the fraternity, who directly
negligence and malpractice action were participated in the infliction of harm
attendant (Solidum vs. People, GR No. against A? The crime committed is hazing.
192123, March 10, 2014). The principle in Villareal vs. People, G.R.
No. 151258, February 1, 2012 finding the
70 | P a g e
accused liable for reckless imprudence Section 29 of RA No. 10591
resulting in homicide is not anymore provides:
controlling in the light of RA No. 8049 (Anti-
hazing Law) SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in
the Commission of a Crime. The use of a
Under Section 4 of RA 8049, the loose firearm, when inherent in the
officers and members of the fraternity, commission of a crime punishable under
sorority or organization who actually the Revised Penal Code or other special
participated in the infliction of physical laws, shall be considered as an aggravating
harm upon recruit, neophyte or applicant circumstance: Provided, That if the crime
on occasion of hazing shall be liable as committed with the use of a loose firearm is
principals for the crime of hazing. Hazing is penalized by the law with a maximum
an initiation rite or practice as a penalty which is lower than that prescribed
prerequisite for admission into membership in the preceding section for illegal
in a fraternity, sorority or organization possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal
(such as AFP, PNP, ROTC) or a requirement possession of firearm shall be imposed in
for employment in a corporation by placing lieu of the penalty for the crime
the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some charged:Provided, further, That if the crime
embarrassing or humiliating situations. committed with the use of a loose firearm is
penalized by the law with a maximum
What are the differences between penalty which is equal to that imposed
hazing and homicide or murder? The under the preceding section for illegal
differences of homicide or murder and possession of firearms, the penalty
hazing are as follows: (a) In homicide or of prision mayor in its minimum period
murder, what is criminal is the killing of shall be imposed in addition to the penalty
person. Hence, intent to kill is an for the crime punishable under the Revised
indispensable element. Death of the victim Penal Code or other special laws of which
consummates the crime. In hazing, what is he/she is found guilty.
prohibited is the infliction of physical harm.
Hence, intent to kill is not material. Death If the violation of this Act is in
of the neophyte is only important to furtherance of, or incident to, or in
determine the proper imposable penalty. (b) connection with the crime of rebellion of
Homicide or murder is malum in se. insurrection, or attempted coup d
Consent of the victim to the infliction of etat,such violation shall be absorbed as an
harm may negate dolo or criminal intent, element of the crime of rebellion or
which would make the killing punishable as insurrection, or attempted coup d etat.
reckless imprudence (Villareal vs. People,
G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012). Hazing If the crime is committed by the
is malum prohibitum. Consent of the person without using the loose firearm, the
neophyte is not a defense. (c) In homicide or violation of this Act shall be considered as a
murder, praeter intentionem is appreciable distinct and separate offense.
as a mitigating circumstance. In hazing, the
law expressly disallows the appreciation of USE OF LOOSE FIREARM AS
this circumstance. In homicide or murder, AGGRVATING CIRCUMSTANCE - As a
the basis of criminal liability is the actual rule, when use of a loose firearm in
and conspiratorial participation of the committing is inherent in the commission
offender in killing the victim. In hazing, of other crime, such circumstance shall be
criminal responsibility is based on (1) considered as an aggravating circumstance.
actual participation in inflicting physical For example, if a loose firearm was used in
harm, (2) presumed participation (of those committing homicide, the penalty of
who are present during the hazing), (3) the reclusion temporal prescribed for shall be
presence of adviser, (4) participation in the applied in its maximum period.
planning (by officers, former officers and
alumni of the fraternity); (5) knowledge (of However, if the penalty for illegal
the parent of frat member in the home of possession of loose firearm is graver than
whom hazing occurred, owner of the place that prescribed for other crime committed,
commission, and school authorities). (d) In the penalty for the latter shall be applied.
hazing, taking action to prevent the For example, the penalty for simple robbery
occurrence of hazing is a defense by any is prision correccional in its maximum
offender except (1) those who actually period to prision mayor in its medium
inflicted physical harm and (2) those period while the penalty for illegal
(officers, former officers and alumni of the possession of small arm under Section 28
fraternity), who planned the hazing. of RA No. 10591 is prision mayor in its
medium period. If a loose firearm classified
LOOSE FIREARM as small arm is used in committing simple
robbery, the penalty of prision mayor in its
71 | P a g e
medium period prescribed under RA 10591 No. 1866 was recently amended by RA No.
shall be imposed. 8294, which provides that if homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an
Furthermore, if the maximum unlicensed firearm, such use of an
penalty prescribed for the other crime is unlicensed firearm shall be considered as
equal to that for illegal possession of loose an aggravating circumstance. In short,
firearm, prision mayor in its minimum only one offense should be punished, viz.,
period shall be imposed in addition to the either homicide or murder, and the use of
penalty for the other crime. For example, the unlicensed firearm should only be
the penalty of reclusion perpetua is considered as an aggravating
prescribed for homicide and illegal circumstance.
possession of a Class B light weapon. If a
loose firearm involving a Class B light In Celino vs. CA, G.R. No. 170562,
weapon is used to commit homicide, the June 29, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum that:
period in addition to reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed. When the other crime involved is one
of those enumerated under RA 8294 (e.g.
Lastly, if a loose firearm is used in homicide, murder, rebellion, sedition or coup
the commission of rebellion, sedition or d etat) any information for illegal possession
coup d etat, the latter shall be absorbed in of firearm should be quashed because the
the former. illegal possession of firearm would have to
be tried together with such other offense,
DISTINCT AND SEPARATE CRIME either considered as an aggravating
- If the crime is committed by the person circumstance in murder or homicide,, or
without using the loose firearm, the absorbed as an element of rebellion,
violation of this Act shall be considered as a insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
distinct and separate offense (RA No. detat.
10591). Conversely, if the crime is
committed by the person with the use of When the other crime involved is not
loose firearm, illegal possession of loose one of those enumerated under RA 8294,
firearm is not a separate offense. In such a any information for illegal possession of
case, the illegal possession of loose firearm firearm should not be quashed. The separate
shall be considered as an aggravating case for illegal possession of firearm should
circumstance or a special circumstance continue to be prosecuted. Settled is the rule
that justifies that imposition of graver that an accused cannot be convicted for
penalty or additional penalty, or as a mere illegal possession of firearm if another crime
element of rebellion, sedition or coup d was committed at the same time. Since
etat. accusation is not synonymous with guilt, it
cannot establish outright that other crime
QUASABLE INFORMATION - Prior was committed. However, the accused must
to RA 8294, the rules obtaining, if the be exonerated of illegal possession of
offender killed a person with the use of firearms if he is convicted of some other
unlicensed firearm, were as follows: (1) use crime.
of unlicensed firearm was not an
aggravating circumstance in murder or Considering that under RA No.
homicide under PD 1866; (2) offender is 10591 use of loose firearm is not only an
liable independently for homicide or murder aggravating circumstance in murder or
and illegal possession of firearm. homicide but also in other crime such as
robbery or grave threat, the illegal
Under PD 1866 as amended by RA possession of firearm should not be
8294, the rules, if the offender killed a considered a separate and distinct crime if
person with the use of unlicensed firearm, other crime is committed and the use of
are as follows: (1) offender is liable for loose firearm in inherent therein. Following
homicide or murder with aggravating the same line of reasoning in the case of
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm; Celino, any information for illegal
and (2) the crimes of murder or homicide possession of firearm should be quashed
and illegal use or possession of firearm are because the illegal possession of loose
integrated into a single offense. firearm would have to be tried together
with such other offense, either considered
In People vs. Bergante, G.R. No. as an aggravating circumstance in murder
120369-70, February 27, 1998 - The or homicide,, robbery, grave threat, alarm
violation of PD No. 1866 should have been and scandal, physical injuries or absorbed
punished separately conformably with our as an element of rebellion, insurrection,
ruling in the case of Quijada G.R. No. sedition or attempted coup detat.
115008-09, July 24, 1996, En Banc.
Nevertheless, fortunately for appellant, PD DANGEROUS DRUGS
72 | P a g e
a policeman, and then, apprehended X
POSSESSION OF DRUGS For a and confiscated the shabu from his
prosecution for illegal possession of a pocket. What is the crime committed by
dangerous drug to prosper, it must be X? X is liable for attempted sale of
shown that (a) the accused was in shabu punishable under Section 26 of RA
possession of an item or an object identified 9165. Attempt to sell shabu was shown by
to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) the overt act of appellant therein of showing
such possession is not authorized by law; the substance to the poseur-buyer. The
and (c) the accused was freely and sale was aborted when the police officers
consciously aware of being in possession of identified themselves and placed appellant
the drug (David vs. People, Gr No. 181861, under arrest (People vs. Figueroa, G.R.
October 17, 2011, Justice Peralta). No. 186141, April 11, 2012).
This crime is mala prohibita, and, as DELIVERY - Is the absence of

such, criminal intent is not an essential marked money as evidence fatal to
element. However, the prosecution must prosecution of sale and delivery of
prove that the accused had the intent to dangerous drugs? No. The law
possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. defines deliver as a persons act of
Possession, under the law, includes not knowingly passing a dangerous drug to
only actual possession, but also another with or without
constructive possession. Actual possession consideration. Considering that the
exists when the drug is in the immediate appellant was charged with the sale and
physical possession or control of the the delivery of prohibited drugs, the
accused. On the other hand, constructive consummation of the crime of delivery of
possession exists when the drug is under marijuana may be sufficiently established
the dominion and control of the accused or even in the absence of the marked money
when he has the right to exercise dominion (People vs. Domingcil, G.R. No.
and control over the place where it is found. 140679, January 14, 2004).
Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid LACK OF COORDINATION WITH
conviction if his right to exercise control PDEA - Silence of the law as to the
and dominion over the place where the consequences of the failure on the part of
contraband is located, is shared with the law enforcers to seek the prior authority
another (Del Castillo vs. People, GR No. of the PDEA cannot be interpreted as a
185128, January 30, 2012, Justice legislative intent to make an arrest without
Peralta). such PDEA participation illegal or evidence
obtained pursuant to such an arrest
Mere possession of a dangerous inadmissible (People vs. Clarite, G.R.
drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence No. 187157, February 15, 2012). Lack of
of knowledge or animus coordination with the PDEA will not
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused invalidate a buy-bust operation. Such
absent a satisfactory explanation of such coordination is not an indispensable
possession - the onus probandi is shifted to requirement in buy-bust
the accused, to explain the absence of operations. Neither Section 86 of Republic
knowledge or animus possidendi (Miclat, Jr. Act No. 9165 nor its Implementing Rules
vs. People, GR No. 176077, August 31, and Regulations make PDEAs participation
2011, Justice Peralta). a condition sine qua non for the conduct of
a buy-bust operation (People vs. Mendosa,
KNOWLEDGE - Is knowledge an G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012)
element of dangerous drugs despite this
crime is malum prohibitum? Yes. For illegal CONFIRMATORY TEST - In Ambre
possession of dangerous drugs, the vs. People, G.R. No. 191532. August 15,
prosecution must establish that the 2012 - In no instance did accused
accused freely and consciously possessed challenge, at the RTC, the supposed
the dangerous drug without authority. absence of confirmatory drug test
However, mere possession of dangerous conducted on her. Accused only
drug constitutes prima facie evidence of questioned the alleged omission when she
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient appealed her conviction before the CA. It
to convict an accused in the absence of any was too late in the day for her to do so.
satisfactory explanation (Asiatico vs. People, Well entrenched is the rule that litigants
G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011). cannot raise an issue for the first time on
appeal as this would contravene the basic
ATTEMPTED SALE - A, poseur rules of fair play and justice.
buyer, asked X if he has available shabu
for sale. X answered in the affirmative and PHOTOGRAPHY AND INVENTORY
showed to A a plastic sachet containing Under Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the
shabu. A immediately identified himself as apprehending team having initial custody
73 | P a g e
and control of the drugs shall, immediately herein. The absolution of accused should
after seizure and confiscation, physically then follow, for we cannot deny that the
inventory and photograph the same in the observance of the chain of custody as
presence of the accused or the person/s defined by the law was the only assurance
from whom such items were confiscated to him that his incrimination for the very
and/or seized, or his/her representative or serious crime had been legitimate and
counsel, a representative from the media insulated from either invention or malice. In
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and this connection, the Court states that the
any elected public official who shall be unexplained non-compliance with the
required to sign the copies of the inventory procedures for preserving the chain of
and be given a copy thereof; However, the custody of the dangerous drugs has
Implementing rules of RA No. 9165 provides frequently caused the Court to absolve
that non-compliance with these those found guilty by the lower courts.
requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary CHAIN OF CUSTODY As a method
value of the seized items are properly of authenticating evidence, the chain of
preserved by the apprehending custody rule requires that the admission of
officer/team, shall not render void and an exhibit be preceded by evidence
invalid such seizures of and custody over sufficient to support a finding that the
said items. matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony
Non-compliance with the about every link in the chain, from the
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 moment the item was picked up to the time
will not necessarily render the items seized it is offered into evidence, in such a way
or confiscated in a buy-bust operation that every person who touched the exhibit
inadmissible. Strict compliance with the would describe how and from whom it was
letter of Section 21 is not required if there received, where it was and what happened
is a clear showing that the integrity and the to it while in the witness possession, the
evidentiary value of the seized items have condition in which it was received and the
been preserved, i.e., the items being offered condition in which it was delivered to the
in court as exhibits are, without a specter next link in the chain. These witnesses
of doubt, the very same ones recovered in would then describe the precautions taken
the buy-bust operation. Hence, once the to ensure that there had been no change in
possibility of substitution has been negated the condition of the item and no
by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive opportunity for someone not in the chain to
chain of custody over the contraband, such have possession of the same (People vs.
contraband may be admitted and stand as Constantino, Jr. GR No. 199689, March 12,
proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding 2014).
the fact that it was never made the subject
of an inventory or was photographed Thus, the following links must be
pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act established in the chain of custody in a
No. 9165 (David vs. People, Gr No. 181861, buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and
October 17, 2011, Justice Peralta; marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
Marquez vs. People, G.R. No. 197207, recovered from the accused by the
March 13, 2013; People vs. Morate, GR No. apprehending officer; second, the turn over
201156, January 29, 2014; People vs. of the illegal drug seized by the
Ladip, GR No. 196146, March 12, 2014; apprehending officer to the investigating
People vs. Bis, GR No. 191360, March 10, officer; third, the turn over by the
2014). investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory
In People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. examination; and fourth, the turn over and
182417, April 3, 2013 - By way of submission of the marked illegal drugs
exception, Republic Act No. 9165 and its seized from the forensic chemist to the
IRR both state that the non-compliance court (People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR No.
with the procedures thereby delineated and 199689, March 12, 2014)
set would not necessarily invalidate the
seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs MARKING - Crucial in proving the
provided there were justifiable grounds for chain of custody is the marking of the
the non-compliance, and provided that the seized dangerous drugs or other related
integrity of the evidence of the corpus items immediately after they are seized
delicti was preserved. But the non- from the accused, for the marking upon
compliance with the procedures, to be seizure is the starting point in the custodial
excusable, must have to be justified by the link that succeeding handlers of the
States agents themselves. Considering that evidence will use as reference point.
PO1 Dimla tendered no justification in Moreover, the value of marking of the
court for the non-compliance with the evidence is to separate the marked evidence
procedures, the exception did not apply from the corpus of all other similar or
74 | P a g e
related evidence from the time of seizure as required under Sec. 15. The minimum
from the accused until disposition at the penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11
end of criminal proceedings, obviating for the possession of residue is
switching, planting or contamination of imprisonment of twelve years and one day,
evidence. A failure to mark at the time of while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first
taking of initial custody imperils the time offenders of drug use is a minimum of
integrity of the chain of custody that the six months rehabilitation in a government
law requires (People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the
No. 199689, March 12, 2014) basis of residue alone would frustrate the
objective of the law to rehabilitate drug
The rule requires that the marking users and provide them with an
of the seized items should be done in the opportunity to recover for a second chance
presence of the apprehended violator and at life.
immediately upon confiscation to ensure
that they are the same items that enter the In order to effectively fulfill the
chain and are eventually the ones offered in intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users,
evidence. There are occasions when the this Court thus calls on law enforcers and
chain of custody rule is relaxed such as prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to
when the marking of the seized items exercise proper discretion in filing charges
immediately after seizure and confiscation when the presence of dangerous drugs is
is allowed to be undertaken at the police only and solely in the form of residue and
station rather than at the place of arrest for the confirmatory test required under Sec.
as long as it is done in the presence of an 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In
accused in illegal drugs cases. However, such cases, to afford the accused a chance
even a less-than-stringent application of the to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for
requirement would not suffice to sustain or involving possession of dangerous drugs
the conviction in this case. There was no should only be done when another separate
categorical statement from any of the quantity of dangerous drugs, other than
prosecution witnesses that markings were mere residue, is found in the possession of
made, much less immediately upon the accused as provided for in Sec. 15.
confiscation of the seized items. There was
also no showing that markings were made PLANTING OF EVIDENCE - As a
in the presence of the accused in this case general rule, planting of evidence to
(Lopez vs. People, GR No. 188653, January incriminate an innocent person constitutes
29, 2014). the crime of incriminating an innocent
person under Article 363 of RPC. However,
Drug peddling in schools is if the incriminatory evidence planted is
prevalent; the scenario attending this case dangerous drugs or unauthorized
is likely to be repeated many times. To explosives, loose firearm, the crime
impose on school personnel the observance committed is planting of evidence under
of the same procedure required of law RA 9165 for the dangerous drug, PD 1866
enforces (like marking) processes that are as amended by RA 9516 for the explosive
unfamiliar to them is to set a dangerous and RA No. 10591.
precedent that may eventually lead to the
acquittal of many drug peddlers. To our PLEA BARGAINING - Section 23 of
mind, the evidentiary value of the seized RA No. 9165, any person charged under
specimen remains intact as long as the any crime involving dangerous drugs
school personnel who had initial contact regardless of the imposable penalty shall
with the drug/s was able to establish that not be allowed to avail of the provision on
the evidence had not been tampered with plea-bargaining.
when he handed it to the police (Marquez
vs. People, G.R. No. 197207, March 13, 2013) TRAFFICKING IN PERSON
PARAPHERNALIA WITH TRACES Can accused be convicted of illegal

OF SHABU In People vs. Matinez, G.R. recruitment and trafficking in person for
No. 191366, December 13, 2010 - This the same of act of recruiting a person for
Court notes the practice of law enforcers of prostitution without violating the rule on
filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where double jeopardy? Yes. When an act or acts
the presence of dangerous drugs as basis violate two or more different laws and
for possession is only and solely in the form constitute two different offenses, a
of residue, being subsumed under the last prosecution under one will not bar a
paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not prosecution under the other. The
incorrect, it would be more in keeping with constitutional right against double jeopardy
the intent of the law to file charges under only applies to risk of punishment twice for
Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first the same offense, or for an act punished by
time offenders of drug use, provided that a law and an ordinance. The prohibition on
there is a positive confirmatory test result double jeopardy does not apply to an act or
75 | P a g e
series of acts constituting different offenses
(People vs. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October Where the check is drawn by a
12, 2011). corporation, company or entity, the person
or persons who actually signed the check in
Is trafficking in persons limited to behalf of such drawer shall be liable under
transportation of victims? No. Trafficking in this Act." This provision recognizes the
Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA reality that a corporation can only act
9208 is not only limited to transportation of through its officers. Hence, its wording is
victims, but also includes the act of unequivocal and mandatory that
recruitment of victims for trafficking (People the person who actually signed the
vs. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October 12, corporate check shall be held liable for a
2011). violation of BP 22. This provision does not
contain any condition, qualification or
Is recruitment of the victim for limitation (Mitra Vs. People and Tarcelo,
prostitution with her consent or knowledge G.R. No. 191404. July 5, 2010)
constitutive of the crime of trafficking in
person? Yes. The crime of Trafficking in NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN
Persons can exist even with the victims ESTAFA CASE - The essential elements of
consent or knowledge (People vs. Lalli, G.R. the felony are: (1) a check is postdated or
No. 195419, October 12, 2011). issued in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; and (3) damage to the payee
It is well-established in thereof. It is criminal fraud or deceit in the
jurisprudence that a person may be issuance of a check which is made
charged and convicted for both illegal punishable under the RPC, and not the
recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor non-payment of a debt. The postdating or
is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is issuing of a check in payment of an
malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in obligation when the offender had no funds
se. In the first, the criminal intent of the in the bank or his funds deposited therein
accused is not necessary for conviction. In are not sufficient to cover the amount of
the second, such intent is imperative the check is a false pretense or a
(People vs. Chua, G. R. No. 187052, fraudulent act. However deceit is
September 13, 2012). presumed if the drawer of the check fails
to deposit the amount needed to cover his
BP BLG. 22 check within three days from receipt of
notice of dishonor.
What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
punished was the mere act of issuing a a. No notice of dishonor - If there
worthless check. The law did not look either is no notice of dishonor, the prosecution
at the actual ownership of the check or of can still prove the existence of deceit such
the account against which it was made, as in a case where the accused knows that
drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the his checking account is closed. The receipt
drawee, maker or issuer. Also, that the by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is
check was not intended to be deposited was not an element of the estafa through
really of no consequence to her incurring bouncing check.
criminal liability under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 (Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. b. With notice of dishonor - If
177438. September 24, 2012). there is notice of dishonor, the
presumption of deceit can still be rebutted
The giving of the written notice of by: (1) proof that the check is issued in
dishonor does not only supply the proof for payment of a pre-existing obligation or (1)
the second element arising from the evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa
presumption of knowledge the law puts up by postdating a check. Good faith may be
but also affords the offender due process. demonstrated, for instance, by a debtors
The law thereby allows the offender to avoid offer to arrange a payment scheme with
prosecution if she pays the holder of the his creditor or making full payment of the
check the amount due thereon, or makes entire amount of the dishonored checks.
arrangements for the payment in full of the However, simply empty promise to pay
check by the drawee within five banking complainant the value of the bum checks
days from receipt of the written notice that issued in order to induce her to part with
the check had not been paid. The Court her property in favor of accused is not an
cannot permit a deprivation of the offender evidence of good faith that will rebut the
of this statutory right by not giving the presumption of deceit. (See: People vs.
proper notice of dishonor (Resterio vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3,
People, G.R. No. 177438. September 24, 2004, Corona; Lopez vs. People, G.R. No.
2012). 166810, June 26, 2008, De Castro;
76 | P a g e
Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, sum became due and demandable until
June 27, 2006, ) fully paid, stands.
NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP FULL PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF

BLG. 22 - Notice of dishonor of a check to DISHONORED CHECKS - The full
the maker in BP Blg. 22 must be in payment of the amount appearing in the
writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer check within five banking days from notice
or maker of the dishonor of his check is of dishonor is a complete defense (Lina
not enough. If the maker or drawer pays, Lim Lao v. CA, 274 SCRA 572) regardless
or makes arrangements with the drawee of the strength of the evidence offered by
bank for the payment of the amount due the prosecution (Meriz vs. People, G.R. No.
within the five-day period from notice of 134498, November 13, 2001). The accused
the dishonor given to the drawer, it is a has the burden to establish by convincing,
complete defense; the accused may no satisfactory and credible evidence that
longer be indicted for violation of Section payment was made within the grace period
1, B.P. Blg. 22. If he is so indicted, he may (Arceo vs. People, G.R. No. 142641, July
set up the payment of the amount due as a 17, 2006). Exceptions: In Griffith vs. Hon.
complete defense. Assuming that the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129764, March
accused had knowledge that he had 12, 2002 and in Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No.
insufficient funds in the drawee bank 154128, February 8, 2007 considered full
when he issued the questioned checks, he payment of the check after the expiration
could still have paid the checks or made of grace period of five days from receipt of
arrangements with the drawee bank for notice of dishonor. The SC in these cases
the payment of the said checks if he had applied the utilitarian doctrine instead of
been duly notified of their dishonor. In not the mala prohibita principle. (1) In Griffith,
sending a notice or letter of dishonor to the since the creditor have collected already
petitioner as required by law, the more than a sufficient amount to cover the
complaint deprived the accused of his right value of the checks for payment of rentals,
to avoid prosecution for violation of B.P. via auction sale, holding the debtors
Blg. 22 (Sia vs. G.R. No. 149695, April 28, president to answer for a criminal offense
2004). under B.P. 22 two years after said
collection, is no longer tenable nor justified
In San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. by law or equitable considerations. (2)
200090, March 6, 2013 - Complainant tried In Cruz vs. Cruz, petitioner made full
to serve the notice of dishonor to the payment of the dishonored check after
accused two times. On the first occasion, eleven (11) days from receipt of notice of
complainants counsel sent a demand letter dishonor. Respondent filed the complaint
to accuseds residence at Greenhills, San almost six (6) months after the said
Juan which the security guard refused to payment.
accept. Thus, the liaison officer left the
letter with the security guard with the SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT - X in
instruction to hand it to accused. But the his capacity as officer of Z corporation
prosecution failed to show that the letter issued a corporate check in favor of A. The
ever reached accused. On the second check bounced due to DAIF. Notice of
occasion, counsel sent a demand letter to dishonor was received by X. After three
accused by registered mail which was months, SEC issued order creating the
returned with the notation "N/S Party Out Management Committee and ordering the
12/12/05" and that accused did not claim suspension of all pending actions for claims
it despite three notices to her. Since there is against Z corporation. (a) Is X liable for
insufficient proof that accused actually violation of BP Blg. 22?
received the notice of dishonor, the
presumption that she knew of the Answer: Yes. X was formally
insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For notified of the dishonor of the checks.
this reason, the Court cannot convict her Yet, it was only more than three
with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22. months after, that the SEC issued order
for the suspension of all pending
Nevertheless, accuseds acquittal
does not entail the extinguishment of her actions for claims against Z
civil liability for the dishonored checks. An corporation. Thus, X was not precluded
acquittal based on lack of proof beyond from making good the checks during
reasonable doubt does not preclude the that three-month gap when he received
award of civil damages. For this reason, the the letter and when the SEC issued the
trial courts directive for San Mateo to pay order (Tiong Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No.
the civil liability in the amount representing 133608, August 26, 2008)
the total value of the checks plus 12%
interest per annum from the time the said (b) Would your answer be the same
if the order of suspension was issued before
77 | P a g e
the presentment for payment of the check petitioner admitted in his testimony that he
when the drawee bank and the sending of is aware of such requirement, however, he
notice of dishonor? proceeded just the same due to the alleged
advice of the unnamed DECS
Answer: No. X is not liable for representative that there was already a
violation of BP Blg. 22. Considering that negotiated contract a representation or
there was a lawful Order from the SEC, the misrepresentation he willfully believed in,
contract is deemed suspended. When a without any verification. As a Governor, he
contract is suspended, it temporarily ceases must know that negotiated contract can
to be operative; and it again becomes only be resorted to in case of failure of a
operative when a condition occurs - or a public bidding. As it is, there is no public
situation arises - warranting the bidding to speak of that has been
termination of the suspension of the conducted. Intentionally or not, it is his
contract. When a contract is subject to a duty to act in a circumspect manner to
suspensive condition, its birth takes place protect government funds. To do otherwise
or its effectivity commences only if and is gross inexcusable negligence, at the very
when the event that constitutes the least, especially so, that petitioner acted on
condition happens or is fulfilled. Thus, at his own initiative and without authorization
the time A presented the check for from the Provincial School Board (Plameras
encashment, it had no right to do so, as vs. People, GR No. 187268, September 04,
there was yet no obligation due from X 2013).
(Gidwani vs. People, GR No. 195064,
January 15, 2014). Failure of petitioner as City
Engineer to validate the ownership of the
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES land on which the canal was to be built
LAW because of his unfounded belief that it was
public land constitutes gross inexcusable
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be negligence. In his own testimony, petitioner
committed either by dolo, as when the impliedly admitted that it fell squarely
accused acted with evident bad faith or under his duties to check the ownership of
manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the land with the Register of Deeds. Yet he
the accused committed gross inexcusable concluded that it was public land based
negligence. There is manifest partiality solely on his evaluation of its appearance,
when there is clear, notorious, or plain i.e. that it looked swampy. Moreover, the
inclination or predilection to favor one side undue injury to private complainant was
or person rather than another. Evident established. The cutting down of her palm
bad faith connotes not only bad judgment trees and the construction of the canal were
but also palpably and patently fraudulent all done without her approval and consent
and dishonest purpose to do moral (Sanchez vs. People, GR No. 187340,
obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some August 14, 2013).
perverse motive or ill will. Evident bad
faith contemplates a state of mind
affirmatively operating with furtive design This crime has the following
or with some motive of self-interest or ill essential elements: 1. The accused must be
will or for ulterior purposes. Gross a public officer discharging administrative,
inexcusable negligence refers to negligence judicial or official functions; 2. He must
characterized by the want of even the have acted with manifest partiality, evident
slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;
situation where there is a duty to act, not and 3. His action caused any undue injury
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, to any party, including the government, or
with conscious indifference to gave any private party unwarranted
consequences insofar as other persons may benefits, advantage or preference in the
be affected (Plameras vs. People, GR No. discharge of his functions (People vs.
187268, September 04, 2013). Atienza, GR No. 171671, June 18, 2012,
Justice Peralta).
The rules, regulations and policies
of the COA and those mandated under Crime of corruption under Section 3
the Local Government Code were knowingly (e) of RA 3019 may be committed either
sidestepped and ignored by the petitioner by dolo, as when the accused acted with
which enabled CKL to successfully get full evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or
payment for the school desks and by culpa, as when the accused committed
armchairs, despite non-delivery an act or gross inexcusable negligence. There is
omission evidencing bad faith and manifest manifest partiality when there is a clear,
partiality. It must be borne to mind that notorious, or plain inclination or
any procurement or acquisition of supplies predilection to favor one side or person
or property by local government units shall rather than another. Evident bad faith
be through competitive public bidding. The connotes not only bad judgment but also
78 | P a g e
palpably and patently fraudulent and
dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse
motive or ill will. Evident bad faith
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or with some
motive of self-interest or ill will or for
ulterior purposes. Gross inexcusable
negligence refers to negligence
characterized by the want of even the
slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally,
with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may
be affected (People vs. Atienza, GR No.
171671, June 18, 2012, Justice Peralta)..
The act of destroying the subject

fences without giving any notice to the
private complainant does not amount to
manifest partiality and/or evident bad
faith as indicated in the information. The
same could not be considered evident bad
faith as the prosecution evidence failed to
show that the destruction was for a
dishonest purpose, ill will or self interest.
The fence was destroyed because it is a
tourist spot and it is also a port for the
fishermen (People vs. Atienza, GR No.
171671, June 18, 2012, Justice Peralta).
79 | P a g e

2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA

1. Embassy - The ground occupied 4. Drug trafficking - Following the

ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of When death resulted, even if there was

INTENT TO KILL: Intent to kill is d. Intent to inflict injury -

DISGUISE - If the accused covers ABUSE OF SUEPRIOR STRENGHT

If the offender has committed a (a) Nature of crime In recidivism,

GRADUATION OF PENALTY SPECIAL MITIGATING

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION - A 2. When the principal penalty

DEATH OF THE ACCUSED 4. Finally, the private offended party

In unlawful arrest, the private In Ruzol vs. Sandiganbayan, GR

ESTAFA Answer: No. It must be pointed out

Complex crime - Since damage to In Patula vs. People, G.R. No.

h. Claim of ownership - The 10th UNINHABITED HOUSE - In

KIDNAPPING X seized A, 9 years of age, him by

Variance rule - Information charged The absence of fresh lacerations in

Under Section 3 (b), "child abuse" X married A, but during the

Yes. Article 40, which is a rule of DEFAMATION

In his series of articles of Erwin INTERNET LIBEL - Under Article

This crime is mala prohibita, and, as DELIVERY - Is the absence of

PARAPHERNALIA WITH TRACES Can accused be convicted of illegal

NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP FULL PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF

The act of destroying the subject

Вам также может понравиться