DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
I. PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS (PD 1829)
1. How is obsruction of justice committed?
• Knowingly or willfully obstructing, impeding,
frustrating or delaying the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases.
2. What is the purpose of PD 1829?
• As stated in the law, the purpose is to
discourage public indifference or apathy
towards the apprehension and prosecution of
criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize
acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to
obstruct or frustrate the successful
apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders.
3. Who may be charged under PD 1829?
• Any person, whether public or private, who
commits the punishable acts under this Act.
• In case a public officer is found guilty, he shall
also suffer perpetual disqualification from
holding public office.
4. What are the specific acts punishable under
obstruction of justice? (P2H-DAM-STG)
a. preventing witnesses from testifying
in any criminal proceeding or from
reporting the commission of any offense
or the identity of any offender/s by
means of bribery, misrepresentation,
deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
b. altering, destroying, suppressing or
c o n c e a l i n g a n y p a p e r, re c o rd ,
document, or object, with intent to
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility,
availability, or admissibility as evidence
in any investigation of or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be
used in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
c. h a r b o r i n g o r c o n c e a l i n g , o r
facilitating the escape of, any person
he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any
offense under existing penal laws in
order to prevent his arrest prosecution
and conviction;
/wncverder2016
d. publicly using a fictitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime,
evading prosecution or the execution of
a judgment, or concealing his true
name and other personal circumstances
for the same purpose or purposes;
e. delaying the prosecution of criminal
cases by obstructing the service of
process or court orders or disturbing
proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
f. making, presenting or using any
record, document, paper or object with
knowledge of its falsity and with intent
to affect the course or outcome of the
investigation of, or official proceedings
in, criminal cases;
g. soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to
accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discounting, or
impeding the prosecution of a criminal
offender;
h. threatening directly or indirectly
another with the infliction of any
wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in
order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases,
or imposing a condition, whether lawful
or unlawful, in order to prevent a person
from appearing in the investigation of
or in official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
i. g i v i n g o f f a l s e o r f a b r i c a t e d
information to mislead or prevent the
l a w e n f o rc e m e n t a g e n c i e s f ro m
apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from
the data gathered in confidence by
investigating authorities for purposes of
background information and not for
publication and publishing or
disseminating the same to mislead the
investigator or to the court.
5. What is the penalty for obstruction of
justice?
• The penalty is imprisonment, fine or both.
Imprisonment ranges from 4 years, 2 months
Page !1 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
and 1 day to 6 years (prision correccional in its
maximum period). The fine ranges from P1,000
– P6,000.
6. Suppose a higher penalty is imposed by
another law on one of abovementioned acts?
• The higher penalty shall be imposed.
7. Suppose the violator is a public official or
employee?
• He shall in addition to the penalties provided
thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification
from holding public office.
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S):
1. Enrile vs. Amin
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner could be
separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829
notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed
against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.
RULING:
The Enrile case gave this Court the occasion to
reiterate the long standing proscription against
splitting the component offenses of rebellion and
subjecting them to separate prosecutions, a
procedure reprobated in the Hernandez case.
In the light of the Hernandez doctrine, the
prosecution's theory must fail. The rationale
remains the same. All crimes, whether punishable
under a special law or general law, which are
mere components or ingredients, or committed
in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the
crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and
charged as separate crimes in themselves.
The Hernandez and other related cases mention
common crimes as absorbed in the crime of
rebellion. These common crimes refer to all acts of
violence such as murder, arson, robbery,
kidnapping etc. as provided in the Revised Penal
Code. The attendant circumstances in the instant
case, however, constrain us to rule that the
theory of absorption in rebellion cases must not
confine itself to common crimes but also to
o ff e n s e s u n d e r s p e c i a l l a w s w h i c h a re
perpetrated in furtherance of the political
offense.
/wncverder2016
The conversation and, therefore, alleged
conspiring of Senator Ponce Enrile with Colonel
Honasan is too intimately tied up with his
allegedly harboring and concealing Honasan for
practically the same act to form two separate
crimes of rebellion and violation of PD No.
1829.
Clearly, the petitioner's alleged act of harboring or
concealing which was based on his acts of
conspiring with Honasan was committed in
connection with or in furtherance of rebellion and
must now be deemed as absorbed by, merged in,
and Identified with the crime of rebellion punished
in Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC.
In such a case, the independent prosecution under
PD 1829 can not prosper. 
The intent or motive is a decisive factor. If
Senator Ponce Enrile is not charged with rebellion
and he harbored or concealed Colonel Honasan
simply because the latter is a friend and former
associate, the motive for the act is completely
different. But if the act is committed with
political or social motives, that is in furtherance
of rebellion, then it should be deemed to form
part of the crime of rebellion instead of being
punished separately. In view of the foregoing, the
petitioner can not be tried separately under PD
1829 in addition to his being prosecuted in the
rebellion case. With this ruling, there is no need for
the Court to pass upon the other issues raised by
the petitioner. 
2. Angeles vs. Gaite
Unserved warrants are not tantamount to a
violation of the law on obstruction of justice.
Page !2 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
II. ANTI FENCING LAW (PD 1612) 6. Must a clearance or permit to sell be secured
first before selling the goods in public?
1. What is Fencing? • Yes. All stores, establishments or entities
• It is the act of any person who, with intent to dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, item, object of anything of value obtained from
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other before offering the same for sale to the public,
manner deal in any article, item, object or secure the necessary clearance or permit from
anything of value which he knows, or should the station commander of the Integrated
be known to him, to have been derived from National Police in the town or city where such
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. store, establishment or entity is located.

2. Who is a Fence? 7. What happens if there is a failure to secure a

• It includes any person, firm, association clearance or permit to sell?
corporation or partnership or other • Any person who fails to secure the clearance or
organization who/which commits the act of permit required by this section or who violates
fencing. any of the provisions of the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon
3. What is the penalty? conviction be punished as a fence.
• It depends on the value of the property.

1) More than P12,000 but not exceeding 8. Penalty:
P22,000 - Prision mayor
 1. Any person who fails to secure the
2) Exceeding P22,000 - Prision mayor (max). clearance or permit required by Section
Additional of 1 year for each P10,000. 6 of P.D. 1612 or who violates any of the
However, the total penalty shall not exceed 20 provisions of these rules and regulations
years. In such cases, the penalty shall be shall upon conviction be punished as a
termed reclusion temporal and the accessory fence.
penalty pertaining thereto provided in the RPC 2. T h e I N P D i r e c t o r- G e n e r a l s h a l l
shall also be imposed
 recommend to the proper authority the
3) More than P6,000 but not exceeding cancellation of the business license of
P12,000 - Prision correccional (med and max) the erring individual, store,
4) More than P200 but not exceeding P6,000 - establishment or the entity concerned.
Prision correccional (min and med)
 3. Articles obtained from unlicensed
5) More than P50 but not exceeding P200 - sources for sale or offered for sale
Arresto mayor (med) to Prision correccional without prior compliance with the
(min)
 provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612
6) More than P5 but not exceeding P50 - and with these rules and regulations
Arresto mayor (med)
 s h a l l b e h e l d i n re s t r a i n t u n t i l
7) Not exceeding P5 - Arresto mayor (min) satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of
acquisition has been established.
4. Is an official of a juridical entity liable? 4. Articles for which no satisfactory
• Yes. The president or the manager or any evidence of legitimacy of acquisition is
officer thereof who knows or should have established and which are found to be
known the commission of the offense shall be stolen property shall likewise be held
liable. under restraint and shall, furthermore,
be subject to confiscation as evidence
5. When can there be a presumption of in the appropriate case to be filed. If,
fencing? upon termination of the case, the same
• Mere possession of any good, article, item, is not claimed by their legitimate
object, or anything of value which has been owners, the article/s shall be forfeited in
the subject of robbery or thievery shall be favor of the government and made
prima facie evidence of fencing. subject to disposition as the
/wncverder2016 Page !3 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
circumstances warrant in accordance RPC or under PD 1612. However, in the latter case,
with applicable existing laws, rules and he ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a
regulations. The Commission on Audit principal in the crime of fencing. Elsewise stated,
shall, in all cases, be notified. the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand,
5. Any personnel of the Integrated and fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct
National Police found violating the offenses.
provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612
or any of its implementing rules and
regulations or who, in any manner
whatsoever, connives with or through
his negligence or inaction makes
possible the commission of such
violations by any party required to
comply with the law and its
implementing rules and regulations,
shall be prosecuted criminally without
prejudice to the imposition of
administrative penalties.

JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)

1. Ong vs. People

The essential elements of the crime of fencing are

as follows:
• a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed;
• the accused, who is not a principal or an
accomplice in the commission of the crime
of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner
deals in any article, item, object or anything of
value, which has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft,
• the accused knew or should have known that
the said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft; and
• there is, on the part of one accused, intent to
gain for oneself or for another

The words “should know” denote the fact that a

person of reasonable prudence and intelligence
would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty
to another or would govern his conduct upon
assumption that such fact exists.

2. Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People

Evidently, the accessory in the crimes of robbery

and theft could be prosecuted as such under the
/wncverder2016 Page !4 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
III. ANTI HIJACKING LAW (RA 6235)
1. What are the punishable acts under PD
6235?
• Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of
Philippine registry while it is in flight,
compelling the pilots thereof to change the
course or destination of the aircraft;
• Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of
foreign registry while within Philippine territory,
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any
part of the Philippine territory;
• Carrying or loading on board an aircraft
operating as a public utility passenger aircraft
in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive,
explosive, substances; or poisonous
• Loading, shipping or transporting on board a
cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive,
explosive, or poisonous substance if this was
done in accordance with the rules and
regulations set and promulgated by the Air
Transportation Office on this matter
2. What are the aggravating circumstances?
• When the offender has fired upon the pilot,
member of the crew, or passenger of the
aircraft;
• When the offender has exploded or attempted
to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy
the aircraft;
• Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or
rape;
3. When will RA 6235 apply?
• Before the Anti-Hijacking Law or R.A. 6235
may apply, the aircraft must be of Philippine
registry and it must be in flight.
4. When is an aircraft considered in-flight?
• An aircraft is considered in flight from the
moment all exterior doors are closed following
the embarkation until such time when the
same doors are again opened for
disembarkation. (Sec. 1). This means that there
are passengers that boarded. The aircraft shall
be deemed to be already in flight even if its
engine has not yet been started.
/wncverder2016
5. Will RA 6235 apply if the aircraft is of
Philippine registry but is not in flight?
• If the aircraft is of Philippine registry but it is
not in flight and any of the four circumstances
mentioned under R.A. 6235 is committed, the
Anti-Hijacking Law will not apply and the acts
will be punished accordingly under the RPC or
the applicable special penal laws. The
correlative crime may be one of grave coercion
or grave threat. If somebody is killed, the crime
is homicide or murder, as the case may be.
6. Is it required that the aircraft be in flight if it
is of foreign registry?
• If the aircraft is of foreign registry, it is not
required that it is in flight before R.A. 6235
applies because aircrafts of foreign registry are
considered in transit while they are in foreign
countries.
7. Is there an attempted stage in hijacking?
• There is no hijacking in the attempted stage.
R.A. 6235 is a special law, where the
attempted stage is not punishable.
8. What is the effect if a passenger or
complement is killed in the course of
hijacking?
• Where in the course of the hijacking, a
passenger or complement was shot and killed.
The crime remains to be a violation of the
AntiHijacking law, but the penalty thereof shall
be higher because a passenger or complement
of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of
homicide or murder per se is not punished.
Page !5 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
IV. A N T I - P I R A C Y A N D A N T I - H I G H W AY
ROBBERY LAW OF 1974 (PD 532)
1. What is covered by the term Philippine
Waters?
• It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but
not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around,
between and connecting each of the Islands of
the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its
depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all
other waters belonging to the Philippines by
historic or legal title, including territorial sea,
the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.
2. What is a vessel?
• Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of
passengers and cargo from one place to
another through Philippine Waters. It shall
include all kinds and types of vessels or boats
used in fishing.
3. What is a Philippine Highway?
• It shall refer to any road, street, passage,
highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or
railway or railroad within the Philippines used
by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or
trains for the movement or circulation of
persons or transportation of goods, articles, or
property or both.
4. What is piracy?
• Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its
cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings
of its complement or passengers, irrespective
of the value thereof, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine
waters, shall be considered as piracy. The
offenders shall be considered as pirates and
punished as hereinafter provided.
5. What is highway robbery/ brigandage?
• The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion
or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away
of the property of another by means of
violence against or intimidation of person or
force upon things of other unlawful means,
/wncverder2016
committed by any person on any Philippine
Highway.
6. What are the elements of piracy?
• That the offender be any person
• That the offender committed any of the
following:
• attack upon or seizure of any vessel
• take away of the whole or part of the
vessel or its cargo, equipment, or the
personal belongings of its complement
or passengers, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things
• That the offense is committed in Philippine
waters
7. When is there qualified piracy?
• The penalty of reclusion temporal to death
shall be imposed upon those who commit any
of the crimes referred to in the preceding
article, under any of the following
circumstances: (SAA)
• Whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same;
• Whenever the pirates have abandoned
their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
• Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape.
8. Who are brigands?
• When more than three armed persons form a
band of robbers for the purpose of committing
robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons
for the purpose of extortion or to obtain
ransom or for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force and violence, they shall be
deemed highway robbers or brigands.
9. What are the elements of highway robbery/
brigandage?
• That the offender be any person
• That the offender committed any of the
following:
• Seizure of any person for ransom,
extortion, or other unlawful purposes;
or
• By taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against
Page !6 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
or intimidation of persons or force upon
things or other unlawful means
• That the offense is committed on any
Philippine highway
• That the manner of committing the offense
was done indiscriminately
10. What are the penalties for piracy?
• The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed.
• If physical injuries or other common crimes are
committed as a result or on the occasion
thereof, reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
• If rape, murder, or homicide is committed as a
result of the occasion, or when the offenders
abandoned the victims without means of
saving themselves, or when the seizure is
accomplished by firing upon or boarding a
vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall
be imposed.
11. What are the penalties for highway robbery/
brigandage?
• The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
• If physical injuries or other crimes are
committed as a result or on the occasion
thereof, reclusion temporal in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed.
• If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or
murder or homicide, or rape is committed as a
result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
of death shall be imposed.
12. What does “aiding pirates or highway
robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or
highway robbery/brigandage” mean?
• Any person who knowingly and in any manner
aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/
brigands, such as giving them information
about the movement of police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or
receives property taken by such pirates or
brigands or in any manner derives any benefit
therefrom; or any person who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of piracy or
highway robbery or brigandage, shall be
considered as an accomplice of the principal
offenders and be punished in accordance with
the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal
Code.
/wncverder2016
• It shall be presumed that any person who does
any of the acts provided in this Section has
performed knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven.
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)
1. People vs. Tulin
Art. 122 of the RPC, before its amendment,
provided that piracy must be committed on the
high seas by any person not a member of its
complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its
amendment by RA 7659, the coverage of the
pertinent provision was widened to include
offenses committed “in Philippine waters. On the
other hand, under PD 532, the coverage of the law
on piracy enbraces any person including “a
passenger or member of t he complement of said
vessel in Philippine waters. Hence, passenger or
not, a member of the complement or not, any
person is covered by law.
2. People vs. Puno and Amurao
PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or
brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by
outlaws indiscriminately against any person or
persons on Philippine highways as defined therein,
and not acts of robbery committed against only a
predetermined or particular victim.
The essence of brigandage under the code as a
crime of depredation wherein the unlawful acts are
directed not only against specific, intended, or
preconceived victims, but against any and all
prospective victims anywhere on the highway and
whosoever they may potentially be, is the same as
the concept of brigandage which is maintained in
PD 532.
Page !7 of 66
!

V. ARSON (PD 1613)
1. How is arson committed and what is the
penalty?
• Any person who burns or sets fire to the
property of another shall be punished by
Prision Mayor.
2. What are the elements of simple arson?
• There is intentional burning
• What is intentionally burned is an inhabited
house or dwelling
3. What is destructive arson?
PD 1613
1. Any ammunition factory
and other establishment
where explosives,
inflammable or
combustible materials are
stored.
2. Any archive, museum,
whether public or private,
or any edifice devoted to
culture, education or
social services.
3. Any church or place of
worship or other building
where people usually
assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or
any aircraft, vessel or
watercraft, or conveyance
for transportation of
persons or property
4. Any building where
evidence is kept for use in
any legislative, judicial,
administrative or other
official proceedings.
5. Any hospital, hotel,
dormitory, lodging house,
housing tenement,
shopping center, public or
private market, theater or
movie house or any
similar place or building.
6. Any building, whether
used as a dwelling or not,
situated in a populated or
congested area.
/wncverder2016
DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
RPC
1. Any arsenal, shipyard,
storehouse or military
powder or fireworks
factory, ordinance,
storehouse, archives or
general museum of the
Government.
2. Any passenger train or
motor vehicle in motion
or vessel out of port.
3. In an inhabited place,
any storehouse or factory
of inflammable or
explosive materials.
PD 1613 RPC
Any of the following Any of the following
circumstances shall circumstances shall
constitute prima facie constitute prima facie
evidence of arson: evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started 1. If after the fire, are
simultaneously in more found materials or
than one part of the substances soaked in
building or establishment. gasoline, kerosene,
petroleum, or other
2. If substantial amount of inflammables, or any
flammable substances or mechanical, electrical
materials are stored within chemical or traces or any
the building not necessary of the foregoing.
in the business of the
o f f e n d e r n o r f o r 2. That substantial
household use. amount of inflammable
substance or materials
were stored within the
building not necessary in
the course of the
defendant's business; and
3. That the fire started
simultaneously in more
than one part of the
building or locale under
circumstances that cannot
normally be due to
accidental or
unintentional causes:
Provided, however, That
at least one of the
following is present in any
of the three above-
mentioned circumstances:
(a) That the total
insurance carried on the
building and/or goods is
more than 80 per cent of
the value of such building
and/or goods at the time
of the fire;
(b) That the defendant
after the fire has
presented a fraudulent
claim for loss. The penalty
of prision correccional
shall be imposed on one
who plants the articles
above-mentioned, in
order to secure a
conviction, or as a means
of extortion or coercion.
Page !8 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
4. What are the other cases of arson?
• Any building used as offices of the government
or any of its agencies;
• Any inhabited house or dwelling;
• Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well
or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
• Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing
crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or
forest;
• Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central; and
 building had yet commenced to burn, although, as
Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse.
5. W h a t a r e t h e s p e c i a l a g g r a v a t i n g
circumstance in arson?
• If committed with intent to gain;
• If committed for the benefit of another;
• If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred
towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned;
• If committed by a syndicate.
 should be ablaze.
• The offense is committed by a syndicate if it is
planned or carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons.
6. Example of Attempted Arson
A person, intending to burn a wooden structure,
collects some rags, soaks them in gasoline and
places them beside the wooden wall of the
building. When he is about to light the match to
set fire to the rags, he is discovered by another
who chases him away.
The offender commences the commission of the
crime directly by overt acts (placing the rags
soaked in gasoline beside the wooden wall of the
building and lighting a match) but he does not
perform all the acts of execution (the setting fire of
the rags) due to the timely intervention of another
person.
If that person is able to light or set fire to the rags
but the fire was put out before any part of the
building was burned, it is frustrated.
But if before the fire was put out, it had burned a
part of the building, it is consummated.
/wncverder2016
7. Example of Frustrated Arson
The defendant performed all the acts conceived to
the burning of said house, but nevertheless, owing
to causes independent of his will, the criminal act
which he intended was not produced.
The offense committed cannot be classified as
consummated arson by the burning of said
inhabited house, for the reason that no part of the
the piece of sack and the rag, soaked in kerosene
oil, had been placed near partition of the entresol,
the partition might have started to burn, had the
fire not been put out on time. (U.S. vs. Valdez)
8. Example of Consummated Arson
• Any charring of the wood of the building,
whereby the fiber of the wood is destroyed, is
sufficient. It is not necessary that the wood
• The mere fact that a building is scorched or
discolored by heat is not sufficient to
constitute consummated arson.
• If a part of the building commences to burn,
the crime is consummated arson however small
is the portion burned.
NOTE: When there is fire, the crime committed is
either frustrated (set fire to the blankets but fire
was put out before any part of the building was
burned) or consummated, but never attempted.
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)
1. People vs. Macabando
PD 1613 contemplates the malicious burning of
public and private structures, regardless of size,
not included in article 320 of the RPC, as amended
by RA 7659. This law punishes simple arson with a
lesser penalty because the acts that constitute it
have a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness.
Simple arson contemplates crimes with less
significant social, economic, political, and national
security implications than destructive arson.
The elements of simple arson under Sec 3(2) of PD
1613 are: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b)
what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house
or dwelling.
Page !9 of 66
!
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
2. People vs. Baluntong

In cases where both burning and death occur, in

order to determine what crime/s was/were
perpetrated – whether arson, murder, or arson and
homicide/murder, it is rigueur to ascertain the main
objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main
objective is the burning of the building or edifice,
but death results by reason or on the occasion of
arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the
main objective is to kill a particular person who
may be in a building or edifice, when fire is
resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal,
the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the
objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and
in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then
there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed – homicide/murder and arson.

3. Buebos vs. People

The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished

from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity of
viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts
committed under Art. 320 if the ROC constitution
Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous
crime “for being grievous, odious and hateful
offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and
perversity are repugnant and outrageous to
common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized, and ordered society.”

/wncverder2016 Page !10 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
VI. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN (RA 9262)
1. What is the purpose of RA 9262?
• It is hereby declared that the State values the
dignity of women and children and guarantees
full respect for human rights
• To protect the family and its members
particularly women and children, from violence
and threats to their personal safety and
security
2. What is violence against women and
children?
• any act or a series of acts committed by any
person against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman with whom
the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common
child, or against her child whether legitimate or
illegitimate, within or without the family abode,
which result in or is likely to result in physical,
sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or
arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
3. What do you mean by physical violence?
• acts that include bodily or physical harm
4. What is sexual violence?
• an act which is sexual in nature, committed
against a woman or her child, including but not
limited to:
• rape, sexual harassment, acts of
lasciviousness, treating a woman or her
child as a sex object, making
demeaning and sexually suggestive
remarks, physically attacking the sexual
parts of the victim's body, forcing her/
him to watch obscene publications and
indecent shows or forcing the woman
or her child to do indecent acts and/or
make films thereof, forcing the wife and
mistress/lover to live in the conjugal
home or sleep together in the same
room with the abuser;
• acts causing or attempting to cause the
victim to engage in any sexual activity
by force, threat of force, physical or
/wncverder2016
other harm or threat of physical or
other harm or coercion;
• Prostituting the woman or child.
5. What is psychological violence?
• acts or omissions causing or likely to cause
mental or emotional suffering of the victim
such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property,
public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal
abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing
or allowing the victim to witness the physical,
sexual or psychological abuse of a member of
the family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to witness
abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody
and/or visitation of common children
6. When is economic abuse present?
• acts that make or attempt to make a woman
financially dependent which includes, but is
not limited to the following:
• withdrawal of financial support or
preventing the victim from engaging in
any legitimate profession, occupation,
business or activity, except in cases
wherein the other spouse/partner
objects on valid, serious and moral
grounds as defined in Article 73 of the
Family Code;
• deprivation or threat of deprivation of
financial resources and the right to the
use and enjoyment of the conjugal,
community or property owned in
common;
• destroying household property;
• controlling the victims' own money or
properties or solely controlling the
conjugal money or properties.
7. What is battery?
• an act of inflicting physical harm upon the
woman or her child resulting to the physical
and psychological or emotional distress.
8. What is “Battered Woman Syndrome”?
• scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
Page !11 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
9. What is stalking? • Threatening to deprive or
• an intentional act committed by a person who, actually depriving the woman or
knowingly and without lawful justification her child of custody to her/his
follows the woman or her child or places the family;
woman or her child under surveillance directly • Depriving or threatening to
or indirectly or a combination thereof. deprive the woman or her
children of financial support
10. What is a dating relationship? legally due her or her family, or
• a situation wherein the parties live as husband deliberately providing the
and wife without the benefit of marriage or are woman's children insufficient
romantically involved over time and on a financial support; (3) Depriving
continuing basis during the course of the or threatening to deprive the
relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary woman or her child of a legal
socialization between two individuals in a right;
business or social context is not adating • P re v e n t i n g t h e w o m a n i n
relationship. engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business
11. What is sexual relations? or activity or controlling the
• a single sexual act which may or may not result victim's own money or
in the bearing of a common child properties, or solely controlling
the conjugal or common money,
12. What are the acts against women and or properties;
children? • Inflicting or threatening to inflict
• The crime of violence against women and their physical harm on oneself for the
children is committed through any of the purpose of controlling her
following acts: actions or decisions;
• Causing physical harm to the woman or • Causing or attempting to cause
her child; the woman or her child to
• Threatening to cause the woman or her engage in any sexual activity
child physical harm; which does not constitute rape,
• Attempting to cause the woman or her by force or threat of force,
child physical harm; physical har m, or through
• Placing the woman or her child in fear intimidation directed against the
of imminent physical harm; woman or her child or her/his
• Attempting to compel or compelling immediate family;
the woman or her child to engage in • Engaging in purposeful,
conduct which the woman or her child knowing, or reckless conduct,
has the right to desist from or desist personally or through another,
from conduct which the woman or her that alarms or causes substantial
child has the right to engage in, or emotional or psychological
attempting to restrict or restricting the distress to the woman or her
woman's or her child's freedom of child. This shall include, but not
movement or conduct by force or be limited to, the following acts:
threat of force, physical or other harm
or threat of physical or other harm, or ✦ Stalking or following the
intimidation directed against the woman or her child in
woman or child. This shall include, but public or private places;
not limited to, the following acts ✦ Peering in the window or
committed with the purpose or effect of lingering outside the
controlling or restricting the woman's or residence of the woman
her child's movement or conduct: or her child;

/wncverder2016 Page !12 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
✦ Entering or remaining in
the dwelling or on the
property of the woman
or her child against her/
his will;
✦ Destroying the property
and personal belongings
or inflicting harm to
animals or pets of the
woman or her child; and
✦ Engaging in any form of
harassment or violence;
✦ Causing mental or
emotional anguish,
public ridicule or
humiliation to the
woman or her child,
including, but not limited
to, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, and
denial of financial
support or custody of
minor children of access
to the woman's child/
children.
13. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense
• Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to
be suffering from battered woman syndrome
do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the Revised Penal Code.
• In the determination of the state of mind of the
woman who was suffering from battered
woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
• A victim who is suffering from battered woman
syndrome shall not be disqualified from having
custody of her children. In no case shall
custody of minor children be given to the
perpetrator of a woman who is suffering from
Battered woman syndrome (Sec. 28)
/wncverder2016
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)
1. Dabalos v. RTC
While it is required that the offender has or had a
sexual or dating relationship with the offended
woman for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not
indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of such relationship. Nowhere in the
law can such limitation be inferred. Hence,
applying the rule on statutory construction that
when the law does not distinguish, neither should
the courts, then, clearly, the punishable acts refer
to all acts of violence against women with whom
the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship. It is immaterial whether the
relationship had ceased for as long as there is
sufficient evidence showing the past or present
existence of such relationship between the
offender and the victim when the physical harm
was committed.
2. Del Socorro vs. Wilsem
Even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce
a parent’s obligation to support his child nor
penalize the noncompliance therewith, such
obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines
because it would be of great injustice to the child
to be denied of financial support when the latter is
entitled thereto.
The Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation
to Art. 14 of the NCC, which provides that: “penal
laws and those of public security and safety shall
be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in the
Philippine territory, subject to the principle of
public international law and to treaty stipulations”,
is applicable to a foreign national who refuses to
give support to his Filipino child.
3. Go-Tan vs. Spouses Tan
While Sec. 3 OF RA 9262 provides that the
offender be related or connected to the victim by
marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of
the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. Indeed,
Sec. 47 of RA 9262 expressly provides for the
suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal
principles developed from the Penal Code may be
applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
Page !13 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
punished under special laws, such as RA 9262, in
which the special law is silent on a particular
matter.

4. Ang vs. Court of Appeals

The law did not use in its provisions the colloquial

verb “romance” that implies a sexual act. It did not
say that the offender must have “romanced” the
offended woman. Rather it used the noun
“romance” to describe a couple’s relationship, i.e.,
“ a love affair.”

Clearly, the law itself distinguishes a sexual

relationship from a dating relationship. The former
“refers to a single sexual act which may or may not
result in the bearing of a common child.” The
dating relationship that the law contemplates can,
therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse
taking place between those involved.

5. Dinamling vs. People

Psychological violence is an element of violation of

Sec. 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish
caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the
means employed by the perpetrator, while mental
or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the
damage sustained by the offended party. To
establish psychological violence as an element of
the crime, it is necessary to show proof of
commission of any of the acts enumerated in Sec.
5(i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or
emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the
testimony of the victim as such experiences are
personal to this party.

/wncverder2016 Page !14 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
VII.AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY (RA 9775)
1. Who can be considered as a child?
• refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of
age or over, but is unable to fully take care of
himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition.
• For the purpose of this Act, a child shall also
refer to:
• a person regardless of age who is
presented, depicted or portrayed as a
child as defined herein; and
• computer-generated, digitally or
manually crafted images or graphics of
a person who is represented or who is
made to appear to be a child as
defined herein.
2. What is child pornography?
• refers to any representation, whether visual,
audio, or written combination thereof, by
electronic, mechanical, digital, optical,
magnetic or any other means, of child
engaged or involved in real or simulated
explicit sexual activities.
3. What is explicit sexual activity?
• As to form: (SBM-SLU)
• sexual intercourse or lascivious act
including, but not limited to, contact
involving genital to genital, oral to
genital, anal to genital, or oral to anal,
whether between persons of the same
or opposite sex;
• bestiality;
• masturbation;
• sadistic or masochistic abuse;
• lascivious exhibition of the genitals,
buttocks, breasts, pubic area and/or
anus; or
• use of any object or instrument for
lascivious acts
4. What is grooming?
• refers to the act of preparing a child or
someone who the offender believes to be a
child for sexual activity or sexual relationship
by communicating any form of child
pornography. It includes online enticement or
enticement through any other means.
/wncverder2016
5. What is luring?
• refers to the act of communicating, by means
of a computer system, with a child or someone
who the offender believes to be a child for the
purpose of facilitating the commission of
sexual activity or production of any form of
child pornography.
6. What is pandering?
• refers to the act of offering, advertising,
promoting, representing or distributing
through any means any material or purported
material that is intended to cause another to
believe that the material or purported material
contains any form of child pornography,
regardless of the actual content of the material
or purported material.
7. What are the unlawful acts under RA 9775?
• To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
coerce a child to perform in the creation or
production of any form of child pornography;
• To produce, direct, manufacture or create any
form of child pornography;
• To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute,
broadcast, advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child pornography;
• To possess any form of child pornography with
the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast: Provided. That possession of three
(3) or more articles of child pornography of the
same form shall be prima facie evidence of the
intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;
• To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide
a venue for the commission of prohibited acts
as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms,
cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments
purporting to be a legitimate business;
• For film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies, by themselves
or in cooperation with other entities, to
distribute any form of child pornography;
• For a parent, legal guardian or person having
custody or control of a child to knowingly
permit the child to engage, participate or
assist in any form of child pornography;
• To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;
• To engage in pandering of any form of child
pornography;
• To willfully access any for m of child
pornography;
Page !15 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• To conspire to commit any of the prohibited
acts stated in this section. Conspiracy to
commit any form of child pornography shall be
committed when two (2) or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited acts
and decide to commit it; and
• To possess any form of child pornography.

8. What is syndicated child pornography?

• The crime of child pornography is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another and shall be
punished under Section 15(a) of this Act.

9. RA 10175 - Cybercrime Prevention Act of

2012
• SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following
acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:
• (c) Content-related Offenses:
• Cybersex. — The willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation,
directly or indirectly, of any lascivious
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual
activity, with the aid of a computer
system, for favor or consideration.
• Child Pornography. — The unlawful or
prohibited acts defined and punishable
by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-
Child Pornography Act of 2009,
committed through a computer system:
Provided, that the penalty to be
imposed shall be (1) one degree higher
than that provided for in Republic Act
No. 9775.

/wncverder2016 Page !16 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
VIII.SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISCRIMINATION ACT (RA 7610)
1. Who are covered by the term “children”?
• person below eighteen (18) years of age; or
• those over but are unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or
condition
2. What is child abuse?
• the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of
the child which includes any of the following:
(PAUF)
a. Psychological and physical abuse,
neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;
b. Any act by deeds or words which
debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as
a human being;
c. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic
needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or
d. Failure to immediately give medical
treatment to an injured child resulting
in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
3. What are the circumstances which gravely
threaten or endanger the survival and
normal development of children?
a. Being in a community where there is
armed conflict or being affected by
armed conflict-related activities;
b. Working under conditions hazardous to
life, safety and normal which unduly
interfere with their normal
development;
c. Living in or fending for themselves in
the streets of urban or rural areas
without the care of parents or a
guardian or basic services needed for a
good quality of life;
d. Being a member of a indigenous
cultural community and/or living under
conditions of extreme poverty or in an
area which is underdeveloped and/or
lacks or has inadequate access to basic
/wncverder2016
services needed for a good quality of
life;
e. Being a victim of a man-made or
natural disaster or calamity; or
f. Circumstances analogous to those
abovestated which endanger the life,
safety or normal development of
children.
4. What are the comprehensive programs
against abuse, exploitation, and
discrimination?
• There shall be a comprehensive program to be
formulated, by the Department of Justice and
the Department of Social Welfare and
Development in coordination with other
government agencies and private sector
concerned, within one (1) year from the
effectivity of this Act, to protect children
against child prostitution and other sexual
abuse; child trafficking, obscene publications
and indecent shows; other acts of abuse; and
circumstances which endanger child survival
and normal development.
5. What are the acts punishable under RA
7610?
a. CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL
ABUSE
• Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or
due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed
to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
• Persons Liable:
• Those who engage in or promote,
facilitate or induce child prostitution
which include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Acting as a procurer of a child
prostitute;
• Inducing a person to be a client
of a child prostitute by means of
written or oral advertisements or
other similar means;
• Taking advantage of influence or
relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
Page !17 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• Threatening or using violence
towards a child to engage him
as a prostitute; or
• Giving monetary consideration
goods or other pecuniary
benefit to a child with intent to
engage such child in
prostitution.
• Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subject
to other sexual abuse; Provided, That
when the victims is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious
conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age shall be reclusion temporal
in its medium period; and
• Those who derive profit or advantage
therefrom, whether as manager or
owner of the establishment where the
prostitution takes place, or of the
sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainment or establishment serving
as a cover or which engages in
prostitution in addition to the activity
for which the license has been issued to
said establishment.
b. A T T E M P T T O C O M M I T C H I L D
PROSTITUTION
• any person who, not being a relative of a child,
is found alone with the said child inside the
room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel,
motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar
establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other
hidden or secluded area under circumstances
which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited
in prostitution and other sexual abuse
• any person is receiving services from a child in
a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health
club and other similar establishments
/wncverder2016
c. CHILD TRAFFICKING
• Any person who shall engage in trading and
dealing with children including, but not limited
to, the act of buying and selling of a child for
money, or for any other consideration, or
barter, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua.
d. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CHILD TRAFFICKING
• When a child travels alone to a foreign country
without valid reason therefor and without
clearance issued by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development or written permit or
justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
• When a person, agency, establishment or
child-caring institution recruits women or
couples to bear children for the purpose of
child trafficking; or
• When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or
employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar
or any other person simulates birth for the
purpose of child trafficking; or
• When a person engages in the act of finding
children among low-income families, hospitals,
clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or other
child-during institutions who can be offered for
the purpose of child trafficking.
e. ENGAGEMENT OF CHILDREN IN WORST
FORM OF LABOR
• No child shall be engaged in the worst forms
of child labor. The phrase "worst forms of child
labor" shall refer to any of the following:
a. All forms of slavery, as defined under
the "Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of
2003", or practices similar to slavery
such as sale and trafficking of children,
debt bondage and serfdom and forced
o r c o m p u l s o r y l a b o r, i n c l u d i n g
recruitment of children for use in armed
conflict; or
b. The use, procuring, offering or
exposing of a child for prostitution, for
the production of pornography or for
pornographic performances; or
c. The use, procuring or offering of a child
for illegal or illicit activities, including
the production and trafficking of
dangerous drugs and volatile
substances prohibited under existing
laws; or
Page !18 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
d. Work which, by its nature or the
circumstances in which it is carried out,
is hazardous or likely to be harmful to
the health, safety or morals of children,
such that it:
a. Debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of
a child as a human being; or
b. Exposes the child to physical,
emotional or sexual abuse, or is
found to be highly stressful
psychologically or may
prejudice morals; or
c. Is performed underground,
underwater or at dangerous
heights; or
d. Involves the use of dangerous
machinery, equipment and tools
s u c h a s p o w e r- d r i v e n o r
explosive power-actuated tools;
or
e. Exposes the child to physical
danger such as, but not limited
to the dangerous feats of
balancing, physical strength or
contortion, or which requires the
manual transport of heavy loads;
or
f. Is performed in an unhealthy
environment exposing the child
to hazardous working
conditions, elements,
substances, co-agents or
processes involving ionizing,
r a d i a t i o n , f i re , f l a m m a b l e
substances, noxious
components and the like, or to
extreme temperatures, noise
levels, or vibrations; or
g. Is performed under particularly
difficult conditions; or
h. Exposes the child to biological
agents such as bacteria, fungi,
viruses, protozoans, nematodes
and other parasites; or
i. Involves the manufacture or
handling of explosives and
other pyrotechnic products.”
/wncverder2016
f. ENGAGEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS
• Any person who shall hire, employ, use,
persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform
in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows,
whether live or in video, or model in obscene
publications or pornographic materials or to
sell or distribute the said materials shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period.
g. O T H E R A C T S O F N E G L E C T, A B U S E ,
CRUELTY, OR EXPLOITATION, AND OTHER
CONDITIONS PREJUDICIAL TO THE
CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT
• Any person who shall commit any other acts of
child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to
the child's development
• Any person who shall keep or have in his
company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or
who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any
public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint,
discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or
massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist
resort or similar places
• Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a
minor to any one prohibited by this Act to
keep or have in his company a minor
• Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted
with the operation of any public or private
place of accommodation, whether for
occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to
take along with him to such place or places any
minor
• Any person who shall use, coerce, force or
intimidate a street child or any other child to;
• Beg or use begging as a means of
living;
• Act as conduit or middlemen in drug
trafficking or pushing; or
• Conduct any illegal activities
h. EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN AS MODEL IN
ADVERTISEMENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
PROMOTING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES,
INTOXICATING DRINKS, TOBACCO AND ITS
BY-PRODUCTS, GAMBLING, OR ANY FORM
OF GAMBLING OR PORNOGRAPHY
Page !19 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
i. D I S C R I M I N AT I O N O F C H I L D R E N O F human being that was so essential in the crime of
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES child abuse.
Note: this is a case where the court considered
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S) intent despite the act being malum prohibitum

1. Caballo v. People 4. People vs. Bonaagua

A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child
indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
(a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or
(b) under the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate, or group.
Coercion- improper use of power to compel
another to submit to the wishes of one who wields
it.
Influence- improper use of power or trust in any
way that deprives a person of free will and
substitute another’s objective
2. People v. Dahilig
Sec. 5(b), Art. III of Ra 7610 punishes sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a
child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child
subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only
a situation where a child is abused for profit, but
also where one, through coercion, intimidation, or
influence, engages in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child.
However, pursuant to the foregoing provision,
before an accused can be convicted of child abuse
through lascivious conduct committed against a
minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts
of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC must
be met in addition to the requisites for sexual
abuse under Sc.5 of RA 7610.

Under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of Ra 7610, in relation to

RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12
years of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape
under Art. 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC and penalized
with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the
victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be
charged with either sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of
RA 7610 OR rape under Art. 266-A (except par.
1[d]) of the RPC.

3. Bongalon vs. People

The records did not establish beyond reasonable

doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had been
intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and
dignity” of Jayson as a human being, or that he
had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass
Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on
Jayson to have been done at the spur of the
moment and in anger, indicative of his being then
overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personal safety of his own minor daughters who
had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and
Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked
that specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a

/wncverder2016 Page !20 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
IX. ANTI TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT (RA
9208, as amended by RA No. 10364)
1. What is trafficking in persons?
• It refers to the recruitment, transportation,
transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons
with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders
by means of threat or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception,
abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person,
or, the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person for the
purpose of exploitation which includes at a
minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution
of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or
the removal or sale of organs.
• The recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose
of exploitation shall also be considered as
“trafficking in persons” even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the
preceding paragraph.
2. What is prostitution?
• It refers to any act, transaction, scheme or
design involving the use of a person by
another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct in exchange for money, profit or any
other consideration.
3. What is forced labor and slavery?
• It is the extraction of work or services from any
person by means of enticement, violence,
intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion,
including deprivation of freedom, abuse of
authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage
or deception.
4. What is sex tourism?
• It refers to a program organized by travel and
tourism-related establishments and individuals
which consists of tourism packages or
activities, utilizing and offering escort and
sexual services as enticement for tourists. This
includes sexual services and practices offered
during rest and recreation periods for
members of the military.
/wncverder2016
5. What is sexual exploitation?
• It refers to participation by a person in
prostitution or the production of pornographic
materials as a result of being subjected to a
threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force,
abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or
through abuse of a victim’s vulnerability.
6. What is debt bondage?
• It refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/
her personal services or labor or those of a
person under his/her control as security or
payment for a debt, when the length and
nature of services is not clearly defined or
when the value of the services as reasonably
assessed is not applied toward the liquidation
of the debt.
7. What is pornography?
• refers to any representation, through
publication, exhibition, cinematography,
indecent shows, information technology, or by
whatever means, of a person engaged in real
or simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a person
for primarily sexual purposes.
8. What are the punishable acts? (IM-PARAH-D-
BRAT)
a. To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act
No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of
acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading
him/her to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.
b. To offer or contract marriage, real or
simulated, for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage.
c. To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography.
d. To adopt persons by any form of consideration
for exploitive purposes or facilitate the same
for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or debt bondage.
Page !21 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
e. To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer,
transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive
a person by all means, including those done
under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or
sexual exploitation
f. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons
for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage
g. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer,
obtain, harbor, maintain, provide, offer, receive
or abduct a person, by means of threat or use
of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or
intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale
of organs of said person
h. To organize or direct other persons to commit
the offenses defined as acts of trafficking under
this Act.
i. To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer,
maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or receive a
child for purposes of exploitation or trading
them, including but not limited to, the act of
baring and/or selling a child for any
consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of
exploitation of children shall include:
1. All forms of slavery or practices similar
to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage and forced labor, including
recruitment of children for use in armed
conflict;
2. The use, procuring or offering of a child
for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic
performances;
3. The use, procuring or offering of a child
for the production and trafficking of
drugs; and
4. The use, procuring or offering of a child
for illegal activities or work which, by its
nature or the circumstances in which it is
carried out, is likely to harm their health,
safety or morals
j. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain,
maintain, offer, hire, provide or receive a
person by means defined in Section 3 of this
Act for purposes of forced labor, slavery, debt
bondage and involuntary servitude, including a
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the
person either:
/wncverder2016
1. To believe that if the person did not
perform such labor or services, he or
she or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint; or
2. To abuse or threaten the use of law or
the legal processes
k. To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor,
maintain, offer, hire, provide, receive or adopt a
child to engage in armed activities in the
Philippines or abroad
l. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for
the purpose of utilizing and offering persons
for prostitution, pornography or sexual
exploitation
The penalty is imprisonment for a period of 20
years and a fine of not less than P1 Million but not
more than P2 Million.
9. What are the punishable acts that promote
trafficking in persons and what is the
penalty? (CAMEL-PIE-DO)
a. To produce, print and issue or distribute
unissued, tampered or fake counseling
certificates, registration stickers, overseas
employment certificates or other certificates of
any government agency which issues these
certificates, decals and such other markers as
proof of compliance with gover nment
regulatory and pre-departure requirements for
the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons
b. To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any
brochure, flyer, or any propaganda material
that promotes trafficking in persons.
c. To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation
or fraud for purposes of facilitating the
acquisition of clearances and necessary exit
documents from government agencies that are
mandated to provide pre-departure registration
and services for departing persons for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons.
d. To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry
of persons from/to the country at international
and local airports, territorial boundaries and
seaports who are in possession of unissued,
tampered or fraudulent travel documents for
Page !22 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons.
e. To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to
be used any house, building or establishment
for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons.
f. To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport,
travel documents, or personal documents or
belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance
of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving
the country or seeking redress from the
government or appropriate agencies.
g. To knowingly benefit from, financial or
otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services
of a person held to a condition of involuntary
servitude, forced labor, or slavery
h. To tamper with, destroy, or cause the
destruction of evidence, or to influence or
attempt to influence witnesses, in an
investigation or prosecution of a case under
this Act
i. To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or
possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal,
remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or
purported passport or other travel, immigration
or working permit or document, or any other
actual or purported government identification,
of any person in order to prevent or restrict, or
attempt to prevent or restrict, without lawful
authority, the person’s liberty to move or travel
in order to maintain the labor or services of that
person
j. To utilize his or her office to impede the
investigation, prosecution or execution of
lawful orders in a case under this Act.
11. What acts are considered as “qualified
trafficking in persons” and what is the
penalty?
a. When the trafficked person is recruited to
engage in prostitution with any member of the
military or law enforcement agencies.
b. When the adoption is effected through
Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the
“Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995” and said
adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage
c. When the trafficked person is a child.
d. When the offender is a member of the military
or law enforcement agencies
/wncverder2016
e. When the offender is a spouse, ascendant,
parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person or
when the offense is committed by a public
officer or employee.
f. When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is
afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS)
g. When the crime is committed by a syndicate,
or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another. It is
deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons, individually
or as a group.
h. When the offender directs or through another
manages the trafficking victim in carrying out
the exploitative purpose of trafficking
i. When the offender commits one or more
violations of Section 4 over a period of sixty
(60) or more days, whether those days are
continuous or not
In these cases, the penalty is life imprisonment and
a fine of not less than P2 Million, but not more than
P5 Million.
10. Who can prosecute the case?
• Children
• Any person who has personal
knowledge of the commission of any
offense under this Act.
• Trafficked person
• Parents
• Legal guardian
• Spouse
• Siblings
11. Where should the case be filed (venue)?
• A criminal action arising from violation of this
law shall be filed where the offense was
committed, or where any of its elements
occurred, or where the trafficked person
actually resides at the time of the commission
of the offense: Provided, That the court where
the criminal action is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
Page !23 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
12. How about foreigners?
• If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be
immediately deported after serving his
sentence and be barred permanently from
entering the country.
• On the other hand, the DOJ, in consultation
with DFA, shall endeavor to include offenses of
trafficking in persons among extraditable
offenses.
• Trafficked persons in the Philippines who are
foreign nationals shall, subject to the
guidelines issued by the Council, shall also be
entitled to appropriate protection, assistance
and services available to trafficked persons
under this law. That they shall be permitted
continued presence in the Philippines for a
length of time prescribed by the Council as
necessary to effect the prosecution of
offenders.

13. What is the prescriptive period for the

offenses?
• Trafficking cases under this law shall prescribe
in 10 years. Trafficking cases committed by a
syndicate or in a large scale shall prescribe in
20 years. The prescriptive period shall
commence to run from the day on which the
trafficked person is delivered or released from
the conditions of bondage and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information and shall commence to run again
when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.

14. What are the mandatory services to

trafficked persons?
• Emergency shelter or appropriate housing.
• Counseling.
• Free legal services which shall include
information about the victims’ rights and the
procedure for filing complaints, claiming
compensation and such other legal remedies
available to them, in a language understood
by the trafficked person.
• Medical or psychological services.
• Livelihood and skills training.
• Educational assistance to a trafficked child.

/wncverder2016 Page !24 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
X. ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT sexual act or any similar activity, or capturing
(RA 9995) an image of the private area of a person, under
circumstances in which the said person has a
1. Definition of Terms reasonable expectation of privacy;
• The copying or reproduction of such photo or
a. Broadcast video recording of the sexual act;
• means to make public, by any means, a visual • The selling or distribution of such photo or
image with the intent that it be viewed by a video recording;
person or persons. • The publication or broadcasting, whether in
print or broadcast media, or the showing of
b. Capture such sexual act or any similar activity through
• with respect to an image, means to videotape, VCD/DVD, the internet, cellular phones, and
photograph, film, record by any means, or other similar means or devices without the
broadcast. written consent of the persons featured.[2]

c. Photo or Video Voyeurism Prohibitions numbered 2, 3, and 4 will still apply

• It is the act of taking photo or video coverage
of a person or group of persons performing
sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing
an image of the private area of a person or
persons without the latter's consent, under
circumstances in which such person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act
of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting,
sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or
video coverage or recordings of such sexual
act or similar activity through VCD/DVD,
internet, cellular phones and similar means or
device without the written consent of the
person/s involved, notwithstanding that
consent to record or take photo or video
coverage of same was given by such person's.
even if the person or persons featured in the photo
or video consented to the taking of the photo or
recording of the sexual act.
3. Will one be liable for the non-commercial
copying or reproduction of said photo or
video?
• Yes. The mere copying or reproduction of said
material will make one liable under the law
regardless of the reason or whether one profits
or not from such act.[7] Indeed, the mere
showing of the material on one’s cellphone
would violate the law.

d. Private area of a person/s

• The “private area of a person” includes naked
or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area,
buttocks, or the female breast.

e. Under circumstances where a person has

reasonable expectancy of privacy
• When the person believes that one
could undress in privacy without being
concerned that an image of him or her
is being taken; and,
• When a reasonable person would
believe that one’s private area would
not be visible regardless of whether the
person is in a public or private place.

2. What are the punishable acts under this Act?

• The unconsented taking of a photo or video of
a person or group of persons engaged in a
/wncverder2016 Page !25 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XI. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT (9165)
1. What are the elements to be established in
order to sustain conviction for ILLEGAL SALE
of dangerous drugs?
• Proof that the transaction or sale took place
• The identities of the buyer and seller,
object, and consideration; and
• The delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it.
• Presentation in court of the corpus delicti or
the illicit drugs as evidence 
 devices such as, but not limited to, text
2. What are the elements to be established to
sustain conviction for ILLEGAL POSSESSION
of dangerous drugs?
• The accused was in possession of an
item or an object identified to be
prohibited or regulated drug
• Such possession is not authorized by
law
• The accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of the
drug
• The evidence of corpus delicti must be
established beyond reasonable doubt 

3. What is chain of custody?
• The duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs
or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized
item shall include the identity and signature of
the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition.
4. What are the links in chain of custody?
• Marking of the drugs recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer
• Tur nover of the seized drugs by the
apprehending officer to the investigating
officer
• Turnover by the investing officer to the forensic
chemist
/wncverder2016
• Turnover of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court
5. What is delivery of dangerous drugs?
• Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous
drug to another, personally or otherwise, and
by any means, with or without consideration.
6. What is trading?
• Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
and essential chemicals using electronic
messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-way
radios, internet, instant messengers and chat
rooms or acting as a broker in any of such
transactions whether for money or any other
consideration in violation of this Act.
7. What is drug use?
• Any act of injecting, intravenously or
intramuscularly, of consuming, either by
chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing,
drinking or otherwise introducing into the
physiological system of the body, and of the
dangerous drugs.
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)
1. People vs. Tira
This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal
intent is not an essential element. However, the
prosecution must prove that the accused had
the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the
drugs.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession.
Actual possession exists when the drug is in the
immediate physical possession or control of the
accused. On the other hand, constructive
possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he
has the right to exercise dominion and control over
the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid
conviction if his right to exercise control and
dominion over the place where the contraband is
located, is shared with another. 

Page !26 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
2. People vs. Dasigan in a port of the Philippine Islands with intent to
discharge its cargo.
It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that
the sale actually took place, and what
consummates the buy-bust transaction is the
delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in
turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money.
While the parties may have agreed on the
selling price of the shabu and delivery of
payment was intended, these do not prove
consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money,
whether done before delivery of the drugs or after,
is required. 


3. People vs. Asislo

“Transport" means "to carry or convey from one

place to another.” 


There is no definitive moment when an accused

"transports" a prohibited drug. When the
circumstances establish the purpose of an
accused to transport and the fact of
transportation itself, there should be no
question as to the perpetration of the criminal
act. The fact that there is actual conveyance
suffices to support a finding that the act of
transporting was committed. 


4. People vs. Chi Chan Liu

There can be no question that, unless a ship on

which opium is alleged to have been illegally
imported comes from a foreign country, there is no
importation.

In order to establish the crime of importation as

defined by the Opium Law, it must be shown that
the vessel from which the opium is landed or on
which it arrived in Philippine waters came from a
foreign port. Section 4 of Act No. 2381 provides
that:
• Any person who shall unlawfully import
or bring any prohibited drug into the
Philippine Islands, or assist in so doing,
shall be punished . . . .

It was not necessary that the opium be discharged

or that it be taken from the ship. It was sufficient
that the opium was brought into the waters of the
Philippine Islands on a boat destined for a
Philippine port and which subsequently anchored
/wncverder2016 Page !27 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XII. CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE,
DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR
DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION,
OR EXPLOSIVES (PD 1866) AS AMENDED
BY RA NOS. 8294 AND 9516
1. W h a t a r e t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e
implementation of this Act? (Whereas
clauses)
• there has been an upsurge of crimes vitally
affecting public order and safety due to the
proliferation of illegally possessed and
manufactured firearms, ammunition and
explosives;
• these criminal acts have resulted in loss of
human lives, damage to property and
destruction of valuable resources of the
country;
• there are various laws and presidential decrees
which penalized illegal possession and
manufacture of firearms, ammunition and
explosives;
• there is a need to consolidate, codify and
integrate said laws and presidential decrees to
harmonize their provisions;
• there are some provisions in said laws and
presidential decrees which must be updated
and revised in order to more effectively deter
violators of the law on firearms, ammunition
and explosives.
2. RA 9516 amends Presidential Decree No.
1866, on Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Explosives.
3. RA 9516 penalizes any person or firm found
guilty of the following:
• possessing or manufacturing illegal explosives
• acquiring or disposing of firearms, ammunition
or explosives or instruments used in the
manufacture of firearms are subject to stiffer
penalties.
4. What prohibited acts are punishable by life
imprisonment?
• Unlawful manufacture, sales, acquisition,
disposition, importation, or possession of an
explosive or incendiary device;
• Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition, importation or possession of a
part, ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
/wncverder2016
used or intended to be used for the
manufacture, construction, assembly, delivery
or detonation;
• To the owner, president, manager, director or
other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity
who willfully or knowingly allow any explosive
or incendiary device or parts thereof owned or
controlled by such firm, company, corporation
or entity to be used by any person or persons
found guilty of committing the two preceding
unlawful acts
5. What is the mandate of RA 9516 regarding
mere possession of explosives?
• Mere possession of any explosive or incendiary
device shall be prima facie evidence that the
person had knowledge of the existence and
the explosive or incendiary character of the
device, or the mere possession of any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any
explosive or incendiary device, by any person
whose business.
6. SECTION 1 amended Section 3 of P 1866
• Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales,
Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or
Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary
Device. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
(In the old law, it is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua) shall
be imposed upon any person who shall willfully
and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in,
acquire, dispose, import or possess any
explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge
of its existence and its explosive or incendiary
character, where the explosive or incendiary
device is capable of producing destructive
effect on contiguous objects or causing injury
or death to any person, including but not
limited to, hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s),
'pillbox bomb', 'molotov cocktail bomb', 'fire
bomb', and other similar explosive and
incendiary devices.
• "Provided, That mere possession of any
explosive or incendiary device shall be prima
facie evidence that the person had
knowledge of the existence and the
explosive or incendiary character of the
device.
Page !28 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• "Provided, however, That a temporary,
incidental, casual, harmless, or transient
possession or control of any explosive or
incendiary device, without the knowledge of
its existence or its explosive or incendiary
character, shall NOT be a violation of this
Section.
• "Provided, Further, That the temporary,
incidental, casual, harmless, or transient
possession or control of any explosive or
incendiary device for the sole purpose of
surrendering it to the proper authorities
shall not be a violation of this Section.
• "Provided, finally, That in addition to the
instances provided in the two (2) immediately
preceeding paragraphs, the court may
determine the absence of the intent to
possess, otherwise referred to as 'animus
possidendi", in accordance with the facts and
circumstances of each case and the application
of other pertinent laws, among other things,
Articles 11 and 12 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended."
7. Section 2. Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
• "SEC 3-A. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales,
Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or
Possession of a Part, Ingredient, Machinery,
Tool or Instrument Used or Intended to be
Used for the Manufacture, Construction,
Assembly, Delivery or Detonation. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who shall willfully
and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in,
acquire, dispose, import or possess any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of
any explosive or incendiary device, whether
chemical, mechanical, electronic, electrical or
otherwise, used or intended to be used by that
person for its manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation, where the
explosive or incendiary device is capable or is
intended to be made capable of producing
destructive effect on contiguous objects or
causing injury or death to any person.
• "Provided, That the mere possession of any
part, ingredient, machinery, tool or
instrument directly used in the manufacture,
c o n s t r u c t i o n , a s s e m b l y, d e l i v e r y o r
detonation of any explosive or incendiary
/wncverder2016
device, by any person whose business
activity, or employment does not lawfully
deal with the possession of such article shall
be prima facie evidence that such article is
intended to be used by that person in the
unlawful/illegal manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of an
explosive or incendiary device.
• "Provided, however, That a temporary
incidental, casual, harmless or transient
possession or control of any part, machinery,
tool or instrument directly used in the
manufacture, construction, assembly, delivery
or detonation of any explosive or incendiary
device, without the knowledge of its existence
or character as part, ingredient, machinery, tool
or instrument directly used in the manufacture,
construction, assembly, delivery or detonation
of any explosive or incendiary device, shall not
be a violation of this Section.
• "Provided, Further, That the temporary,
incidental, casual, harmless, or transient
possession or control of any part, ingredient,
machinery, tool or instrument directly used in
the manufacture, construction, assembly,
delivery or detonation of any explosive or
incendiary device for the sole purpose of
surrendering it to the proper authorities
shall not be a violation of this Section.
• "Provided, finally, That in addition to the
instances provided in the two (2) immediately
preceeding paragraphs, the court may
determine the absence of the intent to
possess, otherwise referred to as 'animus
possidendi', in accordance with the facts and
circumstances of each case and the application
of other pertinent laws, among other things,
Articles 11 and 12 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended."
8. Section 3. Insert a new Section 3-B, 3-C, 3-D,
4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D, 4-E, 4-E and 4-F in
Presidential Decree No. 1866 to read as
follows:
• "SEC. 3-B. Penalty for the Owner, President,
Manager, Director or Other Responsible
Officer of Any Public or Private Firm,
Company, Corporation or Entity. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the owner, president, manager,
director or other responsible officer of any
public or private firm, company, corporation or
Page !29 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow
any explosive or incendiary device or parts
thereof owned or controlled by such firm,
company, corporation or entity to be used by
any person or persons found guilty of violating
the provisions of the preceding paragraphs.
• "SEC. 3-C. Relationship of Other Crimes with
a Violation of this Decree and the Penalty
Therefor. - When a violation of Section 3, 3-A
or 3-B of this Decree is a necessary means for
committing any of the crimes defined in the
Revised Penal Code or special laws, or is in
furtherance of, incident to, in connection with,
by reason of, or on occassion of any of the
crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and a fine ranging from One hundred
Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
• "SEC. 3-D. Former Conviction or Acquittal;
Double Jeopardy. - Subject to the provisions
of the Rules of Court on double jeopardy, if
the application thereof is more favorable to
the accused, the conviction or acquittal of
the accused or the dismissal of the case for
violation of this Decree shall be a bar to
another prosecution of the same accused for
any offense where the violation of this Decree
was a necessary means for committing the
offense or in furtherance of which, incident to
which, in connection with which, by reason of
which, or on occasion of which, the violation of
this Decree was committed, and vice versa.
• "SEC. 4. Responsibility and liability of Law
Enforcement Agencies and Other
Government Officials and Employees in
Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses. - Any
member of law enforcement agencies or any
other government official and employee who,
after due notice, fails or refuses,
intentionally or negligently, to appear as a
witness for the prosecution of the defense in
any proceeding, involving violations of this
Decree, without any valid reason, shall be
punished with reclusion temporal and a fine of
Five hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) in
addition to the administrative liability he/she
may be meted out by his/her immediate
superior and/or appropriate body.
• "The immediate superior of the member of the
law enforcement agency or any other
government employee mentioned in the
/wncverder2016
preceding paragraph shall be penalized with
prision correccional and a fine of not less than
Ten Thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more
than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in
addition, perpetual absolute disqualification
from public office if despite due notice to
them and to the witness concerned, the
former does not exert reasonable effort to
present the latter to the court.
• "The member of the law enforcement agency
or any other government employee mentioned
in the preceding paragraphs shall not be
transferred or reassigned to any other
government office located in another territorial
jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in
court. However, the concerned member of
the law enforcement agency or government
employee may be transferred or reassigned
for compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her
immediate superior shall notify the court where
the case is pending of the order to transfer or
reassign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its
approval: Provided, further, That his/her
immediate superior shall be penalized with
prision correccional and a fine of not less than
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more
than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in
addition, perpetual absolute disqualification
from public office, should he/she fail to notify
the court of such order to transfer or reassign.
• "Prosecution and punishment under this
Section shall be without prejudice to any
liability for violation of any existing law.
• "SEC 4-A. Criminal Liability for Planting of
Evidence. - Any person who is found guilty of
'planting' any explosive or incendiary device or
any part, ingredient, machinery, tool or
instrument of any explosive or incendiary
device, whether chemical, mechanical,
electronic, electrical or otherwise, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• "Planting of evidence shall mean the willful
act by any person of maliciously and
surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
attaching, directly or indirectly, through any
overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any
explosive or incendiary device or any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of
any explosive or incendiary device, whether
chemical, mechanical, electronic, electrical or
otherwise in the person, house, effects or in
the immediate vicinity of an innocent
Page !30 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
individual for the purpose of implicating
incriminating or imputing the commission of
any violation of this Decree.
• "SEC. 4-B. Continuous Trial. - In cases
involving violations of this Decree, the judge
shall set the case for continuous trial on a
daily basis from Monday to Friday or other
short-term trial calendar so as to ensure
speedy trial. Such case shall be terminated
within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the
accused.
• "SEC. 4-C. Authority to Import, Sell or
Possess Chemicals or Accessories for
Explosives. - Only persons or entities issued
a manufacturer's license, dealer's license or
purchaser's license by the Philippine
N a t i o n a l P o l i c e ( P N P ) - F i re a r m s a n d
Explosives Division may import any of the
chemical or accessories that can be used in the
manufacture of explosives or explosive
ingredients from foreign suppliers, or possess
or sell them to licensed dealers or end users,
as the case may be.
• "SEC. 4-D. Types of Chemicals/Accessories
Covered. - The chemicals and accessories
mentioned in the preceding Section shall
exclusively refer to chlorates, nitrates, nitric
acid and such other chemicals and accessories
that can be used for the manufacture of
explosives and explosive ingredients.
• "SEC. 4-E. Record of Transactions. - Any
person or entity who intends to import, sell or
p o s s e s s t h e a f o re c i t e d c h e m i c a l s o r
accessories shall file an application with the
chief of the PNP, stating therein the purpose
for which the license and/or permit is sought
and such other information as may be
required by the said official. The concerned
person or entity shall maintain a permanent
record of all transactions entered into in
relation with the aforecited chemicals or
accessories, which documents shall be open to
inspection by the appropriate authorities.
• "SEC. 4-F. Cancellation of License. - Failure to
comply with the provision of Section 4-C, 4-D
and 4-E shall be sufficient cause for the
cancellation of the license and the confiscation
of all such chemicals or accessories, whether or
not lawfully imported, purchased or possessed
by the subject person or entity."
/wncverder2016
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)
1. Dizon vs. Court of Appeals
• This is a petition for review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals[if !supportFootnotes][1]
[endif] affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila (Branch 49) which found
accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession
of pillbox in violation of 3 of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866
• Allegation in the Information: One (1) Pill box
bomb wrapped in an aluminum foil with
electrical tape and black powder
• which he carried outside of his residence not
for the purpose of surrendering the same and
without first having secured the necessary
license or permit therefor from the proper
authorities.
• Patrolmen Marquez and Opriasa of WPD
followed a group of 20-25 rallyist in Recto. The
group was protesting the coming exploratory
talks between the governments of the
Philippines and the United States concerning
the extension of the Military Bases Agreement
which was due to expire on September 16,
1991. Upon reaching the intersection of Espaa
and A. Maceda Streets, the demonstrators
stopped to stage a noise barrage. Marquez,
who was driving the patrol car, stopped the
vehicle about seven meters from the group.
Marquez and Opriasa remained in the car for
about ten minutes, observing the rallyists.
When some of them started burning tires in
the middle of the street, Opriasa alighted and
ran towards the students who scampered when
they saw him. Marquez followed Opriasa
shortly after. Opriasa got hold of accused-
appellant who was left behind while trying to
light one of the tires on the street. Opriasa
frisked accused-appellant and confiscated from
him a pillbox.
• Accused-appellant also contends that even if
patrolmen Opriasa and Marquez actually did
seize the pillbox from him, the prosecution
allegedly failed to show that it is an explosive.
He claims that the device must be shown to be
capable of producing destructive effect on
contiguous objects or causing injury or death
to any person, as provided under Sec. 3 of P.D.
No. 1866, as amended. He adds that instead
of making a piecemeal analysis of the devices
components such as the black powder, he
Page !31 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
suggests that the object, as a whole, must be
tested whether it is an incendiary device.
• Supreme Court: proof of actual explosion is
not necessary to establish that the device is an
explosive under P.D. No. 1866.
2. People vs. Comadre
• FACTS:
At around 7PM of August 6, 1995, Robert
Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey
Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a
drinking spree on the terrace of the house of
Robert’s father, Jaime Agbanlog. Jaime was seated
on the banister of the terrace listening to the
conversation of the companions of his son.
As the drinking session went on, Robert and the
others noticed appellants Antonio Comadre,
George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking.
The three stopped in front of the house. While his
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed
an object which fell on the roof of the terrace.
Appellants immediately fled by scaling the fence of
a nearby school.
The object, which turned out to be a hand
grenade, exploded ripping a hole in the roof of
the house. Robber Agbanlog and his
companions were hit by shrapnel and slumped
unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to
the hospital for medical treatment. However,
Robert Agbanlog died before reaching the
hospital for wounds sustained which the
grenade explosion inflicted. Robert’s companions
sustained shrapnel injuries.
The appellants were arrested the following day but
denied any participation in the incident, claimed
they were elsewhere when the incident occurred
and that they had no animosity towards the victims
whatsoever.
After trial, the court a quo convicted appellants of
the complex crime of Murder with Multiple
Attempted Murder for having conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another,
with intent to kill and by means of treachery and
with the use of an explosive.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of explosive
qualifies the crime to murder?
/wncverder2016
ISSUE 2: Whether or not appellants conspired to
kill the victims?
RULING BY SUPREME COURT:
Yes, the killing by means of explosives qualifies
the crime to murder. The information alleges that
both treachery and the “use of explosive attended
the crime.
Since both circumstances can qualify the killing to
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, the Supreme Court held that when the
killing is perpetrated with treachery and by
means of explosives, the latter shall be
considered as a qualifying circumstance. Not
only does jurisprudence support this view but also,
since the use of explosives is the principal mode of
attack, reason dictates that this attendant
circumstance should qualify the offense instead of
treachery which will then be relegated merely as a
generic aggravating circumstance.
No, there was no conspiracy. The undisputed facts
show that when Antonio Comadre was in the act of
throwing the hand grenade, George Comadre and
Danilo Lozano merely looked on without uttering a
single word of encouragement or performed any
act to assist him.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as
clearly and convincingly as the commission of the
crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the
scene of the crime does not make him a
conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship.
Clearly, Congress intended R.A. No. 8294 to
reduce the penalty for illegal possession of
firearms and explosives. Also, Congress clearly
intended RA No. 8294 to consider as
aggravating circumstance, instead of a separate
offense, illegal possession of firearms and
explosives when such possession is used to
commit other crimes under the Revised Penal
Code.
It must be made clear, however, that RA No.
8294 did not amend the definition of murder
under Article 248, but merely made the use of
explosives an aggravating circumstance when
Page !32 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
resorted to in committing any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code. The
legislative purpose is to do away with the use of
explosives as a separate crime and to make such
use merely an aggravating circumstance in the
commission of any crime already defined in the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, RA No. 8294 merely
added the use of unlicensed explosives as one of
the aggravating circumstances specified in Article
14 of the Revised Penal Code. Like the aggravating
circumstance of explosion in paragraph 12, evident
premeditation in paragraph 13, or treachery in
paragraph 16 of Article 14, the new aggravating
circumstance added by RA No. 8294 does not
change the definition of murder in Article 248.
The information in this case does not allege that
appellant Antonio Comadre had unlawfully
possessed or that he had no authority to
possess the grenade that he used in the killing
and attempted killings. Even if it were alleged, its
presence was not proven by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 110 of the 2000
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires the
averment of aggravating circumstances for their
application.
The inapplicability of R.A. 8294 having been made
manifest, the crime committed is Murder
committed by means of explosion in accordance
with Article 248 (3) of the Revised Penal Code. The
same, having been alleged in the Information, may
be properly considered as appellant was
sufficiently informed of the nature of the accusation
against him.
3. People vs. Dela Rosa
• FACTS:
Rodolfo Dela Rosa appeals the decision of the
RTC, convicting him of illegal possession of
firearms and explosives. The RTC ruled that mere
possession is sufficient to convict Delaa Rosa of the
crime charged. On appeal Dela Rosa argued that
though he was in possession of the
ammunitions, his real intention was merely to
turn over the ammunition, which was owned by
Kumander Tamang, to the authorities. Thus, he
should be acquitted of the crime of illegal
possession of firearms.
/wncverder2016
Issue: Whether or not Dela Rosa is guilty of the
crime of illegal possession of firearms
Ruling:
 
In the present case, it is not enough that the
firearm was found in the person of the accused,
who held the same temporarily and casually, or
for the purpose of surrendering the same.
Animus possidendi is a state of mind and could
be determined only based on the prior and
spontaneous circumstance explaining how the
subject firearm came to his possession.
While accused pleaded lack of animus possidendi
his conduct belied the same. Accused was found
to have secured a temporary license for the subject
firearm. Under such circumstance the accused
intended to possess the subject firearm beyond
reasonable doubt and should be convicted of the
crime charged.
Broken down into its salient elements, illegal
possession of firearms is committed when the
holder thereof:
(i) possesses a firearm; and
(ii) lacks the authority or license to possess it.
In People v. de Gracia, we clarified the meaning of
possession for the purpose of convicting a person
under PD 1866, thus:
"But, is the mere fact of physical or constructive
possession sufficient to convict a person for
unlawful possession of firearms or must there be
an intent to possess to constitute a violation of
the law? This query assumes significance for
illegal possession of firearms is a malum
prohibitum, punished by a special law, in which
case good faith and absence of criminal intent
are not valid defenses.
"When a crime is punished by a special law, as a
rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary, it
is sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
Intent to commit the crime and intent to
perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person
may not have consciously intended to commit a
crime but he intended to commit an act, and that
act is by the very nature of things, the crime itself.
Page !33 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must
be criminal intent; in the second (intent to
perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited
act is done freely and consciously.

In the present case, a distinction should be

made between criminal intent and intent to
possess. While mere possession without criminal
intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal
possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that
there was animus possidendi or an intent to
possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to
possess is, however, without regard to any other
criminal or felonious intent which the accused
may have harbored in possessing the firearm.
Criminal intent here refers to the intention of
the accused to commit an offense with the use
of an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in
convicting a person under Presidential Decree
No. 1866.

Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of

a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the
accused had no authority or license to possess a
firearm, and that he intended to possess the
same, even if such possession was made in good
faith and without criminal intent."

/wncverder2016 Page !34 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
IX. C O M P R E H E N S I V E F I R E A R M S A N D
AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT (RA
10591)
1. State Policy
• It is the policy of the State to maintain peace
and order and protect the people against
violence. The State also recognizes the right of
its qualified citizens to self-defense through,
when it is the reasonable means to repel the
unlawful aggression under the circumstances,
the use of firearms. Towards this end, the State
shall provide for a comprehensive law
regulating the ownership, possession, carrying,
manufacture, dealing in and importation of
firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof, in order
to provide legal support to law enforcement
agencies in their campaign against crime, stop
the proliferation of illegal firearms or weapons
and the illegal manufacture of firearms or
weapons, ammunition and parts thereof.
2. What are the salient features of this new
law?
• Among the salient features of the new firearms
law is its repeal of the sweeping “no other
crime” clause under the Sec.1 of P.D. 1866 as
amended by R.A. 8294.
3. Definition of Terms
• Ammunition refers to a complete unfixed unit
consisting of a bullet, gunpowder, cartridge
case and primer or loaded shell for use in any
firearm.
• Arms smuggling refers to the import, export,
acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or
t r a n s f e r o f f i re a r m s , t h e i r p a r t s a n d
components and ammunition, from or across
the territory of one country to that of another
country which has not been authorized in
accordance with domestic law in either or both
country/countries.
• Imitation firearm refers to a replica of a
firearm, or other device that is so substantially
similar in coloration and overall appearance to
an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable
person to believe that such imitation firearm is
a real firearm.
/wncverder2016
An imitation firearm used in the
commission of a crime shall be
considered a real firearm and the
person who committed the crime shall
be punished in accordance with this
Act.
However, injuries caused on the
occassion of the conduct of
competitions, sports, games, or any
recreation activities involving imitation
firearms shall not be punishable under
this Act.
• Licensed Citizen refers to any Filipino who
complies with the qualifications set forth in this
Act and duly issued with a license to possess
or to carry firearms outside of the residence in
accordance with this Act.
• Loose Firearm  refers to an unregistered
firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm,
firearm which has been lost or stolen, illegally
manufactured firearms, registered firearms in
the possession of an individual other than the
licensee and those with revoked licenses in
accordance with the rules and regulations.
• Permit to carry firearm outside of residence
refers to a written authority issued to a licensed
citizen by the Chief of the PNP which entitles
such person to carry his/her registered or
lawfully issued firearm outside of the residence
for the duration and purpose specified in the
authority.
• Permit to transport firearm refers to a written
authority issued to a licensed citizen or entity
by the Chief of the PNP or by a PNP Regional
Director which entitles such person or entity to
transport a particular firearm from and to a
specific location within the duration and
purpose in the authority.
• Residence refers to the place or places of
abode of the licensed citizen as indicated in
his/her license.
• Tampered, obliterated or altered firearm
refers to any firearm whose serial number or
other identification or ballistics characteristics
have been intentionally tampered with,
obliterated or altered without authority or in
Page !35 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
order to conceal its source, identity or
ownership.
4. What are the unlawful acts under this law?
• Section 28: Unlawful Acquisition, or
Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
Aggravating Circumstances
a. Loaded with ammunition or inserted a
loaded magazine
b. Fitted or mounted with laser or any
gadget used to guide the shooter to hit
the target such as thermal weapon
sight and the like
c. Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes,
firearm muffler or firearm silencer
d. Accompanied with an extra barrel
e. Converted to be capable of firing full
automatic bursts
Section 1 of Ra 8294 substantially
provides that any person who shall
unlawfully possess any firearm or
ammunition shall be penalized, “unless
no other crime has been committed”.
If homicide or murder is committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm,
such use shall be considered as an
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
Since the crime committed was direct
assault and not homicide or murder,
illegal possession of firearms cannot be
deemed an aggravating circumstance.
(People vs. Ladjaalam)
The phrase “committed” implies a prior
determination of guilt by final
conviction resulting from successful
prosecution for illegal possession of
firearms.
• Section 29: Use of Loose Firearm in the
Commission of a Crime
If the violation is in the furtherance of,
or incident to, or in connection with the
crime of rebellion, insurrection, or
attempted coup d’etat, such violation
shall be absorbed as an element of the
crime of rebellion, insurrection, or
attempted coup d’etat. If the crime is
committed by the person without using
/wncverder2016
the loose firearm, the violation shall be
considered as a distinct and separate
offense.
• Section 31: Absence of Permit to Carry
Outside of Residence
• Section 32: Unlawful Manufacture,
Importation, Sale or Disposition of Firearms
or Ammunition or Parts Thereof, Machinery,
Tool or Instrument Used or Intended to be
Used in the Manufacture of Firearms,
Ammunition or Parts Thereof
The possession of any machinery, tool,
or instrument used directly in the
manufacture of firearms, ammunition,
or major parts thereof by any person
whose business, employment, or
activity does not lawfully deal with the
possession of such article shall be
prima facie evidence that such article is
intended to be used in the unlawful/
illegal manufacture of firear ms,
ammunition, or parts thereof.
• Section 33: Arms Smuggling
• Section 34: Tampering, Obliteration or
Alteration of Firearms Identification
• Section 35: Use of Imitation Firearm
• Section 38: Planting Evidence
any person who shall willfully and
maliciously insert; place, and/or attach,
directly or indirectly, through any overt
or covert act, any firear m, or
ammunition, or parts thereof in the
person, house, effects, or in the
immediate vicinity of an innocent
individual for the purpose of
implicating or incriminating the person,
or imputing the commission of any
violation of the provisions of this Act to
said individual
• Section 40: Failure to Notify Lost or Stolen
Firearm or Light Weapon
• Section 41: Illegal Transfer/Registration of
Firearms
Page !36 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
X. ANTI-HAZING LAW (RA No. 8049)
1. What is hazing?
• It is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in
a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing
the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and
other similar tasks or activities or otherwise
subjecting him to physical or psychological
suffering or injury.
2. What are the elements of hazing?
a. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in
a fraternity, sorority or organization
b. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or
applicant of the fraternity, sorority or
organization; and
c. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is
placed in some embarrassing or humiliating
situations such as forcing him to do menial,
silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities
or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury.
4. What does the term “organization” include?
• Any club or the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, Philippine National Police,
Philippine Military Academy, or officer and
cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training and
Citizen's Army Training.
5. What are not considered “hazing” under this
Act?
• Physical, mental and psychological testing and
training procedure and practices to determine
and enhance the physical, mental and
psychological fitness of prospective regular
members of the AFP and the PNP as approved
by the Secretary of National Defense and the
National Police Commission, duly
recommended by the Chief of Staff of the AFP
and the Director General of the PNP.
6. What is required prior to hazing initiation
rites?
• Prior written notice to the school authorities or
head of organization seven (7) days before the
conduct of such initiation.
/wncverder2016
7. What should be contained in the written
notice for allowed initiation rites?
• Period of the initiation activities which shall not
exceed 3 days
• Names of those to be subjected to such
activities
• An undertaking that no physical violence be
employed by anybody during such initiation
rites
8. Who must be present during the initiation?
• At least 2 representatives of the school or
organization assigned by the head of the
school or organization.
9. What is the duty of the representative
assigned to be present?
• To see to it that no physical harm of any kind
shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or
applicant.
10. What happens if the person subjected to
hazing or other forms of initiation rites
suffers any physical injury or dies as a result
thereof?
• The officers and members of the fraternity,
sorori ty or organiza ti on who ac tu al ly
participated in the infliction of physical harm
shall be liable as principals.
11. Aside from the officers and members who
participated in the hazing, who can also be
liable?
• The owner of the place where hazing is
conducted shall be liable as an accomplice,
when he has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring.
• If the hazing is held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity, group, or
organization, the parents shall be held liable as
principals when they have actual knowledge of
the hazing conducted therein but failed to take
any action to prevent the same from occurring.
• The school authorities including faculty
members who consent to the hazing or who
have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to
take any action to prevent the same from
occurring shall be punished as accomplices for
the acts of hazing committed by the
perpetrators.
• The officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who
Page !37 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
actually planned the hazing although not
present when the acts constituting the hazing
were committed shall be liable as principals. A
fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present
when the acts constituting the hazing were
committed and failed to take action to prevent
the same from occurring shall be liable as
principal.
12. What is prima facie evidence that a person
participated in the hazing?
• The presence of any person during the hazing
is prima facie evidence of participation therein
as principal unless he prevented the
commission of the acts punishable herein.
13. Is the person liable entitled to a mitigating
circumstance?
• Any person charged under this provision shall
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance
that there was no intention to commit so grave
a wrong.
14. Is this also applicable in cases wherein
hazing is a prior requisite for employment?
• Yes. It shall apply to the president, manager,
director or other responsible officer of a
corporation engaged in hazing as a
requirement for employment in the manner
provided herein.
15. Penalty:
The penalty of reclusion perpetual if
death, rape, sodomy or mutilation
results therefrom.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period if in consequence of
the hazing the victim shall become
insane, imbecile, impotent or blind.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period if in consequence of
the hazing the victim shall have lost the
use of speech or the power to hear or
to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a leg shall have
lost the use of nay such member shall
have become incapacitated for the
activity or work in which he/she was
habitually engaged.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period if in consequence of
the hazing the victim shall become
/wncverder2016
deformed or shall have lost any other
part of his/her body, or shall have lost
the use thereof or shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of
the activity or work in which he/she has
habitually engaged for a period of
more than ninety (90) days.
The penalty of prison mayor in its
maximum period if in consequence of
the hazing the victim shall have been ill
or incapacitated for the performance of
the activity or work in which he was
habitually engaged for more than thirty
(30) days.
The penalty of prison mayor in its
medium period if in consequence of
the hazing the victim shall have been ill
or capacitated for the performance of
the activity or work in which he was
habitually engaged for ten (10) days or
more, or that the injury sustained shall
require medical attendance for the
same period.
The penalty of the prison mayor in its
period if in consequence of the hazing
the victim shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of
the activity or work in which he was
habitually engaged from one (1) to nine
(9) days, or that the injury sustained
shall require medical attendance for the
same period.
h.) The penalty of prison correctional in
its maximum period if in consequence
of the hazing the victim shall sustain
physical injuries, which do not prevent
him/her from engaging in his habitual
activity, or work nor require medical
attendance.
The responsible officials of the school
or of the police, military or citizen’s
army training organization may impose
the appropriate administrative
sanctions on the person or persons
charged under this provision even
before their conviction.
The maximum penalty herein provided
shall be imposed in any of the following
instances:
When the recruitment is accompanied
by force, violence, threat, intimidation
Page !38 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
or deceit on the person of the recruit
who refuses to join;
When the recruit, neophyte or applicant
initially consents to join but upon
learning that hazing will be committed
on his person, is prevented from
quitting.
When the recruit, neophyte or applicant
having undergone hazing is prevented
from reporting the unlawful act to his
parents or guardians, to the proper
school authorities or to the police
authorities, through force, violence,
threat or intimidation;
When the hazing is committed outside
of the school or institution; or
When the victim is below twelve (12)
years of age at he time of hazing.
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINE(S)
1. People vs. Bayabos
this case presents novel questions on the extent of liability of
schools and school authorities under Republic Act No. 8049, or
the Anti-Hazing Law.
Elements of Hazing
a. A p e r s o n i s p l a c e d i n s o m e
embarassing or humiliating situation or
subjected to physical or psychological
suffering or injury
b. these acts were employed as a
prerequisite for the person’s admission
or entry into an organization. In the
crime of hazing, the crucial ingredient
distinguishing it from the crimes against
persons defined under Title Eight of the
Revised Penal Code is the infliction by a
person of physical or psychological
suffering on another in furtherance of
the latter’s admission or entry into an
organization.
In the case of school authorities and faculty
members who have had no direct participation
in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as
accomplices if it is shown that:
a. hazing, as established by the above
elements, occurred
b. the accused are school authorities or
faculty members
/wncverder2016
c. they consented to or failed to take
preventive action against hazing in
spite actual knowledge thereof.
Breadth of the term “organization”
• includes – but is not limited to – groups,
teams, fraternities, sororities, citizen army
training corps, educational institutions, clubs,
societies, cooperatives, companies,
partnerships, corporations, the PNP, and the
AFP.
PMMA is considered as an organization within
the purview of the Anti-Hazing Law
• Attached to the Department of Transportation
and Communications, the PMMA is a
government-owned educational institution
established for the primary purpose of
producing efficient and well-trained merchant
marine officers. Clearly, it is included in the
term organization within the meaning of the
law.
Failure to allege that the purported acts were
not covered by the exemption relating to the
duly recommended and approved “testing and
t r a i n i n g p ro c e d u re a n d p r a c t i c e s ” f o r
prospective regular members of the AFP and
the PNP should NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL
• This exemption is an affirmative defense in, not
an essential element of, the crime of
accomplice to hazing. It is an assertion that
must be properly claimed by the accused, not
by the prosecution. The reason for this rule is
that the accused carry the burden of proof in
establishing by clear and convincing evidence
that they have satisfied the requirements
thereof. Thus, the prosecution’s failure to point
out in the Information that the exception is
inapplicable would not justify the quashal of
that Information.
Motion to Quash must be granted as the
Information does not include all the material
facts constituting the crime of accomplice to
hazing
• As can be gleaned from the above, the
indictment merely states that psychological
pain and physical injuries were inflicted on the
victim. There is no allegation that the
p u r p o r t e d a c t s w e re e m p l o y e d a s a
prerequisite for admission or entry into the
Page !39 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
organization. Failure to aver this crucial The names of those to be subjected to
ingredient would prevent the successful such activities; and
prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the An undertaking that no physical
accused, either as principal or as accomplice, violence be employed by anybody
for the crime of hazing. during such initiation rites.
• Plain reference to a technical term – in this
case, hazing – is insufficient and incomplete, as F I R S T C L A S S O F P R I N C I PA L S ; A c t u a l
it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly Participants in the Hazing
committed and thus a mere conclusion of law. • If the person subjected to hazing or other
• Thus, the Information must be quashed, as the forms of initiation rites suffers any physical
ultimate facts it presents do not constitute the injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers
crime of accomplice to hazing. and members of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who actually participated in the
2. Dungo vs. People infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
With the continuity of these senseless tragedies, one question principals.
implores for an answer: is R.A. No. 8049 a sufficient deterrent
• Interestingly, the presence of any person
against hazing?
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
actual participation, unless he prevented the
Hazing, malum prohibitum
commission of the acts punishable herein.
• Senator Lina: When a person or group of
persons resort to hazing as a requirement for
Insanity; The Only Psychological Injury
gaining entry into an organization, the intent to
Recognized
commit a wrong is not visible or is not present.
• Although hazing has been defined as
Whereas, in these specific crimes, let us say
consisting of those activities involving physical
there is death or there is homicide, mutilation,
or psychological suffering or injury, the
if one files a case, then the intention to commit
penalties for hazing only covered the infliction
a wrong has to be proven. But if the crime of
of physical harm. At best, the only
hazing is the basis, what is important is the
psychological injury recognized would be
result from the act of hazing.
causing insanity to the victim. Conversely, even
• Senator Guingona: We do not have to prove
if the victim only sustained physical injuries
the willful intent of the accused in proving or
which did not incapacitate him, there is still a
establishing the crime of hazing.
prescribed penalty.
• Defense of good faith cannot be raised by the
prosecution.
SECOND CLASS OF PRINCIPALS
• Recognizing the malum prohibitum
• officers, former officers, or alumni of the
characteristic of hazing, the law provides that
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who
any person charged with the said crime shall
actually planned the hazing.
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance
• Although these planners were not present
that there was no intention to commit so grave
when the acts constituting hazing were
a wrong.
committed, they shall still be liable as
• Consent of the victim is NOT a defense
principals. The provision took in consideration
the non-resident members of the organization,
Allowed Initiation Rites (Section 2)
such as their former officers or alumni.
a. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has
a prior written notice to the school authorities
THIRD CLASS OF PRINCIPALS
or head of organization;
• officers or members of an organization group,
b. The said written notice must be secured at
f r a t e r n i t y o r s o ro r i t y w h o k n o w i n g l y
least seven (7) days before the conduct of such
cooperated in carrying out the hazing by
initiation;
inducing the victim to be present thereat.
c. That the written notice shall indicate
• These officers or members are penalized, not
The period of the initiation activities,
because of their direct participation in the
which shall not exceed three (3) days;
infliction of harm, but due to their
/wncverder2016 Page !40 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
indispensable cooperation in the crime by
inducing the victim to attend the hazing.
FOURTH CLASS OF PRINCIPALS
• Fraternity/ Sorority Adviser who was present
when the acts constituting hazing were
committed, and failed to take action to
prevent them from occurring
• The liability of the adviser arises, not only from
his mere presence in the hazing, but also his
failure to prevent the same.
FIFTH CLASS OF PRINCIPALS
• parents of the officers or members of the
fraternity, group, or organization
• The hazing must be held in the home of one of
the officers or members. The parents must
have actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted in their homes and failed to take
any action to avoid the same from occurring.
ACCOMPLICES
• The school authorities, including faculty
members, who consented to the hazing or who
have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to
take any action to prevent the same from
occurring shall be punished as accomplices.
COURSES OF ACTION OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY
• It provides that the responsible officials of the
school or of the police, military or citizen's
army training organization, may impose the
appropriate administrative sanctions on the
person or the persons charged under this
provision even before their conviction.
• Necessarily, the offended party can file either
administrative, civil, or criminal actions against
the offenders.
CONSPIRACY IN RA 8049 (Section 4, Par 6)
• The presence of any person during the hazing
is prima facie evidence of participation as
principal, unless he prevented the commission
of the punishable acts.
• This provision is unique because a disputable
presumption arises from the mere presence of
the offender during the hazing, which can be
rebutted by proving that the accused took
steps to prevent the commission of the hazing.
• Even knowledge, acquiescence in or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
/wncverder2016
constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime with a view to the
furtherance of the common design and
purpose.
• Common Design: to haze the victim
• Some overt acts that could be committed by
the offenders would be to:
plan the hazing activity as a
requirement of the victim's initiation to
the fraternity
induce the victim to attend the hazing
actually participate in the infliction of
physical injuries.
• In this case, there was prima facie evidence
of the petitioners' participation in the hazing
because of their presence in the venue.
• Because of the uncontroverted prima facie
evidence against the petitioners, it was shown
that they performed an overt act in the
furtherance of the criminal design of hazing.
Not only did they induce the victim to attend
the hazing activity, the petitioners also actually
participated in it based on the prima facie
evidence. These acts are sufficient to establish
their roles in the conspiracy of hazing.
• Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene
of the crime does not in itself amount to
conspiracy. Exceptionally, under R.A. No.
8049, the participation of the offenders in
the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the
prima facie evidence due to their presence
during the hazing, unless they prevented the
commission of the acts therein.
3. Villareal vs. People
Counsel thus asserts that the subject matter of the Petition
previously filed by petitioner does not survive the death of the
accused.
The Crime in this Case is HOMICIDE; RPC
• At the time of the death of Lenny Villa, RA
8049 was not yet enacted. It was actually his
death that led to a very strong clamour to end
hazing. Hence, the Congress enacted a special
law, which became effective in 1995, that
would criminalize hazing.
• Although courts must not remain indifferent to
public sentiments, in this case the general
condemnation of a hazing-related death, they
are still bound to observe a fundamental
principle in our criminal justice system [N]o act
Page !41 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
constitutes a crime unless it is made so by law.
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if
an act is viewed by a large section of the
populace as immoral or injurious, it cannot
be considered a crime, absent any law
prohibiting its commission. As interpreters of
the law, judges are called upon to set aside
emotion, to resist being swayed by strong
public sentiments, and to rule strictly based on
the elements of the offense and the facts
allowed in evidence.
How Criminal Liability is Extinguished
• In a Notice dated 26 September 2011 and
while the Petition was pending resolution, this
Court took note of counsel for petitioners
Notice of Death of Party.
• According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal
Code, criminal liability for personal penalties is
totally extinguished by the death of the
convict. In contrast, criminal liability for
pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the
offender dies prior to final judgment.
• The term "personal penalties" refers to the
service of personal or imprisonment penalties,
while the term “pecuniary penalties" (las
pecuniarias) refers to fines and costs, including
civil liability predicated on the criminal offense
complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto).
However, civil liability based on a source of
obligation other than the delict survives the
death of the accused and is recoverable
through a separate civil action.
• Thus, we hold that the death of petitioner
Villareal extinguished his criminal liability for
both personal and pecuniary penalties,
including his civil liability directly arising from
the delict complained of. Consequently, his
Petition is hereby dismissed, and the criminal
case against him deemed closed and
terminated.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAWS THEN
APPLICABLE TO HAZING AND THE ANTI
HAZING LAW
• SC: In order to be found guilty of any of the
felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266 of
the Revised Penal Code [on physical injuries],
the employment of physical injuries must be
coupled with dolus malus [or evil intent]. As an
act that is mala in se [or wrong in itself], the
existence of malicious intent is fundamental,
/wncverder2016
since injury arises from the mental state of the
wrongdoer – iniuria ex affectu facientis
consistat. If there is no criminal intent, the
accused cannot be found guilty of an
intentional felony. Thus, in case of physical
injuries under the Revised Penal Code, there
must be a specific animus iniuriandi or
malicious intention to do wrong against the
physical integrity or well-being of a person, so
as to incapacitate and deprive the victim of
certain bodily functions. Without proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the required animus
iniuriandi, the overt act of inflicting physical
injuries per se merely satisfies the elements of
freedom and intelligence in an intentional
felony. The commission of the act does not, in
itself, make a man guilty unless his intentions
are.
• In Anti-Hazing Law, malicious intent is no
longer necessary. The wrongful acts are
already deemed criminal by said special law.
• The defense of consent will not apply
because the very act of inflicting physical pain
or psychological suffering is, by itself, a
punishable act.
•
LIABILITIES OF OWNERS OF HAZING VENUE
• The owner of the place where hazing is
conducted shall be liable as an accomplice,
when he has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring.
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY
The responsible officials of the school or of the
police, military or citizen's army training
organization, may impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions on the person or the
persons charged under this provision even before
their conviction. The maximum penalty herein
provided shall be imposed in any of the following
instances:  
a. when the recruitment is accompanied by force,
violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the
person of the recruit who refuses to join;
b. when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially
consents to join but upon learning that hazing
will be committed on his person, is prevented
from quitting;  
Page !42 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
c. when the recruit, neophyte or applicant having
undergone hazing is prevented from reporting
the unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to
the proper school authorities, or to the police
authorities, through force, violence, threat or
intimidation;  
d. when the hazing is committed outside of the
school or institution; or  
e. when the victim is below 12 years of age at the
time of the hazing.

/wncverder2016 Page !43 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XI. HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (RA 9372) b. Commission of the predicate crime
sows and creates a condition of
1. What are the salient features of the Act? widespread and extraordinary fear
• The Human Security Act of 2007 is an act to and panic among the populace; and
secure the State and to protect the people c. Offender is actuated by the desire to
from acts of “Terrorism”. coerce the government to give in to an
• It condemns terrorism as inimical and unlawful demand
dangerous to national security and to the
welfare of the people, thereby making NOTE: Before a charge for terrorism may be
terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, filed under RA 9372, there must first be a
humanity, and the laws of nations. predicate crime actually committed to trigger
the operation of the key qualifying phrases in
2. What is a Crime of Terrorism? the other elements of the crime, including the
• It is committed by any person who engages in coercion of the government to accede to an
any of the following acts punishable under RPC unlawful demand.
and other special penal laws. The word “demand” is too broad as to cover
not only political, criminal or monetarial
3. What are the crimes of terrorism under the demands but also those which maybe
Revised Penal Code? (P-ReCK-MD) categorized as social or economic. This
a. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the high however is qualified by the word “ unlawful”.
seas or in the Philippine waters (Art
122) 6. Who may be liable?
b. Rebellion or Insurrection (Art 134)
c. Coup d’etat including acts committed DESCRIPTION PENALTY
by private persons (Art 134-A)
d. K i d n a p p i n g a n d S e r i o u s I l l e g a l CONSPIRATOR (Section 4)
Detention (Art 267)
Two or more persons Forty (40) years of
e. Murder (Art 248) come to an agreement imprisonment
f. Crimes involving Destruction (Art 324) concerning the
commission of the
4. What are the crimes of terrorism under crime of terrorism and
Special Laws? (F-AAA-TH) decide to commit the
same
a. Decree codifying the laws on illegal and
unlawful possession, manufacture, ACCOMPLICE (Section 5)
dealing in, acquisition or disposition of
Any person who, not Seventeen (17) years,
Firearms
being a principal four months one day to
b. Arson cooperates in the twenty (20) years of
c. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery execution of either the imprisonment.
Law of 1974 crime of terrorism or
d. Atomic Energy regulatory and Liability conspiracy to commit
Act terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts
e. Toxic Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Waste Control Act ACCESSORY (Section 6)
f. Anti-Hijacking Law

5. What are the elements of the crime of

terrorism?
a. Offender commits an act punishable
under any of the cited provisions of the
RPC, or under any of the enumerated
special penal laws;

/wncverder2016 Page !44 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws

DESCRIPTION PENALTY 7. What are the tools provided by law in

fighting terrorism?
A n y p e r s o n w h o , Ten (10) years and one
having knowledge of day to twelve (12) a. S u r v e i l l a n c e o f s u s p e c t s a n d
the commission of the years of imprisonment.
i n t e rc e p t i o n a n d re c o rd i n g o f
crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit communications
terrorism, and without Allows surveillance, interception, and
having participated recording of communications
therein, either as Use of any mode, form, kind or type of
principal or accomplice e l e c t ro n i c o r o t h e r s u r v e i l l a n c e
takes part subsequent
equipment
to its commission in
any of the following A period of 30 days, renewable for
manner: another 30 days, upon a written order
• by profiting himself of the Court of Appeals
or assisting the Prohibits surveillance of privileged
offender to profit by communications among the following:
the effects of the
• Lawyers and clients
crime
• by concealing or • Doctors and patients
destroying the body • Journalists and sources
of the crime, or the • Confidential business
effects, or correspondence
instruments There must be an Written Order from
thereof, in order to
the CA to track down, tap, listen to,
prevent its
discovery intercept and record communications,
• by harboring, messages, conversations, discussions,
concealing, or or spoken or written words of any
assisting in the person suspected of the crime of
escape of the Terrorism or the crime of conspiracy t
principal or
commit terrorism
conspirator of the
crime Upon an ex parte written application of
a police or law enforcement official
Exception (NOT authorized by the Anti-Terrorism
LIABLE): Those who Council
are such with respect to The written authorization to conduct
their:
Surveillance shall not exceed 30 days,
Spouses
Ascendants extendable for another 30 days.
Descendants
Legitimate, natural, b. P r o s c r i p t i o n o f T e r r o r i s t
and adopted Organizations, Association, or Group
brothers and sisters of Persons
Relatives by affinity
Organizations organized for the
within the same
degrees purpose of engaging in terrorism, or
which, although not organized for that
Exception to the purpose, actually uses acts enumerated
Exception: in the Act to terrorize are declared as
Accessories falling terrorists and are outlawed.
within the
The Department of Justice may apply
provisions of
subparagraph A for such proscription. The organization
will be given due notice and
opportunity to be heard.

/wncverder2016 Page !45 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
c. Detention of Suspected Terrorists Without
Warrant of Arrest
The Act allows warrantless arrests. The
suspect, however, must be delivered to the
proper judicial authority within the three-day
period.
The arrest under this Section must be the result
of the surveillance under Section 7 and
examination of bank deposits under Section 27
of the Act.
d. Examination of Bank Deposits, Accounts and
Records
The HSA permits:
• Examination of bank accounts of
terrorists suspects
• Seizure or freezing of the proceeds
thereof
• Seizure or sequestration of other
properties
Properties of a convicted terrorist be forfeited
in favor of the government
There shall be a Special Court designated to
handle anti-terrorism cases.
Special Court may authorize in writing any
police or law enforcement officer and the
members of his/her team to:
• examine, or cause the examination of,
the deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets and records in a bank
or financial institution; and
• gather or cause the gathering of any
relevant infor mation about such
deposits, placements, trust accounts,
assets, and records from a bank or
financial institution, the bank or
financial institution concerned shall not
refuse to allow such examination or to
provide the desired information, when
so ordered by and served with written
order of the CA.
8. What are the prescribed penalties for the
crime of terrorism?
Terrorism
Forty (40) years of imprisonment
NO PAROLE as provided for under Act
No. 4103, or known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law
/wncverder2016
Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism
Persons who conspire to commit the
crime of terrorism shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment
There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of the
crime of terrorism as defined in Section
3 of the Act and decide to commit the
same.
Accomplice
17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20
years of imprisonment
Accessory
10 years, one day to 12 years
imprisonment
Except:
• Spouses
• Ascendants
• Descendants
• Legitimate, natural, adopted
brothers or sisters
• Relatives by affinity within the
same degrees
• Exception to the exception:
accessories falling within the
provisions of subparagraph A
9. Restriction on Travel
• In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong,
and the person charged with the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is
entitled to bail and is granted the same, the
court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall
limit the right of travel of the accused to within
the municipality or city where he resides or
where the case is pending, in the interest of
national security and public safety, consistent
with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution.
Travel outside of said municipality or city,
without the authorization of the court, shall be
deemed a violation of the terms and
conditions of his bail, which shall then be
forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.
• He/she may also be placed under house arrest
by order of the court at his or her usual place
of residence.
• While under house arrest, he or she may not
use telephones, cell phones, e-mails,
Page !46 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
computers, the internet or other means of
communication with people outside the
residence until otherwise ordered by the court.
• The restrictions above-mentioned shall be
terminated upon the acquittal of the accused
or of the dismissal of the case filed against him
or earlier upon the discussion of the court on
motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.
10. Seizure and Sequestration
• The deposits and their outstanding balances,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records
in any bank or financial institution, moneys,
businesses, transportation and communication
equipment, supplies and other  implements,
and property of whatever kind and nature
belonging:
to any person suspected of or charged
before a competent Regional Trial
Court for the crime of terrorism or the
crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism;
to a judicially declared and outlawed
organization, association, or group of
persons; or
to a member of such organization,
association, or group of persons shall
be seized, sequestered and frozen in
order to prevent their use, transfer, or
conveyance for purposes that are
inimical to the safety and security of the
people or injurious to the interest of the
State.
• The accused or a person suspected of may
withdraw such sums as may be reasonably
needed by the monthly needs of his family,
including the services of his or her counsel and
his or her family’s medical needs, upon
approval of the court. He or she may also use
any of his property that is under seizure or
sequestration or frozen because of his/her
indictment as a terrorist upon permission of
the court for any legitimate reason.
• Any person who unjustifiably refuses to follow
the order of the proper division of the Court of
Appeals to allow the person accused of the
crime of terrorism or of the crime of conspiracy
to commit terrorism to withdraw such sums
from sequestered or frozen deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records
as may be necessary for the regular sustenance
of his/her family or to use any of his/her
/wncverder2016
property that has been seized, sequestered or
frozen for legitimate purposes while his/her
case is pending shall suffer the penalty of ten
(10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment.
11. Procedure When A Suspected Terrorist is
Arrested
• A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any
law enforcement personnel provided:
The law enforcement agent was duly
authorized in writing by the Anti
Terrorism Council
T h e a r re s t w a s t h e re s u l t o f a
surveillance or examination of bank
deposits
• Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the
law enforcement agent must present the
suspected terrorist before any judge at the
latter’s residence or office nearest the place of
arrest, at any time of the day or night. The
judge shall, within three days, submit a written
report of the presentation to the court where
the suspect shall have been charged.
• Immediately after taking custody of a person
charged or suspected as a terrorist, the police
or law enforcement personnel shall notify in
writing the judge of the nearest place of
apprehension or arrest, but if the arrest is
made during non-office days or after office
hours, the written notice shall be served at the
nearest residence of the judge nearest the
place of arrest
• Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10
years and one day to12 years of imprisonment
12. Period of Detention has been extended to
three days
• The three day period is counted from the
moment the person charged or suspected as
terrorist has been apprehended or arrested,
detained and taken into custody 
• In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist
attack, suspects may not be detained for more
than three days without the written approval of
the Human Rights Commission, or judge of the
MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan or Court of Appeals
nearest the place of arrest  
Page !47 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the • Punishes the act of knowingly furnishing False
person arrested shall be brought to the Testimony, forged document or spurious
residence of any of the above named officials evidence in any investigation or hearing under
nearest the place of arrest. the law ( 12 yrs and one day to 20 years)  
• Failure to deliver the person charged or
suspected as terrorists to the proper judicial; 14. Provisions on the Identity of the Informant
authority within three days is punished by 10 • The officer to whom the name of the suspect
years and one day to 12 years. was first reveled shall record the real name and
specific address of the informant and shall
13. Other Acts Punished As Offenses (punished report the same to his superior officer who
by imprisonment of 10 years and one day to shall in turn transmit the information to the
12 years) which acts are related to the Congressional Oversight Committee within 5
arrest/detention of suspected terrorists days after the suspect was placed under arrest,
or his properties sequestered seized or frozen.
• Violation of the rights of a person detained •  The data shall be considered confidential and
Right to be informed of the nature and shall not be unnecessarily revealed until after
cause of the arrest; to remain silent; to the proceedings against the suspect shall have
counsel been terminated. 
To communicate and confer with
counsel at any time without restriction • NOTE: It would seem that the confidentiality
To communicate at any time and of the informant’s identity is not permanent but
without restrictions with members of may be revealed, not like the provisions of the
family or relatives and be visited by Rules of Evidence which considers the
them confidentiality as permanent)
To avail of the services of a physician of
choice  15. Territorial Application of the law:
• The law applies to any person who commits an
• Offenses relating to an official log book: act covered by the law if committed: 
Failure to keep official logbook detailing the
name of the person arrested the date and time Within the terrestrial domain, interior
of initial admission for custody and arrest; state waters, maritime zone and airspace of
of his health; date and time of removal from his the Philippines
cell, and his return thereto; date and time of Inside the territorial limits of the
visits and by whom; all other important data Philippines
bearing on his treatment while under arrest On board a Philippine ship or airship
and custody  W ithin any embassy, consulate,
Failure to promptly issue a certified true copy diplomatic premises belonging to or
of the entries of the log book  occupied by the Philippine government
in an official capacity
• Using threat, intimidation, coercion, inflicting Against Philippine citizens or persons of
physical pain, or torment or mental emotional, P h i l i p p i n e d e s c e n t w h e re t h e i r
moral or psychological pressure which shall citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in
vitiate the free will  the commission of the crime
Directly against the Philippine
• Punishes Infidelity in the Custody of Detained government.
Persons
The penalty is 12 years and one day to
20 years if the person detained is a
prisoner by final judgment
The penalty is 6 years and one day to
12 years if the prisoner is a detention
prisoner
/wncverder2016 Page !48 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XII. PLUNDER ACT (RA 7080)
1. What is plunder and how is it committed?
a. Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten
wealth through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts in the aggregate amount or
total value of at least P50 million.
b. Any person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall
likewise be punished for such offense.
2. What are the elements of plunder?
• That the offender is a public officer who acts
by himself or in connivance with members of
his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other
persons;
• That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or series
of the following overt or criminal acts
described in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080 as
amended; and
• That the aggregate amount or total value of
the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.
3. What is ill-gotten wealth?
• Any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person, acquired by
him directly or indirectly through dummies,
nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or
series of specific or similar criminal means or
schemes.
4. How is ill-gotten wealth acquired?
• Misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation : Public funds or raids on the
public treasury
• Receive (directly or indirectly) in connection
with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position : Commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other
form of pecuniary benefit from any person
and/or entity
• Illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition : Assets of the Government or any
/wncverder2016
of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or GOCCs and their
subsidiaries
• Obtaining, receiving or accepting (directly or
indirectly) in any business enterprise or
undertaking : Shares of stock, equity or any
other form of interest or participation including
promise of future employment
• Establishing the ff. to benefit particular persons
or special interests : Agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and order;
• Taking undue advantage of the ff. to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the country and its
c i t i z e n s : O ff i c i a l p o s i t i o n , a u t h o r i t y,
relationship, connection or influence
5. What must be the total or aggregate value
of the ill-gotten wealth?
• At least P50 million
6. What is the difference between combination
and series?
• The terms “Combination” and “Series” were
likewise defined in the above-cited case as
follows:
• Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of
“combination,” it is referring to at least two (2)
acts falling under different categories of
enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g.,
raids on the public treasury in Sec.1, par. (d),
subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of
assets belongings to the National Government
under Sec.1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
• On the other hand, to constitute a “series”,
there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal
acts falling under the same category of
enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say,
misappropriation , malversation and raids on
the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec.
1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature
intended a technical or distinctive meaning for
“combination” and “series,” it would have
taken greater pains in specifically providing for
it in the law ( People v. Joseph Estrada et al.,
Criminal Case No. 26558, September 12,
2007).
Page !49 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
7. What is the specific rule of evidence
provided under this law?
• For purposes of establishing the crime of
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each
and every criminal act done by the accused in
furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to
amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth,
it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal
acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme
or conspiracy.

GPS Lecture:
• Considered also under crimes under the AMLA
- case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, these
money are deposited in a bank account which
was deposited under the name of “Jose
Velarde”
• Definition of Transaction - mere deposit in the
account
• Plunder and AMLA are two separate offenses

/wncverder2016 Page !50 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XIII.ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT (RA No. 3109)
1. Definition of Terms
• "Government" includes the national
government, the local governments, the
government-owned and government-
controlled corporations, and all other
instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of
the Philippines and their branches.
• "Public officer" includes elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent
or temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the
government as defined in the preceding
subparagraph.
• "Receiving any gift" includes the act of
accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a
person other than a member of the public
officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself
or of any member of his family or relative
within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion
of a family celebration or national festivity like
Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the
circumstances manifestly excessive.
2. Corrupt Practices of Public Officials (Sec. 3)
a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit such
violation or offense.
ELEMENTS:
• The offender is a public officer
• The offender persuades,
induces, or influences another
public officer to perform an act
or the offender allows himself to
be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit an act
• The act performed by the other
public officer or committed by
the offender constitutes a
violation of rules and regulations
/wncverder2016
duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in
connection with the official duty
of the latter.
b. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit,
for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part,
wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
ELEMENTS:
• The offender is a public officer
• Who requested or received gift,
a present, a share , percentage
or benefit
• On behalf of the offender or any
other person
• In connection with a contract or
transaction with the government
• In which the public officer, in an
official capacity under the law,
has the right to intervene
c. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any
person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained,
or will secure or obtain, any Government
permit or license, in consideration for the help
given or to be given, without prejudice to
Section thirteen of this Act.
ELEMENTS:
• The offender is a public officer
• That he has secured or
obtained, or would secure or
obtain, for a person, any
government permit or license
• That he requested or received
any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit in
consideration for help to be
given
• That he directly or indirectly
requested such gift, present, or
pecuniary or material benefit
Page !51 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
d. Accepting or having any member of his family
accept employment in a private enterprise
which has pending official business with him
during the pendency thereof or within one year
after its termination.
e. Causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices
or government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
ELEMENTS:
• That the accused are public
officers or private persons
charged in conspiracy with them
• That said public officers
committed the prohibited acts
during the performance of their
duties or in relation to their
public positions
• That they caused undue injury
to any party, whether the
Government or private party
• That such injury was caused by
giving unwarranted benefits,
advantage, preference to such
parties
• That the public officers acted
with manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence
f. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act
within a reasonable time on any matter
pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any
person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or
for the purpose of favoring his own interest or
giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested
party.
/wncverder2016
ELEMENTS:
• The offender is a public officer
• Such failure to act is for the
purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage in favor of an
i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y, o r
discriminating against another
• Reasonable time has elapsed
from such demand or request
without the public officer having
acted on the matter pending
before him
• The said officer has neglected
or has refused to act without
sufficient justification after due
demand or request has been
made on him.
g. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into
any contract or transaction manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether
or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
ELEMENTS:
• That the accused is a public
officer
• That he entered into a contract
or transaction on behalf of the
government
• That such contract or
transaction is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to
the government
h. Directly or indirectly having financing or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity,
or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution
or by any law from having any interest.
ELEMENTS:
• That the accused is a public
officer
• That he has a direct or indirect
financial or pecuniary interest in
any business, contract,
transaction, and
Page !52 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• He either:
• Takes part or intervenes
in his official capacity in
connection with such
interest, or
• Is prohibited from having
such interest by the
Constitution or by any
law
i. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in
any transaction or act requiring the approval of
a board, panel or group of which he is a
member, and which exercises discretion in such
approval, even if he votes against the same or
does not participate in the action of the board,
committee, panel or group. Interest for
personal gain shall be presumed against those
public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or
group to which they belong.
j. Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any
person not qualified for or not legally entitled
to such license, permit, privilege or advantage,
or of a mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.
k. Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his office or
by him on account of his official position to
unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized
release date.
3. Prohibition on Private Individuals
• Taking advantage if family or close personal
relation with public official who has to
intervene in some business, transaction,
application, request, or contract of the
government with any other person, by directly
or indirectly, requesting or receiving any
present, gift, or material or pecuniary
advantage from such public official
• Knowingly inducing or causing any public
official to commit any of the offenses defined
in Section 3 of this Act.
/wncverder2016
4. Prohibition on Certain Relatives
• It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any
relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the
third civil degree, of the President of the
Philippines, the Vice-President of the
Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, to
intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business,
transaction, contract or application with the
Government:
• Exceptions:
• This section shall not apply to any
person who, prior to the assumption of
office of any of the above officials to
whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the Government along the
same line of business, nor to any
transaction, contract or application
already existing or pending at the time
of such assumption of public office, nor
to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary
on the part of the official or officials
concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by
law, or rules or regulations issued
pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully
performed in an official capacity or in
the exercise of a profession.
5. Prohibition to the Members of Congress
• It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member
of the Congress during the term for which he
has been elected, to acquire or receive any
personal pecuniary interest in any specific
business enterprise which will be directly and
particularly favored or benefited by any law or
resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted by the Congress during
the same term.
• The provision of this section shall apply to any
other public officer who recommended the
initiation in Congress of the enactment or
adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires
or receives any such interest during his
incumbency.
Page !53 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of
Congress or other public officer, who, having
such interest prior to the approval of such law
or resolution authored or recommended by
him, continues for thirty days after such
approval to retain such interest.
6. Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal due
to Unexplained Wealth
• If in accordance with the provisions of Republic
Act Numbered One thousand three hundred
seventy-nine, a public official has been found
to have acquired during his incumbency,
whether in his name or in the name of other
persons, an amount of property and/or money
manifestly out of proportion to his salary and
to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a
ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in
the name of the spouse and unmarried
children of such public official may be taken
into consideration, when their acquisition
t h ro u g h l e g i t i m a t e m e a n s c a n n o t b e
satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be
taken into consideration in the enforcement of
this section, notwithstanding any provision of
law to the contrary.
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINES
1. People vs. Sandiganbayan (GR No. 188165)
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; “in
connection with a contract or transaction.”
In issuing the questioned resolution, the
Sandiganbayan applied the restrictive meaning of
the term transaction as used in section 3(b) of R.A.
3019 adopted in Soriano Jr. v. Sandiganbayan.  such position to be able to take out a loan from
In Soriano Jr., the Supreme Court (SC) pronounced
that “the investigation conducted by the petitioner
was not a contract. Neither was it a transaction
because this term must be construed as analogous
to the term which precedes it. A transaction, like
a contract, is one which involves some
consideration as in credit transactions and this
element (consideration) is absent in the
investigation conducted by the petitioner.”
The State here argues that the Sandiganbayan
committed grave abuse of discretion resulting to
/wncverder2016
lack or in excess of jurisdiction for applying the
interpretation of the term  transaction  in  Soriano
Jr. considering that the term transaction should be
construed more liberally. The SC did not give
credence to the State’s position. It held that it
does not help the State any that the
term  transaction  as used in section 3(b) of R.A.
3019 is susceptible of being interpreted both
restrictively and liberally, considering that laws
creating, defining or punishing crimes and laws
imposing penalties and forfeitures are to be
construed strictly against the State or against
the party seeking to enforce them, and liberally
against the party sought to be charged.
Hence, the SC ruled that the Sandiganbayan did
not arbitrarily, or whimsically, or capriciously quash
the information for failing to properly state the
fourth element of the violation of section 3(b) of
R.A. 3019.
2. Consigna vs. People (GR. No. 175750-51)
Elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019:
• The accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions;
• He must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence;
and
• That his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his functions.
There is no doubt that petitioner, being a
municipal treasurer, was a public officer
discharging official functions when she misused
Moleta, who was misled into the belief that
petitioner, as municipal treasurer, was acting on
behalf of the municipality.
In this case, it was not only alleged in the
Information, but was proved with certainty
during trial that the manner by which petitioner
perpetrated the crime necessarily relates to her
official function as a municipal treasurer.
Petitioner’s official function created in her favor an
impression of authority to transact business with
Moleta involving government financial concerns.
There is, therefore, a direct relation between the
Page !54 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
commission of the crime and petitioner’s office –
the latter being the very reason or consideration
that led to the unwarranted benefit she gained
from Moleta, for which the latter suffered damages
in the amount of P320,000.00.
Two Ways by which a Public Official Violates Sec
3(a) of RA No. 3019 in the performance of their
Functions
1. by causing undue injury to any party,
including the Government
2. by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference.
Evident Bad Faith
• In this case, petitioner was charged of violating
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 under the alternative
mode of "causing undue injury" to Moleta
committed with evident bad faith, for which
she was correctly found guilty. "Evident bad
faith" connotes not only bad judgment but
also 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, which manifested in
petitioner’s actuations and representation.
Coverage of Application of Sec 3(a)
• Given the above disquisition, it becomes
superfluous to dwell further on the issue raised
by petitioner that Sec. 3(e) applies only to
o ff i c e r s a n d e m p l o y e e s o f o ff i c e s o r
government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or other concessions.
Nonetheless, to finally settle the issue, the last
sentence of the said provision is not a
restrictive requirement which limits the
application or extent of its coverage.
• SC: A prosecution for violation of Sec. 3(e) of
the Anti-Graft Law will lie regardless of whether
or not the accused public officer is "charged
with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions."
/wncverder2016
3. Ampil vs. Ombudsman (GR. No. 192685)
P o w e r a n d D u t y o f t h e O ffi c e o f t h e
Ombudsman
• “That the Ombudsman is a constitutional
officer duty bound to “investigate on its own,
or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public official, employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient” brooks no objection. The
O m b u d s m a n ’s c o n d u c t o f p re l i m i n a r y
investigation is both power and duty. Thus, the
Ombudsman and his Deputies, are
constitutionalized as protectors of the people,
who “shall act promptly on complaints filed in
any form or manner against public officials or
employees of the government x x x, and shall,
x x x notify the complainants of the action
taken and the result thereof.”
• The raison d’être for its creation and
endowment of broad investigative authority is
to insulate the Office of the Ombudsman from
the long tentacles of officialdom that are able
to penetrate judges’ and fiscals’ offices, and
others involved in the prosecution of erring
public officials, and through the execution of
official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or
dismiss investigations into malfeasances and
misfeasances committed by public officers.
• Plainly, the Ombudsman has “full discretion,”
based on the attendant facts and
circumstances, to determine the existence of
probable cause or the lack thereof. On this
score, we have consistently hewed to the
p o l i c y o f n o n - i n t e r f e re n c e w i t h t h e
Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutionally
mandated powers. The Ombudsman’s finding
to proceed or desist in the prosecution of a
criminal case can only be assailed through
certiorari proceedings before this Court on the
ground that such determination is tainted with
grave abuse of discretion which contemplates
an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Page !55 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
In relation to Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic
Act No. 3019
The elements of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No.
3019 are:
1.  the offender is a public officer;
2. the offender persuades, induces, or
influences another public officer to
perform an act or the offender allows
himself to be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit an act;
3. the act performed by the other public
officer or committed by the offender
constitutes a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duty of the
latter. (Emphasis supplied).
Whereas, paragraph (e) of the same section lists
the following elements:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the act was done in the discharge of
t h e p u b l i c o f f i c e r ’s o f f i c i a l ,
administrative or judicial functions;
3. the act was done through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
4. the public officer caused any undue
injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference.
In the instant case, the elements of the offenses
under Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No.
3019, juxtaposed against the functions of a
Registrar of the Registry of Deeds establish a prima
facie graft case against Espenesin and Serrano
only. Under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019,
there is a prima facie case that Espenesin, at the
urging of Serrano, allowed himself to be
persuaded to alter the CCTs originally issued in
ASB’s name, against the procedure provided by
law for the issuance of CCTs and registration of
property. In addition, under Section 3(e) of the
same law, there is likewise a prima facie case that
Espenesin, through gross inexcusable negligence,
by simply relying on the fact that all throughout the
transaction to register the subject units at The
Malayan Tower he liaised with Serrano, gave MICO
an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference
in the registration of the subject units.
/wncverder2016
“One fact deserves emphasis. The ownership of
the condominium units remains in dispute and, by
necessary inference, does not lie as well in MICO.
By his baseless reliance on Serrano’s word and
representation, Espenesin allowed MICO to gain
an unwarranted advantage and benefit in the
titling of the 38 units in The Malayan Tower.
That a prima facie case for gross negligence
amounting to violation of Sections 3(a) and (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 exists is amply supported
by the fact that Espenesin disregarded the well-
established practice necessitating submission of
required documents for registration of property
in the Philippines:”
4. Jaca vs. People (GR. No. 166967)
Elements of RA No. 3019 and the prosecutions
evidence
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 has "three elements:
1. the accused is a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial, or
official functions;
2. he or she must have acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
gross and inexcusable negligence; and
3. [his or her] action caused any undue
injury to any party, including the
government, or [gave] any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or
preference in the discharge of his or her
functions.
Prosecution and Conviction of a Public Officer
for Violations of RA. No. 3019
• SC: We would be setting a bad precedent if a
head of office plagued by all too common
problems - dishonest or negligent
subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments
or positions, or plain incompetence - is
suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction
simply because he did not personally examine
every single detail, painstakingly trace every
step from inception, and investigate the
motives of every person involved in a
transaction before affixing his signature as the
final approving authority.
Page !56 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
Ombudsman’s Determination of Probable Cause
in RA. No. 3019
• The fact that Sistoza had knowledge of the
status of the contractor as being only the
second lowest bidder does not ipso facto
characterize his act of reliance as recklessly
imprudent xxx. Albeit misplaced, reliance in
good faith by a head of office on a subordinate
upon whom the primary responsibility rests
negates an imputation of conspiracy by gross
inexcusable negligence to commit graft and
corruption. As things stand, Sistoza is
presumed to have acted honestly and sincerely
when he depended upon responsible
assurances that everything was aboveboard
since it is not always the case that second best
bidders in terms of price are automatically
disqualified from the award considering that
the PBAC reserves the authority to select the
best bid not only in terms of the price offered
but other factors as well. x x x
• Verily, even if petitioner erred in his assessment
of the extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the
documents presented to him for endorsement,
his act is all the same imbued with good faith
because the otherwise faulty reliance upon his
subordinates, who were primarily in charge of
the task, falls within parameters of tolerable
judgment and permissible margins of error.
Stated differently, granting that there were
flaws in the bidding procedures, x x x there
was no cause for Sistoza to x x x investigate
further since neither the defects in the process
nor the unfairness or injustice in the actions of
his subalterns are definite, certain, patent and
palpable from a perusal of the supporting
documents.
5. Conrado vs. Sandiganbayan (GR. No. 94955)
Section 3(f). Elements
• The offender is a public officer;
• The said officer has neglected or has
refused to act without sufficient
justification after due demand or
request has been made on him;
• Reasonable time has elapsed from such
demand or request without the public
officer having acted on the matter
pending before him; and
/wncverder2016
• Such failure to so act is "for the
purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in
the matter some pecuniary or material
benefit or advantage in favor of an
interested party, or discriminating
against another.
Attendance of 3 elements in this case can hardly
be disputed. Controversy lies on the fourth
element.
• To warrant conviction for a violation of Section
3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, the law itself additionally requires that the
accused's dereliction, besides being without
justification, must be for the purpose of (a)
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any
person interested in the matter some
pecuniary or material benefit or advantage
in favor of an interested party or (b)
discriminating against another interested
party.
• The severity of the penalty imposed by the law
leaves no doubt that the legislative intent is to
consider this element to be indispensable.
• The record is bereft of evidence, albeit
alleged, to indicate that the petitioner's failure
to act was motivated by any gain or benefit for
himself or knowingly for the purpose of
favoring an interested party or discriminating
against another. It is not enough that an
advantage in favor of one party, as against
another, would result from one neglect or
refusal. Had it been so, the law would have
perhaps instead said, "or as a consequence of
such neglect or refusal undue advantage is
derived by an interested party or another is
unduly discriminated against.”
• It is not that We are condoning the misconduct
of the petitioner, nor that we are unmindful of
the prejudice that may have been sustained by
the private respondent, but the legal remedies
lie elsewhere, not in the instant action.
Page !57 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
6. Go vs. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan (GR.
No. 172602)
A private person may be charged with violation
of Sec 3(g) of RA. No. 3019
• The application of the anti-graft law extends to
both public officers and private persons.
• Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found
guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses
under Section 3 of RA 3019. This is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-
graft law to repress certain acts of public
officers and private persons alike constituting
graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead
thereto.
• The finding of probable cause against
petitioner by the Office of the Ombudsman is
a function duly belonging to the latter. The
exercise of such function cannot be meddled
with by the courts by virtue of the doctrine of
non-interference except for compelling
reasons.
7. Caballero vs. Sandiganbayan (GR. No.
137255-58)
Violation of a Mayor of RA. No. 3019 is within
the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
• The Court held that violations of RA No. 3019
by a municipal mayor come within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan because under RA No. 6758,
otherwise known as the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989, municipal
mayors are local officials classified as Grade
27. They thus fall under the catch-all provision
of Section 4a(5) of PD 1606 which speaks of
national and local officials classified as Grade
27 under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989. More accurately,
municipal mayors fall under Section 4a(1) of PD
1606 as they are officials of the executive
branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as
Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989.
/wncverder2016
Violation of Sec 3(h) of RA. No. 3019
• Elements:
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business,
contract, or transaction; and
3. He either:
• intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity in connection
with such interest, or
• is prohibited from having such
interest by the Constitution or
by any law.
As can be gleaned from the records, Mayor
Caballero had nary any participation from the
drawing of the purchase request to the awarding of
the contracts to the lowest bidder by the Awards
Committee. Quite the contrary, the records reveal
that after learning that his wifes business entities
were among those invited to bid, Mayor Caballero
inhibited himself in all the proceedings of the
Committee on Awards even if he is, by law, the
chairman thereof. It can thus be concluded that the
decision by the Awards Committee on who will be
the winning bidder was made through its members
own determination and volition and without any
intervention on the part of the mayor.
 
To our mind, such act of the mayor in inhibiting
himself from taking part in the Committees
proceedings clearly shows that he had never
intended to influence or pressure the members of
the Committee on Awards to favor his wife’s bid.
When the Committee eventually awarded the
contracts to Theresa Caballero, it was only because
the Committee found her bid to be the lowest and
the most advantageous to the government, and
not because she is the mayors wife or because the
mayor had a pecuniary interest in it. True enough,
GPs Catering Services even offered its building
space free of charge for use by the participants in
the seminar-workshop. Indeed, the advantage to
the government was two-fold: one, for the lowest
price quotation for the supply of meals; and the
other, for the free use of the building space as
convention hall for the entire duration of the
seminar-workshop. With such advantage to the
government, it is only logical and appropriate for
Mayor Caballero to approve the awards. Even
then, his approval of the awards in favor of his
Page !58 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
wifes business establishments came after the
decision had already been reached by the
Committee on Awards, thus he cannot be said to
have influenced the same. It is, therefore, safe to
say that the mayor did not intervene in the
transactions as the contracts therefor were
a w a rd e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e w i t h o u t h i s
participation.
8. Teves vs. Sandiganbayan (GR. No. 154182)
Violation of Section 3(h), Elements
• Elements:
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business,
contract, or transaction; and
3. He either:
• intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity in connection
with such interest, or
• is prohibited from having such
interest by the Constitution or
by any law.
established by direct evidence, for it may be
inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during, and after the commission of
the crime, all taken together, the evidence
must reasonably be strong enough to show
community of criminal design.
• Certainly, there is no conspiracy in just being
married to an erring spouse. For a spouse or
any person to be a party to a conspiracy as to
be liable for the acts of the others, it is
essential that there be intentional participation
in the transaction with a view to the
furtherance of the common design. Except
when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is
necessary that a conspirator should have
performed some overt act as a direct or
indirect contribution in the execution of the
crime planned to be committed. The overt act
must consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself or of
moral assistance to his co-conspirators.

There are, therefore, two modes by which a public

officer who has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or
transaction may violate Section 3(h) of the Anti-
Graft Law. The first mode is if in connection with
his pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction, the public officer intervenes or takes
part in his official capacity. The second mode is
when he is prohibited from having such interest by
the Constitution or any law.

Conspiracy

• Petitioner Teresita Teves must, however, be

acquitted. The charge against her is conspiracy
in causing the issuance of the appropriate
business permit/license to operate the
Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center. For
this charge, she was acquitted. But as
discussed earlier, that charge also includes
conspiracy in the possession of prohibited
interest.
• Conspiracy must be established separately
from the crime itself and must meet the same
degree of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable
doubt. While conspiracy need not be
/wncverder2016 Page !59 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XIV.AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR
DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (BP. Blg. 22)
1. Punishable Acts
• Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person
who makes or draws and issues any check to
apply on account or for value, knowing at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
been dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment.
• Any person who, having sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep
sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover
the full amount of the check if presented within
a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank. (Section 1)
2. Evidence of Knowledge of Insufficient Funds
• The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with
such bank, when presented within ninety (90)
days from the date of the check, shall be prima
facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such
maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the
amount due thereon, or makes arrangements
for payment in full by the drawee of such check
within (5) banking days after receiving notice
that such check has not been paid by the
drawee. (Section 2)
• Exceptions: If the maker or drawer:
Pays the holder thereof the amount due
thereon within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee
Makes arrangements for payment in full
by the drawee of such check within 5
banking days after receiving notice that
/wncverder2016
such check has not been paid by the
drawee.
3. Importance of 5, 90, and 180 day periods in
Prosecution of Offenses
• 5 Days: The maker or issuer must make
arrangements to make good the check within 5
days to escape criminal liability for issuing a
rubber check
• 90 Days: He must maintain sufficient funds
within the 90 day period of time to destroy the
prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to back up the check
• 180 Days: Failure of the payee to deposit or
encash the check within the 180-day period
will make the check stale or valueless, hence
no criminal action can arise therefrom.
4. Compare with RPC Article 315
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned
herein below . .
.xxx xxx xxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses
or fraudulent acts, executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
xxx xxx xxx
(d) By postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had
no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check.
• What petitioner failed to mention in his
argument is the fact that deceit and damage
are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d)
Revised Penal Code, but are not required in
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter
law, mere issuance of a check that is
dishonored gives rise to the presumption of
knowledge on the part of the drawer that he
issued the same without sufficient funds and
hence punishable (People v. Veridiano, 132
SCRA 523) which is not so under the Penal
Code.
Page !60 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
• Other differences between the two also
include the following:
a. a drawer of a dishonored check may be
convicted under Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 even if he had issued the
same for a pre-existing obligation,
while under Article 315 (2-d) of the
Revised Penal Code such circumstance
negates criminal liability;
b. specific and different penalties are
imposed in each of the two offenses;
c. estafa is essentially a crime against
property, while violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 is principally a
crime against public interest as it does
injury to the entire banking system;
d. violations of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code are mala in se, while those
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are mala
prohibita. (Nierras vs. Dacuycuy)
JURISPRUDENCE AND DOCTRINES
1. Nierras vs. Dacuycuy
Difference between BP 22 and Article 315 of
RPC
• See above.
• While the filing of the two sets of Information
under the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 and under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may refer
to identical acts committed by petitioner, the
prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one
offense, because a single criminal act may give
rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where
there is variance or differences between the
elements of an offense in one law and another
law as in the case at bar there will be no
double jeopardy because what the rule on
double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of
elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise
stated prosecution for the same act is not
prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution
for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of
the two (2) sets of information does not itself
give rise to double jeopardy.
/wncverder2016
2. Ricaforte vs. Jurado
As to petitioner’s claim that subject checks were
not issued to account or for value but solely to
guarantee another person’s checks
• not a defense against a charge for violation of
B.P. Blg. 22.
• It bears stressing that, whether a person is an
accommodation party is a question of intent.
When the intent of the parties does not appear
on the face of the check, it must be
ascertained in the light of the surrounding facts
and circumstances. Invariably, the tests applied
are the purpose test and the proceeds test. x x
x. And even assuming she was such party, this
circumstance is not a defense to a charge for
violation of B.P. 22. What the law punishes is
the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not
the purpose for which it was issued or of the
terms and conditions relating to its issuance.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check,
whether merely as an accommodation, is
covered by B.P. 22. Hence, the agreement
surrounding the issuance of a check is
irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of
the petitioner.
• The Court has consistently declared that the
cause or reason for the issuance of the check is
inconsequential in determining criminal
culpability under BP 22. The Court has since
said that a "check issued as an evidence of
debt, although not intended for encashment,
has the same effect like any other check" and
must thus be held to be "within the
contemplation of BP 22." Once a check is
presented for payment, the drawee bank gives
it the usual course whether issued in payment
of an obligation or just as a guaranty of an
obligation. BP 22 does not appear to concern
itself with what might actually be envisioned by
the parties, its primordial intention being to
instead ensure the stability and commercial
value of checks as being virtual substitutes for
currency. It is a policy that can easily be eroded
if one has yet to determine the reason for
which checks are issued, or the terms and
conditions for their issuance, before an
appropriate application of the legislative
enactment can be made. The gravamen of the
offense under BP 22 is the act of making or
issuing a worthless check or a check that is
Page !61 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
dishonored upon presentment for payment.
The act effectively declares the offense to be
one of malum prohibitum. The only valid query
then is whether the law has been breached,
i.e., by the mere act of issuing a bad check,
without so much regard as to the criminal
intent of the issuer.
SC: Consequently, what remains to be significant
are the facts that the accused had deliberately
issued the checks in question to cover accounts
and those same checks were dishonored upon
presentment, regardless of the purpose for such
issuance.
3. Mitra vs. People
Whether or not the elements of the violation of
BP 22 must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
as against a corporation who owns the current
account where the subject checks were drawn,
before the liability attaches to the signatories
• Mitra posited in the petition that before the
signatory to a bouncing corporate check can
be held liable, all the elements of the crime of
violation of BP 22 must first be proven against
the corporation. The corporation must first be
declared to have committed the violation
before the liability attaches to the signatories
of the checks.  valuable consideration
• The Court cited the case of Llamado v. Court
of Appeals, where it ruled that the accused
was liable on the unfunded corporate check
which he signed as treasurer of the
corporation. He could not invoke his lack of
involvement in the negotiation for the
transaction as a defense because BP 22
punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing
check, not the purpose for which the check
was issued or in consideration of the terms
and conditions relating to its issuance. In this
case, Mitra signed the LNCC checks as
treasurer. Following Llamado, she must then
be held liable for violating BP 22.    issued checks were worthless and the fact of its
• Another essential element of a violation of BP
22 is the drawer’s knowledge that he has
insufficient funds or credit with the drawee
bank to cover his check. Because this involves
a state of mind that is difficult to establish, BP
22 creates the prima facie presumption that
once the check is dishonored, the drawer of
/wncverder2016
the check gains knowledge of the insufficiency,
unless within five banking days from receipt of
the notice of dishonor, the drawer pays the
holder of the check or makes arrangements
with the drawee bank for the payment of the
check. The service of the notice of dishonor
gives the drawer the opportunity to make
good the check within those five days to avert
his prosecution for violating BP 22.
Elements of BP 22
a. a person makes or draws and issues a check to
apply on account or for value;
b. the person who makes or draws and issues the
check knows at the time of issue that he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the full payment of the check
upon its presentment; and
c. the check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
4. Lim vs. People
As to petitioner’s assertion that he is not guilty
of violation of BP 22 as the subject checks lack
• Upon issuance of the said checks, it is
presumed, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that the same was issued for valuable
consideration. B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the
issuance of a bouncing check. It is also worthy
to note that it is not the non-payment of an
obligation which the law punishes, but the act
of making and issuing a check that is
dishonored upon presentment for payment.
• The purpose for which it was issued and the
terms and conditions relating to its issuance
are immaterial. What is primordial is that such
worthlessness is known to appellant at the time
of their issuance, a required element under B.P.
Blg. 22. This is because the mere act of issuing
a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
Page !62 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
5. Griffith vs. CA
ISSUE: The principal issue in this case is whether
petitioner Geoffrey F. Griffith, president of Lincoln
Gerard, Inc., has been erroneously convicted and
sentenced for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22). But private
respondent appears to have collected more than
the value of the two checks in question before
the filing in the trial court of the case for
violation of B.P. 22. Hence, petitioner insists he
has been wrongfully convicted and sentenced. To
resolve this issue, we must determine whether the
alleged payment of the amount of the checks two
years prior to the filing of the information for
violation of B.P. 22 justifies his acquittal.
SC: Note that in the two criminal cases filed by
Phelps Dodge against petitioner, the checks issued
were corporate checks that Lincoln Gerard
allegedly failed to fund for a valid reason duly
communicated to the payee. Further, it bears
repeating that Phelps Dodge, through a notarial
foreclosure and auction that were later on
judicially declared invalid, sold Lincoln Gerards
property for cash amounting to P1,120,540 to
satisfy Phelps Dodge claim for unpaid rentals.
Said property was already in Phelps Dodges
custody earlier, purportedly because a new
tenant was moving into the leased premises.
The obligation of Lincoln Gerard to Phelps
Dodge for said rentals was only P301,953.12.
Thus, by resorting to the remedy of foreclosure
and auction sale, Phelps Dodge was able to
collect the face value of the two checks,
totalling P215,442.65. In fact, it impounded
items owned by Lincoln Gerard valued far in
excess of the debt or the checks.
THIS WAS THE SITUATION WHEN, ALMOST
TWO YEARS AFTER THE AUCTION SALE,
PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH TWO
COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF B.P. 22.
By that time, the civil obligation of Lincoln
Gerard, Inc. to Phelps Dodge Phils. Inc. was no
longer subsisting, though respondent Court of
A p p e a l s c a l l s t h e p a y m e n t t h e re o f a s
involuntary.
/wncverder2016
That the money value of the two checks signed by
petitioner was already collected, however, could
not be ignored in appreciating the antecedents of
the two criminal charges against petitioner.
Because of the invalid foreclosure and sale, Phelps
Dodge was ordered to pay or return P1,072,586.88
to Lincoln Gerard, per decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 69, which became final
after it was affirmed by the appellate court. We
cannot, under these circumstances, see how
petitioners conviction and sentence could be
upheld without running afoul of basic principles of
fairness and justice. For Phelps Dodge has, in our
view, already exacted its proverbial pound of
flesh through foreclosure and auction sale as its
chosen remedy.
We are persuaded that the defense has good and
solid defenses against both charges in Criminal
Cases Nos. 73260-61. We can even say that the
decision rendered in Branch 69 in Civil Case No.
55276, well-written as it is, had put up a
formidable obstacle to any conviction in the
criminal cases with the findings therein made that
the sale by public auction of the properties of
Lincoln was illegal and had no justification under
the facts; that also the proceeds realized in the said
sale should be deducted from the account of
Lincoln with Phelps, so that only P47,953.12 may
only be the rentals in arrears which Lincoln should
pay, computed at P301,953.12 less P254,600.00;
that out of what had happened in the case as the
trial court had resolved in its decision, Phelps is
duty bound to pay Lincoln in damages
P1,072,586.88 from which had been deducted the
amount of P47,953.12 representing the balance of
the rental in arrearages; and that consequently,
there is absolutely no consideration remaining in
support of the two (2) subject checks.
In sum, considering that the money value of the
two checks issued by petitioner has already
been effectively paid two years before the
informations against him were filed, we find
merit in this petition. We hold that petitioner
herein could not be validly and justly convicted
or sentenced for violation of B.P. 22. Whether
the number of checks issued determines the
number of violations of B.P. 22, or whether there
should be a distinction between postdated and
other kinds of checks need no longer detain us
Page !63 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
for being immaterial now to the determination
of the issue of guilt or innocence of petitioner.
GPS Lecture:
• This is an exceptional case wherein the
Supreme Court accepted the defense of good
faith. In
6. Magno vs. CA
The crux of the matter rest upon the reason for the
drawing of the postdated checks by Magno, i.e.
whether they were drawn or issued “to apply on
account or for value,” as required under Section 1
of BP 22. When viewed against the definitions of
“warranty” and “deposit,” for which the postdated
checks were issued or drawn, the alleged crime
could not have been committed by Magno.
Furthermore, the element of “knowing at the time
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank....:” is inversely
applied in the case. From the beginning, Magno
never hid the fact that he had no funds. Magno,
thus, was acquitted of the crime charged.
7. Rigor vs. People
As to the issue raised by petitioner “Absent the
element of knowingly issuing a worthless check
entitles the petitioner to acquittal”
• Knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to
establish. We hold that appellants admission of
the insufficiency of his fund at the time he
issued the check constitutes the very element
of knowledge contemplated in Sec. 1 of BP 22.
The prima facie presumption of knowledge
required in Sec. 2, Ibid., does not apply
because (a) the check was presented for
payment only on May 25, 1990 or beyond the
90-day period, which expired on May 16, 1990,
counted from the maturity date of the check
on February 16, 1990 and (b) an actually
admitted knowledge of a fact needs no
presumption.
• While it is true that if a check is presented
beyond ninety (90) days from its due date,
there is no more presumption of knowledge by
the drawer that at the time of issue his check
has no sufficient funds, the presumption in this
case is supplanted by appellants own
admission that he did not hide the fact that he
/wncverder2016
had no sufficient funds for the check. In fact, it
appears that when he authorized RBSJ to date
his check on February 16, 1990, his current
account was already closed two weeks earlier,
on February 2, 1990.
• Assuming arguendo that the payee had
knowledge that he had insufficient funds at the
time he issued the check, such knowledge by
the payee is immaterial as deceit is not an
essential element of the offense under Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22.
• The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of
a bad check; hence, malice and intent in the
issuance thereof are inconsequential.
8. Moster vs. People
BP 22 is punishable as malum prohibitum
• B.P. Blg. 22 punishes as malum prohibitum the
mere issuance of a worthless check, provided
the other elements of the offense are proved.
Section 1 enumerates the elements of B.P. Blg.
22, as follows: (1) the making, drawing, and
issuance of any check to apply on account or
for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the check
in full upon its presentment; and (3) the
subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
• Upon careful examination of the records,
however, the Court found that only the first
and third elements have been established by
the prosecution. By her own admission,
petitioner issued the three subject checks, two
of which were presented to PhilBank but were
dishonored and stamped for the reason
“Account Closed”. Under Section 3 of B.P. Blg.
22, the introduction in evidence of the
dishonored check, having the drawee’s refusal
to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached
thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid
shall be prima facie evidence of the making or
issuing of the said checks and the due
presentment to the drawee for payment and
the dishonor thereof, and that the same was
properly dishonored for the reason written,
Page !64 of !66
 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
stamped or attached thereto by the drawee on
such dishonored checks.
• As to the second element, Section 2 of B.P.
Blg. 22 creates the presumption that the issuer
of the check was aware of the insufficiency of
funds when he issued a check and the bank
dishonored it. This presumption, however,
arises only after it is proved that the issuer had
received a written notice of dishonor and that,
within five days from receipt thereof, he failed
to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment.

Mere Preponderance of Evidence is Sufficient

• Ordinarily, preponderance of evidence is

sufficient to prove notice. But in criminal cases,
the quantum of proof required is proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the
prosecution merely presented a copy of the
demand letter allegedly sent to petitioner
through registered mail and the registry return
card. There was no attempt to authenticate or
identify the signature on the registry return
card. All that we have on record is an illegible
signature on the registry receipt as evidence
that someone received the letter. As to
whether this signature is that of petitioner or
her authorized agent remains a mystery.
Receipts for registered letters and return
receipts do not by themselves prove receipt;
they must be properly authenticated to serve
as proof of receipt of the letters, claimed to be
a notice of dishonor. Unfortunately, the
prosecution presented only the testimony of
Presas to prove mailing and receipt of the
demand letter.

/wncverder2016 Page !65 of !66

 DIWATA NOTES
Special Penal Laws
XV. ANTI MONEY LAUNDERING LAW (RA 9160)
1. What is the purpose of this Act?
• To protect and preserve the integrity and
confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure
that the Philippines shall not be used as a
money laundering site for the proceeds of any
unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign
policy, the State shall extend cooperation in
transnational investigations and prosecutions
of persons involved in money laundering
activities wherever committed.
2. What is a money laundering offense?
• It is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity as herein defined are
transacted, thereby making them appear to
have originated from legitimate sources.
3. What are unlawful activities?
• Any act or omission or series or combination
thereof involving or having direct relation to
following:
• Kidnapping for ransom
• Violations under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Act of 2002
• Violations under Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
• Plunder
• Robbery and extortion
• Jueteng and Masiao
• Piracy on the high seas
• Qualified theft
• Swindling
• Smuggling
• Violations under the E-Commerce Act
of 2000;
• Hijacking and other violations under
Republic Act No. 6235; destructive
arson and murder, including those
perpetrated by terrorists against non-
combatant persons and similar targets
• Fraudulent practices and other
violations under Securities Regulation
Code of 2000
• Felonies or offenses of a similar nature
that are punishable under the penal
laws of other countries.
/wncverder2016
4. Who can be guilty of money laundering?
• Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful
activity, transacts or attempts to transacts said
monetary instrument or property.
• Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property involves the proceeds
of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to
perform any act as a result of which he
falicitates the offense of money laundering
referred to in paragraph (a) above.
• Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this
Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do
so.
5. May a person be charged with and
convicted of both the offense of money
laundering and the unlawful activity as
herein defined?
• Yes.
6. May the AMLC inquire into or examine any
particular deposit or investment?
• Yes. But only upon order of any competent
court in cases of violation of this Act, when it
has been established that there is probable
cause that the deposits or investments are
related to an unlawful activities or a money
laundering offense.
• Exceptions: Unlawful activities defined in
numbers (1), (2) and (12).
Page !66 of !66