Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 52


CRIMINAL LAW Volvik as charges d’affaires is diplomatic, he is vested

with blanket diplomatic immunity from criminal suit
(Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003).
2001, 2003, 2005, 2010)
What are the basic maxims in criminal law?
1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is
There must be a Sufficient that the
no crime when there is no law punishing the
criminal intent. prohibited act was
same) – No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the
act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same
Wrong from its Wrong merely
is not considered a crime.
very nature. because prohibited
by statute.
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act
cannot be criminal where the mind is not Generally Generally involves
criminal) – This is true to a felony characterized punished under violation of special
by dolo, but not to a felony resulting from culpa. the RPC. laws.

3. Doctrine of Pro Reo – Whenever a penal law is NOTE: Not all

to be construed or applied and the law admits of violations of special
two interpretations, one lenient to the offender laws are mala
and one strict to the offender, that interpretation prohibita. Even if
which is lenient or favorable to the offender will the crime is
be adopted. punished under a
special law, if the
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act punished is one
4. As to their
act done by me against my will is not my act) which is inherently
– Whenever a person is under a compulsion of wrong, the same is
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to do an malum in se, and,
act against his will, in which that act produces a therefore, good faith
crime or offense, such person is exempted in any and the lack of
criminal liability arising from said act. criminal intent are
valid defenses
What is the interplay between the doctrine of Pro Reo unless they are the
and Article 48 (Penalty for complex crimes) of the products of criminal
RPC? (BAR 2010) negligence or culpa.

Following the Doctrine of Pro Reo, crimes under Art. 48 of Mitigating and Such circumstances
the RPC are complexed and punished with a single aggravating are not appreciated
penalty (that prescribed for the most serious crime and circumstances unless the special
to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale are appreciated law has adopted the
being, that the accused who commits two crimes with a in imposing the scheme or scale of
single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity penalties. penalties under the
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and RPC.
several criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No.
153559, June 8, 2004). (a) Good faith Good faith and lack
(b) lack of of criminal intent
Charges d’affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a criminal are NOT valid
psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated intent; or defenses;
in his previous assignment. One day, while shopping (c) negligence it is enough that the
in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he are valid prohibition was
thought were the assassins who were out to kill him. defenses. voluntarily violated.
He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10)
people and wounded five (5) others before he was Criminal Criminal liability is
subdued. The wounded persons required more than liability is generally incurred
thirty (30) days of medical treatment. What crime or incurred even only when the crime
As to legal
crimes, if any, did he commit? (BAR 2016) when the crime is consummated.
is attempted or
Volvik committed five frustrated murders for the frustrated.
unwounded victims and five frustrated murders for the
wounded victims. Treachery is present since the sudden Penalty is The penalty of the
attack rendered the victims defenseless. The nature of the computed on offender is the same
weapon used in attacking the victims and extent of the the basis of as they are all
wounds sustained by the five victims showed intent to whether he is a deemed principals.
kill. His psychotic condition is not an exempting principal
circumstance of insanity in the absence of showing that offender, or
there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in merely an
accordance with the cognition test. However, he is accomplice or
immune from criminal prosecution. Since the position of accessory.



the said Informations, it was alleged that Clemente, a

Is the crime of technical malversation, punished bank officer, fraudulently transferred a million pesos
under the RPC, mala in se? to Inocencio’s bank account, and the latter later
withdrew the whole amount. The information alleged
The crime of technical malversation, punished under conspiracy but only one person is charged. Is the
Article 220 of the RPC, was held to be a crime that is information valid?
malum prohibitum. The law punishes the act of diverting
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a Yes. It is valid, but the court cannot pass verdict on the co-
particular public purpose for another public purpose. The conspirators who were not charged in the information.
prohibited act is not inherently immoral, but becomes a The non-inclusion of the co-conspirator does not
criminal offense because positive law forbids its invalidate the Information especially since conspiracy is
commission on considerations of public policy, order, and not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged as a mode of
convenience. Therefore, good faith and lack of criminal committing the crime. In this case, conspiracy is alleged
intent are not valid defenses (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. only as a mode of committing the crime. Ideally, Clemente
192330, November 14, 2012). and Inocencio should have been indicted together.
However, the non-inclusion of Clemente does not
Is the crime of plunder mala prohibita or mala in se? invalidate the information filed, especially since
conspiracy is not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged
It is mala in se, although punishable under special law, to show how criminal liability was incurred (Inocencio v.
because it is inherently evil, being included among the People, G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015).
heinous crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua to
death and its constitutive crimes are mala in se, such as Three cardinal features or main characteristics of
malversation of public funds, bribery and monopolies Philippine criminal law (BAR 1998)
and combinations (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148560, Nov. 2, 2001). 1. Generality

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage GR: Penal laws and those of public security and
with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn
returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and
in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of
wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.
What crime if any can Abe be prosecuted? (BAR 1994) international law and to treaty stipulations. (Article
14, Civil Code of the Philippines) (BAR 2015)
Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for
concubinage under Art. 334 of the Revised Penal Code for XPNs:
having cohabited as husband and wife.
a. Treaty stipulations and international
NOTE: Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the agreements, e.g. RP-US Visiting Forces Accord.
bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in b. Laws of Preferential Application, e.g. RA 75
Singapore, hence, such violation is not one of those where penalizes acts which would impair the proper
the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be observance by the Republic and its inhabitants of
applied extraterritorially. The general rule on the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly-
territoriality of criminal law governs the situation. accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in
the Philippines. (BAR 2014)
The Philippine consul asked his secretary to work c. The principles of public international law.
overtime because they were finishing some d. Members of the Congress are not liable for libel
important repatriation papers in the embassy. The or slander in connection with any speech
said consul asked his secretary to give him a cup of delivered on the floor of the house during a
coffee. The consul asked the secretary to join him. regular or special session (1987 Constitution, Art.
When the said secretary went to the restroom, the IV, Sec. 11).
said consul placed something in the coffee of the
secretary. The secretary felt dizzy and lost 2. Territoriality
consciousness. The consul then raped her inside his
own office. The said secretary wants to file a case GR: The penal laws of the country have force and
against the consul. Where shall the secretary file the effect only within its territory. (BAR 1994)
case? Is the said consul liable under Philippine laws?
XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC (BAR 2000)
The secretary shall file the case in the Philippines.
Although the crime committed, which is rape, is not in any 1. Should commit and offense while on a
way connected with the performance of his official Philippine ship or airship;
function, since it was committed inside the Philippine 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
embassy, Philippine laws will apply. The Philippine note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
embassy is considered as an extension of the Philippine securities issued by the Government of the
sovereignty. So even if the crimes committed is not in any Philippine Islands;
way connected with the performance of their functions, 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
but the crime is committed inside the Philippine embassy, introduction into these islands of the
Philippine laws will still apply. obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
Five Informations charging Francisco Inocencio with 4. While being public officers or employees,
acts of theft allegedly committed in conspiracy with should commit an offense in the exercise of
Ma. Milagros Clemente were filed before the RTC. In their functions; or


5. Should commit any of the crimes against 3. Intelligence – means the capacity to know and
national security and the law of nations. understand the consequences and morality of human
3. Prospectivity/Irretrospectivity
NOTE: If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is
GR: Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be exempt from liability.
scrutinized in accordance with the relevant penal
laws if these are committed after the effectivity of NOTE: If any of the following requisites is absent,
those penal laws. there is no dolo.

NOTE: Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit means the law Requisites of culpa
looks forward, never backward.
1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender, that
XPN: Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect is, the crime was the result of negligence, reckless
insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;
although at the time of the publication of such laws a
final sentence has been pronounced and the convict 2. Freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is,
he was not acting under duress; and
is serving the same (RPC, Art. 22).

XPNs to the XPN: The new law cannot be given 3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing
the negligent act.
retroactive effect even if favorable to the accused:
When are light felonies punishable?
a. When the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing
Light felonies are punishable only when consummated,
causes of actions (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922,
with the exception of those committed against persons or
November 8, 1902).
b. When the offender is a habitual delinquent as
defined in Rule 5 in Art. 62 of RPC (RPC, Art. 22).
FELONY (BAR 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2010)
What are the causes which may produce a result
different from that which the offender intended?
As to Act is Not malicious 1. Mistake in identity (error in personae) – The
Malice malicious offender intends the injury on one person but the harm
With Injury caused is fell on another. In this situation the intended victim was
deliberate unintentional, it being not at the scene of the crime.
intent. an incident of another
As to intent Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead. (BAR
act performed without
malice. 2003, 2015)

NOTE: There are only two persons involved: the

Has Wrongful act results
As to the actual but unintended victim, and the offender.
intention to from imprudence,
source of the
cause a negligence, lack of
wrong 2. Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus) – A person directed
wrong. foresight or lack of
committed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim,
that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the
intended victim and the actual victim are both at the
Requisites of dolo scene of the crime.
1. Criminal intent – the purpose to use a particular Example: A, shot at B, but because of lack of precision,
means to effect such result. Intent to commit an act hit C instead. (BAR 1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2015)
with malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed from the proof of commission of an NOTE: There are three persons involved: the
unlawful act. A mental state, hence, its existence is offender, the intended victim, and the actual victim.
shown by overt acts.
3. Injurious consequences are greater than that
NOTE: If there is NO criminal intent, the act is intended (praeter intentionem) – The injury is on the
justified. Offender incurs NO criminal liability. intended victim but the resulting consequence is so grave
a wrong than what was intended. It is essential that there
2. Freedom of action – the voluntariness on the part of is a notable disparity between the means employed or the
the person to commit the act or omission. act of the offender and the felony which resulted.

NOTE: If there is lack of freedom, the offender is This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen
from the acts of the offender. (A, without intent to kill,
exempt from liability.
struck the victim on the back, causing the victim to fall
down and hit his head on the pavement.)



noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of

Example: If A slapped his wife who fell on the ground, her the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went
head hitting the hard pavement rendering her over the list of missing passengers who were
unconscious and thereafter died, A is liable for parricide. presumed dead and came across the name of his
When he slapped his wife, A was committing a felony, his grandfather who had raised him from childhood after
wrongful intent is only to cause injury, but the wrongful he was orphaned. He was shocked and his mind went
act done was greater – the killing of the spouse (Sandoval, blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck
2016). and, using his balisong, started stabbing at the
passengers who then scampered away, with three of
GR: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance them jumping out of the train and landing on the road
particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Art. 13. below. All the three passengers died later of their
injuries at the hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of
XPN: Any person charged under Sec. 4 of the Anti-Hazing the three passengers who jumped out of the moving
Law (RA 8049) shall not be entitled to the mitigating train? State your reasons.
circumstance that there was no intention to commit so
grave a wrong. Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was
committing a felony when he started stabbing at the
The three enumerated situations are always the result of passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate
an intentional felony or dolo. These situations do not arise cause of said passengers' jumping out of the train; hence
out of criminal negligence. their deaths. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,
any person committing a felony shall incur criminal
Buenamer committed robbery inside a passenger FX liability although the wrongful act done be different from
by threatening to shoot the passengers if they do not that which he intended. In this case, the death of the three
give their wallets and cellphones. Bunamer was passengers was the direct, natural and logical
successful in taking the things of the passengers. One consequence of Luis' felonious act which created an
of the passengers, Tan, chased Buenamer who immediate sense of danger in the minds of said
boarded a passenger jeepney in order to escape. passengers who tried to avoid or escape from it by
Buenamer boxed Tan when he held on the handle bar jumping out of the train (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37;
of the jeepney causing him to lose his grip and fall U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497).
from the jeepney and thereafter was ran over by the
rear tire of said jeepney and died. Buenamer IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
contends that he should be given the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a What is an impossible crime? Can there be an
wrong. Is Buenamer entitled for the mitigating impossible crime of adultery? (BAR 2015)
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense
No. This mitigating circumstance addresses itself to the against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
intention of the offender at the particular moment when impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
the offender executes or commits the criminal act. This employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4
mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a par. 2).
notable disparity between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is a
committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the crime against chastity, and not against person or
commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon property, as required by Art. 4 par. 2 of the RPC.
used, the mode of attack employed, and the injury
sustained by the victim. (People v. Buenamer, G.R. No. Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter
206227, August 31, 2016) was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend.
Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some
What is proximate cause? poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a
very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in the poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad. Did Charlie
without which the result would not have occurred commit any crime? If so, what and why? If not, why
(People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011). not? (BAR 2009)

As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act
consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, of mixing the non-toxic powder with Brad’s food, done
if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony. with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which
is a crime against persons, had it not been for the
What are the requisites of proximate cause? employment of a means which, unknown to him, is
ineffectual (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
1. The direct, natural, and logical cause;
2. Produces the injury or damage; Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the
3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; and tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch
4. Without which the result would not have occurred. her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note
demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents in
Luis Cruz went to the LRT station, he boarded one of exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the
the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom
happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's


hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was Jefferson’s chest would have been sufficient to result to
rescued while Enrique was arrested and his death if it were not for the timely medical intervention
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was (De Guzman, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 178512, November
not received by Carla's parents, the investigating 26, 2014).
prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime
to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the COMPLEX CRIMES AND COMPOSITE CRIMES
prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead
file a case of grave coercion? (BAR 2014) What is the effect of a compound crime in the
criminal liability of the offender?
The crime committed by Enrique is kidnapping for
ransom. Even before the ransom note was received, the The penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum
crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had period shall be imposed.
already been committed. The act cannot be considered an
impossible crime because there was no inherent While Antonew was outside the kitchen of their
improbability of its accomplishment or the employment house and Marteen in the yard, Alejandrew was
of inadequate or ineffectual means. The delivery of the spotted near the vicinity of their house. Suddenly,
ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not Alejandrew threw a grenade towards the cemented
extinguish the offense, which had already been part of the yard. The grenade exploded and Antonew
consummated when Enrique deprived Carla of her was hurt in his pelvic area while Marteen, his father,
liberty. The sending of the ransom note would have had was fatally hit by a shrapnel causing his death. What
the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under is the criminal liability of Alejandrew?
the last paragraph of Art. 267 (People v. Domasan e.al.,
G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993). Alejandrew is liable for murder with frustrated murder.
The act of Alejandrew in throwing a grenade to Marteen
Furthermore, kidnapping is a crime against liberty. In an and Antonew is a single act which resulted to the death of
impossible crime, it is important that the accused Marteen and the injuries of Antonew. This single act
committed an act that would have been a crime against constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
person or property. which are murder and frustrated murder. Hence, the
crime should be complexed and the penalty of the most
The prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion serious crime in its maximum period should be imposed
instead. As discussed above, the crime committed by (People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 194629, April 21, 2014).
Enrique is kidnapping for ransom.
Mayor Tawan-Tawan, together with his security
STAGES OF EXECUTION escorts, went home to Salvador, Lanao del Norte, on
board a yellow pick-up service vehicle. At around
A felony is consummated when all the elements 3:00 p.m. of the same day, Nelmida, together with his
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are other co-accused, surreptitiously waited for the
present. It is frustrated when the offender performs all vehicle of the group of Mayor Tawan-Tawan. The
the acts of execution which would produce the felony as moment the yellow pick-up service vehicle passed by
a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it the aforesaid waiting shed, Nelmida and their co-
by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
perpetrator. It is attempted when the offender using high-powered firearms killing two security
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt escorts while injuring others. Nelmida and his co-
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which accused were charged with double murder with
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or multiple frustrated murder and double attempted
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance murder. Are Nelmida and his other co-accused guilty
(Valenzuela v. Guittierez, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007). of the said complex crime?

Jefferson was simply fetching water when Kevin No. The killing and wounding of the victims were not the
suddenly hit him on the nape of his neck. Jefferson result of a single discharge of firearms by Nelmida and his
complained about this to his landlady, Kevin’s sister, co-accused. To note, Nelmida and his co-accused opened
but the latter simply told him to forgive his brother. fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded by Mayor
Two hours later, when he resumed fetching water, Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security
Kevin suddenly stabbed Jefferson on the left part of escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and
his face and chest. He was found bleeding by his son- injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in
in-law and was rushed to the hospital. According to different parts of their bodies. Therefrom, it cannot be
the medical report submitted, the chest wound he gainsaid that more than one bullet had hit the victims.
sustained was fatal and could have caused Jefferson’s Moreover, more than one gunman fired at the vehicle of
death were it not for the timely medical intervention. the victims. As held in People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611
What crime is committed by Kevin? (1999), each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of
their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment
Kevin is liable for frustrated homicide. The essential at different persons constitute distinct and individual
element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime (People v.
of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500 September 11, 2012).
simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to
kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only A group of navy personnel went to a canteen to have
through external manifestations. some drinks. At around 10:00 in the evening, they
transferred to a videoke bar, “Aquarius”, where they
In this case, Kevin wielded and used a knife in assaulting continued their drinking session. Shortly thereafter,
Jefferson. There is also no doubt that the wound on a heated argument ensued between Bacosa and



Punzalan. To avoid further trouble, the other navy because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere
personnel tried to pacify the two and decided to leave preparatory act.
“Aquarius” and return to their camp. Soon after the
navy personnel passed the sentry gate, a maroon Examples: Conspiracy to commit treason,
Nissan van was rushing and zigzagging the road conspiracy to commit rebellion, conspiracy to
towards the group of navy personnel. Punzalan was commit acts like sale, importation and distribution of
recognized as the driver. The van sped away towards
drugs, conspiracy to commit access devise fraud,
the camp and suddenly swerved to the right hitting
the group of the walking navy personnel. Two of the conspiracy to commit terrorism
navy personnel were dead while the others sustained
serious injuries in their body. What is the criminal 2. Conspiracy as a basis of incurring criminal
liability of Punzalan? liability – When the conspiracy is only a basis of
incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act
Punzalan is guilty of the complex crime of murder with done before the co-conspirators become criminally
attempted murder. When a single act constitutes two or liable. (BAR 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2005)
more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in GR: As long as he appeared in the scene of the crime, he
its maximum period. Punzalan was animated by a single is liable as a co-conspirator.
purpose, to kill the navy personnel, and committed a
single act of stepping on the accelerator, swerving to the XPNs:
right side of the road and ramming through the navy
personnel. The crimes of murder and attempted murder 1. If he is a mastermind, he does not have to be in
are both grave felonies as the law attaches an afflictive the scene of the crime to be co-conspirator.
penalty to capital punishment (reclusion perpetua to 2. If he performs an overt act in the performance of
death) for murder while attempted murder is punished the conspiracy, even if it is not in the scene of the
by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty (People v. crime per se like the driver of a get-away car who
Punzalan, G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012). planned the crime as well, or the man who
pressed the button of a remote control bomb and
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME the bomb exploded a few streets away.
Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy
(BAR 2016)
A “wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single
It is the law which The law merely states
person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two
specifies for the crimes two or more grave or less
or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke
that should be combined. grave felonies or an
typically interacts with the hub rather than with another
offense is necessary to
spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common
commit the other.
purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy.
The law provides for a The penalty to be
However, in instances when each spoke is unconcerned
single penalty. imposed will be the most
with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple
serious crime in its
maximum period.
A light felony committed A light felony committed
A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists when
in the commission of the would constitute a
there is successive communication and cooperation in
crime is absorbed. separate and distinct
the same way as with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler
and retailer, and then retailer and consumer (Estrada v.
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
One night, after escorting his guests outside the
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an house, Allen noticed that garbage was placed in front
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and of his house. Allen, addressing nobody in particular,
decide to commit it. (BAR 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003, complained of the garbage. Jeff and Kevin, thinking
that Allen was addressing his complaint to them,
were angered and started throwing stones at him.
Requisites of conspiracy Allen rushed inside his house to wash his bloody face
and to arm himself with a piece of wood. However,
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement; before he was able to retaliate, he was hit by a shovel
2. Agreement concerned the commission of a crime; by Joriemon. Joseph and Jose held Allen, rendering
and him helpless, while Jeff and Kevin stabbed him in the
3. Execution of a felony was decided upon. abdomen with a knife. Allen lost consciousness and
was confined in the hospital for nine days. Assuming
that that they were convicted for frustrated murder,
Two kinds of conspiracy
what is the extent of the criminal liability of Jeff,
Kevin, Joriemon, Jose and Joseph?
1. Conspiracy as a crime – mere conspiracy is the
crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly
punishes mere conspiracy, otherwise, the conspiracy They are liable as co-conspirators. Conspiracy
does not bring about the commission of the crime presupposes unity of purpose and unity of action towards
the realization of an unlawful objective among the
accused. Its existence can be inferred from the individual


acts of the accused which, if taken as a whole, are in fact Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to
related and indicative of a concurrence of sentiment. The commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers,
chain of events leading to the commission of the crime YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being
adequately established a conspiracy among them. Jeff and committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing
Kevin delivered the initial attack on Allen by stoning him. to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby
Afterwards, Joriemon struck him with a shovel, and, concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-
finally, Joseph and Jose held him so that the others can conspirator XA.
stab Allen (Ibañez et al. v. People, G.R. No. 190798, January
27, 2016). The criminal liability of XA, YZ and ZC shall be the same.
They are principals in the special complex crime of
A Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and an robbery with rape, which is a single, indivisible offense,
ambulance driven by Morilla were caught by the where the rape accompanying the robbery is just a
police in a checkpoint with a sack of shabu inside the component.
two vehicles. The Starex van which was ahead of the
ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set up by Legal effects of implied conspiracy (BAR 1998, 2003)
the police officers. However, the ambulance driven
by Morilla was stopped by police officers and further 1. Not all those who are present at the scene will be
examination revealed that the sacks inside the van considered as conspirators;
contained shabu. Morilla told the police officers that 2. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the
he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade commission of the crime will be considered as co-
them to let him pass. This discovery prompted the conspirators; and
operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra in 3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission
which sacks containing shabu was also discovered. Is of the crime, without any act of criminal
there conspiracy established between Morilla and participation, shall not render one criminally liable
Mayor Mitra? as co-conspirator.

Yes, there is conspiracy. In conspiracy, it need not be CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING

shown that the parties actually came together and agreed CRIMINAL LIABILITY
in express terms to enter into and pursue a common v of
the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of
circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man
are parts of some complete whole. In this case, the totality stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro
of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his
Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire head which caused the latter’s death. Can Pedro be
to transport the dangerous drugs (People v. Morilla, absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in
G.R.No.189833, February 5, 2014). defense of a relative? Explain. (BAR 2016)

How is conspiracy proven? No. The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of
relative under Art. 11(2) of the RPC are his spouse,
Jurisprudence requires that conspiracy must be proven ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
as the crime itself. Conspiracy exists when two or more adopted brothers or sister, or of his relatives by affinity
persons come to an agreement concerning the in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity within the
the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant, brother
same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties or sister of the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is
indicating a common understanding among them with not the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Tessie,
respect to the commission of the offense. It is not the spouse of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the
necessary to show that two or more persons met together fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case,
and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by
details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an consanguinity. Juan, therefore, is not a relative of Pedro
illegal objective is to be carried out. The rule is that for purpose of applying the provision on defense of
conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in relative.
concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common
design to kill the victim. (People v. Villalba, G.R. No. May the justifying circumstance of self-defense be
207629, October 22, 2014). invoked at the same time with the exempting
circumstance of accident?
XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered
her house by breaking one of the windows in her No. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting
house. After taking her personal properties and as circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to
they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily
rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to
outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to defend oneself from imminent danger (Pomoy v. People,
prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did G.R. No. 150647. September 29, 2004).
XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal
liability of each? (BAR 2004) In Toledo vs. People, the Supreme Court held that, there is
no such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite criminal law. Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1
crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense of the Revised Penal Code necessarily implies a deliberate
under Art. 294(1) of the RPC. and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel
an unlawful aggression of another with the use of



reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. He No. A person invoking the exempting circumstance of
is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts. The compulsion due to irresistible force admits in effect the
defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and commission of a punishable act, and must therefore
irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the prove the exempting circumstance by clear and
law. From necessity, and limited by it, proceeds the right convincing evidence. Specifically: He must show that the
of self-defense. The right begins when necessity does, and irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that
ends where it ends (Toledo v. People, 439 SCRA 94, G.R. No. acted not only without will but also against his will. The
158057 September 24, 2004). compulsion must be of such character as to leave the
accused no opportunity to defend himself or to escape.
Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. imminent and impending; and it must be of such a nature
Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion serious bodily harm if the act is not done. It is hard to
beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury believe that a person who accidentally discovers kidnap
that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her victims would be held at gunpoint by the kidnappers to
that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. guard said victims (People v. Licayan, et al., G.R. No.
However, Dion did not make good on his promise. 203961, July 29, 2015).
Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia
once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid Y, while alighting from his vehicle, was hit by X with
that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion his car. This caused Y to be thrown four meters away
with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from from his jeepney. X was charged with Frustrated
imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with Murder and convicted in the RTC of Frustrated
the crime of parricide. (BAR 2015) Homicide. Upon appeal in the CA the crime was
modified to Reckless Imprudence resulting in
a. May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Serious Physical Injuries. X contends that the CA
Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? should have appreciated voluntary surrender as a
Explain. mitigating circumstance in his favor. Is X’s contention
No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by
Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and No. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
psychological or emotional distress on her part is not cannot be appreciated in his favor. Paragraph 5 of Article
sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying 365, Revised Penal Code, expressly states that in the
circumstance of “Battered Woman Syndrome”. The imposition of the penalties, the courts shall exercise their
defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed
the woman with a marital relationship with the victim is in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code (Mariano v. People,
subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014).
infliction of physical harm resulting to physical and
psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means May disregard of age and sex be appreciated in
resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be Robbery with Homicide which is a crime against
“at least two battering episodes” between the accused property?
and her intimate partner and such final episode produced
in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an No. With respect to disregard of age and sex, the same
imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or
that she needed to use force in order to save her life honor. It is not correct to consider this aggravating
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). circumstance in crimes against property. Besides,
robbery with homicide is principally a crime against
b. Will your answer be the same, assuming that property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere
Talia killed Dion after being beaten up a second incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose
time? Explain. and object of the criminal (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No.
139697, June 15, 2004).
No. Talia can now invoke the defense of Battered Woman
Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability for killing X, while descending from a curved path, collided with
her husband since she suffered physical and emotional a motorcycle, thereby killing Y, one of its passengers,
distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under and causing serious physical injuries to the two other
Section 26 of R.A.9262, victim survivors of Battered victims. The body of Y was loaded into the vehicle of
Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil X but the latter’s engine would not start; thus, the
liability despite the absence of the requisites of self- body was loaded in a different vehicle. The jack of X
defense. was used to extricate the body of Y from being pinned
under the vehicle of X. X, in his defense, claimed that
Rogelio Delos Reyes—along with Roderick Licayan it was not his fault that the tricycle swerved in his
and Roberto Lara—were charged with the crime of direction. X was charged with Reckless Imprudence
Kidnapping for Ransom. In his defense, Delos Reyes Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious Physical
argued that he was merely passing by at the crime Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in
scene when one of the co-accused pointed a gun at relation to Article 263 of the RPC “with the
him and forced him to guard the victims, hence he is aggravating circumstance that accused failed to lend
entitled to the exempting circumstance of on the spot to the injured party such help that was in
compulsion due to irresistible force. Is the exempting his hands to give”. Should the court appreciate the
circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force alleged aggravating circumstance?


No. The aggravating circumstance “that accused failed to Should the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be
lend on the spot to the injured party such help that was in considered if the assailant was outside the house and
his hands to give” should not be appreciated. Verily, it is the victim was inside?
the inexcusable lack of precaution or the conscious
indifference to the consequences of the conduct which The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be
supplies the criminal intent in Article 365. The limiting taken into account. Although the triggerman fired the
element in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC, shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For
which imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon the this circumstance to be considered it is not necessary that
offender who “fails to lend on the spot to the injured the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of
parties such help as may be in his hands to give”, the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the
according to case law, (a) is dependent on the means in victim was attacked inside his own house, although the
the hands of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the
assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the assault. (People v. Sibbu, G.R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017)
incident, is capable of giving; and (b) requires adequate
proof. X was able to supply the help according to the Is abuse of superior strength present as an
extent of his capabilities (Gonzaga v. People, G.R. No. aggravating circumstance when it is shown that two
195671, January 21, 2015). accused attack a lone victim?

Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, No. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there
Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
owner of a motel in that area, of P10, 000 a month as the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
“protection money". With the monthly payments, strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
Roger assured that the syndicate would provide selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission
protection to Antonio, his business, and his of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned attacked the victim does not per se establish that the
that the motel owner would either be killed or his crime was committed with abuse of superior strength,
establishment would be destroyed. Antonio refused there being no proof of the relative strength of the
to pay the protection money. Days later, at around aggressors and the victim. The evidence must establish
3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.
grenade into an open window of the bedroom where To take advantage of superior strength means to
Antonio, his wife, and their three year-old daughter purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly means of defense available to the person attacked. The
when the grenade exploded. appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends
on the age, size, and strength of the parties (Fantastico v.
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been Malicse, Sr., G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015).
committed as well as the aggravating circumstances,
if any, attendant thereto. (BAR 2008) For treachery to be appreciated, is it enough to show
that the attack against the intended victim was
By demanding "protection money" under threat and unexpected?
intimidation that the businessman (Antonio) would be
killed or his establishment destroyed if he would refuse No. The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole
to pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats is basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was
committed by Roger, the leader of the crime syndicate. intended to kill another as long as the victim’s position
was merely accidental. Treachery as a qualifying
For killing the businessman, his wife and three year-old circumstance must be deliberately sought to ensure the
daughter, the complex crime of multiple murder was safety of the accused from the defensive acts of the victim.
committed by Mauro, a member of the same crime A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on
syndicate. The killing is qualified by the use of an “clear and convincing evidence.” Such evidence must be
explosive (hand grenade). The treachery attending the as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. In this case, no
killing shall be separately appreciated as another evidence was presented to show that petitioner
aggravating circumstance aside from the use of explosive consciously adopted or reflected on the means, method,
as the qualifying circumstance. or form of attack to secure his unfair advantage (Cirera v.
People, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014).
Other aggravating circumstances which may be
appreciated are:

1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the What are special aggravating circumstances?
home of the victims who had not given any
provocation; Special aggravating circumstances are those which arise
2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried under special conditions to increase the penalty for the
out the killing at around 3:00 AM, indicative of a offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot
deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of increase the penalty to the next higher degree. They must
the crime; always be alleged and charged in the information, and
3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned must be proves during the trial in order to be
above, considering that victims were all asleep when appreciated. Moreover, it cannot be offset by an ordinary
killed; and mitigating circumstance (People v. De Leon, G.R. No.
4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs 179943, June 26, 2009, citing Palaganas v. People).
to an organized/syndicated crime group.



1. Quasi-rescidivism (Art. 160, RPC); Means and lawbreaker in and would not
2. Robbery by a band (Art. 295, RPC); ways flagrante delicto otherwise
3. Robbery in an uninhabited place (Art. 300, RPC); commit it, into
4. Commission of a crime by a syndicate; committing the
5. Taking advantage of public position; crime.
6. Complex crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC (People v.
De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009, citing The This
Palaganas v. People); circumstance is circumstance
7. Use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the no bar to absolves the
commission of a crime punishable under the RPC or prosecution and accused from
other special laws, i.e. homicide, murder (Sec. 29, RA As to criminal conviction of criminal
10591; People v. Salahuddin, G.R. No. 206291, January liability the lawbreaker. liability (People
18, 2016); v. Dante Marcos,
8. Use of dangerous drugs in the commission of a crime G.R. No. 83325,
(Sec. 25, RA 9165). May 8, 1990).

NOTE: While Sec. 25 of RA 9165 expressly

provides that it is a qualifying aggravating PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
circumstance, it will not be controlling because
the use of dangerous drugs in the commission of What are the kinds of principals?
a crime does not change the nature of the crime
committed. Hence, it is only a special aggravating 1. Principal by direct participation; (BAR 1992, 1994,
circumstance (Campanilla, 2017). 2000, 2014)
2. Principal by induction/inducement; and (BAR 1994,
What are the other two circumstances found in the 2002, 2003)
RPC affecting criminal liability? 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation (BAR 2001,
2013, 2015)
1. Absolutory cause – has the effect of an exempting
circumstance and it is predicated on lack of A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to
voluntariness such as instigation. A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C,
not so much because of the reward promised to him
Example: In cases of instigation and in case a relative but because he also had his own long-standing
of a principal is charged as an accessory, he is exempt grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If
from criminal liability. C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by
2. Extenuating circumstances – has the effect of
mitigating the criminal liability of the offender. No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement
because the reward he promised B is not the sole
Example: In case of infanticide, concealment of impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made
the pregnant woman and the maternal grandparents by the inducer must be the sole consideration which
are concerned. Abortion under Art. 258 would also caused the person induced to commit the crime and
mitigate the liability of the pregnant woman if the without which the crime would not have been committed.
purpose is to conceal dishonor but such is not The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly
available to the parents of the pregnant woman. Also, induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long
in Art. 333, if the person guilty of adultery committed standing grudge.
the offense while being abandoned without
justification, the penalty next lower in degree shall be Laylay convinced AAA to accompany her at a wake at
imposed. Parañaque City. Before proceeding to the wake,
Laylay and AAA went to Bulungan Fish Port along the
ENTRAPMENT VIS-À-VIS INSTIGATION (BAR 1990, coastal road to ask for some fish. When they reached
1995, 2003) the fish port, they proceeded to a Kubuhan, Laylay
suddenly pulled AAA inside a room where a man
BASIS ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION known by the name "Speed" was waiting. AAA saw
The criminal The idea and "Speed" give money to Laylay and heard "Speed" tell
design design to bring Laylay to look for a younger girl. Thereafter, "Speed"
originates from about the wielded a knife, tied AAA's hands, and raped her. Is
and is already commission of Laylay guilty for the crime of rape as principal by
As to intent in the mind of the crime indispensable cooperation?
the lawbreaker originated and
even before developed in No, Laylay is not a principal by indispensable
entrapment. the mind of the cooperation. To be a principal by indispensable
law enforcers. cooperation, one must participate in the criminal
The law The law resolution, a conspiracy, or unity in criminal purpose and
enforcers resort enforcers cooperation in the commission of the offense by
to ways and induce, lure, or performing another act without which it would not have
means for the incite a person been accomplished. The act of Laylay in convincing AAA
purpose of who is not to go with her until Laylay received money from “Speed”
capturing the minded to who raped AAA, are not indispensable in the crime of
commit a crime rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA and offered


the latter’s services in exchange for money and AAA could have been convicted
still have been raped (People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 193854, first of the crime
September 24, 2012). charged.

PD 1612 vis-à-vis Art. 19(1) of the RPC The penalty is higher Penalty is less than
than the penalty of an that imposed in
accessory. fencing.
Malum prohibitum and Malum in se and
Fencing is limited to Not limited in scope. therefore there is no therefore there is a
theft and robbery. The need to prove criminal need to prove
terms theft and robbery intent. criminal intent.
are used as a generic
term to refer to any kind The fence need not be a Natural person only.
of unlawful taking, not natural person but may
just theft or robbery. be a firm, association,
corporation or
Mere possession of There is no partnership or other
stolen items creates a presumption of being organization.
presumption of fencing. an accessory.

Fencing is a principal It is necessary to

crime in itself. As such, it prove that the
can stand on its own. principal committed
There is no need to the crime. Hence,
prove that one is guilty before an accessory
of theft or robbery. could be held liable,
the principal must



Within a period of 10 years

from the date of release or last
conviction of the crimes Felony was committed after
It is necessary that the It is enough that a
covered, he is found guilty of having been convicted by final
offender shall have final judgment has
any of said crimes a third time judgment of an offense, before
served out his sentence been rendered in the
or oftener. beginning to serve sentence or
for the first offense. first offense.
while serving the same.

The previous and

subsequent offenses
must not be embraced Requires that the Crimes covered are serious or First and subsequent
by the same Title of the offenses be included less serious physical injuries, conviction may or may not be
RPC. in the same Title of robbery, theft, estafa and embraced by the same title of
the Code. falsification. the RPC.

Not always aggravating;

discretion of the court Shall be punished by the
It increases the
to appreciate. maximum period of the penalty
penalty to its Shall suffer additional penalty.
prescribed by law for the new
maximum period.
First crime for which the
offender is serving sentence
Limited to serious or less need not be a crime under the
Includes offenses under Felonies under RPC serious physical injuries, RPC but the second crime must
special law. only. robbery, theft, estafa and be one under the RPC.

Special aggravating
Extraordinary aggravating circumstance which may be
A generic
A generic aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by special privileged
circumstance. offset by a mitigating mitigating circumstances not
circumstance. by ordinary mitigating



OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE authorities for purposes of background information

(PD 1829) and not for publication and publishing or
disseminating the same to mislead the investigator
or the court (PD 1829, Sec. 1).

NOTE: (1) If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized

The purpose of the law is to discourage public
by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty
indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and shall be imposed. (2) If any of the foregoing acts are
prosecution of criminal offenders. It is necessary to committed by a public official or employee, he shall, in
penalize acts which obstructs or frustrates or tend to addition to the penalties provided there under, suffer
obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
prosecution of criminal offenders.
PUNISHABLE ACTS Reclusion perpetua v. Life imprisonment (BAR 1994,
2001, 2009)
Any person, who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of RECLUSION LIFE IMPRISONMENT
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of PERPETUA
criminal cases by committing any of the following acts: Pertains to the penalty Pertains to the penalty
imposed for violation imposed for violation of
1. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal of the RPC special laws
proceeding or from reporting the commission of any
offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of It has fixed duration It has no fixed duration
bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats; It carries with it It does not carry with it
2. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any accessory penalties accessory penalty
paper, record, document, or object, with intent to
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability,
or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or 1. Principal penalties – those expressly imposed by
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used the court in the judgment of conviction.
in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases; (BAR 2005) 2. Accessory penalties – those that are deemed
3. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, included in the imposition of the principal penalties.
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;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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
7. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any
benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a
criminal offender;
8. 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; and
9. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead
or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence by investigating


In computing the proper imposable penalty, what
Capital punishment: 1. Perpetual or temporary are the factors that should be considered?
- Death. absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual or temporary 1. Prescribed or graduated penalty
Afflictive penalties: special disqualification; 2. Indivisible or divisible penalty
- Reclusion perpetua, 3. Suspension from public 3. Applicability or non-applicability of the
- Reclusion temporal, office, the right to vote Indeterminate Sentence Law
- Perpetual or and be voted for, the
temporary absolute profession or calling; I. PRESCRIBED OR GRADUATED PENALTY
disqualification, 4. Civil interdiction;
- Perpetual or 5. Indemnification; What is the prescribed penalty?
temporary special 6. Forfeiture or confiscation
disqualification, of instruments and The prescribed penalty is that found in Book II of the
- Prision mayor. proceeds of the offense; Revised Penal Code.
Correctional 7. Payment of costs. What is the graduated penalty?
- Prision correccional, The graduated penalty is the imposable penalty after
- Arresto mayor, taking into consideration certain graduating factors.
- Suspension,
- Destierro. What are the graduating factors?

Light penalties: 1. Stages of execution

- Arresto menor, 2. Nature of participation
- Public censure.
NOTE: For #1 and #2, see table on the application of
Penalties common to Articles 50-57 of the RPC.
the three preceding
classes: 3. Presence of privileged mitigating circumstance
- Fine and Bond to
Adjust the penalty by Adjust the penalty by
Consummated Frustrated Attempted degree period
Not subject to the offset Subject to the offset rule
Principals 0 1 2 rule
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4 What are the privileged mitigating circumstances
under the RPC?
“0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining
1. When the offender is a minor under 18 years of
a crime which is to be imposed on the principal in a
age (RPC, Art. 68); (BAR 2013, 2014)
consummated offense. The other figures represent the
2. When the crime committed is not wholly
degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet
excusable (RPC, Art. 69);
the different situations anticipated by law (Reyes, 2012).
3. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance,
However, Articles 50 to 57 shall not apply to the following
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to
cases where the law expressly prescribes:
that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according the number and
a. the penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony; or
nature of such circumstances (RPC, Art. 64, par.
b. to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories (Art.
5); (BAR 1997)
60, RPC).
4. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained
within 3 days without the offender attaining his
What is the penalty for impossible crime?
purpose and before the institution of the
criminal action (RPC, Art. 268, par. 3);
The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor, or a
5. Abandonment without justification by the
fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos (Art. 59, RPC).
offended spouse in case of adultery (RPC, Art.
333, par. 3); and
What is the basis for the imposition of the proper
6. Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide (RPC,
penalty for impossible crime?
Art. 255, par. 2).
The court must take into consideration the following:
NOTE: If it is the maternal grandparent who committed
the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty imposed is
1. the social danger; and
one degree lower. If it is the pregnant woman who
2. the degree of criminality shown by the offender (Art.
committed the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty
59, RPC).
imposed is two degrees lower. In case of concealing
dishonor by a pregnant woman in abortion, the



imposable penalty is merely lowered by period and not Whether the prescribed penalty is single, compound, or
by degree, hence, not a privileged mitigating complex, the graduated penalty is single and full penalty.
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND a. Homicide – prescribed penalty is single penalty of
1 degree lower is prision mayor
(RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630) 2 degrees lower is prision correccional

CRIMINAL b. Murder – prescribed penalty is compound penalty of

AGE BRACKET TREATMENT reclusion perpetua to death

15 years old or Exempt. The child shall be 1 degree lower is reclusion temporal
2 degrees lower is prision mayor
below. subjected to a
c. Treason committed by a resident alien – prescribed
penalty is complex penalty of reclusion temporal to death
1 degree lower is prision mayor
2 degrees lower is prision correccional
Above 15 but Exempt. The child shall be
Second rule: If the prescribed penalty is in period,
below 18, who subjected to a then the graduated penalty is also in period
acted without community-based
discernment. intervention Single period – one full period
program. Compound penalty – composed of two periods
Complex penalty – consists of three periods
Above 15 but Not exempt. Such child shall be e.g.
below 18, who subjected to a a. Technical malversation – the prescribed penalty is
acted with diversion program. single period of prision correccional in its minimum
discernment. period

1 degree lower is arresto mayor in its maximum

NOTE: The exemption from criminal liability in the cases period
specified above does not include exemption from civil 2 degrees lower is arresto mayor in its medium
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with period
existing laws (RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630, Sec. 6).
b. Theft – the prescribed penalty is compound period of
What are the privileged mitigating circumstances prision correccional in its medium period to prision
contemplated under Art. 69 of the RPC? correccional in its maximum period

1. Incomplete justifying (RPC, Art. 11) and 1 degree lower is arresto mayor in its maximum
2. Incomplete exempting (RPC, Art. 12) circumstances, period to prision correccional in its minimum
Provided that the majority of their conditions are present. 2 degrees lower is arresto mayor in its minimum
period to arrestor mayor in its medium period
For Art. 69 of the RPC to apply, it is necessary that:
1. Some of the conditions required to justify the deed c. Simple robbery – the prescribed penalty is complex
or to exempt from criminal liability are lacking, period of prision correccional in its maximum period to
2. The majority of such conditions are nonetheless prision mayor in its medium period
1 degree lower is arrestor mayor in its maximum
NOTE: If there are only two requisites, the period to prision correccional in its medium
presence of one is already considered as majority. period
2 degrees lower is destierro in its maximum
3. When the circumstance has an indispensable period to arresto mayor in its medium period
element, that element must be present in the case
(Regalado, 2007). Third rule: When the prescribed penalty is composed
of a full penalty and penalties with period
First rule: Where the graduated penalty is a single full a. Section 5(b) of RA 7610 – the prescribed penalty is
penalty reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua – the graduated penalty must be a complex
Single penalty – one full penalty period
Compound penalty – composed of two penalties
Complex penalty – consists of three penalties


1 degree lower is prision mayor in its medium b. When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
period imposed.
c. When there is a mitigating circumstance and no
II. DIVISIBLE OR INDIVISIBLE PENALTY aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be imposed.
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF INDIVISIBLE d. If there are both mitigating and aggravating
PENALTIES (ART. 63, RPC) circumstances present, offset one another, then
apply the rules.
What are the indivisible penalties?
The crime committed is parricide, the penalty is
1. Reclusion perpetua reclusion perpetua to death. There are two mitigating
2. Death circumstances. Can you appreciate the two mitigating
3. Reclusion perpetua to death (Campanilla, 2017). circumstances as special mitigating circumstance for
purposes of graduating the penalty from reclusion
First rule: The law prescribes a single indivisible perpetua to death, to reclusion temporal?
No. In People v. Takbobo (G.R. No. 102984, June 30,1993),
Whatever may be the nature or number of aggravating or it was held that when there are two or more mitigating
mitigating circumstance that may have attended the circumstances and no aggravating circumstance but the
commission of the crime, the court shall apply the imposable penalties are indivisible in nature, the court
prescribed penalty. cannot proceed by analogy with the provisions of
paragraph 5 of Article 64 and impose the penalty lower
e.g. by one degree. The rule applicable in is found in Article
a. Simple rape – the prescribed penalty is reclusion 63, and not in Article 64, of the RPC.
b. Qualified rape – the prescribed penalty is death The crime committed is parricide. There are three
(3) aggravating circumstances and two (2) mitigating
The crime committed is simple rape, and the penalty circumstances. What is the proper imposable
is reclusion perpetua. There are two mitigating penalty?
circumstances. Can you appreciate the two mitigating
circumstances, to appreciate the special mitigating Applying the off-set rule, only one aggravating
circumstance, for purposes of making the penalty one circumstance will remain. Thus, the greater penalty
degree lower? which is death is the proper imposable penalty. However,
because of RA 9346, the penalty will be reduced to
No, because the special mitigating circumstance reclusion perpetua.
consisting of two mitigating circumstances is found
under Art. 64. There is no special circumstance in Art. 63 The crime is parricide. There are two (2) aggravating
of the RPC. circumstance and two (2) mitigating circumstance.
What is the proper imposable penalty?
Second rule: The law prescribes two (2) indivisible
penalties Applying the off-set rule, no modifying circumstance will
remain. Since there is neither mitigating nor aggravating
There is only one prescribed penalty consisting of two (2) circumstance, the lesser penalty which is reclusion
indivisible penalties, that is reclusion perpetua to death perpetua is the proper imposable penalty.
for the following crimes under the RPC:
1. parricide (Art. 246); PENALTIES (ART. 64, RPC)
2. murder (Art. 248);
3. infanticide (Art. 255); What are the divisible penalties?
4. kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267);
5. rape with the use of a deadly weapon (Art. 266-B par. 1. Penalty composed of three (3) periods;
2); 2. Penalty not composed of three (3) periods;
6. rape by two or more persons (Art. 266-B par. 2); 3. Complex penalty;
7. when by reason or on occasion of rape, the victim 4. Penalty without a specific legal form (Campanilla,
becomes insane (Art. 266-B par. 3); 2017).
8. when rape is attempted and homicide is committed
9. robbery with homicide (Art. 295 par. 1);
10. robbery with rape with the use of a deadly weapon, When the penalty is composed of three (3) periods, the
or by two or more persons (Art. 295 par. 2). following rules shall be observed:

NOTE: Destructive arson under PD 1613 is also a. When there is neither aggravating and no mitigating,
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. the penalty in its medium period shall be imposed.
b. When there is only a mitigating circumstance, the
When the penalty is composed of two (2) indivisible penalty in its minimum period shall be imposed.
penalties, the following rules shall be observed: c. When there is only an aggravating circumstance, the
a. When there is only one aggravating penalty in its maximum period shall be imposed.
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be




Penalties Time included in Time included in its Time included in its Time included in its
the penalty in its minimum period medium period maximum

Reclusion temporal From 12 years and 1 From 12 years and 1 From 14 years, 8 months From 17 years, 4
day to 20 years. day to 14 years and 8 and 1 day to 17 years and months and 1 day to
months. 4 months. 20 years.

a. Prision mayor From 6 years and 1 From 6 years and 1 day From 8 years and 1 day to From 10 years and 1
b. Absolute day to 12 years. to 8 years. 10 years. day to 12 years.
c. Special temporary
a. Prision correccional From 6 months and 1 From 6 months and 1 From 2 years, 4 months From 4 years, 2
b. Suspension day to 6 years. day to 2 years and 4 and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months and 1 day to 6
c. Destierro months. months. years.

Arresto mayor From 1 month and 1 From 1 month to 2 From 2 months and 1 day From 4 months and 1
day to 6 months. months. to 4 months. day to 6 months.

Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 days. From 11 to 20 days. From 21 to 30 days.

The crime committed is homicide, the penalty is penalty. Under Art. 64 par. 5 of the RPC, when two or
reclusion temporal. The accused is a minor. more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
a. What is the proper imposable penalty? penalty next lower to that prescribed by law. Further,
since there is other mitigating or aggravating, the penalty
Prision mayor because minority is a privileged mitigating shall be imposed in its medium period. Thus, the proper
circumstance. imposable penalty is prision correccional in its medium
b. Suppose there is an aggravating circumstance
which is disguise? g. Suppose there are three mitigating circumstances.
Will you consider these three mitigating
Prision mayor in its maximum period. circumstances as a special mitigating circumstance
for the purpose of reducing prision mayor to prision
c. Suppose there are two aggravating circumstances. correccional?
Will you consider the two aggravating circumstances
for purposes of upgrading the penalty of prision The two mitigating circumstances will be appreciated as
mayor to reclusion temporal? special mitigating circumstance for purposes of reducing
prision mayor to prision correccional. Since there is one
No. In the case of People v. Manlolo (G.R. No. L-40778, remaining mitigating circumstance, the proper period is
January 26, 1989), the Supreme Court, citing Art. 64 par. minimum period. Thus, the proper imposable penalty is
6 of the RPC, held that whatever may be the number and prision correccional in its minimum period.
nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall
not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law h. Suppose there are four mitigating circumstances.
in its maximum period. Will you appreciate the special mitigating
circumstance twice?
d. Suppose there is neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance? No. The special mitigating circumstance will be
appreciated only once, even if there are four mitigating
Prision mayor in its medium period. circumstances. It will be appreciated for the purpose of
reducing prision mayor to prision correccional.
e. Suppose there is one mitigating circumstance Considering the two remaining mitigating circumstances,
which is confession? it will be used to apply the penalty in its minimum period.
Thus, the proper imposable penalty is prision
Prision mayor in its minimum period. correccional in its minimum period.

f. Suppose there are two mitigating circumstance i. Suppose there is a combination of the modifying
which are confession and voluntary surrender? circumstances?

The two mitigating circumstance will be considered as a Apply first the offset rule then consider the remaining
special mitigating circumstance for graduating the modifying circumstances.



If after applying the offset rule, there is still a remaining
of one or two or three aggravating circumstances, then Example: The prescribed penalty for treason committed
you will apply the penalty in its maximum period. by a resident alien under Art. 114 of the RPC is reclusion
temporal to death penalty.
If after applying the offset rule, no modifying
circumstance remain, then you will apply the penalty in Minimum period: reclusion temporal (the lightest
its medium period. component
Medium period: reclusion perpetua
If after applying the offset rule, one mitigating Maximum period: death
circumstance remains, then you will apply the penalty in
its minimum period. Suppose there is mitigating circumstance?

j. Suppose there are three mitigating circumstances Apply the penalty in its minimum period, that is reclusion
and one aggravating circumstance. Applying the temporal.
offset rule, there are two mitigating circumstances
remaining. Can you appreciate those as a special Suppose there is no modifying circumstance?
mitigating circumstance?
Apply the penalty in its medium period, that is reclusion
No. Because to appreciate the special mitigating perpetua.
circumstance, it is important that there are two or more
mitigating circumstance and no aggravating Suppose there is aggravating circumstance?
circumstance (Art. 64, par. 5, RPC). Once you apply the
offset rule, you cannot appreciate the special mitigating Apply the penalty in its maximum period, that is death.
circumstance because the application of the offset rule
presupposes that there is an aggravating circumstance. Another example: The crime committed is robbery. The
prescribed penalty is prision correccional in its maximum
2. PENALTY NOT COMPOSED OF THREE (3) PERIODS period to prision mayor in its medium period.
(ART. 65, RPC)
Minimum period: prision correccional in its maximum
Example: The prescribed penalty is prision mayor in its period (the lightest component)
medium period to maximum period. Medium period: prision mayor in its minimum period
Maximum period: prision mayor in its medium period
How do you compute for its minimum, medium, and
maximum period? Suppose there is mitigating circumstance?

First rule: Divide the time included in the duration of Apply the penalty in its minimum period, prision
the prescribed penalty into three (3) equal portions. correccional in its maximum period.

Prision mayor in its medium period to maximum period is Suppose there is no modifying circumstance?
8 years and 1 day to 12 years.
Apply the penalty in its medium period, that is prision
In computing, you delete the one (1) day. What will be left mayor in its minimum period.
is 8 years and 12 years. Then you subtract 8 years from
12 years, that is 4 years. Suppose there is aggravating circumstance?

Then, divide the 4 years into three (3) equal portions. So, Apply the penalty in its maximum period, that is prision
it will be 1 year and 4 months for each period. mayor in its medium period.

Second rule: Form the period out of the three (3) Another example: The crime committed is sexual abuse
equal portions. under Sec. 5 of RA 7610. The prescribed penalty is
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
8 years + 1 year and 4 months = 9 years and 4 months perpetua.

9 years and 4 months + 1 year and 4 months = 10 years Minimum period: reclusion temporal in its medium
and 8 months period (the lightest component)
Medium period: reclusion temporal in its maximum
10 years and 8 months + 1 year and 4 months = 12 years period
Maximum period: reclusion perpetua
Prision mayor in its medium period to maximum period
Minimum period: 8 years and 1 day to 9 years and 4
months Example: The crime committed is intentional mutilation.
The prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion
Medium period: 9 years and 4 months and 1 day to 10 perpetua.
years and 8 months
First rule: Form the maximum period out of the most
Maximum period: 10 years and 8 months and 1 day to severe component
12 years
Maximum period: reclusion perpetua



NOTE: Reclusion perpetua either as a prescribed or

Second rule: Divide the lightest component into two graduated penalty is included because of RA 9346
(2) equal portions which prohibits death penalty. ISL is not applicable
because it is an indivisible penalty and when
Reclusion temporal is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
reclusion perpetua is imposed, the convict is not
In computing, you delete the one (1) day. What will be left eligible for parole.
is 12 years and 20 years. Then you subtract 12 years from 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to
20 years, that is 8 years. commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
Then, divide the 8 years into two (2) equal portions. So, it sedition, or espionage;
will be 4 years for each period.
4. Those convicted of piracy;
Third rule: Form the minimum period and medium 5. Habiqual delinquents;
period out of the two (2) equal portions NOTE: Recidivists are entitiled to avail the ISL.
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or
12 years + 4 years = 16 years evaded sentence;
NOTE: When the accused escaped from jail while
16 years + 4 years = 20 years his case was on appeal, he is not entitled to the
benefits of ISL
Minimum period: 12 years and 1 day to 16 years
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon
Medium period: 16 years and 1 day to 20 years granted to them by the Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
Maximum period: reclusion perpetua not exceed one (1) year;
9. Those who upon the approval of the law (Dec. 5,
III. APPLICABILITY OR NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE 1933), had been sentenced to final judgment; and
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
Explain the application of the Indeterminate NOTE: Included are those sentenced
Sentence Law (ISL). (BAR 2016)
disqualification or fine because these penalties
The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate are not prison sentence.
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which,
in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly What are the rules in imposing a penalty under the
imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and indeterminate sentence law? (BAR 1999, 2005, 2009,
the minimum of which shall be within the range of the 2010, 2013)
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law When penalty is imposed by RPC:
(special law), the court shall sentence th2e accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which 1. The Maximum Term – is that which in view of the
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the attending circumstances could be properly
minimum shall not ne less than the minimum term imposed under the RPC.
prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, ISL, Act No. 4103 as
amended by Act No, 4225) 2. The Minimum Term – is within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC.
The court must, instead of a single fixed penalty, except
where the imposable penalty is one (1) year or less, Prescribed penalty is what the penalty is without
determine two penalties, referred to in the ISL as the looking at the circumstances. As opposed to imposed
“maximum” and “minimum” terms. penalty which takes into account the circumstances.

If the ISL is applicable, the convict will be sentenced to When penalty is imposed by Special Penal Law (BAR
an indeterminate sentence that consists of a minimum 1994):
term and a maximum term. The moment the convict
serves the minimum term, he may be considered for 1. Maximum Term – must not exceed the maximum
parole. term fixed by said law.
2. Minimum Term – must not be less than the
If the ISL is not applicable, the convict will be sentenced minimum term prescribed by the same. (BAR
to a straight penalty, which is the imposable penalty in 2003)
accordance with the RPC.

When is the ISL not applicable? The penalty is prision correccional in its minimum period
and there is confession
The ISL does not apply to:
a. The judge fixed the penalty to 6 months and 1 day.
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death The ISL is not applicable because it does not exceed
penalty or life imprisonment; one year. So the convict should serve a straight
penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional.


b. The judge fixed the penalty to 1 year and 1 day. The punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the
ISL is applicable because it exceeded one year. Since accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
the ISL is applicable, you make the 1 year and 1 day term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
as the maximum term. Then you compute for the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
minimum term. The penalty one degree lower to term prescribed by the same.” (Pinlac vs. People, G.R. No.
prision correccional is arresto mayor which is 1 197458, November 11, 2015)
month and 1 day to 6 months – that is the range of
the minimum term. Dequito was at the gate of Dalupaon Elementary
School watching the graduation ceremony of the high
During Grand Alumni Homecoming of the Bulabog school students. Espinola then arrived. Later,
Elementary School, Ladines suddenly and without however, Dequito saw Hubilla approach Espinola and
warning approached and stabbed Erwin below the stabbed the latter. With Hubilla’s left arm around the
navel with a machete. Ladines then left after neck of Espinola, Hubilla stabbed Espinola using a
delivering the blow. At that juncture, Licup also bladed weapon. Dequito aided Espinola as the latter
mounted his attack against Erwin but the latter was already struggling to his feet and later brought
evaded the blow by stepping back. Erwin pulled out him to the hospital.
the machete from his body and wielded it against
Licup, whom he hit in the chest. Licup pursued but The RTC rendered its judgment finding Hubilla guilty
could not catch up with Erwin because they both of homicide as charged, and sentenced him to suffer
eventually fell down. Erwin was rushed to the the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four
hospital where he succumbed. years and one day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight years and one day of prision
The RTC convicted Ladines of homicide, and fixed the mayor, as maximum. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
indeterminate penalty of 10 years and one day of Hubilla’s conviction but reduced the sentence to six
prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months and one day to six years of prision
months of the medium period of reclusion temporal, correccional as minimum, to six years and one day to
as maximum. The CA affirmed the penalty fixed by the twelve years of prision mayor as maximum. On
RTC. Did the lower courts impose the proper penalty? motion for reconsideration by Hubilla, the CA
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six
No. The lower courts could not impose 17 years and four months and one day of prision correccional, as
months of the medium period of reclusion temporal, minimum, to eight years and one day of prision
which was the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion mayor.
temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty
without specifying the justification for so imposing. They Did the CA imposed the correct penalty imposable on
thereby ignored that although Article 64 of the Revised Hubilla, taking into consideration the pertinent
Penal Code, which has set the rules "for the application of provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, the Revised
penalties which contain three periods," requires under its Penal Code and Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate
first rule that the courts should impose the penalty Sentence Law)?
prescribed by law in the medium period should there be
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, its Yes. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the
seventh rule expressly demands that "within the limits of penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. Considering
each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the that Hubilla then a minor at the time of the commission
penalty according to the number and nature of the of the crime, being 17 years, four months and 28 days old
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the when he committed the homicide on March 30, 2000,
greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the such minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance
crime." that lowered the penalty to prision mayor.

By not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of
of the period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the the indeterminate sentence should be within the penalty
indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or whimsical, next lower than the imposable penalty, which, herein,
or capricious. In the absence of the specification, the was prision correccional (i.e., six months and one day to
maximum of the indeterminate sentence for Ladines six years). For the maximum of the indeterminate
should be the lowest of the medium period of reclusion sentence, prision mayor in its medium period – eight
temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and one day of years and one day to 10 years – was proper because there
reclusion temporal (Ladines vs. People, G.R. No. 167333, were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances
January 11, 2016). present. Accordingly, the CA imposed the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of
Pinlac was found guilty for violating Section 5(b), prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one
Article III of RA No. 7610, a special law. However, the day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals applied
the Indeterminate Sentence Law in fixing the penalty Is Hubilla’s insistence that the maximum of his
to be imposed on the accused. Is Indeterminate indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of
Sentence Law applicable to convictions for violation prison mayor should be reduced to only six years of
of a special law? prision correccional to enable him to apply for
probation under Presidential Decree No. 968
YES. Notwithstanding the fact that RA 7610 is a special tenable?
law, the petitioner in this case may enjoy the benefits of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The ACT No. 4103, as No. Hubilla’s insistence is bereft of legal basis. Neither the
amended, otherwise known as Indeterminate Sentence Revised Penal Code, nor Republic Act No. 9344, nor any
Law provided in Section 1 that: “xxx if the offense is other relevant law or rules support or justify the further



reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. No. Even if Bruno killed the said 75 year-old man, there
To yield to his insistence would be to impose an illegal was no showing in the problem that he disrespected the
penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately violate age of the man.
the law (Hubilla v. People, G.R. No. 176102, November 26,
2014) Would you consider nighttime as an aggravating
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-
year old owner of his rooming house. The No. Even if the problem says that the crime was
prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner committed at 10 in the evening, it did not say whether the
causing his death, and that the killing happened at 10 house was lighted or not. There was also no showing that
in the evening in the house where the victim and the offender deliberately sought nighttime to commit the
Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully crime.
proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime Would you consider dwelling?
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and
did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part, No. In the said dwelling both Bruno and the victim are
but he prevailed because he managed to draw his residing. Therefore, dwelling is not an aggravating
knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty circumstance because both of them are living in the same
for homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a dwelling. It cannot be said that when Bruno killed the
judgment of conviction and after considering the man, he disrespected the dwelling of the said man.
attendant circumstances, what penalty should the Therefore, we have no aggravating circumstance present.
judge impose? (BAR 2013)
Take note that Bruno was able to prove voluntary
Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence surrender, voluntary plea of guilt, and then we have an
penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period as incomplete self-defense — a privileged mitigating
minimum to prision correccional in its medium circumstance.
period as maximum. Bruno was entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self- Applying these conclusions, we have two (2) ordinary
defense and the presence of at least two ordinary mitigating circumstances with one (1) privileged
mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and plea mitigating circumstance and with no aggravating
of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance under Art. circumstance.
69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which lowers the
prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion How do we compute the penalty?
temporal to prision correccional.
1. Consider first the Privileged Mitigating Circumstance.
Further Explanation
Whenever there is a privileged mitigating
In this kind of question, the Bar examiner wants you to circumstance present, apply it first before computing
determine whether there was self-defense or not. The the penalty. In this example, since we have
problem provides that the defense was able to prove that incomplete self-defense, you have to lower the
it was the man who first attacked Bruno; therefore, there penalty by one degree because it is a privileged
was unlawful aggression. But there was no provocation mitigating circumstance. Thus, it will become prision
coming from Bruno, therefore, there was a lack of mayor.
sufficient provocation. So two elements of self-defense
are present. 2. Consider the Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.

How about the 3rd element of self-defense, reasonable So now, there are two ordinary mitigating
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel circumstances with no aggravating circumstance.
the attack, is this present? Article 64 provides that when there are two
mitigating with no aggravating, lower the penalty by
The 3rd element of self-defense is absent because based one degree. Therefore, if you lower it by one degree,
on the facts proven by Bruno, although it was the man it is now prision correccional.
who attacked Bruno first, he prevailed upon the man
because he made use of a knife and stabbed the man. Note: The penalty can be lowered only once no
While the man attacked Bruno by means of his fist, it is matter how many the mitigating circumstances are
not reasonably necessary for Bruno to make use of a knife except for the attendance of a Privileged Mitigating
in killing the man. So what we have is an incomplete self- Circumstance, in which case, it must be considered.
3. Determine the Maximum Sentence after considering
Under paragraph 1 of Article 13, in case of incomplete all mitigating, and aggravating circumstances, if any.
self-defense, if aside from unlawful aggression, another
element is present but not all, we have a privileged You have already applied everything so it will
mitigating circumstance. Therefore, this incomplete self- become prision correccional in its medium period.
defense shall be treated as a privileged mitigating
circumstance. Note: It is in its medium period because when the
penalty does not provide for period, it is
The prosecution was able to prove that the man is 75 automatically in its medium period save for those
years old. Would you consider the aggravating penalties which are indivisible.
circumstance of disrespect of age?
4. Determine the minimum term of the sentence.


the trial court (Art. 39, as amended by R.A. 10159 approved

You go one degree lower and that is arresto mayor. on April 10, 2012).
Therefore, arresto mayor in its medium period (or any
period in the discretion of the court) is the minimum Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty?
term of the sentence.
A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. It is thus
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night required that it be specifically imposed by the court in its
after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, judgment. It is a penalty imposed upon the accused and
his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having served by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to pay on
sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun account of insolvency. The accused cannot be made to
and shot and killed Ken. The court found that Ken undergo subsidiary imprisonment unless the judgment
died under exceptional circumstances and expressly so provides.
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to
destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Rules on Subsidiary Penalty (Sec. 1, RA 10159)
Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to
pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional
of P50,000. While serving his sentence, Macky or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement
entered the prohibited area and had a pot session until his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is
with Ivy (Joy’s sister). Is Macky entitled to an satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not
indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no
the use of prohibited substances? Explain your case shall it continue for more than one year, and no
answer. (BAR 2007) fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the
No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103, as amended) for 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
having evaded the sentence which banished or placed subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if
him on destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
provides that the law shall not apply to those who shall grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a
have "evaded sentence". fight felony.

Alternative Answer: No, because the penalty for use of any 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than
dangerous drug by a first offender is not imprisonment prision correctional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
but rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum imposed upon the culprit.
period of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. 9165). The
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed
penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one year. by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is
of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer
close, the judge found A guilty beyond reasonable the same deprivations as those of which the principal
doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight penalty consists.
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor. The public prosecutor objected to the 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may
sentence on the ground that the proper penalty have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) him from the fine in case his financial circumstances
DAY of reclusion temporal. The defense counsel should improve.
chimed in, contending that application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the NOTE: When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
imposition of a straight penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed by the
and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional only. Who of Court, not the penalty provided for by the Code, which
the three is on the right track? (BAR 2010) should be the basis in the determination whether or not
subsidiary penalty should be imposed.
None of the contentions is correct because the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103, as amended) has THREE-FOLD RULE
not been followed.
What are the three systems of imposition of penalties
The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, in case two or more penalties are imposed on one and
which is penalized by imprisonment exceeding one (1) the same accused?
year and is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The said law is requires that the sentence 1. Material accumulation system - no limitation
in this case should reflect a minimum term for purposes whatever. All the penalties for all violations were
of parole, and a maximum term fixing the limit of the imposed even if they reached beyond the natural
imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect. span of human life.

SUBSIDIARY PENALTY 2. Juridical accumulation system - limited to not more

than the three-fold length of time corresponding to
Subsidiary personal liability is to be suffered by the the most severe and in no case exceed 40 years.
convict who has no property with which to meet the fine,
at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the 3. Absorption system - the lesser penalties are absorbed
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines by the graver penalties. It is observed in the
at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by imposition of the penalty in complex crimes,



continuing crimes, and special complex crimes like Yes. The probation law as amended provides that, “xxx No
robbery with homicide, etc. application for probation shall be entertained or granted if
the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment
What is the Three-Fold Rule? of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is
Three-fold rule means that the maximum duration of a appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified
convict’s sentence shall not be more than three times the through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation
penalties imposed upon him but in no case exceed 40 based on the modified decision before such decision
years. becomes final.” The application for probation based on
the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court
NOTE: All the penalties, even if by different courts at where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-
different times, cannot exceed three-fold to most severe probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court
penalty. where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case
involving several defendants where some have taken
further appeal, the other defendants may apply for
(AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10707)
probation by submitting a written application and
attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of
It is a disposition under which a defendant, after
conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed,
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the
probation officer. judgment.

This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of

NOTE: Probation only affects the criminal aspect of the
probation should he seek a review of the modified decision
case and has no bearing on his civil liability which already imposes a probationable penalty.

Who are disqualified to avail the benefits of the Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes
probation law? (BAR 2004) a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the
application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of appeal.
imprisonment of more than six (6) years; (BAR
1990, 1995, 2002) An order granting or denying probation shall not be
2. Convicted of subversion or any crime against the appealable.’’ (R.A. 10707 Section 1, amending Section 4 of
national security or the public order; (BAR 1991, PD No. 968, Approved last November 26, 2015)
1992, 1993)
3. Who have previously been convicted by final Alternative Answer: What is clear is that, had the RTC
judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment done what was right and imposed on Arnel the correct
of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine penalty of two years and four months maximum, he
of not less than two hundred pesos; would have had the right to apply for probation. Arnel did
4. Who have been once on probation under the not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him
provision of this Decree; to apply for probation. He did not have a choice between
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time the appeal and probation. While it is true that probation is a
substantive provisions of this Decree became mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the right to
applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof; such privilege; he certainly does not have. What he has is
6. If he appeals the judgment or conviction (however see the right to apply for that privilege. If the Court allows
Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, him to apply for probation because of the lowered
2011); or (BAR 2013) penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether
7. If he is convicted of violation of Election offenses or not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into
account the full circumstances of his case (Colinares v.
NOTE: In multiple prison terms, those imposed against People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011).
the accused found guilty of several offenses should not be
added up, and their sum total should not be Meno was convicted by final judgment of the crime of
determinative of his disqualification from probation arbitrary detention and was sentenced to suffer
since the law uses the word “maximum” not “total” term imprisonment by the RTC. On that ground, Bena filed
of imprisonment (Francisco v. CA, et. Al, G.R. No. 108747, a petition to disqualify Meno from running for
April 6, 1995). Punong Baranggay. Meno argued that he was already
granted probation, which effectively restores him all
Arnel Colinares was found guilty of frustrated the civil rights including the right to vote and be
homicide by the RTC. On appeal, CA affirmed. On voted for in the elections. The COMELEC En Banc
petition for review, SC ruled that he was only guilty of disqualified Meno citing Sec. 40(a) of the Local
attempted homicide, in which the penalty is Government Code. Meno argues that the
“probationable”. Is Colinares now entitled to apply disqualification under the Local Government Code
for probation upon remand of the case to the lower applies only to those who have served their sentence
court, even after he has perfected his appeal to a and not to probationers because the latter do not
previous conviction (frustrated homicide) which was serve the adjudged sentence. The Probation Law
not “probationable”? should allegedly be read as an exception to the Local
Government Code. Is Meno disqualified from running
for public office?


produces only the opportunity of reformation to

No, Meno is not disqualified from running for public extinction of the the penitent offender.
office. During the period of probation, the probationer is personal effects of
not disqualified from running for a public office because the penalty.
the accessory penalty of suspension from public office is Does not extinguish Does not extinguish the civil
put on hold for the duration of the probation. the civil liability of liability of the offender.
the offender.
The period within which a person is under probation
cannot be equated with service of the sentence adjudged. EXTINGUISHMENT OF
Sec. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the CRIMINAL LIABILITY
grant of probation suspends the execution of the
sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the
court but is merely required to comply with all the 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal
conditions prescribed in the probation order. The penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
Probation Law should be construed as an exception to the therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
Local Government Code (Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. offender occurs before final judgment;
168550, August 10, 2006). 2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
PARDON VIS-À-VIS PROBATION penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
PARDON PROBATION 5. By prescription of the crime;
Extinguishes Does not extinguish criminal 6. By prescription of the penalty;
criminal liability. liability; merely suspends the 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided
execution of the sentence. in Article 344 of the RPC.
Includes any crime Exercised individually by the
and is exercised trial court. Criminal Liability is Partially Extinguished:
individually by the 1. By conditional pardon
President. 2. By commutation of the sentence
Merely looks It promotes the correction and 3. By final discharge of probation
forward and rehabilitation of an offender by 4. By parole
relieves the providing him with 5. By good conduct
offender from the individualized treatment;
consequences of an provides an opportunity for the Bayot was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
offense of which he reformation of a penitent the crime of rape committed against AAA, thus
has been convicted. offender which might be less sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
probable if he were to serve a perpetua. CA affirmed the ruling but increased the
prison sentence; and prevent award of indemnity and ordered Bayot to pay AAA
the commission of offenses. moral damages in the amount of P 50,000. During
pendency of his appeal, Bayot died at the prison
hospital, as evidenced by the letter of the Penal
Superintendent to the CA. Did the death of Bayot
Does not work for Those who have not served extinguish both his criminal and civil liability?
the restoration of their sentence by reason of the
the rights to hold grant of probation which Yes, Bayot’s death during the pendency of his appeal
public office, or the should not be equated with before the Court of Appeals extinguished not only his
right of suffrage, service of sentence, should not criminal liability for the crime of rape committed against
unless such rights likewise be disqualified from AAA, but also his civil liability solely arising from or based
are expressly running for a local elective on said crime (or civil liability ex delicto).
restored by means office because the two (2)-year
of pardon. period of ineligibility under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically
Sec. 40(a) of the Local provides the effect of death of the accused on his criminal,
Government Code does not as well as civil, liability. According to the pertinent
even begin to run (Moreno v. provision, criminal liability is totally extinguished by
Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, death of the convict, as to the personal penalties, and as
August 10, 2006). to pecuniary penalties. Liability is extinguished only
Exercised when the Must be exercised within the when the death of the offender occurs before final
person is already period for perfecting an appeal. judgment. It is already unnecessary to rule on Bayot’s
convicted. appeal. Said appeal was still pending and no final
Being a private act Being a grant by the trial court; judgment had been rendered against him at the time of
by the president, it it follows that the trial court his death (People v. Bayot, G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012).
must be pleaded and also has the power to order its
proved by the revocation in a proper case and AAA is the second of five children of Amistoso and
person pardoned. under proper circumstances. BBB. AAA was 12 years old when the rape incident
happened. Amistoso had sexual intercourse against
the will of AAA. Amistoso was charged with statutory
rape. However, the RTC and CA convicted him for
Does not alter the Does not alter the fact that the qualified rape. Insisting upon his innocence,
fact that the accused accused is a recidivist as it Amistoso appealed to the Supreme Court. In a
is a recidivist as it provides only for an Decision dated January 9, 2013, the Supreme Court



affirmed with modification the judgment of commission of the crime. Hence, the period of
conviction against Amistoso. However the Court was prescription of 20 years for homicide commenced to run
belatedly informed that Amistoso had died on only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI
December 11, 2012 at the New Bilibid Prison due to authorities.
cardio respiratory arrest. Yet, the Public Attorney’s
Office which represented Amistoso and which was A killed his wife and buried her in the backyard. He
apparently also unaware of its client’s demise, still immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were
Decision on February 22, 2013. What is the effect of discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing
the death of Amistoso on his criminal and civil warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar
liability pending resolution from Court? and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the
caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter
Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code states to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the
that, “Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the country but returned 3 years later to take care of his
death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished with parricide, but he raised the defense of
only when the death of the offender occurs before final prescription.
judgment.” Therefore, the death of the Amistoso pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the
as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the criminal period of prescription of a crime commence to
action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a run?
defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action b. When is it interrupted?
instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto c. Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (BAR 2010)
is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
criminal case. a. Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription
commence to run upon discovery of the crime by the
Undeniably, Amistoso’s death on December 11, 2012 offended party, the authorities, or their agent.
preceded the promulgation by the Supreme Court of its b. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
Decision on January 9, 2013. When Amistoso died, his information corresponding to the offense commited
appeal before the SC was still pending and unresolved. with the prosecutor (Art. 91, RPC), except in cases
The SC ruled upon Amistoso’s appeal only because it was falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure and
not immediately informed of his death. Amistoso’s death when filed with the Punong Barangay (Sec. 408 of
on December 11, 2012 renders the SC’s Decision dated Local Government Code.)
January 9, 2013, even though affirming Amistoso’s c. No, parricide prescribes in 20 years (Art. 90, RPC).
conviction, irrelevant and ineffectual. Moreover, said The period of prescription started only when Z
Decision has not yet become final, and the SC still has the reported the matter to the police, which is equivalent
jurisdiction to set it aside (People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. to 10 years of hiding from the time of reporting to Z.
201447, August 28, 2013). The period of three years shall not be counted since
he is absent from the Philippines. The filing of the
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES charge 6 years thereafter is well within the
prescriptive period.
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old
Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he Goyena filed with the City Prosecutor a complaint for
heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of slight physical injuries against Bautista. After
their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped conducting the preliminary investigation, the
inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s stepmother, very angry and prosecutor issued a recommendation for the filing of
strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw information against Bautista. Such recommendation
Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the was approved by the City Prosecutor but the date of
trunk of the car and drive away. The dead body of Ara such approval cannot be found in the records. The
was never found. Mina spread the news in the Information was, however, filed with the MeTC
neighborhood that Ara went to live with her of Manila only on June 20, 2000. Bautista sought the
grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert dismissal of the case against him on the ground of the
did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, 60-day period of prescription from the date of the
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & ½) commission of the crime. Has the crime prescribed?
years after the incident, and right after his
graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime No, the crime has not prescribed. It is a settled rule that
to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes the filing of the complaint with the Fiscal’s office
in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for the suspends the running of the prescriptive period. The
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 and 1/2 years? Office of the Prosecutor miserably incurred some delay in
(BAR 2000) the filing the Information but such mistake or negligence
should not unduly prejudice the interests of the State and
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara the offended party. As held in People vs. Olarte, it is unjust
despite the lapse of 20 and ½ years. Under Article 91, to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain
RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from vindication on account of delays that are not under his
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended control. All that the victim of the offense may do on his
party, the authorities, or their agents. In the case at bar, part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite
the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, complaint (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168641, April 27,
who was not the offended party nor an authority or an 2007).
agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI
authorities only when Albert revealed to them the


A, while serving sentence for homicide escaped but The first mode of proving treason is by testimony of at
was re-arrested, and was sentenced for evasion of least two witnesses to the same overt act. There must be
service of sentence. Later on, he was granted absolute two witnesses that must corroborate each other as to the
pardon for homicide. He now claims that the pardon overt act performed by the offender. Therefore, Treason
includes the evasion of service since the latter crime cannot be proven by mere circumstantial evidence. The
occurred because of Homicide. Is A’s contention law requires that there must be direct evidence.
The second mode of proving treason is by the confession
No. Pardon by the Chief Executive must specify the crime of guilt made in open court. The confession of guilt must
and does not include those not specified in the pardon. be judicial confession of guilt made by the accused in
open court. Extrajudicial confession of guilt will not
On June 30, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman filed suffice to bring a conviction in the crime of treason.
two informations charging Disini in the
Sandiganbayan with corruption of public officials In a time wherein the Philippines is involved in a war
and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices with another country, the offender XXX Filipino
Act (R.A. No. 3019) in the year 1974 to 1986 for citizens, commandeered women for the enemy
offering, promising or giving gifts and presents to troops? Are they liable for treason?
Ferdinand Marcos. Disini filed a motion to quash the
informations on August 2, 2004 alleging that the No, the act of commandeering women to the enemies
criminal actions had been extinguished by does not constitute a treasonable act. This act of
prescription, and that the informations did not commandeering women to the enemies to satisfy the lust
conform to the prescribed form. The Sandiganbayan of the enemies is not a treasonable act because whatever
denied the motion to quash and as well as the motion benefits it would give to the enemy in their prosecution
for reconsideration that followed afterward. Disini of war would have been trivial imperceptible and
commenced a special civil action for certiorari once unintentional. (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L-856, April 18,
again alleging the prescription of the charges in the 1949).
information. Is Disini’s contention correct?
NOTE: In treason, the adherence to the enemies by giving
A: No, the offenses charged in the information have not them aid or comfort must materially advance the interest
yet prescribed. In resolving the issue of prescription, the of the enemy in the conduct of war.
following must be considered, namely: (1) the period of
prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time when PIRACY VIS-À-VIS MUTINY
the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time
when the prescriptive period is interrupted. The crime of PIRACY MUTINY
corruption of public officials is punished by a penalty of Offenders are strangers to Offenders are
prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods and a the vessel. Hence, offenders members of the
fine not less than three times the value of the gift and are neither passengers nor complement or the
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code states that the period crew members. passengers of the
of prescription for this species of corruption is 15 years vessel.
from the date of the discovery of the crime. The Done with animo Against the authority
prescriptive period for violation of R.A. No. 3019, as furandi/intent to steal and of the commander of
stated in Section 2 of R.A. No. 3326, is 10 years from the with the intention of the ship.
day of the commission or date of discovery by the universal hostility.
offended party, the authorities, or their agents. Therefore, Intent to gain is an element Intent to gain is
the prescriptive period for the crime which is the subject of piracy. immaterial.
herein, commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 Attack from the outside. Attack from the inside.
after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation.
When the complaint was filed in 1997, only five years A, B, and C hijacked a plane bound to Malaysia. In the
have elapsed, and, hence, prescription has not yet set in. course of the hijack, D, a passenger was shot and
(Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24, September killed. The court charged and convicted them for the
11, 2013) violation of Anti-Hijacking Law and murder. Is the
court correct?
No. The charge should only be RA No. 6235 or violation of
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY Anti-Hijacking Law. A, B and C should not be charged with
a separate crime of murder because the act of killing a
NOTE: Crimes against National Security and the Law of passenger or complement in a violation of RA No. 6235
Nations are exceptions to the principle of territoriality will only bring about a higher penalty. Murder should not
under Art. 2, par. 5 of the RPC. Thus, one can be held be charged separately.
criminally liable even if those crimes were committed
outside the Philippine jurisdiction. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE
How may treason be proved? Explain.
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the state may
The two ways of proving treason are: (1) by the only be committed by public officers, except Art. 133
testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act Offending the religious feelings which may be committed
(two-witness rule); or (2) confession of guilt made in by a private individual.
open court.
HOWEVER, not all public officers may commit such
crimes. In arbitrary detention and delay in the delivery of



detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, the with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is
public officers must be charged with the task of arresting not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. The
or detaining a person. remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search
conducted on his vehicle is civil in nature under Article
In violation of domicile, the public officer must have the 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil
task of serving search warrant or seizure order. Code (Galvante v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22,
What are the three ways of committing arbitrary
detention? (BAR 2006) What are the prohibited acts constituting violation of
1. By detaining or locking up a person without any legal
cause or ground thereof purposely to restrain his 1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner
liberty; thereof;
2. By delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority 2. Searching papers or effects found therein without
of a person lawfully arrested without a warrant; and previous consent of such owner; and
3. By delaying release of a prisoner whose release has 3. Refusing to leave the premises having
been ordered by competent authority. surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and after
being required to leave the same.
Is there an arbitrary detention even if the offended
party were not kept in an enclosure? While a “pabasa” was going on at a municipality in the
Province of Tarlac, Reyes and his company arrived at
Yes. There is arbitrary detention even if the victims were the place, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to
not kept in an enclosure. The prevailing jurisprudence on construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel.
kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of The chairman of the committee in charge of the
the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical “pabasa” persuaded them to refrain from said acts. A
restraint upon the victim’s person. If the acts and verbal altercation then ensued. The people attending
actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the the “pabasa” left the place hurriedly in confusion and
mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the the “pabasa” was discontinued until after
extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own investigation. Reyes and his company, in their
actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of defense claim that the land where the chapel is built
the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and belongs to the Clemente family, of which they are
purposes, detained against his will (Astorga v. People, G.R. partisans. Are the accused guilty of the crime under
No. 154130, October 1, 2003). Art. 133?

TRUE OR FALSE. A policeman who, without a judicial No, Art. 133 of the RPC punishes acts “notoriously
order, enters a private house over the owner’s offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” The construction
opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling (BAR of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious to those
2009). present, is not an act as can be designated as “notoriously
offensive to the faithful.”In this case, the accused were
False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case acquitted of a violation of Art. 133 of the RPC but they
is violation of domicile because the official duties of a were found guilty of a violation of Art. 287 of the RPC for
policeman carry with it an authority to make searches the circumstances showed that their acts were done in
and seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting such a way as to vex and annoy the parties who had
under color of his official authority (Art. 128, RPC). gathered to celebrate the “pabasa” (People v. Reyes, et al.,
G.R. No. L-40577, August 23, 1934).
Policemen Conde, Avenido, Degran, Rufano, and
Balolot, thinking that Galvantes was armed with a CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
gun, pointed their firearms at him and asked for his
gun. Conde went near Galvantes’ jeep and conducted What is the theory of absorption in rebellion?
search without a search warrant. After a while they
saw the super .38 pistol under the floor mat of the Whenever in the course of committing rebellion, murder,
jeep. Galvante, then, filed complaints before the homicide, arson, physical injuries, other common crimes
Ombudsman. One of the criminal complaint he filed are committed, and these common crimes are
was warrantless search, would the complaint furtherance to, incident to, in connection with rebellion,
proper? they are considered as absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
Only one charge of rebellion should be charged against
No. The complaint for warrantless search charges no the offender.
criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is
not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the RPC or
any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only
two forms of searches which are search warrants
maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained under Art. 129, and searching domicile
without witnesses under Art. 130.

Galvante did not allege any of the elements of the

foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he
accused Conde, Avenido, Degran, Rufano, Balolot of
conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed



National security and

Crime Against Public order Public order
law of nations

Overthrow the Unlawful demand

Diminish inherent powers of the
Purpose government (political against the government
state (political crime)
crime) (need not be political)

Through predicate
crimes and by Need not be through force and
How committed Through violence widespread and violence, can be by threat,
extraordinary panic and intimidation, strategy or stealth

Number of people Multitude of people Can be singly or a lot Can be singly or a lot

Public officers only; unless

Offenders Private or public officers Private or public officers
private individuals conspire

Yes, absorbs predicate

Generally, yes. Murder, Yes, but must be related to
crimes like rebellion,
Ability to absorb rape, robbery absorbed. political purpose. Rape not
coup d’etat, murder. Use
common crimes Use of loose firearms absorbed. Use of loose firearms
of loose firearms
absorbed. absorbed.

Conspiracy and Conspiracy and proposal Only conspiracy is Conspiracy and proposal
proposal punished punished punished

Inciting Inciting punished Not punished Not punished

All continuing crime

Accomplices are
Accomplices No accomplices No accomplices

house and that of others but also in the death and

As a result of the killing of SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, Elias injuries to a number of civilians. The CFI found
Lovedioro was charged with and subsequently found appellant guilty of the complex crime of rebellion
guilty of the crime of murder. On appeal, Lovedioro with multiple murder, among others. Was the lower
claims that he should have been charged with the court correct?
crime of rebellion, not murder as, being a member of
the NPA, he killed Lucilo as a means to or in No. The accused is guilty of sedition, multiple murder and
furtherance of subversive ends. The Solicitor physical injuries, among others. The purpose of the raid
General, opposing appellant’s claim, avers that it is and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up
only when the defense had conclusively proven that arms was not exactly against the Government and for the
the motive or intent for the killing of the policeman purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the
was for "political and subversive ends" will the Revised Penal code under rebellion. The raiders did not
judgement of rebellion be proper. Between the even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local Government.
appellant and the Solicitor General, who is correct? Rather, the object was to attain by means of force,
intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate
The Solicitor General is correct. It is not enough that the or revenge upon the person or property of a public
overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong.
overt acts are essential components of the crime. With Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to
either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion constitute sedition (People v. Umali, et. al., G.R. No. L-5803,
legally does not exist. If no political motive is established November 29, 1954).
and proved, the accused should be convicted of the
common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, What is the nature of sedition?
motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion Sedition is a violation of the public peace or at least such
would not, by and of itself, suffice (People v. Lovedioro, a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does
G.R. No. 112235, November 29, 1995). not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or
the subversion of the Constitution. It is an offense not
Appellant, with about twenty armed men and Huk directed primarily against individuals but to the general
Commander Torio, raided and attacked the house of public peace; it is the raising of commotions or
Punzalan, his political adversary and incumbent disturbances in the State, a revolt against legitimate
Mayor of Tiaong, Quezon, with automatic weapons, authority (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L-21049, December 22,
hand grenades, and bottles filled with gasoline. The 1923).
raid resulted not only in destruction of Punzalan’s



What are the elements of the second form of Direct eyes of law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority,
Assault? not just the attack on the student.

1. Offender: During election time, Isko was found in possession of

a. Makes an attack, an unlicensed firearm. Arrested, he was charged with
b. Employs force, (1) violation of the COMELEC gun ban, and (2) illegal
c. Makes a serious intimidation, or possession of unlicensed firearm. During the
d. Makes a serious resistance. arraignment for the violation of COMELEC gun ban, he
2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; pleaded not guilty. However, during the arraignment
3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority for illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm, he
or his agent: filed a motion to quash the information arguing that
a. Is engaged in the performance of official duties, he cannot be charged of illegal possession of
or that he is assaulted unlicensed firearm because the law says that you can
b. On occasion of such performance; only be charged of the offense provided that no other
4. The offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a crime is committed by the person arrested. Is his
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his contention correct?
duties; and
5. There is no public uprising. No, his contention is wrong. When the law says, “provided
that no other crime is committed by the person arrested”,
NOTE: The force employed on an agent of a person in the word “committed” means that there is already a final
authority, to constitute direct assault must be of a serious determination of guilt — a final conviction of guilt based
character. Whereas the force employed on a person in on a successful prosecution or judicial admission. In this
authority need not be serious. case, he was not yet convicted, he was only being
prosecuted. Therefore both cases can proceed. However,
As the town president failed to pay their salaries, the the moment he is convicted of violation of the COMELEC
accused, accompanied by four armed men, went to gun ban, he should be acquitted of illegal possession of
the house of the former and compelled him by force unlicensed firearm (Celino, Sr. v. People, G.R. No. 170562,
to leave and go to the Presidencia. The accused kept June 29, 2007).
the town president there confined until the relatives
of the latter had raised enough money to pay what Who are deemed to be persons in authority and
was due the accused and the armed men as salaries. agents of persons in authority?
What crime did the accused commit?
Persons in authority are those directly vested with
The facts constitute the crime of direct assault. There is jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
no public uprising when the accused, accompanied by some court or government corporation, board, or
armed men, compelled by force the town president to go commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are
with them to proceed to the municipal building and also deemed persons in authority.
detained him there. By reason of detaining the town
president, the accused inflicted upon a public officer an Agents of persons in authority are persons who by
act of hate or revenge. This is one of the objects of direct provision of law or by election or by appointment
sedition, which is essentially what the accused intended by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of
to attain (U.S. v. Dirain, G.R. No. 1948, May 5, 1905). public order, the protection and security of life and
property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman,
A, a lady professor was giving an examination. She barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of
noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She called the persons in authority.
student’s attention and confiscated his examination
booklet, causing embarrassment to him. The In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of the
following day, while the class was going on, the RPC, teachers, professors and persons charged with the
student, B, approached A and without any warning, supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
on A had not C, another student, come to A’s rescue performance of their professional duties or on the
and prevented B from continuing attack. B turned his occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons
ire on C and punched the latter. What crime or in authority.
crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (BAR 2002)
Sydeco, the cook and the waitress in his restaurant
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for were on the way home when they were signalled to
slapping the professor, A, who was then conducting stop by Police Officers who asked Sydeco to open the
classes and thus in the exercise of her authority; and vehicle’s door and alight for a body and vehicle
another one for the violence on the student C, who came search. When Sydeco opened the vehicle window, he
to the aid of the said professor. insisted on a plain view search, obviously irked by
this remark, one of the policemen told him he was
By express provision of Article 152, teachers and drunk, pointing to three empty beer bottles in the
professors of public and duly authorized private schools, trunk of the vehicle. The Officers then pulled Sydeco
colleges and university in the in the actual performance out of the vehicle and brought him to the Ospital ng
of their professional duties or on the occasion of such Maynila where they succeeded in securing a medical
performance are deemed person-in-authority for certificate under the signature of one Dr. Harvey
purpose of the crime of direct assault and of resistance Balucating depicting Sydeco as positive of alcoholic
and disobedience. And any person who comes to the aid breath, although no alcohol breath examination was
of the person in authority shall be deemed an agent of a conducted. Sydeco was detained and released only in
person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the the afternoon of the following day when he was


allowed to undergo actual medical examination

where the resulting medical certificate indicated that No. In falsification of public or official documents, it is not
he has sustained physical injuries but negative for necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
alcohol breath. Is Sydeco criminally liable for any intent to injure a third person because in the
crime? falsification of a public document, what is punished is the
violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
No. It is fairly clear that what triggered the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed (Galeos v. People,
confrontational stand-off between the Police Officers, on G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011).
one hand, and Sydeco on the other, was the latter’s refusal
to get off of the vehicle for a body and vehicle search NOTE: In falsification of private document, intent to
juxtaposed by his insistence on a plain view search only. cause damage to a third person is material.
Sydeco’s twin gestures cannot plausibly be considered as
resisting a lawful order. He may have sounded boorish or A counterfeited the signature of B but what he
spoken crudely at that time, but none of this would make entered in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of B
him a criminal. are all true. Since there was no damage to the
government, did he commit a crime?
It remains to stress that he has not, when flagged down,
committed a crime or performed an overt act warranting Yes. In falsification of a public document, it is immaterial
a reasonable inference of criminal activity. whether or not the contents set forth therein were false.
What is important is the fact that the signature of another
The two key elements of resistance and serious was counterfeited. In a crime of falsification of a public
disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC are: (1) document, the principal thing punished is the violation of
That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the solemnly proclaimed. Thus, intent to gain or injure is
offender; and (2) That the offender resists or seriously immaterial. Even more so, the gain or damage is not
disobeys such person or his agent. There can be no necessary (Caubang v. People, G.R. No. L-62634 June 26,
quibble that the officer and his apprehending team are 1992).
persons in authority or agents of a person in authority
manning a legal checkpoint. But surely Sydeco’s act of Can falsification be committed by omission?
exercising one’s right against unreasonable searches to
be conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in context, Yes. In the case of People v. Dizon, an assistant
be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful bookkeeper who, having bought several articles for
order in contemplation of Art. 151 (Sydeco v. People, G.R. which he signed several chits, intentionally did not record
No. 202692, November 12, 2014). in his personal account most of the said chits and
destroyed them so that he could avoid paying the amount
Manny killed his wife under exceptional thereof was held guilty of falsification by omission.
circumstances and was sentenced by RTC Dagupan of
destierro during which he was not allowed to enter Is there a complex crime of estafa through
Dagupan City. While serving sentence, Manny went to falsification of a private document?
Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was
arrested in Manila. Did Manny commit any crime? None. The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in
(1998 BAR) estafa, in the commission of which a private document
was falsified is nothing more or less than the very damage
Yes, Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of caused by the falsification of such document.
sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was
prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro. Petitioner Ursua was asked by his counsel to get a
A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded copy of the complaint from the Office of the
when the convict enters any of the place/places he is Ombudsman. Petitioner told Oscar Perez, the law
prohibited from entering under the sentence or come firm’s messenger, that he feels uncomfortable asking
within the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not for a copy of the complaint since he is one of the
involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of respondents. Perez told petitioner that the latter can
liberty. go there as “Oscar Perez”. At the Office of the
Ombudsman, petitioner registered in the logbook as
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST “Oscar Perez”. Loida Kahulugan gave him a copy of
the complaint to which petitioner acknowledged as
How is forgery committed? (BAR 2008) “Oscar Perez”. However, Loida learned that the
person is not “Oscar Perez” but in fact Cesario Ursua.
Forgery is committed: Is the act of petitioner of using the name “Oscar
Perez” a violation of Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 (Anti-Alias
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any Law)?
instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned
therein, the appearance of a true and genuine No. Petitioner’s writing of the name “Oscar Perez” in an
document; or isolated transaction is not the act contemplated under
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142. The use of a fictitious name or a
any means the figures, letters, words, or sign different name belonging to another person in a single
contained therein. (Art. 163, RPC) instance without any sign or indication that the user
intends to be known by this name in addition to his real
In falsification of public documents, is it necessary name from that day forth does not fall within the
that there be the idea of gain or intent to injure a prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended.
third person? Petitioner introduced himself in the Office of the



Ombudsman as “Oscar Perez,” which was not his own

name and he did so while merely serving the request of Governor A can also be held liable for violation of Section
his lawyer to obtain a copy of the complaint in which the 3(e) of RA 3019. All the elements are present. “Through
petitioner was a respondent. Hence, the use of “Oscar manifest partiality” in favoring his kumpare, Governor A
Perez” is not an alias name of petitioner. There is no did not hold a public bidding and directly purchased the
evidence showing that he had used or was intending to farm equipment from his kumpare. Further, Governor A’
use that name as his second name in addition to his real actions caused undue injury to the government as well as
name (Ursua v. CA, G.R. No.112170, April 10, 1996). the farmers who were deprived of the seedlings. His acts
likewise gave his kumpare, a private party, the
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, to the
exclusion of other interested suppliers.
X, an 11 year-old girl, had sexual intercourse with her
18 year-old boyfriend Y. They performed the act in a The act by Governor A is also a violation of Section 3(g) of
secluded vacant lot. Unknown to them, there was a RA 3019 for entering a contract on behalf of the
roving policeman at that time. Hence, they were government which is manifestly and grossly
arrested. What crime did they commit? disadvantageous to the same.

The sexual intercourse with the girl constitutes statutory The public prosecutor has to render his resolution on
rape. Though the act was carried out in a public place, a case filed before their office. While the investigating
criminal liability for grave scandal cannot be incurred. public prosecutor was already drafting his
resolution, the respondent in the said case arrived. A
NOTE: For grave scandal to apply, the highly scandalous close door talk took place between the two wherein
conduct should not fall within any other article of the the respondent offered the public prosecutor P2M in
RPC. Thus, this article provides for a crime of last resort. exchange for the dismissal of the case filed against
the respondent. The public prosecutor accepted the
CRIMES COMMITTED P2M. Later, by reason of the bribe money given to
BY PUBLIC OFFICERS him, the prosecutor issued a resolution dismissing
the said case for lack of probable cause.
Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.
a) What crime/crimes is/are committed by the public
(BAR 2016)

The public prosecutor is liable for direct bribery under

Article 210. First, he is a public officer. Second, the said
public prosecutor accepted a bribe money in the amount
Performance of Improper Omission of of P2M in connection with the performance of a criminal
some act which performance of some act which act which has a connection with his official function.
ought not to be some act which ought to be Hence, he is liable for Direct Bribery.
done. might be performed.
lawfully done. The public prosecutor is also liable for Dereliction of Duty
in the Prosecution of Offenses under Art. 208. By reason
Governor A was given the amount of P10 million by of the P2M given to him by the respondent, the public
the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of prosecutor actually rendered the said resolution
buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. dismissing the case despite his knowledge that the
Supposedly intending to modernize the farming offender had actually committed the crime. He is a public
industry in his province, Governor A bought farm officer who has the duty to prosecute and he knows the
equipment through direct purchase from XY commission of the crime, yet he did not cause the
Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B, the alleged prosecution of the offender. He did so with malice and
exclusive distributor of the said equipment. Upon deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law because
inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a of the bribe money given to him. So in this case the public
pending patent application for the said farm prosecutor is liable for two crimes: (1) Direct Bribery and
equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased (2) Dereliction of Duty in the Prosecution of Offenses.
turned out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if
any, were committed by Governor A? (BAR 2016) b) Without direct bribery, dereliction of duty in the
prosecution of offenses will not be committed. Are
Governor A committed the crimes of: (1) technical you going to complex these crimes considering that
malversation; and (2) violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) one is a necessary means to commit the other?
of RA 3019.
No. Art. 210 prohibit the complexity of crimes. Under Art.
Governor A committed technical malversation under Art. 210, the liability of direct bribery shall be in addition to
220 of the RPC. The amount of P10M granted by the the liability attaching to the public officer for the
Department of Agriculture to Governor A, an accountable commission of the crime agreed upon.
public officer, is specificially appropriated for the
purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the X a police officer, was conducting a patrol in an area
farmers. Instead, Governor A applied the amount to when he noticed a man hiding behind a mango tree.
aquire modern farm equipment through direct purchase He saw that the man was intently looking at the house
from XY Enterprise owned by his kumpare. The law across the street. When the gate of the house opened
punishes the act of diverting public funds earmarked by just as when a car was about to leave the house, the
law or ordinance for a specific public purpose to another man immediately boarded his motorcycle, went near
public purpose; hence, the liability for technical the said gate and thereafter repeatedly shot the


driver of the car which resulted to the instant death Melda is not criminally liable because the act of
of the latter. The man in the motorcycle got away. The volunteering to persuade is not a criminal act. It is the act
police officer chased him and was able to arrest him. of persuading that is considered a criminal act. The act
However, the man in the motorcycle said, “If you does not fall under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code
allow me to leave, I’ll give you P500, 000.00.” The on Direct Bribery nor does it fall under Article 211 of the
police officer accepted the money and allowed him to RPC on Indirect Bribery. Neither does it fall under the
leave. What crime if any is committed by the said Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(a) of RA.
police officer? 3019 refers to acts of persuading another public official
to violate rules and regulations.
The police officer is liable for qualified bribery under Art.
211-A. The police officer is a public officer in charge with Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several
the enforcement of the law and he resisted to arrest a projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the
person who has committed a crime punishable by Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various
reclusion perpetua and/or death. The police officer did amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million.
not arrest the said man because of the P500, 000.00 given From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the
to him. money for constructing feeder roads, barangay
clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal
X has been appointed as the new head of LTO. During projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don
his first day in office, Y visited him. Y talked to X and Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the
after their exchange of pleasantries, the visitor left. amounts he deposited were proceeds from his
When Y left, he also left a small gift box on top of the jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed?
table of X containing a key to a new car and a note that Who are criminally liable? Explain. (BAR 2005)
the car is in the parking space at the basement of the
building. X went to the basement and used the car. Is Don Gabito is liable for Corruption of Public Officials
X liable for any crime? under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having
given the amounts that were deposited in an account
X is liable for indirect bribery under Art. 211 because he which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but
is a public officer and he accepts a gift by reason of his the public position or office held by the Mayor;
office. Y, the visitor, does not require him to do anything;
it was merely given to him because he was newly The Mayor is liable for Indirect Bribery for accepting such
appointed as the LTO Chief. His acceptance brings about money deposited in his account by using them when they
the consummation of indirect bribery. were given to him for no other reason except for his
public position as a Mayor and Violation of Rep. Act 6713
In the abovementioned cases, what is/are the (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
criminal liability of the person giving the bribe? Officials and Employees) and for receiving such gift from
someone who may be affected by the functions of his
They are liable for corruption of public officials under Art. office.
212. It is committed by any person who shall have made
the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents in the Accused Hernandez served a Mission Order against
consummation of direct or indirect bribery. Takao Aoyagi, a Japanese national. There were
complaints against Aoyagi for being suspected as a
Melda, who is the private secretary of Judge Tolits Yakuza big boss, a drug dependent and an
Naya, was persuaded by a litigant, Jumbo, to have his overstaying alien. To prove his innocence, Aoyagi
case calendared as early as possible for a gave his passport to Hernandez as guarantee for his
consideration of P500, 000.00. May she be held appearance at a BID hearing. In a meeting outside the
criminally liable for this accommodation? (BAR BID Office, accused Hernandez allegedly demanded 1
1990) million pesos for the return of Aoyagi’s passport.
Because of such demand, an entrapment operation
The answer would depend/be qualified by the was made. In a meeting to return Aoyagi’s passport,
implication of the phrase “to have his case calendared as Hernandez immediately left after the payment was
early as possible". made to his co-accused. Is the act of direct bribery
committed even though his act of returning the
If the phrase is interpreted as an unjust act and in passport is not a crime?
violation of the rule to give priority to the older cases,
then she would be liable under direct bribery for an act
which does not constitute a crime but is unjust. He may Yes. The second kind of direct bribery was committed by
also be held liable under Section 3(e) of RA. 3019, the the accused. Accused was convicted under the second
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended: “x x x kind of direct bribery, which contained the following
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits". elements: 1) the offender was a public officer, 2) who
received the gifts or presents personally or through
If you interpret the phrase as a non-violation of the rules another, 3) in consideration of an act that did not
and regulations then he can only be held liable for direct constitute a crime, and 4) that act related to the exercise
bribery. of official duties. First, there is no question that the
offense was committed by a public officer. Hernandez
What will be the criminal liability of Melda if she extorted money from the Aoyagi spouses for the return of
volunteered to persuade Judge Tolits Naya to rule in the passport and the promise of assistance in procuring a
Jumbo’s favor without asking any consideration? visa. Second, the offenders received the money as payoff,
(BAR 1990) which Acejas received for the group. Third, the money
was given in consideration of the return of the passport,
an act that did not constitute a crime. Fourth, both the



confiscation and the return of the passport were made in municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public
the exercise of official duties. (Acejas III v. People, G.R. No. Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00
156643, June 27, 2007). known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation,
betterment, and improvement (CRBI) for the
Torres was the principal of a high school. The school’s concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in
collection and disbursing officer prepared 3 checks Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on
representing the teachers’ and employees’ salaries proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the
and other compensation for the months of January to fund was already exhausted while the concreting of
March, 1994 in the total amount of P196,654.54. Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a
Torres signed the three (3) checks and encashed representative of the Commission on Audit
them. However, he never returned to the school to conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to
deliver the money and contends that a group of account for the P100,000.00 CRBI fund. Elizabeth,
armed men took the encashed checks from him. The who was charged with malversation of public funds,
RTC convicted Torres of the crime of malversation of was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge
public funds. He appealed his case. May Torres be but was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal
properly convicted based on the information which case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal,
clearly charged him with intentional malversation Elizabeth argued that her conviction was erroneous
and not malversation through negligence, which was as she applied the amount of P50,000.00 for a public
the actual nature of malversation for which he was purpose without violating any law or ordinance
convicted by the RTC? appro-priating the said amount for any specific
purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was,
Yes. To sustain a charge of malversation, there must in fact, established. Is the contention of Elizabeth
either be criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while legally tenable? Explain. (BAR 1996)
the prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit
Elizabeth’s contention that her conviction for illegal use
attended the commission of the offense, it will not of public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous,
preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence is legally tenable because she was charged for
of negligence because both are equally punishable under malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the
Article 217 of the RPC. Even when the Information Revised Penal Code but was convicted for illegal use of
charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation public funds which is defined and punished under Art.
through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence 220 of said Code. A public officer charged with
malversation may not be validly convicted of illegal use
ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense.
of public funds (technical malversation) because the
The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it
modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the necessarily include the crime of malversation. From the
mode charged differs from mode proved, the same facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance
offense of malversation is involved and conviction appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose.
thereof is proper (Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074,
As a matter of fact, the problem categorically states that,
August 31, 2011).
“the absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
established." So, procedurally and substantially, the
Major Cantos was assigned to supervise the
Sandiganbayan’s decision suffers from serious infirmity.
disbursement of funds for the PSG personnel and to
perform other finance duties. He placed the money in
COA Auditor Florence L. Paguirigan examined the
a duffel bag and kept it inside the steel cabinet in his
year-end reports involving the municipal officials of
office. One day, he inspected the steel cabinet and
Alfonso Lista, Ifugao and during the course of her
discovered that the duffel bag which contained the
examination, she came across a disbursement
money was missing. He was found liable by the RTC
voucher for P101,736.00 prepared for Lumauig, a
for malversation. Major Cantos contends that he
former mayor of the municipality, as cash advance
could not be liable for malversation for mere failure
for the payment of freight and other cargo charges for
to produce the funds does not necessarily mean that
12 units of motorcycles supposed to be donated to
he misappropriated the same. Is he liable for
the municipality. Despite the full efforts of COA,
malversation of public funds?
letters informing him of the unliquidated cash
advance were not sent because of the address of the
Yes. The presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal
same cannot be obtained. Lumauig admitted having
Code, as amended, states that the failure of a public officer
obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 during his
to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property
incumbency as municipal mayor of Alfonso Lista,
with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
Ifugao. This amount was intended for the payment of
authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put
freight and insurance coverage of 12 units of
such missing fund or property to personal use. The
motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the
presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if
City of Manila. However, instead of motorcycles, he
petitioner is able to present adequate evidence that can
was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. He
nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or property to
claimed that it never came to his mind to settle or
personal use, then that presumption would be at an end
liquidate the amount advanced since the vehicles
and the prima facie case is effectively negated. In this
were already turned over to the municipality. Can
case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima
Lumauig be held liable for the crime of failure of
facie evidence of guilt (Cantos v. People, G.R. No. 184908,
accountable officer to render account?
July 3, 2013).
Yes, Lumauig can be held liable with the crime of failure
Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc,
of accountable officer to render account under Art. 218.
Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she received, as


To be liable for such crime, the following requisites must performed all acts of execution which would produce the
be present: (1) that the offender is a public officer, homicide as a consequence.
whether in the service or separated therefrom; (2) that
he must be an accountable officer for public funds or If death is not produced despite the mortal character of
property; (3) that he is required by law or regulation to the wounds due to causes independent of the will of the
render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a offender, the crime committed is frustrated homicide.
provincial auditor; and (4) that he fails to do so for a
period of two months after such accounts should be If death is produced, the crime committed is
rendered. The law does not state that there must first be consummated homicide. In this situation, all the
a demand for an officer to be held liable. Therefore, he is elements necessary for execution and accomplishment of
liable to such crime (People v. Lumauig, G.R. No. 166680, homicide are present if the victim dies due to the wounds
July 7, 2014). inflicted by the offender with the intent to kill.

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Intentional felony and culpable felony

What are the essential elements of parricide as to Homicide regardless of stages must be committed with
relationship? malice (general intent) and intent to kill (specific intent).
Even if there is no intent to kill and evil intent, the
The relationship of the offender with the victim must offender is liable for culpable felony if the victim dies or
be: was injured as a result of the recklessness of the former.
1. Legitimate, except in the case of parent and child;
2. In the direct line; and If there is no intent to kill, evil intent and recklessness on
3. By blood, except in the case of a legitimate spouse. the part of the accused, he is not liable for his intentional
act, which caused the death of or injury upon the victim
Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the because of the exempting circumstance of accident.
crime of homicide, taking into account the nature of
the offense, the essential element of each of the stages Cite five (5) factors in ascertaining intent to kill.
of execution and the manner of committing such
intentional felony as distinguished from felony (1) Means used by the malefactors;
committed through reckless imprudence. (BAR (2) Nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by
2012) the victim;
(3) Conduct of the malefactors before, during, or
Elements of the crime immediately after the killing of the victim; and
(4) Circumstances under which the crime was
Homicide as an intentional felony has three stages, committed;
attempted, frustrated and consummated. (5) Motive of the offender; and
(6) Words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries
In whatever stages homicide is committed, intent to kill on the victim (De Guzman, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 178512
must be established for being an indispensible element November 26, 2014).
thereof. However, if the victim died as a consequence of
wounds caused by an act committed with malice, intent Villostas went to a nearby videoke bar to buy
to kill is conclusively presumed and the crime committed cigarettes. Once inside the bar, he was stabbed by
is consummated homicide. Because of this conclusive Olarte, Ario and Pasquin on different parts of his
presumption, lack of intent to kill is not a defense in body. When Villostas was rushed to the hospital,
consummated homicide. where he was treated and the doctor testified that all
the injuries suffered by Villostas were fatal and
NOTE: In consummated homicide, the accused may prove would cause his death were it not for the timely
lack of intent to kill for purpose of appreciating the medical attention given to him. Is Olarte, Ario, and
mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem. Pasquin guilty of Frustrated Homicide?

But if the victim did not die as a consequence of wounds A: Yes. All the elements of frustrated homicide are
caused by an act committed with malice, intent to kill present. First, their intent to kill is manifested by the
must be established beyond reasonable doubt. If intent to weapon used which is a pointed sharp object. Second, the
kill is proven, the crime committed is frustrated or victim suffered numerous fatal wounds, but he did not die
attempted homicide. If intent to kill is not proven, the due to the timely medical assistance given to him. Third,
crime committed is physical injuries. Thus, lack of intent none of the qualifying circumstances for murder is
to kill is a defense in attempted or frustrated present (Olarte vs. People, G.R. No. 197731 July 06, 2015).
Leyble was waylaid and shot with firearms by the
Nature of the crime group of Etino. Etino only fired a single shot at close
range, but did not hit any vital part of the victim’s
If the offender with intent to kill attempted to inflict or
body. It appears that he did not sustain any fatal
inflicted non-mortal wounds upon the victim, he already
directly commenced an overt act to commit homicide. injury as a result of the shooting, considering that he
Hence, the crime committed is attempted homicide if he and his companions even went in pursuit of
failed to inflict mortal wounds upon the victim by reason petitioner after the incident. RTC found petitioner
of some cause or accident other than his own guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
spontaneous desistance. If the offender with intent to kill frustrated homicide, to which the CA affirmed. Is the
inflicted mortal wounds upon the victim, he already ruling correct? Is the use of firearm sufficient to
prove intent to kill?



NO. It cannot be reasonably concluded that petitioner's D. Arson with murder as a compound crime
use of a firearm was sufficient proof that he had intended
to kill the victim, after all, it is settled that ''Intent to kill A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While
cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact that eating in a seaside restaurant, they were attacked by
the use of firearms is dangerous to life." Rather, "Animus X, Y and Z members of a rival fraternity. A rumble
interficendi must be established with the same degree of ensued in which the above-named members of the
certainty as is required of the other elements of the crime. two fraternities assaulted each other in confused and
tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it
The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the
cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the
absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent
members of the two fraternities took part in the
beyond reasonable doubt. When the intent to kill is rumble and were charged for death caused in a
lacking, but wounds are shown to have been inflicted tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? (2010
upon the victim, as in this case, the crime is not frustrated BAR)
or attempted homicide but physical injuries only (Etino
vs. People, G.R. No. 206632, February 14, 2018). No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will
not prosper. In death caused by tumultuous affray under
State the rules for the application of the Art. 251 of the RPC, it is essential that the persons
circumstances which qualify the killing to murder. involved did not compose groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
1. That murder will exist with any of the circumstances. reciprocally. In this case, there is no tumultuous affray
2. Where there are more than one qualifying since the participants in the rumble belong to organized
circumstance present, only one will qualify the fraternity.
killing, with the rest to be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances. State the effects of the reclassification of rape into a
3. That when the other circumstances are absorbed or crime against person (BAR 1993)
included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot
be considered as generic aggravating. 1. The procedural requirement of consent of the
4. That any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated offended party to file the case is no longer needed
must be alleged in the information. because this is now a public crime, unlike when it was
still classified as a crime against chastity; and
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly 2. There is now an impossible crime of rape because
found himself surrounded by four men. One of them impossible crimes can only be committed against
wrestled the police officer to the ground and persons or property.
disarmed him while the other three companions who
were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a Note: Resistance is not an element of rape, and the
balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman
absence thereof will never be tantamount to consent on
died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted
the part of the victim. Besides, in rape committed by a
by his assailants. What crime or crimes were
committed? Discuss fully. (BAR 1995) relative, such as a father, as in this case, moral influence
or ascendancy takes the place of violence (People vs.
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, Bandoquillo, G.R. No. 218913, February 07, 2018).
qualified by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of
A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all
superior strength) as the attack was sudden and
within her power to resist the force or intimidation
unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless.
Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation
assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside
there is no showing that the assailants knew that the the point. Though a man puts no hand on a woman, yet if
victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge, the by the use of mental and moral coercion and intimidation,
fact is that he was not in the performance of his official the accused so overpowers her mind out of fear that as a
duties, and therefore there is no direct assault. result she dared not resist the dastardly act inflicted on
her person, accused is guilty of the crime imputed to him
Note: The suddenness of the attack would not, by itself, (People of the Philippines v. Gabriel, G.R. No. 213390,
suffice to support a finding of treachery. However, where March 15, 2017).
proof obtains that the victim was completely deprived of
a real chance to defend himself against the attack, as in AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the house of
the instant case, thereby ensuring its commission Mr. and Mrs. M who had a good-looking 25-year old
without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest retarded daughter with the mental age of an 11-year
provocation on the part of the victim, the qualifying old girl. One day when the couple were out, Perlita,
circumstance of treachery ought to and should be the retarded daughter, entered AJ’s room, came near
appreciated. Verily, what is decisive is that the attack was him and started kissing him. He tried to avoid her.
executed in a manner that the victim was rendered But she persisted. They had sexual intercourse. This
defenseless and unable to retaliate (People of the was repeated every time Perlita’s parents were out
Philippines v. Soriano, G.R. No. 216063, June 5, 2017). until Perlita got pregnant. Mr. and Mrs. M filed a
complaint of rape against AJ who claimed that it was
Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he Perlita who seduced him that Perlita was intelligent,
killed him by setting Bugna’s house on fire. What clearly understood what she was doing, and that
crime or crimes did Dagami commit? since Perlita was already 25 years old and did not
herself filed the complaint, her parents had no
A. Murder, the arson being absorbed already personality to file the complaint for rape. How would
B. Separate crimes of murder and arson you resolve the case? (1987 BAR)
C. Arson, the homicide being absorbed already


The contention of AJ cannot be sustained. Sexual

intercourse with Perlita, who is a mental retardate, One night while AAA was sleeping, XXX hugged her
although 25 years old but with a mental age of 11 years and kissed her nape and neck. He then undressed
old girl is rape. She is the same class as a woman deprived AAA and went on top of her and held her hands.
of reason or otherwise unconscious. Since she is suffering Afterwards, he parted AAA’s legs and then tried to
from an incapacity, being incompetent on account of her insert his penis into her vagina. XXX’s penis touched
mental age, the parents have the right to file the AAA’s vagina but he stopped as soon as AAA’s cry got
complaint for rape. louder. He then threatened AAA not to disclose the
incident. What crime is committed?
Note: The crime of rape is committed when the offended
party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious. XXX is guilty of attempted rape. Without showing of such
Physical force, threat or intimidation is not necessary, for carnal knowledge, XXX is guilty only of attempted rape.
the simple reason that an unconscious and extremely Mere touching cannot be considered as slight
intoxicated woman, cannot freely and voluntarily give penetration. Since XXX did not succeed in inserting his
her consent to engaging in sexual intercourse (People vs. penis in AAA’s female organ he cannot be convicted of
Caga, G.R. No. 206878, August 8, 2016). consummated rape. Slightest penile penetration is
necessary (People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 188979, September 5,
XXX (then a 10 year-old boy) requested his mother to 2012).
pick up Ricalde at McDonald’s Bel-Air, Sta. Rosa.
Ricalde, then 31 years old, is a distant relative and Cruz and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help
textmate of XXX. After dinner, XXX’s mother told them in their plastic and glassware business during a
Ricalde to spend the night at their house as it was town fiesta in La Union. After fixing the wares in
late. He slept on the sofa while XXX slept on the living order for display they went to bed inside the tents.
room floor. It was around 2:00 a.m. when XXX awoke Less than an hour passed, AAA was awakened with
as "he felt pain in his anus and stomach and Cruz on top of her mashing her breast and touching
something inserted in his anus." He saw that Ricalde her vagina. AAA fought back and was able to free
"fondled his penis." When Ricalde returned to the herself from Cruz. She went out to seek for help. Is
sofa, XXX ran toward his mother’s room to tell her Cruz guilty for the crime of attempted rape?
what happened. He also told his mother that Ricalde
played with his sexual organ. XXX’s mother armed No, Cruz is not guilty of attempted rape. The intent to
herself with a knife for self-defense when she commit rape must be inferred from overt acts directly
confronted Ricalde about the incident, but he leading to rape. In embracing AAA and touching her
remained silent. She asked him to leave. Is Ricalde vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to
guilty of the crime of rape? lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile
penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was
Yes, all the elements of rape is present in the case at bar. on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also lie with her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust
known as "instrument or object rape," "gender-free for her (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014).
rape," or "homosexual rape." Any person who, under any
of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, CRIMES AGAINST
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of Anniban and Lerio are neighbors. Lerio entered the
another person. The gravamen of rape through sexual house of Anniban, laid down beside the infant child of
assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person’s Anniban and began chatting with her. Lerio then told
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into Anniban that she would take the infant outside to
another person’s genital or anal orifice’’ (Ricalde v. bask him under the morning sun but the latter
People, G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015). refused. A few minutes later, Anniban realized that
Lerio and her child were no longer in the house. After
AAA, a 67-year-old woman, was fast asleep when Bill searching, Anniban found her infant child, Lerio’s
covered her mouth, threatened her with a knife and boyfriend, and Lerio on board a vessel. Lerio,
told her not to scream because he will have sexual together with co-accused were charged with
intercourse with her. Thereafter, he removed AAA’s Kidnapping of a Minor. Are they liable as charged?
underwear. However, his penis was not yet erected so
he toyed with AAA’s sexual organ by licking it. He Yes. The following are the elements of kidnapping under
then made his way up and tried to suck AAA’s tongue. Art. 267, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code:
Once done, Bill held his penis and inserted it to AAA’s
vagina. In his defense, bill argued that during the 1. The offender is a private individual;
entire alleged incident AAA never reacted at all. Is Bill 2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
guilty of rape? manner deprives the latter of his or her liberty;
3. The act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
Yes, Bill is guilty of rape. AAA was already 67 years of age 4. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female
when she was raped in the dark by Bill who was armed or a public officer.
with a knife, a woman of such advanced age could only
recoil in fear and succumb into submission. In any case,
Norada and Seva made a plan to kidnap Ray Truck. On
with such shocking and horrifying experience, it would
the appointed day, Accused Villanueva fetched
not be reasonable to impose upon AAA any standard form
Reggie Pacil and Ray Truck in the house of Pacil in
of reaction. Different people react differently to a given
Valladolid but only Reggie Pacil came. Ray Truck
situation involving a startling occurrence (People v.
remained in the house of Reggie Pacil in Valladolid.
Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014).
The non-appearance of Ray Truck made them change



their plan. They decided to just kidnap Reggie Pacil What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio
as they were convinced that Rey Truck will pay commit and what was their degree of participation?
ransom for his release. However no ransom was (BAR 2013)
made and they have killed Pacil. Is there kidnapping?
Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable for the special
None, The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent Detention with Rape. It was sufficiently proved that the 4
of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the accused kidnapped Mildred and held her in detention for
imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his 5 days and carnally abused her. Since it is a special
complex crime, no matter how many times the victim had
liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of
been raped, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping
time." The totality of the prosecution's evidence failed to
and serious illegal detention with rape. The composite
sufficiently establish the offense of kidnapping in this acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense with only
case. There was no concrete evidence whatsoever to one penalty. It is illegal detention and not forcible
establish, or from which it can be inferred that accused abduction since it was evident that the intent was to
and his cohorts intended to actually deprive the victim of detain the victim.
his liberty for some time and for some purpose. There
was also no evidence that they have thoroughly planned As to the degree of their participation, Felipe, Julio,
the kidnapping of the victim. There was lack of motive to Roldan and Lucio are all liable as principals. There was
resort in kidnapping the victim for they were bent to implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single criminal
kidnap his friend Truck (People v. Norada, et. Al., G.R. No. design or purpose(People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No.
218958, December 13, 2017). 186417, July 27, 2011). Although Lucio was not around
when the sexual assaults took place, there is complicity
on his part as he was the one who drove the tricycle at the
Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. time the victim was seized and he returned everyday to
Because she was already tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, bring food and report the news to his conspirators.
the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the
situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the
raped her for a period of two (2) weeks. What crime one-week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops
did Pogi commit? (BAR 2014) Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old
mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash
Pogi committed the special complex crime of Kidnapping advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One
and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape. morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s son with
stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
All the elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in
Detention are present. Pogi, a private individual, the afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom
kidnapped and detained Sexy by bringing her to a for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the
deserted place. Said detention is illegal and is serious ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a
because it lasted for more than 3 days and the victim is a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic
female. with his child already dead. According to the autopsy
report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three
The special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or
Illegal Detention with Rape resulted because Sexy, the crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (BAR 2005)
victim of the kidnapping and detention, was raped as a
consequence of the detention. (Article 267, last par., RPC) Paz committed the special complex crime of kidnapping
Since it is a special complex crime, regardless of the with homicide under Art. 267, RFC as amended by R.A.
number of times the victim had been raped, there is only 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another
one single indivisible offense of Kidnapping and Serious or in any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim
Illegal Detention with Rape. dies as a consequence is liable for kidnapping with
homicide and shall be penalized with the maximum
While walking alone on her way home from a party, penalty. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the
Mildred was seized at gun point by Felipe and taken one-week old child was merely kept in the attic of his
on board a tricycle to a house some distance away. house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed
Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove with tape, the deprivation of liberty and the intention to
the tricycle. kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the
means employed by Paz was attended by treachery
At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate charge of
having sexual intercourse with Mildred against her murder will not be proper in view of the amendment.
will and under the threat of Felipe's gun. Lucio was Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic sense and
not around when the sexual assaults took place as he covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of
left after bringing his colleagues and Mildred to their murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence
destination, but he returned everyday to bring food. shows the death of the child took place three minutes
For five days, Felipe, Julio and Roldan kept Mildred in after the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom
the house and took turns in sexually assaulting her. took place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling
On the 6th day, Mildred managed to escape; she here, that is, ransom was demanded.
proceeded immediately to the nearest police station
and narrated her ordeal. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Can there be a crime of robbery with attempted rape?


The crime cannot be a complex crime of robbery with defense. (BAR 2014)
attempted rape under Article 48, because a robbery
cannot be a necessary means to commit attempted rape; The defense of Clepto has no merit. Theft is already
nor attempted rape, to commit robbery (People v. consummated from the moment Clepto took possession
Cariaga, C.A., 54 O.G. 4307). of one of the smaller purses inside a high-end shop,
without paying for it. She took the personal property of
What is the criminal liability of a person who, on the another, with intent to gain, without the consent of the
occasion of a robbery, kills a bystander by accident? latter. Damage or injury to the owner is not an element of
theft, hence, even if she left her purse in lieu of the purse
The person is liable for robbery with homicide because she took, theft is still committed.
the Revised Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one
indivisible offense when a killing, whether intentional or When is the crime of theft qualified?
accidental, was committed by reason or on occasion of a
robbery (Art. 294[1], RPC; People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568 1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant;
[1938]). 2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of
What is essential for a conviction for the crime of
robbery with homicide? NOTE: If the offense is to be qualified by abuse of
confidence, the abuse must be grave, like an accused
What is for the prosecution to establish the offender’s who was offered food and allowed to sleep in the
intent to take personal property before the killing, house of the complainant out of the latter’s pity and
regardless of the time when the homicide is actually charity, but stole the latter’s money in his house
carried out. In cases when the prosecution failed to when he left the place.
conclusively prove that homicide was committed for the
purpose of robbing the victim, no accused can be 3. If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter
convicted of robbery with homicide (People v. Chavez, G.R. or large cattle;
No. 207950, September 22, 2014). 4. If the property stolen consist of coconuts taken from
the premises of a plantation;
Conspiracy in Robbery with Homicide 5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery; or
Fernandez opened the gate of Anna Leizel Trading 6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire,
without first checking who was knocking outside earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
thereby allowing Paris and his companions to freely calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
enter the premises. Thereafter, Paris and his
companions purposely proceeded directly to the Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor
room occupied by the victim Salvador. Paris and his Madam Y, a check payable to cash in the amount of P1
companions did not harm Fernandez despite the million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y.
latter having already recognized or seen their faces, Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X
instead, they went looking for Salvador who was then credited the amount to the account of her good
asleep and killed him. Fernandez directed Paris and friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip.
his companions to the office of Anna. Fernandez did Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good
friend, Madam W and told her that the amount of P1
not offer any resistance nor attempted to help
million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus,
Salvador. Fernandez did not do anything after seeing
Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of
Paris and his companions leave Anna's office P1 million from her account and to turn over the
carrying a bag, interestingly, he waited for more than same to MadamX. As a dutiful friend, Madam W
three hours before informing his employers about readily acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an
the incident. Is Fernandez guilty of Robbery with expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the
Homicide? amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and
Madam W commit? Explain. (BAR 2014)
YES. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all. Thus, "when homicide is committed by reason or on Madam X committed the crime of Qualified Theft under
the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as Article 310, RPC. When Madam X, a bank teller, received
principals in the robbery would also be held liable as the check payable to cash in the amount of P1million for
principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery deposit to the account of Madam Y, what was transferred
with homicide although they did not actually take part in to her was merely the physical or material possession
the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored thereof. Hence, her subsequent misappropriation of the
to prevent the same." In the present case, both Fernandez amount shall constitute theft, qualified by grave abuse of
and Paris were co-conspirator who are guilty of the confidence. There is grave abuse of confidence because
special complex crime of robbery with homicide (People the relationship of guardianship, dependence, and
vs. Paris, G.R. No. 218130, February 14, 2018) vigilance between the depositor and the bank created a
high degree of confidence between them which Madam X,
Cclepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and as the bank teller representing the bank, abused.
decided to take one of the smaller purses without
paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to What does fraud and deceit in the crime of estafa
leave her own purse in place of the one she took. Her mean?
act was discovered and Clepto was charged with theft.
She claimed that there was no theft, as the store In Alcantara v. CA, the Court, citing People v. Balasa,
suffered no injury or prejudice because she had left a explained the meaning of fraud and deceit, viz.:
purse in place of the one she took. Comment on her



Fraud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything the offender committed the same against three (3) or
calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and more persons, individually or as a group.
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty,
trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to Likewise Solina is also liable for estafa under Article 315
another, or by which an undue and unconscientious (2) (a) of the RPC when she defrauded the private
advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term complainants into believing that she had the authority
embracing all multifarious means which human and capability to facilitate applications for employment
ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one as factory workers in Japan in lieu of a fee amounting to
individual to secure an advantage over another by false Php20, 000.00 in which the complainants complied with
suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all resulting to their own damage and prejudiced when such
surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way promise for employment never materialized (People v.
by which another is cheated. Solina, G.R. No. 196784, January 13, 2016).

Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact Ernesto Pideli, assisted his brother, Wilson, and his
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading business partner, Placido Cancio, in purchasing
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have construction materials for a project by allowing them
been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive to use his credit line in Mt. Trail Farm Supply and
another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury Hardware (MTFSH). At the completion of their
(Lateo v. People, G.R. No. 161651, June 8, 2011). project, the business partners Wilson and Cancio
heeded to the advice of Ernesto that their net income
Separate charges for estafa and illegal recruitment of P130, 000.00 should be applied first to settle their
balance to MTFSH, and they entrusted the entire
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted amount to Ernesto, with express instructions to pay
separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. MTFSH and deliver the remaining balance to them.
8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Afterwards, Ernesto refused to give Cancio his share
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. in the net income despite the latter’s repeated
demands. Is Ernesto guilty of Theft or Estafa?
The Court explicated in People v. Cortez and Yabut that: In
this jurisdiction, it is settled that the offense of illegal Ernesto is guilty of Theft, not Estafa. The Court has
recruitment is malumprohibitum where the criminal consistently ruled that not all misappropriation is estafa.
intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, The principal distinction between the two crimes is that
while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of in theft, the thing is taken while in estafa, the accused
the accused is crucial for conviction. receives the property and converts it to his own use or
benefit. However, there may be theft even if the accused
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only
bar conviction for offenses punishable by other with the material or physical or de facto possession of the
laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft,
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a such as in the case at bar, but if he has the juridical
conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor possession of the thing, his conversion of the same
Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa constitutes embezzlement or estafa (Pideli v. People, G.R.
will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of No. 163437, February 13, 2008).
illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa (People v.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011). Carganillo was alleged to have entered a Kasunduan
with Teresita Lazaro, a rice trader in Nueva Ecija.
Solina met with seven (7) people and gave the Teresita gave the accused 132,000.00 pesos for the
impression that she had the capability to facilitate purpose of buying palay to be delivered on or before
applications for employment as factory workers in Nov. 28, 1998 to Lazaro Palay Buying Station. In their
Japan in lieu of a fee amounting to Php20, 000.00. Kasunduan, the parties agreed that for every kilo of
These people believed Solina paid the said amount, palay bought, the petitioner shall earn a commission
however no such promise materialized and the of twenty centavos (P0.20). But if no palay is
money taken as a fee was never returned. Is Solina purchased and delivered on November 28, the
guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale petitioner must return the P132, 000.00 to Teresita
as well as estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the within one (1) week after November 28. However, no
RPC? palay was received on the agreed day and the
132,000.00 was never returned. Then Teresita made
Yes, Solina is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in oral and written demands to the petitioner for the
large scale as well as estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of return of the P132, 000.00 but her demands were
the RPC. It is settled that a person may be charged and simply ignored. Is Carganillo guilty of the crime of
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. estafa?
8042 and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
Yes. All elements of estafa are present. First, that money,
In this case all the elements of the crime of illegal goods or other personal property is received by the
recruitment in large scale are present: (1) the offender offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
has no valid license or authority required by law to or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and delivery of or to return the same. The petitioner received
placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of in trust the amount of P132,000 from Teresita for the
the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and purpose of buying palay. Second, that there be
placement” under Article 13 (b) 14 of the Labor Code, or misappropriation or conversion of such money or
any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article property by the offender, or denial on his part of such
34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) receipt. There was misappropriation when petitioner


failed to conform in their Kasunduan, not delivering the CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
agreed palay nor returning the 132,000 for such failure of
delivery of palay. Third, that such misappropriation or ELEMENTS OF ELEMENTS OF
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. The ADULTERY CONCUBINAGE
acts of petitioner were to the prejudice of Teresita. Lastly,
that there is demand by the offended party to the 1. To convict a woman 1. Man must be married;
offender. Teresita demanded for the return of the for adultery, it is
P132,000 and this was shown in her oral and written necessary: 2. He committed any of
demands to the petitioner (Carganillo v. People, G.R. No. a. That she is a the following acts:
182424, September 22, 2014). married woman; a. Keeping a
and mistress in the
Madarang went to Villanueva’s residence and was b. That she unites conjugal
able to sell to Villanueva five sets of jewelry. in sexual dwelling;
Villanueva made out nine checks, eight of which were intercourse with b. Having sexual
postdated for the payment of such jewelries. a man not her intercourse,
Madarang received the checks because of husband. under scandalous
Villanueva’s assurance that they would all be circumstances,
honored upon presentment. However, the drawee 2. To convict a man for with a woman
bank paid only one of the eight postdated checks adultery, it is who is not his
since the remaining checks were dishonored on necessary: wife; or
account of insufficient funds and account closed. Is a. That he had c. Cohabiting with
Madarang liable for estafa? actual her in any other
intercourse with place.
Yes. All the elements are present, in which the first a married
element was admitted by Villanueva, who confirmed that woman; and 3. As regards the
she had issued the checks to b. That he commits woman, she must
Madarang in exchange for the jewelry she had purchased. the act with the know him to be
There is no question that Madarang accepted the checks knowledge that married.
upon the assurance of Villanueva that they would be said woman is
funded upon presentment. The second element was married.
likewise established because the checks were dishonored
upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds or NOTE: Adultery as to the
because the account was already closed. The third male sexual partner of
element was also proved by the showing that Madarang the married woman.
suffered prejudice by her failure to collect from
Villanueva (People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 163662, AAA was about to enter the school campus with her
February 25, 2015). friend when Cayanan, her brother-in-law, arrived on
a tricycle and pulled AAA towards the tricycle. She
Sato, through fraudulent misrepresentations, was tried shouting but Cayanan covered her mouth.
able to secure the signature and thumbmark of Cayanan brought AAA to a dress shop to change her
Manolita Gonzales on a Special Power of Attorney clothes since she was in her school uniform, and later
where his daughter is made attorney-in-fact and sold to a Jollibee outlet. Afterwards, he brought her to his
four valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. Estafa sister’s house and raped her inside a bedroom. AAA
under Art 315 (3) was filed against him in the RTC. told her mother and brother of the incident and she
Sato moved for the quashal of the Information was shown to be suffering from depressive symptoms
claiming that under Art 332, his relationship with and presence of sexual abuse. Cayanan interposed
Manolita Gonzales, his mother-in-law, was an the sweetheart defense and presented two love
exempting circumstance. Is Sato exempted from letters supposedly written by AAA. The RTC and CA
criminal liability under Art 332 for the complex convicted Cayanan of Forcible Abduction with
crime of estafathrough falsification of public Qualified Rape. Is Cayanan guilty for the crime of
documents? forcible abduction with qualified rape?
No, Sato is not exempted from criminal liability under Art No, Cayanan should only be liable for qualified rape.
332 for the complex crime of estafa through falsification Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the
of public documents. The absolutory cause under Art 332 real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. In this
is meant to address only simple crime of theft, swindling, case, circumstances show that AAA’s abduction was with
and malicious mischief. When the offender resorts to an the purpose of raping her (People v. Cayanan, G.R. No.
act that breaches the public interest in the integrity of 200080, July 18, 2014).
public documents as to violate the property rights of a
family member, he is removed from the protective mantle
of the absolutory cause under Art 332 (Intestate Estate of CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
Manolita Gonzales, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
A contracted a second marriage while having a
subsistent and valid first marriage. The first
marriage was declared void ab initio. Subsequently, A
was charged with the crime of Bigamy. A contends that
the information on Bigamy must be quashed on the
ground that there was a declaration of nullity of the
previous marriage prior to the filing of the action. Is
the contention of A correct?



No, the contention of A is wrong. It has been clarified in False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth
the Family Code and has been held in a number of cases shall be admissible in libel cases only if the same imputes
that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to
valid subsequent marriage can be contracted. What facts related to the discharge of their official duties, and
makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he moreover must have been published with good motives
contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the and for justifiable ends. Hence, "truth" as a defense, on its
subsistence of a valid marriage. xxx Well settled is the own, is not enough.
rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender
upon the commission of the offense and from that instant, X was charged with the crime of libel. In his defense
liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by he contended that he should not be liable for the
law and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint or crime of libel because there is no malice in fact
information is material only for determining prescription proven by the prosecution since he is merely a
(People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013). responding urban poor leader acting as counsel,
defending a member of an association under threat of
Vitangcol married Alice Eduardo and begot 3 ejectment from her dwelling place, and thus should
children. After some time Alice began hearing rumors be considered as privileged communication. X also
that her husband was previously married to another contends that there is no proper publication since the
woman named Gina Gaerlan. Such marriage was libelous remarks were only made in a private
supported by a marriage contract registered with the correspondence. Are the contentions of X correct?
NSO. This prompted Alice to file a criminal complaint
for bigamy against Vitangcol. In his defense, X is criminally liable of the crime of libel. When the
Vitangcol alleges that he already revealed to Alice imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not
that he had a “fake marriage” with his college prove malice on the part of X (malice in fact) for the law
girlfriend Gina and that there is a Certification from already presumes that his imputation is malicious
the Office of the Civil Registrar that there is no record (malice in law). There is publication when that same
of the marriage license issued to Vitangcol and his letter was furnished to all those concerned. A written
first wife Gina which makes his first marriage as void. letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as
Is Vitangcol liable of the crime of bigamy? privileged when it is published and circulated among the
public (Buatis v. People, G.R. No. 142509, March 24, 2006).
Yes, Vitangcol is liable of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy
consists of the following elements: (1) that the offender Alexis filed an action for damages arising from libel
has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage had and defamation against Alejandro on account of a
not yet been legally dissolved or in case his or her spouse published letter containing the following:
is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a This is to notify you and your staff that one ALEXIS
second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second "DODONG" C. ALMENDRAS, a brother, is not vested with
or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites any authority to liaison or transact any business with
for validity. In this case, all the elements of bigamy are any department, office, or bureau, public or otherwise,
present, since Vitangcol was still legally married to Gina that has bearing or relation with my office, mandates
when he married Alice. His defense of Certification from or functions. xxx.
the Office of the Civil Registrar implying that there is no
record of the marriage license issued to Vitangcol and his Noteworthy to mention, perhaps, is the fact that Mr.
first wife Gina will not lie since marriages are not Alexis “Dodong” C. Almendras, a reknown blackmailer,
dissolved through mere certifications by the civil is a bitter rival in the just concluded election of 1995
registrar. Hence, Vitangcol is still considered to be legally who ran against the wishes of my father, the late
married to Gina when he married Alice and is not Congressman Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr. He has
exculpated from the bigamy charged (Vitangcol v. People, caused pain to the family when he filed cases against
G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016). us, his brothers and sisters, and worst, against his own
Maine was validly married to Liko on June 1, 2015.
Liko, however, died a month after the celebration of I deemed that his act of transacting business that
their marriage. Three months after the death of her affects my person and official functions is malicious in
husband, Maine found another love of her life in the purpose, done with ill motive and part of a larger plan
name of Darney. They eventually fell in love with of harassment activities to perforce realise his egoistic
each other. Darney married Maine on October 3, and evil objectives. May I therefore request the
2015. Is Maine liable for any crime? assistance of your office in circulating the above
information to concerned officials and secretariat
No. R.A. 10655 (March 13, 2015) decriminalized the act employees of the House of Representatives. x xx
of premature marriage. Article 1 of the said law provides
that “without prejudice to the provisions of the Family Alejandro in his defense insists that he has the legal,
Code on paternity and filiation, Article 351 of Act No. moral, or social duty to make the communication, or
3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, at least, had an interest to protect, being then a
punishing the crime of premature marriage committed Congressman duty-bound to insulate his office and
by a woman, is hereby repealed.” his constituents from the dubious and mistrustful
pursuits of his elder brother. Moreover, the letters
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR were also not meant to be circulated or published.
They were sent merely to warn the individuals of
True or false. In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute respondent’s nefarious activities, and made in good
defense. (BAR 2010)


faith and without any actual malice. Is Alejandro mere negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle, but
guilty of Libel? a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is
required. The fact that Y’s body was thrown four (4)
Yes. Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is meters away from his jeep showed that X was driving his
presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good pick-up at a fast speed when he overtook the jeep of Y.
intention and justifiable motive is shown. As an exception
to the rule, the presumption of malice is done away with The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
when the defamatory imputation qualifies as privileged cannot be appreciated in his favor. Paragraph 5 of Article
communication. 365, Revised Penal Code, expressly states that in the
imposition of the penalties, the courts shall exercise their
In order to qualify as privileged communication under sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed
Article 354, Number 1, the following requisites must in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code (Mariano v. People,
concur: G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014).

1. The person who made the communication had a X, while descending from a curved path, collided with
legal, moral, or social duty to make the a motorcycle, killing Y, one of its passengers, and
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, causing serious physical injuries to the two other
which interest may either be his own or of the one to victims. The body of Y was loaded to the vehicle of X
whom it is made; but the latter’s engine would not start; thus the body
2. The communication is addressed to an officer or a was loaded in a different vehicle. The jack of X was
board, or superior, having some interest or duty in used to extricate the body of Y from being pinned
the matter, and who has the power to furnish the under the vehicle of X. X, in his defense, claimed that
protection sought; and it was not his fault that the tricycle swerved in his
3. The statements in the communication are made in direction. X was charged with Reckless Imprudence
good faith and without malice. Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious Physical
Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in
Alejandro’s contention that he has the legal, moral or relation to Article 263 of the RPC “with the
social duty to make the communication cannot be aggravating circumstance that accused failed to lend
countenanced because he failed to communicate the on the spot to the injured party such help that was in
statements only to the person or persons who have some his hands to give”. Should the court appreciate the
interest or duty in the matter alleged, and who have the alleged aggravating circumstance?
power to furnish the protection sought by the author of
the statement. A written letter containing libelous matter No. The aggravating circumstance “that accused failed to
cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and lend on the spot to the injured party such help that was in
circulated among the public. his hands to give” should not be appreciated. Verily, it is
the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE indifference to the consequences of the conduct which
supplies the criminal intent in Article 365. The limiting
What is reckless imprudence? element in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC,
which imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon the
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without offender who “fails to lend on the spot to the injured
malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material parties such help as may be in his hands to give.”
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of According to case law, the following must be present to
precaution on the part of the person performing of failing constitute the offense: (a) is dependent on the means in
to perform such act, taking into consideration his the hands of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the
physical condition and other circumstances regarding incident, is capable of giving; and (b) requires adequate
persons, time and place. proof. X was able to supply the help according to the
extent of capabilities (Gonzaga v. People, G.R. No. 195671,
What is simple imprudence? January 21, 2015).

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

displayed in cases in which the damage impending to be
caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
Y while alighting from his vehicle was hit by X with
his car. This caused Y to be thrown four meters away Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation.
from his jeepney. X was charged with frustrated Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer,
murder and convicted in the RTC of frustrated inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of
homicide. Upon appeal in the CA, the crime was shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The
modified to reckless imprudence resulting in serious inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but
physical injuries. X contends that he is not liable for Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with
such crime because he lacked criminal intent; that he flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets
was not negligent in driving his pick-up truck; and to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days.
that the CA should have appreciated voluntary During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas
surrender as a mitigating circumstance in his favor. stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets
Is X’s contention correct? examined by the forensic chemist is in fact
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas
The contention of X is wrong. To constitute the offense of was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On
reckless driving, the act must be something more than a appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the



evidence because Macario failed to observe the misappropriation or failure to account for the confiscated
requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu" or seized dangerous drugs. (b) Sec. 4 in relation to Sec.
seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor 3(ee) for their acts as protector/coddler of Dante Ong
General claimed that despite non-compliance with who imported drugs.
some requirements, the prosecution was able to
show that the integrity of the substance was In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution for
preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations illegal importation or illegal transportation of dangerous
from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas drugs, where the penalty is life imprisonment to death,
stipulated that the substance seized from Dimas was they are also liable for qualified bribery under Art. 211-A
shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed. of the Revised Penal Code.

Rule on the contention of the State. (BAR 2016) With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal
importation of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4, R.A. 9165,
The contention of the state is meritorious. The rule is if PR 181 is an international flight. If PR 181 is a domestic
settled that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), flight, he is liable for violation of Sec. 5, RA. 9165 for
Article II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the Who are subject to confirmatory drug test under
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the Section 15 of R.A. 9165?
seized item. Moreover, the issue of non-compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165 cannot be raised for the first time A person apprehended or arrested who are to be subject
on appeal (People v. Badilla, G.R. No. 218578, August 31, of confirmatory drug test cannot literally mean any
2016). person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The
phrase must be read in context and understood in
Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends
“session.” Thinking that it was for a mahjong session, persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed
Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio’s house, under Article II of the law. In this case, the accused
Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu appellant was arrested in the alleged act of extortion,
session. At that precise time, the place was raided by hence, the drug test conducted to him despite his
the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. objection is rendered illegal and is therefore
What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? inadmissible. Since the drug test was the only basis for his
Explain your answer. (BAR 2007) conviction, the Court ordered the acquittal of the accused
(Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014).
Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. Sec. 7 of
Republic Act No. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Is coordination with the PDEA an indispensable
Drugs of 2002 punishes employees and visitors of a den, requirement before police authorities may carry out
dive or resort where dangerous drugs are used in any a buy-bust operation?
form. But for a visitor of such place to commit the crime,
it is a requisite that he “is aware of the nature of the place Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable
as such and shall knowingly visit the same.” These requirement before police authorities may carry out a
requisites are absent in the facts given. buy-bust operation. While it is true that Republic Act No.
9165 requires the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to
After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug
notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight related matters," the provision does not make PDEA’s
NO. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust
formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong operation. A buy-bust operation is just a form of an in
arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the
seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully
Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No.
plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not
Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA
him in an unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito Lorbes. (People v. Balaquiot, G.R. No. 206366, August 13, 2014).
On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White
Plains corner EDSA, Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when
PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the they met a group of policemen who had earlier been
drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic tipped off that A was in possession of prohibited
sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and sensing that
car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of they were after him, A handed a sachet containing
heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide it in her
silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet
them, an NBI team of agents had been following them inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A was a
and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief drug user or pusher or that what was inside the
Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless
another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act? (BAR 2002)
him. All of them were later charged. What are their
respective criminal liabilities? (BAR 2006) No, B will not be criminally liable because she is unaware
that A was a drug user or pusher or of the content of the
Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who sachet handed to her by A, and therefore the criminal
conspired in taking the attache case are liable for the intent to possess the drug in violation of the Dangerous
following crimes defined under RA. 9165: (a) Sec. 27 for Drugs Act is absent. There would be no basis to impute


criminal liability to her in the absence of animus evidence to the trial court. Is there compliance to the
possidendi. fourth link in the chain of custody?

Estipona Jr. was charged with violation of Sec. 11 of NO. The fourth link is the turnover and submission of the
RA 9165. On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining the court. It should be emphasized that the City
Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea Prosecutor's Office is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs. It has
Sec. 12 of RA 9165, with a penalty of rehabilitation in absolutely no business in taking custody of dangerous
view of his being a first-time offender and the drugs before they are brought before the court (People
minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 219955, February 05, 2018, Del
possession being a first-time offender. Prosecution Castillo, J.).
moved for the denial of the motion arguing that it is
prohibited by express provision of Sec. 23, RA 9165. What is the primary purpose of establishing the chain
May Estipona, Jr. plead guilty for a lesser offense? of custody?

Yes. The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice Compliance with the chain of custody requirement
and procedure is now the Supreme Court’s exclusive ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or
domain and no longer shared with the Executive and surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4)
Legislative departments. The other branches encroaches respects:
upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders
that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the 1. The nature of the substances or items seized;
procedural rules promulgated by the Court. 2. The quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items
Plea bargaining is rule of procedure. In this jurisdiction, 3. The relation of the substances or items seized to the
plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby incident allegedly causing their seizure; and
the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually 4. The relation of the substances or items seized to the
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court person/s alleged to have been in possession of or
approval." There is give-and-take negotiation common in peddling them.
plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that
both the prosecution and the defense make concessions Compliance with this requirement forecloses
to avoid potential losses. Considering the presence of opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering
mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining of evidence in any manner.
neither create a right nor take away a vested right.
Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti indicates
right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal
rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-
justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal.
or infraction of them.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited
Sec. 23 of RA 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining in drug drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a
related cases is unconstitutional (Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity
No. 226679, August 15, 2017). of the prohibited drug must be established with moral
certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of
What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance
offenses? (BAR 2016) illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be
To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must established with the same degree of certitude as that
show the movement of the dangerous drugs from its needed to sustain a guilty verdict (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R.
confiscation up to its presentation in court. The following No. 205821 October 1, 2014).
links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
bust situation are: The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of
an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal a finding that the matter in question is what the
drug recovered from the accused by the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
apprehending officer; about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal would describe how and from whom it was received,
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory where it was and what happened to it while in the
examination; and witness’ possession, the condition in which it was
4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal received and the condition in which it was delivered to
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. the next link in the chain. Thus, if the prosecution failed
to present the testimony of a police inspector who had
After laboratory examination of the seized sachets of the only keys to the evidence locker where the sachet of
marijuana by the forensic chemist, the PNP Crime shabu, the unbroken chain of custody was not established
Laboratory agreed to turn over custody of the seized and the accused must be acquitted (People v. Abetong,
items to an unnamed receiving person at the City G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014).
Prosecutor's Office before they were submitted as



May the defense of non-compliance to chain of Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue
custody rule be raised for the first time on appeal? against failure to present the confidential
informant/poseur-buyer except that none of the
When an accused raises the issue of non-compliance by members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the
the police officers with Sec. 21 of the IRR of R.A. 9165 transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer
particularly the lack of physical inventory of the seized due to their being positioned at a distance at the moment
specimen and the non-taking of photograph thereof on of the supposed transaction.
appeal after the CA rendered a decision, the Court must
uphold his conviction. Cabrera should have raised the The presentation of the confidential informants as
said issue before the trial court. Truly, objection to witnesses for the Prosecution in those instances could be
evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. excused because there were poseur buyers who directly
When a party desires the court to reject the evidence incriminated the accused. In this case, however, it was
offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. different, because the poseur buyer and the confidential
Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for informant were one and the same. Without the poseur
the first time on appeal (People v. Cabrera, G.R. No. buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly incriminate
190175, November 12, 2014). Andaya (People v. Andaya, G.R. No. 183700, October 13,
Is the delay in the turn-over of the dangerous drugs
to the PNP Crime Laboratory decisive in the Is the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in
prosecution for violation of dangerous drugs act? illegal drugs case a sufficient cause for acquittal?

Yes. When there was delay in the turn-over of the corpus NO. The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic
delicti to the PNP Crime Laboratory as it was alleged that chemist to testify on how the seized items were handled
the date the illegal sachet was seized falls on a Friday and and taken into custody is not fatal to the admissibility of
therefore the PNP Crime Laboratory was closed, it the seized drugs and its paraphernalia. What is of utmost
appears that said date falls on a Wednesday, not on a importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
Friday, conviction must be immediately set aside. It must evidentiary value of the seized drugs (People v. Galicia,
be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018).
illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which
constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the A police officer surreptitiously placed a marijuana
necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are stick in a student’s pocket and then arrested him for
the same seized items (People v. Sumili, G.R. No. 212160, possession of marijuana cigarette. What crime can
February 4, 2015). the police officer be charged with? (BAR 2012)

Is the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs a. None, as it is a case of entrapment

case essential for the conviction of an accused? b. Unlawful arrest
c. Incriminating an innocent person
No. The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs d. Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person
case is not essential for the conviction nor is it with unlawful arrest
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his
testimony would be merely corroborative and NOTE: The correct answer is not included in the choices.
cumulative. The informant’s testimony is not needed if The correct answer is “planting of evidence.”
the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by
the prosecution (People v. Amansec, 662 SCRA 574, Section 29 of R.A. 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous
December 14, 2011). Drugs Act of 2002, specifically punishes the act of
planting dangerous drugs. Section 29 provides that any
Based on an information from an informant, a buy- person who is found guilty of “planting” any dangerous
bust operation was constituted. The police officers drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
occupied different positions in order to observe their regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty
informant who was also the poseur buyer. The of death.
transaction between the informant and accused
Andaya was made and thereafter, the prearranged Section 3(cc), R.A. 9165 defines planting of evidence as
signal signifying consummation of the transaction the willful act of any person of maliciously and
was given. The police officers approached the two surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching,
and arrested them. The accused was charged with directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act,
illegal sale of drugs but he contends that the non- whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or
presentation during the trial of the confidential controlled precursor and essential chemical in the
informant who was the poseur buyer was adverse to person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an
the prosecution, indicating that his guilt was not innocent individual for the purpose of implicating,
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Is the presentation incriminating or imputing the commission of any
of informant necessary in the prosecution for illegal violation of R.A. 9165.
sale of dangerous drugs?
Two vehicles were suspected to be used for
As a rule, it is not necessary for the State to present the transportation of dangerous drugs. The Starex van
informant during the trial for illegal sale of dangerous driven by Mayor Mitra was able to pass the
drugs. However, in this case, the confidential informant checkpoint, however, the ambulance driven by
was not a police officer but he was designated to be the Morilla was stopped for it was noticed that there
poseur buyer himself. The State did not present the were several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry,
confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to Morilla said that the sacks contained narra wooden
describe how exactly the transaction between him and tiles. But the police officers requested for further


inspection where it was noticed that white crystalline Cite an example of an act which constitute as graft
granules were scattered on the floor. At the request and corrupt practices and state the elements
of the police officers to open the sacks, Morilla said constituting the crime.
that he was with Mayor Mitra to let him pass. Upon
inspection, the contents of the sacks turned out to be Sec. 3 (e) Causing any undue injury to any part including
sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. It the government, or giving any private party any
was also found that the van driven by Mayor Mitra unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
contains the same. Accused was charged with illegal discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
transport of dangerous drugs. Morilla contends that functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
his mere act of driving a vehicle containing gross inexcusable negligence.
dangerous drugs is not sufficient to convict him. Is his
contention meritorious? The elements are as follows:

No. Mere act of driving is sufficient to convict Morilla of 1. The said offender is public officer who performs
the crime charge. “Transport”, as used under the official, administrative or judicial functions
Dangerous Drugs Act, means “to carry or convey from one 2. That said official acted with manifest partiality,
place to another.” It was well-established during trial that evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of 3. The said official caused any undue injury to any
Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex vangoing to party, including the government, or gave any private
Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in
hydrochloride or shabu is malum prohibitum since it is the discharge of his official functions.
punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of
transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs How many crimes are mentioned in this example?
need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge (People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, There are two (2) crimes mentioned. The SC said that the
February 5, 2014). law used the disjunctive word “or”, hence two crimes are
mentioned under Section 3(e) — (1) Causing any undue
PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian injury to any party; (2) Giving any private party any
clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.
operations. While they were in front of a sari-sari
store, accused Laylo approached them and asked, Q. Atty. David, President of the Eastern Samar
“Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu?” PO1 Reyes replied, Chapter of the IBP sent a letter to the Office of the
“Bakit mayroon ka ba?” Laylo then brought out two Ombudsman, praying for an investigation into the
plastic bags containing shabu and told the police alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco Adalim, an
officers, “Dos (P200.00) ang isa.” Upon hearing this, accused in a criminal case for murder, from the
the police officers introduced themselves as cops. provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of
PO1 Reyes immediately arrested Laylo. A laboratory then Governor Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. The NBI filed a
examination was conducted which found the Report recommending the filing of criminal charges
recovered items positive for methylamphetamine against Governor Ambil, Jr. for violation of Section
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Is there a 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
crime committed even though the sale of illegal drugs Practices Act, as amended). It was alleged that the
was not consummated? detention prisoner Mayor Adalim was released from
jail and allowed to stay at Ambil’s residence for a
Yes. The crime committed was attempted illegal sale of period of 85 days, without any court order
drugs punishable under Section 26(b) of R.A. 9165. The authorizing such transfer. Thus, Ambil in the
elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of performance of his official functions, had given
drugs are – first, identity of the buyer and seller; second, unwarranted benefits and advantages to detainee
the object, and the consideration; and third, the delivery Mayor Francisco Adalim to the prejudice of the
of the thing sold and the payment. The policemen were government. Ambil admitted the allegations in the
the poseur-buyers and the appellant was the seller. The information. They argued, however, that Adalim’s
substance contained in the plastic sachets which were transfer was justified considering the imminent
found to be positive for shabu as the object, and the threats upon his person and the dangers posed by his
consideration, which is P200.00 for each sachet, was detention at the provincial jail. This threat was that
made known by the appellant. However, the sale was of Akyatan's gesture of raising a closed fist at Adalim.
interrupted when the poseur-buyers introduced Can Ambil Jr. be held liable?
themselves to the appellant; hence, the crime was not
consummated. The appellant already commenced by Yes. Without a court order, Ambil and Apelado
overt acts the commission of the intended crime by transferred Adalim and detained him in a place other
showing the substance to both of the policemen but did than the provincial jail. The latter was housed in much
not perform all the acts of execution which would more comfortable quarters, provided better
produce such crime by reason of some cause or accident nourishment, was free to move about the house and
other than his own spontaneous desistance. Such cause watch television. Ambil readily extended these benefits
or accident is when the policemen introduced themselves to Adalim on the mere representation of his lawyers that
and the sale was immediately aborted. Hence, appellant the mayor's life would be put in danger inside the
is guilty of attempted sale of dangerous drugs (People v. provincial jail (Ambil Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, July 6, 2011). 175457, July 6, 2011).

ANTI-GRAFT AND Mayor Fuentes received a report from Chief of Police

CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT that Valenzuela (owner of Triple A) was engaged in
smuggling and drug trading. With these reports, he



refused to sign Triple A’s Business Permit despite administrative matters, such that the first two will not
Triple A’s payment of renewal fees, submission of inevitably govern or affect the third and vice versa. Verily,
Police Clearance certifying that Valenzuela had no administrative cases may proceed independently of
derogatory records and all municipal officers criminal proceedings. Criminal actions will not preclude
signified their approval thereto. Does Mayor Fuentes’ administrative proceedings, and vice-versa, insofar as the
act of issuing business permits to all applicants application of the law on preventive suspension is
except to Valenzuela constitute manifest partiality concerned (Villaseor v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180700,
and bad faith? March 4, 2008).

Yes, there is manifest partiality and bad faith. There is Mayor Demaala was re-elected the mayor of Pasig
“manifest partiality” when there is a clear, notorious, or City and was charged with violations of RA 3019 for
plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or acts allegedly committed in her previous term as
person rather than another. There is “evident bad faith” if mayor. Mayor Demaala was arraigned and pleaded
it connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and not guilty and contested the preventive suspensions
patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral sissued against her, because she argued that her re-
obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse election rendered such preventive suspension for
motive or ill will. It is a state of mind which is acts conducted in her previous term invalid. Is Mayor
affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some Demaala’s contention tenable?
motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose.
Mayor Fuentes should have acted upon illegal activities of No, Preventive Suspension was proper to prevent Mayor
Valenzuela and it was shown in the records that Mayor Demaala from committing further acts of malfeasance in
Fuentes issued permits to other businesses of Valenzuela the office. it stated further that Mayor Demaala’s re-
but it is only Triple A’s permit which was not approved, election to office does not necessarily prevent her
and also law enforcement agencies exonerated suspension. Pending prosecutions for violations of RA
Valenzuela from these illegal activities. Hence, Mayor 3019 committed by an elective official during one term
Fuentes’ belated action in not approving the said may be the basis for his suspension in a subsequent term
business permit because of Valenzuela’s alleged should he be re-elected to the same position or office. It
involvement in illegal activities speaks of evident bafd was also held that by Mayor Demaala’s arraignment, she
faith and manifest partiality. (Roverto P. Fuentes vs. People recognized the validity of the Informations against her
of the Philippines, GR 186421, April 17, 2017) rendering the issuance of order of suspension as a matter
of course. (Lucena Demaala vs Sandiganbayan, GR No
Who are public officers? (BAR 1999) 173523, February 19, 2014)

Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of
law, popular election or appointment by competent Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or indirectly
authority, take part in the performance of public requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
functions in the Government of the Philippines, or percentage or benefit, for himself of for any other
perform in said Government or in any of its branches person, in connection with any contract or
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate transaction between the government and any other
official, of any rank or class. (Art. 203, RPC) party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law”] also be
What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or simultaneously or successively charged with direct
satisfied before preventive suspension may be bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code?
ordered? (BAR 1999) Explain. (BAR 2010)

The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied Yes, a public officer charged under Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019
before a suspension may be ordered are: (1) there must (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be
be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of
a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code
suspended from office pursuant to R.A. 3019, as because two crimes are essentially different and are
amended; and (2) there must be a determination of a penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Violation of
valid information against the accused that warrants his Sec. (b) of RA 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime
suspension. under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se. There is no
double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or
An administrative case and a violation of R.A. 3019 successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the
was filed against a public officer. Insofar as the Revised Penal Code (Merendillo v. People, G.R. Nos.
violation of RA 3019 is concerned, the public officer 142369-70, April 13, 2007).
was placed under preventive suspension for 90 days.
And then thereafter, the Office of the Ombudsman During the audit report conducted by the COA
placed him again under preventive suspension on Regional Office it was found out that the accused
account of the administrative case. The public officer herein, Venancio Nava, succeeded in persuading
contended that since he has already been placed seven (7) school division superintendents to use the
under preventive suspension in the RA 3019 case, he allotment for the purchase of Science Laboratory
can no longer be placed under preventive suspension Tools and Devices (SLTD) for the calendar year 1990.
in the administrative case. Is the contention of the However, the said money was supposed to be used for
public officer correct? the improvement of the school facilities, and it is
required that in buying school materials, it must
No. It is clear that criminal and administrative cases are undergo an effective public bidding. Nava persuaded
distinct from each other. The settled rule is that criminal his school division superintendents to ignore the
and civil cases are altogether different from circular requiring public bidding as allegedly, time


was of the essence in making the purchases and if not director for causing him undue injury in violation of
done before the calendar year 1990, the funds the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
allotted will revert back to the general fund.
Furthermore, COA found out that the contract that A. Yes, since the medical Director acted with evident
was entered into by Nava sellers exceeded the bad faith.
prevailing market price ranging from 56% to 1,175% B. No, since the medical director has full discretion in
based on the mathematical computation done by the releasing the salary of government doctors.
COA audit team. The loss of the government was said C. Yes, since his salary was withheld without prior
to be in the amount of PHP 380,013.60. Nava was hearing.
charged therefore with the violation of Section 3(g) of D. No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having
R.A. No. 3019 for entering on behalf of the failed to submit the required DTRs.
government in any contract or transaction manifestly
and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
not the pubic officer profited or will profit thereby. Is CHILDREN ACT
the suit vested with merit?

Yes, the suit is with merit. In order to be liable for such, What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman
the following elements must be present: (i) the accused is Syndrome"?
a public officer; (ii) the public officer entered into a
contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and The three (3) phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"
(iii) the contract or transaction was grossly and are: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute
manifestly disadvantageous to the government. In this battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or non-
case, Nava is a public officer, who approved the violent phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January
transactions on behalf of the government, which thereby 15, 2004).
suffered a substantial loss (Nava v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 160211, August 28, 2006). BBB and AAA had a relationship when the latter was
still raising her first child, CCC, born from a previous
The Mayor of an LGU, along with several local relationship. During the relationship with BBB, AAA
government officials through their official duties, bore two more children namely, DDD and EEE. To
purchased on various occasions, through personal legalize their relationship, BBB and AAA married in
canvass, from ZARO Trading, a total of 142,612 pieces civil rights and thereafter, the birth certificates of the
of "walis ting-ting” at either P25 per piece or P15 per children, including CCC’s, was amended to change
piece. The said purchases were made without the their civil status to be legitimated by virtue of the said
required public bidding, and were overpriced. Can marriage. However, there were fights and arguments
the local government officials be held liable for which caused them to have strained relationship that
entering a contract which is disadvantageous to the lead them to the filing of a case under the VAWC.
government on account of failure to conduct public Pending the Court’s deliberation of the instant case,
bidding, and alleged overpricing based on the BBB filed a Manifestation and Motion to Render
unsigned quotation from a walis ting-ting supplier Judgment Based on a Memorandum of Agreement
alone? (MOA). BBB alleges that on July 29, 2013, he and AAA
had entered into a compromise anent the custody,
No. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject exercise of parental authority over, and support of
contracts would be grossly and manifestly DDD and EEE. Is the case a proper subject of a
disadvantageous to the government if characterized by compromise agreement?
an overpriced procurement. However, the gross and
manifest disadvantage to the government was not No. The instant petition is not a proper subject of a
sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing compromise agreement. The law explicitly prohibits
was erroneous since it was not also adequately proven. In compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence
finding that the walis ting-ting purchase contracts were against women. Thus, in Garcia v. Drilon, the Court
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the declared that: Violence, however, is not a subject for
government, the Sandiganbayan relied on the COA's compromise. xxx A process which involves parties
finding of overpricing which was, in turn, based on the mediating the issue of violence implies that the victim is
special audit team's report. Notably, however, the somehow at fault. (BBB,* v. AAA*, G.R. No. 193225,
evidence of the prosecution did not include a signed price February 9, 2015).
quotation from the walis ting-ting suppliers of Parañaque
City. Effectively, the prosecution was unable to Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married.
demonstrate the requisite burden of proof, in order to Barely six years into the marriage, Go-Tan filed a
overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
petitioners (Caunan v. People, G.R. No. 182001-04, Protective Order (TPO) against Tan and her parents-
September 2, 2009). in-law before the RTC. She alleged that Tan, in
conspiracy with her parents-in-law, were causing
Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her.
Daily Time Record (DTR) from January to March Can the parents-in-law be considered as conspirators
2000 and did not get approval of his sick leave and be included in the petition for issuance of a TPO?
application for April because of evidence that he was
actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus, the medical Yes. While Section 3 of R.A. 9262 provides that the
Director caused the withholding of his salary for the offender must be related or connected to the victim by
periods in question until he submitted his DTRs in marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
May 2000. Can Dr. Chow prosecute the medical relationship, it does not preclude the application of the
principle of conspiracy under the RPC (Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R.
No. 168852, September 30, 2008).



No. When Bongalon struck and slapped Jayson, he did not

Del Socorro and Van Wilsem got married in 1990 in do so with the intention to debase the child’s “intrinsic
Holland. They were blessed with a son. However, in worth and dignity” or to humiliate or embarrass him.
1995, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a Rather, Bongalon did so at the spur of the moment and in
Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of anger which only indicated his being overwhelmed by his
Holland. Van Wilsem made a promise to provide fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor
monthly support for their son. Del Socorro and their daughter. Not every instance of laying of hands on a child
son went back to the Philippines. Since the arrival of constitutes the crime of child abuse under Republic Act
Del Socorro and their son to the Philippines, Van No. 7610. The Court explained that a person can only be
Wilsem never gave support to their son. punished for child abuse when there’s an intention to
Consequently, Van Wilsem came to the Philippines debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and
and remarried. All of the parties are presently living dignity of the child as a human being (People v. Bongalon,
in Cebu City. Thereafter, Del Socorro sent a letter G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013).
demanding support to Van Wilsem. Is Van Wilsem
liable under R.A. 9262? NOTE: The elements of the offense of child abuse are:

Yes, Van Wilsem may be made liable under Section 5(e) (a) minority of the victim;
and (i) of R.A. No. 9262. The deprivation or denial of (b) acts complained of are prejudicial to the development
financial support to the child is considered an act of of the child-victim; and
violence against women and children (Del Socorro v. Van c) the said acts are covered by the pertinent provisions of
Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014). R.A. No. 7610 and P.D. No. 603 (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No.
179090, June 5, 2009).
NOTE: In Republic v. Yahon (G.R. No. 201043, June 16,
2014), the trial court directed Armed Forces Of The Mabunot (accused) and Shiva (victim) were
Philippines Finance Center to automatically deduct a classmates. Mabunot, under the influence of alcohol,
percentage from the retirement benefits of S/Sgt. Charles entered the classroom and strangled, boxed, and
Yahon, and to give the same directly to his wife Daisy twisted the arms of his classmates. Mabunot boxed
Yahon as spousal support in accordance of the permanent Shiva leaving a fractured rib. Mabunot avers that Sec.
protection order issued for his violation of the Anti- 10(a), Art VI, RA 7610 only penalizes acts of child
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. abuse which are not covered by the RPC and insists
Despite the provision of exemption of funds provided in that the acts complained of should fall under Art 265
P.D. No. 1638, the Court held that Sec. 8(g) of R.A. 9262, (Slight Physical Injuries) which imposes a lighter
being a later enactment, should be construed as laying penalty. Is the single and unintended act of boxing
down an exception to the general rule that retirement Shiva while Mabunot was engaged in a fist fight with
benefits are exempt from execution. another falls within the definition of child abuse
under RA 7610?
ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT Yes. the single and unintended act of boxing Shiva while
Mabunot was engaged in a fist fight with another falls
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1, within the definition of child abuse under RA 7610 as RA
000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute, and 7610 is intended to “provide special protection to
brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force exploitation and discrimination and other conditions,
that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly prejudicial to their development.” Child abuse referee to
was brought to the hospital and died a few days later the infliction of physical or psychological injury, cruelty,
because of shock caused by hemorrhage. If Sherly or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child. Physical
were a minor when she died, what is/are the liability injury includes but it is not limited to lacerations,
of Jet Matulis? (BAR 2005) fractured bones, internal injuries or other bodily hard
suffered by the child. Shiva was only 14 years old when
The crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of she received the blow which fractured her rib. being a
R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, child, she is under the protective mantle of RA 7610,
exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are which punishes the maltreatment of a child, whether the
committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than same is habitual or not. Moreover, the IRR of RA 7610
12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the refers the fractured bones as falling within the coverage
crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual of physical injuries, which may be inflicted to a child,
assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under rendering the accused liable for RA 7610. (Jester
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Mabunot vs People of the Philippines, GR 204659, Sept.
19, 2016)
Bongalon was charged for the crime of child abuse
AAA, 14 year old boy, went to a beach resort together
under Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. 7610. Bongalon allegedly
with Pinlac to attend a fraternity initiation rites. After
physically abused and/or maltreated Jayson (12
succumbing to Pinlac’s persuasion to drink alcohol
years old) with his palm hitting the latter at his back
and smoke marijuana, AAA lost control of himself and
and by slapping said minor hitting his left cheek and
while in a daze, stupor, or near total
uttering derogatory remarks to the latter’s family. On
unconsciousness, Pinlac isolated AAA from his
his part, Bongalon denied having physically abused
companions and other fraternity recruits, forcibly
or maltreated Jayson but only confronted him when
disrobed AAA, and performed oral sex on him by
the latter threw stones at her daughters, calling them
sucking his penis until he ejaculated. Is Pinlac liable
as “Kimi” and for burning one of his daughter’s hair.
for violation of RA 7610?
Did Bongalon acts amounted to child abuse under
R.A. 7610?


Yes, Pinlac is liable for violation of RA 7610. The State had by the offender, therefore, taking into consideration the
satisfactorily established the following elements rule in Statutory Construction, that when the law does
constitutive of the offense charged: "(1) the accused not distinguish, neither should the court distinguish
commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious (People v. Sarcia G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009).
conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; NOTE: The ruling in People v. Sarcia was reiterated
and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 inPeople v. Mantalaba where the SC held that while
years of age." In this case AAA was 14 years old when he Section 38 of R.A. 9344 provides that suspension of
was subjected to sexual abuse. Pinlac’s act in disrobing sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict
the minor AAA, who was then under the influence of with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more
illegal drugs and liquor after he was made to take them at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section
by Pinlac, and thereafter, sucking AAA's penis, is clearly a 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence
lascivious conduct performed by Pinlac on AAA. (Nicanor until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. In finding
Pinlac vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197458, the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant for
November 11, 2015) violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the RTC imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua as mandated in Section 98
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT of the same law. A violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165
merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death;
What are Status Offenses? however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
Status offenses refer to offenses which discriminate only imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be
against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means that the
for committing similar acts. These shall include curfew penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the
violations; truancy, parental disobedience and the like technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the
(Sec. 4[r], RA 9344). Revised Penal Code (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227
July 20, 2011).
Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for
violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court A bus full of children from the province went to
sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Manila to have an excursion. Before the children
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of were able to alight from the bus, here comes X in full
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years battle gear, with all kinds of guns and ammunitions
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as and at gunpoint, he told the conductor to open the
maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied for bus. X hostaged the children. Thereafter, X posted
probation but his application was denied because the cartolinas on the glass windows of the bus. These
probation law does not apply to drug offenders under cartolinas contained his demands to the government.
R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the suspension of his Later after 12 hours of negotiation, X gave in and so X
sentence under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and was arrested and was charged based on a valid
Youth Welfare Code. Can Michael avail of the complaint with violation of R.A. 9372. He was
suspension of his sentence provided under this law? however acquitted. Can the State still prosecute X for
(BAR 2013) the crime of serious illegal detention and for
violation of R.A. 10591 for having in his possession
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply various unlicensed firearms?
to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until as
provided for by the law, the offender reaches the No. Because under Sec 49 of R.A. 9372, it is provided that
maximum age and thus, could no longer be considered a when a person has been prosecuted under a provision of
child for purposes of applying R.A. 9344. However, he R.A. 9372, upon a valid complaint or information or other
shall be entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain
and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
the chance to live a normal life and become a productive charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
member of the community. Accordingly, Michael may be case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense
confined in an agricultural camp and other training or felony which is necessarily included in the offense
facility in accordance with Section 51 of R.A. 9344 (People charged under R.A.9372.
v. Sarcia, GR No. 169641, September 10, 2009).
Can the provisions of R.A. 9344 be given retroactive
application? Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking
for commercial models for a TV advertisement.
Yes. Under Sec 68 of R.A. 9344, persons who are already Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project.
convicted or are serving sentence but who were minors Loko offered her a contract, which Ganda signed. She
at the time of the commission of the crime, shall be given was asked to report to an address which turned out
retroactive application of the law. to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its
most featured attractions. What is Loko’s liability, if
Does Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344 providing for a suspended any? What effect would Ganda’s minority have on
sentence apply even to child in conflict with the law Loko’s liability? (BAR 2014)
who has committed a heinous crime?
Loko is liable of the crime of Trafficking in Persons under
Yes, according to the SC, such provision of R.A. 9344 does R.A.9208. He recruited, offered and hired Ganda by
not distinguish as to the nature of the crime committed means of fraud or deception for the purpose of



exploitation or prostitution. By means of deceit, i.e., in the the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
guise of making her a commercial model, Loko recruited dishonored by the drawee bank (Sec. 1, par. 2, BP 22)
Ganda for the purpose of prostitution.
NOTE: Where the check is drawn by a corporation,
Ganda’s minority is a qualifying circumstance. Under company or entity, the person or persons who
Section 6, R.A.9208, when the trafficked person is a child,
actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer
the crime committed is Qualified Trafficking in Persons,
penalized by life imprisonment. shall be liable under this Act (Sec. 1, par. 3, BP 22)

Where should a case for a violation of B.P. 22 be filed?

It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are
True or False. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. categorized as transitory or continuing crimes,
1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to prove meaning that some acts material and essential thereto
that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles and requisite in their consummation occur in one
found in his possession had been the subject of municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In
robbery. (BAR 2000) such cases, the court wherein any of the crime's essential
and material acts have been committed maintains
False. Fencing is committed if the accused “should have jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the
known” that the goods or articles had been the subject of first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the
theft or robbery. Mere possession of the stolen goods other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or
gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing. transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality
or territory where the offense was in part committed.
Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used
garments, more popularly known as"ukay- B.P. 22 VIS-À-VIS ESTAFA
ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid
of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie B.P. 22 ESTAFA
Feraud blazers. Arlene was charged with "fencing."
Malum prohibitum. Malum in se.
Will the charge prosper? Why or why not? (BAR
Crime against public Crime against property.
Deceit is not required. Deceit is an element.
No, a charge of “fencing” will not prosper. “Fencing” is
Punishes the making or The act constituting the
committed when a person, with intent to gain for himself
drawing of any check offense is postdating or
or for another, deals in any manner with an article of
that is subsequently issuing a check in payment
value which he knows or should be known to him to have
been derived from proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec.2, PD dishonored, whether of an obligation when the
issued in payment of an offender has no funds in the
1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must
first be established that a theft or robbery of the article obligation or to merely bank or his funds deposited
guarantee an therein were not sufficient
subject of the alleged “fencing” has been committed- a
obligation. to cover the amount of the
fact which is a wanting in this case.
It is the issuance of a
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy
check, not the non-
and sell of used garments, which are in the nature of
personal property. In civil law, possession of personal or payment of obligation
which is punished.
movable property carries with it a’ prima facie
presumption of ownership. The presumption of “fencing” Violated if check is Not violated if check is
arises only when the article or item involved is the issued in payment of a issued in payment of a pre-
subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD 1612). pre-existing obligation. existing obligation.
Damage is not required. Damage is required.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW Drawer is given 5 Drawer is given 3 days to
banking days to make make arrangements for
Who are the persons liable under B.P. 22? arrangements of payment after receipt of
payment after receipt of notice of dishonor.
1. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check notice of dishonor.
to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or A and B agreed to meet at the latter’s house to discuss
B’s financial problems. On his way, one of A’s car tires
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
blew up. Before A left the meeting, he asked B to lend
check in full upon its presentment, which check is him money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for exhausted his bank deposits leaving a zero balance.
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been Anticipating, however a replenishment of his account
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, soon, B issued a postdated check with which A
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop negotiated for the new tire. When presented, the
payment; (Sec. 1, par. 1, BP 22) check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company
filed a criminal case against A and B. What would be
2. Any person who having sufficient funds in or credit the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two
accused? Explain. (BAR 2003)
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and
issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the new tire for his car, may only be prosecuted for estafa if
check if presented within a period of 90 days from he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the


check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of
otherwise, he is not criminally liable. preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg.
22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and
the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact
B, who accommodated A with his check, may
without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should
nevertheless be prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say,
issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that he the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the
has no funds in the bank and that A will negotiate it to buy imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the
a new tire, i.e. for value. B may not be prosecuted for Judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate
estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be
intent to defraud in issuing the check negotiated. deemed a hindrance.
Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to help A.
Criminal intent or dolo is absent. It is, therefore, understood that:

1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove

Campos obtained a loan from FWCC. In return, she imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. Blg.
issued post-dated checks to FWCC as security for the 22;
loan. Fourteen of these checks were dishonored
when presented to the bank. FWCC filed cases for 2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound
violation of B.P. 22. After her arraignment, she did discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar
not attend any of her hearings hence, she was tried in circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition
absentia. She was held guilty for violation of B.P.22. of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or
She claims she did not receive any notice of dishonor. whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate
the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order,
Further, she made subsequent arrangements for
or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;
payments of the obligation to FWCC, which is
tantamount to good faith. Is Campos liable for B.P.22? 3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to
pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the
Yes, Campos is liable for B.P.22. Sec. 2 of B.P.22 creates a Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.”
presumption of insufficiency of funds. When she made
subsequent arrangements for payments of the obligation ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT, AS AMENDED
to FWCC, this statement was a confirmation that she
actually received the required notice of dishonor from A is the driver of B’s Mercedes Benz car. When B was
FWCC (Campos v. People & FWCC, G.R. No 187401, on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C
September 17, 2014). whome he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an
accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the
Castor used the checks given to him by Lim as unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified
payment for the delivery of printing materials, but theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with
later asked Lim to “stop payment” as the printing intent to gain as he derived some benefit or
materials were delivered too late. Later, Badiee sent satisfaction from its use. On the other hand, A argued
two demand letters to Lim and subsequently filed a that he has no intent of making himself the owner of
complaint against Lim before the Office of the the car as he in fact returned it to the garage after the
Prosecutor for violation of B.P.22. After one month joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were
from receipt of the demand letters and after committed? (BAR 2016)
receiving the subpoena, Lim issued a replacement
check, and Badiee was able to encash the said The crime committed by A is carnapping. The unlawful
replacement check. Six months after the payment of taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the Anti-
the bounced checks, two Informations were filed Carnapping Law, and not by the provisions on qualified
against Lim for violation of B.P.22. Is he liable for theft or robbery. The concept of carnapping is the same
violation of B.P.22? as that of robbery and theft.
No, the fact that the issuer of the check had already paid In this case, A took the car without the consent of B with
the value of the dishonored check after having received intent to temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the
the subpoena, should have forestalled the filing of the taking was “temporary” or for a “joy ride”, the Supreme
Information in court (Lim v. People, G.R. No. 190834, Court in People v. Bustinera sustains as the better view
November 26, 2014). that which holds that when a person, either with the
object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive,
NOTE: The Supreme Court issued SC Administrative or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle
Circular No. 13-2001 which clarified the application of belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 concerning the is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the
penalty for violation of B.P. 22. personal property belonging to another and using it, his
intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility,
In Saguitguit v. People (G.R. No. 144054, June 30, 2006), the satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.
Supreme Court explained:
A postal van containing mail matters, including
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-
checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a
2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty,
but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom
penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22. were armed. They used force, violence and
intimidation against three (3) postal employees who
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful
possibility of imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither taking and asportation of the entire van and its
does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law. contents. If you were the public prosecutor, would
you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal



van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, Macabando contends that the crime committed is
otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti- only simple arson. Is he correct?
Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer.
(BAR 2012) Yes, Macabando is correct. Simple arson contemplates
the malicious burning of public and private structures,
No. If I were the public prosecutor, I would charge the ten regardless of size not punished under destructive arson.
men of violation of R.A. 10883, The Anti-Carnapping Act. In this case, he burned his own house and other
All the elements of carnapping are present. (1) there was residential homes.
actual taking of a motor vehicle, the postal van; (2) the
postal van belonged to another; (3) the taking was done There are two elements required for simple arson: first,
with intent to gain; and (4) the taking was done without there is intentional burning; and second, what is
the consent of the owner and with force, violence and intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
intimidation against the 3 van employees who were dwelling. The Court held that both elements were
occupants thereof. sufficiently proven in court. All property destroyed in the
fire were his own house and several other inhabited
It is not highway robbery under P.D. 532 because there homes. Based on the facts, the burning was clearly
was no showing that the 10 men were a band of robbers intentional (People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31,
organized for the purpose of committing robbery 2013).
indiscriminately. What was shown is one isolated
hijacking of a postal van, hence, carnapping. Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in
Barangay Damayan. On one occasion, Diego called
If you were the defense counsel, what are the Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask
elements of the crime of highway robbery that the him why he got his (Diego’s) plow without
prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? permission. One word led to another. Diego, in a fit of
anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to
The elements of highway robbery under P.D. 532 are: death. Pablo’s 9-year old son, Mario, who was inside
the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he
1. That there is unlawful taking of property of another; might also be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself
2. That said taking is with intent to gain; with a blanket and hid in a corner of the house. To
3. That said taking is done with violence against or conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo’s
intimidation of persons or force upon things or other body inside the house and burned it. Mario was also
unlawful means; and burned to death. What crime or crimes did Diego
4. That it was committed on any Philippine highway. commit? (BAR 1989)

NOTE: To sustain a conviction for highway robbery, the Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death
prosecution must prove that the accused were organized of Pablo and (2) the special complex crime of arson with
for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the
If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is house and the death of Mario.
only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four
armed men (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, February The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not
23, 1996; Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, being attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
October 16, 1996). murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel.

ARSON UNDER THE RPC The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is
IN RELATION TO ANTI-ARSON LAW a separate crime. Were it not for the death of Mario, this
separate offense would have been arson. But inside the
The laws on arson in force today are P.D. 1613 and Article house unknown to Diego, was Mario, the resulting crime
320 as amended of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, is under PD No. 1613, because the death resulted from
simple arson is governed by P.D. 1613 while destructive the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson,
arson is governed by the Revised Penal Code. death results, the offense is the special complex crime of
arson with homicide (Sec. 5, P.D. 1613, which expressly
The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from repealed Art. 320 and, People v. Paterno, L-2665, March 6,
Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness 1950).
of the criminal offender.
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house when he
Macabando was found on the road holding a lead pipe set it on fire, the crime committed, instead of arson,
and breaking bottles. That same night, a fire broke would be murder, with the use of fire as the qualifying
out in Macabando’s house. Those living nearby tried circumstance.
to call for help and stop the fire but were prevented
by the owner of the house who stood outside his
house and fired several gun shots in the air. He also
threatened to kill anyone who would try to put out
the fire. In the process, other residential homes were
also destroyed. The Bureau of Fire Protection
conducted an investigation and the results revealed
that the fire was intentionally started in the
Macabando’s home. The Regional Trial Court found
Macabando guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
destructive arson, punishable under Article 320 of
the RPC. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment in toto.