Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Characteristics of Criminal Law:
1. General – binding on all persons who reside or
sojourn in the Philippines (art. 14, NCC).
Exceptions:
a. Treaty Stipulation
b. Laws of Preferential Application
RA 75.
c. Principles of Public International Law
Ex:
i. Sovereigns and other chiefs of
state
ii. Ambassadors, ministers
plenipotentiary, minister resident
and charges d’affaires
(BUT consuls, vice-consuls and other
foreign commercial representatives
CANNOT claim the privileges and
immunities accorded to ambassadors and
ministers.)
2. Territorial – penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory
Exceptions: (Art. 2 of RPC – binding even
on crimes committed outside the Philippines)
a. Offense committed while on a Philippine
ship or airship
b. Forging or counterfeiting any coin or
currency note of the Philippines or
obligations and the securities issued by
the Government
c. Introduction into the country of the
above-mentioned obligations and
securities
d. While being public officers and
employees, committed an offense in the
exercise of their functions
e. Crimes against national security and the
law of the nations defined in Title One of
Book Two
3. Prospective – the law does not have any
retroactive effect.
Exception: when the law is favorable to the
accused.
Exceptions to the Exception:
a. The new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions
or existing causes of action
b. Offender is a habitual criminal
TERRITORIALITY; EXCEPTIONS
ART. 2.RPC. APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS. —
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall
be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
number;
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined
in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
RULES:
1. Philippine vessel or airship – Philippine law
shall apply to offenses committed in vessels registered
with the Philippine Bureau of Customs. It is the
registration, not citizenship of the owner which matters.
2. Foreign vessels
a. French Rule. Nationality Theory
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a
foreign vessel within the territorial waters of a
country are NOT triable in the courts of such
country.
Exception: commission affects the peace
and security of the territory, or the safety of
the state is endangered.
b. English Rule. Territoriality
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a
foreign vessel within the territorial waters of a
country are triable in the courts of such country.
Exception: When the crime merely affects
things within the vessel or it refers to the
internal management thereof.
This is applicable in the Philippines.
Philippines has no jurisdiction over theft
committed on the high seas on board a foreign
vessel, although the ownership belongs to a
Filipino (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614).
Offense committed on board foreign merchant vessel
while of Philippine waters is triable before our courts.
Continuing offense on board foreign merchant vessel is
triable in the Philippines.
Crimes Punishable under article 2 are cognizable by an
RTC where the case is first filed. Those, however, falling
under par. 4, may fall to the Sandiganbayan, if the salary
grade is 27 or higher and those expressly designated to
be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan (sec. 4, PD 1606,
as amended).
Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed
on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable
by our courts (US v. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573).
Smoking opium constitutes breach of public order (P. vs.
Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729).
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters
(US vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7).
Philippine waters may be divided as follows:
1. Internal waters—waters within the baselines
including the archipelagic waters;
2. Territorial waters—12 miles from the baselines;
3. Contiguous zone – 12 miles from the outer
limits of the territorial waters;
4. Exclusive Economic Zone—200 miles from the
baselines.
Page 1 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
Par. 2. Counterfeiting.
1. Art. 163, making false or counterfeit coins;
2. Art. 166, forging treasury bank notes and
other obligations and securities.
Par. 4. Crimes that may be committed in the exercise
of public functions:
1. Direct Bribery (art. 210);
2. Indirect Bribery (art. 211);
3. Qualified Bribery (art 211-A);
4. Frauds against public treasury (art. 213);
5. Possession of prohibited interest (art. 216);
6. Malversation of public funds or property
(217);
7. Failure to render accounts (art. 218);
8. Illegal use of public funds and property (art.
220);
9. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (art. 221) falsification by a public
officer committed with abuse of his official
position.
Par. 5. Crimes against national security and the law
of nations:
1. Treason (art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
(art. 115);
3. Espionage (art. 117);
4. Inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisals (art. 118);
5. Violation of neutrality (art. 119);
6. Correspondence with hostile country (art.
120);
7. Flight to enemy’s country (art. 121);
8. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (art.
122);
9. Genocide (RA 9851);
10. War crimes (RA 9851);
11. Crimes against humanity (RA 9851).
12. Human Security Act (Anti-terrorism law)(RA
9372)
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW
Theories of Criminal Law:
1. Classical Theory – basis is man’s free will to
choose between good and evil, which is why
more stress is placed upon the result of the
felonious act than upon the criminal himself. The
purpose of penalty is retribution. The RPC is
generally governed by this theory.
CHARACTERISTICS:
a) Basis of criminal liability is human free
will and the purpose of penalty is
retribution.
b) Man is essentially moral creature with
an absolutely free will to chose between
good and evil.
c) Endeavors to establish a mechanical
and direct proportion between crime and
penalty there is scant regard to the
human element.
2. Positivist Theory – basis is the sum of social
and economic phenomena which conditions
man to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his
violations on impossible crimes and habitual
delinquency.
CHARACTERISTICS:
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
a) That man is subdued occasionally by a
strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or
contrary to his volition.
b) That crime is essentially a social and
natural phenomenon, and such it cannot
be treated and checked by the
application of abstract principles of law
and jurisprudence.
3. Mixed (eclectic) Theory – combination of the
classical and positivist theories wherein crimes
that are economic and social in nature should be
dealt in a positive manner. The law is thus more
compassionate.
4. Utilitarian/protective Theory
MISTAKE OF FACT
MISTAKE OF FACT – misapprehension of fact on the
part of the person who caused injury to another. He is
not criminally liable.
Requisites::
a. the act done would have been lawful had the
facts been as the accused believed them to be
b. intention is lawful
c. mistake must be without fault or carelessness
by the accused
Note: The mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused (P. vs.
Oanis, 74 Phil. 257).
Mistake of fact does not mean mistake in the identity
of the victim. The latter is criminally liable (error in
personae).
No crime of resistance when the accused mistakenly
believe that the arresting officer is a bandit, but
immediately submits to arrest upon being informed
of such fact (US vs. Bautista, 31 Phil. 308).
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4.RPC Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall
be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Par. 1 Criminal liability for a felony committed
different from that intended to be committed
Requisites:
1. Felony has been committed intentionally
2. Injury or damage done to the other party is the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony. No efficient supervening cause
3. Crime is punished by RPC
Hence, since he is still motivated by criminal intent, the
offender is criminally liable in:
1. Error in personae – mistake in identity ->
intended victim not present
2. Abberatio ictus –mistake in blow -> intended
victim is present.
Page 2 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

3. Praeter intentionem - lack of intent to commit Mitigating and Take into GENERALLY
so grave a wrong aggravating account in not taken into
circumstance imposing account
PROXIMATE CAUSE penalty
PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which in the natural When there is GENERALLY
and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient Degree of more than one not taken into
supervening cause, produces the injury, and without participation offender, it is account
which the result would not have occurred (Bataclan vs. taken into See SEC. 98
Medina, 102 Phil. 181). consideration RA 9165
General Rule: General Rule:
Any person who creates in another’s mind an immediate Laws violated RPC Except. Special Penal
sense of danger, which causes the latter to do Plunder Laws
something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the Omission of
resulting injuries (P. vs. Page, 77 SCRA 348). list of voter,

Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical MOTIVE VS. INTENT
consequence of felonious act (US vs. Sornito, 4 Phil. Intent Motive
357). Purpose to use a Moving power which
particular means to impels one to act
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME effect a result
Requisites: Element of crime Not an element
1. Act would have been an offense against persons except in crimes
or property. committed with culpa
2. There was criminal intent. Essential in intentional Essential only when
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or felonies the identity of the felon
inadequate or ineffectual means are employed. is in doubt.
4. Act is not an actual violation of another provision
of the Code or of special law. GR: Motive is not an essential element of a crime,
hence, need not be proved.
Impossible crime occurs when there is:
Exceptions:
1. Inherent impossibility to commit the crime
1. Where identity of the accused is in dispute, motive is
2. Inadequate means to consummate the crime
relevant;
3. Ineffectual means to consummate the crime.
2. Where there is doubt as to the crime committed by
the offender;
In stealing a check which bounced when attempted to be
When a person in authority is assaulted while he
encashed, the crime is impossible crime of theft (Jacinto
is not in his office or not in the performance of
vs. People).
his duties, it is necessary to determine motive. If
the assault is motivated by the past official act of
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
the person in authority, the crime would be direct
Mala in se Mala assault. If, however, it is otherwise, the crime
Prohibita would just be, for example, homicide, or
attempted or frustrated homicide or just plain
Moral trait of considered Not physical injuries.
offender considered In case of killing by means of fire. If the motive is
to kill, murder is committed. While if the motive
is to burn, the crime would be qualified arson.
Not a defense, Not even a complex crime.
Valid defense intent not In forcible abduction with rape, if the main (real)
unless the necessary object of the offender is to rape the victim,
Good faith as a crime is the sufficient that abduction is absorbed; crime is only rape (P. vs.
defense result of culpa the offender Rapisora, L-138086, Jan. 25, 2001, EN BANC).
has the intent Motive was also important to establish the
to perpetrate defense of insanity, when the husband killed his
the act wife. It was established that the husband has no
prohibited by motive to kill his wife since he was a very loving
the special law husband. NOTE: The husband in this case killed
Wrong only his wife while in a dream state
Wrongful from because of a (SOMNAMBULISM). He was asleep when the
Nature its very nature positive law killing was done.
prohibiting
such act or 3. When the evidence are merely circumstantial, proof
omission of motive is essential (P. vs. Oquino 122 SCRA
Intent GR: taken into Not taken into 797).
account account
Degree of Taken into CONSUMMATED;FRUSTRATED;ATTEMPTED
accomplishment Taken into account only A felony is consummated when all the elements
of the crime account when necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
consummated present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs

Page 3 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

all the acts of execution which would produce the felony 6. Theft
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of 2 Stages in the Development of a crime:
the perpetrator. 1. Internal acts
– e.g. mere ideas of the mind
There is an attempt when the offender commences the – not punishable
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should 2. External acts
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident a. Preparatory acts – ordinarily not
other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 6, punishable except when considered by
RPC) law as independent crimes
(e.g. Art. 304, Possession of
Attempted Frustrated Consummated picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution – punishable under
All acts of All the acts of the RPC
Overt acts of execution are execution are CONSPIRARY
execution present present Requisites:
are started 1. Two or more persons come to an agreement
Not all acts Crime sought The result 2. For the commission of a felony
of execution to be sought is 3. And they decide to commit it
are present committed is achieved
not achieved Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different
Due to Due to from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
reasons intervening liability.
other than causes When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually
the independent committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of
spontaneous of the will of incurring criminal liability. Hence, conspirator should not
desistance the perpetrator actually commit the crime, let say, treason. If they do,
of the conspiracy is not anymore a crime but only a manner of
perpetrator incurring criminal liability.
ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not
punishable since it is merely a preparatory act.
In all, evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
Exception: when the law specifically provides for a
Evil intent of offender is possible Evil intent
penalty
of accomplishment cannot be
Ex: rebellion, insurrection, sedition, coup d’ etat
accomplished
Prevented by Accomplishment Accomplishment
General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.
some cause or is prevented by is inherently
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators
accident other reason of impossible or
committed some other crime which is not part of the
than causes beyond because the
intended crime.
offender’s own the control of means
Exception to the exception; When the act constitutes
spontaneous the perpetrator employed is
an
desistance. inadequate or
Indivisible offense.
ineffectual
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated and DOCTRINE OF INSTANT CONSPIRACY
Attempted Stages Unlike evident premeditation, conspiracy arises on the
very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
1. Offenses punished by Special Penal Laws, commit the felony and decide to pursue it (P. vs.
unless the law provides otherwise Monroy, 104 Phil. 759).
2. Formal crimes – consummated in one instance
(Ex: slander, adultery, etc.)\ OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST OF;
3. Impossible Crimes 1. Active participation in the actual commission of
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt the crime itself, or
(Ex: Attempt to flee to an enemy 2. Moral assistance to his conspirators by being
country, treason, corruption of minors) present at the time of the commission of the
5. Felonies by omission crime, or
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement 3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-
(Ex: betting in sports: “ending”, conspirators by moving them to execute or
corruption of public officers) implement the criminal plan People v. Abut, et
7. Arson. al. (GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage: PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY
1. Rape Requisites:
2. Bribery 1. A person has decided to commit a felony
3. Corruption of Public Officers 2. And proposes its execution to some other
4. Adultery person or persons.
5. Physical injury

Page 4 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

no peril to one’s life, limb, or right.

The proposed crime should not actually be committed, Hence, no unlawful aggression in preventing
otherwise, the proponent would be liable as principal by the accused from inflicting retaliatory blows
inducement. Such proposal is not a felony. on the person who boxed the accused there
being no conspiracy between the person
There is no criminal proposal when: who boxed and the person preventing the
1. The person who proposes is not determined to retaliatory blows (P. vs. Flores, CA 47 OG
commit the felony; 2969).
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal offer;
3. It is not the execution of the felony that is  There must be actual physical assault or
proposed but merely the preparatory acts. aggression or an immediate and imminent
threat, which must be offensive and positively
strong.
Conspiracy Proposal No unlawful aggression in:
Person decides a. Mere insulting words (US vs. Carrero, 9
Elements Agreement to to commit a Phil. 544);
commit AND crime AND b. Light push on the head (P. vs. Sabio,
decision to proposes the GR NO. L- 23734, April 27, 1967).
commit same to another c. Foot-kick greeting (P. vs. Sabio, supra).
d. Mere belief of an impending attack (P.
CRIMES Conspiracy to Proposal to vs. Bautista, 254 SCRA 621).
commit sedition, commit treason, e. Aggression must be real, not imaginary
treason, rebellion, coup (P. vs. De la Cruz, 61 Phil. 422).
rebellion, coup d’ etat  The defense must have been made during the
d’ etat existence of aggression, otherwise, it is no
longer justifying.
*no proposal in
commit sedition CAREFUL: The defense must be made during
the actual aggression, hence when the
aggressor was already retreating; the person
MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES defending cannot be justified in attacking or
JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE injuring the aggressor.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – Where the act of a HOWEVER, when the retreat is to gain more
person is in accordance with law such that said person is advantageous position, the person defending is
deemed not to have violated the law. justified in injuring the aggressor while on the
course of such pursuit to gain advantageous
General Rule: No criminal and civil liability incurred. position.
Exception: There is civil liability with respect to par. 4
where the liability is borne by persons benefited by the  While generally an agreement to fight does not
act. constitute unlawful aggression, violation of the
terms of the agreement to fight is considered an
BURDEN OF PROOF exception.
The circumstances mentioned in art. 11 are matters of Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated
defense and it is incumbent upon the accused to prove time and place is unlawful (Justo vs. CA, 53
justifying circumstances with certainty by sufficient, OG 4083).
satisfactory and convincing evidence (P. vs. Mercado, One who voluntarily joins a fight cannot
159 SCRA 453). claim self-defense (P. vs. Kruse, 64 OG
12632).
Thus, the accused must rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not on the weakness of THE RULE “STAND GROUND WHEN IN RIGHT”
the prosecution (P. vs. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700). Where the accused is where he has the right to be, the
Par. 1 Self-defense law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is
rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon (US
Elements: vs. Domen, 37 Phil. 57).
1. Unlawful Aggression  A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may
 Indispensable requirement amount to an unlawful aggression.
The aggression must be unlawful. Hence no  Unlawful aggression must come from the person
unlawful aggression in: who attacked the accused.
a. Fulfillment of a duty, like that of a police  A public officer exceeding his authority may become
officer effecting an arrest. an unlawful aggressor (P. vs. Hernandez, 59 Phil.
b. Exercise of a right, like a person using 343).
force to protect his property from being  Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of
taken by another (art. 249, NCC), the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party
c. Attack on the spouse and the paramour may belie claim of self-defense.
caught on the act of sexual intercourse
(art. 247). Hence, the accused claim of self-defense by
showing a small scar on his head allegedly
 There is no unlawful aggression when there is inflicted by the victim does not meet the
Page 5 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
requirement. Who would not wound himself just
to escape from the penalty of reclusion temporal
for homicide (P. vs. Mediavilla, 52 Phil. 94).
 Nature, location and number of wounds inflicted
upon the victim may negate claim of self-defense.21
stab wounds on the victim negates self-defense (P.
vs. Batas, 176 SCRA 46).
 Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor
belies the claim of self-defense (P. vs. Diaz, 55
SCRA 178).
 The fact that the accused declined to give a
statement when he surrendered to a policeman is
inconsistent with the plea of self-defense (P. vs.
Manansala, 31 SCRA 401).
RETALIATION SELF-DEFENSE
Aggression that was
begun by the offended Aggression is still
party already ceased to existing
exist
There is appreciable
interval of time from No appreciable interval of
aggression by the victim time
and retaliation of the
accused
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it
Test of reasonableness depends on:
a) Weapon used by aggressor
b) Physical condition, character, size and
other circumstances of aggressor
c) Physical condition, character, size and
circumstances of person defending
himself
d) Place and occasion of assault
 Person defending is not expected to control his
blow. Accused is not expected, in the heat of an
encounter at close quarters, to reflect coolly or
to wait after each blow to determine the effects
thereof (US vs. Macasaet, 35 Phil. 229).
 In repelling or preventing an unlawful
aggression, the one defending must aim his
weapon at his assailant, not indiscriminately fire
his deadly weapon (P. vs. Galacgac, CA 54 OG
1027).
He may be held liable for the resulting
injuries committed through reckless
imprudence.
NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used,
nor material commensurability between the means of
attack and defense by the one defending himself and
that of the aggressor is not required. What the law
requires is only rational equivalence.
REASON: the person assaulted does not have sufficient
opportunity or time to think and calculate.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in
favor of law-abiding citizens (P. vs. So, 5 CAR [2s] 671)..
RULE REGARDING PEACE OFFICERS
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
The peace officer, in the performance of his duty,
represents the law which he must uphold. While the law
allows a private individual to prevent or repel an
aggression, the duty of a peace officer requires him to
overcome his opponent. A police officer is not required
to afford a person attacking him, the opportunity of a fair
and equal struggle (P. vs. Mojica, 42 Phil. 784).
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
REASON: When the person defending himself from the
attack of another give sufficient provocation to the latter,
he is also to be blamed for having given the cause for
the aggression.
 The provocation must be proximate and
immediate to the aggression. Lapse of 2 days
considered not immediate, although it may be
the proximate cause. When there is a lapse of 2
days from the time of provocation (the kissing of
the girl-friend of the aggressor) to the time of
aggression, the provocation is disregarded by
the SC (US vs. Laurel, 22 Phil. 252).
Rights included in self-defense:
1. Defense of person
2. Defense of rights protected by law
3. Defense of property (only if there is also an
actual and imminent danger on the person of the
one defending)
4. Defense of chastity
5. Defense of honor
Kinds of Self-Defense:
1. Self-defense of chastity – there must be an
attempt to rape the victim
2. Defense of property – must be coupled with an
attack on the person of the owner, or on one
entrusted with the care of such property (P. vs.
Apolinar, CA 38 OG 2870).
People v Narvaez, (GR No. L-33466-67, April
20, 1983)
Attack on property alone was deemed sufficient
to comply with element of unlawful aggression
3. Defense of home—violent entry to the house of
an armed person during night time constitutes
aggression. Need not wait for a blow, for
defense after the blow may proved to be too late
th
(P. vs. Mirabiles 45 OG 5 Supp. 277).
4. Self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is
aimed at a person’s good name.
“Stand ground when in the right” – the law does not
require a person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly
advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
NOTE: Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti- Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004), victim-survivors
who are found by the Courts to be suffering from
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) do not incur any
criminal or civil liability despite absence of the necessary
elements for the justifying circumstance of self-defense
in the RPC. BWS is a scientifically defined pattern of
Page 6 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women 2. Ascendants

living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative 3. Descendants
abuse. 4. Relatives by
affinity in the
Par. 2 Defense of relative same line
5. Brothers and
Elements: sisters and
1. Unlawful aggression (indispensable brothers-in-law
requirement) and sisters-in-
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to law, if leaving
prevent or repel it together.
3. In a case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part in such provocation. This is a case NOTE: The relative defended may be the original
of mistake of fact. aggressor. All that is required to justify the act of the
relative defending is that he takes no part in such
Relative entitled to the defense: vs. Art 13(5) provocation.
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants BASIS
3. Descendants Humanitarian sentiment and impulse of blood which
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood
degrees (Albert).
th
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4 civil
degree Unlawful aggression may be made to depend upon the
honest belief of the person making the defense (US vs.
Relatives by affinity are: Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260).
1. Parents-in-law;
2. Son/daughter-in-law; The fact that the provocation was given by the relative
3. Brother/sister-in-law. defended is immaterial. The person defending may have
been acting under a mistake of fact.
ART. 11, (2)- defense of ART. 13, (5)-
relatives vindication of a grave
offense Par. 3 Defense of Stranger
1. Spouse 1. Spouse
2. Ascendants 2. Ascendants Elements:
3. Descendants 3. Descendants 1. Unlawful aggression (indispensable
4. Legitimate, 4. Legitimate, requirement)
natural or natural or 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
adopted brothers adopted brothers prevent or repel it
and sisters, or and sisters, or 3. Person defending be not induced by revenge,
relatives by relatives by resentment or other evil motive
affinity in the affinity in the
same degrees same degrees BASIS
5. Relatives by What one may do for his defense, another may do for
consanguinity him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see
th
within the 4 civil his companion killed without attempting to save his life
degree (US vs. Aviado, 38 Phil. 10).
ND
ART. 15, 2 PAR. - Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being
alternative ART. 20- exempt throttled (choked) is defense of stranger (US vs.
circumstance of accessories Subingsubing, 31 Phil. 376).
relationship
1. Spouse 1. Spouse Par. 4 State of Necessity (Avoidance of Creator Evil
2. Ascendants 2. Ascendants or Injury
3. Descendants 3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, 4. Legitimate, Elements:
natural or natural or 1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
adopted brothers adopted brothers 2. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
and sisters, or and sisters, or it.
relatives by relatives by 3. No other practical and less harmful means of
affinity in the affinity in the preventing it
same degrees same degrees
NOTE: The necessity must not be due to the negligence
or violation of any law by the actor.
ART. 332-exempt
persons for certain When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot
crimes invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of
1. Spouse greater evil or injury. The act of a person in trying to
Page 7 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

defend his father from his assailants is not an evil in
contemplation of the law (P. vs. Ricohermoso, 56 SCRA
4431).
Damage to another includes injury to persons and
damage to property.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury was applied in a case
where a woman, who is about to be married but eloped
with another man, was accused of slander by deed by
the offended party after making preparations for the
wedding. There is a necessity for the accused in
avoiding a loveless marriage (P. vs. Norma Hernandez,
CA 55 OG 8465).
NOTE: There is civil liability under this paragraph.
Art. 12, par. 5 and 6 applies.
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal
order of his superior, if he is not aware of its illegality and
he is not negligent (P. vs. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566).
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES – grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is wanting
in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which
make the act voluntary or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on
the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
the part of the accused.

Par. 5 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter
Right or Office of defense and must be proved by the defendant to the
satisfaction of the court.
Elements:
1. Accused acted in the performance of duty or in Justifying Exempting
the lawful exercise of a right or office. Who/What
2. The injury caused or offense committed be the is affected? Act Actor
necessary consequence of the due performance Act is Act is wrongful but
of the duty, or the lawful exercise of a right or Nature of considered actor not liable
office. act legal
Yes, but since
NOTE: The accused must prove that he was duly Existence None voluntariness is
appointed to the position claimed he was discharging at of a crime absent the actor is
the time of the commission of the offense. It must also not liable
be shown that the offense committed was the necessary No criminal No criminal liability
consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful Liability and civil but there is civil
exercise of a right or office. liability BUT liability EXCEPT
there is civil as to Art.
liability as to 12(4)(injury by
Art. 11(4) mere accident)
(state of and (7)
DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP necessity) (lawful/insuperable
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has cause)
the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity
force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical IMBECILE – one while advanced in age has a mental
invasion or usurpation of his property. development comparable to that of children between 2
and 7 years old. He is exempt in all cases from criminal
NOTE: Under this paragraph (lawful exercise of a right), liability.
it is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression
against the person charged with the protection of the INSANE - One who acts with complete deprivation of
property. intelligence/reason or without the least discernment or
with total deprivation of freedom of will.
Par. 6 Obedience to a Superior Order
Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
Elements: imputability. At most, it is only mitigating (art. 13, par. 9).
1. An order has been issued
2. Order has a lawful purpose (not patently illegal) General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability
3. Means use by subordinate to carry out said Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval.
order is lawful
NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was
NOTE: The superior officer giving the order cannot insane at the time of the commission of the crime
invoke this justifying circumstance. Good faith is because the presumption is always in favor of sanity (P.
material, as the subordinate is not liable for carrying out vs. Bascos, 44 Phil. 204).
an illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality and he is
not negligent. Evidence of insanity.
Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of
General Rule: Subordinate cannot invoke this derangement essential to establish insanity.
circumstance when order is patently illegal. Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will
Exception: When there is compulsion of an irresistible suffice (P. vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 93).
force, or under impulse of uncontrollable fear.
Page 8 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding
the act or to the very moment of its execution. If
evidence points to insanity subsequent to the
commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted. He is presumed to be sane during the
commission (US vs. Guevara, 27 Phil. 547).
A defense of insanity may be incredible, as in the case
the accused himself testified that he was acting very
sanely before the commission of the crime, but lost his
mind only during the commission of the crime (“nagdilim
ang paningin”) (P. vs. Renegado, 57 SCRA 275).
MENTAL DISTURBANCES EMBRACED IN INSANITY
1. Dementia praecox is covered by the term
insanity.
When a person is suffering from a form of
psychosis, a type of dementia praecox,
homicidal attack is common, because of the
delusions that he is interfered with sexually or
that his property is being taken (P. vs. Bonoan,
supra).
2. Epilepsy
Is a chronic nervous disease characterized by
fits, occurring at intervals, attended by
convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of
consciousness. To be exempt, the accused
must show that he committed the crime during
epileptic fit (P. vs. Mancao and Aguilar, 49 Phil.
887).
3. Malignant malaria (P. vs. Lacena, 69 Phil. 350).
4. Somnambulism (sleepwalking)
The act is done without criminal intent (P. vs.
Taneo, 58 Phil. 255).
NOTE: In this case, it was proved that the
accused has no motive to injure his wife. It
appearing that he was a very loving husband
before the tragic incident.
OTHER CASES NOT COVERED BY INSANITY
1. Kleptomania;
Note: Decisions of US courts are conflicting
whether it is exempting or just mitigating.
2. Feeblemindedness (P. vs. Formigones,87 Phil.
658);
3. Hypnotism (still debatable);
4. Senility.
Par. 2 Under Nine Years of Age
Requisite : Offender is under 9 years of age at the time
of the commission of the crime. There is absolute
criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9
years of age.
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice And
Welfare Act a minor 15 years and below is exempt
from criminal liability.
Par. 3 Person Over 9 and Under 15 Acting Without
Discernment
NOTE: Such minor must have acted without
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
discernment to be exempt. If with discernment, he is
criminally liable.
Presumption: The minor committed the crime without
discernment.
DISCERNMENT – mental capacity to fully appreciate the
consequences of the unlawful act, which is shown by
the:
1. Manner the crime was committed
2. Conduct of the offender after its commission
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but
below 18 who acted without discernment is
exempt from criminal liability
Par. 4 Accident without fault or intention of causing
it
ACCIDENT
Is something that happens outside that sway of our will,
and although it comes about through some act of our
will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. With due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Claim of accident is not appreciated:
1. Repeated blows negate wounding by mere
accident (P. vs. Taylaran, 108 SCRA 373).
2. Accidental shooting is negated by threatening
words preceding it and still aiming the gun
instead of immediately helping the victim (P. vs.
Reyes, 69 SCRA 474).
3. When the claim of accident is belied by
demonstrative and physical evidence (P. vs.
Samson, 7 SCRA 478).
Par. 5 Irresistible Force
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE – offender uses violence or
physical force to compel another person to commit a
crime.
Elements:
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. The physical force must be irresistible.
3. The physical force must come from a third
person
NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce the
individual to a mere instrument.
There is no compulsion of irresistible force where the
accused pretended that he was threatened with a gun by
his friend, the mastermind. The testimony is not credible
in itself when he himself was armed with a rifle (P. vs.
Sarip, 88 SCRA 666).
So as the claim of a co-accused that he was forced to
rape the girl victim. Testimony of the accused is
incredible aside from being given by a polluted source.
Page 9 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

swindling, malicious mischief (Art 332)

Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – offender employs
intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a
crime
DURESS – use of violence or physical force
5. Instigation
6. Mistake of fact
7. Repeal of laws.
NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-
burst operation conducted in connection with illegal
drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment.

Elements: Entrapment Instigation

1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil The ways and means Instigator practically
greater than, or at least equal to, that which he are resorted to for the induces the would-be
is required to commit. purpose of trapping and accused into the
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and capturing the lawbreaker commission of the
imminence that an ordinary man would have in the execution of his offense and himself
succumbed to it. criminal plan. becomes a co-
principal
NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based on
real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It
should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote NOT a bar to accused’s Accused will be
fear. A threat of future injury is not enough. prosecution and acquitted
conviction
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS
– Any act done by me against my will is not my act. NOT an absolutory Absolutory cause
cause
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE Intent to commit comes Intent came from the
FEAR from the accused public officer
Offender uses violence of The offender employs
physical force to compel intimidation or threat in COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES:
another person to commit compelling another to 1. Any of the essential elements of the crime is not
a crime commit a crime. proved and the elements proved does not constitute
a crime;
2. Act falls under art. 11 (justifying circumstances);
Par. 7 Insuperable Cause 3. Case falls under art. 12 (exempting circumstances);
4. Absolutory causes:
INSUPERABLE CAUSE (cause that cannot be a. Spontaneous desistance at the attempted stage
overcomed) – some motive, which has lawfully, morally (art. 6), and no crime under another provision of
or physically prevented a person to do what the law the RPC or other special penal laws;
commands. b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and
is not against persons or property (art. 7);
Elements: c. Accessory is a relative to principal (art. 20);
1. An act is required by law to be done. d. Legal grounds for detention (art. 124);
2. A person fails to perform such act. e. Legal grounds for trespass (art. 280, last par.);
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some f. The crime of theft, swindling (estafa), or
lawful or insuperable cause. malicious mischief is committed against a
Ex: relative (art. 332);
1. A priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was g. When only less serious or slight physical injuries
confessed to him. is inflicted under exceptional circumstances (art.
2. Non-availability transportation – officer not liable 247);
for arbitrary detention h. Valid marriage (in good faith) of offender with
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness offended party (art. 344);
and extreme debility, leaving child to die – not i. Instigation;
liable for infanticide (People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 5. Guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt;
530) abnormal functional weakness 6. Prescription of crimes (art. 89);
7. Pardon by the offended party before institution of
ABSOLUTARY CAUSES- where the act committed is a criminal action in crimes against chastity (art. 344);
crime but for some reason of public policy and 8. Battered woman syndrome under Republic Act 9262
sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Exempting and (Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children
justifying circumstances are absolutory causes. Act of 2004);
Subsequent forgiveness by the wife to the husband who
Note that the effect of an absolutory cause is in the is the offender in rape (art. 266-C)
nature of an exempting circumstance.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Examples of such other circumstances are: Privileged Ordinary
1. Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6) at attempted stage Mitigating Mitigating
2. Accessories exempt from criminal liability (Art 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247)
4. Persons exempt from criminal liability from theft,
Page 10 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

Made directly only to Grave offense may be

Offset any Cannot be offset Can be offset the person committing also against the
aggravating by a generic the felony offender’s relatives
circumstance aggravating mentioned by law
circumstances Cause that brought Offended party must
about the provocation have one a grave
Effect on Effect of If not offset, need not be a grave offense to the offender
penalty imposing the has the effect offense or his relatives
penalty by 1 or 2 of imposing the Necessary that May be proximate. Time
degrees lower minimum provocation or threat interval allowed
than that period of the immediately preceded
provided by law penalty the act. No time
interval
Kinds Minority, Those
(Sources) Incomplete Self- circumstances Requisites:
defense, two or enumerated in 1. Provocation must be sufficient
more mitigating paragraph 1 to 2. It must originate from the offended party
circumstance 10 of Article 13 3. Must be immediate to the commission of the
without any crime by the person who is to invoked it.
aggravating Vindication of Grave Offense
circumstance Requisites:
(has the effect of 1. A grave offense done to the one committing the
lowering the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
penalty by one legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
degree). Art or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
64,68 and 69 2. The felony is committed in immediate vindication
of such grave offense
Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances Passion or Obfuscation
NOTE: This applies when not all the requisites are Requisites:
present. 1. Offender acted upon an impulse
If two requisites are present, it is considered a privileged 2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
mitigating circumstance (Art. 69). However, in reference produced passion or obfuscation in him
to Art. 11(4) if any of the last two requisites is absent, Surrender and Confession of Guilt
there is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. VOLUNTARY VOLUNTARY PLEA OF
Remember, though, that in self defense, defense of SURRENDER GUILT
relative or stranger, unlawful aggression must always be 1. Offender not 1. Offender
present as it is an indispensable requirement. actually arrested spontaneously
2. Offender confessed his guilt
Under 18 or Over 70 Years surrendered to 2. Confession was
NOTE: Age of accused is determined by his age at the person in authority made in open court,
date of commission of crime, not date of trial. 3. Surrender was that is before the
Legal effects on various ages of the offender: voluntary/spontaneo competent court that
1. 15 years old and below—criminally irresponsible; us is to try the case
2. Over 15 but below 18 years old— Must be 3. Confession of guilt
a. If acted with discernment—mitigated criminal coupled with an was made prior to the
liability. admission of presentation of the
b. No discernment—not criminally liable. the act, or a evidence for the
desire to own prosecution
3. 18 years or over—full criminal responsibility; responsibility 4. Plea of guilt must be
4. Over 70 years — for the act (P. unconditional
a. Mitigating circumstance; vs. Canoy, 90
b. No imposition of death penalty; Phil. 633).
Execution of death sentence, if already imposed, is 4. Surrender must be
suspended and commuted. within a reasonable
time.
No Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong
NOTE: Can be used only when the proven facts show WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY
that there is a notable and evident disproportion between - Must be spontaneous, showing the intent to the
the means employed to execute the criminal act and its accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
consequences. authorities, either because:
REMEMBER: No intent to commit so grave a wrong is 1. He acknowledges his guilt; or
not applicable in crimes punishable under Anti-Hazing 2. He wishes to save them the trouble and
Law (sec. 4, RA 8049 expense necessarily incurred in his search
and capture.
Provocation or Threats
Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of NOTES:
the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
irritating anyone.  The surrender must be to a person in authority or his
Provocation Vindication agent.
Page 11 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

Hence, surrender, to teachers or professors, is Perreras, 362

not included. SCRA 202)
Exception: surrender to teachers and May be offset by a Cannot be offset by a
professors under Dangerous Drugs Act. mitigating mitigating
circumstance. circumstance
 The surrender must be by reason of the commission
of the crime for which the defendant is prosecuted.
Hence, surrender to take advantage of an amnesty, PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person
cannot be appreciated for other crimes separate from who is directly vested with jurisdiction and has the power
that of rebellion (P. vs. Semañada, GR NO. L- 11361, to govern and execute the laws
May 26, 1958). Ex.
1. Governor
 Plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun 2. Mayor
does not entitle accused to the mitigating circumstance 3. Barangay captain/chairman
 If accused pleaded not guilty, even if during 4. Councilor
arraignment, he is entitled to mitigating circumstance 5. Agent of person in authority;
as long as he withdraws his plea of not guilty to the 6. Chief of Police (P. vs. Regala, infra)
charge before the fiscal could present his evidence.
 Plea to a lesser charge is not a Mitigating NOTE: A teacher of professor of a public or recognized
Circumstance because to be such, the plea of guilt private school is not a “public authority within the
must be to the offense charged. contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person in
 Plea to the offense charged in the amended info, authority under Art. 152, that status is only for purposes
lesser than that charged in the original info, is of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art. 152 (resistance and
Mitigating Circumstance. disobedience).
 Plea of guilty is not applicable in culpable felonies or in
(crimes punished in special laws, as a general rule). That the crime be committed
1) In the nighttime, or
GR: Plea bargaining is available only before arraignment 2) In an uninhabited place, or
EXCEPTION: When the prosecution’s evidence is weak 3) By a band,
or cannot establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whenever such circumstance may facilitate the
commission of the offense
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense after prosecution rests
is allowed when the prosecution does not have sufficient NOTE: When present in the same case and their
evidence to convict the accused of the crime charged (P. element are distinctly palpable and can subsist
vs. Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 [1992]. independently, they shall be considered separately P.
vs. Cunanan, 110 Phil. 318).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
When nighttime, uninhabited place or band
MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR aggravating:
INFORMATION 1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime,
Aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the or
complaint or information, otherwise, it may not be 2. When especially sought for by the offender to
appreciated even if proved during trial. To do otherwise insure the commission of the crime or for the
would violate the right of the accused to be informed of purpose of impunity (P. vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568);
the nature of the cause of the accusations against him. or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for
GENERIC QUALIFYING the purpose of impunity (US vs. Billedo, 32 Phil.
AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING 574).
CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
EFFECT: When not EFFECT: Gives the NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness
set off by any crime its proper and beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn.
mitigating exclusive name and
circumstance, Increase places the author of  Commission of the crime must begin and be
the penalty which the crime in such a accomplished in the nighttime (US vs. Dowdell, 11
should be imposed situation as to Phil. 4).
upon the accused to deserve no other  When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,
the maximum period penalty than that nighttime is not aggravating (P. vs. Joson, CA, 62
but without exceeding specially prescribed OG 4604).
the limit prescribed by by law for said crimes  It is not considered aggravating when the crime
law (People v. Bayot, began at daytime (P. vs. Luchico, 49 Phil. 689).
64Phil269, 273
If not alleged in the  Nighttime is not especially sought for when the
information, a To be considered as notion to commit the crime was conceived of shortly
qualifying aggravating such, MUST be before commission or when crime was committed at
circumstance will be alleged in the night upon a casual encounter.
considered generic information
 Must allege all, if  However, nighttime need not be specifically sought
not, it cannot be for when (1) it facilitated the commission of the
considered (P. vs.
Page 12 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
offense, or (2) the offender took advantage of the
same to commit the crime.
 A bare statement that crime was committed at night
is insufficient. The information must allege that
nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of, or
that it facilitated the crime
GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of
attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided upon in
the same case, they can be considered separately if
such circumstances have different factual bases. Thus:
 In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966,
nighttime was considered since it was purposely
sought, and treachery was further appreciated
because the victim’s hands and arms were tied
together before he was beaten up by the accused.
 In People vs. Ong, et.al. ( Jan. 30,1975), there was
treachery as the victim was stabbed while lying face
up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered
upon proof that it facilitated the commission of the
offense and was taken advantage of by the accused.
UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where
there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a
great distance from each other.
 Solitude must be sought to better attain the
criminal purpose
 What should be considered here is whether in
the place of commission of the offense, there
was a reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving some help.
BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3
armed malefactors that shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense
NOTE: There must be four or more armed men
 If one of the four-armed malefactors is a
principal by inducement, they do not form a
band because it is undoubtedly connoted that he
had no direct participation (Gamara vs. Valero,
51 SCRA 322).
 “By a band” is aggravating in crimes against
property or against persons or in the crime of
illegal detention or treason but does not apply to
crimes against chastity (P. vs. Corpus, CA, 43
OG 2249).
 “By a band” is inherent in brigandage
This aggravating circumstances is absorbed in the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength
RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.
Requisites of Reiteracion Or Habituality:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches an
a) Equal or
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty than that for
the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
HABITUALITY RECIDIVISM
As to the first offense
It is necessary that the It is enough that a final
offender shall have judgment has been
served out his sentence rendered in the first
for the first offense offense.
As to the kind of offenses involved
The previous and Requires that the
subsequent offenses offenses be included in
must not be embraced in the same title of the
the same title of the Code.
Code.
May not always be Always to be taken into
aggravating (discretionary consideration in fixing the
to court [1 Viada 310]) penalty of the accused.
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
Where a person commits felony before beginning to
serve or while serving sentence on a previous conviction
for an offense. This is a special aggravating
circumstance.
HABITUAL DELINQUENT
Where a person within a period of ten years from the
date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serous physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa or falsification, is found guilty of the said crimes a
third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary aggravating
circumstance.
TREACHERY
TREACHERY – when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
WHEN MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT:
1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery
must be present in the beginning of the assault.
(PEOPLE vs. MANATAD, GR No. 128593, August
14, 2002)
 Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he
was lying wounded on the ground it appearing
that the firing of the shot was a mere
continuation of the assault in which the
deceased was wounded, with no appreciable
time intervening between the delivery of the
blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot be said
that the crime was attended by treachery.
2. When the assault was not continuous, in that
there was interruption, it is sufficient that treachery
was present at the moment the fatal blow was given.
(US vs. Baloyut, 40 Phil. 385).
 Hence, even though in the inception of the
aggression which ended in the death of the
deceased, treachery was not present, if there
was a break in the continuity of the aggression
and at the time of the fatal wound was inflicted
Page 13 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
on the deceased he was defenseless, the
circumstance of treachery must be taken into
account.
Treachery Should Be Considered Even If:
1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a
generic intent to treacherously kill any first two
persons belonging to a class. (The same rule
obtains for evident premeditation).
2. There was error in personae, hence the victim was
not the one intended by the accused. (A different
rule is applied in evident premeditation).
REASONS FOR THE RULE: When there is treachery, it
is impossible for either the intended victim or the victim
to defend himself against the aggression (P. vs. Andaya,
CA, 40 OG, Supp., 12, 141).
*Herrera Doctrine- Treachery, not appreciated in
Aberratio ictus
TREACHERY ABSORBS:
1. Craft
2. Abuse of superior strength
3. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Cuadrilla (“band”)
5. Aid of armed men
6. Nighttime
UNLAWFUL ENTRY
UNLAWFUL ENTRY – When an entrance is effected by
a way not intended for the purpose.
NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect
entrance and not for escape (P vs. Sunga, 434 Phil.
205).
CRUELTY
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in
making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the
criminal act (P. vs. Dayug, 49 Phil. 423).
NOTE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ANALOGOUS
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
INTOXICATION
WHEN MITIGATING AND WHEN AGGRAVATING.
1. Mitigating:
I. If intoxication is not habitual; or
II. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony.
2. Aggravating:
I. If intoxication is habitual;
II. If it is intentional or subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
PRINCIPAL
Principals by Direct Participation
Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution
(conspiracy); and
2. That they carried of their plan and personally
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.
Principal by Induction
Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the
crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause
of the commission of the crime by the material
executor.
Principal by indispensable cooperation
Requisites:
1. Participation on the criminal resolution, that is,
there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention immediately
before the commission of the crime charged;
and
Cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act, without which it would not have
been accomplished
ACCOMPLICE
ACCOMPLICES
Persons who do not act as principals but cooperate in
the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, which are not indispensable to the commission of
the crime. They act as mere instruments that perform
acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.
Requisites: (the following must concur)
1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing
the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, he concurs with him in his purpose;
Accomplice is liable in aberratio ictus.
2. That he cooperates in the commission of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention
of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way; and
3. That there be relation between the acts done by the
principal and those attributed to the person charged
as an accomplice. (e.g. lending a gun to someone,
without conspiracy, with the knowledge that it will be
used for committing a crime, like to kill someone).
ACCESSORIES
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape
of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory
acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder,
or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
ACCESSORY; EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION
Page 14 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT WHEN THE PRINCIPAL

IS HIS: COMPLEX CRIME
1. Spouse; COMPLEX CRIME
2. Ascendant; Although there are actually two or more crimes, the law
3. Descendant; treats them as constituting only one, as there is only one
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or criminal intent. Only one information need be filed.
relative by affinity within the same degree.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES:
ACCESSORY NOT EXEMPT EVEN IF PRINCIPAL IS A
RELATIVE: 1. Compound crime—single act constitute two or
1. He profited by the effects of the crime; or more grave or less grave felonies.
2. He assisted the offender to profit by the effects Requisites:
of the crime. a) That only one single act is performed by
the offender;
ANTI-FENCING LAW b) The single act produces
"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to I. Two or more grave felonies
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, II. One or more grave and one or
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or more less grave felonies
shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any III. Two or more less grave
article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, felonies.
or should be known to him, to have been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 2. Complex crime proper—an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other.
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association Requisites:
corporation or partnership or other organization a) That at least two crimes are committed;
who/which commits the act of fencing. b) That one or some of the offenses must
be necessary to commit the other;
FENCING ACCESSORY c) That both or all of the offenses be
Mere possession of any The holder of the stolen punished under the RPC.
goods, article, item, property is presumed to
object of value which has be the principal of the The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing
been subject of robbery crime, unless it be shown murder and multiple attempted murders is complex
or theft shall be prima in satisfactory manner crime (P. vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307).
facie evidence of fencing that he is a mere
accessory thereto Several shots from Thompson sub-machine gun causing
Immaterial whether or not Accessory should have several deaths, although caused by a single act of
possessor has knowledge of the pressing the trigger, are considered several acts.
knowledge that the object commission of the crime Number of acts is determined from the number of bullets
is a fruit of the crime of of robbery or theft fired, not from the number of pressing the trigger (P. vs.
robbery or theft Desierto, 45 OG 4542).
Malum prohibitum Malum in se
Higher penalty based on As accessory’s liability is NO SINGLE ACT IN THE FOLLOWING:
the value of the property subordinate to that of the 1. When two persons are killed one after the other, by
principal different acts, although these 2 killings were the
Offender is a principal Offender is a mere result of a single criminal impulse. The different acts
under the law accessory must be considered as distinct crimes (P. vs. Alfino,
47 Phil. 1).
PENALTIES
Capital Punishment: Note: This must be distinguished from theft. There is
 Death only one act of theft committed where the crime is
committed at about the same time and place,
Afflictive Penalties: although the properties belong to two or more
 Reclusion Perpetua distinct owners. (aka “single larcency rule
 Reclusion Temporal [doctrine])
 Perpetual or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification 2. Where the acts are wholly different, not only in
 Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification themselves, but also because they are directed to
 Prision Mayor two or more different persons, as when the offender
fires his gun twice in succession, killing one and
Correctional Penalties: injuring the other (US vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56).
 Prision Correcional
 Arresto Mayor “Two or more grave or less grave felonies”
 Suspension This phrase is applicable only in the first form of complex
 Destierro crime or the compound crime.

Light Penalties: Light felonies produced by the same act should be

 Arresto Menor treated as separate offenses or may be absorbed by
 Public Censure the grave felony.
1. Several light felonies resulting from one single act—
Page 15 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
not complex.
Joint trial is, however allowed if arising from the
same cause of action.
2. When crime is committed by force and violence,
slight physical injuries are absorbed.
a. Slight physical injuries is absorbed in Direct
Assault (P. vs. Acierto, 57 Phil. 614);
b. Slight physical injuries inflicted upon the
woman’s genetalia are absorbed in the crime of
rape (P. vs. Apiado, 53 Phil. 325).
When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence
how many each killed, there is only a single offense,
there being a single criminal impulse (P. vs. Lawas,
GR no. L-7618, June 30, 1955).
CAREFUL: This doctrine according to the SC is a
“forced doctrine” because of the impossibility of
ascertaining the individual deaths caused by each and
everyone of the offenders.
NOTE: The “single criminal impulse” “same motive” or
the single purpose theory” has no legal basis. The law
speaks of single act. However, the theory is acceptable
when it is not certain who among the accused killed or
injured each of the several victims.
There is no complex crime of arson with homicide under
art. 48.
 Crime would either be arson or murder, as the case
may be, depending upon the motive of the accused;
a. Qualified arson—if the primary motive is to burn
and in consequence thereof, someone died.
b. Murder – if the motive is to kill. The killing is
qualified by the use of fire.
Be careful: Although there is no crime of arson with
homicide; that is true only in intentional arson. Hence,
Reckless Imprudence resulting in arson with homicide,
less serious physical injuries and damage to property
constitute complex crime within the meaning of art. 48
(P. vs. Pacson, CA O.G. 2165). But here, there are still 3
civil liabilities.
Art. 48 is applicable to crimes committed through
negligence. Thus, a municipal mayor was held guilty of
complex crime of homicide with less serious physical
injuries through reckless imprudence (P. vs. Castro, 40
OG, Supp. 12, 83).
Theft of firearm and illegal possession of the same
firearm do not constitute complex crime—they are two
distinct crimes.
In BP 22, there are as many crimes as the number of
rubber checks issued. Single criminal intent does not
apply. Intent is not an element in BP 22, since it is mala
prohibita.
In estafa through pyramiding scheme, there are as many
crimes as the number of offended persons defrauded.
There are several criminal intents as the number of
victims defrauded.
Notes on complex crime proper:
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
“Necessary means” does not mean “indispensable
means”. If it is an indispensable means, it becomes an
ingredient of the offense, hence cannot be complexed.
In complex crime, if the offender performs various acts,
he must have a single purpose. There must only be one
criminal intent.
When in the definition of a felony, which could be
committed in various ways, one offense is a means (a
modality) to commit such felony, there is no complex
crime.
Example: murder can be committed by means of
fire. Arson cannot be complexed with murder
because it is but a mode to commit murder.
Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction
with rape, are separate acts of rape. Only one rape is
complexed with the forcible abduction. The additional
acts of rape are separate rapes (P. vs. Bohos, 98 SCRA
353).
No complex crime when the trespass to dwelling is a
direct means to commit a grave offense, like rape,
murder, or homicide. Trespass will be considered
aggravating circumstance only (P. vs. Abedosa, 53 Phil.
788).
Note: however, trespass to dwelling is inherent in
robbery with force upon things.
No complex crime, when one offense is used to conceal
the other crime.
Examples:
1. After killing the victim, in order to conceal the crime,
he set fire to the house where the victim lies (P. vs.
Bersabal, 48 Phil. 439)
Two crimes are committed (a) homicide or
murder, and (b) arson.
2. An accountable officer, who after misappropriating
an amount under his custody, falsified documents in
order to hide the crime (US. Vs. Geta, 43 Phil.
1009).
When the offender had in his possession the funds
(accountable officer) which he misappropriated, the
falsification of a public or official document involving said
funds is a separate offense.
But when the offender had to falsify a public or official
document to obtain possession of the funds which he
misappropriated, the falsification is a necessary means
to commit the malversation (estafa).
The use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is
now considered not as a separate crime, but merely a
special aggravating circumstance (RA 8294).
Illegal possession of firearm is absorbed in rebellion (P.
vs. Rodriguez, GR NO. L-13981, April 25, 1960).
However, violation of the Articles of War (more of an
administrative penalty imposed by the President) is not
absorbed in coup de etat’.
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder,
arson, robbery, or other common crimes (P. vs.
Page 16 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515).
When the two crimes produced by a single act are
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts
of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction
shall try the complex crime.
Art.48 is intended to favor the culprit. It is to ensure
that the accused will only suffer the penalty of the higher
offense at the maximum period than to suffer for the
aggregate of the penalties for each offense.
However, prior to the abolition of death penalty, art.
48 may be disadvantageous to the accused if he
committed a complex crime and the higher penalty is
reclusion perpetua to death. In such a case, death
will have to be imposed.
When two felonies constituting a complex crime are
punishable by imprisonment and fine, only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed. Classification of the
penalty is not to be used to determine severity, but the
nature of the penalty.
Art 48 applies only to cases where the code does not
provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime.
Example: Art. 265, par. 2.
Only one information is to be filed when a complex crime
is committed.
When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not
proven, the accused could be convicted of the other
offense proven.
Complex crime proper may be committed by two
persons. Where one of the two accused, in conspiracy
with another, committed usurpation of official function
(performing marriage ceremony) in order for the other
accused to successfully seduced the girl. Both are
convicted of seduction through usurpation of official
function (US. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109).
But when one of the offense, as a means to commit the
other, was committed by one accused by reckless
imprudence, that accused who committed the offense of
reckless imprudence is liable only for his act.
NO COMPLEX CRIME IN THE FOLLOWING:
1. In case of continued crimes;
2. When the offense is committed to conceal the other;
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part or
element of the other offenses a defined;
4. Where one offense is penalized by special law;
5. When the law provides for one single penalty for
special complex crimes (composite crimes).
a. Robbery with homicide;
b. Robbery with rape;
c. Rape with homicide;
d. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries;
e. Kidnapping with homicide.
6. When the law imposes an additional penalty for
another crime necessarily included in the definition
of the crime (Two-Tiered Penalty).
a. Art. 312’
b. Art. 129;
c. Art. 210;
d. Art. 235;
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
“TWO-TIERED PENALTY” or “INCREMENTAL
PENALTY”
When the law provides an additional penalty aside from
the principal penalty imposed for the crime committed. It
usually expressed in the phrase “in addition to”.
NOTE: There is NO COMPLEX CRIME of estafa through
falsification of a private document. This is because they
have a common element of damage. The predominant
crime is the one committed. (Doctrine of Common
Elements)
PLURALITY OF CRIMES
Consists in the successive execution by the same
individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no
conviction has yet been declared.
KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES:
1. Formal or Ideal—only one criminal liability. Formal
or ideal crimes are further divided into 3 groups,
where a person is punished only with one penalty:
a. When the offender commits any of the crimes
defined in art. 48;
b. Special complex crimes;
c. Continued crimes.
2. Real or Material—there are different crimes in law
as well as in the conscience of the offender. In such
cases, the offender shall be punished for each and
every offense that he committed.
CONTINUED CRIMES
It refers to a single crime consisting of series of acts but
all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there
are series of acts, there is only one crime committed, so
only one penalty shall be imposed.
CONTINUED CRIMES CONTINUING CRIMES
Principle in procedural
law where venue may be
Several acts arising from had in any of the places
single criminal intent where any of the crime’s
essential elements took
place.
Aka “Transitory Crimes”
Examples of continued crimes:
1. A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for
his personal use several amounts collected by him
from different persons. There is only one crime,
because the different and successive appropriations
are but the different moments during which one
criminal resolution arises and a single defraudation
develops (Regis vs. P., 67 Phil. 43).
2. Theft of several roosters from a yard belonging to
different owners, committed at about the same time
and place, is only one crime of theft (P. vs. De Leon,
49 Phil. 437). [single larcency test]
3. Eight robberies as a component of a general plan to
commit robbery against all within the vicinity (P. vs.
De La Cruz, GR L- 1745, May 23, 1950).
4. Running amok without having in mind a particular
person to kill or injure; there is only one crime (P. vs.
Emit, CA GR NO. 13477-R, Jan. 31, 1956). [single
criminal impulse test]
Robbing 3 different houses was 3 separate crimes of
Page 17 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

robbery. De Leon was not applied (P. vs. Enguero, 100 14. Carnapping.
Phil. 1001).

The series of acts born of a single criminal intent may be Note: Death penalty is currently prohibited by RA
perpetrated over a long period of time (P. vs. Moreno, 9346. The provisions on automatic review are now
CA, 34 OG 1767). deemed obsolete.

HOWEVER, the act of uttering defamatory words prior to INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
the attack on the victim resulting in slight physical 1. RPC. > In imposing a prison sentence for an
injuries, constitute two distinct crimes of slander and offense punished by the Revised Penal Code,
slight physical injuries, although born out of the same or its amendments, the court shall sentence the
criminal impulse (P. vs. Ramos, 59 OG 4052). accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in
Note: A continued crime is not a complex crime. view of the attending circumstances, could be
RULE IN RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE IN RELATION TO properly imposed under the rules of the said
COMPLEX CRIME Code, and the minimum which shall be within
The prevailing doctrine is that slight physical injuries, the range of the penalty next lower to that
although it is a light felony, may be filed in the same prescribed by the Code for the offense; and
complaint with damage to property and/or homicide
where the offense results from reckless negligence. 2. 2. Special Law > if the offense is punished by
THERE IS NO COMPLEXING. Thus, when already any other law, the court shall sentence the
convicted or acquitted for the same act of negligence, he accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
cannot be prosecuted for the same act of negligence the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
nd
2 time around (P. vs. Silva, L-15974, Jan. 30, 1962, EN maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
BANC). shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same
This ruling was in effect abandoned in Reodica vs. CA,
89 SCRA 632 [1979], where it was held that the resulting WHEN BENEFIT OF ISL IS NOT APPLICABLE:
crimes/injuries arising from the same act of negligence A. It shall not apply to the following persons:
may not be subject of one and the same information. 1. Sentenced to death penalty or life imprisonment;
However, again, P vs. Silva is in effect the prevailing 2. To those convicted of
rule. Only one information should be filed in the same a) Treason;
court. There is only one act of negligence (Ivler vs. b) Conspiracy or proposal to commit
Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191). treason;
c) Misprision of treason;
REAL/MATERIAL CONTINUED CRIME d) Rebellion;
PLURALITY e) Sedition;
There is a series of acts Same f) Espionage;
performed by the g) Piracy.
offender
Each act performed Different acts constitute 3. Those who are habitual delinquents;
constitute a separate only one crime because BUT recidivist and/or quasi recidivist is
crime because each is all of the acts arise from entitled to the benefits of ISL.
generated by different one criminal resolution 4. Those who shall have escaped from
criminal impulse confinement;
5. Those who evaded the service of their sentence;
DEATH PENALTY 6. Those who having been granted conditional
JUSTIFICATION FOR DEATH PENALTY pardon by the President shall have violated the
Social defense and exemplarity. Not considered cruel terms thereof;
and unusual because it does not involve torture or 7. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
lingering death (P. vs. Marcos, 147 SCRA 204).. does not exceed one year;
Those who are already sentenced by final judgment at
CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH (RA 7659): the time of effectivity of ISL
1. Treason;
2. Qualified Piracy; FINE OR IMPRISONMENT VS. SUBSIDIARY
3. Qualified Bribery; IMPRISONMENT
4. Parricide; Art. 39 applies only when the convict has no property
5. Murder; with which to meet the fine. Thus, a convict who has
6. Infanticide; non-exempt property enough to meet the fine cannot
7. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention; choose to serve the subsidiary penalty instead of
8. Robbery with homicide, rape, intentional payment of the fine.
mutilation or arson;
9. Rape – with the use of deadly weapon or by two Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty.
or more persons; Accessory penalties are deemed imposed even if not
10. Qualified rape; mentioned in the decision, while subsidiary penalty must
11. Destructive arson; be EXPRESSLY imposed.
12. Plunder;
13. Violations of certain provisions of the Dangerous TAKE NOTE: Subsidiary Imprisonment (penalty) is
Drugs Act; MANDATORY BUT NOT AUTOMATIC.
Page 18 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
PECUNIARY PENALTIES VS. PECUNIARY
LIABILITIES
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES PECUNIARY
PENALTIES
Broader in concept Limited in scope
Paid individually Paid jointly and
severally
Art. 38 Art. 89 (1)
Includes: Includes:
1. Reparation of the 1. The fine;
damage caused; 2. The cost of the
2. Indemnification of proceedings.
the consequential
damages;
3. The fine’
4. The cost of the
proceeding.
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
"ART. 29. RPC Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or
accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment
shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time
during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily
in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and
with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
except in the following cases:
"1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime; and
"2. When upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
"If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of
a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment.
"Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
years.
"Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which
he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated,
he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on
appeal, if the same is under review. Computation of
preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate
release under this paragraph shall be the actual period
of detention with good conduct time allowance:
Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without
justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may
motu proprio order the re-arrest of the accused:
Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents,
escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are
excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment." (As amended by
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
RA 10592)
RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT
RECLUSION LIFE IMPRISONMENT
PERPETUA
Penalty provided for in Penalty imposed,
the RPC generally, in Special
Laws
Has accessory penalties Generally no accessory
penalties except when
expressly provided
Duration is 20 years and Has no duration
1 day to 40 years
May be reduced by Cannot be reduced by
degrees degrees
PROBATION LAW(PD 968 as amended by RA 10707)
Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this
Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty
and upon application by said defendant within the period
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the
sentence and place the defendant on probation for such
period and upon such terms and conditions as it may
deem best.
PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL
No application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from
the judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable
penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is
modified through the imposition of a probationable
penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for
probation based on the modified decision before such
decision becomes final. The application for probation
based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial
court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-
probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court
where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case
involving several defendants where some have taken
further appeal, the other defendants may apply for
probation by submitting a written application and
attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of
conviction.
“The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed,
suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the
judgment.
“This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit
of probation should he seek a review of the modified
decision which already imposes a probationable penalty.
“Probation may be granted whether the sentence
imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing
of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right
to appeal.
“An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable.”
PROBATION; MAXIMUM TERM VS TOTAL TERM
In order to apply or to be eligible for probation, only the
maximum term for each sentence is determined and not
the totality of all the sentences.
Page 19 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

PROBATION LAW; NOT QUALIFIED any class of crimes persons who are
Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree guilty of political
shall not be extended to those: offenses
“a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment Pardon looks forward Looks backwards and
of more than six (6) years; and relieves the abolishes and puts
“b. convicted of any crime against the national security; offender from the into oblivion the
“c. who have previously been convicted by final imposition of the offense itself and the
judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of penalty but does not person stands before
more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine work for the the law as though he
of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00); restoration of the had committed no
“d. who have been once on probation under the rights to hold public crime
provisions of this Decree; and office, or the right of
“e. who are already serving sentence at the time the suffrage, and other Hence, the accused
substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable vestiges of the crime is not considered a
pursuant to Section 33 hereof.” (like moral turpitude) recidivist (US vs.
unless expressly Francisco, 10 Phil.
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; ADULTS/MINORS remitted in the pardon) 185).
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RA 9344
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once
the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the RESCRIPTION OF CRIME; COMMENCEMENT
time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of The period of prescription shall commence to run from
the offense charged, the court shall determine and the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information,
the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child and shall commence to run again when such
in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, proceedings terminate without the accused being
without need of application: Provided, however, That convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the any reason not imputable to him.
juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at The term of prescription shall not run when the offender
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the
various circumstances of the child, the court shall PRESCRIPTION IN RELATION TO “CONSTRUCTIVE
impose the appropriate disposition measures as NOTICE RULE”
provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in When the forged Deed of Sale is registered with the
Conflict with the Law. ROD, prescription begins to run from the time of its
registration. Registration is a constructive notice to the
SEC. 39. Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the whole world of dealings affecting the land (Cabral vs.
Law. - Upon the recommendation of the social worker Puno, 70 SCRA 597).
who has custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the This presumption may not be rebutted by evidence
case against the child whose sentence has been of good faith on the part of the offended party who
suspended and against whom disposition measures had no knowledge of the registration (Gatioan vs.
have been issued, and shall order the final discharge of Gaffud, 27 SCRA 706).
the child if it finds that the objective of the disposition
measures have been fulfilled. CAREFUL: Constructive Notice Rule is not applicable in
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall Bigamy case. Prescription begins to run only upon the
not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission discovery of the bigamous marriage NOT from the time it
of the offense, which shall be enforced in accordance is registered with the Local Civil Register. (Sermonia vs.
with law. CA, 233 SCRA 155 [1994]). Reason: The registration of
the marriage is not for the validity of the marriage.
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
FELONIES (RPC) - filing of complaint in the prosecutor’s
AMNESTY VS. PARDON office tolls the prescriptive period.
PARDON AMNESTY
Proclamation by the SPECIAL LAW crimes – filing of complaint in the
Pardon is granted by Chief Executive and prosecutor’s office tolls the prescriptive period (DOJ vs.
the Chief Executive concurrence of Panaguiton)
Congress
Must be pleaded and Need not be alleged Violation of Ordinance – filing of complaint in court tolls
proved (private act of and proved (public the prescriptive period (Zaldivia vs. Reyes) Act 3326
the president) act which the courts
can take judicial PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
notice) The period of prescription of penalties shall commence
Can be granted to run from the date when the culprit should evade the
Pardon is granted only generally at any time service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the
after final conviction even before defendant should give himself up, be captured, should
prosecution is go to some foreign country with which this Government
commenced or after has no extradition treaty, or should commit another
conviction crime before the expiration of the period of prescription
Generally available to Generally granted to
Page 20 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
CIVIL LIABILITY
EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL
CIVIL LIABILITY MAY EXIST, ALTHOUGH THE
ACCUSED IS NOT HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE:
1. Acquittal is based on reasonable grounds.
Note: award of civil liability even the judgment is
of acquittal is allowed (Maximo vs. Gerochi, 144
SCRA 326).
2. Acquittal is based on non-imputability (art. 101,
RPC).
3. Independent civil actions;
a) Arts. 31, 32, 33, and 34, NCC.
4. When there is a finding that the liability is only
civil, not criminal.
5. Quasi-delicts (art. 2177, NCC).
NOTE: For more discussions on the procedural aspect
of the enforcement of the civil liabilities, please refer to
Remedial Law Reviewer.
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY; EMPLOYERS
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
are not engaged in any business or industry.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAWS OF NATION
TREASON
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien resident;
2. There is a war in and the Philippines is involved;
and
3. Offender either—
a. Levies war against the government; or
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid
or comfort.
PIRACY
TWO MODES OF COMMITTING PIRACY
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas
or in the Philippine waters;
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas
or Philippines waters the whole or part of its
cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of
its complement or passenger.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine
waters;
2. That the offenders are not members of its
complement or passengers of the vessel.
3. That the offender—
a. Attack or seize that vessel;
b. Seize the whole or part of the cargo of said
vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of
its complement or passenger.
When the offender is a member of the complement or a
passenger of the vessel and there is violence or
intimidation or persons or force upon things, and the
crime is committed in the high seas, the crime would be
common (simple) robbery. If the offender is an outsider,
it is piracy.
HOWEVER, if the vessel is on Philippine waters, the
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
crime is still piracy, irrespective of whether the offender
is an outsider or member of the complement or
passengers of the vessel. It is covered by PD 532.
QUALIFIED PIRACY
Art. 123 RPC. Qualified piracy. — The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those
who commit any of the crimes referred to in the
preceding article, under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims
without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape. (as amended by RA
7659).
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF
THE STATE
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or
employee;
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to
enter the dwelling and/or make a search therein
for papers or other effects.
3. That he commits any of the following acts:
a. Entering any dwelling against the
(express or implied) will of the owner
thereof;
b. Searching papers or other effects found
therein without previous consent of the
owner;
c. Refusing to leave the premises, after
having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required
to leave the same.
“Against the will of the owner”
The entrance of the public officer must be against the
will of the owner. Prohibition could be express or implied.
If the entrance is only without the consent of the owner,
the crime is not committed (P. vs. Sane, CA., 40 OG.,
Supp. 5, 113).
A peace officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully
enter the dwelling against the will of the owner, even if
he knew that someone in the dwelling is having unlawful
possession of prohibited drugs (opium) [US. vs. De los
Reyes, 20 Phil. 467].
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
REBELLION
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be public uprising and taking of arms
against the Government; and
2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is
either:
a. To remove from the allegiance to said
government or its laws:
(1) The territory if the Philippines or
any part thereof; or
(2) Any body of land, naval or other
armed forces; or
Page 21 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

b. To deprive the Chief Executive or 3. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives. COUP D’ ETAT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the
military or police or holding any public office or
REBELLION INSURRECTION employment;
Employed in reference to 2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack
a movement which seeks accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
Object is completely to merely to effect some strategy or stealth;
overthrow and supersede change of minor 3. That the attack is directed against duly
the existing government importance, or to prevent constituted authorities of the Republic of the
the exercise of Philippines or any military camp or installation,
governmental authority communication networks, public utilities or other
with respect to particular facilities needed for the exercise and continued
matters or subjects. possession of power;
4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or
diminish state power.
 Actual clash of arms with the forces of the
government is not necessary to convict the accused NOTE: This crime is punishable only when not
who is in conspiracy with others actually taking up successful. If the offenders succeeded, there is no more
arms against the government (P. vs. Cube, CA 46 prosecution. The perpetrators are now possessing
OG 4412). powers of the government.
 Purpose of the uprising must be shown. Without
evidence to indicate the motive or purpose, mere DIRECT ASSAULT
rising publicly is not rebellion (US vs. Constantino, 2 TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING DIRECT ASSAULT:
Phil. 693). 1. Without a public uprising, shall employ force or
 It is not necessary that the purpose of rebellion be intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose
accomplished. The reason is obvious, if the rebels enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
succeed, there are no rebellion to speak of anymore, sedition.
the rebels will gain power. They will instead be
treated as heroes. ELEMENTS:
1) Offender employs force or intimidation;
2) That the aim of the offender is to attain any of
the purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of
REBELLION TREASON the objects of sedition;
Levying of war is 3) That there is no public uprising.
committed in peace time Levying of war is
(Philippines is not at war committed in war time 2. Shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or
with foreign power) resist any person in authority or any of his agents,
Purpose is generally to Purpose is to deliver the while engaged in the performance of official duties,
overthrow the country to foreign enemy or on occasion of such performance.
government
Rebellion always involve Treason may be ELEMENTS:
taking of arms committed by mere 1) Offender—
adherence, giving aid or (a) Makes an attack,
comfort (b) Employs force,
Two-witness rule does Two- witness rule applies (c) Makes serious intimidation,
not apply (d) Makes serious resistance.

 Giving aid and comfort is not punishable in 2) Person assaulted is a person in authority or his
rebellion. agent.
If no public uprising, the crime is direct assault, in the  Note: The attack must during the
first form (art. 148). incumbency of the public officer in a public
office. Thus, it must not be after his
CONSPIRARY or PROPOSAL TO COMMIT retirement.
REBELLION
ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY: 3) At the time of the assault the person in authority
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement to or his agent—
rise publicly and take up arms against the a. Is engaged in the performance of his duties
government; (motive is not essential); or
2. For any purposes of rebellion b. Is assaulted by reason of the past
3. They decided to commit it. performance of official duties (motive is
essential).
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL:
1. A person who has decided to rise publicly and 4) The offender knows that the one he is assaulting
take up arms against the government; is a person in authority or his agent in the
2. For any of the purposes of rebellion; and exercise of his duties (must be alleged in the
information).
Page 22 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

2. Breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or

There is no public uprising floors;
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit,
RESISTANCE and violence or intimidation; or
DIRECT ASSAULT (148) DISOBEDIENCE to a 4. Through connivance with other convicts or
PIA or AGENTS of PIA employees of the penal institution.
(151)
PIA must be engaged in PIA or his agent must be CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
the performance of in the actual performance
official duties or that he is of his duties FLASE TESTIMONY
assaulted by reason FALSE TESTIMONY
thereof Is committed by a person, who being under oath and
committed by: Committed by: required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter at a
1. Attacking, 1. Resisting, hearing before a competent authority, shall deny the
2. Employing force, 2. Seriously truth or saying something contrary to it
3. Seriously disobeying
intimidating; FALSIFICAITON
4. Seriously ELEMENTS:
resisting 1. That the offender is a public officer, employee,
Use of force against an Simple disobedience— or notary public;
agent of PIA must be Force against an agent is 2. That he takes advantage of his official position;
serious and deliberate not serious. No manifest 3. That he falsifies a document by committing the
intention to defy the law acts enumerated in art. 171;
& and officers enforcing it 4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister,
the act of falsification is committed with respect
DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL to any record or document of such character that
ELEMENTS: its falsification may affect the civil status of
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal persons.
establishment;
2. That such offender removes therefrom such person, PERSONS LIABLE:
or helps the escape of such person.
1. Public officer, employee or notary public;
 Prisoner may be a detention prisoner only. 2. Ecclesiastical minister if the act of falsification
 Hospital or asylum considered extension of jail or affect the civil status of persons;
prison (Albert). 3. Private individuals, if in conspiracy with public
 Offender is usually an outsider. officer.
 If the escapee is already serving final judgment, he
is liable for evasion of service of sentence. THERE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL
 The guard, who is off-duty, may be held liable for POSITION WHEN:
delivering prisoner from jail. 1. He has the duty to make or to prepare or
otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
 If he has custody of the prisoner, he is liable under document;
art. 223. 2. He has the official custody of the document
which he falsifies (US vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil.
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE 376).
ELEMENTS:
1. the offender is a convict by final judgment; DOCUMENT
2. that he is serving his sentence which consists in A written statement by which a right is established or an
deprivation of liberty; obligation extinguished (P. vs. Moreno, CA, 38 OG 119).
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence. Note: False affidavit is not a document. Falsifying an
affidavit is punished as perjury, not falsification (P. vs.
nd
Art. 157 is applicable to sentence of destierro. Gonzales, 16 CA Rep., 2 series, 258).
Compliance with the penalty of destierro should not be
excused upon so flimsy a cause (P. vs. Janson, CA, 59 THERE MUST BE A GENUINE COPY IN
OG 4689). FALSIFICATION IF:
1. Falsification is by making alteration or
 This is a continued offense. intercalation;
 This does not apply to minor delinquents, detention 2. Including in a copy a different statement.
prisoners or deportees.
 If offended party escapes within the 15 day period to  Thus in pars. 6, 7 in its second part, and 8 of art.
appeal, he is not guilty of evasion of service. The 171, there must be a genuine document. In other
judgment is not yet final and executory. pars., falsification may be committed by simulating
or fabricating a document.
CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFYING THE OFFENSE:
1. By means of unlawful entry (“scaling”);  It is not necessary that the document be real, it is
Scaling-- means climbing or scaling the wall. enough that it be given the appearance of a true and
Unlawful entry seems an erroneous translation genuine document. Hence, simulation of a warrant
of the Spanish text “escalamiento”. of arrest, in order to arrest a common-law-wife who
Page 23 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

left the accused, is falsification of public document
(US vs. Corral, 15 Phil. 383).
 Whether the accused is a public officer/employee or
a private individual, good faith is a defense in the
crime of falsification of public/official document.
truth of the facts narrated by him;
3) That the facts narrated by the offender is
absolutely false; and
4) That the perversion of truth in the narration of
facts was made with the wrongful intent of
rd
injuring 3 persons.

 The settled doctrine is that in falsification of
public/official document whether committed by
public officer or a private individual, DAMAGE
PREJUDICE is not an essential element.
THE DIFFERENT MODES OF FALSIFYING
DOCUMENT:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating (feigneing)
handwriting, signature or rubric
Requisites:
1) That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt
to imitate; and
2) The two handwritings, the genuine and the
forged, bear some resemblance to each other
(US vs. Rampas, 26 Phil. 189).
When any of the requisites of counterfeiting
(lack of similarity) is not present, he accused
may be found guilty under par. 2 (US vs.
Freimuth, 3 Phil. 318).
2. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate
a There must be narration of facts, not conclusion
a of law. Hence, if in the certificate of candidacy,
or the candidate stated that he is qualified to run
but in truth and in fact is not, said person is not
A guilty of falsification under this par. The
statement is a mere conclusion of law (P. vs.
Yanza, GR NO. L-12089, April 29, 1960).
any
There must be a legal obligation on the part of
the accused to disclose the truth. It means that
there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth
of the facts narrated (P. vs. Quasha, 93 Phil.
333). Like a residence certificate.
The defendant must be aware that the facts
narrated by him are false (US vs. Gonzaga, 14
Phil. 562).
The narration of facts must be absolutely false.
Hence, if some of the narrations are true, there
is no false narration of facts. Example is
certifying that persons under his charge fully
worked for the whole day, but in truth, have
worked only for a few hours (US vs. Bayot, 10
Phil. 518).

Requisites: Wrongful intent is not required when the

1) That the offender caused it to appear in a
document that the person or persons
participated in an act or a proceeding;
2) That such person or persons did not in fact so
participate in the act or proceeding.
document falsified is a public document (P. vs.
Po Giok To. 96 Phil. 917).
There is no falsification by one who acted in
good faith (US vs. San Jose, 7 Phil. 604).

The imitation of the signature of the offended
party is not necessary under this par. (P. vs.
Llave, CA, 40 OG 1908).
Compelling another to sign a document ceding a
portion of land, by means of violence or
intimidation, is not falsification of a public
document but is a crime under art. 298, RPC.
5. Altering true dates;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an
act or proceeding statements other than those in
fact made by them;
Requisites:
1) That a person or persons participated in an act
or a proceeding;
2) That such person or persons made statements
in that act or proceeding; and
3) That the offender, in making a document,
attributed to such person or persons,
statements other than those in fact made by
such person/s.
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts;
Requisites:
1) That the offender makes in a document
statements in a narration of facts;
2) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
This kind of falsification can be committed by
omission (P. vs. Dizon, 47 Phil. 350).
Issuance of a post-dated check is not
falsification (P. vs. Yanza, Supra).
 Date must be essential.
 Dates of birth, marriage and death are essential,
because without them the documents cannot
produce any legal effect (Albert)
Comment: These dates are essential for some
rights may be defendant on them in order to
determine when such right is vested.
Example:
1) Date of death—determines when is
successional right is vested.
2) Date of marriage may be determinative
of guilt of the accused in a bigamy case.
3) Birth determines personality.
 Alteration must affect the veracity of the
document or effects.
 Altering dates in official receipts to prevent the
discovery of malversation is falsification.
Page 24 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
Requisites:
1) That there be an alteration (change) or
intercalation (insertion) on a document;
2) That it was made on a genuine
document;
3) That the alteration or intercalation has
changed the meaning of the document;
and
4) That the change, made the document
speak of something false.
Alteration which speaks the truth is not
falsification. Hence, the alteration in the personal
cedula of age from 23 to 25, it appearing that the
real age of the accused was really 25, is not
falsification (US vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324).
Altering grades in examination papers involves
several acts of falsification. Hence, alteration of
grades by an employee of the SC, of the grades in
examination notebooks of a bar candidate
constitutes:
1. Making alteration on genuine documents (par.
6);
2. Making it appear that the correctors had
participated in blotting out the grades and writing
new increased grades opposite their initials(par.
2);
3. Attributing to the correctors statements other
than those in fact made by them (par. 3).
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that
of the genuine original
The acts of falsification mentioned in this par.
Cannot be committed by a private individual or
by a notary public or a public officer who does
not take advantage of his official position
FORGERY
FORGERY COUNTERFEITING
Applies to imitation of
treasury notes or
obligations and securities Refers to imitation or
issued by the Philippines falsifying of money
or foreign governments
acceptable in the
Philippines
PERJURY
TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING PERJURY:
1. Falsely testifying under oath;
2. By making a false affidavit
ELEMENTS:
1. That the accused made a statement under oath
or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. That the statement or affidavit was made before
a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath;
3. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused
made a willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood; and
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
4. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing
the falsity is required by law (P. vs. Bautista, CA,
40 OG 2491).
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICER
PUBLIC OFFICERS
REQUISITES:
To be a public officer, one must be—
1. Taking part in the performance of public
functions in the Government, or Performing is
said government or any of is branches public
duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official, of any rank or class; and
2. That his authority to take part in the performance
of public functions or to perform public duties
must be—
a. Be direct provision of the law; or
b. By popular election; or
c. By appointment by competent authority.
The term “public officers” embraces every public servant
from the highest to the lowest.
 One appointed as a laborer in the government is
not a public officer (Maniego vs. P., 88 Phil.494).
But temporary performance of public functions
by a laborer makes him a public officer.
MALFEASANCE Doing of an act which a public
officer should not have done
MISFEASANCE Improper doing of an act which
a public officer might lawfully do
NON- Failure of the agent to perform
FEASANCE his undertaking for the principal
BRIBERY
ACTS PUNISHABLE IN BRIBERY:
1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present—
an act constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties.
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of
an act which does not constitute a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official
duties.
3. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing
something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer within the
scope of art. 203:
2. That the offender accepts an offer or a promise
or receives a gift or present by himself or
through another;
3. That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift
or present received by the public officer—
a. With a view of committing some crime;
b. In consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it
is his official duty to do.
4. That the act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes be connected with
Page 25 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
the performance of his official duties.
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises or
gives gifts or presents to a public officer;
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts
or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
MALVERSATION
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
1. By appropriating public funds or property;
2. By taking or misappropriating the same;
3. By consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting ay other person to take
such public funds or property;
4. By being otherwise guilty of misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property.
ELEMENTS: (common to all acts)
1. That the offender be a public officer;
2. That he had custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
3. That those funds or property were public funds
or property for which he was accountable;
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
ELEMENTS: of TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. That there is a public fund of property under his
administration;
3. That such public fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance;
4. That he applies the same to a public use other
than that for which such fund or property has
been appropriated by law or ordinance.
MALVERSATION TECHNICAL
MALVERSATION
Offenders are both public officers
The offender in certain The offender does not
cases profits from the derive any personal
proceeds of the crime gain or profit
MALVERSATION TECHNICAL
MALVERSATION
Offenders are both public officers
The offender in certain The offender does not
cases profits from the derive any personal
proceeds of the crime gain or profit
The fund or property is Property or fund is
used for the benefit of used to some other
the offender or some public purpose
other person
INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he has in his custody or charge, a prisoner,
either detention or a prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody;
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape (US vs. Bandino, 29 Phil. 459).
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
PARRICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or
legitimate spouse of the accused.
DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE
REQUISITES FOR APPLICATION:
1. That a legally married person or a parent
surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years old of age and living with him, in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person;
2. That he or she kills any or both, of them or
inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury in the act or immediately
thereafter;
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse.
MURDER
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in art. 248;
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which
is presumed;
4. That the killing is not murder, parricide, or
infanticide.
TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons;
2. That they did not compose of groups organized
for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally;
3. That these several persons quarreled and
assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner;
4. That someone is killed in the course of the
affray;
The person killed need not be participant in
the affray.
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed
the deceased;
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.
Page 26 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338

That the victim kidnapped or detained is a minor, female,

RAPE (Art 266-A; RA. 8353) or a public officer.
ELEMENTS OF RAPE (under par. 1):
1. That the offender is a man;
2. That the offender had carnal knowledge of a FORCIBLE KIDNAPPING with
WOMAN; ABDUCTION with RAPE RAPE
3. That such act is accomplished under any of the The violent taking of a Offense is motivated by
following circumstances-- woman is motivated by intent to deprived
a) By using force or intimidation; or lewd design offended party of his
b) When the woman is deprived of reason liberty—no lewd design
or otherwise unconscious; or Crime against chastity Crime against personal
c) By means of fraudulent machinations or liberty
grave abuse of authority; or Complex crime under art. Special complex crime
d) When the woman is under 12 years of 48 under art. 267
age or demented.
TRESPASS TO DWELLING
ELEMENTS:
ELEMENTS OF RAPE-sexual assault (under par. 2): 1. That the offender is a private person;
2. That he enters the dwelling of another;
1. That the offender commits an act of sexual 3. That such entrance is against the latter’s will.
assault;
2. That the act of sexual assault is committed by DWELLING
any of the following means— It means any building or structure exclusively devoted for
a) By inserting his penis into another rest and comfort. Dwelling may include a room occupied
person’s mouth or anal orifice; or by another person (US vs. Silvano, 31 Phil. 510)
b) By inserting any instrument or object
into the genital or anal orifice of another UNJUST VEXATION
person. ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a creditor;
3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished 2. That he seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
under any of the following circumstances— 3. That the seizure of the thing be accomplished by
a. By using force or intimidation; or means of violence or a display of material force
b. When the person is deprived of reason producing intimidation;
or other wise unconscious; or 4. That the purpose of the offender is to apply the
c. By means of fraudulent machinations or same to the payment of the debt.
grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the person is under 12 years of CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
age or demented.
ARSON
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AN Is the malicious destruction of property by fire.
SECURITY
GRAVE COERCION KINDS OF ARSON
ELEMENTS: 1. Arson (simple) under sec.1, PD 1613;
1. That a person – 2. Destructive arson under art. 320, RPC as
a. Prevented another from doing amended by RA 7659;
something not prohibited by law, or
b. Compelled another to do something Note: Destructive arson under section 2 of
against his will, be it right or wrong; PD 1613 is again repealed by subsequent
2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected amendment of art. 320, RPC by RA 7659.
by violence, threats or intimidation; and
3. That the offender had no authority in law to do 3. Other cases of arson under sec. 3, PD 1613.
so.
Placing the rags soaked in gasoline beside the wooden
KIDNAPPING wall of the building and lightning a match but does Not
ELEMENTS: light the rags due to timely intervention of another is
1. That the offender is a private individual; ATTEMPTED ARSON. It is not necessary that there be
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any a fire.
other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be BP22
illegal;  Gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a “bum”
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the or “worthless” check (P. vs. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305).
following circumstances are present—
a. That kidnapping or detention lasted for ESTAFA
more that 3 days; ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA IN GENERAL:
b. It is committed simulating public
authority; 1. That the accused defrauded another (a) by
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit;
upon the person kidnapped, or threats and
to kill him are made;
Page 27 of 30
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
The first element covers the 3 different ways
of committing estafa under art. 315.
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.
The second element is the basis of the penalty.
Deceit is not an essential element of estafa with abuse
of confidence (US vs. Pascual, 10 Phil. 621).
NOTE: Accused can be validly convicted of attempted
estafa when only intent to cause of damage and not the
damage itself has been shown (Koh Pieck Heng vs. P.,
192 SCRA 533).
ESTAFA VS THEFT
ESTAFA (with abuse of THEFT
confidence)
Offender receives the Offender takes the thing
thing
Juridical possession is Only material or physical
acquired by offender possession is transferred
to offender
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes,
or the taking away of the property of another by means
of violence against or intimidation of person or force
upon things of other unlawful means, committed by any
person on any Philippine Highway. (PD 532)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
When by reason, or on the occasion of robbery,
homicide shall have been committed. It is immaterial if
homicide is deliberate or accidental. It is also immaterial
as to who is the victim of homicide.
THEFT
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be taking of personal property;
2. That said property belongs to another;
3. That the taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That the taking be done without the consent of
the owner;
Knowledge and failure to object to the taking
is NOT equivalent to consent.
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use
of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
QUALIFIED THEFT
THEFT IS QUALIFIED—
1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant;
2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of
confidence;
3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b)
mail matter, or (c) a large cattle;
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a plantation;
5. If the property taken is a fish from a fishpond or
fishery;
6. If the property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That the act of lasciviousness is committed
against a person of either sex;
3. That it is done under any of the following
circumstances—
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under 12
years of age or is demented.
ADULTERY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the woman is married;
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not
her husband;
3. That as regards the man with whom she has
sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married.
CONCUBINAGE
3 WAYS OF COMMITTING CONCUBINAGE:
ELEMENTS:
1. That the man must be married;
2. That he committed any of the following acts—
a. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling; or
b. By having sexual intercourse, under
scandalous circumstances, with a woman
who is not his wife;
c. By cohabiting with her in any other place.
3. That as regards the woman, she must know him
to be married.
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
BIGAMY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has been legally married;
2. That the marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, that absent spouse is cannot yet or is
not yet declared presumptively dead in a
summary proceeding according to art. 41 of the
Family Code;
3. That he/she contracts a second or subsequent
marriage;
That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
requisites for validity.
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
ELEMENTS of DEFAMATION:
1. That there must be an imputation of—
a. A crime;
b. A vice or defect, real or imaginary;
c. Any act;
d. Omission;
e. Condition;
f. Status;
g. Circumstance;
2. That the imputation must be made publicly;
3. That it must be malicious;
4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural
or juridical person, or one who is dead;
Page 28 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed.
LIBEL
Libel is defamation in writing. See above elements.
SPECIAL LAWS
ANTI-CARNAPPING RA 6539
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things
RA.3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit such violation
or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit,
for himself or for any other person, in connection
with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any
person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or
will secure or obtain, any Government permit or
license, in consideration for the help given or to
be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of
this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his
family accept employment in a private enterprise
which has pending official business with him
during the pendency thereof or within one year
after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act
within a reasonable time on any matter pending
before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his
own interest or giving undue advantage in favor
of or discriminating against any other interested
party.
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into
any contract or transaction manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether
or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or
in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or
by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in
any transaction or act requiring the approval of a
board, panel or group of which he is a member,
and which exercises discretion in such approval,
even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed
against those public officers responsible for the
approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or
irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel
or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such
license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his office or
by him on account of his official position to
unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release
date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or
benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or
offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging
or untimely release of the confidential information
referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall,
together with the offending public officer, be punished
under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently
or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court,
from transacting business in any form with the
Government.
PLUDNER LAW
Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million
pesos (P50,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to
death
ANTI-HAZING LAW
Mere presence in the place were hazing is being
conducted is enough to convict the accused as a
principal (Anti-Hazing law). This is an exception to the
rule that mere presence in the scene of the crime is not
sufficient to establish conspirary.
RA.7610 ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
"Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether
Page 29 of 30
Criminal Law Areas in the 2019 Bar Examinations
Atty. Genesis M. Auza - #gobeyond - 09207025338
habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the
following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect,
cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for
survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to
an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
Note: In sum, what can reasonably be deduced from the
above two cases and applied to this jurisdiction are: (1)
schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis
with respect to their students; (2) minor students have
contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject
to the custody and supervision of their parents,
guardians, and schools; (3) schools, acting in loco
parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well -
being of their students and may adopt such measures as
may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty;
and (4) schools have the right to impose conditions on
applicants for admission that are fair, just, and non-
discriminatory.
Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, the Court
is of the view and so holds that the provisions of RA
9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is
within the prerogative of educational institutions to
require, as a condition for admission, compliance with
reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To
be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to
fair, reasonable, and equitable requirements (Social
Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board and PDEA,
GR No. 57870 November 3, 2008).
“Chain of Custody” requirement in drug offense refers
to the duly recorded, authorized movement and custody
of seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment
of dangerous drugs from the time confiscation/seizure
thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in
the forensic laboratory for examination to its safekeeping
and eventual presentation/offer in court as evidence of
the criminal violation, and for destruction (Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 Series of 2002). Its
rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus
delicti or body of the crime by rendering it improbable
that the original item seized/confiscated in violation has
been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered
with or contaminated. It is a method of authenticating the
evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable
doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims to
be. Failure to observe the „chain of custody” requirement
renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy and
insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable
doubt.
Note: To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused
is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool
for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives
of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a
persons' right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III
of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are
veritably forced to incriminate themselves. Declared
Unconstitutional. (ATTY.MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR.,
BIT-COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS 2019 #GOBEYOND
vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, G.R. No.
158633,November 3, 2008)
Only those who violate RA9165 can be required to
undergo mandatory drug test.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM RA.8294 AS
AMENDED BY RA.10591
If illegal possession of firearm is not an inherent element
of the crime and it is used to commit a crime under the
Revised Penal Code, the following should be observed:
A) If penalty provided by the RPC is higher
compared to the illegal possession of firearm,
the latter is considered only as aggravating
circumstance;
B) If penalty provided by the RPC is equal to the
penalty of illegal possession of firearm, the
penalty of illegal possession shall be imposed in
addition to the penalty of the crime under RPC;
C) If penalty provided by the RPC is lesser to the
penalty of illegal possession of firearm, the
penalty for illegal possession shall be imposed.
RA. 9262
Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti- Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004), victim-survivors
who are found by the Courts to be suffering from
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) do not incur any
criminal or civil liability despite absence of the necessary
elements for the justifying circumstance of self-defense
in the RPC. BWS is a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.
"Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Violence against women and their children" refers to
any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against
a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship, or with whom he has a common
child, or against her child whether legitimate or
illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which
result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
“Believe that all your dreams will come true. You will
be rewarded of your hardwork and devotion by the
will of the Greatest, the Supreme and Divine.”
-Atty. Genesis M. Auza
Page 30 of 30