AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES 1.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the suspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 2. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 3. Elements of murder by means of treachery: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 4. To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R.A. No 9165) 1. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. People vs. Aure, G.R. NO. 185163, 17 JANUARY 2011 2. In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. People vs. Aure, G.R. NO. 185163, 17 JANUARY 2011 3. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. People vs. Aure, G.R. NO. 185163, 17 JANUARY 2011 4. Drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private, as well as in public places, even in the daytime. People v. Dela Rosa, 640 SCRA 635, January 26, 2011 5. Evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the appellant. People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011 6. Accused-appellants were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accusedappellants. People v. Ng Yik Bun, G.R. No. 180452. January 10, 2010 CONSPIRACY 1. Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. People v. Dequina, 640 SCRA 111 2. While it is true that statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy, if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators. People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011

CRIMINAL LAW 1. Illegal possession of two (2) pieces of short magazine of M16 Armalite rifle, thirty-five (35) pieces of live M16 ammunition 5.56 caliber, and fourteen (14) pieces of live caliber .45 ammunition is punishable under paragraph 2 of the said section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, while illegal possession of the two (2) receivers of a .45caliber pistol is penalized under paragraph 1. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 2. By virtue of the changes brought about by Republic Act No. 8294, an information for illegal possession of firearm should now particularly refer to the paragraph of Section 1 under which the seized firearm is classified, and should there be numerous guns confiscated, each must be sorted and then grouped according to the categories stated in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294, amending Presidential Decree No. 1866. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 3. Absent any evidence pointing to an accuseds participation, knowledge or consent in the actions of another accused, she cannot be held liable for illegal possession of the receivers. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 4. Illegal possession of firearms, or part of a firearm, is committed when the holder thereof: (1) possess a firearm or a part thereof (2) lacks the authority or license to possess the firearm. We find that petitioner was neither in physical nor constructive possession of the subject receivers. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 5. Mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the rule is the same whether the offenses are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, which are mala in se, or in crimes, which are malum prohibitum by virtue of special law. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 6. In illegal possession of a firearm, two (2) things must be shown to exist: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed the same does not have the corresponding license for it. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 7. When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the victims death; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and temperate damages. People v. Capitle, G.R. No. 175330, January 12, 2011 5. When the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the damages to be imposed are: P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P30,000 as exemplary damages. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 DERELICTION OF DUTY Sheriffs cannot receive gratuities or voluntary payments from parties they are ordered to assist. Garcia v. Alejo, A.M. No. P-09-2627. January 26, 2011 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom; the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done; A threat of future injury is not enough; The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. People v. Dequina, 640 SCRA 111

ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS 1. In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of RA No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. People vs. Lorena, G.R. NO. 184954 2. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. People v. Manlangit, G.R. NO. 189806, 12 JANUARY 2011 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES 1. A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 2. In order for self-defense to be successfully invoked, the following essential elements must be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 3. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person, and, in case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721 4. It is well-settled rule that a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful in itself. People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721

KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION 1. If the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial. People v. Uyboco, G.R. No. 178039 2. In order for the accused to be convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the RPC, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present; (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d)the person kidnapped and kept in detained is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. People v. Uyboco, G.R. No. 178039

MORAL DAMAGES Moral damages must also be awarded because they are mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528

PRINCIPALS One who gave instructions and training to another on how to make bombs coupled with their careful planning and persistent attempts to bomb different areas in metro Manila and his confirmation that another would be getting TNT from one of the accused as part of their mission make him a principal by inducement since it is his co-inducement which was the determining cause of the commission of the crime. in the light of the foregoing evidence, the Court upholds the finding of guilt against Rohmat. Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code reads: Art. 17. Principals. People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011