Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
2015-2016 JURISPRUDENCE
MURDER
PEOPLE VS BOSITO,
G.R. 209346, January 12, 2015
Bosito admitted hacking Bonaobra although in
self-defense. By invoking self-defense,
appellant admits killing the victim and the
constitutional presumption of innocence is
effectively waived. The burden of evidence
then shifts to the appellant that the killing was
justified and that he incurred no criminal
liability. Thus, it is incumbent upon appellant
to prove the elements of self-defense: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person claiming self-defense.
The means employed by Bosito to prevent or
repel the supposed unlawful aggression was
beyond reasonably necessary. As correctly
found by the trial and appellate courts, the
number, nature, and gravity of the wounds
sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined
effort to kill and contradict Bositos claim of
self-defense.
The Court also sustained that treachery
attended the crime. The essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of
any chance to defend himself. Here, the
sudden attack of Bosito with a bolo against
Bonaobra while they were watching a card
game caught the victim by surprise. Bonaobra
was unprepared and had no means to put up a
defense. Such aggression insured the
commission of the crime without risk on
Bosito. Also, we agree with the trial court
when it held that abuse of superior strength is
deemed absorbed in treachery. Since treachery
qualifies the crime of murder, the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is necessarily included in the former.
PEOPLE VS DIMACUHA, JR., ET AL.
G.R. 191060, February 2, 2015
The elements of the crime of murder are: (1) a
person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or
her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
Page 1 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4)
that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
These requisites have been established by the
prosecution.
The fatal shooting of the victim was attended
by treachery, a qualifying circumstance listed
under Article 248 and notably, alleged in the
Information. For treachery to be properly
appreciated, two conditions must be present:
(1) at the time of the assault, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the
offender consciously adopted the particular
means, methods, or forms of attack employed
by him.
The aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation is also present, which has the
following elements: (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2)
an act manifestly indicating that the accused
clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient
lapse of time between determination and
execution to allow himself time to reflect upon
the consequences of his act. The plan to kill
Agon was conceived a day before the victim
was fatally shot. Appellants and their cohorts
therefore, had adequate time to reflect on the
consequences of their contemplated crime
prior to its execution.
PEOPLE VS CASAS,
G.R. 212565, February 25, 2015
The elements of Murder that the prosecution
must establish are: (a) that a person was killed;
(b) that the accused killed him or her; (c) that
the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not
parricide or infanticide.
Among the qualifying circumstances thus
enumerated in Article 248 is treachery. Under
Article 14 of the RPC, [t]here is 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. In other words, to appreciate
treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the
means of execution employed gives the victim
no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
and (b) the methods of execution were
 Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
deliberately or consciously adopted; indeed,
treachery cannot be presumed, it must be
proven by clear and convincing evidence.
PEOPLE VS SEVILLANO,
G.R. 200800, February 09, 2015
By invoking self-defense, appellant in effect,
admits to having inflicted the stab wounds
which killed the victim. The burden was,
therefore, shifted on him to prove that the
killing was done in self-defense. In Razon v.
People, this Court held that where an accused
admits the killing, he assumes the burden to
establish his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction
would follow from his admission that he killed
the victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably
appreciated when corroborated by
independent and competent evidence or when
it is extremely doubtful by itself.
PEOPLE VS MATIBAG,
G.R. 206381, March 25, 2015.
In People v. Perez, it was explained that a
frontal attack does not necessarily rule out
treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still
be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and
so unexpected that the deceased had no time
to prepare for his or her defense.
It is well-settled that there can be no self-
defense, whether complete or incomplete,
unless the victim had committed unlawful
aggression against the person who resorted to
self-defense. Jurisprudence states that not
every form or degree of aggression justifies a
claim of self-defense. For unlawful aggression
to be appreciated, there must be an actual,
sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent
danger thereof, not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude, as against the one
claiming self-defense.
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, as
amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294,
treats the unauthorized use of a licensed
firearm in the commission of the crimes of
homicide or murder as a special aggravating
circumstance.
PEOPLE VS MARCELINO OLOVERIO
G.R. 211159, March 18, 2015.
Page 2 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance need not be felt only in the
seconds before the commission of the crime. It
may build up and strengthen over time until it
can no longer be repressed and will ultimately
motivate the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE VS DE LEON, ET AL.,
G.R. 197546, March 23, 2015
Unlawful aggression refers to an assault to
attack, or threat in an imminent and
immediate manner, which places the
defendant's life in actual peril. Mere
threatening or intimidating attitude will not
suffice. There must be actual physical force or
actual use of weapon.
FANTASTICO AND VILLANUEVA VS ELPIDIO
MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE,
G.R. 190912, January 12, 2015.
Article 6 of the RPC defines an attempt to
commit a felony, thus; There is an attempt
when the offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. The essential elements of an
attempted felony are as follows:
1. The offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by
overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
felony;
3. The offender's act be not stopped by
his own spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of
execution was due to cause or accident
other than his spontaneous desistance.
The first requisite of an attempted felony
consists of two (2) elements, namely:
(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts have direct
connection with the crime intended to
be committed.
An overt or external act is defined as some
physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more

than a mere planning or preparation, which if
carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offenseIt is necessary that the overt act
should have been the ultimate step towards
the consummation of the design. It is sufficient
if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a
direct movement towards the commission of
the offense after the preparations are made."
The act done need not constitute the last
proximate one for completion. It is necessary,
however, that the attempt must have a causal
relation to the intended crime. In the words of
Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate
and necessary relation to the offense.
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever
there is a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor,
assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
selected or taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime." The evidence must
establish that the assailants purposely sought
the advantage, or that they had the deliberate
intent to use this advantage. "To take
advantage of superior strength means to
purposely use excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available
to the person attacked." The appreciation of
this aggravating circumstance depends on the
age, size, and strength of the parties.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
GONZAGA VS PEOPLE,
G.R. 195671, January 21, 2015
To constitute the offense of reckless driving,
the act must be something more than a mere
negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle
a willful and wanton disregard of the
consequences is required. It is the inexcusable
lack of precaution or conscious indifference to
the consequences of the conduct which
supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of
mere negligence and imprudence under the
operation of the penal law, without regard to
whether the private offended party may
himself be considered likewise at fault.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Page 3 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
PEOPLE VS JAY HINLO A.K.A. "INDAY
KABANG", ET AL., G.R. 212151, February 18,
2015.
In People v. Uy, the Court explained that the
elements for the crime of robbery with
homicide are: (a) the taking of personal
property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (b) the property
belongs to another; (c) the taking is animo
lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery,
homicide was committed. A conviction
requires that the robbery is the main purpose
and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery. The intent to rob must precede the
taking of human life, but the killing may occur
before, during or after the robbery.
Moreover, conspiracy having been established,
when a homicide takes place by reason of or
on occasion of the robbery, all those who
took part shall be guilty of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide whether they
actually participated in the killing, unless there
is proof that there was an endeavour to
prevent the killing.
PEOPLE VS OROSCO,
G.R. 209227, March 25, 2015
The elements of the crime of robbery with
homicide are: (1) the taking of personal
property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
done with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason
of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
homicide (used in its generic sense) is
committed. Homicide is said to have been
committed by reason or on the occasion of
robbery if it is committed (a) to facilitate the
robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to
preserve the possession by the culprit of the
loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate
witnesses to the commission of the crime.17 In
robbery with homicide, the original criminal
design of the malefactor is to commit robbery,
with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or
by reason of the robbery. The intent to
commit robbery must precede the taking of
human life. The homicide may take place
before, during or after the robbery.

RA 9165
PEOPLE VS HAVANA,
G.R. 198450. January 11, 2016
Chain of Custody Rule in Drugs Cases
Statutory rules on preserving the chain of
custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and
related items are designed to ensure the
integrity and reliability of the evidence to be
presented against the accused. Their
observance is the key to the successful
prosecution - of illegal possession or illegal sale
of dangerous drugs.
PEOPLE VS OPIANA
G.R. 200797, January 12, 2015.
Sale and illegal possession
For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution
satisfactorily established 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. What is material in a
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in
evidence.
PEOPLE VS DAHIL & CASTRO,
G.R. 212196, January 12, 2015.
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: "Chain of
Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition.
Page 4 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution
to establish the rigorous requirements of
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence
dictates that substantial compliance is
sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the
law does not necessarily render the arrest of
the accused illegal or the items seized or
confiscated from him inadmissible.
First link: Crucial in proving the chain of
custody is the marking of the seized drugs or
other related items immediately after they
have been seized from the accused. "Marking"
means the placing by the apprehending officer
or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the items seized. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial
link; hence, it is vital that the seized
contraband be immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use
the markings as reference.
Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by
the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating
Officer;
Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating
Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic
Chemist;
Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal
Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the
Court.
The presumption of regularity of the
performance of official duties stands when no
reason exists in the records by which to doubt
the regularity of the performance of official
duty. And even in that instance, the
presumption of regularity will never be
stronger than the presumption of innocence in
favor of the accused.
PEOPLE VS CASACOP,
G.R. 210454, January 13, 2016
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this
case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and in sustaining a conviction under
R.A. No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have
been preserved.
LESCANO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 214490, January 13, 2016

Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
Compliance with Section 21s requirements is
critical. Non-compliance is tantamount to
failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti,
an essential element of the offenses of illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
By failing to establish an element of these
offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender
the acquittal of an accused.
PORTUGUEZ VS PEOPLE,
G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015.
Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165- illegal possession
The essential elements in illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possess the
said drug. This Court holds that all the
aforementioned essential elements in illegal
possession of dangerous drugs were proven in
this case. It is a settled rule that in cases
involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses
who are police officers, for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. However, petitioner failed to present
clear and convincing evidence to overturn the
presumption that the arresting officers
regularly performed their duties.
Non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR
(inventory and photographs) does not make
the items seized inadmissible. What is
imperative is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidential value of the seized items as
the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
PEOPLE VS MIRANDA,
G.R. 205639, January 18, 2016
It is material in every prosecution for the
illegal sale of a prohibited drug that the drug,
which is the corpus delicti, be presented as
evidence in court. Hence, the identity of the
prohibited drug must be established without
Page 5 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
any doubt. Even more than this, what must
also be established is the fact that the substance
bought during the buy-bust operation is the
same substance offered in court as exhibit. The
chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.
PEOPLE VS ASISLO,
G.R. 206224, January 18, 2016
The essential element of the charge of illegal
transportation of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one
place to another. There is no definitive
moment when an accused "transports" a
prohibited drug. When the circumstances
establish the purpose of an accused to
transport and the fact of transportation itself,
there should be no question as to the
perpetration of the criminal act.
PEOPLE VS ENUMERABLE
G.R. 207993, January 21, 2015.
It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale
of dangerous drug, not only must the essential
elements of the offense be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, but likewise the identity of
the prohibited drug. The dangerous drug itself
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and
the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction.
Necessarily, the prosecution must establish that
the substance seized from the accused is the
same substance offered in court as exhibit. In
this regard, the prosecution must sufficiently
prove the unbroken chain of custody of the
confiscated illegal drug.
PEOPLE VS MINANGA
G.R. 202837, January 21, 2015.
The essential elements of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possess the
said drug. It is a settled rule that in cases
involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses

who are police officers, for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary.
It has been ruled time and again that non-
compliance with Section 21 of the IRR
(inventory, etc.) does not make the items
seized inadmissible. What is imperative is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidential
value of the seized items as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE VS PAVIA & BUENDIA
G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015
Possession of Dangerous Drugs during Parties,
Social Gatherings or Meetings
The accused claimed that the warrantless arrest
was illegal.
The elements of the crime committed are: (1)
possession by the accused of an item or object
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; (3) the free and conscious possession of
the drug by the accused, with the additional
element that (4) the accused possessed the
prohibited or dangerous drug during a social
gathering or meeting, or in the company of at
least two persons.
Citing jurisprudence,
RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require
strict compliance as to the chain of custody
rule. x x x. We have emphasized that what is
essential is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items,
as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
PEOPLE VS MORALES
G.R. 206832, January 21, 2015.
While the case is pending, Morales died. The
SC ruled that the death of accused-appellant
Morales pending appeal of his conviction,
extinguishes his civil and criminal liabilities.
PEOPLE VS LIU
Page 6 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
G.R. 189272, January 21, 2015.
Importation of regulated drugs
The accused were on board a speed boat
found to have several transparent plastic bags
containing shabu.
(a) W/N there is importation of regulated
drugs
The crime of importation of regulated drugs is
committed by importing or bringing any
regulated drug into the Philippines without
being authorized by law. According to
appellants, if it is not proven that the regulated
drugs are brought into the Philippines from a
foreign origin, there is no importation.
Moreover, the Blacks Law Dictionary defines
importation as the act of bringing goods and
merchandise into a country from a foreign
country.
According to the SC, the mere fact that the
appellants were Chinese nationals as well as
their penchant for making reference to China
where they could obtain money to bribe the
apprehending officers does not necessarily
mean that the confiscated drugs necessarily
came from China. Therefore, the accused are
not liable for importation of prohibited drugs.
(b) W/N the accused may be held liable for
illegal possession
In People v. Elkanish, this Court held that
possession is inherent in importation.
Therefore, while appellants cannot be held
liable for the offense of illegal importation
charged in the information, their criminal
liability for illegal possession, if proven beyond
reasonable doubt, may nevertheless be
sustained.
At this point, this Court notes that charging
appellants with illegal possession when the
information filed against them charges the
crime of importation does not violate their
constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation brought
against them. The rule is that when there is a
variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information, and that proved or
established by the evidence, and the offense as
charged necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved included in that which is
charged.
 Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
(c) Warrantless arrest
The elements are: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such
overt act is done in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officer.
In addition, this Court does not find the
consequent warrantless search and seizure
conducted on appellants unreasonable in view
of the fact that the bags containing the
regulated drugs were in plain view of the
arresting officers, one of the judicially
recognized exceptions to the requirement of
obtaining a search warrant.
PEOPLE VS PIAD, ET AL.
G.R. 213607, January 25, 2016
Chain of Custody
Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and
not necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it
can be proven that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
PEOPLE VS PASION & PAZ
G.R. 203026, January 28, 2015.
As the lower courts have, we likewise adhere
to the well-entrenched rule that full faith and
credence are given to the narration of police
officers who testify for the prosecution on the
entrapment or buy-bust operation, because as
police officers, they are presumed to have
regularly performed their duties.
In a prosecution for the illegal sale and illegal
delivery of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must be established: (1) proof that
the transaction or sale took place; and (2)
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or
the illicit drug as evidence. On the other hand,
the elements of the crime of 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)
Page 7 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the accused freely and consciously possessed
the said drug.
PEOPLE VS BOCADI & BATICOLON
G.R. 193388, July 1, 2015
Validity of Buy-bust Operations despite
absence of PDEA officers; No need to present
marked money prior to arrest- only need to
show illicit transaction occurred; Chain of
Custody.
PEOPLE VS ENAD
G.R. 205764. February 3, 2016
The prosecution must establish the unbroken
chain of custody of the seized item.
PEOPLE VS BUTIAL
G.R. 192785, February 04, 2015
The SC acquitted the accused in finding that
the prosecution failed to show that the identity
and integrity of the corpus delicti have been
preserved.
In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of
drugs, there must be evidence of the following
elements: (1) the identities of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. The evidence of corpus
delicti must also be established beyond doubt.
In this case, the shabu constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a
conviction under [RA 9165], the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be
shown to have been preserved.16 The chain
of custody requirement performs this function
in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.
PEOPLE VS NEPOMUCENO
The Court is satisfied that the prosecution
discharged its burden in a prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which 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.
This offense merely requires the consummation
of the selling transaction, which occurs the

moment the buyer exchanges his money for
the drugs of the seller.
In cases involving the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, credence should be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution
witnesses, especially when they are police
officers who are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary.
Appellants contention that her warrantless
arrest was unlawful does not deserve credence.
The facts on record do not substantiate her
claim that she was apprehended merely on
suspicion of committing a crime. On the
contrary, appellant was arrested after
committing a criminal offense that resulted
from a successful buy-bust operation. Having
been apprehended in flagrante delicto, the
police officers were not only authorized but
were even duty-bound to arrest her even
without a warrant.
PEOPLE VS SUMILI
G.R. 212160, February 04, 2015
In order to convict an accused for violation of
RA 9165, or the crime of sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must establish the
concurrence of the following elements: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment.24Note that
what remains material for conviction is the
proof that the transaction actually took place,
coupled with the presentation before the court
of the corpus delicti.25 It is also important that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items be preserved. Simply put, the
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence
against an accused must be the same as that
seized from him. The chain of custody
requirement removes any unnecessary doubts
regarding the identity of the evidence.
The Court finds that the prosecution failed to
establish the identity of the substance allegedly
confiscated from Sumili due to unjustified gaps
in the chain of custody, thus, militating against
a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the accused was acquitted.
PEOPLE VS USMAN
G.R. 201100, February 04, 2015
Page 8 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the
essential elements to be duly established for a
successful prosecution of offenses involving the
illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs,
like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt of the marked money by the
seller successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction. What is material, therefore, is the
proof that the transaction or sale transpired,
coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti.
In many cases, in many cases, the Court held
that while the chain of custody should ideally
be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain. The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they
will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Hence, the
prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the
physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS DACUMA
G.R. 205889, February 04, 2015
The following requisites are necessary in order
to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and
consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
In the prosecution of illegal sale, what is
essential is to prove that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of the corpus
delicti. The consummation of sale is perfected
the moment the buyer receives the drug from
the seller.10 In this case, the prosecution failed
to prove that the four sachets which tested
positive for shabu and eventually presented in
court were the same ones confiscated by the
police officers due to its non-marking at the

place where the buy-bust operation was
committed at the police station.
In People v. Kamad, the Court enumerated the
different links that the prosecution must
establish to preserve the identity and integrity
of the seized items: first, the seizure and
marking of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turn over by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turn over and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court. These requirements are
necessary in order to ensure that the
confiscated drug are the same ones presented
in court in order to dispel unnecessary doubts
as to the identity of the evidence.
The SC emphasized the importance of the
marking of the seized items. In the recent case
of People v. Sabdula, failure to mark the
plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust
operation became the Courts basis for
acquittal.
In a number of cases, the Court sanctioned
substantial compliance with the procedure to
establish a chain of custody, provided that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team/officers. However, when
serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items presented in
evidence, liberality ceases and presumption of
innocence takes precedence over substantial
compliance.
PEOPLE VS DASIGAN
G.R. 206229, February 04, 2015.
Accused: no photographs were taken,
inventory was not conducted immediately
SC: This Court has, in many cases, held that
while the chain of custody should ideally be
perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain. The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they
will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Hence, the
Page 9 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the
physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.
In People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien
Chua,34 where the marked money was also
shown to accused-appellant but it was not
actually given to her as she was immediately
arrested when the shabu was handed over to
the poseur-buyer, the Court held that it is
material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that
the sale actually took place, and what
consummates the buy-bust transaction is the
delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and,
in turn, the sellers receipt of the marked
money. While the parties may have agreed on
the selling price of the shabu and delivery of
payment was intended, these do not prove
consummated sale. Receipt of the marked
money, whether done before delivery of the
drugs or after, is required.
In the case at bar, although accused-appellant
was shown the consideration before she
handed over the subject shabu to the poseur-
buyer, such is not sufficient to consummate the
sale. However, the accused is criminally liable
for illegal possession.
PALO VS PEOPLE,
G.R. 192075, February 10, 2016
The fact that the apprehending officer marked
the plastic sachet at the police station, and not
at the place of seizure, did not compromise the
integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has
declared that "marking upon immediate
confiscation" contemplates even marking done
at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team.
PEOPLE VS TAPUGAY
G.R. 200336, February 11, 2015
In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the
prosecution is able to establish the following
essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object of the sale and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and its payment. What is material is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took

place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery
of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the
receipt by the seller of the marked money
successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction.
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a
perfect chain of custody in the handling of
evidence, substantial compliance with the
legal requirements on the handling of the
seized item is sufficient. This Court has
consistently ruled that even if the arresting
officers failed to strictly comply with the
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and
will not render the items seized inadmissible in
evidence. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to have been preserved unless there
is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that
the evidence has been tampered with.
Appellant bears the burden of showing that
the evidence was tampered or meddled with
in order to overcome the presumption of
regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers and the presumption that public
officers properly discharged their duties.
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO,
G.R. 174481, February 10, 2016
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses in cases involving
violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act may be excused so long as the
identity of the dangerous drugs is proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of
custody is established with moral certainty.
PEOPLE VS GABUYA
G.R. 195245, February 16, 2015
Failure of the accused to raise an objection on
the evidence presented during trial
It bears stressing that the Court has already
brushed aside an accuseds belated contention
that the illegal drugs confiscated from his
person is inadmissible for failure of the
Page 10 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of
R.A. 9165. This is considering that
"[w]hatever justifiable grounds may excuse
the police officers from literally complying
with Section 21 will remain unknown, because
[appellant] did not question during trial
the safekeeping of the items seized from
him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal; when a party
desires the court to reject the evidence offered,
he must so state in the form of an objection.
Without such objection, he cannot raise the
question for the first time on appeal. x x x
PEOPLE VS ROSAURO,
G.R. 209588, February 18, 2015
The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of
accused-appellant to be the result of a
legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find
nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary
finding. In People v. Bartolome, we had the
occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a decoy
solicitation, to wit:
It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime
that facilities for its commission were
purposely placed in his way, or that the
criminal act was done at the decoy
solicitation of persons seeking to expose the
criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity
in the act were present and apparently assisting
its commission. Especially is this true in that
class of cases where the office is one habitually
committed, and the solicitation merely
furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
This Court has, in many cases, held that while
the chain of custody should ideally be perfect,
in reality it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain. The most
important factor is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items as they will be used to determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence,
the prosecutions failure to submit in evidence
the physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.
Under the law, the offense of illegal sale of
shabu carries with it the penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos

(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos
(P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity
and purity of the substance.
PEOPLE VS GABUYA,
G.R. 195245, February 16, 2015
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal; when a party desires the
court to reject the evidence offered, he must
so state in the form of an objection. Without
such objection, he cannot raise the question
for the first time on appeal. Besides and as
already mentioned, the CA has already
concluded that the identity of the seized drugs
was established by the prosecution and its
integrity preserved.
PEOPLE VS DIAZ,
G.R. 197818, February 25, 2015
Prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs
depends largely on the credibility of the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation. It is fundamental that the factual
findings of the trial [court] and those involving
credibility of witnesses are accorded respect
when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension
of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
such findings.
It is settled that an accused may still be found
guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe
the requirements provided under Section 21 of
R.A. [No.] 9165, for as long as the chain of
custody remains unbroken.
It must be added, however, that appellant
shall not be eligible for parole.
PEOPLE VS REYES,
G.R. 194606, February 18, 2015
The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
such as shabu, has the following elements: (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and consideration; (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor.
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-
buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction. Clearly, the element of
receipt of payment for the thing sold is absent
Page 11 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
in this case. Hence, the offense of illegal sale of
shabu against appellant cannot stand.
Appellant is guilty instead of illegal delivery of
shabu. To establish the guilt of an accused for
the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there
must be evidence that (1) the accused passed
on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means;
(2) such delivery is not authorized by law;
and (3) the accused knowingly made the
delivery with or without consideration.
PEOPLE VS BASILIO,
G.R. 195774, February 23, 2015
To obtain a conviction for violation of Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 involving a buy-
bust operation, the following essential
elements must be established: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and its payment. What is
material is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug
to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money consummate the
illegal transaction.
PEOPLE VS PERONDO,
G.R. 193855, February 18, 2015
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of
shabu, the following elements must concur:
(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. x x x What is material in a
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of thecorpus delicti.
The testimony of the poseur-buyer was not
indispensable or necessary; it would have been
cumulative merely, or corroborative at best.
PEOPLE VS DELA PEA & DELIMA,
G.R. 207635, February 18, 2015
The elements necessary for the prosecution of
a charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs

Criminal Law
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 are: (1)
the identities of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
On the other hand, the elements of the crime
of illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (a)
the accused is in possession of an item or
object that is identified to be a prohibited or
dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the drug.
In the prosecution of a case for violation of
R.A. 9165, both for illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the primary
consideration is to ensure that the identity and
integrity of the seized drugs have been
preserved from the time they were confiscated
from the accused until their presentation as
evidence in court.46 The prosecution must
establish with moral certainty that the
specimen submitted to the crime laboratory
and found positive for dangerous drugs, and
finally introduced in evidence against the
accused was the same illegal drug that was
confiscated from him.
PEOPLE VS BIO,
G.R. 195850, February 16, 2015
To sustain a conviction under Section 5, Article
II of R.A. 9165, all that is needed for the
prosecution to establish are (1) the identity of
the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. In illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it is
necessary to prove that: (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 drug.
PEOPLE VS ALAGARME
G.R. 184789, February 23, 2015
The importance of the State establishing a
preserved chain of custody in every criminal
prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs cannot be understated. The accused
cannot be pronounced guilty of the offense if
all the links of the chain of custody of the drug
Page 12 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
subject of the illegal sale - the corpus delicti
itself- are not shown. The reason is that the
drug presented as evidence at the trial is not
shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was
the drug subject of the illegal sale.
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the presentation of the drugs
as evidence in court is material, because the
identity of the drugs seized should be
established beyond any reasonable doubt.
What is more, the fact that the substance
bought during the buy-bust operation is the
same substance offered in court should be
proven. The preservation of the chain of
custody of the drugs seized performs the
function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts
attending the identity of the evidence are
removed.
PEOPLE VS ANGNGAO & CARLIN
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015
The State bears the burden of establishing the
chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
confiscated during a buy-bust operation. The
evidence of the chain of custody must meet
the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Should the State not definitively establish that
the dangerous drugs presented in court were
the very same substances actually recovered
from the accused, the criminal prosecution for
drug pushing should fail because the guilt of
the accused was not established beyond
reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS CASACOP
G.R. 208685, March 09, 2015
Failure to observe the chain of custody
required under Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165 or failure to sufficiently explain the
reason for non-observance of the chain of
custody creates reasonable doubt as to the
integrity of the corpus delicti in cases involving
dangerous drugs.
The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties cannot prevail
over the presumption of innocence of accused-
appellant.
PEOPLE VS SORIN

G.R. 212635, March 25, 2015
Accordingly, it is of paramount importance for
the prosecution to establish that the
transaction actually took place, and to present
the corpus delicti, i.e., the seized drug/s, before
the court.
It is well-settled that in criminal prosecutions
involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the
drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the
crime calls for the necessity of proving with
moral certainty that they are the same seized
items. The lack of conclusive identification of
the illegal drugs allegedly seized from the
accused strongly militates against a finding of
guilt, as in this case. Therefore, as reasonable
doubt persists on the identity of the drugs
allegedly seized from the accused, the latter's
acquittal should come as a matter of course.
PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ
G.R. 205414, April 4, 2016
To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal
sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, the
following elements under Section 5, Article II
of RA No. 9165 should be satisfactorily
proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. What is material to the prosecution
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of
evidence of corpus delicti.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
enumerates the circumstances by which a
warrantless arrest are considered reasonable:
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A
peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been
committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
Page 13 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to
another.
Requirements under Section 21 of RA No.
9165 mandating the arresting team to conduct
a physical inventory of the items seized and
photograph the same in the presence of: (1)
the accused; (2) a representative from the
media; (3) a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ); and (4) any
elected public official who shall further be
required to sign the copies of the said
inventory. According to appellant, no physical
inventory nor photograph was ever taken in
this case.
Failure to comply with the preceding
requirements does not automatically render an
arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in
evidence, pursuant to the following Section 21
(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA No. 9165:
x x x non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items[.]
Rule on Chain of Custody
The rule on chain of custody expressly
demands the identification of the persons who
handle the confiscated items for the purpose of
duly monitoring the authorized movements of
the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia
from the time they are seized from the accused
until the time they are presented in court.
Moreover, as a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it
is offered in evidence, in such manner that
every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in

the witness possession, the condition in which
it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.
PEOPLE VS NUARIN
G.R. 188698, July 22, 2015
Chain of Custody. Inconsistent testimonies on
Marking the drugs, tantamount to acquittal.
PEOPLE VS MAMALUMPON
G.R. 210452, August 26, 2015
The failure of the prosecution to conduct a
physical inventory and take photograph of the
seized item does not ipso facto render
inadmissible in evidence the items seized.
There is a proviso in the implementing rules
stating that when it is shown that there exist
justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the evidence have
been preserved, the seized items can still be
used in determining the guilt or innocence of
the accused. Ultimately, it is the preservation
of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items which must be proven to establish
the corpus delicti.
PEOPLE VS POSADA & POSADA.
G.R. 196052, September 2, 2015
Signing the Certification of Orderly Search was
not an extrajudicial confession.
PEOPLE VS CARRERA
G.R. 215731, September 2, 2015
Illegal Delivery of Shabu. Fear for loss of life
and limb is a suitable justification for not
conducting inventory and marking at nearest
police station or barangay hall.
ORAL DEFAMATION
DE LEON VS PEOPLE & SPO3 LEONARDO
G.R. 212623, January 11, 2016
Page 14 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Serious or Slight Oral Defamation
Whether the offense committed is serious or
slight oral defamation, depends not only upon
the sense and grammatical meaning of the
utterances but also upon the special
circumstances of the case, like the social
standing or the advanced age of the offended
party
KIDNAPPING
PEOPLE VS PEPINO & GOMEZ
G.R. 174471, January 12, 2016
Kidnapping Duration of Detention
If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention is a minor, the duration of his
detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim
is kidnapped and illegally detained for the
purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of
his detention is also of no moment and the
crime is qualified and becomes punishable by
death even if none of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 267
is present.
RAPE
RICALDE VS PEOPLE
G.R. 211002, January 21, 2015
Even men can become victims of rape.
Rape under the second paragraph of Article
266-A is also known as instrument or object
rape, gender-free rape, or homosexual
rape. The gravamen of rape through sexual
assault is the insertion of the penis into
another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into another persons
genital or anal orifice.
In People v. Soria, this court discussed that a
victim need not identify what was inserted
into his or her genital or anal orifice for the
court to find that rape through sexual assault
was committed; The absence of spermatozoa
in XXXs anal orifice does not negate the
possibility of an erection and penetration. This
result does not contradict the positive
testimony of XXX that the lower courts found
credible, natural, and consistent with human
nature; the medico-legal explained that his
negative finding of trauma in the anal orifice

does not remove the possibility of an insertion
considering the flexibility of the sphincter.
Note: The slightest penetration into ones
sexual organ distinguishes an act of
lasciviousness from the crime of rape.
PEOPLE VS SUAREZ
G.R. 201151, January 14, 2015
The special aggravating/qualifying circumstance
that the offender is a relative within the third
civil degree by affinity and the victim who is a
minor under eighteen years of age; Nighttime
as aggravating circumstance.
Moreover, it has been settled that in rape
cases, the law does not impose a burden on
the rape victim to prove resistance because it is
not an element of rape. The failure of a rape
victim to offer tenacious resistance does not
make her submission to accused's criminal acts
voluntary. What is necessary is that the force
employed against her was sufficient to
consummate the purpose which he has in
mind.
Note: The medical examination of the victim is
not an element of rape. Moreover, the
medical examination does not seek to establish
who committed the crime, rather it merely
corroborates the testimony of the rape victim
that she has been raped. The prime
consideration in the prosecution of rape is the
victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical
findings; a medical examination of the victim is
not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.
The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is
sufficient to convict. Alibi and denial cannot
prevail over the positive and categorical
testimony and identification of the
complainant.
PEOPLE VS JOSON
G.R. 206393, January 21, 2015.
For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he
accomplished this act through force, threat or
intimidation, when she was deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious, or when she was
under 12 years of age or was demented.
Page 15 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Her testimony has established all the elements
of rape required under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code. First, appellant had
carnal knowledge of the victim. Second,
appellant employed threat, force and
intimidation to satisfy his lust. Force or
intimidation is not limited to physical force. As
long as it is present and brings the desired
result, all consideration of whether it was
more or less irresistible is beside the point.
PEOPLE VS SANTOS
G.R. 205308, February 11, 2015
It was found that appellants guilt of the crimes
he was accused of was clearly established by
the witnesses and the evidence of the
prosecution. The trial court, having the
opportunity to observe the witnesses and their
demeanor during the trial, can best assess the
credibility of the witnesses and their
testimonies. The trial courts findings are
accorded great respect unless the trial court has
overlooked or misconstrued some substantial
facts, which if considered might affect the
result of the case.
Appellants denial and uncorroborated defense
of alibi cannot prevail over the credible and
positive testimony of AAA that appellant
raped her and committed acts of lasciviousness
against her.
PEOPLE VS ESPEJON,
G.R. 199445, February 04, 2015
It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that
the assessment of a trial court in matters
pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are
accorded great respectif not finalityon
appeal. The rationale behind this rule is the
recognition of the trial courts unique and
distinctive position to be able to observe, first
hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of
the witness whose credibility has been put in
issue.
The victims receipt of P20.00 from the
appellant right after the former was forced to
masturbate the latter is not prejudicial to the
accusations of rape or attempted rape against
the appellant. It neither excuses appellants
dastardly acts nor implies AAAs consent
thereto.

What is most notable is the fact that the
money was an unsolicited thing that was
handed to AAA after the ruttish subjection,
such act which is indignity upon insult being
part and parcel of the whole crime that started
with the abductive taking to the bushes. The
fear that numbed the person of AAA was, at
the time of the lustful offer, still was
overpowering.
Then too, we must consider that AAA is a 12-
year-old victim of rape whose reputation for
purity and chastity had never been sullied
prior to her encounters with the appellant. It is
incomprehensible that for an ordinary 12-year-
old Filipina girl, who hitherto had only the
faintest notion of carnal matters if at all,
would just suddenly, and without any
explanation whatsoever, surrender herself to
the sexual desires of a married man almost
four times her elder in exchange for money.
PEOPLE VS COLENTAVA,
G.R. 190348, February 09, 2015
In rape cases the date or time of commission
of the offense is not an essential ingredient of
said crime. In fact, the precise time when the
rape takes place has no substantial bearing on
its commission.
The elements therefore of qualified rape are:
(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3)
done by force and without consent; (4) the
victim is under 18 years of age at the time of
the rape; (5) the offender is a parent (whether
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the
victim.
It was held that failure to immediately disclose
the rape does not warrant the conclusion that
the victim was not raped especially in this case
where a minor was threatened at gunpoint.
PEOPLE VS CA, MINDANAO STATION,
CARAMPATANA, OPORTO, & ALQUIZOLA
G.R. 183652, February 25, 2015
Under the law, the elements of rape are: (1)
the offender had carnal knowledge of the
victim; and (2) such act was accomplished
through force or intimidation; or when the
victim is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or when the victim is under
twelve years of age. Here, the accused
intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor
more than she could handle. They still forced
Page 16 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
her to drink even when she was already
obviously inebriated. They never denied
having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the
latter was clearly deprived of reason or
unconscious at the time the private
respondents ravished her.
When the accused alleges consensual sexual
congress, he needs convincing proof such as
love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses
attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship
between the offender and his supposed victim.
Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the
complainant, the burden now shifts to the
accused to prove his defense by substantial
evidence.
The victims moral character in rape is
immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown
that the victim was deprived of reason or was
rendered unconscious through intoxication to
enable the private respondents to have sex
with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the
carnal knowledge of a woman against her
consent. A freshly broken hymen is not one of
its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the
victim was still intact, the possibility of rape
cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis
by entry into the lips of the vagina, even
without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
enough to justify a conviction for rape.
PEOPLE VS GALLANO
G.R. 184762, February 25, 2015
To convict an accused charged with qualified
rape instead of rape in its simple form not only
condemns him to a more serious offense but
also exposes him to an even greater liability.
As such, the State is mandated to sufficiently
allege in the information and to competently
prove during trial the qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship with the same
certainty as the crime itself.
Nonetheless, Gallano was guilty only of simple
rape, not of qualified rape. In order that the
accused is convicted of qualified rape under
Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code,
two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the
victim must be a less than 18 years old; and (2)
the offender must either be related to the
victim by consanguinity of by affinity within
the third civil degree, or is the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim. These two
requisites must be both alleged and proved

with absolute certainty. Otherwise, the accused
could only be held guilty of simple rape. The
qualifying circumstances of relationship and
minority remain to be relevant in the crime of
rape despite the abolition of the death penalty
under R.A. No. 9346. The accused's civil
liability depends on the mode of rape he
committed.
PEOPLE VS NICAL
G.R. 210430, February 18, 2015
It is settled that the absence of physical injuries
or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and
although medical results may not indicate
physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape
can still be established since medical findings or
proof of injuries are not among the essential
elements in the prosecution for rape. In fact, as
used in our Revised Penal Code (RPC), carnal
knowledge, unlike its ordinary connotation of
sexual intercourse, does not require that the
vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be
ruptured.
PEOPLE VS PEREZ
G.R. 208071, March 9, 2016
Information charging an accused with the
crime of rape qualified by relationship must
succinctly state said accused is a relative within
the third civil degree by consanguinity or
affinity.
PEOPLE VS VICTORIA
G.R. 201110, July 6, 2015
Sweetheart Theory. Lack of Resistance and
Unusual Behavior with Suspect does not affect
credibility of a victim who is a minor.
PEOPLE VS GARRIDO
G.R. 191258, July 8, 2015
Rape conviction reversed because of
circumstances prior and after the alleged rape
contrary to human experience.
PEOPLE VS MISA III
G.R. 212336, July 15, 2015
Page 17 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Simple Rape conviction from Statutory Rape
charge because of failure to present Birth
Certificate. Rules on Age as a qualifying
circumstance in crimes.
PEOPLE VS NERIO, JR
G.R. 200940, July 22, 2015
Conviction despite absence of mentally
retarded victim in trial to corroborate criminal
complaint.
PLUNDER
REYES VS OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.
G.R. 212593-94/G.R. Nos. 213163-78/G.R.
Nos. 213540-41/G.R. Nos. 213542-43/G.R.
Nos. 215880-94/G.R. Nos. 213475-76. March
15, 2016
A Private Individual may be made answerable
for the crimes of plunder
While the primary offender in the aforesaid
crimes are public officers, private individuals
may also be held liable for the same if they are
found to have conspired with said officers in
committing the same. This proceeds from the
fundamental principle that in cases of
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
ESTAFA
PEOPLE VS TIBAYAN & PUERTO
G.R. 209655-60, January 14, 2015
Syndicated Estafa under Item 2 (a), Paragraph
4, Article 315 of the RPC in relation to PD
1689.
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit are
the following: (a) that there must be a false
pretense or fraudulent representation as to his
power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended
party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to
part with his money or property; and (d) that,
as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.

The elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a)
Estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined
in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC,, is
committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is
committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more
persons; and (c) defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, samahang nayon(s), or farmers
associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general
public.
The SC ruled that the accused used TGICI to
engage in a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a
type of investment fraud that involves the
payment of purported returns to existing
investors from funds contributed by new
investors. Its organizers often solicit new
investors by promising to invest funds in
opportunities claimed to generate high returns
with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes,
the perpetrators focus on attracting new
money to make promised payments to earlier-
stage investors to create the false appearance
that investors are profiting from a legitimate
business. It is not an investment strategy but a
gullibility scheme, which works only as long as
there is an ever increasing number of new
investors joining the scheme.46 It is difficult to
sustain the scheme over a long period of time
because the operator needs an ever larger pool
of later investors to continue paying the
promised profits to early investors. The idea
behind this type of swindle is that the con-
man collects his money from his second or
third round of investors and then absconds
before anyone else shows up to collect.
Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or
months at the most.
BENABAYE VS PEOPLE
G.R. 203466, February 25, 2015
The elements of Estafa are: (a) the offender's
receipt of money, goods, or other personal
property in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the
same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by
the offender of the money or property
received, or denial of receipt of the money or
property; (c) the misappropriation, conversion
or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(d) demand by the offended party that the
Page 18 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
offender return the money or property
received.
Under the first element, when the money,
goods, or any other personal property is
received by the offender from the offended
party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3)
for administration, the offender acquires both
material or physical possession and juridical
possession of the thing received. Juridical
possession means a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner.
Hence, conversion of personal property in the
case of an employee having mere material
possession of the said property constitutes
theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom
both material and juridical possession have
been transferred, misappropriation of the same
property constitutes Estafa.
Thus, being a mere custodian of the missing
funds and not, in any manner, an agent who
could have asserted a right against Siam Bank
over the same, Benabaye had only acquired
material and not juridical possession of such
funds and consequently, cannot be convicted
of the crime of Estafa as charged. In fine, the
dismissal of the Estafa charge against Benabaye
should come as a matter of course, without
prejudice, however, to the filing of the
appropriate criminal charge against her as may
be warranted under the circumstances of this
case.
DE CASTRO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 171672, February 02, 2015
In estafa through falsification of commercial
documents
According to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, the penalty for a complex crime is that
corresponding to the most serious crime, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
Otherwise, the penalty will be void and
ineffectual, and will not attain finality.
In the four criminal cases involved in this
appeal, the falsification of commercial
documents is punished with prision
correccional in its medium and maximum
periods (i.e., two years, four months and one
day to six years) and a fine of P5,000.00. In
contrast, the estafa is punished according to

Criminal Law
the value of the defraudation, as follows: with
the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period (i.e., four years, two months
and one day to eight years) if the amount of
the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not
exceed P22,000.00, and if such amount
exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty is imposed in
the maximum period, adding one year for
each additional P10,000.00, but the total shall
not exceed 20 years, in which case the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be, in connection
with the accessory penalties that may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other
provisions of the Revised Penal Code; with the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods (i.e., six months and one
day to four years and two months) if the
amount of the fraud is over P6,000.00 but
does not exceed P12,000.00; with the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period
(i.e., four months and one day to two years
and four months) if the amount of the fraud is
over P200.00 but does not exceed P6,000.00;
and with the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods (i.e., two
months and one day to six months) if the
amount of the fraud does not exceed P200.00.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA
G.R. 163662, February 25, 2015
The estafa charged in the information may be
committed, therefore, when: (1) the offender
has postdated or issued a check in payment of
an obligation contracted at the time of the
postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of
postdating or issuance of said check, the
offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds
deposited are not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check; (3) the payee has been
defrauded. The deceit here should be the
efficient cause of the defraudation, and should
either be prior to, or simultaneously with, the
act of the fraud.
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D 818,
the penalty for estafa when the total value of
the checks exceed P22,000.00 is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period (i.e, 17 years,
four months and one day to 20 years), plus
one year for each additional P10,000.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
Page 19 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
minimum term shall be from six years and one
day to 12 years of prison mayor. In imposing
the indeterminate sentence of eight years and
one day of prison mayor, as minimum, to
thirty years of reclusion perpetua as maximum,
the CA correctly applied the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. It is well to state that reclusion
perpetua merely describes in this instance the
penalty actually imposed on account of the
amount of the fraud involved.
BENITO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 204644, February 11, 2015
Conspiracy must be proven with evidence that
can convince a trial court of its existence
beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, there
can be no conspiracy to commit a crime that
has already been consummated.
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, "a
conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it." Proof of conspiracy may be direct or
circumstantial. So long as the evidence
presented show a "common design or purpose"
to commit the crime, all of the accused shall be
held equally liable as co-principals even if one
or more of them did not participate in all the
details of the execution of the crime.
For this reason, the fact of conspiracy "must be
proven on the same quantum of evidence as
the felony subject of the agreement of the
parties," that is, proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
The estafa had already been consummated
when "Linda Chua" allegedly pawned the
jewelry on June 17, 1994. Benito, who was
allegedly "Linda Chua," cannot be held
criminally liable with Agbulos. "There can be
no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which
has already been done and consummated."
CHENG VS PEOPLE
G.R. 174113, January 13, 2016
The essence of this kind of Estafa is the
appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the
entity to whom a return should be madeIn
proving the element of conversion or
misappropriation, a legal presumption of

misappropriation arises when the accused fails
to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return
the items to be sold and fails to give an
account of their whereabouts.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE
G.R. 209387. January 11, 2016
Illegal Possession of Firearms
While mere possession, without criminal
intent, is sufficient to convict a person for
illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be
shown that there was animus possidendi or an
intent to possess on the part of the accused. In
the absence of animus possidendi, the
possessor of a firearm incurs no criminal
liability.
THEFT
ZABALA VS PEOPLE
G.R. 210760, January 26, 2015
The SC reversed the findings of the RTC and
CA and acquitted the accused.
It is a settled rule that circumstantial evidence
is sufficient to support a conviction, and that
direct evidence is not always necessary. This is
but a recognition of the reality that in certain
instances, due to the inherent attempt to
conceal a crime, it is not always possible to
obtain direct evidence.
In the case before the Court, the evidence
presented by the prosecution fails to establish
the corpus delicti of theft. In Tan v. People,
this Court said:
Corpus delicti means the body or substance of
the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to
the fact that the crime has been actually
committed. The essential elements of theft
are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the
property belongs to another; (3) the taking
away was done with intent of gain; (4) the
taking away was done without the consent of
the owner; and (5) the taking away is
accomplished without violence or intimidation
against persons or force upon things. In theft,
corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1)
Page 20 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
that the property was lost by the owner, and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
PEOPLE VS NIELLES & DELOS REYES
G.R. 200308, February 23, 2015
Qualified theft
The elements are: 1) taking of personal
property; 2) that said property belongs to
another; 3) that the said taking was done with
intent to gain; 4) that it was done without the
owners consent; 5) that it was accomplished
without the use of violence or intimidation
against persons, or of force upon things; and
6) that it was done with grave abuse of
confidence.
CANCERAN VS PEOPLE
G.R. 206442, July 1, 2015
Frustrated Theft does not exist in our
jurisprudence.
CELEDONIO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 209137, July 1, 2015
Robbery with Force Upon Things
Circumstantial evidence proves guilt; no illegal
search if articles stolen are voluntarily
presented.
ANTI-HAZING LAW
PEOPLE VS RADM VIRGINIO R. ARIS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 174786
Under the Anti- Hazing Law, the failure by
school authorities to take any action to
prevent the offenses as provided by the law
exposes them to criminal liability as
accomplices in the criminal acts. They bear the
commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes
covered by the Anti-Hazing Law are not
committed.
It is a settled rule that the case against those
charged as accomplices is not ipso facto
dismissed in the absence of trial of the
purported principals; the dismissal of the case
against the latter; or even the latters acquittal,

especially when the occurrence of the crime
has in fact been established.
The corresponding responsibilities of the
principal, accomplice, and accessory are
distinct from each other. As long as the
commission of the offense can be duly
established in evidence, the determination of
the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
proceed independently of that of the
principal. Accordingly, so long as the
commission of the crime can be duly proven,
the trial of those charged as accomplices to
determine their criminal liability can proceed
independently of that of the alleged principal.
The crime of hazing is thus committed when
the following essential elements are
established: (1) a person is placed in some
embarrassing or humiliating situation or
subjected to physical or psychological suffering
or injury; and (2) these acts were employed as
a prerequisite for the persons admission or
entry into an organization. In the crime of
hazing, the crucial ingredient distinguishing it
from the crimes against persons defined under
Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code is the
infliction by a person of physical or
psychological suffering on another in
furtherance of the latters admission or entry
into an organization.
In the case of school authorities and faculty
members who have had no direct participation
in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as
accomplices if it is shown that (1) hazing, as
established by the above elements, occurred;
(2) the accused are school authorities or faculty
members; and (3) they consented to or failed
to take preventive action against hazing in
spite actual knowledge thereof.
DUNGO & SIBAL, JR. VS PEOPLE
G.R. 209464, July 1, 2015
RA 8049. Anti-Hazing Law
Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita; Intent of
accused is immaterial; Consent of victim is
immaterial.
OTHERS
DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE
G.R. 209387. January 11, 2016
Page 21 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Period of Preventive Imprisonment Deducted
from Term of Imprisonment
Petitioners detention is relevant in
determining whether he has already served
more than the penalty imposed upon him by
the trial court as modified by this court, or
whether he is qualified to the credit of his
preventive imprisonment with his service of
sentence.
LADINES VS PEOPLE
G.R. 167333, January 11, 2016
Indeterminate Sentence Law
To impose the highest within a period of the
imposable penalty without specifying the
justification for doing so is an error on the part
of the trial court that should be corrected on
appeal. By not specifying the justification for
imposing the ceiling period of the imposable
penalty, the fixing of the indeterminate
sentence became arbitrary, or whimsical, or
capricious. In the absence of the specification,
the maximum of the indeterminate
sentenceshould be the lowest of
theperiod.
SENIT VS PEOPLE
G.R. 192914, January 11, 2016
Trial in Absentia
The holding of trial in absentia is authorized
under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987
Constitution which provides that after
arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and
his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
PEOPLE VS MACAL
G.R. 211062, January 13, 2016
Defense of Accident
In raising the defense of accident, the accused-
appellant had the inescapable burden of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
of accidental infliction of injuries on the victim.
Absence of Mitigating and Aggravating
Circumstances in Penalty Imposed

In the absence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the crime,
the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
FRANCO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 191185, February 1, 2016
Burden of Proof
The Constitution presumes a person innocent
until proven guilty by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the defense's evidence for it has the onus
probandi in establishing the guilt of the
accused - ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non
que negat - he who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove.
PEOPLE VS SARIEGO
G.R. 203322, February 24, 2016
It is the concurrence of both the minority of
the victim and her relationship with the
offender that will be considered as a special
qualifying circumstance, raising the penalty to
the supreme penalty of death.
CAUNAN VS PEOPLE
G.R. 183529, February 24, 2016
On Bad faith and Manifest Partiality in Corrupt
practices
Partiality is synonymous with bias which
excites a disposition to see and report matters
as they are wished for rather than as they are.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn
duty through some motive or intent or ill will;
it partakes of the nature of fraud.
VERDADERO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 216021, March 2, 2016
Insanity as a Defense
In order to ascertain a persons mental
condition at the time of the act, it is
permissible to receive evidence of his mental
Page 22 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
condition during a reasonable period before
and after. Direct testimony is not required nor
are specific acts of disagreement essential to
establish insanity as a defense.
CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184320, July
29, 2015
One cannot be held liable for other forms of
swindling under Art. 316, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code absent a finding that he/she
employed fraud or deceit in the form of false
pretenses with regard to his/her ownership of
the real property sold.
FACTS: Estrellado-Mainar offered for sale to
Eric Naval a lot and told the latter that the
title to the land she was selling had no
problems though it would still be segregated
from the mother title. She argued that she did
not misrepresent the subject land to be free
from any lien or encumbrance, thus she should
not be liable for the crime.
RULING: For a successful prosecution of the
crime of swindling under Article 316,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the
following essential elements of this crime must
be established: (1) that the thing be
immovable, such as a parcel of land or a
building; (2) that the offender who is not the
owner of said property should represent that
he; is the owner thereof; (3) that the offender
should have executed an act of ownership,
e.g., selling, leasing, encumbering, or
mortgaging the property; and (4) that the act
be made to the prejudice of the owner or a
third person.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO
BOCADI Y APATAN, ACCUSED, ALBERTO
BATICOLON Y RAMIREZ. , G.R. No. 193388,
July 01, 2015
A buy-bust operation, albeit made
without the participation of PDEA, does not
violate appellant's constitutional right to be
protected from illegal arrest.
FACTS: Baticolon and Bocadi were
charged with a violation of Article II of R.A
No. 9165. Baticolon questions the validity of
the buy-bust operation. He contends that with
the enactment of R.A. No. 9165, it is now

Criminal Law
required that all anti-drug operations shall be
coordinated with the PDEA, and only specially
trained and competent drug enforcement
personnel shall conduct drug enforcement
operations. He argues that the NBIs operation
is highly questionable considering that it is
neither a deputized agent of PDEA nor is buy-
bust operations its primary mandate.
RULING: Baticolon's argument is no longer
novel. In People v. Sta. Maria, this Court has
already ruled that a buy-bust operation, albeit
made without the participation of PDEA, does
not violate appellant's constitutional right to
be protected from illegal arrest. There is
nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 which even
remotely indicate the intention of the
legislature to make an arrest made without the
participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence
obtained pursuant to such an arrest
inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not
deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests.
Further, such contention is untenable because
in this case the prosecution was able to
establish that coordination with the PDEA was
made prior to the buy-bust operation and
even after the arrests were made. It is
therefore evident that the arrests made by the
NBI were legal and the evidence seized
therefrom admissible in evidence.
The presentation of the marked money
is not essential in the validity of arrest. Neither
law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation
of any of the money used in a buy-bust
operation. It is sufficient to show that the illicit
transaction did take place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti in
evidence. These were done, and were proved
by the prosecution's evidence.
The Court has previously ruled that as
long as the state can show by record or
testimony that the integrity of the evidence has
not been compromised by accounting for the
continuous whereabouts of the object
evidence at least between the time it came into
the possession of the police officers until it was
tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution
can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
HERMAN MEDINA v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015
Page 23 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Theft is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain, but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take personal property of
another without the latters consent.
FACTS: Henry Lim engaged the services of
Petitioner Medina to repair the door and roof
of his Sangyong Korando Jeep. Medina told
him that he took and installed them on Lims
another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was
also being repaired in the shop. Medina was
charged with simple theft.
RULING: Guilty. Medina acknowledged
without hesitation the taking of the jeeps
alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with
magwheels, but he put up the defense that
they were installed in the pick-up owned by
Lim. With such admission, the burden of
evidence is shifted on him to prove that the
missing parts were indeed lawfully taken which
he failed to substantiate, through the
presentation of supporting documentary
evidence or corroborative testimony.
NORBERTO VITANGCOL V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 207406, January 13,
2016
FACTS: Norberto married Alice. Alice
discovered that Norberto was previously
married to a certain Gina as evidenced by a
marriage contract. According to Norberto,
before his marriage with Alice, he revealed to
her that he had a fake marriage with his
college girlfriend. Alice filed the criminal
Complaint for bigamy against Norberto.
Norberto argues that the first element of
bigamy is absent on the ground that no
marriage license was issued in his favor and his
first wife, as evidenced by a Certification from
the Office of the Civil Registrar.
RULING: The Certification does not prove that
petitioners first marriage was solemnized
without a marriage license. It does not
categorically state that Marriage License No.
8683519 does not exist. The marriage contract
between petitioner and Gina is a positive piece
of evidence as to the existence of petitioners
first marriage. This should be given greater
credence than documents testifying merely as
to the absence of any record of the marriage.

We are not prepared to establish a
doctrine that a certification that a marriage
license cannot be found may substitute for a
definite statement that no such license existed
or was issued. Definitely, the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Imus, Cavite should be fully aware
of the repercussions of those words. That the
license now cannot be found is not basis per se
to say that it could not have been issued.
Marriage licenses may be conveniently lost due
to negligence or consideration. The motivation
to do this becomes greatest when the benefit is
to evade prosecution.
Assuming without conceding that
petitioners first marriage was solemnized
without a marriage license, petitioner remains
liable for bigamy. Petitioners first marriage
was not judicially declared void. For more
than seven years before his second marriage,
petitioner did nothing to have his alleged
spurious first marriage declared a nullity. Even
when this case was pending, he did not
present any decision from any trial court
nullifying his first marriage. All the elements of
bigamy are present in this case. Petitioner was
still legally married to Gina when he married
Alice.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT V. MA. MERCEDITAS
NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ., G.R. No. 194159,
October 21, 2015.
FACTS: Loans/accommodations obtained by
Galleon from DBP possessed positive
characteristics of behest loans, considering that:
(a) Galleon was undercapitalized; (b) the loan
itself was under-collateralized; (c) the major
stockholders of Galleon were known to be
cronies of President Marcos; and (d) certain
documents pertaining to the loan account
were found to bear "marginal notes" of
President Marcos himself. The
officers/stockholders of National Galleon
Shipping Corporation (Galleon) were charged
of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019.
The Ombudsman found no probable
cause against private respondents violating
Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, dismissed
the criminal complaint against them. The
Ombudsman noted that the PCGG failed to
present the documents which would directly
establish the alleged illegal transactions like,
the Loan Agreement between DBP and
Page 24 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
[Galleon], the approved Board Resolutions by
the DBP officers/board of directors, the
participation/voting that transpired at the
board meetings wherein the alleged behest
loans were granted.
RULING: The Court is convinced that there is
probable cause to indict individual respondents
of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019.
Hence, the Ombudsman committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal
complaint against them.
Individual respondents were accused
of violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the
elements of which are as follows: (a) that the
accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial, or official functions (or
a private individual acting in conspiracy with
such public officers); (b) that he acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action
caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage,
or preference in the discharge of his functions.
In the same vein, they were likewise charged
with violation of Section 3 (g) of the same
law, which has the following elements: (a) that
the accused is a public officer; (b) that he
entered into a contract or transaction on
behalf of the government; and (c) that such
contract or transaction is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the
government. Notably, private individuals may
also be charged with violation of Section 3 (g)
of RA 3019 if they conspired with public
officers.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MARK
ANTHONY ROAQUIN Y NAVARRO, G.R.
No. 215201. December 9, 2015.
FACTS: AAA while going to work in a canteen
in Makati, was invited by a certain Marlon to
a drinking session with his friends. The group
urged her to drink substantial amounts of
liquor which left her half asleep. She was raped
by them but because of the moonlight, she was
able to identify appellant Mark Anthony
Roaquin as the person violating her. Results of
the medical examination stated that AAA
suffered multiple injuries on her right arm and
deep-healed laceration at 9 o'clock position
accompanied by vaginal bleeding.

Roaquins arguments: 1.) inconsistency
of witness testimony and 2.) That if the rape
did occur, the vaginal wounds should be fresh
and not healed.
RULING: The rape conviction is proper. As to
the finding of healed and not fresh lacerations,
it will not negate the finding of the
commission of rape. It is settled that medical
evidence is merely corroborative, and is even
dispensable, in proving the crime of rape.The
narration by AAA of the circumstances was
repeated on cross-examination and any minor
discrepancies found are deemed negligible.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DASIGAN
G.R. No. 206229. February 4, 2015. .
FACTS: Dasigan was convicted by the lower
court of illegal possession and illegal sale of
shabu under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. The appellate court
reaffirmed the lower courts decision. Dasigan
avers that the prosecution failed to establish its
unbroken chain of custody, as no photos were
taken by the apprehending officers, and as,
although the inventory was conducted, it was
flawed because it was not conducted
immediately after Dasigan arrest.
RULING: While the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is
almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. The most important factor is
the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they
will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Hence, the
prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the
physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs will not render the accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. VILLAR.
G.R. No. 202708. April 13, 2015.
FACTS: Villar was convicted of murder with
two other persons. The appellate court
affirmed the lower courts decision. The issue
now lies whether the damages awarded is
correct.
RULING: It is settled that the indemnity for
loss of earning capacity is in the form of actual
Page 25 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
damages; as such, it must be proved by
competent proof, not merely by the self-
serving testimony of the widow. By way of
exception, damages for loss of earning capacity
may be awarded in two instances: 1) the
victim was self-employed and receiving less
than the minimum wage under the current
laws and no documentary evidence is available
in the decendents line of business; and 2) the
deceased was employed as a daily wage
worker and receiving less than the minimum
wage.
CHUA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 196853. July 13, 2015.
FACTS: Chua was convicted of 54 counts of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Chua avers that the
second element of the offense charged, i.e,
knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that
at the time of issue there are no sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, was not proved by the
prosecution.
RULING: The absence of the date of his actual
receipt on the face of the demand letter
prevented the legal presumption of knowledge
of insufficiency of funds from arising. If there is
no proof as to when such notice was received
by the drawer, then the presumption or prima
facie evidence as provided in B.P. Blg. 22
cannot arise.
MANANSALA V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015.
FACTS: Manansala was convicted for
falsification of privated documents. The lower
court appreciated as mitigating circumstance
Manansalas acting under an impulse of
uncontrollable fear.
RULING: Acting under an impulse of
uncontrollable fear is not among the
mitigating circumstances enumerated in Article
13 of the RPC, but is an exempting
circumstance provided under Article 12 (6) of
the same Code. Moreover, for such a
circumstance to be appreciated in favor of an
accused, the following elements must concur:
(a) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b)
that the fear must be real and imminent; and

(c) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at
least equal to, that committed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OSCAR
SEVILLANO, G.R. No. 200800 February 9,
2015
FACTS: Pablo Maddauin was talking to two
other people at a vacant lot. While conversing,
they saw Oscar Sevillano coming toward them
who could not walk straight and appeared to
be drunk. Without warning, Sevillano pulled
out a knife from his waist and stabbed
Maddauin on the chest. Maddauins
companions tried to restrain the Sevillano from
attacking, but one of them experienced leg
cramps and lost his hold on Sevillano.
Sevillano turned again on Maddauin and
continued to stab him several times more.
Thereafter, the victim was brought to the
hospital; but unfortunately, he died that same
day.
Sevillano interposed self-defense to absolve
himself from criminal liability. He averred that
he went to the vacant lot simply to feed his
chicken. While doing so, he claims that
Maddauin, who looked drunk, came at him
with a drawn knife but missed his target; that
they grappled for the knife and that the latter
was accidentally stabbed.
RULING: In the prosecution of the crime of
murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), the following elements
must be established by the prosecution: (1) that
a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed
that person; (3) that the killing was attended
by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not
infanticide or parricide.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim
by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the
former of any chance to defend himself or to
repel the aggression, thus insuring its
commission without risk to the aggressor and
without any provocation on the part of the
victim.
Under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the RPC, the
following elements must be present in order
that a plea of self-defense may be validly
considered in absolving a person from criminal
liability: First. Unlawful Aggression; Second.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed
Page 26 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. REGGIE
VILLARIEZ ALIAS "TOTI"
FACTS: Villariez, together with his two
brothers, Amado Villariez (Amado) and Tomas
Villariez (Tomas), was charged in an
Information for murder. The group all armed
with guns of unknown caliber and with intent
to kill, conspiring and confederating with one
another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and without any warning or
provocation shot from behind one ENRIQUE
OLIMBA, thereby inflicting upon the latter a
fatal gunshot wound in the body causing the
instantaneous death of said Enrique Olimba.
The crime was committed with the qualifying
aggravating circumstances of treachery and
known premeditation.
The RTC found Villariez guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
The RTC found that the seething righteous
indignation of the prosecution's witnesses
against Villariez could have arisen only from
their unadulterated knowledge of the identity
of their kin's assailant. The RTC also gave
weight to the positive identification of Villariez
by Randy and found no reason to disregard
the testimony of Ana on her father's dying
declaration that it was "Toti" who shot him.
The RTC, however, found that the prosecution
failed to establish the existence of the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and
taking advantage of strength. Thus, it held
Villariez liable for the crime of homicide,
punishable by reclusion temporal. The accused
appealed the decision of the trial court.
The CA also found that Randy's testimony
leaves no doubt that Villariez committed the
crime. The CA also appreciated the qualifying
circumstance of treachery since the shooting
was swift, sudden and unforeseen which
placed Villariez at a position which afforded
him no risk arising from a defense which the
victim might have made.
RULING: The commission of the specific acts
charged against Villariez constitutes the offense
charged in the Information. The prosecution's
failure to establish conspiracy due to the death
of a co-conspirator and the dismissal of the

Criminal Law
case against another co-conspirator does not
defeat the conviction of the accused for the
offense charged and proven during the trial.
For a dying declaration to be admissible in
evidence, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the dying declaration must concern the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death; (2) at the time of making his
declaration, the declarant was under a
consciousness of impending death; (3) the
declarant must have been competent to testify
as a witness; and (4) the declaration was
offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder
or parricide in which the declarant was the
victim.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim,
depriving the victim of any chance to defend
himself. Here, Randy witnessed that it was
Villariez who shot his father at the back.
Enrique, deep in thought while listening to the
burial service, was unprepared and had no
means to put up a defense. Enrique was shot
unexpectedly which insured the commission of
the crime without risk to Villariez. This
treacherous act qualified the killing to murder.
DOMINGO PANGANIBAN V. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, GR No 211543
FACTS: Petitioner is the mayor of the
Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. During his
term, petitioner obtained a cash advance in
the sum of Php 500,000.00 from the
municipality, ostensibly for the purpose of
defraying the projected expenses of a planned
official travel to South Australia, to study and
research on sustainable environmental
projects. However, the official travel of
petitioner did not push through for
undisclosed reasons.
As a consequence, the Office of the
Ombudsman issued a resolution, finding
probable cause to charge petitioner with the
crime of malversation of public funds.
The public respondent rendered a
decision, finding petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of malversation
of public funds on the following grounds: a)
the defense of good faith is unavailing since
petitioner was legally obliged to return the
money immediately after the period of his
intended travel lapse, b) the cash advance
Page 27 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
released in his favor was fully returned by
petitioner by way of deductions from his
salaries and terminal leave pay more than a
year after COAs demand for the settlement
thereof and long after his last term of office
expired, c) payment not being a cause for
extinction of criminal liability, the full
restitution of the amount of the amount
alleged to have been malversed does not
exculpate petitioner, and d)the restitution of
the malversed account is a mitigating
circumstance that entitles petitioner to a
reduction of the imposable penalty.
HELD: Malversation of Public Funds to
prosper, concurrence of the following
elements must be proved: a) the offender is a
public officer, b) he has custody or control of
the funds or property by reason of his office,
c) the funds or property are public funds of
property for which he is accountable and d) he
has appropriated, taken, misrepresentation or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
CRIMINAL LAW
BAR EXAM PRE-WEEK HANDOUT
Prepared by Justice Mario V. Lopez
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS RULE
The overbreadth and vagueness
doctrines do not justify a facial review of the
validity of penal statutes. A facial challenge
against a criminal statute is allowed only as
applied to a particular defendant which
considers extant facts affecting real litigants or
on the basis of its actual operation to the
parties. Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of
criminal statutes would result in a mass
acquittal of parties whose cases may not have
even reached the courts. Such invalidation
would constitute a departure from the usual
requirement of "actual case and controversy"
and permit decisions to be made in a sterile
abstract context having no factual
concreteness. (See Romualdez v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 167011, December 11, 2008; and
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network
vs. Anti-terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010)

When a penal statute encroaches upon
the freedom of speech, a facial challenge
grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine
is acceptable. The inapplicability of the
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal
statutes are appropriate only insofar as these
doctrines are used to mount facial challenges
to penal statutes not involving free speech.
(Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R.
No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
There is no double jeopardy in the following:
(1) Estafa through falsification of a
public document under the RPC and violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section
3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: 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: x xx It is clear then that one may
be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in
addition to a felony under the Revised Penal
Code for the same delictual act, that is, either
concurrently or subsequent to being charged
with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August
18, 2006 )
(2) Falsification of a public document
under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e)
of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements
shows that there is neither identity nor
exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No
double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a
variance between the elements of the offenses
charged. The constitutional right against
double jeopardy protects from a second
prosecution for the same offense, not for a
different one. The differences between the
elements needed to establish the commission
of the two charges imply that the evidence
required to prove the guilt or the innocence
of the accused would likewise differ in each
case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408
1 For falsification of a public document to be established, the
following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a
public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes
advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a
document by committing any of the modes of falsification. On
the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following
elements must be present: (1) that the accused are public
Page 28 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
January 31, 2005)
(3) Direct bribery under the RPC and
violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. There is
neither identity nor necessary inclusion
between the two offenses. While they have
common elements, not all the essential
elements of one offense are included among
or form part of those enumerated in the
other. (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos.
142369-70 April 13, 2007)
Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law
Libel by means of writing or similar
means is already punishable under the RPC.
Cybercrime Law merely establishes the
computer system as another means of
publication, hence, online libel is not a new
crime.
Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely
expands the scope of the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to
include identical activities in cyberspace.
ACPAs definition of child pornography in fact
already covers the use of electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any
other means. Thus, charging the offender
under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA
would likewise be tantamount to a violation
of the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy. (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray
of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18,
2014)
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES
In crimes against property wherein the
penalty is based on the value of the property,
the court cannot modify the range of
penalties based on the current inflation
rate.xxx The primordial duty of the Court is
merely to apply the law in such a way that it
shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial
legislation and that in the course of such
application or construction, it should not
officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
(2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during
the performance of their official duties or in relation to their
public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party,
whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury
is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.

Criminal Law
make or supervise legislation, or under the
guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend,
distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give
the law a construction which is repugnant to
its terms. The Court should apply the law in a
manner that would give effect to their letter
and spirit, especially when the law is clear as
to its intent and purpose. xxx The remedy
here is to apply Article 5 of the RPC. The
court will impose the penalty, although
excessive, and recommend executive clemency
thru the Department of Justice. (Corpuz v.
People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014)
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
When the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in
se, even if they are punished by a special law.
Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly
established with the other elements of the
crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On
the other hand, in crimes that are mala
prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently
immoral but become punishable only because
the law says they are forbidden. Here,
tampering, increasing or decreasing the
number of votes received by a candidate in
any election or refusal, after proper
verification and hearing, to credit the correct
votes or deduct such tampered votes is
inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala
in se requiring criminal intent of the accused.
(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171,
March 14, 2006)
Criminal intent is not an element of
technical malversation. The law punishes the
act of diverting public property earmarked by
law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. It is mala
prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
192330, November 14, 2012)
ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE
When death resulted, even if there
was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide,
not just physical injuries, since with respect to
crimes of personal violence, the penal law
looks particularly to the material results
following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences
thereof (See Article 4 of the RPC). Here,
petitioner committed an unlawful act by
punching the victim who was much older than
Page 29 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
him. Even if he did not intend to cause the
death of the victim, he must be held guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for killing him
because he is the cause of the cause of the evil
caused. (Seguritan v. People, G.R. No.
172896, April 19, 2010)
CONSPIRACY
Responsibility of a conspirator is not
confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but extends
to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
growing out of the purpose intended. (People
v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)
All the conspirators are liable as co-
principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because the act
of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who
among the appellants delivered the fatal blow
is therefore no longer indispensable since in
conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the
criminal act of another.(People v. Agacer, G.R.
No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for
failing to inflict mortal wounds, both
appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable
for attempted murder since they were shown
to have acted in conspiracy with each other
although Ventura did not directly participate
in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants'
original objective may have only been the
killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was
correctly held liable for murder with appellant
Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to
death who just shouted for help after seeing
his husband in mortal danger. (People v.
Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010)
Accused-appellant who took no part
in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in
the common criminal plan, is not liable for
carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that co-
conspirators are liable only for acts done in
pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts
done outside their contemplation or which
are not the necessary and logical consequence
of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit,
G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4,
2003)
There was no evidence to prove that
all the appellants assisted Robito in killing
Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which

are not the necessary and logical consequence
of the intended crime do not affect the other
accused. Co-conspirators are criminally liable
only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy
on how and what are the necessary and
logical consequences of the intended crime.
(People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30,
April 2, 2003)
SELF-DEFENSE
Accused-appellants' flight from the
neighborhood where the crimes were
committed, their concealing of the weapons
used in the commission of the crimes, their
non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and
their failure to surrender themselves to the
police authorities fully warranted the RTCs
rejection of their claim of self-defense and
defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al.,
G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012)
The primordial element of self-defense
is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an
actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In
case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No.
195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future
injury is not enough. The compulsion must be
of such a character as to leave no opportunity
for the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No.
177570, January 19, 2011)
The elements of unlawful aggression
are: (a) there must be a physical or material
attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must
be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the
attack or assault must be unlawful. (People v.
Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013)
Retaliation is not the same as self-
defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was
begun by the injured party already ceased
when the accused attacked him; while in self-
defense the aggression still existed when the
aggressor was injured by the accused. (People
v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23,
2013)
DWELLING
Page 30 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
In robbery with violence and
intimidation against persons, dwelling is
aggravating because in this class of robbery,
the crime may be committed without the
necessity of tresspassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house. (People v. Evangelio,
G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011)In robbery
with force upon things, dwelling is inherent.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Evident premeditation may be
considered as present, even if a person other
than the intended victim was killed (or
wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that
the conspirators were determined to kill not
only the intended victim but also anyone who
may help him put a violent resistance. Here,
Raymundo Roque provided such violent
resistance against the conspirators, giving the
latter no choice but to eliminate him from
their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores,
G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing
People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583)
When it is not shown how and when
the plan to kill was hatched or how much
time had elapsed before it was carried out,
evident premeditation cannot be considered.
It must appear not only that the accused
decided to commit the crime prior to the
moment of its execution but also that this
decision was the result of meditation,
calculation, reflection or persistent
attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731,
July 18, 2013)
TREACHERY
The idea of treachery does not apply
when the killing is not premeditated or when
the accused did not deliberately choose the
means he employed for committing the crime.
(People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2,
2011)
The situation of the victim when
found shows without doubt that he was killed
while tied and blindfolded; hence, the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery was present in the commission of
the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No.
178771, June 8, 2011)

Criminal Law
Treachery may be properly
considered, even when the victim of the
attack was not the one whom the defendant
intended to kill, if it appears from the
evidence that neither of the two persons
could in any manner put up defense against
the attack or become aware of it. (People v.
Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011)
Treachery applies to robbery with
homicide as a generic aggravating
circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme
Court of Spain interpreting and construing the
penal code, which are accorded respect and
persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have
consistently applied treachery as a generic
aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide. It does not lose its classification as a
crime against property or as a special complex
crime because treachery is applied to the
constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
constituent crime of "robbery". (People v.
Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)
Treachery is not present when the
killing is not premeditated, or where the
sudden attack is not preconceived and
deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a
sudden infuriation on the part of the accused
as a result of a provocative act of the victim,
or when the killing is done at the spur of the
moment. (People v. Caaveras, G.R. No.
193839, December 27, 2013)
ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE
Appellants and their co-accused
opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his
group. As a result, two security escorts died
while five (5) of them were wounded and
injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds
in different parts of their bodies. Each act by
each gunman pulling the trigger of their
respective firearms, aiming each particular
moment at different persons constitute distinct
and individual acts which cannot give rise to a
complex crime. Obviously, appellants and
their co-accused performed not only a single
act but several individual and distinct acts in
the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code would not apply
for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not
Page 31 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
include single impulse. (People v. Nelmida,
G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)
Distinctions between a composite
crime and a complex or compound crime
under Article 48:
In a composite crime, the composition
of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex
or compound crime, the combination of the
offenses is not specified but generalized, that
is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense
being the necessary means to commit the
other.
The penalty for a composite crime is
specific; for a complex or compound crime,
the penalty is that corresponding to the most
serious offense, to be imposed in the
maximum period.
A light felony that accompanies a
composite crime is absorbed; a light felony
that accompanies the commission of a
complex or compound crime may be the
subject of a separate information. (People v.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012)
If the falsification of a private
document is committed as a means to commit
estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
falsification. If the estafa can be committed
without the necessity of falsifying a document,
the proper crime to be charged is
estafa.(Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857,
September 15, 2006
DELITO CONTINUADO
Delito continuado exists when there is
a plurality of acts performed during a period
of time; unity of penal provision violated; and
unity of criminal intent or purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the
same penal provisions are united in one and
same instant or resolution leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or
aim.
The informations should be
consolidated into a single information for they
charge what is known as delito continuado or
"continued crime" and sometimes referred to
as "continuous crime." The informations
charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act that of her approving the

Criminal Law
application for legalization of aliens not
qualified under the law to enjoy such
privilege. The informations reproduced
verbatim the allegation of the original
information, except that instead of the word
"aliens" in the original information each
amended information states the name of the
individual whose stay was legalized.
Moreover, the informations aver that the
offenses were committed on the same period
of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
The strong probability even exists that the
approval of the application or the legalization
of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a
single stroke of the pen, as when the approval
was embodied in the same document.
(Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266,
December 2, 1993)
When there is delito continuado, the
crime cannot be splitted into two or more
crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
Penalty for the crime proved, not
charged, determines the applicable
prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused
has been found to have committed a lesser
offense includible within the graver offense
charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser
offense if it has already prescribed. To hold
otherwise would be to sanction a
circumvention of the law on prescription by
the simple expedient of accussing the
defendant of the graver offense.(Damasco v.
Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988,
citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-45674, May 13, 1983)
FALSIFICATION
One is guilty of falsification in the
accomplishment of his information and
personal data sheet if he withholds material
facts which would have affected the approval
of his appointment and/or promotion to a
government position. In other words, leaving
a question blank in the PDS/SALN is
falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos.
174730-37, February 9, 2011)
Conclusion of law is a determination
by a judge or ruling authority regarding the
Page 32 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
law that applies in a particular case. It is a
proposition not arrived at by any process of
natural reasoning from a fact or combination
of facts stated but by the application of the
artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On
the other hand, a narration of facts is merely
an account or description of the particulars of
an event. It is a recital of things accomplished,
of deeds, occurrence or happening.
Disclosure or identification of relatives
"within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a
narration of facts. Statements concerning
relationship is descriptive and may be proved
as to its truth or falsity.
A certification that one was "eligible
or qualified is a conclusion of law although
it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is
an expression of belief or mistake of
judgment.
MALVERSATION
Malversation may be committed
either through a positive act of
misappropriation or passively through
negligence. Even when the Information
charges willful malversation, conviction for
malversation through negligence may still be
adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the
mode of commission of the offense. The dolo
or the culpa present in the offense is only a
modality in the perpetration of the felony.
(Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31,
2011)
The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a
public corporation or a government agency or
instrumentality with juridical personality,
which does not fall within the constitutional
prohibition in Article XII, Section 16,
notwithstanding the amendments to its
charter. Not all corporations, which are not
government owned or controlled, are ipso
facto to be considered private corporations as
there exists another distinct class of
corporations or chartered institutions which
are otherwise known as public
corporations. These corporations are treated
by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the
government which are not subject to the tests
of ownership or control and economic

viability but to different criteria relating to
their public purposes/interests or
constitutional policies and objectives and their
administrative relationship to the government
or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy
Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on
Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011)
In technical malversation, public fund
or property is considered appropriated if it
had been earmarked by law or ordinance for
a specific expenditure. Here, there is no
technical malversation after the general
fund of the municipality, intended by internal
arrangement for use in paying a particular
road, was applied instead to the payrolls of
different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69,
November 19, 2013)
RAPE
Medical evidence is dispensable and
merely corroborative in proving the crime of
rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259,
March 16, 2011)The presence of hymenal
lacerations is not a required element in the
crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No.
189821, March 23, 2011)
It is well-settled that being sweethearts
does not negate the commission of rape
because such fact does not give appellant
license to have sexual intercourse against her
will, and will not exonerate him from the
criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco,
G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011)
Court has consistently considered
carnal knowledge of a female mental
retardate with the mental age below 12 years
of age as rape of a woman deprived of
reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932,
October 19, 2011)
The degree of resistance that the
victim may put up against the rapist need not
be tenacious. Article 266-D of the RPC
provided presumptions that: Any physical
overt act manifesting resistance against the act
of rape in any degree from the offended
party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of
giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts
Page 33 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
punished under Article 266-A. (People v.
Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012)
The accused cannot be convicted of
rape through sexual assault, although proven
during trial, if what was charged in the
information is rape through carnal knowledge.
This violated the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. It is
proper to convict the accused of acts of
lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in
rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051,
October 2, 2013)
Sexual assault is committed by
inserting the penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. It is also called "instrument or
object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the
narrower "homosexual rape."(People v.
Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11,
2013)
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
In rape with homicide, it is immaterial
that the person killed is someone other than
the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog,
G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)
The phrase by reason of the rape
obviously conveys the notion that the killing is
due to the rape, the offense the offender
originally designed to commit. The victim of
the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In
contrast, the legislative intent on the import
of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer
to a killing that occurs immediately before or
after, or during the commission itself of the
attempted or consummated rape, where the
victim of the homicide may be a person other
than the rape victim herself for as long as the
killing is linked to the rape became evident.
(People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April
11, 2012)
KIDNAPPING
In the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, it matters not that no
ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient
that a demand for it was made. (People v.
Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10,
2013)

Criminal Law
The essence of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled
with indubitable proof of the intent of the
accused to effect the same. (Con-ui, et. al.,
G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013)
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
No matter how many rapes had been
committed in the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is
only one kidnapping with rape.(People v.
Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27,
2011)[N.B. The primary purpose is
kidnapping.]
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
Where the person kidnapped is killed
in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or
was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be
complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No.
7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534,
April 4, 2011)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Homicide is committed by reason or
on the occasion of robbery if its commission
was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape
of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession
by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent
discovery of the commission of the robbery;
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the
commission of the crime. As long as there is a
nexus between the robbery and the homicide,
the latter crime may be committed in a place
other than the situs of the robbery. (People v.
Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012)
In robbery with homicide, the original
criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery. One
who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can
no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has
materialized. (People v. Diu, et. al. G.R. No.
201449, April 3, 2013)
Page 34 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Whenever homicide has been
committed by reason of or on the occasion of
the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals of robbery with homicide
although they did not take part in the
homicide, unless it appears that they sought to
prevent the killing. (People v. Sugan, G.R. No.
192789, March 23, 2011)
There is no crime of robbery with
homicide committed by a band. If robbery
with homicide is committed by a band, the
indictable offense would still be denominated
as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1)
of the RPC. The element of band would be
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating
circumstance. (Id.)
CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
In proving the special complex crime
of carnapping with homicide, there must be
proof not only of the essential elements of
carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing
was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof.(People v. Nocum, et. al.,
G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013)
BIGAMY
The crime of bigamy was already
consummated the moment the accused
contracted a second marriage without the
previous one having been judicially declared
null and void,.xxx[T]he subsequent judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage
would not change the fact that the accused
contracted the second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage. (Montaez v.
Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22,
2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No.
183805, July 3, 2013)
LIBEL
Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if
the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of
his official duties and functions and the truth

Criminal Law
of the allegations is shown, the accused will be
entitled to an acquittal even though he does
not prove that the imputation was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
(Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February
14, 2011)
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A.
No. 9344)
Automatic suspension of sentence
should apply to a child in conflict with the
law regardless of the crime committed.
(People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March
16, 2011)Suspension of sentence can still be
applied even if the child in conflict with the
law is already eighteen (18) years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches
the maximum age of 21. (People v.
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011)
Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death shall be reclusion
perpetua to death. This means that the
penalty can now be graduated as it has
adopted the technical nomenclature of
penalties provided for in the Revised Penal
Code. (see RA 6425; Jose v. People, G.R. No.
162052, January 13, 2005)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Prescribed penalty refers to the initial
penalty as a general prescription for the
felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the
penalty as modified after considering the
attending and modifying circumstances;
Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed
penalty chosen by the court from the
imposable penalty.
Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to
6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is
not applicable when the penalty prescribed is
not more than 1 year. In this case, straight
penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed.
PROBATION
Page 35 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Accused who appeals may still apply
for probation.(Colinares v. People, G.R. No.
182748, December 13, 2011)Probation Law is
not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v.
People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)
The Probation Law specifically
provides that the grant of probation suspends
the execution of the sentence. During the
period of probation, the probationer does not
serve the penalty imposed upon him including
the accessory penalties like disqualification to
run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)
ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
(RA 3019)
Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that
it shall be unlawful for a public officer to
directly or indirectly request or receive 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. The term
transaction is limited only to contracts or
transactions involving monetary consideration
where the public officer has the authority to
intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a
transaction under the law. (People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December
11, 2013)
The good faith of heads of offices in
signing a document will only be appreciated if
they, with trust and confidence, have relied
on their subordinatesin whom the duty is
primarily lodged.The defense will not apply
when the accused is being held for gross and
inexcusable negligence in performing the
duties primarily vested in him by law.
(Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August
14, 2013)
The Court has already interpreted
"undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual
damage" must not only be capable of proof; it
must be actually proved with a reasonable
degree of certainty. A finding of "undue
injury" cannot be based on flimsy and non-
substantial evidence or upon speculation,
conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and

169000, November 27, 2013)
Where a private person has been
charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g)
of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom
he was alleged to have conspired, has died
prior to the filing of the information, the
private person may be indicted alone. (People
v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014)
Private persons may be charged with
violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they
conspired with public officer. This is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracvticesAct which is
"to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike which may constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto. (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013)
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610)
Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in
child abuse cases. A child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual
intercourse with another person. It is mala
prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No.
198732, June 10, 2013)
Intent to degrade the dignity of a
child is required in child abuse. Not every
instance of the laying of hands on a child
constitutes the crime of child abuse, except
when it is intended to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being. (Bongalon v. People,
G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013)
It was not the intention of the framers
of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the
applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses
committed to children. Despite the passage of
R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good
law. Thus, sexual assault committed against a
minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized
under RA 7610 which prescribed a higher
penalty.(People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323,
March 16, 2011)
The DOJ erred in charging the accused
with Rape in relation to Child Abuse under
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The
accused may be charged only for one and not
Page 36 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
both crimes. If the victim is 12 years or older,
the offender should be charged with either
sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under
Article 266-A of the RPC.(Balois, et. al. v.
Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. Nos. 182130 and
182132, June 19, 2013)
RA 7610 applies not only to a child
subjected to prostitution but also to a child
subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is
deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse"
when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any
adult.(Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389,
December 11, 2013)
COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS &
AMMUNITION (RA 10591)
The use of a loose firearm, when
inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the maximum penalty for the crime
committed is lower, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearm shall be imposed.
If the maximum penalty for the crime
committed is equal to that imposed for illegal
possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed in addition to the penalty for the
crime punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws of which he/she is
found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in
furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion of
insurrection, or attempted coup d etat, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of
the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d etat.
If the crime is committed by the
person without using the loose firearm, the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a
distinct and separate offense.
An imitation firearm used in the
commission of a crime shall be considered a
real firearm and the person who committed
the crime shall be punished in accordance with
this Act.

[N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was
published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly,
the old law which is more favorable to the
accused should be applied to any violations
committed prior to its effectivity.]
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT (RA 9165)
"Transport" means the movement of
the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from
one place to another. Here, the accused
were arrested inside a car which was not in
transit. The car was parked and stationary.
The prosecution failed to show that any
distance was travelled. The conclusion that the
accused transported the drugs merely because
they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and
is mere speculation. (San Juan v. People, G.R.
No. 177191, May 30, 2011)
Transportation of Drugs is
committed when the accused was
apprehended while boarding his flight with
drugs in his possession. While it may be
argued that appellant was yet to board the
aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal
drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied
that his presence at the airport at that
particular instance was for the purpose of
transporting or moving the dangerous drugs
from one place to another. (People v. Laba,
G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013)
Drug Selling is consummated upon
the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer
and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked
money. (People v. Hong Yen and Chua, G.R.
No. 181826, January 9, 2013)
It is vital that the seized contraband is
immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar
or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are
disposed at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting" or
contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People,
G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014)When
there is a search warrant, marking and
Page 37 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
inventory shall be at the place where the
search was conducted. In a buy-bust
operation, the marking and inventory may be
done immediately or at the nearest police
station.
Non-compliance with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where
the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited
justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized had been
preserved. (Id.)
[N.B. Non-compliance with the chain
of custody rule affects the credibility of the
evidence and will not invalidate arrest or
render inadmissible the items seized.]
It is settled that Section 86 of Republic
Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations
on account of the law enforcer's failure to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA.
(People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11,
2012)
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN &
THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)
"Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual
act which may or may not result in the
bearing of a common child. On the other
hand, "Dating relationship" exists even
without a sexual intercourse taking place
between those involved.
While it is required that the offender
has or had a sexual or dating relationship with
the offended woman, it is not indispensable
that the act of violence be a consequence of
such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether
the relationship had ceased for as long as
there is sufficient evidence showing the past or
present existence of such relationship between
the offender and the victim when the physical
harm was committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R.
No. 193960, January 7, 2013)
The law punishes "any act or series of
acts" that constitutes violence against women.
This means that a single act of harassment,
which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to protect
 Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

women and children. Punishing only violence
that is repeatedly committed would license
isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 182835, April 20, 2010)
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160,
as amended)
Money Laundering Offense
Money laundering is committed by
any person who performs any of the
punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,2
knowing that any monetary instrument or
property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also
committed by any covered person who,
knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under this Act to be
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council fails to do so.
Prosecution of Money Laundering
Any person may be charged with and
convicted of both the offense of money
laundering and the unlawful activity. The
prosecution of any offense or violation under
this Act shall proceed independently of any
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.
[N.B. Terrorism is one of the predicate crimes]
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property
The AMLC may file an ex parte
petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If
there is probable cause that any monetary
instrument or property is in any way related
to an unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals
may issue a freeze order which shall be
effective immediately, and which shall not
exceed six (6) months depending upon the
circumstances of the case.
If there is no case filed against a
person whose account has been frozen within
the period determined by the court, the freeze
order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A
person whose account has been frozen may
file a motion to lift the freeze order and the
court must resolve this motion before the
expiration of the freeze order. No court shall
issue a temporary restraining order or a writ
of injunction against any freeze order, except
the Supreme Court.
Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits
The AMLC may also inquire into or
examine any particular deposit or investment,
including related accounts, with any banking
institution or non-bank financial institution
upon order of any competent court based on
an ex parte application when it has been
established that there is probable cause that
the deposits or investments are related to an
unlawful activity.
Application to inquire into or examine
any deposit or investment filed with the Court
of Appeals shall be acted upon within twenty-
four (24) hours from filing.
--GOD BLESS--
Rather, as servants of God we commend
ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in
troubles, hardships and distresses; in hard
work, sleepless nights through glory and
dishonor, bad report and good reportyet we
live on; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor,
yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet
possessing everything. -- 2 Corinthians 6:4-10

2 (a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;

(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses
or uses said monetary instrument or property;
(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location,
disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect
to said monetary instrument or property;
(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering
offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the
money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or
(c) above; and
(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.

Page 38 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016