Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
2015-2016 JURISPRUDENCE 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4)
that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
MURDER These requisites have been established by the
prosecution.
PEOPLE VS BOSITO,
G.R. 209346, January 12, 2015 The fatal shooting of the victim was attended
by treachery, a qualifying circumstance listed
Bosito admitted hacking Bonaobra although in under Article 248 and notably, alleged in the
self-defense. By invoking self-defense, Information. For treachery to be properly
appellant admits killing the victim and the appreciated, two conditions must be present:
constitutional presumption of innocence is (1) at the time of the assault, the victim was
effectively waived. The burden of evidence not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the
then shifts to the appellant that the killing was offender consciously adopted the particular
justified and that he incurred no criminal means, methods, or forms of attack employed
liability. Thus, it is incumbent upon appellant by him.
to prove the elements of self-defense: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; The aggravating circumstance of evident
(2) reasonable necessity of the means premeditation is also present, which has the
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack following elements: (1) the time when the
of sufficient provocation on the part of the offender determined to commit the crime; (2)
person claiming self-defense. an act manifestly indicating that the accused
clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient
The means employed by Bosito to prevent or lapse of time between determination and
repel the supposed unlawful aggression was execution to allow himself time to reflect upon
beyond reasonably necessary. As correctly the consequences of his act. The plan to kill
found by the trial and appellate courts, the Agon was conceived a day before the victim
number, nature, and gravity of the wounds was fatally shot. Appellants and their cohorts
sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined therefore, had adequate time to reflect on the
effort to kill and contradict Bositos claim of consequences of their contemplated crime
self-defense. prior to its execution.
Page 1 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 2 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
than a mere planning or preparation, which if PEOPLE VS JAY HINLO A.K.A. "INDAY
carried out to its complete termination KABANG", ET AL., G.R. 212151, February 18,
following its natural course, without being 2015.
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will In People v. Uy, the Court explained that the
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete elements for the crime of robbery with
offenseIt is necessary that the overt act homicide are: (a) the taking of personal
should have been the ultimate step towards property is committed with violence or
the consummation of the design. It is sufficient intimidation against persons; (b) the property
if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a belongs to another; (c) the taking is animo
direct movement towards the commission of lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the
the offense after the preparations are made." occasion or by reason of the robbery,
The act done need not constitute the last homicide was committed. A conviction
proximate one for completion. It is necessary, requires that the robbery is the main purpose
however, that the attempt must have a causal and the killing is merely incidental to the
relation to the intended crime. In the words of robbery. The intent to rob must precede the
Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate taking of human life, but the killing may occur
and necessary relation to the offense. before, during or after the robbery.
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever Moreover, conspiracy having been established,
there is a notorious inequality of forces when a homicide takes place by reason of or
between the victim and the aggressor, on occasion of the robbery, all those who
assuming a situation of superiority of strength took part shall be guilty of the special complex
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor crime of robbery with homicide whether they
selected or taken advantage of by him in the actually participated in the killing, unless there
commission of the crime." The evidence must is proof that there was an endeavour to
establish that the assailants purposely sought prevent the killing.
the advantage, or that they had the deliberate
intent to use this advantage. "To take
advantage of superior strength means to PEOPLE VS OROSCO,
purposely use excessive force out of G.R. 209227, March 25, 2015
proportion to the means of defense available
to the person attacked." The appreciation of The elements of the crime of robbery with
this aggravating circumstance depends on the homicide are: (1) the taking of personal
age, size, and strength of the parties. property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE done with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason
of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
GONZAGA VS PEOPLE, homicide (used in its generic sense) is
G.R. 195671, January 21, 2015 committed. Homicide is said to have been
committed by reason or on the occasion of
To constitute the offense of reckless driving, robbery if it is committed (a) to facilitate the
the act must be something more than a mere robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to
negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle preserve the possession by the culprit of the
a willful and wanton disregard of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
consequences is required. It is the inexcusable commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate
lack of precaution or conscious indifference to witnesses to the commission of the crime.17 In
the consequences of the conduct which robbery with homicide, the original criminal
supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of design of the malefactor is to commit robbery,
mere negligence and imprudence under the with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or
operation of the penal law, without regard to by reason of the robbery. The intent to
whether the private offended party may commit robbery must precede the taking of
himself be considered likewise at fault. human life. The homicide may take place
before, during or after the robbery.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Page 3 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by
satisfactorily established the following the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating
elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and Officer;
the seller, the object and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating
payment therefor. What is material in a Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs Chemist;
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal
took place, coupled with the presentation in Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in Court.
evidence.
The presumption of regularity of the
performance of official duties stands when no
PEOPLE VS DAHIL & CASTRO, reason exists in the records by which to doubt
G.R. 212196, January 12, 2015. the regularity of the performance of official
duty. And even in that instance, the
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board presumption of regularity will never be
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: "Chain of stronger than the presumption of innocence in
Custody" means the duly recorded authorized favor of the accused.
movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of PEOPLE VS CASACOP,
each stage, from the time of G.R. 210454, January 13, 2016
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this
court for destruction. Such record of case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
movements and custody of seized item shall offense and in sustaining a conviction under
include the identity and signature of the R.A. No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the
person who held temporary custody of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have
seized item, the date and time when such been preserved.
transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition. LESCANO VS PEOPLE
G.R. 214490, January 13, 2016
Page 4 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous any doubt. Even more than this, what must
Drugs Act of 2002 also be established is the fact that the substance
bought during the buy-bust operation is the
Compliance with Section 21s requirements is same substance offered in court as exhibit. The
critical. Non-compliance is tantamount to chain of custody requirement performs this
failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, function in that it ensures that unnecessary
an essential element of the offenses of illegal doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. are removed.
By failing to establish an element of these
offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender
the acquittal of an accused. PEOPLE VS ASISLO,
G.R. 206224, January 18, 2016
Page 5 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
who are police officers, for they are presumed G.R. 189272, January 21, 2015.
to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the Importation of regulated drugs
contrary.
The accused were on board a speed boat
It has been ruled time and again that non- found to have several transparent plastic bags
compliance with Section 21 of the IRR containing shabu.
(inventory, etc.) does not make the items
seized inadmissible. What is imperative is the (a) W/N there is importation of regulated
preservation of the integrity and the evidential drugs
value of the seized items as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or The crime of importation of regulated drugs is
innocence of the accused. committed by importing or bringing any
regulated drug into the Philippines without
being authorized by law. According to
PEOPLE VS PAVIA & BUENDIA appellants, if it is not proven that the regulated
G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015 drugs are brought into the Philippines from a
foreign origin, there is no importation.
Possession of Dangerous Drugs during Parties, Moreover, the Blacks Law Dictionary defines
Social Gatherings or Meetings importation as the act of bringing goods and
merchandise into a country from a foreign
The accused claimed that the warrantless arrest country.
was illegal.
According to the SC, the mere fact that the
The elements of the crime committed are: (1) appellants were Chinese nationals as well as
possession by the accused of an item or object their penchant for making reference to China
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous where they could obtain money to bribe the
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by apprehending officers does not necessarily
law; (3) the free and conscious possession of mean that the confiscated drugs necessarily
the drug by the accused, with the additional came from China. Therefore, the accused are
element that (4) the accused possessed the not liable for importation of prohibited drugs.
prohibited or dangerous drug during a social
gathering or meeting, or in the company of at (b) W/N the accused may be held liable for
least two persons. illegal possession
Citing jurisprudence,
In People v. Elkanish, this Court held that
RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing possession is inherent in importation.
Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require Therefore, while appellants cannot be held
strict compliance as to the chain of custody liable for the offense of illegal importation
rule. x x x. We have emphasized that what is charged in the information, their criminal
essential is the preservation of the integrity liability for illegal possession, if proven beyond
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, reasonable doubt, may nevertheless be
as the same would be utilized in the sustained.
determination of the guilt or innocence of the At this point, this Court notes that charging
accused. appellants with illegal possession when the
information filed against them charges the
crime of importation does not violate their
PEOPLE VS MORALES constitutional right to be informed of the
G.R. 206832, January 21, 2015. nature and cause of the accusation brought
against them. The rule is that when there is a
While the case is pending, Morales died. The variance between the offense charged in the
SC ruled that the death of accused-appellant complaint or information, and that proved or
Morales pending appeal of his conviction, established by the evidence, and the offense as
extinguishes his civil and criminal liabilities. charged necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved included in that which is
PEOPLE VS LIU charged.
Page 6 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 7 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 8 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
place where the buy-bust operation was prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the
committed at the police station. physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
In People v. Kamad, the Court enumerated the A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
different links that the prosecution must arrest illegal or the items seized from him
establish to preserve the identity and integrity inadmissible.
of the seized items: first, the seizure and
marking of the illegal drug recovered from the In People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien
accused by the apprehending officer; second, Chua,34 where the marked money was also
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the shown to accused-appellant but it was not
apprehending officer to the investigating actually given to her as she was immediately
officer; third, the turn over by the investigating arrested when the shabu was handed over to
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic the poseur-buyer, the Court held that it is
chemist for laboratory examination; and material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that
fourth, the turn over and submission of the the sale actually took place, and what
marked illegal drug seized by the forensic consummates the buy-bust transaction is the
chemist to the court. These requirements are delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and,
necessary in order to ensure that the in turn, the sellers receipt of the marked
confiscated drug are the same ones presented money. While the parties may have agreed on
in court in order to dispel unnecessary doubts the selling price of the shabu and delivery of
as to the identity of the evidence. payment was intended, these do not prove
consummated sale. Receipt of the marked
The SC emphasized the importance of the money, whether done before delivery of the
marking of the seized items. In the recent case drugs or after, is required.
of People v. Sabdula, failure to mark the
plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust In the case at bar, although accused-appellant
operation became the Courts basis for was shown the consideration before she
acquittal. handed over the subject shabu to the poseur-
buyer, such is not sufficient to consummate the
In a number of cases, the Court sanctioned sale. However, the accused is criminally liable
substantial compliance with the procedure to for illegal possession.
establish a chain of custody, provided that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the PALO VS PEOPLE,
apprehending team/officers. However, when G.R. 192075, February 10, 2016
serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items presented in The fact that the apprehending officer marked
evidence, liberality ceases and presumption of the plastic sachet at the police station, and not
innocence takes precedence over substantial at the place of seizure, did not compromise the
compliance. integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has
declared that "marking upon immediate
confiscation" contemplates even marking done
PEOPLE VS DASIGAN at the nearest police station or office of the
G.R. 206229, February 04, 2015. apprehending team.
Page 9 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
place, coupled with the presentation in court arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of
of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery R.A. 9165. This is considering that
of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the "[w]hatever justifiable grounds may excuse
receipt by the seller of the marked money the police officers from literally complying
successfully consummate the buy-bust with Section 21 will remain unknown, because
transaction. [appellant] did not question during trial
the safekeeping of the items seized from
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised
perfect chain of custody in the handling of for the first time on appeal; when a party
evidence, substantial compliance with the desires the court to reject the evidence offered,
legal requirements on the handling of the he must so state in the form of an objection.
seized item is sufficient. This Court has Without such objection, he cannot raise the
consistently ruled that even if the arresting question for the first time on appeal. x x x
officers failed to strictly comply with the
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and PEOPLE VS ROSAURO,
will not render the items seized inadmissible in G.R. 209588, February 18, 2015
evidence. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of
value of the seized items, as the same would accused-appellant to be the result of a
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find
innocence of the accused. nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary
finding. In People v. Bartolome, we had the
Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a decoy
presumed to have been preserved unless there solicitation, to wit:
is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that
the evidence has been tampered with. It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime
Appellant bears the burden of showing that that facilities for its commission were
the evidence was tampered or meddled with purposely placed in his way, or that the
in order to overcome the presumption of criminal act was done at the decoy
regularity in the handling of exhibits by public solicitation of persons seeking to expose the
officers and the presumption that public criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity
officers properly discharged their duties. 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
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, committed, and the solicitation merely
G.R. 174481, February 10, 2016 furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of This Court has, in many cases, held that while
prosecution witnesses in cases involving the chain of custody should ideally be perfect,
violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous in reality it is almost always impossible to
Drugs Act may be excused so long as the obtain an unbroken chain. The most
identity of the dangerous drugs is proved important factor is the preservation of the
beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of integrity and the evidentiary value of the
custody is established with moral certainty. seized items as they will be used to determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence,
the prosecutions failure to submit in evidence
PEOPLE VS GABUYA the physical inventory and photograph of the
G.R. 195245, February 16, 2015 seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
Failure of the accused to raise an objection on arrest illegal or the items seized from him
the evidence presented during trial inadmissible.
It bears stressing that the Court has already Under the law, the offense of illegal sale of
brushed aside an accuseds belated contention shabu carries with it the penalty of life
that the illegal drugs confiscated from his imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
person is inadmissible for failure of the from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
Page 10 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos in this case. Hence, the offense of illegal sale of
(P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity shabu against appellant cannot stand.
and purity of the substance.
Appellant is guilty instead of illegal delivery of
shabu. To establish the guilt of an accused for
PEOPLE VS GABUYA, the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there
G.R. 195245, February 16, 2015 must be evidence that (1) the accused passed
on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the personally or otherwise, and by any means;
first time on appeal; when a party desires the (2) such delivery is not authorized by law;
court to reject the evidence offered, he must and (3) the accused knowingly made the
so state in the form of an objection. Without delivery with or without consideration.
such objection, he cannot raise the question
for the first time on appeal. Besides and as
already mentioned, the CA has already PEOPLE VS BASILIO,
concluded that the identity of the seized drugs G.R. 195774, February 23, 2015
was established by the prosecution and its
integrity preserved. To obtain a conviction for violation of Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 involving a buy-
bust operation, the following essential
PEOPLE VS DIAZ, elements must be established: (1) the identity
G.R. 197818, February 25, 2015 of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
Prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs the thing sold and its payment. What is
depends largely on the credibility of the police material is the proof that the transaction or
officers who conducted the buy-bust sale actually took place, coupled with the
operation. It is fundamental that the factual presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
findings of the trial [court] and those involving evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug
credibility of witnesses are accorded respect to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension seller of the marked money consummate the
of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and illegal transaction.
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
such findings.
PEOPLE VS PERONDO,
It is settled that an accused may still be found G.R. 193855, February 18, 2015
guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe
the requirements provided under Section 21 of In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of
R.A. [No.] 9165, for as long as the chain of shabu, the following elements must concur:
custody remains unbroken. (1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
It must be added, however, that appellant delivery of the thing sold and the payment
shall not be eligible for parole. 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
PEOPLE VS REYES, took place, coupled with the presentation in
G.R. 194606, February 18, 2015 court of thecorpus delicti.
The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, The testimony of the poseur-buyer was not
such as shabu, has the following elements: (1) indispensable or necessary; it would have been
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the cumulative merely, or corroborative at best.
object, and consideration; (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor.
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur- PEOPLE VS DELA PEA & DELIMA,
buyer and the receipt by the seller of the G.R. 207635, February 18, 2015
marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction. Clearly, the element of The elements necessary for the prosecution of
receipt of payment for the thing sold is absent a charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
Page 11 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 are: (1) subject of the illegal sale - the corpus delicti
the identities of the buyer and the seller, the itself- are not shown. The reason is that the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the drug presented as evidence at the trial is not
delivery of the thing sold and the payment shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was
therefor. the drug subject of the illegal sale.
On the other hand, the elements of the crime In every prosecution for the illegal sale of
of illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (a) dangerous drugs, the presentation of the drugs
the accused is in possession of an item or as evidence in court is material, because the
object that is identified to be a prohibited or identity of the drugs seized should be
dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not established beyond any reasonable doubt.
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely What is more, the fact that the substance
and consciously possessed the drug. bought during the buy-bust operation is the
same substance offered in court should be
In the prosecution of a case for violation of proven. The preservation of the chain of
R.A. 9165, both for illegal sale and illegal custody of the drugs seized performs the
possession of dangerous drugs, the primary function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts
consideration is to ensure that the identity and attending the identity of the evidence are
integrity of the seized drugs have been removed.
preserved from the time they were confiscated
from the accused until their presentation as
evidence in court.46 The prosecution must PEOPLE VS ANGNGAO & CARLIN
establish with moral certainty that the G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015
specimen submitted to the crime laboratory
and found positive for dangerous drugs, and The State bears the burden of establishing the
finally introduced in evidence against the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
accused was the same illegal drug that was confiscated during a buy-bust operation. The
confiscated from him. evidence of the chain of custody must meet
the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 12 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
G.R. 212635, March 25, 2015 (c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
Accordingly, it is of paramount importance for establishment or place where he is
the prosecution to establish that the serving final judgment or is
transaction actually took place, and to present temporarily confined while his case is
the corpus delicti, i.e., the seized drug/s, before pending, or has escaped while being
the court. transferred from one confinement to
another.
It is well-settled that in criminal prosecutions
involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the Requirements under Section 21 of RA No.
drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the 9165 mandating the arresting team to conduct
crime calls for the necessity of proving with a physical inventory of the items seized and
moral certainty that they are the same seized photograph the same in the presence of: (1)
items. The lack of conclusive identification of the accused; (2) a representative from the
the illegal drugs allegedly seized from the media; (3) a representative from the
accused strongly militates against a finding of Department of Justice (DOJ); and (4) any
guilt, as in this case. Therefore, as reasonable elected public official who shall further be
doubt persists on the identity of the drugs required to sign the copies of the said
allegedly seized from the accused, the latter's inventory. According to appellant, no physical
acquittal should come as a matter of course. inventory nor photograph was ever taken in
this case.
Page 13 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the witness possession, the condition in which Serious or Slight Oral Defamation
it was received and the condition in which it Whether the offense committed is serious or
was delivered to the next link in the chain. slight oral defamation, depends not only upon
These witnesses would then describe the the sense and grammatical meaning of the
precautions taken to ensure that there had utterances but also upon the special
been no change in the condition of the item circumstances of the case, like the social
and no opportunity for someone not in the standing or the advanced age of the offended
chain to have possession of the same. party
KIDNAPPING
PEOPLE VS NUARIN
G.R. 188698, July 22, 2015 PEOPLE VS PEPINO & GOMEZ
G.R. 174471, January 12, 2016
Chain of Custody. Inconsistent testimonies on
Marking the drugs, tantamount to acquittal. Kidnapping Duration of Detention
Page 14 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
does not remove the possibility of an insertion Her testimony has established all the elements
considering the flexibility of the sphincter. of rape required under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code. First, appellant had
Note: The slightest penetration into ones carnal knowledge of the victim. Second,
sexual organ distinguishes an act of appellant employed threat, force and
lasciviousness from the crime of rape. intimidation to satisfy his lust. Force or
intimidation is not limited to physical force. As
long as it is present and brings the desired
PEOPLE VS SUAREZ result, all consideration of whether it was
G.R. 201151, January 14, 2015 more or less irresistible is beside the point.
Note: The medical examination of the victim is Appellants denial and uncorroborated defense
not an element of rape. Moreover, the of alibi cannot prevail over the credible and
medical examination does not seek to establish positive testimony of AAA that appellant
who committed the crime, rather it merely raped her and committed acts of lasciviousness
corroborates the testimony of the rape victim against her.
that she has been raped. The prime
consideration in the prosecution of rape is the
victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical PEOPLE VS ESPEJON,
findings; a medical examination of the victim is G.R. 199445, February 04, 2015
not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.
The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that
sufficient to convict. Alibi and denial cannot the assessment of a trial court in matters
prevail over the positive and categorical pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are
testimony and identification of the accorded great respectif not finalityon
complainant. appeal. The rationale behind this rule is the
recognition of the trial courts unique and
distinctive position to be able to observe, first
PEOPLE VS JOSON hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of
G.R. 206393, January 21, 2015. the witness whose credibility has been put in
issue.
For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the The victims receipt of P20.00 from the
prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender appellant right after the former was forced to
had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he masturbate the latter is not prejudicial to the
accomplished this act through force, threat or accusations of rape or attempted rape against
intimidation, when she was deprived of reason the appellant. It neither excuses appellants
or otherwise unconscious, or when she was dastardly acts nor implies AAAs consent
under 12 years of age or was demented. thereto.
Page 15 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
What is most notable is the fact that the her to drink even when she was already
money was an unsolicited thing that was obviously inebriated. They never denied
handed to AAA after the ruttish subjection, having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the
such act which is indignity upon insult being latter was clearly deprived of reason or
part and parcel of the whole crime that started unconscious at the time the private
with the abductive taking to the bushes. The respondents ravished her.
fear that numbed the person of AAA was, at
the time of the lustful offer, still was When the accused alleges consensual sexual
overpowering. congress, he needs convincing proof such as
love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses
Then too, we must consider that AAA is a 12- attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship
year-old victim of rape whose reputation for between the offender and his supposed victim.
purity and chastity had never been sullied Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the
prior to her encounters with the appellant. It is complainant, the burden now shifts to the
incomprehensible that for an ordinary 12-year- accused to prove his defense by substantial
old Filipina girl, who hitherto had only the evidence.
faintest notion of carnal matters if at all,
would just suddenly, and without any The victims moral character in rape is
explanation whatsoever, surrender herself to immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown
the sexual desires of a married man almost that the victim was deprived of reason or was
four times her elder in exchange for money. rendered unconscious through intoxication to
PEOPLE VS COLENTAVA, enable the private respondents to have sex
G.R. 190348, February 09, 2015 with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the
carnal knowledge of a woman against her
In rape cases the date or time of commission consent. A freshly broken hymen is not one of
of the offense is not an essential ingredient of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the
said crime. In fact, the precise time when the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape
rape takes place has no substantial bearing on cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis
its commission. by entry into the lips of the vagina, even
without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
The elements therefore of qualified rape are: enough to justify a conviction for rape.
(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 PEOPLE VS GALLANO
the rape; (5) the offender is a parent (whether G.R. 184762, February 25, 2015
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the
victim. To convict an accused charged with qualified
rape instead of rape in its simple form not only
It was held that failure to immediately disclose condemns him to a more serious offense but
the rape does not warrant the conclusion that also exposes him to an even greater liability.
the victim was not raped especially in this case As such, the State is mandated to sufficiently
where a minor was threatened at gunpoint. allege in the information and to competently
prove during trial the qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship with the same
PEOPLE VS CA, MINDANAO STATION, certainty as the crime itself.
CARAMPATANA, OPORTO, & ALQUIZOLA
G.R. 183652, February 25, 2015 Nonetheless, Gallano was guilty only of simple
rape, not of qualified rape. In order that the
Under the law, the elements of rape are: (1) accused is convicted of qualified rape under
the offender had carnal knowledge of the Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code,
victim; and (2) such act was accomplished two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the
through force or intimidation; or when the victim must be a less than 18 years old; and (2)
victim is deprived of reason or otherwise the offender must either be related to the
unconscious; or when the victim is under victim by consanguinity of by affinity within
twelve years of age. Here, the accused the third civil degree, or is the common-law
intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor spouse of the parent of the victim. These two
more than she could handle. They still forced requisites must be both alleged and proved
Page 16 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
with absolute certainty. Otherwise, the accused Simple Rape conviction from Statutory Rape
could only be held guilty of simple rape. The charge because of failure to present Birth
qualifying circumstances of relationship and Certificate. Rules on Age as a qualifying
minority remain to be relevant in the crime of circumstance in crimes.
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 PEOPLE VS NERIO, JR
committed. G.R. 200940, July 22, 2015
Page 17 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
The SC ruled that the accused used TGICI to Hence, conversion of personal property in the
engage in a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a case of an employee having mere material
type of investment fraud that involves the possession of the said property constitutes
payment of purported returns to existing theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom
investors from funds contributed by new both material and juridical possession have
investors. Its organizers often solicit new been transferred, misappropriation of the same
investors by promising to invest funds in property constitutes Estafa.
opportunities claimed to generate high returns
with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, Thus, being a mere custodian of the missing
the perpetrators focus on attracting new funds and not, in any manner, an agent who
money to make promised payments to earlier- could have asserted a right against Siam Bank
stage investors to create the false appearance over the same, Benabaye had only acquired
that investors are profiting from a legitimate material and not juridical possession of such
business. It is not an investment strategy but a funds and consequently, cannot be convicted
gullibility scheme, which works only as long as of the crime of Estafa as charged. In fine, the
there is an ever increasing number of new dismissal of the Estafa charge against Benabaye
investors joining the scheme.46 It is difficult to should come as a matter of course, without
sustain the scheme over a long period of time prejudice, however, to the filing of the
because the operator needs an ever larger pool appropriate criminal charge against her as may
of later investors to continue paying the be warranted under the circumstances of this
promised profits to early investors. The idea case.
behind this type of swindle is that the con-
man collects his money from his second or
third round of investors and then absconds DE CASTRO VS PEOPLE
before anyone else shows up to collect. G.R. 171672, February 02, 2015
Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or
months at the most. In estafa through falsification of commercial
documents
Page 18 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the value of the defraudation, as follows: with minimum term shall be from six years and one
the penalty of prision correccional in its day to 12 years of prison mayor. In imposing
maximum period to prision mayor in its the indeterminate sentence of eight years and
minimum period (i.e., four years, two months one day of prison mayor, as minimum, to
and one day to eight years) if the amount of thirty years of reclusion perpetua as maximum,
the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not the CA correctly applied the Indeterminate
exceed P22,000.00, and if such amount Sentence Law. It is well to state that reclusion
exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty is imposed in perpetua merely describes in this instance the
the maximum period, adding one year for penalty actually imposed on account of the
each additional P10,000.00, but the total shall amount of the fraud involved.
not exceed 20 years, in which case the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be, in connection BENITO VS PEOPLE
with the accessory penalties that may be G.R. 204644, February 11, 2015
imposed and for the purpose of the other
provisions of the Revised Penal Code; with the Conspiracy must be proven with evidence that
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum can convince a trial court of its existence
and medium periods (i.e., six months and one beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, there
day to four years and two months) if the can be no conspiracy to commit a crime that
amount of the fraud is over P6,000.00 but has already been consummated.
does not exceed P12,000.00; with the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, "a
prision correccional in its minimum period conspiracy exists when two or more persons
(i.e., four months and one day to two years come to an agreement concerning the
and four months) if the amount of the fraud is commission of a felony and decide to commit
over P200.00 but does not exceed P6,000.00; it." Proof of conspiracy may be direct or
and with the penalty of arresto mayor in its circumstantial. So long as the evidence
medium and maximum periods (i.e., two presented show a "common design or purpose"
months and one day to six months) if the to commit the crime, all of the accused shall be
amount of the fraud does not exceed P200.00. 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.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA
G.R. 163662, February 25, 2015 For this reason, the fact of conspiracy "must be
proven on the same quantum of evidence as
The estafa charged in the information may be the felony subject of the agreement of the
committed, therefore, when: (1) the offender parties," that is, proof beyond reasonable
has postdated or issued a check in payment of doubt.
an obligation contracted at the time of the
postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of The estafa had already been consummated
postdating or issuance of said check, the when "Linda Chua" allegedly pawned the
offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds jewelry on June 17, 1994. Benito, who was
deposited are not sufficient to cover the allegedly "Linda Chua," cannot be held
amount of the check; (3) the payee has been criminally liable with Agbulos. "There can be
defrauded. The deceit here should be the no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which
efficient cause of the defraudation, and should has already been done and consummated."
either be prior to, or simultaneously with, the
act of the fraud.
CHENG VS PEOPLE
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the G.R. 174113, January 13, 2016
Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D 818,
the penalty for estafa when the total value of The essence of this kind of Estafa is the
the checks exceed P22,000.00 is reclusion appropriation or conversion of money or
temporal in its maximum period (i.e, 17 years, property received to the prejudice of the
four months and one day to 20 years), plus entity to whom a return should be madeIn
one year for each additional P10,000. proving the element of conversion or
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the misappropriation, a legal presumption of
Page 19 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
misappropriation arises when the accused fails that the property was lost by the owner, and
to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
the items to be sold and fails to give an
account of their whereabouts.
PEOPLE VS NIELLES & DELOS REYES
G.R. 200308, February 23, 2015
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
Qualified theft
DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE
G.R. 209387. January 11, 2016 The elements are: 1) taking of personal
property; 2) that said property belongs to
Illegal Possession of Firearms another; 3) that the said taking was done with
intent to gain; 4) that it was done without the
While mere possession, without criminal owners consent; 5) that it was accomplished
intent, is sufficient to convict a person for without the use of violence or intimidation
illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be against persons, or of force upon things; and
shown that there was animus possidendi or an 6) that it was done with grave abuse of
intent to possess on the part of the accused. In confidence.
the absence of animus possidendi, the
possessor of a firearm incurs no criminal
liability. CANCERAN VS PEOPLE
G.R. 206442, July 1, 2015
In the case before the Court, the evidence PEOPLE VS RADM VIRGINIO R. ARIS, ET AL.
presented by the prosecution fails to establish G.R. No. 174786
the corpus delicti of theft. In Tan v. People,
this Court said: Under the Anti- Hazing Law, the failure by
school authorities to take any action to
Corpus delicti means the body or substance of prevent the offenses as provided by the law
the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to exposes them to criminal liability as
the fact that the crime has been actually accomplices in the criminal acts. They bear the
committed. The essential elements of theft commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes
are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the covered by the Anti-Hazing Law are not
property belongs to another; (3) the taking committed.
away was done with intent of gain; (4) the
taking away was done without the consent of It is a settled rule that the case against those
the owner; and (5) the taking away is charged as accomplices is not ipso facto
accomplished without violence or intimidation dismissed in the absence of trial of the
against persons or force upon things. In theft, purported principals; the dismissal of the case
corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) against the latter; or even the latters acquittal,
Page 20 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 21 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 22 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
required that all anti-drug operations shall be Theft is committed by any person
coordinated with the PDEA, and only specially who, with intent to gain, but without violence
trained and competent drug enforcement against or intimidation of persons nor force
personnel shall conduct drug enforcement upon things, shall take personal property of
operations. He argues that the NBIs operation another without the latters consent.
is highly questionable considering that it is
neither a deputized agent of PDEA nor is buy- FACTS: Henry Lim engaged the services of
bust operations its primary mandate. Petitioner Medina to repair the door and roof
of his Sangyong Korando Jeep. Medina told
RULING: Baticolon's argument is no longer him that he took and installed them on Lims
novel. In People v. Sta. Maria, this Court has another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was
already ruled that a buy-bust operation, albeit also being repaired in the shop. Medina was
made without the participation of PDEA, does charged with simple theft.
not violate appellant's constitutional right to
be protected from illegal arrest. There is RULING: Guilty. Medina acknowledged
nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 which even without hesitation the taking of the jeeps
remotely indicate the intention of the alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with
legislature to make an arrest made without the magwheels, but he put up the defense that
participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence they were installed in the pick-up owned by
obtained pursuant to such an arrest Lim. With such admission, the burden of
inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not evidence is shifted on him to prove that the
deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests. missing parts were indeed lawfully taken which
Further, such contention is untenable because he failed to substantiate, through the
in this case the prosecution was able to presentation of supporting documentary
establish that coordination with the PDEA was evidence or corroborative testimony.
made prior to the buy-bust operation and
even after the arrests were made. It is
therefore evident that the arrests made by the NORBERTO VITANGCOL V. PEOPLE OF THE
NBI were legal and the evidence seized PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 207406, January 13,
therefrom admissible in evidence. 2016
The presentation of the marked money FACTS: Norberto married Alice. Alice
is not essential in the validity of arrest. Neither discovered that Norberto was previously
law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation married to a certain Gina as evidenced by a
of any of the money used in a buy-bust marriage contract. According to Norberto,
operation. It is sufficient to show that the illicit before his marriage with Alice, he revealed to
transaction did take place, coupled with the her that he had a fake marriage with his
presentation in court of the corpus delicti in college girlfriend. Alice filed the criminal
evidence. These were done, and were proved Complaint for bigamy against Norberto.
by the prosecution's evidence. Norberto argues that the first element of
bigamy is absent on the ground that no
The Court has previously ruled that as marriage license was issued in his favor and his
long as the state can show by record or first wife, as evidenced by a Certification from
testimony that the integrity of the evidence has the Office of the Civil Registrar.
not been compromised by accounting for the
continuous whereabouts of the object RULING: The Certification does not prove that
evidence at least between the time it came into petitioners first marriage was solemnized
the possession of the police officers until it was without a marriage license. It does not
tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution categorically state that Marriage License No.
can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt 8683519 does not exist. The marriage contract
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. between petitioner and Gina is a positive piece
of evidence as to the existence of petitioners
first marriage. This should be given greater
HERMAN MEDINA v. PEOPLE OF THE credence than documents testifying merely as
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015 to the absence of any record of the marriage.
Page 23 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 24 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 25 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
(c) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient
least equal to, that committed. provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
FACTS: Pablo Maddauin was talking to two FACTS: Villariez, together with his two
other people at a vacant lot. While conversing, brothers, Amado Villariez (Amado) and Tomas
they saw Oscar Sevillano coming toward them Villariez (Tomas), was charged in an
who could not walk straight and appeared to Information for murder. The group all armed
be drunk. Without warning, Sevillano pulled with guns of unknown caliber and with intent
out a knife from his waist and stabbed to kill, conspiring and confederating with one
Maddauin on the chest. Maddauins another, did then and there willfully,
companions tried to restrain the Sevillano from unlawfully and without any warning or
attacking, but one of them experienced leg provocation shot from behind one ENRIQUE
cramps and lost his hold on Sevillano. OLIMBA, thereby inflicting upon the latter a
Sevillano turned again on Maddauin and fatal gunshot wound in the body causing the
continued to stab him several times more. instantaneous death of said Enrique Olimba.
Thereafter, the victim was brought to the The crime was committed with the qualifying
hospital; but unfortunately, he died that same aggravating circumstances of treachery and
day. known premeditation.
Sevillano interposed self-defense to absolve The RTC found Villariez guilty beyond
himself from criminal liability. He averred that reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
he went to the vacant lot simply to feed his The RTC found that the seething righteous
chicken. While doing so, he claims that indignation of the prosecution's witnesses
Maddauin, who looked drunk, came at him against Villariez could have arisen only from
with a drawn knife but missed his target; that their unadulterated knowledge of the identity
they grappled for the knife and that the latter of their kin's assailant. The RTC also gave
was accidentally stabbed. weight to the positive identification of Villariez
by Randy and found no reason to disregard
RULING: In the prosecution of the crime of the testimony of Ana on her father's dying
murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised declaration that it was "Toti" who shot him.
Penal Code (RPC), the following elements The RTC, however, found that the prosecution
must be established by the prosecution: (1) that failed to establish the existence of the
a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed qualifying circumstances of treachery and
that person; (3) that the killing was attended taking advantage of strength. Thus, it held
by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not Villariez liable for the crime of homicide,
infanticide or parricide. punishable by reclusion temporal. The accused
appealed the decision of the trial court.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim The CA also found that Randy's testimony
by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the leaves no doubt that Villariez committed the
former of any chance to defend himself or to crime. The CA also appreciated the qualifying
repel the aggression, thus insuring its circumstance of treachery since the shooting
commission without risk to the aggressor and was swift, sudden and unforeseen which
without any provocation on the part of the placed Villariez at a position which afforded
victim. him no risk arising from a defense which the
victim might have made.
Under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the RPC, the
following elements must be present in order RULING: The commission of the specific acts
that a plea of self-defense may be validly charged against Villariez constitutes the offense
considered in absolving a person from criminal charged in the Information. The prosecution's
liability: First. Unlawful Aggression; Second. failure to establish conspiracy due to the death
Reasonable necessity of the means employed of a co-conspirator and the dismissal of the
Page 26 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
case against another co-conspirator does not released in his favor was fully returned by
defeat the conviction of the accused for the petitioner by way of deductions from his
offense charged and proven during the trial. salaries and terminal leave pay more than a
year after COAs demand for the settlement
For a dying declaration to be admissible in thereof and long after his last term of office
evidence, the following requisites must concur: expired, c) payment not being a cause for
(1) the dying declaration must concern the extinction of criminal liability, the full
cause and surrounding circumstances of the restitution of the amount of the amount
declarant's death; (2) at the time of making his alleged to have been malversed does not
declaration, the declarant was under a exculpate petitioner, and d)the restitution of
consciousness of impending death; (3) the the malversed account is a mitigating
declarant must have been competent to testify circumstance that entitles petitioner to a
as a witness; and (4) the declaration was reduction of the imposable penalty.
offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder
or parricide in which the declarant was the HELD: Malversation of Public Funds to
victim. prosper, concurrence of the following
elements must be proved: a) the offender is a
The essence of treachery is the sudden and public officer, b) he has custody or control of
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, the funds or property by reason of his office,
depriving the victim of any chance to defend c) the funds or property are public funds of
himself. Here, Randy witnessed that it was property for which he is accountable and d) he
Villariez who shot his father at the back. has appropriated, taken, misrepresentation or
Enrique, deep in thought while listening to the consented or, through abandonment or
burial service, was unprepared and had no negligence, permitted another person to take
means to put up a defense. Enrique was shot them.
unexpectedly which insured the commission of
the crime without risk to Villariez. This
treacherous act qualified the killing to murder.
Page 27 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 28 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
make or supervise legislation, or under the him. Even if he did not intend to cause the
guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, death of the victim, he must be held guilty
distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give beyond reasonable doubt for killing him
the law a construction which is repugnant to because he is the cause of the cause of the evil
its terms. The Court should apply the law in a caused. (Seguritan v. People, G.R. No.
manner that would give effect to their letter 172896, April 19, 2010)
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 CONSPIRACY
court will impose the penalty, although
excessive, and recommend executive clemency Responsibility of a conspirator is not
thru the Department of Justice. (Corpuz v. confined to the accomplishment of a
People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014) particular purpose of conspiracy but extends
to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA growing out of the purpose intended. (People
v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)
When the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in All the conspirators are liable as co-
se, even if they are punished by a special law. principals regardless of the extent and
Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly character of their participation because the act
established with the other elements of the of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who
crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On among the appellants delivered the fatal blow
the other hand, in crimes that are mala is therefore no longer indispensable since in
prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the
immoral but become punishable only because criminal act of another.(People v. Agacer, G.R.
the law says they are forbidden. Here, No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for
tampering, increasing or decreasing the failing to inflict mortal wounds, both
number of votes received by a candidate in appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable
any election or refusal, after proper for attempted murder since they were shown
verification and hearing, to credit the correct to have acted in conspiracy with each other
votes or deduct such tampered votes is although Ventura did not directly participate
inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants'
in se requiring criminal intent of the accused. original objective may have only been the
(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was
March 14, 2006) correctly held liable for murder with appellant
Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to
Criminal intent is not an element of death who just shouted for help after seeing
technical malversation. The law punishes the his husband in mortal danger. (People v.
act of diverting public property earmarked by Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010)
law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. It is mala Accused-appellant who took no part
prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in
192330, November 14, 2012) the common criminal plan, is not liable for
carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that co-
conspirators are liable only for acts done in
ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts
done outside their contemplation or which
When death resulted, even if there
are not the necessary and logical consequence
was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide,
not just physical injuries, since with respect to of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit,
crimes of personal violence, the penal law G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4,
looks particularly to the material results 2003)
following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences There was no evidence to prove that
thereof (See Article 4 of the RPC). Here, all the appellants assisted Robito in killing
petitioner committed an unlawful act by Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the
punching the victim who was much older than contemplation of the co-conspirators or which
Page 29 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
SELF-DEFENSE
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Accused-appellants' flight from the
neighborhood where the crimes were Evident premeditation may be
committed, their concealing of the weapons considered as present, even if a person other
used in the commission of the crimes, their than the intended victim was killed (or
non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that
their failure to surrender themselves to the the conspirators were determined to kill not
police authorities fully warranted the RTCs only the intended victim but also anyone who
rejection of their claim of self-defense and may help him put a violent resistance. Here,
defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al., Raymundo Roque provided such violent
G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012) resistance against the conspirators, giving the
latter no choice but to eliminate him from
The primordial element of self-defense
their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores,
is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an
G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing
actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583)
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In
case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
When it is not shown how and when
positively showing the wrongful intent to
the plan to kill was hatched or how much
cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No.
time had elapsed before it was carried out,
195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future
evident premeditation cannot be considered.
injury is not enough. The compulsion must be
It must appear not only that the accused
of such a character as to leave no opportunity
decided to commit the crime prior to the
for the accused for escape or self-defense in
moment of its execution but also that this
equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No.
decision was the result of meditation,
177570, January 19, 2011)
calculation, reflection or persistent
attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731,
The elements of unlawful aggression
July 18, 2013)
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 TREACHERY
attack or assault must be unlawful. (People v.
Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013) The idea of treachery does not apply
when the killing is not premeditated or when
Retaliation is not the same as self- the accused did not deliberately choose the
defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was means he employed for committing the crime.
begun by the injured party already ceased (People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2,
when the accused attacked him; while in self- 2011)
defense the aggression still existed when the The situation of the victim when
aggressor was injured by the accused. (People found shows without doubt that he was killed
v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, while tied and blindfolded; hence, the
2013) qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery was present in the commission of
the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No.
DWELLING 178771, June 8, 2011)
Page 30 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 31 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
application for legalization of aliens not law that applies in a particular case. It is a
qualified under the law to enjoy such proposition not arrived at by any process of
privilege. The informations reproduced natural reasoning from a fact or combination
verbatim the allegation of the original of facts stated but by the application of the
information, except that instead of the word artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On
"aliens" in the original information each the other hand, a narration of facts is merely
amended information states the name of the
an account or description of the particulars of
individual whose stay was legalized.
an event. It is a recital of things accomplished,
Moreover, the informations aver that the
offenses were committed on the same period of deeds, occurrence or happening.
of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
The strong probability even exists that the Disclosure or identification of relatives
approval of the application or the legalization "within the fourth civil degree of
of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a
single stroke of the pen, as when the approval narration of facts. Statements concerning
was embodied in the same document. relationship is descriptive and may be proved
(Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, as to its truth or falsity.
December 2, 1993)
A certification that one was "eligible
When there is delito continuado, the or qualified is a conclusion of law although
crime cannot be splitted into two or more
it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is
crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in.
an expression of belief or mistake of
judgment.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
MALVERSATION
Penalty for the crime proved, not
charged, determines the applicable Malversation may be committed
prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused either through a positive act of
has been found to have committed a lesser misappropriation or passively through
offense includible within the graver offense negligence. Even when the Information
charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser charges willful malversation, conviction for
offense if it has already prescribed. To hold malversation through negligence may still be
otherwise would be to sanction a adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the
mode of commission of the offense. The dolo
circumvention of the law on prescription by
or the culpa present in the offense is only a
the simple expedient of accussing the
modality in the perpetration of the felony.
defendant of the graver offense.(Damasco v. (Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31,
Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988, 2011)
citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-45674, May 13, 1983) The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a
public corporation or a government agency or
instrumentality with juridical personality,
FALSIFICATION which does not fall within the constitutional
prohibition in Article XII, Section 16,
One is guilty of falsification in the notwithstanding the amendments to its
accomplishment of his information and charter. Not all corporations, which are not
personal data sheet if he withholds material government owned or controlled, are ipso
facts which would have affected the approval facto to be considered private corporations as
of his appointment and/or promotion to a there exists another distinct class of
government position. In other words, leaving corporations or chartered institutions which
a question blank in the PDS/SALN is are otherwise known as public
falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. corporations. These corporations are treated
174730-37, February 9, 2011) by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the
Conclusion of law is a determination government which are not subject to the tests
by a judge or ruling authority regarding the of ownership or control and economic
Page 32 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
viability but to different criteria relating to punished under Article 266-A. (People v.
their public purposes/interests or Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012)
constitutional policies and objectives and their
administrative relationship to the government The accused cannot be convicted of
or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy rape through sexual assault, although proven
Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on during trial, if what was charged in the
Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011) information is rape through carnal knowledge.
This violated the constitutional right of the
In technical malversation, public fund accused to be informed of the nature and
or property is considered appropriated if it cause of the accusation against him. It is
had been earmarked by law or ordinance for proper to convict the accused of acts of
a specific expenditure. Here, there is no lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in
technical malversation after the general rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051,
fund of the municipality, intended by internal October 2, 2013)
arrangement for use in paying a particular
road, was applied instead to the payrolls of Sexual assault is committed by
different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v. inserting the penis into another person's
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
November 19, 2013) object into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. It is also called "instrument or
object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the
RAPE narrower "homosexual rape."(People v.
Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11,
Medical evidence is dispensable and 2013)
merely corroborative in proving the crime of
rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
March 16, 2011)The presence of hymenal
lacerations is not a required element in the In rape with homicide, it is immaterial
crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No. that the person killed is someone other than
the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog,
189821, March 23, 2011)
G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)
It is well-settled that being sweethearts The phrase by reason of the rape
does not negate the commission of rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is
because such fact does not give appellant due to the rape, the offense the offender
license to have sexual intercourse against her originally designed to commit. The victim of
will, and will not exonerate him from the the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In
criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco, contrast, the legislative intent on the import
G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011) of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer
to a killing that occurs immediately before or
Court has consistently considered after, or during the commission itself of the
carnal knowledge of a female mental attempted or consummated rape, where the
retardate with the mental age below 12 years victim of the homicide may be a person other
of age as rape of a woman deprived of than the rape victim herself for as long as the
reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, killing is linked to the rape became evident.
October 19, 2011) (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April
11, 2012)
The degree of resistance that the
victim may put up against the rapist need not
be tenacious. Article 266-D of the RPC KIDNAPPING
provided presumptions that: Any physical
overt act manifesting resistance against the act In the crime of kidnapping and serious
of rape in any degree from the offended illegal detention, it matters not that no
party, or where the offended party is so ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient
situated as to render her/him incapable of that a demand for it was made. (People v.
giving valid consent, may be accepted as Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10,
evidence in the prosecution of the acts 2013)
Page 33 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 34 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
of the allegations is shown, the accused will be Accused who appeals may still apply
entitled to an acquittal even though he does for probation.(Colinares v. People, G.R. No.
not prove that the imputation was published 182748, December 13, 2011)Probation Law is
with good motives and for justifiable ends. not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v.
(Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)
14, 2011)
The Probation Law specifically
provides that the grant of probation suspends
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A.
No. 9344) the execution of the sentence. During the
period of probation, the probationer does not
Automatic suspension of sentence serve the penalty imposed upon him including
should apply to a child in conflict with the the accessory penalties like disqualification to
law regardless of the crime committed. run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec,
(People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)
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 ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
more at the time of the pronouncement of (RA 3019)
his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches
the maximum age of 21. (People v. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011) it shall be unlawful for a public officer to
directly or indirectly request or receive any
Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a himself or for any other person, in connection
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life with any contract or transaction between the
imprisonment to death shall be reclusion Government and any other party, wherein the
perpetua to death. This means that the public officer in his official capacity has to
penalty can now be graduated as it has intervene under the law. The term
adopted the technical nomenclature of transaction is limited only to contracts or
penalties provided for in the Revised Penal transactions involving monetary consideration
Code. (see RA 6425; Jose v. People, G.R. No. where the public officer has the authority to
162052, January 13, 2005) intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a
transaction under the law. (People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 11, 2013)
Prescribed penalty refers to the initial The good faith of heads of offices in
penalty as a general prescription for the signing a document will only be appreciated if
felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the they, with trust and confidence, have relied
penalty as modified after considering the on their subordinatesin whom the duty is
attending and modifying circumstances; primarily lodged.The defense will not apply
Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed when the accused is being held for gross and
penalty chosen by the court from the inexcusable negligence in performing the
imposable penalty. duties primarily vested in him by law.
(Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August
14, 2013)
Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to
6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is The Court has already interpreted
not applicable when the penalty prescribed is "undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual
not more than 1 year. In this case, straight damage" must not only be capable of proof; it
penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed. must be actually proved with a reasonable
degree of certainty. A finding of "undue
injury" cannot be based on flimsy and non-
PROBATION substantial evidence or upon speculation,
conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and
Page 35 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
169000, November 27, 2013) both crimes. If the victim is 12 years or older,
the offender should be charged with either
Where a private person has been sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under
charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) Article 266-A of the RPC.(Balois, et. al. v.
of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. Nos. 182130 and
he was alleged to have conspired, has died 182132, June 19, 2013)
prior to the filing of the information, the
private person may be indicted alone. (People RA 7610 applies not only to a child
v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) subjected to prostitution but also to a child
subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is
Private persons may be charged with deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse"
violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct
conspired with public officer. This is in under the coercion or influence of any
consonance with the avowed policy of the adult.(Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389,
Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracvticesAct which is December 11, 2013)
"to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike which may constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS &
thereto. (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. AMMUNITION (RA 10591)
Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013)
The use of a loose firearm, when
inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610) considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Page 36 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
[N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was inventory shall be at the place where the
published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly, search was conducted. In a buy-bust
the old law which is more favorable to the operation, the marking and inventory may be
accused should be applied to any violations done immediately or at the nearest police
committed prior to its effectivity.] station.
Page 37 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016
Green Notes 2016
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
women and children. Punishing only violence If there is no case filed against a
that is repeatedly committed would license person whose account has been frozen within
isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. the period determined by the court, the freeze
No. 182835, April 20, 2010) 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
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, court must resolve this motion before the
as amended) expiration of the freeze order. No court shall
issue a temporary restraining order or a writ
Money Laundering Offense of injunction against any freeze order, except
the Supreme Court.
Money laundering is committed by
any person who performs any of the Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits
punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,2
knowing that any monetary instrument or The AMLC may also inquire into or
property represents, involves, or relates to the examine any particular deposit or investment,
proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also including related accounts, with any banking
committed by any covered person who, institution or non-bank financial institution
knowing that a covered or suspicious upon order of any competent court based on
transaction is required under this Act to be an ex parte application when it has been
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering established that there is probable cause that
Council fails to do so. the deposits or investments are related to an
unlawful activity.
Prosecution of Money Laundering
Application to inquire into or examine
Any person may be charged with and any deposit or investment filed with the Court
convicted of both the offense of money of Appeals shall be acted upon within twenty-
laundering and the unlawful activity. The four (24) hours from filing.
prosecution of any offense or violation under
this Act shall proceed independently of any --GOD BLESS--
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.
[N.B. Terrorism is one of the predicate crimes] Rather, as servants of God we commend
ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in
troubles, hardships and distresses; in hard
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property work, sleepless nights through glory and
dishonor, bad report and good reportyet we
The AMLC may file an ex parte live on; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor,
petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet
there is probable cause that any monetary possessing everything. -- 2 Corinthians 6:4-10
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.
Page 38 of 38
BAR OPERATIONS 2016