Sunteți pe pagina 1din 53

University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

Pre-week Notes 2017








CRIMINAL LAW Volvik as charges daffaires is diplomatic, he is vested

with blanket diplomatic immunity from criminal suit
BOOK I (Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003).

Mala in se vis--vis. mala prohibita

(BAR 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2010)
What are the basic maxims in criminal law? MALA IN SE
There must be Sufficient that
1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is
a criminal the prohibited
no crime when there is no law punishing the
intent. act was done.
same) No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the
act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same
Wrong from its Wrong merely
is not considered a crime.
very nature. because
prohibited by
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act
cannot be criminal where the mind is not
criminal) This is true to a felony characterized Criminal intent Criminal intent is
by dolo, but not to a felony resulting from culpa. governs. not necessary.

3. Doctrine of Pro Reo Whenever a penal law is Generally Generally

to be construed or applied and the law admits of punished involves
two interpretations, one lenient to the offender under the RPC. violation of
and one strict to the offender, that interpretation special laws.
which is lenient or favorable to the offender will
be adopted. NOTE: Not all
violations of
4. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An special laws are
act done by me against my will is not my act) mala prohibita.
As to their
Whenever a person is under a compulsion of Even if the crime
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to do an is punished
act against his will, in which that act produces a under a special
crime or offense, such person is exempted in any law, if the act
criminal liability arising from said act. punished is one
which is
What is the interplay between the doctrine of Pro Reo inherently
and Article 48 (Penalty for complex crimes) of the wrong, the same
RPC? (BAR 2010) is malum in se,
and, therefore,
Following the Doctrine of Pro Reo, crimes under Art. 48 of good faith and
the RPC are complexed and punished with a single the lack of
penalty (that prescribed for the most serious crime and criminal intent
to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale are valid
being, that the accused who commits two crimes with a defenses unless
single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity they are the
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and products of
several criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. criminal
153559, June 8, 2004). negligence or
Charges daffaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a
psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated Mitigating and Such
in his previous assignment. One day, while shopping aggravating circumstances
in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he circumstances are not
thought were the assassins who were out to kill him. are appreciated
He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10) appreciated in unless the
people and wounded five (5) others before he was imposing the special law has
subdued. The wounded persons required more than penalties. adopted the
thirty (30) days of medical treatment. What crime or scheme or scale
crimes, if any, did he commit? (BAR 2016) of penalties
under the RPC.
Volvik committed five frustrated murders for the
unwounded victims and five frustrated murders for the (a) Good faith (a) Good faith
wounded victims. Treachery is present since the sudden (b) lack of or
attack rendered the victims defenseless. The nature of the criminal (b) lack of
weapon used in attacking the victims and extent of the intent; or criminal intent
wounds sustained by the five victims showed intent to As to legal (c) negligence are NOT valid
kill. His psychotic condition is not an exempting implication are valid defenses;
circumstance of insanity in the absence of showing that defenses. it is enough that
there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in the prohibition
accordance with the cognition test. However, he is was voluntarily
immune from criminal prosecution. Since the position of violated.


NOTE: Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the

Criminal Criminal liability bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in
liability is is generally Singapore, hence, such violation is not one of those where
incurred even incurred only the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be
when the when the crime applied extraterritorially. The general rule on
crime is is consummated. territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
attempted or
frustrated. The Philippine consul asked his secretary to work
overtime because they were finishing some
Penalty is The penalty of important repatriation papers in the embassy. The
computed on the offender is said consul asked his secretary to give him a cup of
the basis of the same as they coffee. The consul asked the secretary to join him.
whether he is a are all deemed When the said secretary went to the restroom, the
principal principals. said consul placed something in the coffee of the
offender, or secretary. The secretary felt dizzy and lost
merely an consciousness. The consul then raped her inside his
accomplice or own office. The said secretary wants to file a case
accessory. against the consul. Where shall the secretary file the
case? Is the said consul liable under Philippine laws?

The secretary shall file the case in the Philippines.

Although the crime committed, which is rape, is not in any
May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time,
way connected with the performance of his official
malum prohibitum?
function, since it was committed inside the Philippine
embassy, Philippine laws will apply. The Philippine
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at
embassy is considered as an extension of the Philippine
the same time. In People v. Sunico, et al. (CA 50 OG 5880)
sovereignty. So even if the crimes committed is not in any
it was held that the omission or failure of election
way connected with the performance of their functions,
inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter's name in the
but the crime is committed inside the Philippine embassy,
registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
Philippine laws will still apply.
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard
it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under
Five Informations charging Francisco Inocencio with
a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it
acts of theft allegedly committed in conspiracy with
is considered malum prohibitum.
Ma. Milagros Clemente were filed before the RTC. In
the said Informations, it was alleged that Clemente, a
Is the crime of technical malversation, punished
bank officer, fraudulently transferred a million pesos
under the RPC, mala in se?
to Inocencios bank account, and the latter later
withdrew the whole amount. The information alleged
The crime of technical malversation, punished under
conspiracy but only one person is charged. Is the
Article 220 of the RPC, was held to be a crime that is
information valid?
malum prohibitum. The law punishes the act of diverting
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a
Yes. It is valid, but the court cannot pass verdict on the co-
particular public purpose for another public purpose. The
conspirators who were not charged in the information.
prohibited act is not inherently immoral, but becomes a
The non-inclusion of the co-conspirator does not
criminal offense because positive law forbids its
invalidate the Information especially since conspiracy is
commission on considerations of public policy, order, and
not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged as a mode of
convenience. Therefore, good faith and lack of criminal
committing the crime. In this case, conspiracy is alleged
intent are not valid defenses (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
only as a mode of committing the crime. Ideally, Clemente
192330, November 14, 2012).
and Inocencio should have been indicted together.
However, the non-inclusion of Clemente does not
Is the crime of plunder mala prohibita or mala in se?
invalidate the Information filed, especially since
conspiracy is not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged
It is mala in se, although punishable under special law,
to show how criminal liability was incurred (Inocencio v.
because it is inherently evil, being included among the
People, G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015).
heinous crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua to
death and its constitutive crimes are mala in se, such as
malversation of public funds, bribery and monopolies
and combinations (Joseph Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Intentional felony vis--vis Negligent felony
No. 148560, Nov. 2, 2001).
(BAR 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2010)
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage BASIS DOLO CULPA
with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie As to Act is malicious Not malicious
returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and Malice
wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. With deliberate Injury caused is
What crime if any can Abe be prosecuted? (BAR 1994) intent. unintentional, it
being an incident
Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for As to intent of another act
concubinage under Art. 334 of the Revised Penal Code for performed
having cohabited as husband and wife. without malice.


Has intention to Wrongful act without which the result would not have occurred
As to the cause a wrong. results from (People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011).
source of imprudence,
the wrong negligence, lack As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the
committed of foresight or consequences of his felonious act, although not intended,
lack of skill. if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony.

When are light felonies punishable? What are the requisites of proximate cause?

Light felonies are punishable only when consummated, 1. The direct, natural, and logical cause;
with the exception of those committed against persons or 2. Produces the injury or damage;
property. 3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; and
4. Without which the result would not have occurred.
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING FELONY Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was
ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon
INTENDED when he visited her. When he left her house, he
walked as if he was sleepwalking so much so that a
What are the causes which may produce a result teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell phone and
different from that which the offender intended? flee without being chased by Luis. He went to the LRT
station, he boarded one of the coaches bound for
1. Mistake in identity (error in personae) The Baclaran. While seated, he happened to read a
offender intends the injury on one person but the harm newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the
fell on another. In this situation the intended victim was headlines were about the sinking of the Super Ferry
not at the scene of the crime. while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of
missing passengers who were presumed dead and
Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead. (BAR came across the name of his grandfather who had
2003, 2015) raised him from childhood after he was orphaned. He
was shocked and his mind went blank for a few
NOTE: There are only two persons involved: the minutes, after which he ran amuck and, using his
actual but unintended victim, and the offender. balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who then
scampered away, with three of them jumping out of
2. Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus) A person directed the train and landing on the road below. All the three
the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, passengers died later of their injuries at the hospital.
that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers
intended victim and the actual victim are both at the who jumped out of the moving train? State your
scene of the crime. reasons.

Example: A, shot at B, but because of lack of precision, Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was
hit C instead. (BAR 1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2015) committing a felony when he started stabbing at the
passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate
NOTE: There are three persons involved: the cause of said passengers' jumping out of the train; hence
offender, the intended victim, and the actual victim. their deaths. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,
any person committing a felony shall incur criminal
3. Injurious consequences are greater than that liability although the wrongful act done be different from
intended (praeter intentionem) The injury is on the that which he intended. In this case, the death of the three
intended victim but the resulting consequence is so grave passengers was the direct, natural and logical
a wrong than what was intended. It is essential that there consequence of Luis' felonious act which created an
is a notable disparity between the means employed or the immediate sense of danger in the minds of said
act of the offender and the felony which resulted. passengers who tried to avoid or escape from it by
jumping out of the train (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37;
This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497).
from the acts of the offender. (A, without intent to kill,
struck the victim on the back, causing the victim to fall IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
down and hit his head on the pavement.)
What is an impossible crime? Can there be an
NOTE: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating impossible crime of adultery? (BAR 2015)
circumstance particularly covered by paragraph 3 of
Art. 13. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
The three enumerated situations are always the result of impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
an intentional felony or dolo. These situations do not arise employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4
out of criminal negligence. par. 2).

What is proximate cause? There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is a

crime against chastity, and not against person or
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in property, as required by Art. 4 par. 2 of the RPC.
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter
was assiduously courting Lily, Charlies girlfriend.


Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some No, Antonio is not guilty of attempted rape. The act of
poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a Antonio embracing AAA and touching her vagina and
very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with
the poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly AAA. The lack of evidence showing his erectile penis
gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top
with Brads food, did not kill Brad. Did Charlie of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with
commit any crime? If so, what and why? If not, why AAA. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her
not? (BAR 2009) (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014,
Bersamin, J.).
Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act
of mixing the non-toxic powder with Brads food, done Jefferson was simply fetching water when Kevin
with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which suddenly hit him on the nape of his neck. Jefferson
is a crime against persons, had it not been for the complained about this to his landlady, Kevins sister,
employment of a means which, unknown to him, is but the latter simply told him to forgive his brother.
ineffectual (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC). Two hours later, when he resumed fetching water,
Kevin suddenly stabbed Jefferson on the left part of
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the his face and chest. He was found bleeding by his son-
tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch in-law and was rushed to the hospital. According to
her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note the medical report submitted, the chest wound he
demanding P500, 000.00 from Carla's parents in sustained was fatal and could have caused Jeffersons
exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the death were it not for the timely medical intervention.
ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom What crime is committed by Kevin?
note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's
hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was Kevin is liable for frustrated homicide. The essential
rescued while Enrique was arrested and element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or
not received by Carla's parents, the investigating simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to
prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only
to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the through external manifestations.
prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead
file a case of grave coercion? (BAR 2014) In this case, Kevin wielded and used a knife in assaulting
Jefferson. There is also no doubt that the wound on
The crime committed by Enrique is kidnapping for Jeffersons chest would have been sufficient to result to
ransom. Even before the ransom note was received, the his death if it were not for the timely medical intervention
crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had (De Guzman, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 178512, November
already been committed. The act cannot be considered an 26, 2014, Bersamin, J.).
impossible crime because there was no inherent
improbability of its accomplishment or the employment AAA watched television in Martins house just across
of inadequate or ineffectual means. The delivery of the the street from their house. As she was leaving,
ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not Martin suddenly pulled AAA into the store attached
extinguish the offense, which had already been to the sala of his house and told her to have sex with
consummated when Enrique deprived Carla of her him. AAA struggled to free herself from him, but his
liberty. The sending of the ransom note would have had superior strength prevailed. Inside the store, Martin
the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under kissed AAA and mashed her breasts. Although, his
the last paragraph of Art. 267 (People v. Tan, G.R. No. penis only achieved slight penetration of her vagina,
95322, March 1, 1993). he succeeded in satisfying his lust. Is Martin guilty of
consummated rape?
Furthermore, kidnapping is a crime against liberty. In an
impossible crime, it is important that the accused Yes. The law requires that the accused had carnal
committed an act that would have been a crime against knowledge of a woman under the circumstances
person or property. described under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. By
definition, carnal knowledge was the act of a man having
The prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion sexual bodily connections with a woman. This
instead. As discussed above, the crime committed by understanding of rape explains why the slightest
Enrique is kidnapping for ransom. penetration of the female genitalia consummates the
crime (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 173307, July 17, 2013,

Antonio and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help COMPLEX CRIMES AND COMPOSITE CRIMES
them in their plastic and glass ware business during
a town fiesta in La Union. After fixing the wares in What is the effect of a compound crime in the
order for display they went to bed inside the tents. criminal liability of the offender?
Less than an hour passed, AAA was awakened with
Antonio on top of her mashing her breast and The penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum
touching her private parts. AAA fought back and was period shall be imposed.
able to free herself from Antonio. She went out to
seek for help. Is Antonio guilty for the crime of While Antonew was outside the kitchen of their
attempted rape? house and Marteen in the yard, Alejandrew was
spotted near the vicinity of their house. Suddenly,
Alejandrew threw a grenade towards the cemented


part of the yard. The grenade exploded and Antonew its maximum period. Punzalan was animated by a single
was hurt in his pelvic area while Marteen, his father, purpose, to kill the navy personnel, and committed a
was fatally hit by a shrapnel causing his death. What single act of stepping on the accelerator, swerving to the
is the criminal liability of Alejandrew? right side of the road and ramming through the navy
personnel. The crimes of murder and attempted murder
Alejandrew is liable for murder with frustrated murder. are both grave feloniesas the law attaches an afflictive
The act of Alejandrew in throwing a grenade to Marteen penalty to capital punishment (reclusion perpetua to
and Antonew is a single act which resulted to the death of death) for murder while attempted murder is punished
Marteen and the injuries of Antonew. This single act by prision mayor, an afflictive penalty (People v.
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies Punzalan, G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012).
which are murder and frustrated murder. Hence, the
crime should be complexed and the penalty of the most SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
serious crime in its maximum period should be imposed VIS--VIS COMPLEX CRIME
(People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 194629, April 21, 2014). SPECIAL COMPLEX COMPLEX CRIME
Mayor Tawan-Tawan, together with his security It is the law which The law merely states
escorts, went home to Salvador, Lanao del Norte, on specifies for the crimes two or more grave or less
board a yellow pick-up service vehicle. At around that should be combined. grave felonies or an
3:00 p.m. of the same day, Nelmida, together with his offense is necessary to
other co-accused, surreptitiously waited for the commit the other.
vehicle of the group of Mayor Tawan-Tawan. The The law provides for a The penalty to be
moment the yellow pick-up service vehicle passed by single penalty. imposed will be the most
the aforesaid waiting shed, Nelmida and their co- serious crime in its
accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle maximum period.
using high-powered firearms killing two security A light felony committed A light felony committed
escorts while injuring others. Nelmida and his co- in the commission of the would constitute a
accused were charged with double murder with crime is absorbed. separate and distinct
multiple frustrated murder and double attempted charge.
murder. Are Nelmida and his other co-accused guilty
of the said complex crime?
No. The killing and wounding of the victims were not the
result of a single discharge of firearms by Nelmida and his Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy
co-accused. To note, Nelmida and his co-accused opened (BAR 2016)
fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded by Mayor
Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security A wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single
escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two
injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke
different parts of their bodies. Therefrom, it cannot be typically interacts with the hub rather than with another
gainsaid that more than one bullet had hit the victims. spoke. In the even that the spoke shares a common
Moreover, more than one gunman fired at the vehicle of purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy.
the victims. As held in People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 However, in the instances when each spoke is
(1999), each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there
their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment are multiple conspiracies.
at different persons constitute distinct and individual
acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime (People v. A chain conspiracy, on the other hand, exists when
Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500 September 11, 2012). there is successive communication and cooperation in
much the same way as with legitimate business
A group of navy personnel went to a canteen to have operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then
some drinks. At around 10:00 in the evening, they wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer
transferred to a videoke bar, Aquarius, where they (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26,
continued their drinking session. Shortly thereafter, 2002).
a heated argument ensued between Bacosa and
Punzalan. To avoid further trouble, the other navy One night, after escorting his guests outside the
personnel tried to pacify the two and decided to leave house, Allen noticed that garbage was placed in front
Aquarius and return to their camp. Soon after the of his house. Allen, addressing nobody in particular,
navy personnel passed the sentry gate, a maroon complained of the garbage. Jeff and Kevin, thinking
Nissan van was rushing and zigzagging the road that Allen was addressing his complaint to them,
towards the group of navy personnel. Punzalan was were angered and started throwing stones at him.
recognized as the driver. The van sped away towards Allen rushed inside his house to wash his bloody face
the camp and suddenly swerved to the right hitting and to arm himself with a piece of wood. However,
the group of the walking navy personnel. Two of the before he was able to retaliate, he was hit by a shovel
navy personnel were dead while the others sustained by Joriemon. Joseph and Jose held Allen, rendering
serious injuries in their body. What is the criminal him helpless, while Jeff and Kevin stabbed him in the
liability of Punzalan? abdomen with a knife. Allen lost consciousness and
was confined in the hospital for nine days. Assuming
Punzalan is guilty of the complex crime of murder with that that they were convicted for frustrated murder,
attempted murder. When a single act constitutes two or what is the extent of the criminal liability of Jeff,
more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most Kevin, Joriemon, Jose and Joseph?
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in


They are liable as co-conspirators. Conspiracy

presupposes unity of purpose and unity of action towards The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite
the realization of an unlawful objective among the crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense
accused. Its existence can be inferred from the individual under Art. 294(1) of the RPC.
acts of the accused which, if taken as a whole, are in fact
related and indicative of a concurrence of sentiment. The Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to
chain of events leading to the commission of the crime commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers,
adequately established a conspiracy among them. Jeff and YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being
Kevin delivered the initial attack on Allen by stoning him. committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing
Afterwards, Joriemon struck him with a shovel, and, to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby
finally, Joseph and Jose held him so that the others can concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-
stab Allen (Ibaez et al. v. People, G.R. No. 190798, January conspirator XA.
27, 2016).
The criminal liability of XA, YZ and ZC shall be the same.
A Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and an They are principals in the special complex crime of
ambulance driven by Morilla were caught by the robbery with rape, which is a single, indivisible offense,
police in a checkpoint with a sack of shabu inside the where the rape accompanying the robbery is just a
two vehicles. The Starex van which was ahead of the component.
ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set up by
the police officers. However, the ambulance driven CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING
by Morilla was stopped by police officers and further CRIMINAL LIABILITY
examination revealed the sacks inside the van
contained shabu. Morilla told the police officers that Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of
he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade Tessie, while in the market, Pedro saw a man
them to let him pass. This discovery prompted the stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro
operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra in picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his
which sacks containing shabu was also discovered. Is head which caused the latters death. Can Pedro be
there conspiracy established between Morilla and absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in
Mayor Mitra? defense of a relative? Explain. (BAR 2016)

Yes, there is conspiracy. In conspiracy, it need not be No. The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of
shown that the parties actually came together and agreed relative under Art. 11(2) of the RPC are his spouse,
in express terms to enter into and pursue a common ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the adopted brothers or sister, or of his relatives by affinity
secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within
and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity within the
they are parts of some complete whole. In this case, the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant, brother
totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion or sister of the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is
that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common not the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Tessie,
desire to transport the dangerous drugs (People v. the spouse of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the
Morilla, G.R.No.189833, February 5, 2014). fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case,
Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by
How is conspiracy proven? consanguinity. Juan, therefore, is not a relative of Pedro
for purpose of applying the provision on defense of
Jurisprudence requires that conspiracy must be proven relative.
as the crime itself. Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the May the justifying circumstance of self-defense be
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of invoked at the same time with the exempting
the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the circumstance of accident?
same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them with No. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting
respect to the commission of the offense. It is not circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to
necessary to show that two or more persons met together kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily
and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to
details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an defend oneself from imminent danger (Pomoy v. People,
illegal objective is to be carried out. The rule is that G.R. No. 150647. September 29, 2004).
conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in
concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common In Toledo vs. People, the Supreme Court held that, there is
design to kill the victim. (People v. Villalba, G.R. No. no such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of
207629, October 22, 2014). criminal law. Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1
of the Revised Penal Code necessarily implies a deliberate
XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel
her house by breaking one of the windows in her an unlawful aggression of another with the use of
house. After taking her personal properties and as reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. He
they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts. The
rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and
outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the
prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did law. From necessity, and limited by it, proceeds the right
XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal of self-defense. The right begins when necessity does, and
liability of each? (BAR 2004)


ends where it ends (Toledo v. People, 439 SCRA 94, G.R. No. the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then
158057 September 24, 2004). stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his
instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed
Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can
drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (BAR 2014)
Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion.
One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman
beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury syndrome. It appears that she is suffering from physical
that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her and psychological or emotional distress resulting from
that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. cumulative abuse by her husband. Under Sec. 26 of R.A.
However, Dion did not make good on his promise. 9262, victim survivors who are found by courts to be
Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion absence of any of the elements for justifying
with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with
the crime of parricide. (BAR 2015) Rogelio Delos Reyesalong with Roderick Licayan
and Roberto Larawere charged with the crime of
a. May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Kidnapping for Ransom. In his defense, Delos Reyes
Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? argued that he was merely passing by at the crime
Explain. scene when one of the co-accused pointed a gun at
him and forced him to guard the victims, hence he is
No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by entitled to the exempting circumstance of
Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and compulsion due to irresistible force. Is the exempting
psychological or emotional distress on her part is not circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force
sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying present?
circumstance of Battered Woman Syndrome. The
defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if No. A person invoking the exempting circumstance of
the woman with a marital relationship with the victim is compulsion due to irresistible force admits in effect the
subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the commission of a punishable act which must show that the
infliction of physical harm resulting to physical and irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that
psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means acted not only without will but also against his will. The
resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
at least two battering episodes between the accused imminent and impending; and it must be of such a nature
and her intimate partner and such final episode produced as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
in the battered persons mind an actual fear of an serious bodily harm if the act is not done. It is hard to
imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief believe that a person who accidentally discovers kidnap
that she needed to use force in order to save her life victims would be held at gunpoint by the kidnappers to
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). guard said victims (People v. Licayan, et al., G.R. No.
203961, July 29, 2015).
b. Will your answer be the same, assuming that
Talia killed Dion after being beaten up a second Y, while alighting from his vehicle, was hit by X with
time? Explain. his car. This caused Y to be thrown four meters away
from his jeepney. X was charged with Frustrated
No. Talia can now invoke the defense of Battered Woman Murder and convicted in the RTC of Frustrated
Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability for killing Homicide. Upon appeal in the CA the crime was
her husband since she suffered physical and emotional modified to Reckless Imprudence resulting in
distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under Serious Physical Injuries. X contends that the CA
Section 26 of R.A.9262, victim survivors of Battered should have appreciated voluntary surrender as a
Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil mitigating circumstance in his favor. Is Xs contention
liability despite the absence of the requisites of self- correct?
No. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since cannot be appreciated in his favor. Paragraph 5 of Article
their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a 365, Revised Penal Code, expressly states that in the
drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas" imposition of the penalties, the courts shall exercise their
until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed
breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code (Mariano v.
(3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was People, G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014, Bersamin, J.).
drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3)
children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in May disregard of age and sex be appreciated in
one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep Robbery with Homicide which is a crime against
stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged property?
stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal
abuses committed against her, she consulted a No. With respect to disregard of age and sex, the same
psychologist several times, as she was slowly may be appreciated only in crimes against persons or
beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B honor. It is not correct to consider this aggravating
arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A circumstance in crimes against property. Besides,
several times while shouting invectives against her. robbery with homicide is principally a crime against
Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere


incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been
and object of the criminal (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. committed as well as the aggravating circumstances,
139697, June 15, 2004). if any, attendant thereto. (BAR 2008)

Balweg stabbed an innocent bystander who By demanding "protection money" under threat and
accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander intimidation that the businessman (Antonio) would be
died as a result of the stabbing. Balweg was arrested killed or his establishment destroyed if he would refuse
and was tested to be positive for the use of shabu at to pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats is
the time he committed the stabbing. What should be committed by Roger, the leader of the crime syndicate.
the proper charge against Balweg?
For killing the businessman, his wife and three year-old
The proper charge is murder. The killing constitutes daughter, the complex crime of multiple murder was
murder because the commission of a crime under the committed by Mauro, a member of the same crime
influence of prohibited drugs is a special aggravating syndicate. The killing is qualified by the use of an
circumstance. explosive (hand grenade). The treachery attending the
killing shall be separately appreciated as another
X, while descending from a curved path, collided with aggravating circumstance aside from the use of explosive
a motorcycle, thereby killing Y, one of its passengers, as the qualifying circumstance.
and causing serious physical injuries to the two other
victims. The body of Y was loaded into the vehicle of Other aggravating circumstances which may be
X but the latters engine would not start; thus, the appreciated are:
body was loaded in a different vehicle. The jack of X
was used to extricate the body of Y from being pinned 1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the
under the vehicle of X. X, in his defense, claimed that home of the victims who had not given any
it was not his fault that the tricycle swerved in his provocation;
direction. X was charged with Reckless Imprudence 2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried
Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious Physical out the killing at around 3:00 AM, indicative of a
Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of
relation to Article 263 of the RPC with the the crime;
aggravating circumstance that accused failed to lend 3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned
on the spot to the injured party such help that was in above, considering that victims were all asleep when
his hands to give. Should the court appreciate the killed; and
alleged aggravating circumstance? 4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs
to an organized/syndicated crime group.
No. The aggravating circumstance that accused failed to
lend on the spot to the injured party such help that was in Is abuse of superior strength present as an
his hands to give should not be appreciated. Verily, it is aggravating circumstance when it is shown that two
the inexcusable lack of precaution or the conscious accused attack a lone victim?
indifference to the consequences of the conduct which
supplies the criminal intent in Article 365. The limiting No. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there
element in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC, is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
which imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon the the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
parties such help as may be in his hands to give, selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission
according to case law, (a) is dependent on the means in of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who
the hands of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of attacked the victim does not per se establish that the
assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength,
incident, is capable of giving; and (b) requires adequate there being no proof of the relative strength of the
proof. X was able to supply the help according to the aggressors and the victim. The evidence must establish
extent of his capabilities (Gonzaga v. People, G.R. No. that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or
195671, January 21, 2015). that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.
To take advantage of superior strength means to
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the means of defense available to the person attacked. The
owner of a motel in that area, of P10, 000 a month as appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends
protection money". With the monthly payments, on the age, size, and strength of the parties (Fantastico v.
Roger assured that the syndicate would provide Malicse, Sr., G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015).
protection to Antonio, his business, and his
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned For treachery to be appreciated, is it enough to show
that the motel owner would either be killed or his that the attack against the intended victim was
establishment would be destroyed. Antonio refused unexpected?
to pay the protection money. Days later, at around
3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal No. The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was
grenade into an open window of the bedroom where intended to kill another as long as the victims position
Antonio, his wife, and their three year-old daughter was merely accidental. Treachery as a qualifying
were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly circumstance must be deliberately sought to ensure the
when the grenade exploded. safety of the accused from the defensive acts of the victim.
A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on
clear and convincing evidence. Such evidence must be


as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. In this case, no Entrapment vis--vis Instigation
evidence was presented to show that petitioner (BAR 1990, 1995, 2003)
consciously adopted or reflected on the means, method, BASIS ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
or form of attack to secure his unfair advantage (Cirera v. The criminal The idea and
People, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014). design design to bring
originates from about the
What are special aggravating circumstances? and is already commission of
As to intent in the mind of the crime
Special aggravating circumstances are those which arise the lawbreaker originated and
under special conditions to increase the penalty for the even before developed in
offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot entrapment. the mind of the
increase the penalty to the next higher degree. They must law enforcers.
always be alleged and charged in the information, and The law The law
must be proves during the trial in order to be enforcers resort enforcers
appreciated. Moreover, it cannot be offset by an ordinary to ways and induce, lure, or
mitigating circumstance (People v. De Leon, G.R. No. means for the incite a person
179943, June 26, 2009, citing Palaganas v. People). purpose of who is not
capturing the minded to
e.g.: Means and lawbreaker in commit a crime
1. Quasi-rescidivism (Art. 160, RPC); ways flagrante delicto and would not
2. Robbery by a band (Art. 295, RPC); otherwise
3. Robbery in an uninhabited place (Art. 300, RPC); commit it, into
4. Commission of a crime by a syndicate; committing the
5. Taking advantage of public position; crime.
6. Complex crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC (People v.
De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009, citing The This
Palaganas v. People); circumstance is circumstance
7. Use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the no bar to absolves the
commission of a crime punishable under the RPC or prosecution and accused from
other special laws, i.e. homicide, murder (Sec. 29, RA As to criminal conviction of criminal
10591; People v. Salahuddin, G.R. No. 206291, January liability the lawbreaker. liability (People
18, 2016); v. Dante Marcos,
8. Use of dangerous drugs in the commission of a crime G.R. No. 83325,
(Sec. 25, RA 9165). May 8, 1990).

NOTE: While Sec. 25 of RA 9165 expressly

provides that it is a qualifying aggravating PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
circumstance, it will not be controlling because
the use of dangerous drugs in the commission of What are the kinds of principals?
a crime does not change the nature of the crime
committed. Hence, it is only a special aggravating 1. Principal by direct participation; (BAR 1992, 1994,
circumstance (Campanilla, 2017). 2000, 2014)
2. Principal by induction/inducement; and (BAR 1994,
What are the other two circumstances found in the 2002, 2003)
RPC affecting criminal liability? 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation (BAR 2001,
2013, 2015)
1. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting
circumstance and it is predicated on lack of A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to
voluntariness such as instigation. A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C,
not so much because of the reward promised to him
Example: In cases of instigation and in case a relative but because he also had his own long-standing
of a principal is charged as an accessory, he is exempt grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If
from criminal liability. C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by
2. Extenuating circumstances has the effect of
mitigating the criminal liability of the offender. No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement
because the reward he promised B is not the sole
Example: In case of infanticide, concealment of impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made
the pregnant woman and the maternal grandparents by the inducer must be the sole consideration which
are concerned. Abortion under Art. 258 would also caused the person induced to commit the crime and
mitigate the liability of the pregnant woman if the without which the crime would not have been committed.
purpose is to conceal dishonor but such is not The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly
available to the parents of the pregnant woman. Also, induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long
in Art. 333, if the person guilty of adultery committed standing grudge.
the offense while being abandoned without
justification, the penalty next lower in degree shall be Laylay convinced AAA to accompany her at a wake at
imposed. Paraaque City. Before proceeding to the wake,
Laylay and AAA went to Bulungan Fish Port along the
coastal road to ask for some fish. When they reached


the fish port, they proceeded to a Kubuhan, Laylay There is no need to the crime. Hence,
suddenly pulled AAA inside a room where a man prove that one is guilty before an accessory
known by the name "Speed" was waiting. AAA saw of theft or robbery. could be held liable,
"Speed" give money to Laylay and heard "Speed" tell the principal must
Laylay to look for a younger girl. Thereafter, "Speed" have been convicted
wielded a knife, tied AAA's hands, and raped her. Is first of the crime
Laylay guilty for the crime of rape as principal by charged.
indispensable cooperation?
The penalty is higher Penalty is less than
No, Laylay is not a principal by indispensable than the penalty of an that imposed in
cooperation. To be a principal by indispensable accessory. fencing.
cooperation, one must participate in the criminal
resolution, a conspiracy, or unity in criminal purpose and Malum prohibitum and Malum in se and
cooperation in the commission of the offense by therefore there is no therefore there is a
performing another act without which it would not have need to prove criminal need to prove
been accomplished. The act of Laylay in convincing AAA intent. criminal intent.
to go with her until Laylay received money from Speed
who raped AAA, are not indispensable in the crime of The fence need not be a Natural person only.
rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA and offered natural person but may
the latters services in exchange for money and AAA could be a firm, association,
still have been raped (People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 193854, corporation or
September 24, 2012). partnership or other
PD 1612 vis--vis Art. 19(1) of the RPC


Fencing is limited to Not limited in scope.

theft and robbery. The
terms theft and robbery
are used as a generic
term to refer to any kind
of unlawful taking, not
just theft or robbery.

Mere possession of There is no

stolen items creates a presumption of being
presumption of fencing. an accessory.

Fencing is a principal It is necessary to

crime in itself. As such, it prove that the
can stand on its own. principal committed




Within a period of 10 years

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

The previous and

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

Not always
discretion of the Shall be punished by the
It increases the
court to Shall suffer additional maximum period of the
penalty to its
appreciate. penalty. penalty prescribed by law for
maximum period.
the new felony.

First crime for which the

offender is serving sentence
Limited to serious or less need not be a crime under the
Includes offenses Felonies under RPC serious physical injuries, RPC but the second crime must
under special law. only. robbery, theft, estafa and be one under the RPC.

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


PENALTIES consummated offense. The other figures represent the

Reclusion perpetua v. Life imprisonment degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet
(BAR 1994, 2001, 2009) the different situations anticipated by law (Reyes, 2012).

However, Articles 50 to 57 shall not apply to the following

RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT cases where the law expressly prescribes:

a. the penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony; or

b. to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories (Art.
Pertains to the penalty Pertains to the penalty 60, RPC).
imposed for violation of imposed for violation of
the RPC special laws What is the penalty for impossible crime?
It has fixed duration It has no fixed duration
The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor, or a
fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos (Art. 59, RPC).
It carries with it It does not carry with it
accessory penalties accessory penalty
What is the basis for the imposition of the proper
penalty for impossible crime?
1. Principal penalties those expressly imposed by
the court in the judgment of conviction. The court must take into consideration the following:

2. Accessory penalties those that are deemed 1. the social danger; and
included in the imposition of the principal penalties. 2. the degree of criminality shown by the offender (Art.
59, RPC).

PENALTIES In computing the proper imposable penalty, what
are the factors that should be considered?
Capital punishment: 1. Perpetual or
- Death. temporary absolute 1. Prescribed or graduated penalty
disqualification; 2. Indivisible or divisible penalty
Afflictive penalties: 2. Perpetual or 3. Applicability or non-applicability of the
- Reclusion perpetua, temporary special Indeterminate Sentence Law
- Reclusion temporal, disqualification;
- Perpetual or 3. Suspension from 1. PRESCRIBED OR GRADUATED PENALTY
temporary absolute public office, the
disqualification, right to vote and be What is the prescribed penalty?
- Perpetual or voted for, the
temporary special profession or calling; The prescribed penalty is that found in Book II of the
disqualification, 4. Civil interdiction; Revised Penal Code.
- Prision mayor. 5. Indemnification;
6. Forfeiture or What is the graduated penalty?
Correctional confiscation of
penalties: instruments and The graduated penalty is the imposable penalty after
- Prision correccional, proceeds of the taking into consideration certain graduating factors.
- Arresto mayor, offense; and
- Suspension, 7. Payment of costs. What are the graduating factors?
- Destierro.
1. Stages of execution
Light penalties: 2. Nature of participation
- Arresto menor,
- Public censure. NOTE: For #1 and #2, see table on the application of
Articles 50-57 of the RPC.
Penalties common to
the three preceding 3. Presence of privileged mitigating circumstance
Adjust the penalty by Adjust the penalty by
Not subject to the offset Subject to the offset rule
Consummated Frustrated Attempted rule
Principals 0 1 2
What are the privileged mitigating circumstances
Accomplices 1 2 3
under the RPC?
Accessories 2 3 4
1. When the offender is a minor under 18 years of
0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining age (RPC, Art. 68); (BAR 2013, 2014)
a crime which is to be imposed on the principal in a


2. When the crime committed is not wholly b. Murder prescribed penalty is compound penalty of
excusable (RPC, Art. 69); reclusion perpetua to death
3. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, 1 degree lower is reclusion temporal
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to 2 degrees lower is prision mayor
that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according the number and c. Treason committed by a resident alien prescribed
nature of such circumstances (RPC, Art. 64, par. penalty is complex penalty of reclusion temporal to death
5); (BAR 1997)
4. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained 1 degree lower is prision mayor
within 3 days without the offender attaining his 2 degrees lower is prision correccional
purpose and before the institution of the
criminal action (RPC, Art. 268, par. 3); Second rule: If the prescribed penalty is in period,
5. Abandonment without justification by the then the graduated penalty is also in period
offended spouse in case of adultery (RPC, Art.
333, par. 3); and Single period one full period
6. Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide (RPC, Compound penalty composed of two periods
Art. 255, par. 2). Complex penalty consists of three periods

NOTE: If it is the maternal grandparent who committed e.g.

the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty imposed is a. Technical malversation the prescribed penalty is
one degree lower. If it is the pregnant woman who single period of prision correccional in its minimum
committed the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty period
imposed is two degrees lower. In case of concealing
dishonor by a pregnant woman in abortion, the 1 degree lower is arresto mayor in its maximum
imposable penalty is merely lowered by period and not period
by degree, hence, not a privileged mitigating 2 degrees lower is arresto mayor in its medium
circumstance. period

What are the privileged mitigating circumstances b. Theft the prescribed penalty is compound period of
contemplated under Art. 69 of the RPC? prision correccional in its medium period to prision
correccional in its maximum period
1. Incomplete justifying (RPC, Art. 11) and
2. Incomplete exempting (RPC, Art. 12) circumstances, 1 degree lower is arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum
Provided that the majority of their conditions are present. period
2 degrees lower is arresto mayor in its minimum
For Art. 69 of the RPC to apply, it is necessary that: period to arrestor mayor in its medium period
1. Some of the conditions required to justify the deed
or to exempt from criminal liability are lacking, c. Simple robbery the prescribed penalty is complex
2. The majority of such conditions are nonetheless period of prision correccional in its maximum period to
present, prision mayor in its medium period

NOTE: If there are only two requisites, the 1 degree lower is arrestor mayor in its maximum
presence of one is already considered as majority. period to prision correccional in its medium
3. When the circumstance has an indispensable 2 degrees lower is destierro in its maximum
element, that element must be present in the case period to arresto mayor in its medium period
(Regalado, 2007).
Third rule: When the prescribed penalty is composed
RULES ON GRADUATION OF PENALTIES of a full penalty and penalties with period

First rule: Where the graduated penalty is a single full e.g.

penalty a. Section 5(b) of RA 7610 the prescribed penalty is
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
Single penalty one full penalty perpetua the graduated penalty must be a compex
Compound penalty composed of two penalties period
Complex penalty consists of three penalties
1 degree lower is prision mayor in its medium
Whether the prescribed penalty is single, compound, or period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
complex, the graduated penalty is single and full penalty. period


a. Homicide prescribed penalty is single penalty of
1 degree lower is prision mayor
2 degrees lower is prision correccional What are the indivisible penalties?

1. Reclusion perpetua


2. Death purposes of graduating the penalty from reclusion

3. Reclusion perpetua to death (Campanilla, 2017). perpetua to death, to reclusion temporal?

First rule: The law prescribes a single indivisible No. In People v. Takbobo (G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993),
penalty it was held that when there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance but the
Whatever may be the nature or number of aggravating or imposable penalties are indivisible in nature, the court
mitigating circumstance that may have attended the cannot proceed by analogy with the provisions of
commission of the crime, the court shall apply the paragraph 5 of Article 64 and impose the penalty lower
prescribed penalty. by one degree. The rule applicable in is found in Article
63, and not in Article 64, of the RPC.
a. Simple rape the prescribed penalty is reclusion The crime committed is parricide. There are three
perpetua (3) aggravating circumstances and two (2) mitigating
b. Qualified rape the prescribed penalty is death circumstances. What is the proper imposable
The crime committed is simple rape, and the penalty
is reclusion perpetua. There are two mitigating Applying the off-set rule, only one aggravating
circumstances. Can you appreciate the two mitigating circumstance will remain. Thus, the greater penalty
circumstances, to appreciate the special mitigating which is death is the proper imposable penalty. However,
circumstance, for purposes of making the penalty one because of RA 9346, the penalty will be reduced to
degree lower? reclusion perpetua.

No, because the special mitigating circumstance The crime is parricide. There are two (2) aggravating
consisting of two mitigating circumstances is found circumstance and two (2) mitigating circumstance.
under Art. 64. There is no special circumstance in Art. 63 What is the proper imposable penalty?
of the RPC.
Applying the off-set rule, no modifying circumstance will
Second rule: The law prescribes two (2) indivisible remain. Since there is neither mitigating nor aggravating
penalties circumstance, the lesser penalty which is reclusion
perpetua is the proper imposable penalty.
There is only one prescribed penalty consisting of two (2)
indivisible penalties, that is reclusion perpetua to death NOTE: Under Administrative Circular No. 15-8-2 (August
for the following crimes under the RPC: 4, 2015), there are two reclusion perpetua.
1. reclusion perpetua as a reduced penalty; and
1. parricide (Art. 246); 2. reclusion perpetua as a prescribed penalty.
2. murder (Art. 248);
3. infanticide (Art. 255); Reclusion perpetua as a reduced penalty the penalty
4. kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267); is death but it was reduced to reclusion perpetua because
5. rape with the use of a deadly weapon (Art. 266-B par. of RA 9346.
6. rape by two or more persons (Art. 266-B par. 2); Reclusion perpetua as a prescribed penalty reclusion
7. when by reason or on occasion of rape, the victim perpetua is the penalty prescribed by law.
becomes insane (Art. 266-B par. 3);
8. when rape is attempted and homicide is committed Whether reclusion perpetua is a reduced penalty or a
(Art. 266-B par. 4); prescribed penalty, the accused is not eligible for parole.
9. robbery with homicide (Art. 295 par. 1); Meaning, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not
10. robbery with rape with the use of a deadly weapon, applicable.
or by two or more persons (Art. 295 par. 2).
NOTE: Destructive arson under PD 1613 is also PENALTIES (ART. 64, RPC)
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
What are the divisible penalties?
When the penalty is composed of two (2) indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Penalty composed of three (3) periods;
a. When there is only one aggravating 2. Penalty not composed of three (3) periods;
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be 3. Complex penalty;
imposed. 4. Penalty without a specific legal form (Campanilla,
b. When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating 2017).
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
c. When there is a mitigating circumstance and no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty When the penalty is composed of three (3) periods, the
shall be imposed. following rules shall be observed:

The crime committed is parricide, the penalty is a. When there is neither aggravating and no mitigating,
reclusion perpetua to death. There are two mitigating the penalty in its medium period shall be imposed.
circumstances. Can you appreciate the two mitigating b. When there is only a mitigating circumstance, the
circumstances as special mitigating circumstance for penalty in its minimum period shall be imposed.


c. When there is only an aggravating circumstance, the

penalty in its maximum period shall be imposed.


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

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

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

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

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

The crime committed is homicide, the penalty is The two mitigating circumstance will be considered as a
reclusion temporal. The accused is a minor. special mitigating circumstance for graduating the
penalty. Under Art. 64 par. 5 of the RPC, when two or
a. What is the proper imposable penalty? more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
Prision mayor because minority is a privileged mitigating penalty next lower to that prescribed by law. Further,
circumstance. since there is other mitigating or aggravating, the penalty
shall be imposed in its medium period. Thus, the proper
b. Suppose there is an aggravating circumstance imposable penalty is prision correccional in its medium
which is disguise? period.

Prision mayor in its maximum period. g. Suppose there are three mitigating circumstances.
Will you consider these three mitigating
c. Suppose there are two aggravating circumstances. circumstances as a special mitigating circumstance
Will you consider the two aggravating circumstances for the purpose of reducing prision mayor to prision
for purposes of upgrading the penalty of prision correccional?
mayor to reclusion temporal?
The two mitigating circumstances will be appreciated as
No. In the case of People v. Manlolo (G.R. No. L-40778, special mitigating circumstance for purposes of reducing
January 26, 1989), the Supreme Court, citing Art. 64 par. prision mayor to prision correccional. Since there is one
6 of the RPC, held that whatever may be the number and remaining mitigating circumstance, the proper period is
nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall minimum period. Thus, the proper imposable penalty is
not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law prision correccional in its minimum period.
in its maximum period.
h. Suppose there are four mitigating circumstances.
d. Suppose there is neither aggravating nor Will you appreciate the special mitigating
mitigating circumstance? circumstance twice?

Prision mayor in its medium period. No. The special mitigating circumstance will be
appreciated only once, even if there are four mitigating
e. Suppose there is one mitigating circumstance circumstances. It will be appreciated for the purpose of
which is confession? reducing prision mayor to prision correccional.
Considering the two remaining mitigating circumstances,
Prision mayor in its minimum period. it will be used to apply the penalty in its minimum period.
Thus, the proper imposable penalty is prision
f. Suppose there are two mitigating circumstance correccional in its minimum period.
which are confession and voluntary surrender?
i. Suppose there is a combination of the modifying


Maximum period: 10 years and 8 months and 1 day to

Apply first the offset rule then consider the remaining 12 years
modifying circumstances.
If after applying the offset rule, there is still a remaining
of one or two or three aggravating circumstances, then Example: The prescribed penalty for treason committed
you will apply the penalty in its maximum period. by a resident alien under Art. 114 of the RPC is reclusion
temporal to death penalty.
If after applying the offset rule, no modifying
circumstance remain, then you will apply the penalty in Minimum period: reclusion temporal (the lightest
its medium period. component
Medium period: reclusion perpetua
If after applying the offset rule, one mitigating Maximum period: death
circumstance remains, then you will apply the penalty in
its minimum period. Suppose there is mitigating circumstance?

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

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

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

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

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

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


First rule: Form the maximum period out of the most 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or
severe component evaded sentence;
NOTE: When the accused escaped from jail while
Maximum period: reclusion perpetua
his case was on appeal, he is not entitled to the
Second rule: Divide the lightest component into two benefits of ISL
(2) equal portions 7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon
granted to them by the Chief Executive;\
Reclusion temporal is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. 8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
not exceed one (1) year;
In computing, you delete the one (1) day. What will be left 9. Thoses who upon the approval of the law (Dec. 5,
is 12 years and 20 years. Then you subtract 12 years from
1933), had been sentenced to final judgment; and
20 years, that is 8 years.
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
Then, divide the 8 years into two (2) equal portions. So, it suspension
will be 4 years for each period. NOTE: Included are those sentenced
disqualification or fine because these penalties
Third rule: Form the minimum period and medium are not prison sentence.
period out of the two (2) equal portions 11. Illegal possession, and illegal use of dangerous drugs
under RA 9165.
12 years + 4 years = 16 years

16 years + 4 years = 20 years What are the rules in imposing a penalty under the
indeterminate sentence law? (BAR 1999, 2005, 2009,
Minimum period: 12 years and 1 day to 16 years 2010, 2013)

Medium period: 16 years and 1 day to 20 years When penalty is imposed by RPC:

1. The Maximum Term is that which in view of the

Maximum period: reclusion perpetua
attending circumstances could be properly
imposed under the RPC.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 2. The Minimum Term is within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC.
The essence of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) is
parole. The indeterminate sentence is merely for Prescribed penalty is what the penalty is without
purposes of determining when the convict will be eligible looking at the circumstances. As opposed to imposed
for parole by means of fixing the minimum penalty. penalty which takes into account the circumstances.

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

1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death a. The judge fixed the penalty to 6 months and 1 day.
penalty or life imprisonment; The ISL is not applicable because it does not exceed
NOTE: Reclusion perpetua either as a prescribed or one year. So the convict should serve a straight
graduated penalty is included because of RA 9346 penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional.
b. The judge fixed the penalty to 1 year and 1 day. The
which prohibits death penalty. ISL is not applicable
ISL is applicable because it exceeded one year. Since
because it is an indivisible penalty and when the ISL is applicable, you make the 1 year and 1 day
reclusion perpetua is imposed, the convict is not as the maximum term. Then you compute for the
eligible for parole. minimum term. The penalty one degree lower to
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to prision correccional is arresto mayor which is 1
commit treason; month and 1 day to 6 months that is the range of
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, the minimum term.
sedition, or espionage;
Explain the application of the Indeterminate
4. Those convicted of piracy; Sentence Law (ISL). (BAR 2016)
5. Habiqual delinquents;
NOTE: Rescidivists are entitiled to avail the ISL. The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which,


in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly the neck of Espinola, Hubilla stabbed Espinola using
imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and a bladed weapon. Dequito aided Espinola as the latter
the minimum of which shall be within the range of the was already struggling to his feet and later brought
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the him to the hospital.
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law
(special law), the court shall sentence the accused to an The RTC rendered its judgment finding Hubilla guilty
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which of homicide as charged, and sentenced him to suffer
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four
minimum shall not ne less than the minimum term years and one day of prision correccional, as
prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, ISL, Act No. 4103 as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision
amended by Act No, 4225) mayor, as maximum. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
Hubillas conviction but reduced the sentence to six
The court must, instead of a single fixed penalty, except months and one day to six years of prision
where the imposable penalty is one (1) year or less, correccional as minimum, to six years and one day to
determine two penalties, referred to in the ISL as the twelve years of prision mayor as maximum. On
maximum and minimum terms. motion for reconsideration by Hubilla, the CA
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six
During Grand Alumni Homecoming of the Bulabog months and one day of prision correccional, as
Elementary School, Ladines suddenly and without minimum, to eight years and one day of prision
warning approached and stabbed Erwin below the mayor.
navel with a machete. Ladines then left after
delivering the blow. At that juncture, Licup also Did the CA imposed the correct penalty imposable on
mounted his attack against Erwin but the latter Hubilla, taking into consideration the pertinent
evaded the blow by stepping back. Erwin pulled out provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, the Revised
the machete from his body and wielded it against Penal Code and Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate
Licup, whom he hit in the chest. Licup pursued but Sentence Law)?
could not catch up with Erwin because they both
eventually fell down. Erwin was rushed to the Yes. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the
hospital where he succumbed. penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. Considering
that Hubilla then a minor at the time of the commission
The RTC convicted Ladines of homicide, and fixed the of the crime, being 17 years, four months and 28 days old
indeterminate penalty of 10 years and one day of when he committed the homicide on March 30, 2000,
prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four such minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance
months of the medium period of reclusion temporal, that lowered the penalty to prision mayor.
as maximum. The CA affirmed the penalty fixed by the
RTC. Did the lower courts impose the proper penalty? Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of
the indeterminate sentence should be within the penalty
No. The lower courts could not impose 17 years and four next lower than the imposable penalty, which, herein,
months of the medium period of reclusion temporal, was prision correccional (i.e., six months and one day to
which was the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion six years). For the maximum of the indeterminate
temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty sentence, prision mayor in its medium period eight
without specifying the justification for so imposing. They years and one day to 10 years was proper because there
thereby ignored that although Article 64 of the Revised were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances
Penal Code, which has set the rules "for the application of present. Accordingly, the CA imposed the indeterminate
penalties which contain three periods," requires under its penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of
first rule that the courts should impose the penalty prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one
prescribed by law in the medium period should there be day of prision mayor, as maximum.
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, its
seventh rule expressly demands that "within the limits of Is Hubillas insistence that the maximum of his
each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of
penalty according to the number and nature of the prison mayor should be reduced to only six years of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the prision correccional to enable him to apply for
greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the probation under Presidential Decree No. 968
crime." tenable?

By not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling No. Hubillas insistence is bereft of legal basis. Neither the
of the period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the Revised Penal Code, nor Republic Act No. 9344, nor any
indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or whimsical, other relevant law or rules support or justify the further
or capricious. In the absence of the specification, the reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.
maximum of the indeterminate sentence for Ladines To yield to his insistence would be to impose an illegal
should be the lowest of the medium period of reclusion penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately violate
temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and one day of the law (Hubilla v. People, G.R. No. 176102, November
reclusion temporal (Ladines vs. People, G.R. No. 167333, 26, 2014, Bersamin, J.).
January 11, 2016, Bersamin, J.).
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-
Dequito was at the gate of Dalupaon Elementary year old owner of his rooming house. The
School watching the graduation ceremony of the high prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner
school students. Espinola then arrived. Later, causing his death, and that the killing happened at 10
however, Dequito saw Hubilla approach Espinola and in the evening in the house where the victim and
stabbed the latter. With the Hubillas left arm around Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully


proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the

authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime Would you consider dwelling?
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and
did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part, No. In the said dwelling both Bruno and the victim are
but he prevailed because he managed to draw his residing. Therefore, dwelling is not an aggravating
knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty circumstance because both of them are living in the same
for homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a dwelling. It cannot be said that when Bruno killed the
judgment of conviction and after considering the man, he disrespected the dwelling of the said man.
attendant circumstances, what penalty should the Therefore, we have no aggravating circumstance present.
judge impose? (BAR 2013)
Take note that Bruno was able to prove voluntary
Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence surrender, voluntary plea of guilt, and then we have an
penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period as incomplete self-defense a privileged mitigating
minimum to prision correccional in its medium circumstance.
period as maximum. Bruno was entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self- Applying these conclusions, we have two (2) ordinary
defense and the presence of at least two ordinary mitigating circumstances with one (1) privileged
mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and plea mitigating circumstance and with no aggravating
of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance under Art. circumstance.
69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which lowers the
prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion How do we compute the penalty?
temporal to prisioncorreccional.
1. Consider first the Privileged Mitigating Circumstance.
Further Explanation
Whenever there is a privileged mitigating
In this kind of question, the Bar examiner wants you to circumstance present, apply it first before computing
determine whether there was self-defense or not. The the penalty. In this example, since we have
problem provides that the defense was able to prove that incomplete self-defense, you have to lower the
it was the man who first attacked Bruno; therefore, there penalty by one degree because it is a privileged
was unlawful aggression. But there was no provocation mitigating circumstance. Thus, it will become prision
coming from Bruno, therefore, there was a lack of mayor.
sufficient provocation. So two elements of self-defense
are present. 2. Consider the Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.

How about the 3rd element of self-defense, reasonable So now, there are two ordinary mitigating
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel circumstances with no aggravating circumstance.
the attack, is this present? Article 64 provides that when there are two
mitigating with no aggravating, lower the penalty by
The 3rd element of self-defense is absent because based one degree. Therefore, if you lower it by one degree,
on the facts proven by Bruno, although it was the man it is now prisioncorreccional.
who attacked Bruno first, he prevailed upon the man
because he made use of a knife and stabbed the man. 3. Determine the Maximum Sentence after considering
While the man attacked Bruno by means of his fist, it is all justifying, exempting, mitigating, and aggravating
not reasonably necessary for Bruno to make use of a knife circumstances, if any.
in killing the man. So what we have is an incomplete self-
defense. You have already applied everything so it will
become prision correccional in its medium period.
Under paragraph 1 of Article 13, in case of incomplete
self-defense, if aside from unlawful aggression, another 4. Determine the minimum term of the sentence.
element is present but not all, we have a privileged
mitigating circumstance. Therefore, this incomplete self- You go one degree lower and that is arresto mayor.
defense shall be treated as a privileged mitigating Therefore, arresto mayor in its medium period (or any
circumstance. period in the discretion of the court) is the minimum
term of the sentence.
The prosecution was able to prove that the man is 75
years old. Would you consider the aggravating Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night
circumstance of disrespect of age? after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy,
his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having
No. Even if Bruno killed the said 75 year-old man, there sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun
was no showing in the problem that he disrespected the and shot and killed Ken. The court found that Ken
age of the man. died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to
Would you consider nighttime as an aggravating destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the
circumstance? Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to
pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount
No. Even if the problem says that the crime was of P50,000. While serving his sentence, Macky
committed at 10 in the evening, it did not say whether the entered the prohibited area and had a pot session
house was lighted or not. There was also no showing that with Ivy (Joys sister). Is Macky entitled to an
the offender deliberately sought nighttime to commit the indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of


the use of prohibited substances? Explain your according to the amendment to Section 20 of the law,
answer. (BAR 2007) shall be applied if what is involved is 750 grams or more
of indian hemp or marijuana otherwise, if the quantity
No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the involved is less, the penalty shall range from prision
Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103, as amended) for correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the
having evaded the sentence which banished or placed quantity.
him on destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly
provides that the law shall not apply to those who shall In other words, there is here an overlapping error in the
have "evaded sentence". provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason
of its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the
Alternative Answer: No, because the penalty for use of any penalty where the marijuana is less than 750 grams, and
dangerous drug by a first offender is not imprisonment also as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana
but rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum involved is 750 grams or more. The same error has been
period of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. 9165). The committed with respect to the other prohibited and
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the regulated drugs provided in said Section 20. To
penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one year. harmonize such conflicting provisions in order to give
effect to the whole law, the penalty to be imposed where
An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the
close, the judge found A guilty beyond reasonable quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from
doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and not
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant with the
mayor. The public prosecutor objected to the fundamental rule in criminal law that all doubts should
sentence on the ground that the proper penalty be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.
should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) If the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty
DAY of reclusion temporal. The defense counsel to be imposed shall be prision correccional; from 250 to
chimed in, contending that application of the 499 grams, prision mayor; and 500 to 749 grams,
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the reclusion temporal. Parenthetically, fine is imposed as a
imposition of a straight penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion
and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional only. Who of perpetua to death.
the three is on the right track? (BAR 2010)
Now, considering the minimal quantity of the marijuana
None of the contentions is correct because the subject of the case at bar, the imposable penalty under RA
Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103, as amended) has 6425, as amended by RA 7659, is prision correccional, to
not been followed. be taken from the medium period thereof pursuant to
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), there being
The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, no attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstance.
which is penalized by imprisonment exceeding one (1)
year and is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate B) Should modifying circumstances be taken into
Sentence Law. The said law is requires that the sentence account in this case?
in this case should reflect a minimum term for purposes Yes.
of parole, and a maximum term fixing the limit of the
imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect. In the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the
penalty for offenses under special laws, the rules on
PEOPLE V. SIMON (1994) mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the RPC
cannot and should not be applied. A review of such
Simon was arrested during a buy bust operation at doctrines as applied in said cases, however, reveals that
Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga after he sold two the reason therefor was because the special laws
marijuana tea bags for P40.00 to Sgt. Lopez, who involved provided their own specific penalties for the
acted as the poseur-buyer. Another two marijuana offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties were
tea bags were found in possession of Simon. Simon not taken from or with reference to those in the RPC.
was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of The situation, however, is different where although the
RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs offense is defined in and ostensibly punished under a
Act of 1972, as amended, for the sale of the four special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from the
marijuana tea bags with a total weight of only 3.8 RPC in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with
grams. The trial court convicted Simon as charged its duration, correlation and legal effects under the
but only in relation to the sale of the two marijuana system of penalties native to the RPC.
tea bags, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000.00, and to In the case of the Dangerous Drugs Act as now amended
pay the costs. by RA 7659 by the incorporation and prescription therein
of the technical penalties defined in and constituting
A) Is the trial court correct in imposing the penalty of integral parts of the three scales of penalties in the RPC,
life imprisonment? with much more reason should the provisions of the RPC
No. on the appreciation and effects of all attendant modifying
circumstances apply in fixing the penalty. Likewise, the
As applied to the present case, Section 4 of RA 6425, as different kinds or classifications of penalties and the rules
now further amended, imposes the penalty of reclusion for graduating such penalties by degrees should have
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 supplementary effect on RA 6425, except if they would
to P10,000,000.00 upon any person who shall unlawfully result in absurdities. Mitigating circumstances should be
sell, administer, deliver, give away, distribute, dispatch in considered and applied only if they affect the periods and
transit or transport any prohibited drug. That penalty, the degrees of the penalties within rational limits.


While modifying circumstances may be appreciated to the trial court (Art. 39, as amended by R.A. 10159 approved
determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or on April 10, 2012).
even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should
such graduation of penalties reduce the imposable When may it be imposed?
penalty beyond or lower than prision correccional. It is for
this reason that the three component penalties in the 1. When there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or
second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered any other principal penalty and it carries with it a
as an independent principal penalty, and that the lowest fine; or
penalty should in any event be prision correccional in 2. When penalty is only fine.
order not to depreciate the seriousness of drug offenses.
Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty?
C) Is Simon entitled to the application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law? A subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty. It is a
Yes. penalty imposed upon the accused and served by him in
lieu of the fine which he fails to pay on account of
Since drug offenses are not included in nor has Simon insolvency. The accused cannot be made to undergo
committed any act which would put him within the subsidiary imprisonment unless the judgment expressly
exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does so provides.
not involve reclusion perpetua or death; provided, of
course, that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed THREE-FOLD RULE
one year of imprisonment.
What are the three systems of imposition of penalties
RA 6425, as now amended by RA 7659, has unqualifiedly in case two or more penalties are imposed on one and
adopted the penalties under the RPC in their technical the same accused?
terms, hence with their technical signification and effects.
In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said 1. Material accumulation system - no limitation
sentence, the Court applied the provisions of the whatever. All the penalties for all violations were
amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision imposed even if they reached beyond the natural
correccional and Article 64 of the RPC to impose the same span of human life.
in the medium period. Such offense, although provided
for in a special law, is now in effect punished by and under 2. Juridical accumulation system - limited to not more
the RPC. than the three-fold length of time corresponding to
Correlatively, to determine the minimum, we must apply the most severe and in no case exceed 40 years.
the first part of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law which directs that "in imposing a prison sentence for 3. Absorption system - the lesser penalties are absorbed
an offense punished by the RPC, or its amendments, the by the graver penalties. It is observed in the
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate imposition of the penalty in complex crimes,
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, continuing crimes, and special complex crimes like
in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly robbery with homicide, etc.
imposed under the rules of the RPC, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of What is the Three-Fold Rule?
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the
Three-fold rule means that the maximum duration of a
convicts sentence shall not be more than three times the
It is thus both amusing and bemusing if, in the case at bar, length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
Simon should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum penalties imposed upon him but in no case exceed 40
sentence within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty years.
next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum
range the Court has fixed through the application of When does the Three-Fold Rule apply?
Articles 61 and 71 of the RPC. For, with fealty to the law,
The rule applies if a convict has to serve at least four
the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months
sentences, continuously.
of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision
correccional. The difference, which could thereby even NOTE: All the penalties, even if by different courts at
involve only one day, is hardly worth the creation of an different times, cannot exceed three-fold to most severe
overrated tempest in the judicial teapot. penalty.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, Simon must be
sentenced to serve an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
(AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10707)
months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to six (6) years
of prision correccional, as the maximum thereof (People
Who are disqualified to avail the benefits of the
v. Martin Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, EN BANC,
probation law? (BAR 2004)
Regalado, J.)
What is subsidiary penalty? 1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years; (BAR
Subsidiary personal liability is to be suffered by the 1990, 1995, 2002)
convict who has no property with which to meet the fine, 2. Convicted of subversion or any crime against the
at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the national security; (Sec. 9, RA 10707)
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines 3. Who have previously been convicted by final
at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of
more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a


fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00); would have had the right to apply for probation. Arnel did
(Sec. 9, RA 10707) not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him
4. Who have been once on probation under the to apply for probation. He did not have a choice between
provision of this Decree; appeal and probation. While it is true that probation is a
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time the mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the right to
substantive provisions of this Decree became such privilege; he certainly does not have. What he has is
applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof; the right to apply for that privilege. If the Court allows
6. If he appeals the judgment or conviction (however see him to apply for probation because of the lowered
Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether
2011); or (BAR 2013) or not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into
7. If he is convicted of violation of Election offenses account the full circumstances of his case (Colinares v.
People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011).
NOTE: In multiple prison terms, those imposed against
the accused found guilty of several offenses should not be Meno was convicted by final judgment of the crime of
added up, and their sum total should not be arbitrary detention and was sentenced to suffer
determinative of his disqualification from probation imprisonment by the RTC. On that ground, Bena filed
since the law uses the word maximum not total term a petition to disqualify Meno from running for
of imprisonment (Francisco v. CA, et. Al, G.R. No. 108747, Punong Baranggay. Meno argued that he was already
April 6, 1995). granted probation, which effectively restores him all
the civil rights including the right to vote and be
Arnel Colinares was found guilty of frustrated voted for in the elections. The COMELEC En Banc
homicide by the RTC. On appeal, CA affirmed. On disqualified Meno citing Sec. 40(a) of the Local
petition for review, SC ruled that he was only guilty of Government Code. Meno argues that the
attempted homicide, in which the penalty is disqualification under the Local Government Code
probationable. Is Colinares now entitled to apply applies only to those who have served their sentence
for probation upon remand of the case to the lower and not to probationers because the latter do not
court, even after he has perfected his appeal to a serve the adjudged sentence. The Probation Law
previous conviction (frustrated homicide) which was should allegedly be read as an exception to the Local
not probationable? Government Code. Is Meno disqualified from running
for public office?
Yes. The probation law as amended provides that, xxx No
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if No, Meno is not disqualified from running for public
the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment office. During the period of probation, the probationer is
of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of not disqualified from running for a public office because
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is the accessory penalty of suspension from public office is
appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified put on hold for the duration of the probation.
through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the
defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation The period within which a person is under probation
based on the modified decision before such decision cannot be equated with service of the sentence adjudged.
becomes final. The application for probation based on Sec. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the
the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court grant of probation suspends the execution of the
where the judgment of conviction imposing a non- sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer
probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the
where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case court but is merely required to comply with all the
involving several defendants where some have taken conditions prescribed in the probation order. The
further appeal, the other defendants may apply for Probation Law should be construed as an exception to the
probation by submitting a written application and Local Government Code (Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No.
attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of 168550, August 10, 2006).
The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed, PARDON PROBATION
suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the Extinguishes criminal Does not extinguish
judgment. liability. criminal liability;
merely suspends the
This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of execution of the
probation should he seek a review of the modified decision sentence.
which already imposes a probationable penalty. Includes any crime Exercised individually
and is exercised by the trial court.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes individually by the
a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the President.
application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to

An order granting or denying probation shall not be

appealable. (R.A. 10707 Section 1, amending Section 4 of
PD No. 968, Approved last November 26, 2015)

Alternative Answer: What is clear is that, had the RTC

done what was right and imposed on Arnel the correct
penalty of two years and four months maximum, he


Merely looks forward It promotes the 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided
and relieves the correction and in Article 344 of the RPC.
offender from the rehabilitation of an
consequences of an offender by providing Bayot was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
offense of which he him with individualized the crime of rape committed against AAA, thus
has been convicted. treatment; provides an sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
opportunity for the perpetua. CA affirmed the ruling but increased the
reformation of a award of indemnity and ordered Bayot to pay AAA
penitent offender which moral damages in the amount of P 50,000. During
might be less probable if pendency of his appeal, Bayot died at the prison
he were to serve a hospital, as evidenced by the letter of the Penal
prison sentence; and Superintendent to the CA. Did the death of Bayot
prevent the commission extinguish both his criminal and civil liability?
of offenses. Yes, Bayots death during the pendency of his appeal
Does not work for the Those who have not before the Court of Appeals extinguished not only his
restoration of the served their sentence by criminal liability for the crime of rape committed against
rights to hold public reason of the grant of AAA, but also his civil liability solely arising from or based
office, or the right of probation which should on said crime.
suffrage, unless such not be equated with
rights are expressly service of sentence, Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically
restored by means of should not likewise be provides the effect of death of the accused on his criminal,
pardon. disqualified from as well as civil, liability. According to the pertinent
running for a local provision, criminal liability is totally extinguished by
elective office because death of the convict, as to the personal penalties, and as
the two (2)-year period to pecuniary penalties. Liability is extinguished only
of ineligibility under Sec. when the death of the offender occurs before final
40(a) of the Local judgment. It is already unnecessary to rule on Bayots
Government Code does appeal. Said appeal was still pending and no final
not even begin to run judgment had been rendered against him at the time of
(Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. his death (People v. Bayot, G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012).
No. 168550, August 10,
2006). AAA is the second of five children of Amistoso and
Exercised when the Must be exercised BBB. AAA was 12 years old when the rape incident
person is already within the period for happened. Amistoso had sexual intercourse against
convicted. perfecting an appeal. the will of AAA. Amistoso was charged with statutory
Being a private act by Being a grant by the trial rape. However, the RTC and CA convicted him for
the president, it must court; it follows that the qualified rape. Insisting upon his innocence,
be pleaded and proved trial court also has the Amistoso appealed to the Supreme Court. In a
by the person power to order its Decision dated January 9, 2013, the Supreme Court
pardoned. revocation in a proper affirmed with modification the judgment of
case and under proper conviction against Amistoso. However the Court was
circumstances. belatedly informed that Amistoso had died on
December 11, 2012 at the New Bilibid Prison due to
Does not alter the fact Does not alter the fact cardio respiratory arrest. Yet, the Public Attorneys
that the accused is a that the accused is a Office which represented Amistoso and which was
recidivist as it recidivist as it provides apparently also unaware of its clients demise, still
produces only the only for an opportunity filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Courts
extinction of the of reformation to the Decision on February 22, 2013. What is the effect of
personal effects of the penitent offender. the death of Amistoso on his criminal and civil
penalty. liability pending resolution from Court?
Does not extinguish Does not extinguish the
the civil liability of the civil liability of the Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code states
offender. offender. that, Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as
EXTINGUISHMENT OF to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished
CRIMINAL LIABILITY only when the death of the offender occurs before final
judgment. Therefore, the death of the Amistoso pending
Criminal liability is totally extinguished: appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability,
as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the criminal
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto
offender occurs before final judgment; is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
2. By service of the sentence; criminal case.
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
penalty and all its effects; Undeniably, Amistosos death on December 11, 2012
4. By absolute pardon; preceded the promulgation by the Supreme Court of its
5. By prescription of the crime; Decision on January 9, 2013. When Amistoso died, his
6. By prescription of the penalty; appeal before the SC was still pending and unresolved.
The SC ruled upon Amistosos appeal only because it was


not immediately informed of his death. Amistosos death A killed his wife and buried her in the backyard. He
on December 11, 2012 renders the SCs Decision dated immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
January 9, 2013, even though affirming Amistosos Three years later, the bones of As wife were
conviction, irrelevant and ineffectual. Moreover, said discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing
Decision has not yet become final, and the SC still has the warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar
jurisdiction to set it aside (People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the
201447, August 28, 2013). caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter
to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the
Consorte was convicted for murder for the death of country but returned 3 years later to take care of his
Elizabeth Palmar. The Court of Appeals affirmed his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged
conviction, hence he elevated his case to the Supreme with parricide, but he raised the defense of
Court, assailing the incredibility of his conviction. prescription.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the
conviction of Consorte on July 9, 2014. A Motion for a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the
Reconsideration was pending resolution before the period of prescription of a crime commence to
Supreme Court when Consorte died in New Bilibid run?
Prison. His death was evidenced by a death certificate b. When is it interrupted?
issued by the NBP Medical Officer and attached in a c. Is As defense tenable? Explain. (BAR 2010)
letter by the Officer-In-Charge of the New Bilibid
Prison informing the Court of the update. Did the a. Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription
death of Consorte extinguish his criminal and civil commence to run upon discovery of the crime by the
liability pending resolution? offended party, the authorities, or their agent.
b. It is interrupted upon filing of the complaint or
Yes. Consorte died before final judgment, as in fact, his information in court.
motion for reconsideration is still pending resolution by c. No, parricide prescribes in 20 years. The period of
the Court. As such, his criminal liability as well as his civil prescription started only when Z reported the matter
liability ex delicto are extinguished by his death prior to to the police, which is equivalent to 10 years of hiding
final judgment. The death of the accused pending appeal from the time of reporting to Z. The period of three
of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well years shall not be counted since he is absent from the
as the civil liability based solely thereon. The death of the Philippines. The filing of the charge 6 years
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal thereafter is well within the prescriptive period.
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from
and based solely on the offense committed (People v. Goyena filed with the City Prosecutor a complaint for
Consorte, G.R. No. 194068, November 26, 2014). slight physical injuries against Bautista. After
conducting the preliminary investigation, the
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES prosecutor issued a recommendation for the filing of
information against Bautista. Such recommendation
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old was approved by the City Prosecutor but the date of
Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he such approval cannot be found in the records. The
heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of Information was, however, filed with the MeTC
their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped of Manila only on June 20, 2000. Bautista sought the
inside, he saw Mina, Aras stepmother, very angry and dismissal of the case against him on the ground of the
strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw 60-day period of prescription from the date of the
Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the commission of the crime. Has the crime prescribed?
trunk of the car and drive away. The dead body of Ara
was never found. Mina spread the news in the No, the crime has not prescribed. It is a settled rule that
neighborhood that Ara went to live with her the filing of the complaint with the Fiscals office
grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert suspends the running of the prescriptive period. The
did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, Office of the Prosecutor miserably incurred some delay in
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & ) the filing the Information but such mistake or negligence
years after the incident, and right after his should not unduly prejudice the interests of the State and
graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime the offended party. As held in People vs. Olarte, it is unjust
to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain
in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for the vindication on account of delays that are not under his
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 and 1/2 years? control. All that the victim of the offense may do on his
(BAR 2000) part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite
complaint (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168641, April 27,
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara 2007).
despite the lapse of 20 and years. Under Article 91,
RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from A, while serving sentence for homicide escaped but
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended was re-arrested, and was sentenced for evasion of
party, the authorities, or their agents. In the case at bar, service of sentence. Later on, he was granted absolute
the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, pardon for homicide. He now claims that the pardon
who was not the offended party nor an authority or an includes the evasion of service since the latter crime
agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI occurred because of Homicide. Is As contention
authorities only when Albert revealed to them the correct?
commission of the crime. Hence, the period of
prescription of 20 years for homicide commenced to run No. Pardon by the Chief Executive must specify the crime
only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI and does not include those not specified in the pardon.


On June 30, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman filed The second mode of proving treason is by the confession
two informations charging Disini in the of guilt made in open court. The confession of guilt must
Sandiganbayan with corruption of public officials be judicial confession of guilt made by the accused in
and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices open court. Extrajudicial confession of guilt will not
Act (R.A. No. 3019) in the year 1974 to 1986 for suffice to bring a conviction in the crime of treason.
offering, promising or giving gifts and presents to
Ferdinand Marcos. Disini filed a motion to quash the In a time wherein the Philippines is involved in a war
informations on August 2, 2004 alleging that the with another country, the offender XXX Filipino
criminal actions had been extinguished by citizens, commandeered women for the enemy
prescription, and that the informations did not troops? Are they liable for treason?
conform to the prescribed form. The Sandiganbayan
denied the motion to quash and as well as the motion No, the act of commandeering women to the enemies
for reconsideration that followed afterward. Disini does not constitute a treasonable act. This act of
commenced a special civil action for certiorari once commandeering women to the enemies to satisfy the lust
again alleging the prescription of the charges in the of the enemies is not a treasonable act because whatever
information. Is Disinis contention correct? benefits it would give to the enemy would have been
trivial and perceptible in nature. It is only secondary and
A: No, the offenses charged in the information have not not the primary purpose of the said offender (People v.
yet prescribed. In resolving the issue of prescription, the Perez, G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949).
following must be considered, namely: (1) the period of
prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time when PIRACY VIS--VIS MUTINY
the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time PIRACY MUTINY
when the prescriptive period is interrupted. The crime of Offenders are strangers Offenders are
corruption of public officials is punished by a penalty of to the vessel. Hence, members of the
prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods and a offenders are neither complement or the
fine not less than three times the value of the gift and passengers nor crew passengers of the
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code states that the period members. vessel.
of prescription for this species of corruption is 15 years Done with animo Against the authority
from the date of the discovery of the crime. The furandi/intent to steal of the commander of
prescriptive period for violation of R.A. No. 3019, as and with the intention of the ship.
stated in Section 2 of R.A. No. 3326, is 10 years from the universal hostility.
day of the commission or date of discovery by the Intent to gain is an Intent to gain is
offended party, the authorities, or their agents. Therefore, element of piracy. immaterial.
the prescriptive period for the crime which is the subject Attack from the outside. Attack from the inside.
herein, commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992
after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation. A, B, and C hijacked a plane bound to Malaysia. In the
When the complaint was filed in 1997, only five years course of the hijack, D, a passenger was shot and
have elapsed, and, hence, prescription has not yet set in. killed. The court charged and convicted them for the
(Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24, violation of Anti-Hijacking Law and murder. Is the
September 11, 2013, Bersamin, J.). court correct?

BOOK II No. The charge should only be RA No. 6235 or violation of

Anti-Hijacking Law. A, B and C should not be charged with
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY a separate crime of murder because the act of killing a
passenger or complement in a violation of RA No. 6235
As a rule, Crimes Against National Security can only will only bring a higher penalty. Murder should not be
be committed in times of war. What are the charged separately.
exceptions under this rule?
The following crimes can also be committed even in times STATE
of peace:
What are the three ways of committing arbitrary
1. Espionage detention? (BAR 2006)
2. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisal
3. Violation of Neutrality 1. By detaining or locking up a person without any legal
4. Mutiny and Piracy cause or ground thereof purposely to restrain his
How may treason be proved? Explain. 2. By delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority
of a person lawfully arrested without a warrant; and
The two ways of proving treason are: (1) by the 3. By delaying release of a prisoner whose release has
testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act been ordered by competent authority.
(two-witness rule); and (2) confession of guilt made in
open court. Is there an arbitrary detention even if the offended
party were not kept in an enclosure?
The first mode of proving treason is by testimony of at
least two witnesses to the same overt act. There must be Yes. There is arbitrary detention even if the victims were
two witnesses that must corroborate each other as to the not kept in an enclosure. The prevailing jurisprudence on
overt act performed by the offender. Therefore, Treason kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of
cannot be proven by mere circumstantial evidence. The the victims liberty need not involve any physical
law requires that there must be direct evidence. restraint upon the victims person. If the acts and


actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the present, is not an act as can be designated as notoriously
mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the offensive to the faithful.In this case, the accused were
extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own acquitted of a violation of Art. 133 of the RPC but they
actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of were found guilty of a violation of Art. 287 of the RPC for
the accused, then the victim is, for all intent and purposes, the circumstances showed that their acts were done in
detained against his will (Astorga v. People, G.R. No. such a way as to vex and annoy the parties who had
154130, October 1, 2003). gathered to celebrate the pabasa (People v. Reyes, et al.,
G.R. No. L-40577, August 23, 1934).
TRUE OR FALSE. A policeman who, without a judicial
order, enters a private house over the owners CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling (BAR
2009). What is the theory of absorption in rebellion?

False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case Whenever in the course of committing rebellion, murder,
is violation of domicile because the official duties of a homicide, arson, physical injuries, other common crimes
policeman carry with it an authority to make searches are committed, and these common crimes are
and seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting furtherance to, incident to, in connection with rebellion is
under color of his official authority. considered as absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Only
one charge of rebellion should be charged against the
Policemen Conde, Avenido, Degran, Rufano, and offender.
Balolot, thinking that Galvantes was armed with a
gun, pointed their firearms at him and asked for his
gun. Conde went near Galvantes jeep and conducted
search without a search warrant. After a while they
saw the super .38 pistol under the floor mat of the
jeep. Galvante, then, filed complaints before the
Ombudsman. One of the criminal complaint he filed
was warrantless search, would the complaint

No. The complaint for warrantless search charges no

criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is
not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the RPC or
any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only
two forms of searches which are search warrants
maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained under Art. 129, and searching domicile
without witnesses under Art. 130.

Galvante did not allege any of the elements of the

foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he
accused Conde, Avenido, Degran, Rufano, Balolot of
conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed
with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is
not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. The
remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search
conducted on his vehicle is civil in nature under Article
32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil
Code (Galvante v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22,

While a pabasa was going on at a municipality in the

Province of Tarlac, Reyes and his company arrived at
the place, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to
construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel.
The chairman of the committee in charge of the
pabasa persuaded them to refrain from said acts. A
verbal altercation then ensued. The people attending
the pabasa left the place hurriedly in confusion and
the pabasa was discontinued until after
investigation. Reyes and his company, in their
defense claim that the land where the chapel is built
belongs to the Clemente family, of which they are
partisans. Are the accused guilty of the crime under
Art. 133?

No, Art. 133 of the RPC punishes acts notoriously

offensive to the feelings of the faithful. The construction
of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious to those



National security and

Crime Against Public order Public order
law of nations

Overthrow the Unlawful demand

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

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

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

Public officers only; unless

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

Yes, absorbs predicate

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

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

Inciting Inciting punished Not punished Not punished

All continuing crime

Accomplices are
Accomplices No accomplices No accomplices

As a result of the killing of SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, Elias Appellant, with about twenty armed men and Huk
Lovedioro was charged with and subsequently found Commander Torio, raided and attacked the house of
guilty of the crime of murder. On appeal, Lovedioro Punzalan, his political adversary and incumbent
claims that he should have been charged with the Mayor of Tiaong, Quezon, with automatic weapons,
crime of rebellion, not murder as, being a member of hand grenades, and bottles filled with gasoline. The
the NPA, he killed Lucilo as a means to or in raid resulted not only in destruction of Punzalans
furtherance of subversive ends. The Solicitor house and that of others but also in the death and
General, opposing appellants claim, avers that it is injuries to a number of civilians. The CFI found
only when the defense had conclusively proven that appellant guilty of the complex crime of rebellion
the motive or intent for the killing of the policeman with multiple murder, among others. Was the lower
was for "political and subversive ends" will the court correct?
judgement of rebellion be proper. Between the
appellant and the Solicitor General, who is correct? No. The accused is guilty of sedition, multiple murder and
physical injuries, among others. The purpose of the raid
The Solicitor General is correct. It is not enough that the and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up
overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and arms was not exactly against the Government and for the
overt acts are essential components of the crime. With purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the
either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion Revised Penal code under rebellion. The raiders did not
legally does not exist. If no political motive is established even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local Government.
and proved, the accused should be convicted of the Rather, the object was to attain by means of force,
common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate
motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an or revenge upon the person or property of a public
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong.
would not, by and of itself, suffice (People v. Lovedioro, Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to
G.R. No. 112235, November 29, 1995). constitute sedition (People v. Umali, et. al., G.R. No. L-5803,
November 29, 1954).
Is the crime of direct assault based on material
consequence of the unlawful act? What are the elements of the second form of Direct
No. The essence of the crime of direct assault is the spirit
of lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for the 1. Offender:
authority or the rule of law. a. Makes an attack,
b. Employs force,


c. Makes a serious intimidation, or person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the
d. Makes a serious resistance. eyes of law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority,
2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; not just the attack on the student.
3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority
or his agent: During election time, Isko was found in possession of
a. Is engaged in the performance of official duties, an unlicensed firearm. Arrested, he was charged with
or that he is assaulted (1) violation of the COMELEC gun ban, and (2) illegal
b. On occasion of such performance; possession of unlicensed firearm. During the
4. The offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a arraignment for the violation of COMELEC gun ban, he
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his pleaded not guilty. However, during the arraignment
duties; and for illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm, he
5. There is no public uprising. filed a motion to quash the information arguing that
he cannot be charged of illegal possession of
What is the nature of sedition? unlicensed firearm because the law says that you can
only be charged of the offense provided that no other
Sedition is a violation of the public peace or at least such crime is committed by the person arrested. Is his
a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does contention correct?
not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or
the subversion of the Constitution. It is an offense not No, his contention is wrong. When the law says, provided
directed primarily against individuals but to the general that no other crime is committed by the person arrested,
public peace; it is the raising of commotions or the word committed means that there is already a final
disturbances in the State, a revolt against legitimate determination of guilt a final conviction of guilt based
authority (People v. Perez, G.R. No. L-21049, December 22, on a successful prosecution or judicial admission. In this
1923). case, he was not yet convicted, he was only being
prosecuted. Therefore both cases can proceed. However,
As the town president failed to pay their salaries, the the moment he is convicted of violation of the COMELEC
accused, accompanied by four armed men, went to gun ban, he should be acquitted of illegal possession of
the house of the former and compelled him by force unlicensed firearm (Celino, Sr. v. People, G.R. No. 170562,
to leave and go to the Presidencia. The accused kept June 29, 2007).
the town president there confined until the relatives
of the latter had raised enough money to pay what Who are deemed to be persons in authority and
was due the accused and the armed men as salaries. agents of persons in authority?
What crime did the accused commit?
Persons in authority are those directly vested with
The facts constitute the crime of direct assault. There is jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
no public uprising when the accused, accompanied by some court or government corporation, board, or
armed men, compelled by force the town president to go commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are
with them to proceed to the municipal building and also deemed persons in authority.
detained him there. By reason of detaining the town
president, the accused inflicted upon a public officer an Agents of persons in authority are persons who by
act of hate or revenge. This is one of the objects of direct provision of law or by election or by appointment
sedition, which is essentially what the accused intended by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of
to attain (U.S. v. Dirain, G.R. No. 1948, May 5, 1905). public order, the protection and security of life and
property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman,
A, a lady professor was giving an examination. She barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of
noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She called the persons in authority.
students attention and confiscated his examination
booklet, causing embarrassment to him. The In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of the
following day, while the class was going on, the RPC, teachers, professors and persons charged with the
student, B, approached A and without any warning, supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
on A had not C, another student, come to As rescue performance of their professional duties or on the
and prevented B from continuing attack. B turned his occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons
ire on C and punched the latter. What crime or in authority.
crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (BAR 2002)
Sydeco, the cook and the waitress in his restaurant
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for were on the way home when they were signalled to
slapping the professor, A, who was then conducting stop by Police Officers who asked Sydeco to open the
classes and thus in the exercise of her authority; and vehicles door and alight for a body and vehicle
another one for the violence on the student C, who came search. When Sydeco opened the vehicle window, he
to the aid of the said professor. insisted on a plain view search, obviously irked by
this remark, one of the policemen told him he was
By express provision of Article 152, teachers and drunk, pointing to three empty beer bottles in the
professors of public and duly authorized private schools, trunk of the vehicle. The Officers then pulled Sydeco
colleges and university in the in the actual performance out of the vehicle and brought him to the Ospital ng
of their professional duties or on the occasion of such Maynila where they succeeded in securing a medical
performance are deemed person-in-authority for certificate under the signature of one Dr. Harvey
purpose of the crime of direct assault and of resistance Balucating depicting Sydeco as positive of alcoholic
and disobedience. And any person who comes to the aid breath, although no alcohol breath examination was
of the person in authority shall be deemed an agent of a conducted. Sydeco was detained and released only in


the afternoon of the following day when he was In falsification of public documents, is it necessary
allowed to undergo actual medical examination that there be the idea of gain or intent to injure a
where the resulting medical certificate indicated that third person?
he has sustained physical injuries but negative for
alcohol breath. Is Sydeco criminally liable for any No. In falsification of public or official documents, it is not
crime? necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a third person because in the
No. It is fairly clear that what triggered the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the
confrontational stand-off between the Police Officers, on violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
one hand, and Sydeco on the other, was the latters refusal truth as therein solemnly proclaimed (Galeos v. People,
to get off of the vehicle for a body and vehicle search G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011).
juxtaposed by his insistence on a plain view search only.
Sydecos twin gestures cannot plausibly be considered as A counterfeited the signature of B but what he
resisting a lawful order. He may have sounded boorish or entered in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of B
spoken crudely at that time, but none of this would make are all true. Since there was no damage to the
him a criminal. government, did he commit a crime?

It remains to stress that he has not, when flagged down, Yes. In falsification of a public document, it is immaterial
committed a crime or performed an overt act warranting whether or not the contents set forth therein were false.
a reasonable inference of criminal activity. What is important is the fact that the signature of another
was counterfeited. In a crime of falsification of a public
The two key elements of resistance and serious document, the principal thing punished is the violation of
disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC are: (1) public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the solemnly proclaimed. Thus, intent to gain or injure is
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the immaterial. Even more so, the gain or damage is not
offender; and (2) That the offender resists or seriously necessary (Caubang v. People, G.R. No. L-62634 June 26,
disobeys such person or his agent. There can be no 1992).
quibble that the officer and his apprehending team are
persons in authority or agents of a person in authority Can falsification be committed by omission?
manning a legal checkpoint. But surely Sydecos act of
exercising ones right against unreasonable searches to Yes. In the case of People v. Dizon, an assistant
be conducted in the middle of the night cannot, in context, bookkeeper who, having bought several articles for
be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful which he signed several chits, intentionally did not record
order in contemplation of Art. 151 (Sydeco v. People, G.R. in his personal account most of the said chits and
No. 202692, November 12, 2014). destroyed them so that he could avoid paying the amount
thereof was held guilty of falsification by omission.
Manny killed his wife under exceptional
circumstances and was sentenced by RTC Dagupan of Is there a complex crime of estafa through
destierro during which he was not allowed to enter falsification of a private document?
Dagupan City. While serving sentence, Manny went to
Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was None. The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in
arrested in Manila. Did Manny commit any crime? estafa, in the commission of which a private document
(1998 BAR) was falsified is nothing more or less than the very damage
caused by the falsification of such document.
Yes, Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of
sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was A, a government employee, was administratively
prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro. charged with immorality for having an affair with B,
A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded a co-employee in the same office who believed him to
when the convict enters any of the place/places he is be single. To exculpate himself, A testified that he was
prohibited from entering under the sentence or come single and was willing to marry B. He induced C to
within the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth,
involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of however, was that A had earlier married D, now a
liberty. neighbor of C. Is A guilty of Perjury? (BAR 1997)

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST No, A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood
asserted by him is not material to the charge of
How is forgery committed? (BAR 2008) immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge of
immorality against him as a government employee could
Forgery is committed: proceed or prosper. In other words, As civil status is not
a defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any material matter that could influence the charge.
instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned
therein, the appearance of a true and genuine The Ombudsman placed petitioner Jose C. Miranda
document; or then the mayor of Santiago City, Isabela, under
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by preventive suspension for six months from 25 July
any means the figures, letters, words, or sign 1997 to 25 January 1998 for alleged violations of the
contained therein. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees. Subsequently, then Vice
Mayor Amelita S. Navarro filed a Complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman. Vice Mayor Navarro


contended that Mayor Miranda committed the felony stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets
of usurpation of authority or official functions. Mayor examined by the forensic chemist is in fact
Miranda asserted that he reassumed office on the methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas
advice of his lawyer and in good faith. He also averred was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On
that, on the day he reassumed office, he received a appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the
memorandum from DILG Undersecretary Manuel evidence because Macario failed to observe the
Sanchez instructing him to vacate his office and he requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu"
immediately complied with the same. Notably, Mayor seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor
Mirandas counter-affidavit also stated that he left General claimed that despite non-compliance with
the mayoralty post after coercion by the Philippine some requirements, the prosecution was able to
National Police. May Miranda invoked good faith? show that the integrity of the substance was
preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations
No. The court is not persuaded by the posture of Miranda from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas
that he reassumed office under an honest belief that he stipulated that the substance seized from Dimas was
was no longer under preventive suspension. Mirandas shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed.
pretense cannot stand scrutiny. Mirandas excuse for
violating the order of preventive suspension is too flimsy Rule on the contention of the State. (BAR 2016)
to merit even a side-glance. He alleged that he merely
followed the advice of his lawyer. If Miranda and his The contention of the state is meritorious. Macario, the
counsel had an iota of respect for the rule of law, they policeman failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165
should have assailed the validity of the order of since the inventory and photograph of the drugs was only
suspension in court instead of taking the law into their made in the presence of barangay tanod and the same
own hands (Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 154098, was not submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory within
July 27, 2005). 24 hours. The rule is settled that failure to strictly comply
with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 does not
Petitioner Ursua was asked by his counsel to get a necessarily render the accuseds arrest illegal or the
copy of the complaint from the Office of the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The
Ombudsman. Petitioner told Oscar Perez, the law most important factor is the preservation of the integrity
firms messenger, that he feels uncomfortable asking and evidentiary value of the seized item. Moreover, the
for a copy of the complaint since he one of the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165
respondents. Perez told petitioner that the latter can cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (People v.
go there as Oscar Perez. At the Office of the Badilla, G.R. No. 218578, August 31, 2016).
Ombudsman, petitioner registered in the logbook as
Oscar Perez. LoidaKahulugan gave him a copy of the Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a
complaint to which petitioner acknowledged as session. Thinking that it was for a mahjong session,
Oscar Perez. However, Loida learned that the Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcios house,
person is not Oscar Perez but in fact Cesario Ursua. Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu
Is the act of petitioner of using the name Oscar session. At that precise time, the place was raided by
Perez a violation of Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142? the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested.
What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any?
No. Petitioners writing of the name Oscar Perez in an Explain your answer. (BAR 2007)
isolated transaction is not the act contemplated under
Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142. The use of a fictitious name or a Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. Sec. 7 of
different name belonging to another person in a single Republic Act No. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous
instance without any sign or indication that the user Drugs of 2002 punishes employees and visitors of a den,
intends to be known by this name in addition to his real dive or resort where dangerous drugs are used in any
name from that day forth does not fall within the form. But for a visitor of such place to commit the crime,
prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended. it is a requisite that he is aware of the nature of the place
Petitioner introduced himself in the Office of the as such and shall knowingly visit the same. These
Ombudsman as Oscar Perez, which was not his own requisites are absent in the facts given.
name and he did so while merely serving the request of
his lawyer to obtain a copy of the complaint in which the After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a
petitioner was a respondent. Hence, the use of Oscar notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight
Perez is not an alias name of petitioner. There is no NO. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa
evidence showing that he had used or was intending to formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong
use that name as his second name in addition to his real arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and
name (Ursua v. CA, G.R. No.112170, April 10, 1996). seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the
Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief
DRUGS ACT Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded
him in an unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito Lorbes.
Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White
Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, Plains corner EDSA, Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered
inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the
shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic
inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the
Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of
flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep
to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to
During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas them, an NBI team of agents had been following them


and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief drug user or pusher or that what was inside the
Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless
another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act? (BAR 2002)
him. All of them were later charged. What are their
respective criminal liabilities? (BAR 2006) No, B will not be criminally liable because she is unaware
that A was a drug user or pusher or of the content of the
Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who sachet handed to her by A, and therefore the criminal
conspired in taking the attache case are liable for the intent to possess the drug in violation of the Dangerous
following crimes defined under RA. 9165: (a) Sec. 27 for Drugs Act is absent. There would be no basis to impute
misappropriation or failure to account for the confiscated criminal liability to her in the absence of animus
or seized dangerous drugs. (b) Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. possidendi.
3(ee) for their acts as protector/coddler of Dante Ong
who imported drugs. Estipona Jr. was charged with violation of Sec. 11 of
RA 9165. On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to
In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution for Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
illegal importation or illegal transportation of dangerous Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea
drugs, where the penalty is life imprisonment to death, and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of
they are also liable for qualified bribery under Art. 211-A Sec. 12 of RA 9165, with a penalty of rehabilitation in
of the Revised Penal Code. view of his being a first-time offender and the
minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his
With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal possession being a first-time offender. Prosecution
importation of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4, R.A. 9165, moved for the denial of the motion arguing that it if
if PR 181 is an international flight. If PR 181 is a domestic prohibited by express provision of Sec. 23, RA 9165.
flight, he is liable for violation of Sec. 5, RA. 9165 for May Estipona, Jr. plead guilty for a lesser offense?
illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
Yes. The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice
Who are subject to confirmatory drug test under and procedure is now the Supreme Courts exclusive
Section 15 of R.A. 9165? domain and no longer shared with the Executive and
Legislative departments. The other branches trespass
A person apprehended or arrested who are to be subject upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders
of confirmatory drug test cannot literally mean any that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the
person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The procedural rules promulgated by the Court.
phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends Plea bargaining is rule of procedure. In this jurisdiction,
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby
under Article II of the law. In this case, the accused the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
appellant was arrested in the alleged act of extortion, satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
hence, the drug test conducted to him despite his approval." There is give-and-take negotiation common in
objection is rendered illegal and is therefore plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that
inadmissible. Since the drug test was the only basis for his both the prosecution and the defense make concessions
conviction, the Court ordered the acquittal of the accused to avoid potential losses. Considering the presence of
(Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014). mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining
neither create a right nor take away a vested right.
Is coordination with the PDEA an indispensable Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing
requirement before police authorities may carry out right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing
a buy-bust operation? rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for
justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard
Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable or infraction of them.
requirement before police authorities may carry out a
buy-bust operation. While it is true that Republic Act No. Sec. 23 of RA 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining in drug
9165 requires the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to related cases is unconstitutional (Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R.
maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug No. 226679, August 15, 2017).
related matters," the provision does not make PDEAs
participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug
operation. A buy-bust operation is just a form of an in offenses? (BAR 2016)
flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must
resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. show the movement of the dangerous drugs from its
9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not confiscation up to its presentation in court. The following
invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
(People v. Balaquiot, G.R. No. 206366, August 13, 2014). bust situation are:

A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when 1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
they met a group of policemen who had earlier been drug recovered from the accused by the
tipped off that A was in possession of prohibited apprehending officer;
drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and sensing that 2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
they were after him, A handed a sachet containing apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide it in her 3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A was a examination; and


4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal When a party desires the court to reject the evidence
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. offered, he must so state in the form of an objection.
Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for
What is the primary purpose of establishing the chain the first time on appeal (People v. Cabrera, G.R. No.
of custody? 190175, November 12, 2014).

Compliance with the chain of custody requirement Is the delay in the turn-over of the dangerous drugs
ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or to the PNP Crime Laboratory decisive in the
surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) prosecution for violation of dangerous drugs act?
Yes. When there was delay in the turn-over of the corpus
1. The nature of the substances or items seized; delicti to the PNP Crime Laboratory as it was alleged that
2. The quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items the date the illegal sachet was seized falls on a Friday and
seized; therefore the PNP Crime Laboratory was closed, it
3. The relation of the substances or items seized to the appears that said date falls on a Wednesday, not on a
incident allegedly causing their seizure; and Friday, conviction must be immediately set aside. It must
4. The relation of the substances or items seized to the be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving
person/s alleged to have been in possession of or illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which
peddling them. constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the
necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are
Compliance with this requirement forecloses the same seized items (People v. Sumili, G.R. No. 212160,
opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering February 4, 2015).
of evidence in any manner.
Is the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti indicates case essential for the conviction of an accused?
a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this No. The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs
noncompliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. case is not essential for the conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited testimony would be merely corroborative and
drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a cumulative. The informants testimony is not needed if
persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by
of the prohibited drug must be established with moral the prosecution (People v. Amansec, 662 SCRA 574,
certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of December 14, 2011).
possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same Based on an information from an informant, a buy-
substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be bust operation was constituted. The police officers
established with the same degree of certitude as that occupied different positions in order to observe their
needed to sustain a guilty verdict (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. informant who was also the poseur buyer. The
No. 205821 October 1, 2014). transaction between the informant and accused
Andaya was made and thereafter, the prearranged
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of signal signifying consummation of the transaction
an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support was given. The police officers approached the two
a finding that the matter in question is what the and arrested them. The accused was charged with
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony illegal sale of drugs but he contends that the non-
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item presentation during the trial of the confidential
was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in informant who was the poseur buyer was adverse to
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit the prosecution, indicating that his guilt was not
would describe how and from whom it was received, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Is the presentation
where it was and what happened to it while in the of informant necessary in the prosecution for illegal
witness possession, the condition in which it was sale of dangerous drugs?
received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. Thus, if the prosecution failed As a rule, it is not necessary for the State to present the
to present the testimony of a police inspector who had informant during the trial for illegal sale of dangerous
the only keys to the evidence locker where the sachet of drugs. However, in this case, the confidential informant
shabu, the unbroken chain of custody was not established was not a police officer but he was designated to be the
and the accused must be acquitted (People v. Abetong, poseur buyer himself. The State did not present the
G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014). confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to
describe how exactly the transaction between him and
May the defense of non-compliance to chain of Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue
custody rule be raised for the first time on appeal? against failure to present the confidential
informant/poseur-buyer except that none of the
When an accused raises the issue of non-compliance by members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the
the police officers with Sec. 21 of the IRR of R.A. 9165 transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer
particularly the lack of physical inventory of the seized due to their being positioned at a distance at the moment
specimen and the non-taking of photograph thereof on of the supposed transaction. The presentation of the
appeal after the CA rendered a decision, the Court must confidential informants as witnesses for the Prosecution
uphold his conviction. Cabrera should have raised the in those instances could be excused because there were
said issue before the trial court. Truly, objection to poseur buyers who directly incriminated the accused. In
evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. this case, however, it was different, because the poseur


buyer and the confidential informant were one and the his mere act of driving a vehicle containing
same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the State dangerous drugs is not sufficient to convict him. Is his
did not credibly incriminate Andaya (People v. Andaya, contention meritorious?
G.R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014).
No. Mere act of driving is sufficient to convict Morilla of
Is the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in the crime charge. Transport, as used under the
illegal drugs case a sufficient cause for acquittal? Dangerous Drugs Act, means to carry or convey from one
place to another. It was well-established during trial that
No. The Court has already ruled in a number of cases that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of
non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex vangoing to
cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. xxx The non- Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine
presentation as witnesses of other persons who had hydrochloride or shabu is malum prohibitum since it is
custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of
the prosecution. It is the prosecution which has the transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs
discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. What motive or knowledge (People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833,
is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of February 5, 2014).
the seized drugs are properly preserved (People v.
Fundales, Jr., 680 SCRA 181, September 5, 2012). PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian
clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance
A police officer surreptitiously placed a marijuana operations. While they were in front of a sari-sari
stick in a students pocket and then arrested him for store, accused Laylo approached them and asked,
possession of marijuana cigarette. What crime can Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu? PO1 Reyes replied,
the police officer be charged with? (BAR 2012) Bakit mayroon ka ba? Laylo then brought out two
plastic bags containing shabu and told the police
a. None, as it is a case of entrapment officers, Dos (P200.00) ang isa. Upon hearing this,
b. Unlawful arrest the police officers introduced themselves as cops.
c. Incriminating an innocent person PO1 Reyes immediately arrested Laylo. A laboratory
d. Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person examination was conducted which found the
with unlawful arrest recovered items positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Is there a
NOTE: The correct answer is not included in the choices. crime committed even though the sale of illegal drugs
The correct answer is planting of evidence. was not consummated?

Section 29 of R.A. 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Yes. The crime committed was attempted illegal sale of
Drugs Act of 2002, specifically punishes the act of drugs punishable under Section 26(b) of R.A. 9165.The
planting dangerous drugs. Section 29 provides that any elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of
person who is found guilty of planting any dangerous drugs are first, identity of the buyer and seller; second,
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, the object, and the consideration; and third, the delivery
regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of the thing sold and the payment. The policemen were
of death. the poseur-buyers and the appellant was the seller. The
substance contained in the plastic sachets which were
Section 3(cc), R.A. 9165 defines planting of evidence as found to be positive for shabu as the object, and the
the willful act of any person of maliciously and consideration, which is P200.00 for each sachet, was
surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching, made known by the appellant. However, the sale was
directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, interrupted when the poseur-buyers introduced
whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or themselves to the appellant; hence, the crime was not
controlled precursor and essential chemical in the consummated. The appellant already commenced by
person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an overt acts the commission of the intended crime by
innocent individual for the purpose of implicating, showing the substance to both of the policemen but did
incriminating or imputing the commission of any not perform all the acts of execution which would
violation of R.A. 9165. produce such crime by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. Such cause
Two vehicles were suspected to be used for or accident is when the policemen introduced themselves
transportation of dangerous drugs. The Starex van and the sale was immediately aborted. Hence, appellant
driven by Mayor Mitra was able to pass the is guilty of attempted sale of dangerous drugs (People v.
checkpoint, however, the ambulance driven by Laylo, G.R. No. 192235, July 6, 2011).
Morilla was stopped for it was noticed that there
were several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry, CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Morilla said that the sacks contained narra wooden
tiles. But the police officers requested for further X, an 11 year-old girl, had sexual intercourse with her
inspection where it was noticed that white crystalline 18 year-old boyfriend Y. They performed the act in a
granules were scattered on the floor. At the request secluded vacant lot. Unknown to them, there was a
of the police officers to open the sacks, Morilla said roving policeman at that time. Hence, they were
that he was with Mayor Mitra to let him pass. Upon arrested. What crime did they commit?
inspection, the contents of the sacks turned out to be
sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. It The sexual intercourse with the girl constitutes statutory
was also found that the van driven by Mayor Mitra rape. Though the act was carried out in a public place,
contains the same. Accused was charged with illegal criminal liability for grave scandal cannot be incurred.
transport of dangerous drugs. Morilla contends that


NOTE: The highly scandalous conduct should not fall close door talk took place between the two wherein
within any other article of the RPC. Thus, this article the respondent offered the public prosecutor P2M in
provides for a crime of last resort. exchange for the dismissal of the case filed against
the respondent. The public prosecutor accepted the
CRIMES COMMITTED P2M. Later, by reason of the bribe money given to
BY PUBLIC OFFICERS him, the prosecutor issued a resolution dismissing
the said case for lack of probable cause.
Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.
(BAR 2016) a) What crime/crimes is/are committed by the public
The public prosecutor is liable for direct bribery under
Performance of Improper Omission of Article 210. First, he is a public officer. Second, the said
some act which performance some act which public prosecutor accepted a bribe money in the amount
ought not to be of some act ought to be of P2M in connection with the performance of a criminal
done. which might performed. act which has a connection with his official function.
be lawfully Hence, he is liable for Direct Bribery.
The public prosecutor is also liable for Dereliction of Duty
Governor A was given the amount of PIO million by in the Prosecution of Offenses under Art. 208. By reason
the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of of the P2M given to him by the respondent, the public
buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. prosecutor actually rendered the said resolution
Supposedly intending to modernize the farming dismissing the case despite his knowledge that the
industry in his province, Governor A bought farm offender had actually committed the crime. He is a public
equipment through direct purchase from XY officer who has the duty to prosecute and he knows the
Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B, the alleged commission of the crime, yet he did not cause the
exclusive distributor of the said equipment. Upon prosecution of the offender. He did so with malice and
inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law because
pending patent application for the said farm of the bribe money given to him. So in this case the public
equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased prosecutor is liable for two crimes: (1) Direct Bribery and
turned out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if (2) Dereliction of Duty in the Prosecution of Offenses.
any, were committed by Governor A? (BAR 2016)
b) Without direct bribery, dereliction of duty in the
Governor A committed the crimes of: (1) technical prosecution of offenses will not be committed. Are
malversation; and (2) violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) you going to complex these crimes considering that
of RA 3019. one is a necessary means to commit the other?

Governor A committed technical malversation under Art. No. Art. 210 prohibit the complexity of crimes. Under Art.
220 of the RPC. The amount of P10M granted by the 210, the liability of direct bribery shall be in addition to
Department of Agriculture to Governor A, an accountable the liability attaching to the public officer for the
public officer, is specificially appropriated for the commission of the crime agreed upon.
purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the
farmers. Instead, Governor A applied the amount to X a police officer, was conducting a patrol in an area
aquire modern farm equipment through direct purchase when he noticed a man hiding behind a mango tree.
from XY Enterprise owned by his kumpare. The law He saw that the man was intently looking at the house
punishes the act of diverting public funds earmarked by across the street. When the gate of the house opened
law or ordinance for a specific public purpose to another just as when a car was about to leave the house, the
public purpose; hence, the liability for technical man immediately boarded his motorcycle, went near
malversation. the said gate and thereafter repeatedly shot the
driver of the car which resulted to the instant death
Governor A can also be held liable for violation of Section of the latter. The man in the motorcycle got away. The
3(e) of RA 3019. All the elements are present. Through police officer chased him and was able to arrest him.
manifest partiality in favoring his kumpare, Governor A However, the man in the motorcycle said, If you
did not hold a public bidding and directly purchased the allow me to leave, Ill give you P500, 000.00. The
farm equipment from his kumpare. Further, Governor A police officer accepted the money and allowed him to
actions caused undue injury to the government as well as leave. What crime if any is committed by the said
the farmers who were deprived of the seedlings. His acts police officer?
likewise gave his kumpare, a private party, the
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, to the The police officer is liable for qualified bribery under Art.
exclusion of other interested suppliers. 211-A. The police officer is a public officer in charge with
the enforcement of the law and he resisted to arrest a
The act by Governor A is also a violation of Section 3(g) of person who has committed a crime punishable by
RA 3019 for entering a contract on behalf of the reclusion perpetua and/or death. The police officer did
government which is manifestly and grossly not arrest the said man because of the P500, 000.00 given
disadvantageous to the same. to him.

The public prosecutor has to render his resolution on X has been appointed as the new head of LTO. During
a case filed before their office. While the investigating his first day in office, Y visited him. Y talked to X and
public prosecutor was already drafting his after their exchange of pleasantries, the visitor left.
resolution, the respondent in the said case arrived. A When Y left, he also left a small gift box on top of the


table of X containing a key to a new car and a note that

the car is in the parking space at the basement of the Don Gabito is liable for Corruption of Public Officials
building. X went to the basement and used the car. Is under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having
X liable for any crime? given the amounts that were deposited in an account
which he opened in the Mayors name for no reason but
X is liable for indirect bribery under Art. 211 because he the public position or office held by the Mayor;
is a public officer and he accepts a gift by reason of his
office. Y, the visitor, does not require him to do anything; The Mayor is liable for Indirect Bribery for accepting such
it was merely given to him because he was newly money deposited in his account by using them when they
appointed as the LTO Chief. His acceptance brings about were given to him for no other reason except for his
the consummation of indirect bribery. public position as a Mayor and Violation of Rep. Act 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
In the abovementioned cases, what is/are the Officials and Employees) and for receiving such gift from
criminal liability of the person giving the bribe? someone who may be affected by the functions of his
They are liable for corruption of public officials under Art.
212. It is committed by any person who shall have made Accused Hernandez served a Mission Order against
the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents in the Takao Aoyagi, a Japanese national. There were
consummation of direct or indirect bribery. complaints against Aoyagi for being suspected as a
Yakuza big boss, a drug dependent and an
Melda, who is the private secretary of Judge Tolits overstaying alien. To prove his innocence, Aoyagi
Naya, was persuaded by a litigant, Jumbo, to have his gave his passport to Hernandez as guarantee for his
case calendared as early as possible for a appearance at a BID hearing. In a meeting outside the
consideration of P500, 000.00. May she be held BID Office, accused Hernandez allegedly demanded 1
criminally liable for this accommodation? (BAR million pesos for the return of Aoyagis passport.
1990) Because of such demand, an entrapment operation
was made. In a meeting to return Aoyagis passport,
The answer would depend/be qualified by the Hernandez immediately left after the payment was
implication of the phrase to have his case calendared as made to his co-accused. Is the act of direct bribery
early as possible". committed even though his act of returning the
passport is not a crime?
If the phrase is interpreted as an unjust act and in
violation of the rule to give priority to the older cases, Yes. The second kind of direct bribery was committed by
then she would be liable under direct bribery for an act the accused. Accused was convicted under the second
which does not constitute a crime but is unjust. He may kind of direct bribery, which contained the following
also be held liable under Section 3(e) of RA. 3019, the elements: 1) the offender was a public officer, 2) who
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended: x x x received the gifts or presents personally or through
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits". another, 3) in consideration of an act that did not
constitute a crime, and 4) that act related to the exercise
If you interpret the phrase as a non-violation of the rules of official duties. The passport confiscated by the accused
and regulations then he can only be held liable for direct was supposed to have been voluntarily given to Takao
bribery. Aoyagi as a guarantee to appear at the BID office.
However, Takao Aoyagi had to negotiate for the retrieval
What will be the criminal liability of Melda if she of the passport during the meetings held outside the BID
volunteered to persuade Judge Tolits Naya to rule in which was not a standard operating procedure to
Jumbos favor without asking any consideration? officially return withheld passports in such locations. It
(BAR 1990) can readily be inferred that the accused had an ulterior
motive for withholding the passport for some time
Melda is not criminally liable because the act of despite the absence of any legal purpose (Acejas III v.
volunteering to persuade is not a criminal act. It is the act People, G.R. No. 156643, June 27, 2007).
of persuading that is considered a criminal act. The act
does not fall under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code Torres was the principal of a high school. The schools
on Direct Bribery nor does it fall under Article 211 of the collection and disbursing officer prepared 3 checks
RPC on Indirect Bribery. Neither does it fall under the representing the teachers and employees salaries
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(a) of RA. and other compensation for the months of January to
3019 refers to acts of persuading another public official March, 1994 in the total amount of P196,654.54.
to violate rules and regulations. Torres signed the three (3) checks and encashed
them. However, he never returned to the school to
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several deliver the money and contends that a group of
projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the armed men took the encashed checks from him. The
Mayors name and regularly deposited various RTC convicted Torres of the crime of malversation of
amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million. public funds. He appealed his case. May Torres be
From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the properly convicted based on the information which
money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clearly charged him with intentional malversation
clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal and not malversation through negligence, which was
projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don the actual nature of malversation for which he was
Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the convicted by the RTC?
amounts he deposited were proceeds from his
jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Yes. Malversation may be committed either through a
Who are criminally liable? Explain. (BAR 2005) positive act of misappropriation of public funds or


property, or passively through negligence. To sustain a malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the
charge of malversation, there must either be criminal Revised Penal Code but was convicted for illegal use of
intent or criminal negligence, and while the prevailing public funds which is defined and punished under Art.
facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the 220 of said Code. A public officer charged with
commission of the offense, it will not preclude the malversation may not be validly convicted of illegal use
reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence of public funds (technical malversation) because the
because both are equally punishable under Article 217 of latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it
the RPC. Even when the Information charges willful necessarily include the crime of malversation. From the
malversation, conviction for malversation through facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance
negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose.
ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense
(Torres v. People, G.R. No 184908, July 3, 2013). As a matter of fact, the problem categorically states that,
the absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
Major Cantos was assigned to supervise the established." So, procedurally and substantially, the
disbursement of funds for the PSG personnel and to Sandiganbayans decision suffers from serious infirmity.
perform other finance duties. He placed the money in
a duffel bag and kept it inside the steel cabinet in his COA Auditor Florence L. Paguirigan examined the
office. One day, he inspected the steel cabinet and year-end reports involving the municipal officials of
discovered that the duffel bag which contained the Alfonso Lista, Ifugao and during the course of her
money was missing. He was found liable by the RTC examination, she came across a disbursement
for malversation. Major Cantos contends that he voucher for P101,736.00 prepared for Lumauig, a
could not be liable for malversation for mere failure former mayor of the municipality, as cash advance
to produce the funds does not necessarily mean that for the payment of freight and other cargo charges for
he misappropriated the same. Is he liable for 12 units of motorcycles supposed to be donated to
malversation of public funds? the municipality. Despite the full efforts of COA,
letters informing him of the unliquidated cash
Yes. The presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal advance were not sent because of the address of the
Code, as amended, states that the failure of a public officer same cannot be obtained. Lumauig admitted having
to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 during his
with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly incumbency as municipal mayor of Alfonso Lista,
authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put Ifugao. This amount was intended for the payment of
such missing fund or property to personal use. The freight and insurance coverage of 12 units of
presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the
petitioner is able to present adequate evidence that can City of Manila. However, instead of motorcycles, he
nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or property to was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. He
personal use, then that presumption would be at an end claimed that it never came to his mind to settle or
and the prima facie case is effectively negated. In this liquidate the amount advanced since the vehicles
case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima were already turned over to the municipality. Can
facie evidence of guilt (Cantos v. People, G.R. No. 184908, Lumauig be held liable for the crime of failure of
July 3, 2013). accountable officer to render account?

Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Yes, Lumauig can be held liable with the crime of failure
Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she received, as of accountable officer to render account under Art. 218.
municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public To be liable for such crime, the following requisites must
Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00 be present: (1) that the offender is a public officer,
known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation, whether in the service or separated therefrom; (2) that
betterment, and improvement (CRBI) for the he must be an accountable officer for public funds or
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in property; (3) that he is required by law or regulation to
Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the provincial auditor; and (4) that he fails to do so for a
fund was already exhausted while the concreting of period of two months after such accounts should be
Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a rendered. The law does not state that there must first be
representative of the Commission on Audit a demand for an officer to be held liable. Therefore, he is
conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to liable to such crime (People v. Lumauig, G.R. No. 166680,
account for the P100,000.00 CRBI fund. Elizabeth, July 7, 2014).
who was charged with malversation of public funds,
was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
but was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal
case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal, What are the essential elements of parricide as to
Elizabeth argued that her conviction was erroneous relationship?
as she applied the amount of P50,000.00 for a public
purpose without violating any law or ordinance The relationship of the offender with the victim must
appro-priating the said amount for any specific be:
purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, 1. Legitimate, except in the case of parent and child;
in fact, established. Is the contention of Elizabeth 2. In the direct line; and
legally tenable? Explain. (BAR 1996) 3. By blood, except in the case of a legitimate spouse.

Elizabeths contention that her conviction for illegal use Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the
of public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous, crime of homicide, taking into account the nature of
is legally tenable because she was charged for the offense, the essential element of each of the stages


of execution and the manner of committing such (1) Means used by the malefactors;
intentional felony as distinguished from felony (2) Nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by
committed through reckless imprudence. (BAR the victim;
2012) (3) Conduct of the malefactors before, during, or
immediately after the killing of the victim; and
Elements of the crime (4) Circumstances under which the crime was
Homicide as an intentional felony has three stages, (5) Motive of the offender; and
attempted, frustrated and consummated. (6) Words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries
on the victim (De Guzman, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 178512
In whatever stages homicide is committed, intent to kill November 26, 2014, Bersamin, J.).
must be established for being an indispensible element
thereof. However, if the victim died as a consequence of State the rules for the application of the
wounds caused by an act committed with malice, intent circumstances which qualify the killing to murder.
to kill is conclusively presumed and the crime committed
is consummated homicide. Because of this conclusive 1. That murder will exist with any of the circumstances.
presumption, lack of intent to kill is not a defense in 2. Where there are more than one qualifying
consummated homicide. circumstance present, only one will qualify the
killing, with the rest to be considered as generic
NOTE: In consummated homicide, the accused may prove aggravating circumstances.
lack of intent to kill for purpose of appreciating the 3. That when the other circumstances are absorbed or
mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem. included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot
be considered as generic aggravating.
But if the victim did not die as a consequence of wounds 4. That any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated
caused by an act committed with malice, intent to kill must be alleged in the information.
must be established beyond reasonable doubt. If intent to
kill is proven, the crime committed is frustrated or On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly
attempted homicide. If intent to kill is not proven, the found himself surrounded by four men. One of them
crime committed is physical injuries. Thus, lack of intent wrestled the police officer to the ground and
to kill is a defense in attempted or frustrated disarmed him while the other three companions who
homicide. were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a
balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman
Nature of the crime died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted
by his assailants. What crime or crimes were
If the offender with intent to kill attempted to inflict or committed? Discuss fully. (BAR 1995)
inflicted non-mortal wounds upon the victim, he already
directly commenced an overt act to commit homicide. All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder,
Hence, the crime committed is attempted homicide if he qualified by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of
failed to inflict mortal wounds upon the victim by reason superior strength) as the attack was sudden and
of some cause or accident other than his own unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless.
spontaneous desistance. If the offender with intent to kill Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the
inflicted mortal wounds upon the victim, he already assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as
performed all acts of execution which would produce the there is no showing that the assailants knew that the
homicide as a consequence. victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge, the
fact is that he was not in the performance of his official
If death is not produced despite the mortal character of duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.
the wounds due to causes independent of the will of the
offender, the crime committed is frustrated homicide. Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud
where he resided. Renato, a resident of the
If death is produced, the crime committed is neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a
consummated homicide. In this situation, all the mobile rice thresher which he often brought to
elements necessary for execution and accomplishment of Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers
homicide are present if the victim dies due to the wounds there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual. One
inflicted by the offender with the intent to kill. afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted
Renato and his men who were operating their mobile
Intentional felony and culpable felony rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated
argument ensued. A barangay captain who was
Homicide regardless of stages must be committed with fetched by one of Pascuals men tried to appease
malice (general intent) and intent to kill (specific intent). Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent
Even if there is no intent to kill and evil intent, the confrontation. However, Pascual resented the
offender is liable for culpable felony if the victim dies or intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him
was injured as a result of the recklessness of the former. to death. What crime was committed by Pascual?
Discuss fully. (BAR 1995)
If there is no intent to kill, evil intent and recklessness on
the part of the accused, he is not liable for his intentional Pascual committed the qualified direct assault with
act, which caused the death of or injury upon the victim homicide. (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art. 48. RPC).
because of the exempting circumstance of accident. A barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a person in
authority and if he is attacked while in the performance
Cite five (5) factors in ascertaining intent to kill. of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony
of direct assault is committed.


of reason or otherwise unconscious. Since she is suffering

Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single from an incapacity, being incompetent on account of her
act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, a mental age, the parents have the right to file the
complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the complaint for rape.
offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in two
felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault XXX (then a 10 year-old boy) requested his mother to
which is less grave. pick up Ricalde at McDonalds Bel-Air, Sta. Rosa.
Ricalde, then 31 years old, is a distant relative and
Dagami concealed Bugnas body and the fact that he textmate of XXX. After dinner, XXXs mother told
killed him by setting Bugnas house on fire. What Ricalde to spend the night at their house as it was
crime or crimes did Dagami commit? late. He slept on the sofa while XXX slept on the living
room floor. It was around 2:00 a.m. when XXX awoke
A. Murder, the arson being absorbed already as "he felt pain in his anus and stomach and
B. Separate crimes of murder and arson something inserted in his anus." He saw that Ricalde
C. Arson, the homicide being absorbed already "fondled his penis." When Ricalde returned to the
D. Arson with murder as a compound crime sofa, XXX ran toward his mothers room to tell her
what happened. He also told his mother that Ricalde
A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While played with his sexual organ. XXXs mother armed
eating in a seaside restaurant, they were attacked by herself with a knife for self-defense when she
X, Y and Z members of a rival fraternity. A rumble confronted Ricalde about the incident, but he
ensued in which the above-named members of the remained silent. She asked him to leave. Is Ricalde
two fraternities assaulted each other in confused and guilty of the crime of rape?
tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it
cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the Yes, all the elements of rape is present in the case at bar.
members of the two fraternities took part in the Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also
rumble and were charged for death caused in a known as "instrument or object rape," "gender-free
tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? (2010 rape," or "homosexual rape." Any person who, under any
BAR) of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any
not prosper. In death caused by tumultuous affray under instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
Art. 251 of the RPC, it is essential that the persons another person. The gravamen of rape through sexual
involved did not compose groups organized for the assault is "the insertion of the penis into another persons
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into
reciprocally. In this case, there is no tumultuous affray another persons genital or anal orifice (Ricalde v.
since the participants in the rumble belong to organized People, G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015).
AAA, a 67-year-old woman, was fast asleep when Bill
State the effects of the reclassification of rape into a covered her mouth, threatened her with a knife and
crime against person (BAR 1993) told her not to scream because he will have sexual
intercourse with her. Thereafter, he removed AAAs
1. The procedural requirement of consent of the underwear. However, his penis was not yet erected so
offended party to file the case is no longer needed he toyed with AAAs sexual organ by licking it. He
because this is now a public crime, unlike when it was then made his way up and tried to suck AAAs tongue.
still classified as a crime against chastity; and Once done, Bill held his penis and inserted it to AAAs
2. There is now an impossible crime of rape because vagina. In his defense, bill argued that during the
impossible crimes can only be committed against entire alleged incident AAA never reacted at all. Is Bill
persons or property. guilty of rape?

AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the house of Yes, Bill is guilty of rape. AAA was already 67 years of age
Mr. and Mrs. M who had a good-looking 25-year old when she was raped in the dark by Bill who was armed
retarded daughter with the mental age of an 11-year with a knife, a woman of such advanced age could only
old girl. One day when the couple were out, Perlita, recoil in fear and succumb into submission. In any case,
the retarded daughter, entered AJs room, came near with such shocking and horrifying experience, it would
him and started kissing him. He tried to avoid her. not be reasonable to impose upon AAA any standard form
But she persisted. They had sexual intercourse. This of reaction. Different people react differently to a given
was repeated every time Perlitas parents were out situation involving a startling occurrence (People v.
until Perlita got pregnant. Mr. and Mrs. M filed a Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014).
complaint of rape against AJ who claimed that it was
Perlita who seduced him that Perlita was intelligent, One night while AAA was sleeping, XXX hugged her
clearly understood what she was doing, and that and kissed her nape and neck. He then undressed
since Perlita was already 25 years old and did not AAA and went on top of her and held her hands.
herself filed the complaint, her parents had no Afterwards, he parted AAAs legs and then tried to
personality to file the complaint for rape. How would insert his penis into her vagina. XXXs penis touched
you resolve the case? (1987 BAR) AAAs vagina but he stopped as soon as AAAs cry got
louder. He then threatened AAA not to disclose the
The contention of AJ cannot be sustained. Sexual incident. What crime is committed?
intercourse with Perlita, who is a mental retardate,
although 25 years old but with a mental age of 11 years XXX is guilty of attempted rape. Without showing of such
old girl is rape. She is the same class as a woman deprived carnal knowledge, XXX is guilty only of attempted rape.


Mere touching cannot be considered as slight 2. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
penetration. Since XXX did not succeed in inserting his the detention;
penis in AAAs female organ he cannot be convicted of 3. When the victim is raped; or
consummated rape. Slightest penile penetration is 4. When the victim is subjected to torture or
necessary (People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 188979, September 5, dehumanizing acts.
Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party.
Cruz and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help Because she was already tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi,
them in their plastic and glassware business during a the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the
town fiesta in La Union. After fixing the wares in situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he
order for display they went to bed inside the tents. raped her for a period of two (2) weeks. What crime
Less than an hour passed, AAA was awakened with did Pogi commit? (BAR 2014)
Cruz on top of her mashing her breast and touching
her vagina. AAA fought back and was able to free Pogi committed the special complex crime of Kidnapping
herself from Cruz. She went out to seek for help. Is and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape.
Cruz guilty for the crime of attempted rape?
All the elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
No, Cruz is not guilty of attempted rape. The intent to Detention are present. Pogi, a private individual,
commit rape must be inferred from overt acts directly kidnapped and detained Sexy by bringing her to a
leading to rape. In embracing AAA and touching her deserted place. Said detention is illegal and is serious
vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to because it lasted for more than 3 days and the victim is a
lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile female.
penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was
on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to The special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious
lie with her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust Illegal Detention with Rape resulted because Sexy, the
for her (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014). victim of the kidnapping and detention, was raped as a
consequence of the detention. (Article 267, last par., RPC)
CRIMES AGAINST Since it is a special complex crime, regardless of the
PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY number of times the victim had been raped, there is only
one single indivisible offense of Kidnapping and Serious
Anniban and Lerio are neighbors. Lerio entered the Illegal Detention with Rape.
house of Anniban, laid down beside the infant child of
Anniban and began chatting with her. Lerio then told While walking alone on her way home from a party,
Anniban that she would take the infant outside to Mildred was seized at gun point by Felipe and taken
bask him under the morning sun but the latter on board a tricycle to a house some distance away.
refused. A few minutes later, Anniban realized that Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove
Lerio and her child were no longer in the house. After the tricycle.
searching, Anniban found her infant child, Lerios
boyfriend, and Lerio on board a vessel. Lerio, At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in
together with co-accused were charged with having sexual intercourse with Mildred against her
Kidnapping of a Minor. Are they liable as charged? will and under the threat of Felipe's gun. Lucio was
not around when the sexual assaults took place as he
Yes. The following are the elements of kidnapping under left after bringing his colleagues and Mildred to their
Art. 267, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code: destination, but he returned everyday to bring food
and the news in town about Mildred's disappearance.
1. The offender is a private individual; For five days, Felipe, Julio and Roldan kept Mildred in
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other the house and took turns in sexually assaulting her.
manner deprives the latter of his or her liberty; On the 6th day, Mildred managed to escape; she
3. The act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and proceeded immediately to the nearest police station
4. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female and narrated her ordeal.
or a public officer.
What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio
The prosecution has adequately and satisfactorily proven commit and what was their degree of participation?
that accused-appellant is a private individual; that (BAR 2013)
accused-appellant took one-month old baby Justin Clyde
from his residence, without the knowledge or consent of, Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable for the special
and against the will of his mother; and that the victim was complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
a minor, one-month old at the time of the incident, the fact Detention with Rape. It was sufficiently proved that the 4
of which accused-appellant herself admitted (People v. accused kidnapped Mildred and held her in detention for
Lerio, G.R. No. 209039, December 09, 2015). 5 days and carnally abused her. Since it is a special
complex crime, no matter how many times the victim had
What are the qualifying circumstances of the crime of been raped, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping
kidnapping and serious illegal detention? and serious illegal detention with rape. The composite
acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense with only
1. If the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort ransom; one penalty. It is illegal detention and not forcible
abduction since it was evident that the intent was to
NOTE: If the victim is kidnapped and illegally detain the victim.
detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the
duration of his detention is immaterial (People v. As to the degree of their participation, Felipe, Julio,
Ramos, G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011). Roldan and Lucio are all liable as principals. There was


implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single criminal Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while
design or purpose(People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. Jonathan committed the special complex crime of
186417, July 27, 2011). Although Lucio was not around robbery with homicide.
when the sexual assaults took place, there is complicity
on his part as he was the one who drove the tricycle at the Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery
time the victim was seized and he returned everyday to only because that was the crime conspired upon and
bring food and news to his conspirators. actually committed by them, assuming that the taking of
the cellphones and the cash from the banks customers
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the was effected by intimidation. They will not incur liability
one-week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing
Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old to do with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the
mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash death of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery, because
advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One he alone brought about such death. Although the death
morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martins son with caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall be a
stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with component of the special complex crime of robbery with
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in homicide because it was committed in the course of the
the afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom commission of the robbery.
for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the
ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a What is the criminal liability of a person who, on the
couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic occasion of a robbery, kills a bystander by accident?
with his child already dead. According to the autopsy
report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three The person is liable for robbery with homicide because
minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or the Revised Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one
crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (BAR 2005) indivisible offense when a killing, whether intentional or
accidental, was committed by reason or on occasion of a
Paz committed the special complex crime of kidnapping robbery (Art. 294[1], RPC; People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568
with homicide under Art. 267, RFC as amended by R.A. [1938]).
7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another
or in any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim What is essential for a conviction for the crime of
dies as a consequence is liable for kidnapping with robbery with homicide?
homicide and shall be penalized with the maximum
penalty. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the What is for the prosecution to establish the offenders
one-week old child was merely kept in the attic of his intent to take personal property before the killing,
house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed regardless of the time when the homicide is actually
with tape, the deprivation of liberty and the intention to carried out. In cases when the prosecution failed to
kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the conclusively prove that homicide was committed for the
means employed by Paz was attended by treachery purpose of robbing the victim, no accused can be
(killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate charge of convicted of robbery with homicide (People v. Chavez, G.R.
murder will not be proper in view of the amendment. No. 207950, September 22, 2014).
Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic sense and
covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and
murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence decided to take one of the smaller purses without
shows the death of the child took place three minutes paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to
after the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom leave her own purse in place of the one she took. Her
took place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling act was discovered and Clepto was charged with theft.
here, that is, ransom was demanded. She claimed that there was no theft, as the store
suffered no injury or prejudice because she had left a
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY purse in place of the one she took. Comment on her
defense. (BAR 2014)
Can there be a crime of robbery with attempted rape?
The defense of Clepto has no merit. Theft is already
The crime cannot be a complex crime of robbery with consummated from the moment Clepto took possession
attempted rape under Article 48, because a robbery of one of the smaller purses inside a high-end shop,
cannot be a necessary means to commit attempted rape; without paying for it. She took the personal property of
nor attempted rape, to commit robbery (People v. another, with intent to gain, without the consent of the
Cariaga, C.A., 54 O.G. 4307). latter. Damage or injury to the owner is not an element of
theft, hence, even if she left her purse in lieu of the purse
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to she took, theft is still committed.
help them rob a bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside
the bank, but were unable to get any money from the When is the crime of theft qualified?
vault because the same was protected by a time-delay
mechanism. They contended themselves with the 1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant;
customers cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. 2. If the theft is committed with grave abuse of
After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the confidence;
car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a
pedestrian which resulted in the latters death. What NOTE: If the offense is to be qualified by abuse of
crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan confidence, the abuse must be grave, like an accused
commit? Explain your answer. (BAR 2007) who was offered food and allowed to sleep in the
house of the complainant out of the latters pity and


charity, but stole the latters money in his house

when he left the place. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No.
3. If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under
or large cattle; Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
4. If the property stolen consist of coconuts taken from
the premises of a plantation; The Court explicated in People v. Cortez and Yabut that: In
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or this jurisdiction, it is settled that the offense of illegal
fishery; or recruitment is malumprohibitum where the criminal
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for
offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction
Madam Y, a check payable to cash in the amount of P1 for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal
million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y. Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment
Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of
credited the amount to the account of her good the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his
friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip. acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale,
Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good and vice versa (People v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August
friend, Madam W and told her that the amount of P1 31, 2011).
million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus,
Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of Solina met with several people and gave the
P1 million from her account and to turn over the impression that she had the capability to facilitate
same to MadamX. As a dutiful friend, Madam W applications for employment as factory workers in
readily acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an Japan in lieu of a fee amounting to Php20, 000.00.
expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the These people believed Solina paid the said amount,
amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and however no such promise materialized and the
Madam W commit? Explain. (BAR 2014) money taken as a fee was never returned. Is Solina
guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale
Madam X committed the crime of Qualified Theft under as well as estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the
Article 310, RPC. When Madam X, a bank teller, received RPC?
the check payable to cash in the amount of P1million for
deposit to the account of Madam Y, what was transferred Yes, Solina is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in
to her was merely the physical or material possession large scale as well as estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of
thereof. Hence, her subsequent misappropriation of the the RPC. It is settled that a person may be charged and
amount shall constitute theft, qualified by grave abuse of convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A.
confidence. There is grave abuse of confidence because 8042 and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
the relationship of guardianship, dependence, and
vigilance between the depositor and the bank created a In this case all the elements of the crime of illegal
high degree of confidence between them which Madam X, recruitment in large scale are present: (1) the offender
as the bank teller representing the bank, abused. has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and
What does fraud and deceit in the crime of estafa placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of
mean? the activities within the meaning of recruitment and
placement under Article 13 (b) 14 of the Labor Code, or
In Alcantara v. CA, the Court, citing People v. Balasa, any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article
explained the meaning of fraud and deceit, viz.: 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3)
the offender committed the same against three (3) or
Fraud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything more persons, individually or as a group.
calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, Likewise Solina is also liable for estafa under Article 315
trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to (2) (a) of the RPC when she defrauded the private
another, or by which an undue and unconscientious complainants into believing that she had the authority
advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term and capability to facilitate applications for employment
embracing all multifarious means which human as factory workers in Japan in lieu of a fee amounting to
ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one Php20, 000.00 in which the complainants complied with
individual to secure an advantage over another by false resulting to their own damage and prejudiced when such
suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all promise for employment never materialized (People v.
surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way Solina, G.R. No. 196784, January 13, 2016).
by which another is cheated.
Ernesto Pideli, assisted his brother, Wilson, and his
Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact business partner, Placido Cancio, in purchasing
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading construction materials for a project by allowing them
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have to use his credit line in Mt. Trail Farm Supply and
been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive Hardware (MTFSH). At the completion of their
another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury project, the business partners Wilson and Cancio
(Lateo v. People, G.R. No. 161651, June 8, 2011). heeded to the advice of Ernesto that their net income
of P130, 000.00 should be applied first to settle their
Separate charges for estafa and illegal recruitment balance to MTFSH, and they entrusted the entire


amount to Ernesto, with express instructions to pay

MTFSH and deliver the remaining balance to them. Yes. All the elements are present, in which the first
Afterwards, Ernesto refused to give Cancio his share element was admitted by Villanueva, who confirmed that
in the net income despite the latters repeated she had issued the checks to
demands. Is Ernesto guilty of Theft or Estafa? Madarang in exchange for the jewelry she had purchased.
There is no question that Madarang accepted the checks
Ernesto is guilty of Theft, not Estafa. The Court has upon the assurance of Villanueva that they would be
consistently ruled that not all misappropriation is estafa. funded upon presentment. The second element was
The principal distinction between the two crimes is that likewise established because the checks were dishonored
in theft, the thing is taken while in estafa, the accused upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds or
receives the property and converts it to his own use or because the account was already closed. The third
benefit. However, there may be theft even if the accused element was also proved by the showing that Madarang
has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only suffered prejudice by her failure to collect from
with the material or physical or de facto possession of the Villanueva (People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 163662,
thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, February 25, 2015).
such as in the case at bar, but if he has the juridical
possession of the thing, his conversion of the same Sato, through fraudulent misrepresentations, was
constitutes embezzlement or estafa (Pideli v. People, G.R. able to secure the signature and thumbmark of
No. 163437, February 13, 2008). Manolita Gonzales on a Special Power of Attorney
where his daughter is made attorney-in-fact and sold
Carganillo was alleged to have entered a Kasunduan four valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. Estafa
with Teresita Lazaro, a rice trader in Nueva Ecija. under Art 315 (3) was filed against him in the RTC.
Teresita gave the accused 132,000.00 pesos for the Sato moved for the quashal of the Information
purpose of buying palay to be delivered on or before claiming that under Art 332, his relationship with
Nov. 28, 1998 to Lazaro Palay Buying Station. In their Manolita Gonzales, his mother-in-law, was an
Kasunduan, the parties agreed that for every kilo of exempting circumstance. Is Sato exempted from
palay bought, the petitioner shall earn a commission criminal liability under Art 332 for the complex
of twenty centavos (P0.20). But if no palay is crime of estafathrough falsification of public
purchased and delivered on November 28, the documents?
petitioner must return the P132, 000.00 to Teresita
within one (1) week after November 28. However, no No, Sato is not exempted from criminal liability under Art
palay was received on the agreed day and the 332 for the complex crime of estafa through falsification
132,000.00 was never returned. Then Teresita made of public documents. The absolutory cause under Art 332
oral and written demands to the petitioner for the is meant to address only simple crime of theft, swindling,
return of the P132, 000.00 but her demands were and malicious mischief. When the offender resorts to an
simply ignored. Is Carganillo guilty of the crime of act that breaches the public interest in the integrity of
estafa? public documents as to violate the property rights of a
family member, he is removed from the protective mantle
Yes. All elements of estafa are present. First, that money, of the absolutory cause under Art 332 (Intestate Estate of
goods or other personal property is received by the Manolita Gonzales, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
delivery of or to return the same. The petitioner received
in trust the amount of P132,000 from Teresita for the ELEMENTS OF ELEMENTS OF
purpose of buying palay. Second, that there be ADULTERY CONCUBINAGE
misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender, or denial on his part of such 1. To convict a woman 1. Man must be married;
receipt. There was misappropriation when petitioner for adultery, it is
failed to conform in their Kasunduan, not delivering the necessary: 2. He committed any of
agreed palay nor returning the 132,000 for such failure of a. That she is a the following acts:
delivery of palay. Third, that such misappropriation or married woman; a. Keeping a
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. The and mistress in the
acts of petitioner were to the prejudice of Teresita. Lastly, b. That she unites conjugal
that there is demand by the offended party to the in sexual dwelling;
offender. Teresita demanded for the return of the intercourse with b. Having sexual
P132,000 and this was shown in her oral and written a man not her intercourse,
demands to the petitioner (Carganillo v. People, G.R. No. husband. under scandalous
182424, September 22, 2014). circumstances,
2. To convict a man for with a woman
Madarang went to Villanuevas residence and was adultery, it is who is not his
able to sell to Villanueva five sets of jewelry. necessary: wife; or
Villanueva made out nine checks, eight of which were a. That he had c. Cohabiting with
postdated for the payment of such jewelries. actual her in any other
Madarang received the checks because of intercourse with place.
Villanuevas assurance that they would all be a married
honored upon presentment. However, the drawee woman; and 3. As regards the
bank paid only one of the eight postdated checks b. That he commits woman, she must
since the remaining checks were dishonored on the act with the know him to be
account of insufficient funds and account closed. Is knowledge that married.
Madarang liable for estafa?


said woman is
married. Yes, Vitangcol is liable of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy
consists of the following elements: (1) that the offender
NOTE: Adultery as to the has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage had
male sexual partner of not yet been legally dissolved or in case his or her spouse
the married woman. is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a
AAA was about to enter the school campus with her second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second
friend when Cayanan, her brother-in-law, arrived on or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites
a tricycle and pulled AAA towards the tricycle. She for validity. In this case, all the elements of bigamy are
tried shouting but Cayanan covered her mouth. present, since Vitangcol was still legally married to Gina
Cayanan brought AAA to a dress shop to change her when he married Alice. His defense of Certification from
clothes since she was in her school uniform, and later the Office of the Civil Registrar implying that there is no
to a Jollibee outlet. Afterwards, he brought her to his record of the marriage license issued to Vitangcol and his
sisters house and raped her inside a bedroom. AAA first wife Gina will not lie since marriages are not
told her mother and brother of the incident and she dissolved through mere certifications by the civil
was shown to be suffering from depressive symptoms registrar. Hence, Vitangcol is still considered to be legally
and presence of sexual abuse. Cayanan interposed married to Gina when he married Alice and is not
the sweetheart defense and presented two love exculpated from the bigamy charged (Vitangcol v. People,
letters supposedly written by AAA. The RTC and CA G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016).
convicted Cayanan of Forcible Abduction with
Qualified Rape. Is Cayanan guilty for the crime of Maine was validly married to Liko on June 1, 2015.
forcible abduction with qualified rape? Liko, however, died a month after the celebration of
their marriage. Three months after the death of her
No, Cayanan should only be liable for qualified rape. husband, Maine found another love of her life in the
Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the name of Darney. They eventually fell in love with
real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. In this each other. Darney married Maine on October 3,
case, circumstances show that AAAs abduction was with 2015. Is Maine liable for any crime?
the purpose of raping her (People v. Cayanan, G.R. No.
200080, July 18, 2014). No. R.A. 10655 (March 13, 2015) decriminalized the act
of premature marriage. Article 1 of the said law provides
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS that without prejudice to the provisions of the Family
Code on paternity and filiation, Article 351 of Act No.
3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code,
A contracted a second marriage while having a punishing the crime of premature marriage committed
subsistent and valid first marriage. The first by a woman, is hereby repealed.
marriage was declared void ab initio. Subsequently, A
was charged with the crime of Bigamy. A contends that CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
the information on Bigamy must be quashed on the
ground that there was a declaration of nullity of the
True or false. In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute
previous marriage prior to the filing of the action. Is
defense. (BAR 2010)
the contention of A correct?
False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth
No, the contention of A is wrong. It has been clarified in
shall be admissible in libel cases only if the same imputes
the Family Code and has been held in a number of cases
a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to
that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a
facts related to the discharge of their official duties, and
valid subsequent marriage can be contracted. What
moreover must have been published with good motives
makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he
and for justifiable ends. Hence, "truth" as a defense, on its
contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the
own, is not enough.
subsistence of a valid marriage. xxx Well settled is the
rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender
X was charged with the crime of libel. In his defense
upon the commission of the offense and from that instant,
he contended that he should not be liable for the
liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by
crime of libel because there is no malice in fact
law and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint or
proven by the prosecution since he is merely a
information is material only for determining prescription
responding urban poor leader acting as counsel,
(People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013).
defending a member of an association under threat of
ejectment from her dwelling place, and thus should
Vitangcol married Alice Eduardoand begot 3
be considered as privileged communication. X also
children. After some time Alice began hearing rumors
contends that there is no proper publication since the
that her husband was previously married to another
libelous remarks were only made in a private
woman named Gina Gaerlan. Such marriage was
correspondence. Are the contentions of X correct?
supported by a marriage contract registered with the
NSO. This prompted Alice to file a criminal complaint
X is criminally liable of the crime of libel. When the
for bigamy against Vitangcol. In his defense,
imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not
Vitangcol alleges that he already revealed to Alice
prove malice on the part of X (malice in fact) for the law
that he had a fake marriage with his college
already presumes that his imputation is malicious
girlfriend Gina and that there is a Certification from
(malice in law). There is publication when that same
the Office of the Civil Registrar that there is no record
letter was furnished to all those concerned. A written
of the marriage license issued to Vitangcol and his
letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as
first wife Gina which makes his first marriage as void.
Is Vitangcol liable of the crime of bigamy?


privileged when it is published and circulated among the statements only to the person or persons who have some
public (Buatisv. People, G.R. No. 142509, March 24, 2006). interest or duty in the matter alleged, and who have the
power to furnish the protection sought by the author of
Alexis filed an action for damages arising from libel the statement. A written letter containing libelous matter
and defamation against Alejandro on account of a cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and
published letter containing the following: circulated among the public.

This is to notify you and your staff that one ALEXIS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
"DODONG" C. ALMENDRAS, a brother, is not vested with
any authority to liaison or transact any business with What is reckless imprudence?
any department, office, or bureau, public or otherwise,
that has bearing or relation with my office, mandates Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without
or functions. x xx. malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
Noteworthy to mention, perhaps, is the fact that Mr. precaution on the part of the person performing of failing
Alexis Dodong C. Almendras, a reknown blackmailer, to perform such act, taking into consideration his
is a bitter rival in the just concluded election of 1995 employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
who ran against the wishes of my father, the late physical condition and other circumstances regarding
Congressman Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr. He has persons, time and place.
caused pain to the family when he filed cases against
us, his brothers and sisters, and worst, against his own What is simple imprudence?
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution
I deemed that his act of transacting business that displayed in cases in which the damage impending to be
affects my person and official functions is malicious in caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
purpose, done with ill motive and part of a larger plan
of harassment activities to perforce realise his egoistic Y while alighting from his vehicle was hit by X with
and evil objectives. May I therefore request the his car. This caused Y to be thrown four meters away
assistance of your office in circulating the above from his jeepney. X was charged with frustrated
information to concerned officials and secretariat murder and convicted in the RTC of frustrated
employees of the House of Representatives. x xx homicide. Upon appeal in the CA, the crime was
modified to reckless imprudence resulting in serious
Alejandro in his defense insists that he has the legal, physical injuries. X contends that he is not liable for
moral, or social duty to make the communication, or such crime because he lacked criminal intent; that he
at least, had an interest to protect, being then a was not negligent in driving his pick-up truck; and
Congressman duty-bound to insulate his office and that the CA should have appreciated voluntary
his constituents from the dubious and mistrustful surrender as a mitigating circumstance in his favor.
pursuits of his elder brother. Moreover, the letters Is Xs contention correct?
were also not meant to be circulated or published.
They were sent merely to warn the individuals of The contention of X is wrong. To constitute the offense of
respondents nefarious activities, and made in good reckless driving, the act must be something more than a
faith and without any actual malice. Is Alejandro mere negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle, but
guilty of Libel? a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is
required. The fact that Ys body was thrown four (4)
Yes. Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is meters away from his jeep showed that X was driving his
presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good pick-up at a fast speed when he overtook the jeep of Y.
intention and justifiable motive is shown. As an exception
to the rule, the presumption of malice is done away with The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
when the defamatory imputation qualifies as privileged cannot be appreciated in his favor. Paragraph 5 of Article
communication. 365, Revised Penal Code, expressly states that in the
imposition of the penalties, the courts shall exercise their
In order to qualify as privileged communication under sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed
Article 354, Number 1, the following requisites must in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code (Mariano v. People,
concur: G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014).

1. The person who made the communication had a X, while descending from a curved path, collided with
legal, moral, or social duty to make the a motorcycle, killing Y, one of its passengers, and
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, causing serious physical injuries to the two other
which interest may either be his own or of the one to victims. The body of Y was loaded to the vehicle of X
whom it is made; but the latters engine would not start; thus the body
2. The communication is addressed to an officer or a was loaded in a different vehicle. The jack of X was
board, or superior, having some interest or duty in used to extricate the body of Y from being pinned
the matter, and who has the power to furnish the under the vehicle of X. X, in his defense, claimed that
protection sought; and it was not his fault that the tricycle swerved in his
3. The statements in the communication are made in direction. X was charged with Reckless Imprudence
good faith and without malice. Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious Physical
Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in
Alejandros contention that he has the legal, moral or relation to Article 263 of the RPC with the
social duty to make the communication cannot be aggravating circumstance that accused failed to lend
countenanced because he failed to communicate the on the spot to the injured party such help that was in


his hands to give. Should the court appreciate the 2. ACCOMPLICES

alleged aggravating circumstance?
a. The owner of the place where the hazing is
No. The aggravating circumstance that accused failed to conducted, when he has actual knowledge of the
lend on the spot to the injured party such help that was in hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
his hands to give should not be appreciated. Verily, it is action to prevent the same from occurring; and
the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious b. The school authorities and faculty members who
indifference to the consequences of the conduct which consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge
supplies the criminal intent in Article 365. The limiting thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the
element in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC, same from occurring.
which imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon the
offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured What are the legal requirements before initiation
parties such help as may be in his hands to give., rites may be conducted?
according to case law, (a) is dependent on the means in
the hands of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of 1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a
assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the prior written notice to the school authorities or
incident, is capable of giving; and (b) requires adequate head of organization;
proof. X was able to supply the help according to the 2. The said written notice must be secured at least
extent of capabilities (Gonzaga v. People, G.R. No. 195671, seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation;
January 21, 2015). 3. That the written notice shall indicate:
a. The period of the initiation activities which shall
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS not exceed three (3) days;
b. The names of those to be subjected to such
activities; and
c. An undertaking that no physical violence be
employed by anybody during such initiation
What is hazing?
rites (Dungo v. People, supra).
Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
What are the punishable acts under the Anti-Hazing
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant
in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
1. Hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar
fraternity, sorority or organization without prior
tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical
written notice to the school authorities or head of
or psychological suffering or injury (Sec. 1, RA 8049).
organization 7 days before the conduct of such
initiation; and
What are the elements of hazing?
2. Infliction of any physical violence during initiation
1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a
What are the instances when the maximum penalty
fraternity, sorority or organization;
must be imposed for violation of the Anti-Hazing
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant
of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and
3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in
1. When the recruitment is accompanied by force,
some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the person
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other
of the recruit who refuses to join;
similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting
2. When the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially
him to physical or psychological suffering or injury
consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be
(Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015).
committed on his person, is prevented from quitting;
3. When the recruit, neophyte or applicant having
Who are the persons liable for violation of Anti-
undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the
Hazing Law?
unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the
proper school authorities, or to the police authorities,
through force, violence, threat or intimidation;
4. When the hazing is committed outside of the school
a. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority
or institution; or
or organization who actually participated in the
5. When the victim is below 12 years of age at the time
infliction of physical harm;
of the hazing (Sec. 4, RA 8049).
b. The parents of the officer or member of the
fraternity, sorority or organization, when they have
actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their ANTI-GRAFT AND
home but failed to take any action to prevent the CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
same from occurring;
c. The officers, former officers or alumni of the Cite an example of an act which constitute as graft
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who and corrupt practices and state the elements
actually planned the hazing although not present constituting the crime.
when the acts constituting hazing were committed;
and Sec. 3 (e) Causing any undue injury to any part including
d. Persons actually present during the initiation who the government, or giving any private party any
fail to prove that they acted to prevent the same. unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial


functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or
gross inexcusable negligence. satisfied before preventive suspension may be
ordered? (BAR 1999)
The elements are as follows:
The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied
1. The said offender is public officer who performs before a suspension may be ordered are: (1) there must
official, administrative or judicial functions be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at
2. That said official acted with manifest partiality, a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence suspended from office pursuant to R.A. 3019, as
3. The said official caused any undue injury to any amended; and (2) there must be a determination of a
party, including the government, or gave any private valid information against the accused that warrants his
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in suspension.
the discharge of his official functions.
An administrative case and a violation of R.A. 3019
How many crimes are mentioned in this example? was filed against a public officer. Insofar as the
violation of RA 3019 is concerned, the public officer
There are two (2) crimes mentioned. The SC said that the was placed under preventive suspension for 90 days.
law used the disjunctive word or, hence two crimes are And then thereafter, the Office of the Ombudsman
mentioned under Section 3(e) (1) Causing any undue placed him again under preventive suspension on
injury to any party (2) Giving any private party any account of the administrative case. The public officer
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. contended that since he has already been placed
under preventive suspension in the RA 3019 case, he
Atty. David Loste, President of the Eastern Samar can no longer be placed under preventive suspension
Chapter of the IBP sent a letter to the Office of the in the administrative case. Is the contention of the
Ombudsman, praying for an investigation into the public officer correct?
alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco Adalim, an
accused in a criminal case for murder, from the No. It is clear that criminal and administrative cases are
provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of distinct from each other. The settled rule is that criminal
then Governor Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. The NBI filed a and civil cases are altogether different from
Report recommending the filing of criminal charges administrative matters, such that the first two will not
against Governor Ambil, Jr. for violation of Section inevitably govern or affect the third and vice versa. Verily,
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt administrative cases may proceed independently of
Practices Act, as amended). It was alleged that the criminal proceedings. Criminal actions will not preclude
detention prisoner Mayor Adalim was released from administrative proceedings, and vice-versa, insofar as the
jail and allowed to stay at Ambils residence for a application of the law on preventive suspension is
period of 85 days, without any court order concerned (Villaseor v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180700,
authorizing such transfer. Thus, Ambil in the March 4, 2008).
performance of his official functions, had given
unwarranted benefits and advantages to detainee May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of
Mayor Francisco Adalim to the prejudice of the Republic Act No. 3019 [directly or indirectly
government. Ambil admitted the allegations in the requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
information. They argued, however, that Adalims percentage or benefit, for himself of for any other
transfer was justified considering the imminent person, in connection with any contract or
threats upon his person and the dangers posed by his transaction between the government and any other
detention at the provincial jail. This threat was that party, wherein the public officer in his official
of Akyatan's gesture of raising a closed fist at Adalim. capacity has to intervene under the law] also be
Can Ambil Jr. be held liable? simultaneously or successively charged with direct
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code?
Yes. Without a court order, Ambil and Apelado Explain. (BAR 2010)
transferred Adalim and detained him in a place other
than the provincial jail. The latter was housed in much Yes, a public officer charged under Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019
more comfortable quarters, provided better (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be
nourishment, was free to move about the house and charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of
watch television. Ambil readily extended these benefits direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code
to Adalim on the mere representation of his lawyers that because two crimes are essentially different and are
the mayor's life would be put in danger inside the penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Violation of
provincial jail (Ambil Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. Sec. (b) of RA 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime
175457, July 6, 2011). under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se. There is no
double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or
Who are public officers? (BAR 1999) successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the
Revised Penal Code (Merendillo v. People, G.R. Nos.
Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the 142369-70, April 13, 2007).
law, popular election or appointment by competent
authority, take part in the performance of public During the audit report conducted by the COA
functions in the Government of the Philippines, or Regional Office it was found out that the accused
perform in said Government or in any of its branches herein, Venancio Nava, succeeded in persuading
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate seven (7) school division superintendents to use the
official, of any rank or class. (Art. 203, RPC) allotment for the purchase of Science Laboratory
Tools and Devices (SLTD) for the calendar year 1990.
However, the said money was supposed to be used for


the improvement of the school facilities, and it is actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus, the medical
required that in buying school materials, it must Director caused the withholding of his salary for the
undergo an effective public bidding. Nava persuaded periods in question until he submitted his DTRs in
his school division superintendents to ignore the May 2000. Can Dr. Chow prosecute the medical
circular requiring public bidding as allegedly, time director for causing him undue injury in violation of
was of the essence in making the purchases and if not the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
done before the calendar year 1990, the funds
allotted will revert back to the general fund. A. Yes, since the medical Director acted with evident
Furthermore, COA found out that the contract that bad faith.
was entered into by Nava sellers exceeded the B. No, since the medical director has full discretion in
prevailing market price ranging from 56% to 1,175% releasing the salary of government doctors.
based on the mathematical computation done by the C. Yes, since his salary was withheld without prior
COA audit team. The loss of the government was said hearing.
to be in the amount of PHP 380,013.60. Nava was D. No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having
charged therefore with the violation of Section 3(g) of failed to submit the required DTRs.
R.A. No. 3019 for entering on behalf of the
government in any contract or transaction manifestly ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or CHILDREN ACT
not the pubic officer profited or will profit thereby. Is
the suit vested with merit?
What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman
Yes, the suit is with merit. In order to be liable for such, Syndrome"?
the following elements must be present: (i) the accused is
a public officer; (ii) the public officer entered into a The three (3) phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"
contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and are: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute
(iii) the contract or transaction was grossly and battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or non-
manifestly disadvantageous to the government. In this violent phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January
case, Nava is a public officer, who approved the 15, 2004).
transactions on behalf of the government, which thereby
suffered a substantial loss (Nava v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. BBB and AAA had a relationship when the latter was
No. 160211, August 28, 2006). still raising her first child borne CCC from a previous
relationship. During the relationship with BBB, AAA
The Mayor of an LGU, along with several local bore two more children namely, DDD and EEE. To
government officials through their official duties, legalize their relationship, BBB and AAA married in
purchased on various occasions, through personal civil rights and thereafter, the birth certificates of the
canvass, from ZARO Trading, a total of 142,612 pieces children, including CCCs, was amended to change
of "walis ting-ting at either P25 per piece or P15 per their civil status to be legitimated by virtue of the said
piece. The said purchases were made without the marriage. However, there were fights and arguments
required public bidding, and were overpriced. Can which caused them to have strained relationship that
the local government officials be held liable for lead them to the filing of a case under the VAWC.
entering a contract which is disadvantageous to the Pending the Courts deliberation of the instant case,
government on account of failure to conduct public BBB filed a Manifestation and Motion to Render
bidding, and alleged overpricing based on the Judgment Based on a Memorandum of Agreement
unsigned quotation from a walis ting-ting supplier (MOA). BBB alleges that on July 29, 2013, he and AAA
alone? had entered into a compromise anent the custody,
exercise of parental authority over, and support of
No. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject DDD and EEE. Is the case a proper subject of a
contracts would be grossly and manifestly compromise agreement?
disadvantageous to the government if characterized by
an overpriced procurement. However, the gross and No. The instant petition is not a proper subject of a
manifest disadvantage to the government was not compromise agreement. The law explicitly prohibits
sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence
was erroneous since it was not also adequately proven. In against women. Thus, in Garcia v. Drilon, the Court
finding that the walis ting-ting purchase contracts were declared that: Violence, however, is not a subject for
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the compromise. xxx A process which involves parties
government, the Sandiganbayan relied on the COA's mediating the issue of violence implies that the victim is
finding of overpricing which was, in turn, based on the somehow at (BBB,* v. AAA*, G.R. No. 193225,
special audit team's report. Notably, however, the February 9, 2015).
evidence of the prosecution did not include a signed price
quotation from the walis ting-ting suppliers of Paraaque Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married.
City. Effectively, the prosecution was unable to Barely six years into the marriage, Go-Tan filed a
demonstrate the requisite burden of proof, in order to Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of Protective Order (TPO) against Tan and her parents-
petitioners (Caunan v. People, G.R. No. 182001-04, in-law before the RTC. She alleged that Tan, in
September 2, 2009). conspiracy with her parents-in-law, were causing
verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her.
Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his Can the parents-in-law be considered as conspirators
Daily Time Record (DTR) from January to March and be included in the petition for issuance of a TPO?
2000 and did not get approval of his sick leave
application for April because of evidence that he was Yes. While Section 3 of R.A. 9262 provides that the
offender must be related or connected to the victim by


marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating the latter threw stones at her daughters, calling them
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the as Kimi and for burning one of his daughters hair.
principle of conspiracy under the RPC (Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R. Did Bongalon acts amounted to child abuse under
No. 168852, September 30, 2008). R.A. 7610?

Del Socorro and Van Wilsem got married in 1990 in No. When Bongalon struck and slapped Jayson, he did not
Holland. They were blessed with a son. However, in do so with the intention to debase the childs intrinsic
1995, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a worth and dignity or to humiliate or embarrass him.
Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Rather, Bongalon did so at the spur of the moment and in
Holland. Van Wilsem made a promise to provide anger which only indicated his being overwhelmed by his
monthly support for their son. Del Socorro and their fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor
son went back to the Philippines. Since the arrival of daughter. Not every instance of laying of hands on a child
Del Socorro and their son to the Philippines, Van constitutes the crime of child abuse under Republic Act
Wilsem never gave support to their son. No. 7610. The Court explained that a person can only be
Consequently, Van Wilsem came to the Philippines punished for child abuse when theres an intention to
and remarried. All of the parties are presently living debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and
in Cebu City. Thereafter, Del Socorro sent a letter dignity of the child as a human being (People v. Bongalon,
demanding support to Van Wilsem. Is Van Wilsem G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013).
liable under R.A. 9262?
NOTE: The elements of the offense of child abuse are:
Yes, Van Wilsem may be made liable under Section 5(e)
and (i) of R.A. No. 9262. The deprivation or denial of (a) minority of the victim;
financial support to the child is considered an act of (b) acts complained of are prejudicial to the development
violence against women and children (Del Socorro v. Van of the child-victim; and
Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014). c) the said acts are covered by the pertinent provisions of
R.A. No. 7610 and P.D. No. 603 (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No.
NOTE: In Republic v. Yahon (G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 179090, June 5, 2009).
2014), the trial court directed Armed Forces Of The
Philippines Finance Center to automatically deduct a JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
percentage from the retirement benefits of S/Sgt. Charles
Yahon, and to give the same directly to his wife Daisy
What are Status Offenses?
Yahon as spousal support in accordance of the permanent
protection order issued for his violation of the Anti-
Status offenses refer to offenses which discriminate only
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty
Despite the provision of exemption of funds provided in
for committing similar acts. These shall include curfew
P.D. No. 1638, the Court held that Sec. 8(g) of R.A. 9262,
violations; truancy, parental disobedience and the like
being a later enactment, should be construed as laying
(Sec. 4[r], RA 9344).
down an exception to the general rule that retirement
benefits are exempt from execution.
Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for
violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of
SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court
sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1, imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of
000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute, and prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years
brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied for
that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly probation but his application was denied because the
was brought to the hospital and died a few days later probation law does not apply to drug offenders under
because of shock caused by hemorrhage. If Sherly R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the suspension of his
were a minor when she died, what is/are the liability sentence under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
of Jet Matulis? (BAR 2005) Youth Welfare Code. Can Michael avail of the
suspension of his sentence provided under this law?
The crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of (BAR 2013)
R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse,
exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply
committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until as
12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the provided for by the law, the offender reaches the
crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual maximum age and thus, could no longer be considered a
assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under child for purposes of applying R.A. 9344. However, he
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. shall be entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation
and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him
Bongalon was charged for the crime of child abuse the chance to live a normal life and become a productive
under Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. 7610. Bongalon allegedly member of the community. Accordingly, Michael may be
physically abused and/or maltreated Jayson (12 confined in an agricultural camp and other training
years old) with his palm hitting the latter at his back facility in accordance with Section 51 of R.A. 9344 (People
and by slapping said minor hitting his left cheek and v. Sarcia, GR No. 169641, September 10, 2009).
uttering derogatory remarks to the latters family. On
his part, Bongalon denied having physically abused Can the provisions of R.A. 9344 be given retroactive
or maltreated Jayson but only confronted him when application?


Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking

Yes. Under Sec 68 of R.A. 9344, persons who are already for commercial models for a TV advertisement.
convicted or are serving sentence but who were minors Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project.
at the time of the commission of the crime, shall be given Loko offered her a contract, which Ganda signed. She
retroactive application of the law. was asked to report to an address which turned out
to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its
Does Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344 providing for a suspended most featured attractions. What is Lokos liability, if
sentence apply even to child in conflict with the law any? What effect would Gandas minority have on
who has committed a heinous crime? Lokos liability? (BAR 2014)

Yes, according to the SC, such provision of R.A. 9344 does Loko is liable of the crime of Trafficking in Persons under
not distinguish as to the nature of the crime committed R.A.9208. He recruited, offered and hired Ganda by
by the offender, therefore, taking into consideration the means of fraud or deception for the purpose of
rule in Statutory Construction, that when the law does exploitation or prostitution. By means of deceit, i.e., in the
not distinguish, neither should the court distinguish guise of making her a commercial model, Loko recruited
(People v. Sarcia G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009). Ganda for the purpose of prostitution.

NOTE: The ruling in People v. Sarcia was reiterated Gandas minority is a qualifying circumstance. Under
inPeople v. Mantalaba where the SC held that while Section 6, R.A.9208, when the trafficked person is a child,
Section 38 of R.A. 9344 provides that suspension of the crime committed is Qualified Trafficking in Persons,
sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict penalized by life imprisonment.
with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more
at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section ANTI-FENCING LAW
40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence
until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. In finding True or False. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D.
the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant for 1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to prove
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the RTC imposed the that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles
penalty of reclusion perpetua as mandated in Section 98 found in his possession had been the subject of
of the same law. A violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 robbery. (BAR 2000)
merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death;
however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where the False. Fencing is committed if the accused should have
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life known that the goods or articles had been the subject of
imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be theft or robbery. Mere possession of the stolen goods
reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means that the gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.
penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the
technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used
Revised Penal Code (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227 garments, more popularly known as"ukay-
July 20, 2011). ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid
of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 Feraud blazers. Arlene was charged with "fencing."
Will the charge prosper? Why or why not? (BAR
A bus full of children from the province went to 2010)
Manila to have an excursion. Before the children
were able to alight from the bus, here comes X in full No, a charge of fencing will not prosper. Fencing is
battle gear, with all kinds of guns and ammunitions committed when a person, with intent to gain for himself
and at gunpoint, he told the conductor to open the or for another, deals in any manner with an article of
bus. X hostaged the children. Thereafter, X posted value which he knows or should be known to him to have
cartolinas on the glass windows of the bus. These been derived from proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec.2, PD
cartolinas contained his demands to the government. 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must
Later after 12 hours of negotiation, X gave in and so X first be established that a theft or robbery of the article
was arrested and was charged based on a valid subject of the alleged fencing has been committed- a
complaint with violation of R.A. 9372. He was fact which is a wanting in this case.
however acquitted. Can the State still prosecute X for
the crime of serious illegal detention and for It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy
violation of R.A. 10591 for having in his possession and sell of used garments, which are in the nature of
various unlicensed firearms? personal property. In civil law, possession of personal or
movable property carries with it a prima facie
No. Because under Sec 49 of R.A.9372, it is provided that presumption of ownership. The presumption of fencing
when a person has been prosecuted under a provision of arises only when the article or item involved is the
R.A.9372, upon a valid complaint or information or other subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD 1612).
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain
a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense Who are the persons liable under B.P. 22?
or felony which is necessarily included in the offense
charged under R.A.9372. 1. Any person who makes or draws and issues any
check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment, which check


is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for

insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, new tire for his car, may only be prosecuted for estafa if
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the
payment; or check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank;
otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee B, who accommodated A with his check, may
bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, nevertheless be prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having
shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that he
credit to cover the full amount of the check if has no funds in the bank and that A will negotiate it to buy
presented within a period of 90 days from the date a new tire, i.e. for value. B may not be prosecuted for
appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by
by the drawee bank. intent to defraud in issuing the check negotiated.
Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to help A.
Where should a case for a violation of B.P. 22 be filed? Criminal intent or dolo is absent.

It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are Campos obtained a loan from FWCC. In return, she
categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, issued post-dated checks to FWCC as security for the
meaning that some acts material and essential thereto loan. Fourteen of these checks were dishonored
and requisite in their consummation occur in one when presented to the bank. FWCC filed cases for
municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In violation of B.P. 22. After her arraignment, she did
such cases, the court wherein any of the crime's essential not attend any of her hearings hence, she was tried in
and material acts have been committed maintains absentia. She was held guilty for violation of B.P.22.
jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the She claims she did not receive any notice of dishonor.
first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the Further, she made subsequent arrangements for
other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or payments of the obligation to FWCC, which is
transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality tantamount to good faith. Is Campos liable for B.P.22?
or territory where the offense was in part committed.
Yes, Campos is liable for B.P.22. Sec. 2 of B.P.22 creates a
B.P. 22 VIS--VIS ESTAFA presumption of insufficiency of funds. When she made
B.P. 22 ESTAFA subsequent arrangements for payments of the obligation
Malum prohibitum. Malum in se. to FWCC, this statement was a confirmation that she
Crime against public Crime against actually received the required notice of dishonor from
interest. property. FWCC (Campos v. People & FWCC, G.R. No 187401,
Deceit is not required. Deceit is an element. September 17, 2014).
Punishes the making or The act constituting
drawing of any check the offense is Castor used the checks given to him by Lim as
that is subsequently postdating or issuing payment for the delivery of printing materials, but
dishonored, whether a check in payment of later asked Lim to stop payment as the printing
issued in payment of an an obligation when materials were delivered too late. Later, Badiee sent
obligation or to merely the offender has no two demand letters to Lim and subsequently filed a
guarantee an obligation. funds in the bank or complaint against Lim before the Office of the
his funds deposited Prosecutor for violation of B.P.22. After one month
It is the issuance of a therein were not from receipt of the demand letters and after
check, not the non- sufficient to cover the receiving the subpoena, Lim issued a replacement
payment of obligation amount of the check. check, and Badiee was able to encash the said
which is punished. replacement check. Six months after the payment of
Violated if check is issued Not violated if check the bounced checks, two Informations were filed
in payment of a pre- is issued in payment against Lim for violation of B.P.22. Is he liable for
existing obligation. of a pre-existing violation of B.P.22?
Damage is not required. Damage is required. No, the fact that the issuer of the check had already paid
the value of the dishonored check after having received
Drawer is given 5 Drawer is given 3 the subpoena, should have forestalled the filing of the
banking days to make days to make Information in court (Lim v. People, G.R. No. 190834,
arrangements of arrangements for November 26, 2014).
payment after receipt of payment after receipt
notice of dishonor. of notice of dishonor. NOTE: The Supreme Court issued SC Administrative
Circular No. 13-2001 which clarified the application of
A and B agreed to meet at the latters house to discuss Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 concerning the
Bs financial problems. On his way, one of As car tires penalty for violation of B.P. 22.
blew up. Before A left the meeting, he asked B to lend
him money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily In Saguitguit v. People (G.R. No. 144054, June 30, 2006), the
exhausted his bank deposits leaving a zero balance. Supreme Court explained:
Anticipating, however a replenishment of his account
soon, B issued a postdated check with which A The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-
negotiated for the new tire. When presented, the 2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty,
check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the
filed a criminal case against A and B. What would be penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.
the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two
accused? Explain. (BAR 2003)


The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful
possibility of imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither taking and asportation of the entire van and its
does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law. contents. If you were the public prosecutor, would
you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of
preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg.
van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532,
22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-
the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer.
without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should (BAR 2012)
be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say,
the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the No. If I were the public prosecutor, I would charge the ten
imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the men of violation of R.A. 6539, The Anti-CarnappingAct. All
Judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate the elements of carnapping are present. (1) there was
penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be
actual taking of a motor vehicle, the postal van; (2) the
deemed a hindrance.
postal van belonged to another; (3) the taking was done
It is, therefore, understood that: with intent to gain; and (4) the taking was done without
the consent of the owner and with force, violence and
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove intimidation against the 3 van employees who were
imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. occupants thereof.
It is not highway robbery under P.D. 532 because there
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound was no showing that the 10 men were a band of robbers
discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar
organized for the purpose of committing robbery
circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition
of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or
indiscriminately. What was shown is one isolated
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate hijacking of a postal van, hence, carnapping.
the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order,
or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice; If you were the defense counsel, what are the
elements of the crime of highway robbery that the
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction?
pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the
Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment. The elements of highway robbery under P.D. 532 are:

ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT, AS AMENDED 1. That there is unlawful taking of property of another;

2. That said taking is with intent to gain;
A is the driver of Bs Mercedes Benz car. When B was 3. That said taking is done with violence against or
on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C intimidation of persons or force upon things or other
whome he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an unlawful means; and
accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the 4. That it was committed on any Philippine highway.
unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified
theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with NOTE: To sustain a conviction for highway robbery, the
intent to gain as he derived some benefit or prosecution must prove that the accused were organized
satisfaction from its use. On the other hand, A argued for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately.
that he has no intent of making himself the owner of If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is
the car as he in fact returned it to the garage after the only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four
joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were armed men (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, February
committed? (BAR 2016) 23, 1996; Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543,
October 16, 1996).
The crime committed by A is carnapping. The unlawful
taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the Anti- ARSON UNDER THE RPC
Carnapping Law, and not by the provisions on qualified IN RELATION TO ANTI-ARSON LAW
theft or robbery. The concept of carnapping is the same
as that of robbery and theft. The laws on arson in force today are P.D. 1613 and Article
320 as amended of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently,
In this case, A took the car without the consent of B with simple arson is governed by P.D. 1613 while destructive
intent to temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the arson is governed by the Revised Penal Code.
taking was temporary or for a joy ride, the Supreme
Court in People v. Bustinera sustains as the better view The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from
that which holds that when a person, either with the Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness
object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, of the criminal offender.
or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle
belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he Macabando was found on the road holding a lead pipe
is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the and breaking bottles. That same night, a fire broke
personal property belonging to another and using it, his out in Macabandos house. Those living nearby tried
intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, to call for help and stop the fire but were prevented
satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure. by the owner of the house who stood outside his
house and fired several gun shots in the air. He also
A postal van containing mail matters, including threatened to kill anyone who would try to put out
checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a the fire. In the process, other residential homes were
national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom also destroyed. The Bureau of Fire Protection
were armed. They used force, violence and conducted an investigation and the results revealed
intimidation against three (3) postal employees who that the fire was intentionally started in the


Macabandos home. The Regional Trial Court found

Macabando guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
destructive arson, punishable under Article 320 of
the RPC. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment in toto.
Macabando contends that the crime committed is
only simple arson. Is he correct?

Yes, Macabando is correct. Simple arson contemplates

the malicious burning of public and private structures,
regardless of size not punished under destructive arson.
In this case, he burned his own house and other
residential homes.

There are two elements required for simple arson: first,

there is intentional burning; and second, what is
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. The Court held that both elements were
sufficiently proven in court. All property destroyed in the
fire were his own house and several other inhabited
homes. Based on the facts, the burning was clearly
intentional (People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31,

Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in

Barangay Damayan. On one occasion, Diego called
Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask
him why he got his (Diegos) plow without
permission. One word led to another. Diego, in a fit of
anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to
death. Pablos 9-year old son, Mario, who was inside
the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he
might also be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself
with a blanket and hid in a corner of the house. To
conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablos
body inside the house and burned it. Mario was also
burned to death. What crime or crimes did Diego
commit? (BAR 1989)

Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death

of Pablo and (2) the special complex crime of arson with
homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the
house and the death of Mario.

The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not

being attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel.

The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is

a separate crime. Were it not for the death of Mario, this
separate offense would have been arson. But inside the
house unknown to Diego, was Mario, the resulting crime
is under PD No. 1613, because the death resulted from
the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson,
death results, the offense is the special complex crime of
arson with homicide (Sec. 5, P.D. 1613, which expressly
repealed Art. 320 and, People v. Paterno, L-2665, March 6,

If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house when he

set it on fire, the crime committed, instead of arson,
would be murder, with the use of fire as the qualifying