USEC ESGUERRA TIPS

1. Chain of custody rule: People v. Lim

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements RA No. 9165, defines chain
of custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction” (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011).

NOTE: Ideally, the custodial chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of
the illegal drug, from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence (Castro v. People, G.R.
No. 193379, August 15, 2011).

Links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation

In People v. Kamad, the Court acknowledged that the following links must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation:
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the inv estigating officer;
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court
(People v. Marcelino, G.R. No. 189325, June 15, 2011).

Persons who must be present during physical inventory and photography of the seized items
(Reiterated in People v. Lim Ching)

The seized items must be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her:
1. Representative or counsel;
2. A representative from the media;
3. The Department of Justice (DOJ); and
4. Any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof (Tibagong v. People, G.R. No. 182178, August 15, 2011).

The seized items must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours
from confiscation for examination. (Reiterated in People v. Lim Ching)

2. People v. Estipona Framework in plea bargaining in drug cases/ Section 98, RA 9165

The high court upheld its decision that declared Section 23 of R.A. 9165 as unconstitutional.

The Court’s decision of 15 August 2017 struck Section 23 of RA 9165 (which had prohibited plea
bargaining in all proceedings involving the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law) as
unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Court.
The high court ruled in favor of Salvador Estipona Jr., who argued in his petition that “those
accused of other heinous crimes such as murder, some acts of rape, and other crimes where the
maximum imposable penalty is either life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, or death, are allowed
into plea bargaining under Section 1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.”

Estipona, who is charged with possession of 0.084 grams of crystal meth (shabu), has filed motions for
plea bargain but was junked twice by Lobrigo, citing the now-unconstitutional provision. Under the law,
plea bargaining means an accused will plead guilty to a lesser offense with the consent of the prosecutor.

The SC upheld its earlier decision that Section 23 of RA 9165 was contrary to Article 8, Section 5 (5) of
the 1987 Constitution giving the high court the authority to allow plea bargaining.

3. Plunder, elements Erap case plus GMA v. Sandiganbayan

Plunder

It is a crime committed by a public officer by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives
by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, by amassing,
accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt acts in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least P50 million (Sec. 2, RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659). (BAR 2014)

There must be at least 2 predicate crimes committed before one can be convicted of plunder.

Elements of Plunder
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates, or other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill gotten wealth through a combination or series of
the following overt or criminal acts:

A. through misappropriation, conversion misuse, or malversation of public funds or aids on the public
treasury;
B. by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form
of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project
or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
C. by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government
or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of government-owned or -controlledcorporations
or their subsidiaries;
D. by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form
of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
E. by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests;
F. by taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
people and the Republic of the Philippines and

3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is
at least P50,000,000.00 (Enrile v.People, G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 148560, November 2, 2001]

Q: Is the crime of plunder mala prohibita or mala in se?

A: The legislative declaration in RA No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum
in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it
does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the
predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as
though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an
ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People [G.R. No. 220953, April 18, 2017]

Q: Whether or not Arroyo, Aguas and their Co-accused, if elements of plunder are not proven, be
prosecuted for the crime of malversation.

A: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the lesser offense of malversation can be included in
plunder when the amount amassed reaches at least P50,000,000.00. The predicate acts of bribery and
malversation do not need to be charged under separate informations when a person has already been
charged with plunder. In Atty. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, the accused assailed the information for
charging more than one offense: bribery, malversation of public funds or property, and violations of Sec.
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713. This Court observed that “the
acts alleged in the information are not separate or independent offenses, but are predicate acts of the
crime of plunder.”

4. Complex crimes + doctrine of absorption

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: "When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other,
the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period."

In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one
crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only
onepenalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime

The “one penalty for one criminal mind” rule is also based on the “absorption system”, which is
one of the three systems of penalty, under which lesser penalties are absorbed by the greater
penalties.

One of the rules that require imposition of single penalty for multiple crimes is the doctrine of
absorption, under which one crime absorbs another if the latter is inherent in, an element of, or a
necessary consequence of the commission of the former. A crime is considered inherent where
its commission is an indispensable means to commit another.

In cases of rebellion, other crimes committed in the course of crime are deemed absorbed in
the crime of rebellion either as a means necessary for its commission or as an unintended
effect of
rebellion

They cannot be charged as separate offenses in themselves

Exception: when the common crimes are committed without any political motivation. In such
case, they will not be absorbed by rebellion.

5. Amnesty plus absolute pardon

Amnesty is a public act granted by the President and should have Congress' concurrence.

Amnesty may be "granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political
offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after
conviction."

Amnesty "looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself" as if no crime
has been committed.

Absolute Pardon refers to the total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it is
granted without any condition. It restores to the individual his civil and political rights and remits
the penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted.

6. Murder, Art. 248 + death under exceptional circumstances

Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or

assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an

earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall
inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their
daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their
parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall
otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits
of this article.

7. Libel + cyber libel

A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead (Art. 353,
RPC).

(Art. 354, RPC) Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
except in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of

any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Cyberlibel is any inaccurately or injuriously written defamation triggered via electronic means,
including the Internet, social media, email and websites. Cyberlibel creates instant and irrevokable
reputation damage.

Cyberlibel is defamatory, shared with at least one third party and plainly identifies victim(s).

Cyberlibel is a term used to describe defamation that takes place in cyberspace, meaning through
the Internet. This includes false and damaging statements made about another person through e-
mail, message boards, blogs, chatrooms, on Web sites, or any other Internet-based
communication medium.
8. Privilege mitigating + special mitigating

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not
entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. They will not
change the nature of the crime. They are based on either the diminution of freedom of action,
intelligence or intent, or on the offender's lesser perversity.
Privileged mitigating circumstances are found in other parts of the Revised Penal Code and RA
9344. Privileged mitigating circumstances are applicable only to particular crimes.

Basis: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, orintent, or on the lesser perversity of
the offender

Classes of Mitigating Circumstance

1. Ordinary Mitigating - those enumerated in Article 13 of RPC (3-10)
2. Privileged mitigating

a. Art. 68 Penalty to be imposed upon a person under ßeighteen years of age

Person over 15 but under 18 years of age who acted with discernment (penalty shall be
decreased by one period -amended by R.A. 9344)

b. Art. 69 Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable
Lack of the conditions required in justifying and exempting circumstances (penalty
lower by one or two degrees than what is provided by law)

c. Art. 64 Rules on the application of penalties which contain three periods

Two mitigating circumstances are present and no aggravating circumstances (penalty
next lower to what is prescribed by law)

Specific Privileged Mitigating Circumstance

- Slight Illegal Detention: Voluntary release of a person detained within 3 days before
the institution of a criminal actions (Art. 268 (3))
- Abandonment in Adultery (Art. 333 (3)
- Intent to Conceal the Dishonor in Infanticide (Art. 255)

Art. 64 – Special Mitigating Circumstance

(presence of two mitigating circumstances without the presence of aggravating circumstance –
effect: reduces the penalty to one degree lower)

Distinction:

Ordinary Mitigating - CAN be offset by any aggravating circumstance- produces the effect of
lowering the penalty to its minimum(when not offset by aggravating circumstance)

Privileged Mitigating - CANNOT be offset by any aggravating circumstance- produces the effect of
lowering the penalty by one or twodegrees

9. Characteristics of Criminal Law - malum in se v. malum prohibitum

10. indeterminate sentence law + reclusion perpetua / life imprisonment

Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103, as amended)

The Indeterminate Sentence is composed of:
1. A MAXIMUM taken from the penalty imposable under the penal code (considering attendant
circumstances)
2. A MINIMUM taken from the penalty next lower to that fixed in the code.

It is indeterminate in the sense that after serving the minimum, the convict may be released on parole, or
if he is not fitted for release, he shall continue serving his sentence until the end of the maximum.
Purpose of the law: To uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness.

It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an individual, and second as a member of the society.
The law is intended to favor the defendant, particularly to shorten his term of imprisonment, depending
upon his behavior and his physical, mental and moral record as a prisoner, to be determined by the Board
of Indeterminate Sentence.

The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit of the law even in crimes punishable with death or
life imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after considering theattending circumstances, is
reclusion temporal or less.

ISL: Application on the imposed sentence

If the crime is punishable by a special law

If the crime is a violation of a special law, ISL merely requires that the maximum term thereof shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by the special law while the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
prescribed therein.
However, where the penalty in the special law adopts the technical nomenclature and signification of the
penalties under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), such as “prision mayor”, “prision correccional maximum”,
etc., the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rule intended for those crimes
punishable under the RPC.*

If the crime is punishable by the Revised Penal Code

1. The maximum is determined in accordance with the rules and provisions of the RPC exactly as if the
ISL had never been enacted.

Factors to be considered:
a. Penalty imposed for the crime
b. Extent of participation of the accused (principal, accomplice, accessory)
c. Stage of execution (consummated, frustrated, attempted)
d. Attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances
e. Entitlement of accused to a privileged mitigating circumstance
2. The minimum depends upon the court’s discretion with the limitation that it must be within the range of
the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the offense committed.

ISL: Coverage
The law does not apply to certain offenders:
1. Those convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
4. Those convicted of piracy
5. Those who are habitual delinquents (but applies to recidivists)
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded service of sentence
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law, had been sentenced by final judgment
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension

On No. 6: A minor who escaped from confinement in the reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the ISL
because his confinement is not considered imprisonment.
11. Robbery with homicide / attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide

Robbery with homicide (BAR 2009, 2014)

If death results or even accompanies a robbery, the crime will be robbery with homicide provided that the
robbery and the homicide are consummated. The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex
crime or a single indivisible crime. The killings must have been perpetrated by reason or on the occasion
of robbery. As long as the homicide resulted, during, or because of the robbery, even if the killing is by
mere accident, robbery with homicide is committed (People v. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4,
2004).

NOTE: Even if the killing preceded or was done ahead of the robbing, whether intentional or not, the
crime is robbery with homicide. If aside from homicide, rape or physical injuries are also committed by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the rape or physical injuries are considered aggravating
circumstances in the crime of robbery with homicide. Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence
of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the crime will
also be guilty as principals in the crime of robbery with homicide.

Elements
1. The taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking was done with animo lucrandi; and
4. On the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed (People v. Baccay, 284
SCRA 296; People v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, July 20, 1999).

Robbery (BAR 1998)

It is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against
or intimidation of any person or using force upon anything.
NOTE: For the appellant to be guilty of consummated robbery, there must be incontrovertible proof that
property was taken from the victim. The appellant is guilty of attempted robbery only when he
commences the commission of robbery directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution which would produce robbery by reason of some causes or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Classification of robbery
1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons (Arts. 294, 297, and 298)
2. Robbery by the use of force upon things (Arts. 299 and 302).

Elements of robbery in general

1. There is personal property belonging to another; (BAR 1992, 1996)
2. There is unlawful taking of that property;
3. Taking must be with intent to gain; and
4. There is violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. (BAR 1992, 2002, 2005)
NOTE: Robberies committed in different houses constitute separate crimes of robbery. But if the
robberies are committed upon different victims on the same occasion and in the same place only one
robbery is committed as the robberies are mere incidents of a single criminal intent.

12. Rape + qualified rape; instrument rape Commented [1]: I think Rape by Instrument is under
Rape by Sexual Assault. Kindly check.
Kinds of rape under RA 8353

1. The traditional concept under Art. 335 – carnal knowledge with a woman against her will. The offended
party is always a woman and the offender is always a man.
2. Sexual assault – committed with an instrument or an object or use of the penis with penetration of the
mouth or anal orifice. The offended party or offender can either be a man or a woman,
that is, if the woman or a man uses an instrument in the anal orifice of a male, she or he can be liable for
rape.
A violation of the body orifices by the fingers is within the expanded definition of rape under RA 8353.
Insertion of the finger into the female genital is rape through sexual assault (People v. Campuhan , G.R.
No. 129433, March 30, 2000).

However, there should be evidence of at least the slightest penetration of the sexual organ and not
merely a brush or graze of its surface (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008).

Rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. The perpetrator,
under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, commits this kind of rape by
inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person. It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape".

Elements of rape by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman

1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the woman

Elements of rape by sexual assault (BAR 2005)

1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;

2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation, or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abused of authority, or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

Rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included in rape through sexual intercourse (People v. Bon,
G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006) unlike acts of lasciviousness.

When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence on the offended party, it is not necessary that
the latter put up a determined resistance.

Instances to consider the crime as qualified rape

1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed. (BAR 1998, 2009)
2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of
the victim.
NOTE: A step-brother or step-sister relationship between the offender and the offended party cannot
elevate the crime to qualified rape because they are not related either by blood or affinity. The
enumeration is exclusive. Hence, the common law husband of the victim’s grandmother is not included.

3. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or
penal institution.
4. When rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
the third civil degree of consanguinity.
5. When the victim is engaged in a legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally
known to be such by the offender before or after the commission of the crime.
6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old.
7. When the offender knows that he is inflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other sexually transmissible disease
and the virus or disease is transferred to the victim.
8. When committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary units thereof or the PNP or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
9. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability.
10. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the
rape.
11. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime (Art. 266-B).

NOTE: The foregoing circumstances are in the nature of qualifying aggravating circumstances which must
be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information.

13. RA 7610, Sec. 5, People v. Caoile

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or
other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under
twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape
and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as
the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the
establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment.

PEOPLE VS CAOILE

FACTS:
The evidence for the prosecution provides that victim AAA was raped on three instances by Moises
Caoile. The first one was when the accused invited [AAA] to go to the bamboo trees in their place. Upon
reaching thereat, the accused directed [AAA] to lie down on the ground. [AAA] followed the instruction of
the accused whom she called uncle Moises. The second one happened Four (4) days thereafter while
[AAA] was at the pumping well near their house and the accused invited her to gather guavas at the
mountain. The third one happened when the accused invited [AAA] to gather santol fruits. [AAA] went
with the accused, and once again the accused had carnal knowledge of her. On the other hand, the
evidence for the defense provides that [AAA] was a frequent visitor in the accused‘s house and during his
so called alone moments that the accused courted [AAA].

Soon thereafter, accused and [AAA] found themselves falling in love with one other. The accused did not
know that [AAA] was a demented person since she acted like a normal individual. In fact, she went to a
regular school and she finished her elementary education. The incident was reported to the Rosario
police station when [CCC], [AAA]‘s aunt, heard [AAA] blurt out that she was abused by the accused. After
executing the respective affidavits, [AAA] was examined and it was found out that [AAA]‘s genitalia
suffered a multiple hymenal laceration which, at the time of the examination, was already healed. Claire
Baliaga, a psychologist of the Philippine Mental Health Association testified that she conducted a
psychological evaluation on [AAA] and discovered [AAA] had mental age of a seven - year, nine-month
old child.

Accused-appellant Moises Caoile (Caoile), in two separate Amended Informations filed before the RTC
on January 5, 2006, was charged with two separate counts of Rape of a Demented Person under Article
266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. Caoile pleaded not guilty to both charges upon his
arraignment and joint trial on the merits ensued. The defense moved that it be allowed to have [AAA] be
evaluated by a psychiatrist of its own choice who concluded that [AAA] is suffering from Mild Mental
Retardation.
RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding Caoile guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
Caoile elevated the RTC ruling to the Court of Appeals, claiming that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt by attacking the credibility of AAA and the methods used to determine her mental
state.The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC decision

ISSUE: W/N the mistake in the Amended Informations will exonerate Caoile vis-à-vis the crime Caoile
was actually convicted of considering that AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate,
can be properly classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is "demented."

RULING: Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides for two
circumstances when having carnal knowledge of a woman with a mental disability is considered
rape:
 1. Paragraph 1(b): when the offended party is deprived of reason x x x; and
2. Paragraph 1(d): when the offended party is x x x demented

Caoile was charged in the Amended Informations with rape of a demented person under paragraph
1(d). The term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated
mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual‘s former intellectual level and often by
emotional apathy, madness, or insanity.

On the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under paragraph 1(b) has been interpreted to
include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. The mistake in the will
not exonerate Caoile even though AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be
properly classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is "demented." In the
first place, he did not even raise this as an objection. More importantly, none of his rights,
particularly that of to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, was violated.
Although the Amended Informations stated that he was being charged with the crime of rape of a
demented person under paragraph 1(d), it also stated that his victim was "a person with a mental age of
seven (7) years old." Elucidating on the foregoing, this Court, in People v. Valdez, held:

For a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of
the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the
name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the
designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being
mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the
particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to
be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be
sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of
the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included
therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified
crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of
the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

14. Qualified/Aggravated Carnapping

NOTE: The old Anti-Carnapping law, RA 6539 as amended by RA 7659, has been superseded by RA
10883 otherwise known as the New Anti Carnapping Act of 2016.

Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things (Sec. 3, RA 10883).

Punishable Acts
1. Carnapping
2. Concealment of Carnapping
3. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis
(Sec 14, RA 10883)
4. Identity Transfer (Sec 15, RA 10883)
5. Transfer of Vehicle Plate (Sec 16, RA 10883)
6. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts (Sec 17, RA 10883)

Elements of Carnapping

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means
of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and
4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle (People v Gawan, G.R. No. 187044,
September 14, 2011).

When is Carnapping Qualified/Aggravating

In People v. Lobitania [G.R. No. 142380, September 5, 2002], the carnapping is qualified when in the
course of the commission or on occasion of the carnapping, the owner, driver or occupant of the
carnapped vehicle is killed or raped. When the carnapping is qualified, the penalty imposable is reclusion
perpetua to death.

In People v. Macaranas y Fernandez [G.R. No. 226846, June 21, 2017], The killing or the rape merely
qualifies the crime of carnapping x x x and no distinction must be made between homicide and murder.
Whether it is one or the other which is committed "in the course of carnapping or on the occasion thereof"
makes no difference insofar as the penalty is concerned.

16. Use of loose firearms

USE OF LOOSE FIREARMS UNDER RA 10591 AND USE OF EXPLOSIVES UNDER RA 8294 AS
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

NOTE: PD 1866 (as amended by RA 8294) has been superseded by the new Firearms law (RA 10591).

Loose firearm

Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been
lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of an individual other
than the licensee and those with revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations (par. (v),
Sec. 3, RA 10591).

Use of unlicensed firearm under the old Firearms law (RA 8294)

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If an unlicensed firearm is used to commit a crime
other than homicide or murder, such as direct assault with attempted homicide, the use of unlicensed
firearm is neither an aggravating nor a separate offense (People v. Walpan Ladjaamlam, G.R. No.
136149-51, September 19, 2000).

Use of loose firearm considered absorbed as an element of the crime committed

If the use of loose firearm is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, or attempted coup d’etat, such shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes mentioned
(par. 2, Sec. 29, RA 10591).

Q: If an unlicensed firearm was used to kill a person, can he be held guilty for a separate offense of illegal
possession of firearms aside from murder or homicide?

A: NO. Where murder or homicide results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is no longer
qualified illegal possession, but murder or homicide, as the case may be. In such a case, the use of the
unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. In view of the amendments introduced by RA 8294 to PD 1866, separate prosecutions for
homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearms is merely to
be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide case (People v. Avecilla, G.R. No. 117033,
February 15, 2001).

NOTE: Same ruling will be applicable in the new Firearms law.

In Section 29 of RA 10591, the use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime
punishable under the RPC or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Otherwise, the use or possession of loose firearms and violation of other penal law shall be treated as
distinct crimes and will thus be punished separately.

18. Four Forms of Criminal Repetition

19. Civil liability/exemplary damages

Civil Liability
WHAT CONSTITUTES CIVIL LIABILITY?

> According to Article 104 of the RPC, civil liability includes restitution, reparation, and
indemnification for consequential damages
WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE BROADER CONCEPT OF CIVIL LIABILITY?

> The broader concept of civil liability means that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable
> This is because in a criminal offense, there are two offended parties—the state and the private
offended party
IF THE COMPLAINT DOESN’T CONTAIN AN ALLEGATION FOR DAMAGES, IS THE OFFENDER
STILL LIABLE FOR THEM?

> Yes, because every person criminally liable is also civilly liable
> Exception: when the offended party has waived or has reserved the right to institute the civil
action separately

WHAT IS THE RULE ON PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES ON CIVIL LIABILITY?

> If the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate, or exemplary damages (other than actual), the following are the bases for docket fees:
o If amount other than actual damages is stated, it will be based on the stated amount
o If no amount is stated, no docket fees will be paid yet but the docket fees to be paid will
constitute a lien on the damages that will be awarded

WHEN SHOULD THE RESERVATION BE MADE?

> The reservation should be made before the prosecution presents its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE REQUIRING RESERVATION?

> The reason is to prevent double recovery from the same act or omission

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IN THE

CRIMINAL CASE THROUGH PRIVATE PROSECUTOR?

> The appearance of the offended party may not per se be considered either as an implied
election to have his claim for damages determined in said proceedings or a waiver of the right
to have determined separately

IN A BP22 CASE, CAN THE OFFENDED PARTY MAKE A RESERVATION OF THE CIVIL ACTION?

> No, the criminal action shall be deemed to include the civil action, and the offended party is not allowed
to make the reservation
> The actual damages and the filing fees shall be equivalent to the value of the check.

20. Treachery in robbery with homicide + arson with homicide

Treachery does not change the nature of a special complex crime like Robbery with Homicide.

The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which
may be put up by the offended party.
The presence of treachery, though, should not result in qualifying the offense to murder, for the correct
rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, such treachery is to be
regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide being a case of a composite
crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Cando, 334
SCRA 331)

21. Probation decree + People v. Colmenares

Sec. 9. Existing provisions governing suspension of sentence, probation and parole not affected
by this Rule. – Nothing in this rule shall affect any existing provisions in the laws governing
suspension of sentence, probation or parole.

X, A 16-YEAR-OLD WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. AFTER HEARING, THE COURT FOUND THAT
HE COMMITTED THE ACTS CHARGED. WHAT SHOULD THE COURT DO?

The court should determine the imposable penalty including the civil liability

However, instead of promulgating judgment of conviction, the court should automatically

suspend the sentence and commit the minor to the DSWD or other institution until he reaches the age of
majority

The exception to the suspension of sentence in case of youthful offenders are—

1. If the offender has previously enjoyed a suspension of sentence

2. If the offender is convicted of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment

3. If the offender is convicted by a military tribunal

This doesn’t apply if, at the time of sentencing, the offender is already of age, even if he
was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense

Section 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall
have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided,
That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal
from the judgment of conviction.

Sec. 2. Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 968 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or the public order;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment
of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos.
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree
became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof."

WHEN SHOULD AN ADULT OFFENDER APPLY FOR PROBATION?

 The offender should apply for probation after conviction within the period for perfecting an appeal

CAN THE DEFENDANT STILL FILE FOR PROBATION IF HE HAS ALREADY PERFECTED AN
APPEAL?

An application for probation may not be filed if the defendant has already perfected an appeal
from the judgment of conviction

Once the appeal is perfected, it may no longer be withdrawn to apply for probation

CAN THE DEFENDANT STILL APPEAL IF HE HAS FILED FOR PROBATION?

No. The filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver to the right to appeal.

IS THE GRANT OF PROBATION A MATTER OF RIGHT UPON APPLICATION OF THE

DEFENDANT?

No, it is a mere privilege and the grant is discretionary upon the court

CAN THERE BE PROBATION IF THE PENALTY IS MERELY A FINE?

Yes. In those cases where the penalty is a fine, and the defendant cannot pay, he has to
serve subsidiary imprisonment.
In this instance, probation or suspension of sentence becomes relevant.

CAN THE DEFENDANT APPEAL FROM AN ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR
PROBATION?

No.

WHAT IS THE COURT MANDATED TO DO BEFORE PLACING AN ACCUSSED FOR

PROBATION?

The court should order a post sentence investigation to determine whether the ends of justice and
the best interest of the public will be served by the grant of probation

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POST SENTENCE INVESTIGATION?

The significance is that it serves as the informational basis for the court’s decision to grant or
deny the probation to qualified offenders

WITHIN WHAT PERIOD SHOULD THE PROBATION OFFICER SUBMIT HIS REPORT ON A
DEFENDANT IN A POST SENTENCE INVESTIGATION?

The investigation report must be submitted with the court not later than 60 days from
receipt of the order of said court to conduct said investigation

WHEN SHOULD THE COURT DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PROBATION?

1. The offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by
his commitment to an institution
2. There is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another
crime
3. Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed

WHEN DOES THE PROBATION ORDER TAKE EFFECT?

A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court shall inform
the offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the
conditions, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PROBATION ON THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED?

Probation doesn’t release civil liability

However, the court may in its discretion, provide for the manner of payment of the civil liability by
the accused during the period of probation

WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THE PERIOD OF PROBATION? PROBATION SHALL HAVE THE
FOLLOWING PERIODS IN THE INSTANCES BELOW:

1. If the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of not more than one year, probation shall not
exceed 2 years
2. If the term of imprisonment is more than 1 year, probation shall not exceed 6 years
3. If the penalty is only a fine and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor be more than twice the total
number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. For example, if the subsidiary imprisonment is 10 days,
probation period should not be less than 10 days and not more than 20 days.

CAN THE GRANT OF PROBATION BE REVOKED?

Yes. Probation is revocable before the final discharge of the probationer by the court
for violation of any of its conditions. Once it is revoked, the court should order the arrest of the
probationer so that he can serve the sentence originally imposed.
The period of probation is not deducted from the penalty imposed.

UPON THE LAPSE OF THE PERIOD OF PROBATION, IS THE CASE AGAINST THE
PROBATIONER AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED?

NO. After the period of probation, the court has to order the final discharge of the probationer
upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation.
Only upon issuance of this order is the case terminated.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE FINAL DISCHARGE?

IT shall operate to restore the probationer to all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his
conviction
He is also discharged fully of his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which
probation was granted