Campanilla Materials Crimlaw

2013 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
PRO REO There are three characteristics of

criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2)
In dubio pro reo is means "when in territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The
doubt, for the accused.” Intimately related to general, territorial and prospective
the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of characteristics of criminal law are principles
lenity. The rule applies when the court is that define and demarcate the scope and
faced with two possible interpretations of a limitation of the operation of criminal law.
penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the Under these three principles, the operation or
accused and another that is favorable to him. enforceability of criminal law is limited to
The rule calls for the adoption of an wrongful acts committed on or after its
interpretation which is more lenient to the effectivity (prospectivity) within the territory
accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. of the Philippines (territoriality) by person
People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). living and sojourning therein (generality).
POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL GENERALITY - Generality principle is

THERORY akin to territoriality principle in the sense
that the demarcating factor of both principles
The positivist theory states that the is the territory of the Philippines. Under
basis for criminal liability is the sum total of generality principle, criminal law is
the social and economic phenomena to which enforceable to person living or sojourning in
the offense is expressed. The purpose of the territory of the Philippines. Under the
penalties is to secure justice. The penalties territoriality principle, criminal law is
imposed must not only be retributive but applicable only to criminal act committed
must also be reformative, to give the convict within the territory of the Philippines. But the
an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin concept of generality is different from
society as a productive and civic-spirited territoriality. The applicability of territoriality
member of the community. The adoption of principle or generality principle will depend
the aspects of the Positivist theory is on the issue raised by the accused in
exemplified by the indeterminate sentence questioning the jurisdiction of the court. If
law, impossible crime, privilege mitigating the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the
circumstance of minority and modifying court because of the unique characteristic of
circumstances, rule on imposition of penalties his person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military,
for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes) (Joya hermit, primitive, ambassador, legislator,
vs. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. President), the applicable principle is
159418-19, December 10, 2003;). generality. If the accused attacks the
jurisdiction of the court due to the unique
Under the classical theory, man is characteristic of the place where the crime
essentially a moral creature with an absolutely was committed (e.g. the place of commission
free will choose between good and evil. When is foreign vessel, embassy or high sea) etc,
he commits a felonious or criminal act, the act the applicable principle is territoriality.
is presumed to have been done voluntarily, i.e.
with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man, 1. Military officers - The Revised
therefore, should be adjudged or held Penal Code and special criminal laws are
accountable for wrongful acts so long as free enforceable against military men living or
will appears unimpaired (People vs. Estrada, sojourning in the Philippines. However, CA
G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000). Since the 408 (Articles of War) which vests jurisdiction
Revised Penal Code is based on the classical over members of the AFP to the courts-
school of thought, it is the identity of the mens martial. RA 7055 (AN ACT STRENGTHENING
rea which is considered the predominant CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE
consideration and, therefore, warrants the MILITARY) did not divest the military courts
imposition of the same penalty for of jurisdiction to try cases involving "service-
conspirators on the consequential theory that connected crimes or offenses" under CA 408
the act of one is thereby the act of all (Hon. (Example: Mutiny or sedition, quarrels, frays;
Sandiganbayan, Honrado, G.R. No. 115439- disorders, breaking an arrest or escaping
41, July 16, 1997). Under this theory, the from confinement, releasing prisoners
criminal liability is based on the result of the without proper authority, wrongful
felonious act (proximate cause rule). appropriation of captured property,
corresponding with, or aiding the enemy,
CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW spies, dueling, fraud against the government
affecting matters and equipment). In fact, RA
1|Page
No. 7055 mandates that these service- vessel within the territorial water of the
connected crimes shall be tried by the court- Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of the
martial (Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, Philippines (territoriality principle) unless
October 25, 2004, Callejo). CA 408 is a law of their commission does not affect its peace
preferential application since it excludes and security, or has no pernicious effect
members of the AFP from the operation of the therein. It is the English rule that obtains in
Revised Penal Code and special criminal laws this jurisdiction.
if the crimes committed by them are service-
connected as defined by RA 7055. 3. Convention of the law of the Sea -
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
2. Consular officers - Despite the the flag state of foreign merchant vessel
ruling in Schneckenburger vs. Moran, passing through the territorial sea has
consular officers and employees are now jurisdiction over crimes committed therein.
enjoying immunity from criminal prosecution However, the Philippines can exercise
of acts performed in the exercise of consular jurisdiction to arrest any person or to
function under 1967, Convention on conduct any investigation in connection with
Consular Relation. Slander (Liang vs. People, any crime committed on board the ship
GR NO 125865, January 28, 2000) or during its passage in the following cases: (1)
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is if the consequences of the crime extend to the
not function-related. Consul is liable for coastal State; (2) if the crime is of a kind to
committing this crime. disturb the peace of the country or the good
order of the territorial sea; (3) if the
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: Under assistance of the local authorities has been
the principle of territoriality, the Philippines requested by the master of the ship or by a
has jurisdiction over crimes committed inside diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag
its territory except as provided in the treaties State; or (4) if such measures are necessary
and laws of preferential application. for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances.
1. Embassy - The ground occupied by
US embassy is in fact the territory of the USA 4. Drug trafficking - Following the
to which the premises belong through English rule, the Philippines has no
possession or ownership. A person who jurisdiction over transportation of opium in a
committed a crime within the premises of an foreign vessel in transit in territorial water of
embassy will be prosecuted under the law of our country because possession of opium
Philippines because of the principle of does not have a pernicious effect on our
territoriality (See: Reagan vs. Commission on country (U.S. vs. Look Chaw). But under the
Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968, En Banc; Convention of the law of the Sea, the
Answers to 2009 Bar Examination Questions Philippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest
by UP Law Complex). However, jurisdiction of any person or to conduct any investigation
the Philippines over the embassy is limited or involving transportation of dangerous drugs
restricted by “the principles of inviolability of since this is a measure necessary for the
diplomatic premises”, which is a generally suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
accepted principle of international law. or psychotropic substances.
Warrant of arrest cannot be served inside US
embassy without waiver of American EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - Under the
government of its right under the principle of principle of extra-territoriality, the Philippines
inviolability. has jurisdiction over crimes committed
outside its territory for those five instances
2. English rule - There are two mention in Article 2 such as crime committed
fundamental rules in International Law in vessel of Philippines registry (ownership is
regarding crimes committed aboard a foreign not material), function-related crime
merchant vessel (not military vessel), if the committed by public officer (such as
same is within the 12-mile territorial water corruption or direct bribery), crimes against
(not internal or archipelagic water or high national security (such as treason, espionage;
seas) of the Philippines to wit: (1) French rule rebellion is not a crime against national
- Crimes committed aboard a foreign security), and crime against law of nation
merchant vessel within the territorial water of such as piracy and mutiny). In People vs.
the Philippines are subject to the jurisdiction Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001-
of the flag state (extra-territoriality principle) “Piracy is an exception to the rule on
unless their commission affects the peace territoriality in criminal law (Article 2). The
and security of our country. (2) English rule – same principle applies even if accused were
Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant charged, not with a violation of qualified
2|Page
piracy under the penal code but under a daughter. However, RA 8353 expressly
special law, PD No. 532 which penalizes repealed Article 336 but re-enacted the
piracy in Philippine waters. It is likewise, provision on rape by reclassifying it as a
well-settled that regardless of the law crime against person, redefining it and
penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible prescribing a graver penalty for the
crime against the whole world.” commission thereof. The repeal of Article 336
does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to
PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC - If try and punish “A” for rape under Article 336.
the court in trying an accused, who RA No. 8353 shall not be given retroactive
committed a crime prior to the passage of the effect since it is not favorable to the accused.
law, should give retroactive effect to the law
provided that: (1) it is favorable to the MISTAKE OF FACT PRINCIPLE:
accused and (2) the accused is not a habitual
delinquent (Article 22). Ex post facto law - Requisites: (1) That the acts done
Congress in passing a law can insert would have been lawful had the facts been as
retroactive effect provision therein subject to the accused believed them to be (2) that the
the Constitution of ex post facto law. If the mistake of fact is not due to negligence or
retroactive provision of the law has passed unlawful intent of the offender. The Supreme
the constitutional test on prohibition against Court in several cases had applied the
ex post facto law, the court must give “mistake of fact” doctrine, which allowed the
retroactive effect to this law even if the accused, who committed a crime on a
accused is a habitual delinquent. Nullum mistaken belief, to enjoy the benefit of the
crimen poena sine lege – If the law repeals a justifying circumstance of self-defense
previous law or provision defining a crime, (United States vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488),
the applicable principle is not Article 22 of defense of person and right (US vs. Bautista,
RPC but nullum crimen poena sine lege (There G.R. No. 10678 August 17, 1915), defense of
is no crime when there is no law punishing honor (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil. 391),
it). Since the intention of the new law is to performance of duty, (People vs. Mamasalaya,
decriminalize an act punishable by the G.R. No.L-4911, February 10, 1953), and the
repealed law, the accused should be exempting circumstance of obedience of an
acquitted or released if the already convicted, order of superior officer (People vs. Beronilla,
even though he is a habitual delinquent. G.R. No. L-4445, February 28, 1955). In Ah
Chong, the accused, who believed that the
REPEAL: Decriminalization - Repeal of victim was a robber and that his life was in
a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction danger because of the commencement of
to punish persons charged with a violation of unlawful aggression, was acquitted due to
the old penal law prior to its repeal (Sindiong mistake of fact doctrine in relation to the rule
and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000; Binuya, 61 Phil. on self-defense. In Oanis vs. Galanta, the
208; U.S. vs. Reyes, 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. accused, who believed that the sleeping
Academia, 10 Phil. 431; Arizala vs. Court of victim is a notorious criminal to be arrested
Appeals, G.R. No. 43633, September 14, by them, was held guilty of murder for
1990; Almuete, et al., G.R. No. L-265, shooting him since the mistake of fact
February 27,19 76). The intention of the new principle in relation to performance of duty is
law is to decriminalize an act punishable of not applicable. Second element is not present
old law. Thus, person cannot be punished for since they did not ascertain first his identify
subversion under RA 1700, which was despite opportunity. The first element is not
repealed by RA 7637, even though he is a likewise present since the killing of victim
habitual delinquent. New regulation - Repeal believed to be a criminal was not necessary
with re-enactment of a penal law does not consequence of the due performance of duty
deprive the courts of jurisdiction to punish of the accused as police officers.
persons charged with a violation of the old
penal law prior to its repeal. Such repeal even The gist of the theft is the intent to
without a saving clause would not destroy deprive another of his property in a chattel,
criminal liability of the accused (U.S. vs. either for gain or out of wantonness or malice
Cana, 12 Phil. 241). The intention of the new to deprive another of his right in the thing
law is not to decriminalize an act punishable taken. This cannot be where the taker
of old law but merely to provide new honestly believes the property is his own or
regulation. If the new law is favorable to the that of another, and that he has a right to
accused, who is not a habitual delinquent, it take possession of it for himself or for
shall be given retroactive effect. Example: “A” another, for the protection of the latter.
was charged for the crime of rape under However, the belief of the accused of his
Article 336 of RPC for raping his minor ownership over the property must be honest
3|Page
and in good faith and not a mere sham or intent is a definite and actual purpose to
pretense. If the claim is dishonest, a mere accomplish some particular thing. In estafa,
pretense, taking the property of another will the specific intent is to defraud, in homicide
not protect the taker (Gaviola vs. People, G.R. intent to kill, in theft intent to gain (Recuerdo
No. 163927, January 27, 2006, Callejo). This vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006,
belief of ownership as a defense in theft is in Callejo). In the US vs. Ah Chong, the accused
accordance with the mistake of fact doctrine. was acquitted because of mistake of fact
principle even though the evidence showed
VOLUNTARINESS – Concurrence of that he attacked the deceased with intent to
freedom, intelligence and intent makes up the kill (United States vs. Apego, G.R. No. 7929,
“criminal mind” behind the “criminal act.” November 8, 1912; Dissenting opinion of J.
Thus, to constitute a crime, the act must, Trent), which was established by the
generally and in most cases, be accompanied statement of the accused "If you enter the
by a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum, room I will kill you." Article 249 (homicide)
nisi mens sit rea. No crime is committed if should be read in relation to Article 3. The
the mind of the person performing the act accused was acquitted not because of the
complained of is innocent (People vs. Ojeda, absence of intent to kill (specific intent) but
G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004). by reason of lack of general intent (dolo or
Voluntariness is an element of crime, malice).
whether committed by dolo or culpa or
punishable under special law. The act to be PRESUMED MALICE - The general
considered a crime must be committed with criminal intent (malice) is presumed from the
freedom and intelligence. In addition to criminal act and in the absence of any
voluntariness, intentional felony must be general intent is relied upon as a defense,
committed with dolo (malice), culpable felony such absence must be proved by the accused
with culpa, and mala prohibita under special (Ah Chong case, the accused was able to
law with intent to perpetrate the act or with rebut the presumption of general criminal
specific intent (such as animus possidendi in intent or malice). Generally, a specific intent
illegal possession of firearm). Presumption of is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of
voluntariness: In the determination of the fact, must be proved by the State just as any
culpability of every criminal actor, other essential element. This may be shown,
voluntariness is an essential element. however, by the nature of the act, the
Without it, the imputation of criminal circumstances under which it was
responsibility and the imposition of the committed, the means employed and the
corresponding penalty cannot be legally motive of the accused (Recuerdo vs. People,
sanctioned. The human mind is an entity, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006, Callejo).
and understanding it is not purely an There are other specific intents that are
intellectual process but is dependent to a presumed. If a person died due to violence,
large degree upon emotional and intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Intent
psychological appreciation. A man’s act is to gain is presumed from taking property
presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume without consent of owner.
the contrary, i.e. that acts were done
unconsciously, for the moral and legal MOTIVE
presumption is that every person is
presumed to be of sound mind, or that Motive to prove identity - In a criminal
freedom and intelligence constitute the case, the prosecution must prove the
normal condition of a person (People vs. elements of crime and the identity of the
Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, person who committed it. Proof of motive will
2004). not establish the presence of the elements of
the crime but it will help the prosecution in
CRIMINAL INTENT – To be held liable showing that the accused committed the
for intentional felony, the offender must crime. The identity of the culprit, which is an
commit the act prohibited by RPC with essential requisite to cause the conviction of
specific criminal intent and general criminal the accused, is usually established through
intent. General criminal intent (dolo in Article positive identification of the witness. However
3 of RPC) is an element of all crimes but if there is doubt as to the identity of the
malice is properly applied only to deliberate culprit, showing motive of the accused for
acts done on purpose and with design. Evil committing the crime will help establish his
intent must unite with an unlawful act for direct link to the commission of the crime. In
there to be a felony. A deliberate and People Ferrera, GR NO L-66965, June 18,
unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of 1987, En Banc, it was held that motive is
malice by intent. On the other hand, specific essential to conviction in murder cases only
4|Page
when there is doubt as to the identity of the intent to threaten the victim. Thus, the crime
culprit, not when the accused has been commit is merely threat and not attempted
positively identified as the assailant. Motive homicide;
as an element - Although motive is not an
essential element of a crime, and proving it is PROXIMATE CAUSE
just a matter of procedure pertaining to the
identification of the accused, there are some Proximate cause is the primary or
cases where it is absolutely necessary to moving cause of the death of the victim; it is
establish a particular motive as a matter of the cause, which in the natural and
substance because it forms an essential continuous sequence unbroken with any
element of the offense. In cases of libel or “efficient intervening cause” produces death
slander or malicious mischief, prosecution and without which the fatal result could not
must prove malice on the part of the accused have happened. It is the cause, which is the
as the true motive of the conduct (People vs. nearest in the order of responsible causation
Diva and Diva, GR NO L-22946, April 29, (Black’s Law Dictionary). Intervening cause -
1968, En Banc). The direct relation between the intentional
felony and death may be broken by efficient
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE intervening cause or an active force which is
DOCTRINE – In People vs. Lamahang, G.R. either a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
No. 43530, August 3, 1935, En Banc - from the felonious act of the offender.
Accused who was caught in the act of making Lightning that kills the injured victim or
an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a tetanus infecting the victim several days after
store was held guilty of attempted trespassing the infliction of injuries, or voluntary
and not attempted robbery. The act of making immersing the wounds to aggravate the crime
an opening on the wall of the store is an overt committed by accused is an intervening
act of trespassing since it reveals an evident cause. Thus, the accused is liable for physical
intention to enter by means of force said store injuries because of the intervening cause
against the will of its owner. However, it is rule. On the other hand, carelessness of the
not an overt act of robbery since the intention victim, or involuntary removal of the
of the accused once he succeeded in entering drainage, lack of proper treatment is not an
the store is not determinate; it is subject to intervening cause. Hence, the accused is
different interpretations. His final objective liable for the death because of the proximate
could be to rob, to cause physical injury to its cause rule.
occupants, or to commit any other offense. In
sum, the crime the he intended to commit If the victim died due to tetanus of
inside the store is indeterminate, and thus, which he was infected when the accused
an attempt to commit it is not punishable as inflicted injuries upon him, the crime
attempted felony. In People vs. Crisostomo, committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel,
et al., G.R. No. L-19034, February 17 1923 – G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the victim
The accused dragged the victim to a rice field. died due to tetanus of which he was infected
Fortunately, she was saved from her captors. after the accused inflicted injuries upon him,
It was held that the purpose of the accused in the crime committed is physical injuries. The
taking away the offended party could be to accused is not liable for homicide because
injure or affront her or to compel her through tetanus is an efficient intervening cause.
force to marry one of the accused. Thus, the Thus, the proximate cause of the death of the
acts are not constitutive of attempted victim is not the infliction of injuries. In
coercion. Note: The accused were found guilty Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412,
of illegal detention. Taking the victim reveals September 7, 2011, there had been an
the evident intention of the accused to interval of 22 days between the date of the
deprive the liberty of the latter, which is the stabbing and the date when victim was rushed
mens rea in illegal detention. In U.S. vs. to hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe
Simeon, G.R. No. 1603, April 15, 1904 - tetanus infection. Since the victim was
Raising a bolo and hacking the victim with it infected of severe tetanus, he died the next
are acts of execution in homicide or murder. day. The incubation period of severe tetanus is
Such acts together with other circumstance less than 14 days. Hence, he could not have
may reveal intent to kill. However, raising been infected at the time of the stabbing since
bolo alone is susceptible to different that incident occurred 22 days before the
interpretation. The intention of the offender victim was rushed to the hospital. The
may either to kill the victim or merely to infection of victim’s stab wound by tetanus
threaten him. Since doubt should be was an efficient intervening cause. The
interpreted in favor of the accused, such act accused was held liable for physical injuries.
should be considered to have been made with
5|Page
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of grave a wrong than that committed.
error in personae, person is criminally
responsible for committing an intentional When death resulted, even if there was no
felony although the consequent victim is intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
different from that intended due to mistake of physical injuries (Seguritan vs. People, G.R. No.
identity. Requisites: In order to make a 172896, April 19, 2010).
person criminally liable in case of error in
personae, the following requisites must be Mitigating circumstance - The
present: (1) Offender committed an mitigating circumstance that “the offender had
intentional felony; (2) The consequent victim no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
against whom the felony was directed is committed” or praeter intentionem is obtaining
different from that intended due to mistake of when there is a notable disparity between the
identity. If the penalty for the intended crime means employed by the accused to commit a
is different from that of the committed crime, wrong and the resulting crime
the court shall impose the penalty for the committed. The intention of the accused at
intended crime or committed crime, the time of the commission of the crime is
whichever is lesser. manifested from the weapon used, the mode of
attack employed and the injury sustained by
ABERRATIO ICTUS - In case of the victim (People vs. Maglian, G.R.
aberratio ictus, person is criminally No. 189834, March 30, 2011).The mitigating
responsible for committing an intentional circumstance of praeter intentionem cannot be
felony although the consequent victim is appreciated since the acts employed by “X” were
different from that intended due to mistake of reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually
blow. Requisites: In order to make a person produce the death of the victim (People vs. Sales,
criminally liable in case of aberratio ictus, the G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
following requisites must be present: (1)
Offender committed an intentional felony; (2) 1. Evident premeditation- In case of
The consequent victim against whom the aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC
felony was directed is different from that did not appreciate evident premeditation
intended due to mistake of blow. The crime since the victim, who was actually killed, is
committed against the intended victim and not contemplated in the premeditation of the
victim injured due to aberratio ictus shall be accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-
made a complex crime (compound crime). The 38930, June 28, 1988; People vs. Mabug-at,
court shall impose the penalty for the most 51 Phil., 967; People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-
serious crime in its maximum period. 38930, June 28, 1988). However, praeter
intentionem and evident premeditation can
The circumstance of aberratio ictus be independently appreciated. there is no
(mistake in the blow) can neither exempt the incompatibility between evident
accused from criminal responsibility nor premeditation and no intention to commit so
mitigate his criminal liability. Under Article 4 grave a wrong since the latter is based on the
of RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any state of mind of the offender while the former
person committing a felony although the manner of committing the crime (Reyes;
wrongful act done be different from that which People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
he intended (Matic vs. People, G.R. No.
180219, November 23, 2011). 2. Treachery - If accused employed
means to render the victim defenseless,
PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case of treachery shall be appreciated even if the
praeter intentionem, person is criminally killing is due to error in personae (People vs.
responsible for committing an intentional Del Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April 30,
felony although its wrongful consequence is 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs. Mabug-at,
graver than that intended. Requisites: In G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, En Banc)
order to make a person criminally liable or with the circumstance of praeter
under Article 4 (1) in case of praeter intentionem (People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No.
intentionem, the following requisites must be 38511, October 6, 1933)
present: (1) Offender committed an
intentional felony; (2) The wrongful act done, 3. Conspiracy - Conspirators, who
which is graver than that intended, is the conspired to kill a particular parson, are
direct, natural and logical consequence of the equally liable for the killing of another person
felony committed by the offender. Praeter due to error in personae (People vs. Pinto, Jr.
intentionem may be appreciated as mitigating and Buenaflor, G.R. No. No. 39519,
November 21, 1991). However, conspirator,
6|Page
who never even fired a single shot and whose where he was drowned. The accused was
only participation was to drive their getaway found guilty of homicide. The act of
vehicle and to lend his firearm to his back threatening to stab victim constitutes a felony
rider so that the latter could finish off the of threat. Hence, accused is liable for the
target victim was not found accountable for direct, natural and logical consequence of his
the injury sustained by the unintended victim intentional and felonious act. It was held
was just a star-crossed bystander who was that: "If a man creates in another man's mind
accidentally hit in the process (aberratio an immediate sense of danger which causes
ictus) (People vs. Herbias, G.R. No. 112716- such person to try to escape, and in so doing
17, December 16, 1996; People vs. Flora and he injures himself, the person who creates
Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000). such a state of mind is responsible for the
injuries which result."
INTENT TO KILL: Intent to kill is an
element of homicide and murder. But even if d. Intent to inflict injury -
offender had no intent to kill, he would be Intentional infliction of injury resulting in
held just the same liable for homicide or death of the victim constitutes homicide or
murder if his felonious act is the proximate murder. In People vs. Pugay, et al., No 74324,
cause of the death of the latter. Even if there November 17, 1988, the deceased, a
is no intent to kill, offender is liable for retardate, and the accused Pugay were
homicide or murder if the victim died as a friends. Deceased used to run errands for
result of the “felonious act” of the former. The Pugay and at times they slept together.
offender’s act is considered felonious if it is During a town fiesta fair was held in the
accompanied with criminal or evil intent such public plaza. Accused, Pugay and Samson
as intent to inflict injury, intent to hide the with several companions, who appeared to be
body of the crime, intent to threaten victim, drunk, made the deceased dance by tickling
intent to silence the hold-up victim, or intent him with a piece of wood. Not content with
to rape. Offender is liable for homicide what they were doing with the deceased, the
because it is the natural, direct and logical accused Pugay suddenly took a can of
consequence of an act committed with gasoline from under the engine of the Ferris
criminal intent. wheel and poured its contents on the body of
the former. Then, the accused Samson set
a. With intent to hide the body of victim on fire making a human torch out of
the crime – In People vs. Ortega, Jr., G.R. him. Pugay and Samson were stunned when
No. 116736, July 24, 1997 - Ortega stabbed they noticed the deceased burning. Crime
the victim. Garcia assisted Ortega in committed by Samson: There is no intent to
concealing the body of the victim by throwing kill. The act of the Accused was merely a part
the body into the well. Victim died due to of their fun-making that evening. Accused
drowning. Issue: Is Garcia liable for the death merely intended to set the deceased's clothes
of the victim as principal in homicide even if on fire. His act, however, does not relieve him
his intention was not to kill the victim but of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes
merely to assist Ortega in concealing his dead of the victim would cause at the very least
body not knowing that the victim was still some kind of physical injuries on his person,
alive at that time? In assisting Ortega carry a felony. Since such felony of physical
the body of victim to the well, Garcia was injuries resulted into a graver offense, he
committing an intentional felony; concealing must be held responsible therefor. (Note: The
the body of the crime to prevent its discovery crime is not murder qualified by means of fire
makes him liable as an accessory in because the fire was not use to kill but
homicide. Hence, Garcia should be held liable merely to inflict injury).
for the direct, natural and logical
consequence of his felonious act of assisting e. Recklessness – Even if there is no
Ortega in hiding the body of the victim. Since intent to kill and evil intent, offender is liable
proximate cause of death of the victim is the for culpable felony if the victim died as a
felonious and accessory act of throwing the result of the recklessness of the former.
victim into the well, Garcia should be held Crime committed by Pugay: Having taken the
liable for the death as principal in homicide. can from under the engine of the Ferris wheel
and holding it before pouring its contents on
b. With intent to threaten – In US vs. the body of the deceased, this accused knew
Valdez, G.R. No. 16486, March 22, 1921, En that the can contained gasoline. The stinging
Banc - The accused in rage he moved towards smell of this flammable liquid could not have
victim with a big knife in hand, threatening to escaped his notice even before pouring the
stab him. Victim believing himself in great same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the
and immediate peril jumped into the water diligence necessary to avoid every
7|Page
undesirable consequence arising from any act impossibility of its accomplishment or
that may be committed by his companions employment of inadequate or ineffectual
who at the time were making fun of the means; and (4) offender in performing an act
deceased. The accused is only guilty of is not violating another provision of the law
homicide through reckless imprudence. (Luis B. Reyes).
f. Accident - If there is no intent to a. Intod principle - In Intod vs. Court

kill, evil intent and recklessness on the part of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21,
of the accused, he is not liable for his 1992 – Outside the house of the victim,
intentional act, which caused the death of the accused with intent to kill fired at the
victim. In United States vs. Tanedo (15 Phil. bedroom, where the victim is supposed to be
Rep., 196), deceased went with the accused sleeping. No one was in the room when the
to hunt wild chickens at the forest. While accused fired the shots. No one was hit by
hunting, the accused came upon a wild the gun fire. The accused were convicted of
chicken, and, not seeing deceased about and impossible crime. Accused shoot the place
not knowing or having any reason to believe where he thought his victim would be,
that he was in that vicinity shot the chicken. although in reality, the victim was not
The bullet that hit the chicken recoiled and present in said place and thus, the accused
hit the deceased. It was held that accused is failed to accomplish their end due to its
not criminally liable. Life was taken by factual impossibility. In the United States,
misfortune or accident while in the criminal laws are silent regarding impossible
performance of a lawful act executed with crimes; hence where the offense sought to be
due care and without intention of doing committed is factually impossible of
harm. Note: The accused could not have accomplishment, the offender shall be liable
foreseen that the slug after hitting the for attempted crime. On the other hand,
chicken would recoil and hit deceased. The where the offense is legally impossible of
principle enunciated in Tanedo case will not accomplishment, the actor cannot be held
apply if the place where the accused lawfully liable for any crime. In the Philippines, the
discharged his firearm is populated. In People crime committed is impossible crime if the
vs. Nocum, G.R. No. L-482, 25 February offense sought to be committed is factually or
1947, En Banc - There was a fistic fight legally impossible. Killing a dead person is
between two persons. Desiring to stop the impossible crime because of legal
encounter, accused shouted at the impossibility. Putting the hand inside an
combatants. As these paid him no attention, empty pocket with intention to steal a wallet
he drew a .45 caliber pistol and shot twice in is impossible crime because of factual
the air. The bout continued, however; so he impossibility.
fired another shot at the ground, but
unfortunately the bullet ricocheted, and hit b. Raping a dead person - Prior to RA
an innocent by-stander, resident of the place. 8353, rape is a crime against chastity. Thus,
Victim died. It was held that: “The mishap if a person raped a dead person believing that
should be classed as homicide through she was just sleeping, offender could not be
reckless imprudence, the slaying having been held liable for impossible crime (J. Ramon
unintentional. It is apparent that defendant Aquino). In impossible crime the act could
willfully discharged his gun-for without taking have constituted the crime against person or
the precautions demanded by the property if its accomplishment was not
circumstance that the district was populated, impossible. Rape is neither a crime against
and the likelihood that his bullet would glance person nor against property. However, RA
over the hard pavement of the Manila 8353 reclassifies rape from crime against
thoroughfare. Note: The accused should have chastity to crime against person. Hence, an
foreseen that the slug after hitting the offender for raping a dead person without
pavement would recoil and might hit knowing that she was already dead may now
somebody. be held liable for impossible crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME c. Committing another crime - “A”

discharged shotgun at “B” from a distance of
Offender shall be held liable for 300 yards; but because of the limited range of
impossible crime if the following requisites the firepower of the shotgun, it would be
are present: (1) offender performing an act impossible for “A” to harm “B”. “A” is liable of
which would have been an offense against discharged of firearm and not impossible
person or property; (2) offender performed an crime. Where the offender unlawful entered
act with evil intent; (3) offender did not the house and took a watch that turned out
commit the offense because of the to be his own, he is liable for trespass to
8|Page
dwelling and not impossible crime (Criminal murder case, once the offender inflicted
Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz mortal wound on the victim, all the acts of
Regalado). If the accused administered execution are considered performed.
abortive drugs upon his girlfriend whom he However, what consummates homicide or
believed to be pregnant, which turned out not murder is not the infliction of mortal wounds
to be true, but the woman became ill for more but the death of the victim as a consequence
than 30 days, the accused will be liable for of the mortal wound inflicted. Thus, if the
serious physical injuries and not impossible mortally wounded victim did not die due to
crime of abortion (Criminal Law Reviewer by medical intervention, homicide or murder is
Gregorio). only at the frustrated stage. On the other
hand, in rape once the offender sexually
STAGES penetrate the labia of the vagina of the victim,
all the acts of execution are considered
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED performed. But since sexual penetration
STAGES: In attempted felony, the offender consummates rape, there are no occasions
performs directly an overt act, which consists where the offender performed all the acts of
of one or more acts of execution, but not execution and yet the felony was not
enough to consequently produce the felony. produced as a consequence. In sum, there is
In frustrated felony, the offenders perform all no such thing as frustrated rape since the
the acts of execution that would produce the performance of all the acts of execution
felony as a matter of consequence. To immediately consummates rape.
determine whether the felony is at the
attempted or frustrated stage, acts of ABSOLUTORY CAUSE – In attempted
execution of execution of a felony must be felony and frustrated felony, the offender
identified. Example: The acts of execution failed to accomplish his criminal objective by
that would produce homicide or murder are reason of extraneous causes; if the causes
infliction of mortal wounds upon the victim. If are not extraneous, the accused will be
the wounds inflicted upon the victim with absolved from criminal liability.
intent to kill are non-mortal, the crime
committed is attempted homicide; if wounds a. Negative Act - In the attempted
are mortal, the crime committed is frustrated stage of the execution of a felony, the offender
homicide. must do a “negative act” to be exempt from
criminal liability for attempted felony; since
In attempted felony and frustrated the offender has not yet performed all the
felony, the external acts performed by the acts of execution that would produce the
offender and the intended felony must have a felony as a consequence, he must
direct connection; but in an attempted felony, spontaneously desist from further doing
the offender failed to perform all the acts of criminal acts that will complete all the acts of
execution; thus his external acts would “not execution. Example: “A” with intent to kill
produce” the felony as a consequence; on the shot “B”; “B” sustained non-mortal wound. To
other hand in a frustrated felony, the offender be exempt from criminal liability for
performed all the acts of execution; thus, his attempted homicide or murder, “A” must
external acts “would produce” the felony as a spontaneously desist from further shooting
consequence. “B” in order not to inflict mortal injury upon
him.
FRUSTRATED AND CONSUMMATED-
In frustrated and consummated felony, the b. Positive Act – If the offender
accused performed all acts of execution that performs all the acts of execution, which
would produce the felony as a consequence. would produce the felony as a consequence,
If the felony is not produced due to external offender is not exempted from liability for
cause, the crime committed is frustrated frustrated felony even if he voluntary desisted
felony; if the felony is produced the crime from further doing criminal act. Spontaneous
committed is consummated. desistance is a defense in attempted felony
but not in frustrated felony. In the frustrated
In frustrated felony, the offender stage of the execution of a felony, the offender
performed all the acts of execution but the must do a “positive act” to be exempt from
felony was not produced as a consequence criminal liability; since the offender has
due to extraneous cause. However, there are performed all the acts of execution that would
felonies, the commission of which has no produce the felony as a consequence, he
frustrated stage since the performance of all must do something to prevent, or thwart the
the acts of execution immediately production of the felony. Example: “A” with
consummates the felony. In homicide or intent to kill shot “B”; “B” sustained mortal
9|Page
wound. To be exempt from criminal liability Revised Penal Code, the courts are bound to
for frustrated felony, it is not enough that “A” apply the law as it is and impose the proper
would desist from further shooting “B”. The penalty, no matter how harsh it might be. The
spontaneous desistance is not a valid defense same provision, however, gives the Court the
since “A” had already inflicted mortal wound discretion to recommend to the President
on “B” that would cause his death as a actions it deems appropriate but are beyond
consequence. Thus, “A” must save the life of its power when it considers the penalty
“B” by treating his wound. If “B” did not die imposed as excessive. Although an accused
because “A’s” medical treatment, the latter is convicted under a special penal law, the
will not be held liable for frustrated felony Court is not precluded from giving the Revised
because the homicide was not produced due Penal Code suppletory application in light of
to the will of “A”. Article 10 of the same Code (Mendoza vs.
People, G.R. No. 183891, October 19, 2011).
c. Not absolutory cause – If the felony
is consummated, offender cannot undo what CONSPIRACY
was done. Offender would not be absolved
from criminal liability even if he had done In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No.
something that will mitigate the effects of the 181701, January 18, 2012 -The “evidence of a
felonious act. Example: (1) Restitution of chain of circumstances,” to wit: that appellant
funds malversed immediately and voluntarily went inside the house of Romines to ascertain
made before the case was instituted is not an that the victim was there; that he fetched
absolutory cause (Navarro vs. Meneses III, Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave
CBD Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998, the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime;
En Banc). (2) “A” stole chicken under the and that they both fled after the stabbing,
house of “B” one evening. Realizing that what taken collectively, shows a community of
he did was wrong, “A” returned the chicken to criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently,
the place under the house of “B”. Since the there was conspiracy in the commission of the
crime of theft was already consummated, the crime.
return of the stolen property does not relieve
“A” of criminal responsibility. “A” had already DISSOCIATION - To exempt himself
performed all the acts of execution, which from criminal liability, a conspirator must
produced the crime of theft before he have performed an overt act to dissociate or
returned the chicken (Reyes). (3) The fact that detach himself from the conspiracy to commit
the accused abandoned victim after six days the felony and prevent the commission thereof
of captivity does not lessen his criminal (People vs. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635 November
culpability much less exempt him from 15, 2010).
criminal liability for the kidnapping and
detention of victim (Baldogo, G.R. No. MASTERMIND - To be held liable as
128106-07, January 24, 2003, En Banc). conspirator, it must also be shown that the
accused performed an overt act in furtherance
COMPLEX CRIME of the conspiracy except in the case of the
mastermind of a crime (People vs. Vera, GR No.
Killing persons and injuring two more 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans the
by treacherously detonating a hand grenade in commission of a crime is liable as conspirator
a dancing place constitutes the complex crime and principal by inducement (People vs.
of murder and attempted murder. Even Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004,
though the other victim did not suffer mortal En banc).Notwithstanding, the fact that one
wounds, the crime committed is not physical was not at the crime scene, evidence proved
injuries, because accused was motivated by that he was the mastermind of the criminal
the same intent to kill when he detonated the act or the principal by inducement. What is
explosive device inside the dancing place important is that inducement was the
(People vs. Barde, G.R. No. determining cause of the commission of the
183094, September 22, 2010). crime. The command or advice made by
principal by inducement was of such nature
RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY that, without it, the crime would not have
materialized (People vs. Janjalani, G.R. No.
Accused was convicted of crime RA No. 188314, January 10, 2011).
8282 for his failure to remit SSS contributions
of his employees and was sentenced to suffer PRESENCE - Accused, unarmed,
up to 20 years of reclusion temporal. The appeared in the company of his employer, and
penalty is excessive since he already paid his another person. His employer shot and
delinquent contribution. Under Article 5 of the killedthe victim. Accused did nothing to
10 | P a g e
prevent the killing. Accused fled together with but not malversation or estafa), buys,
his employer and other person.The fact that receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
accused appeared together with employer and conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells,
another and fled with them proves a certain or in any manner deals in any article, item,
degree of participation and cooperation in the object or anything of value, which has been
execution of the crime. However, there is derived from the proceeds of the said crime;
doubt as to whether accused acted as a (3) The accused knows or should have known
principal or just a mere accomplice. Such that the said article, item, object or anything
doubt should be resolved in favor of the milder of value has been derived from the proceeds
form of criminal liability—that of a mere of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) There
accomplice (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No. is on the part of the accused, intent to gain
192251, February 16, 2011). If the accused is for himself or for another (Francisco vs.
armed at the time, he could be held liable as People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004,
principal on the basis of implied conspiracy. Callejo).
The fact that the companion of the criminal
actor is armed may mean that the former is a. Proving robbery or theft –
supplying moral assistance to the latter. The Commission of robbery or theft by the
armed presence of conspiratorial companion principal as an element of fencing should be
may prove a sense of security and proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict
encouragement on the part of the material the fencer. One may not be convicted of the
executor or may serve as deterrence against crime of fencing if the complainant did not
possible defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No. lodge a criminal complaint against the
133887, May 28, 2002, En Banc). principal in the crime of theft. This will create
doubt if theft was really committed (Tan vs.
SPECIAL LAW - B.P. Blg. 22 does not People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999)
expressly proscribe the supplementary Failure to show finality of conviction of theft
application of the provisions RPC including against the principal is fatal to prosecution
the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule for fencing. In Francisco vs. People, G.R. No.
may be applied supplementarily. Thus, a 146584, July 12, 2004, Callejo - The decision
non-issuer of bum check can be held liable of the trial court convicting the principal of
for violation of BP Blg. 22 on the basis of theft does not constitute proof against the
conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. accused for the crime of fencing, that the
141066, February 17, 2005). The principle of principal had, indeed, stolen the jewelry.
conspiracy may be applied to RA No. 9262. There is no showing that the said decision
Thus, a person (such as mother-in-law), who was already final and executory when the
has no marital, sexual or dating relationship trial court rendered its decision in the fencing
with the victim, can be held liable for violence case. Accused was acquitted.
against woman on the basis of conspiracy
(Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September b. Knowledge - In Dimat vs. People,
30, 2008) G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012 – But
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and,
FENCING therefore, its violation is regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal
The elements of “fencing” are 1) a intent. Of course, the prosecution must still
robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the prove that accused knew or should have
accused, who took no part in the robbery or known that the Nissan Safari he acquired and
theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, later sold to complainant was derived from
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys theft or robbery and that he intended to
and sells, or in any manner deals in any obtain some gain out of his acts. Accused
article or object taken” during that robbery or knew that the Nissan Safari he bought was
theft; (3) the accused knows or should have not properly documented. He said that
known that the thing derived from that crime; Tolentino showed him its old certificate of
and (4) he intends by the deal he makes to registration and official receipt. But this
gain for himself or for another (Dimat vs. certainly could not be true because, the
People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). vehicle having been carnapped, Tolentino had
no documents to show. That Tolentino was
The essential elements of the crime of unable to make good on his promise to
fencing under PD No. 1612 are as follows: (1) produce new documents undoubtedly
A crime of robbery or theft has been confirmed to accused that the Nissan Safari
committed; (2) The accused, who is not a came from an illicit source. Still, accused sold
principal or accomplice in the commission of the same to complainant who apparently
the crime of robbery or theft (or carnapping made no effort to check the papers covering
11 | P a g e
her purchase. That complainant might herself knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
be liable for fencing is of no moment since she frustrates or delays the apprehension of
did not stand accused in the case. suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by (1) altering,
c. Presumption: Section 6 of PD No. destroying, suppressing or concealing any
1612 provides: “Mere possession of any good, paper, record, document, or object, with
article, item, object, or anything of value intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
which has been the subject of robbery or legibility, availability, or admissibility as
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of evidence in any investigation of or official
fencing.”Possession is not limited to actual proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used
manual control of the offender over the stolen in the investigation of, or official proceedings
property but extends to power and dominion in, criminal cases; (2) harboring or
over it. concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any
person he knows, or has reasonable ground
The accessory in theft should materially to believe or suspect, has committed any
benefit from it. Riding in a stolen vehicle is offense under existing penal laws in order to
“not profiting” within the contemplation of prevent his arrest prosecution and
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code since it conviction;
does not improve his economic position.
Profiting is not synonymous to intent to gain a. Commission of crime, not an
as an element of theft (Gregorio). However, in element - To be held liable as accessory
violation of PD No. 1612, use of stolen under the Revised Penal Code, it is required
property gives rise to the presumption of that the crime was committed by the
fencing. Hence, the user may be held liable principal. To be held liable for obstruction of
for fencing even though he did not materially justice, it is not necessary that the crime was
benefit from crime of theft. committed by a criminal suspect. Example:
“A” committed suicide. To make it appear
The presumption of theft is disputable. that “B” murdered “A, “C” placed the gun
The presumption of fencing may be overcome used in perpetrating suicide inside the bag of
by showing proof that accused bought the “B”. “C” committed the crime of obstruction of
item from a licensed dealer of second-hand justice for having obstructed the investigation
items (Hizon-Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. No. of a criminal case involving the death of “A”.
11414, July 11, 1994) or by showing official “C” cannot be held liable as accessory
receipts covering the purchases of property, because murder was not really committed.
which is the subject of fencing (D. M
Consunji, Inc. vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. 118590, b. Knowledge - An accessory under
July 30, 1996). Revised Penal Code must have knowledge of
the commission of the crime by the principal.
d. Recently stolen property – If To commit obstruction of justice, what is
suspect is found in possession of recently important is not knowledge of the
stolen property, he should be charged as commission of a crime but awareness of an
principal in the crime of theft or robbery. ongoing or impending investigation and
Under Section 3 (j), Rule 131, a person found prosecution of a criminal case. In fact, even
in possession of a thing taken in the doing of though the suspect did not commit a crime,
recently wrongful act is the taker and the obstruction of justice is committed if he
doer of the whole act. Settled is the rule that knowingly obstructs, impedes, or frustrates
unexplained possession of recently stolen the said investigation and prosecution.
property is prima facie evidence of guilt of the
crime of theft ( US vs. Ungal, 37 Phil., 835). If c. Obstructing criminal
the subject property is not recently stolen, investigation or prosecution - Public officer,
the presumption under Section 3 (j), Rule 131 who destroyed dangerous drugs as evidence
will not arise. However, the possessor is still for monetary consideration, is liable for
presumed to have violated PD No. 1612 even obstruction of justice in addition to graft and
if the property being possessed was not corruption and direct bribery (2005 Bar
recently stolen. Under the law, mere Exam)
possession of stolen property gives rise to the
presumption of fencing. If a respondent in a preliminary
investigation altered the allegation in the
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE complaint-affidavit as to the date of criminal
incident to make it appear that the crime,
Obstruction of justice under PD No. with which he was charged, had prescribed,
1829 is committed by any person who the alteration is constitutive of the crime of
12 | P a g e
falsification of document under Article 172 of attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive
the Revised Penal Code and obstruction of or a principal, who is known to be habitually
justice under PD No. 1829. guilty of some other crime. This requirement
is not applicable if the accused is charged
d. Principal of the crime - “A” and with obstruction of justice.
“B” killed “X”. After the slaughter, “A” and “B”
burned the dead body of “X” in the forest to f. No exempting circumstance -
prevent its discovery. Can “A” and “B” be Accessories are exempt from criminal liability
charged as accessory of the crime to murder if the principal merely committed a light
or obstruction of justice? “A” and “B” are felony (Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code).
principals by direct participation in the crime Accessories of the second or third kind are
of murder qualified by employment of means exempt also from criminal responsibility if
to afford impunity. Hence, they cannot be they are related to the criminal actor (Article
charged as accessories. Under the Revised 20 of the Code). However, if the accessories of
Penal Code, accessories must not have the crime were charged with the crime of
participated in the commission of the crime obstruction of justice, they cannot claim
as principals. However, in addition to criminal exemption under the Revised Penal
murder, they can be charged with the crime Code. PD No. 1829 has no provision on
of obstruction of justice for destroying an criminal exemption.
object to impair its availability as evidence in
a case. Under PD No. 1829, it is not required AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
that the offenders must not have participated
as principals. Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court has expressly required that qualifying
e. Suspicion - An accessory under and aggravating circumstances be specifically
Article 19 (3) of the Revised Penal Code must alleged in the information. Due to such
have knowledge of the commission of the requirement being pro reo, the Court has
crime by the principal. Entertaining authorized its retroactive application in favor
suspicion is not itself proof of knowledge that of even those charged with felonies committed
a crime has been committed. “Knowledge” prior to December 1, 2000, which is the date
and “suspicion” are not synonymous. The of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of
word suspicion is defined as being the the Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied
imagination of the existence of something the requirement (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No.
without proof, or upon very slight evidence or 172321, February 9, 2011).
upon no evidence at all (Reyes). On the other
hand, the offender may violate Section 1 (c) of TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION -
PD No. 1829 even though he has no The mere use of service firearm is not enough
knowledge of the commission of the crime as to constitute taking advantage of public
long as he has reasonable ground to believe position. Fact that accused made use of
or suspects that the person he assisted has firearms which they were authorized to carry
committed a crime. In some, mere suspicion or possess by reason of their positions, could
is enough to establish the second element of not supply the required connection between
the offense. the office and the crime.The crime in question,
for example, could have been committed by
d. Preventing an illegal arrest – the defendants in the same or like manner
Harboring or concealing a criminal suspect in and with the same case if they had been
order to prevent a lawful warrantless arrest private individuals and fired with unlicensed
or the implementation of a warrant of arrest weapons (People vs. Mandolado, G.R. No. L-
constitutes obstruction of justice. However, 51304, June 28, 1983; People vs. Joyno, G.R.
harboring or concealing a criminal suspect to No. 123982, March 15, 1999, En Banc; People
prevent an illegal arrest is not a crime. The vs. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000;
term “arrest” in Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829 People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08 and
contemplates a lawful arrest (Posadas vs. the 141908-09, January 15, 2002, En Banc; and
Hon. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, People vs. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March
September 29, 2000) 4, 2004, En Banc).
e. Accessory – To make a person IGNONIMY - After killing the victim, the

liable as accessory under the Revised Penal accused severed his sexual organ. Should
Code, it is required that he is a public officer, ignominy be appreciated? No. For ignominy to
who acted with abuse of his public functions, be appreciated, it is required that the offense
or that the person assisted is guilty as be committed in a manner that tends to make
principal in treason, parricide, murder, or an its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the
13 | P a g e
victim’s moral suffering. Where the victim was mode of aggression or attack is not shown, the
already dead when his body or a part thereof reason being that minor children by reason of
was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken their tender years cannot possibly defend
against the accused (People vs. Cachola, G.R. themselves (People vs. Loreto, G.R. No.
Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004, Callejo)` 137411-13, February 28, 2003). If treachery
and abuse of superior strength attended the
TREACHERY - The little boy (11 years killing, which circumstances should qualify
of age) was merely flying his kite and was the killing into murder? What should qualify
ready to get down from the roof when the the crime is treachery as proved and not
accused, policeman, using his service pistol abuse of superior strength. If treachery is not
fired a shot directed at him. The boy died. proved but abuse of superior strength was
Should the aggravating circumstance of proved by the prosecution, the crime is
treachery, abuse of superior strength and qualified by abuse of superior strength (People
abuse of position be appreciated? The boy vs. Loreto, G.R. No. 137411-13, February 28,
could not possibly put up a defense against a 2003,).
police officer who was armed with a gun. It is
not so much as to put emphasis on the age of In the case at bar, the trial court merely
the victim, rather it is more of a description of relied on the suddenness of the attack on the
the young victim's state of helplessness. Minor unarmed and unsuspecting victim to justify
children, who by reason of their tender years, treachery. As a general rule, a sudden attack
cannot be expected to put up a defense. When by the assailant, whether frontally or from
an adult person illegally attacks a child, behind, is treachery if such mode of attack
treachery exists. The abuse of superior was deliberately adopted by him with the
strength is already absorbed by treachery and purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to
need not be considered as a separate either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply
aggravating circumstance. The aggravating if the attack was not preconceived but merely
circumstance of abuse of public position triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an
should not be appreciated. There is no dispute act made by the victim. In the present case, it
that the accused is a policeman and that he is apparent that the attack was not
used his service firearm in shooting the preconceived. It was triggered by the
victim. However, there is no showing that the appellant’s anger because of the victim’s
accused took advantage of his position as a refusal to have a drink with the appellant and
policeman when he shot the victim (People vs. his companions (People vs. Dumadag, G.R.
Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004, No. 147196, June 4, 2004, Callejo).
Callejo)
What is clear after our review of the
Witness saw accused armed with records is that the appellant and the victim
knives, chase and overtake the victim in a were engaged in a quarrel, a heated argument
vacant lot. The victim slipped and fell to the which culminated in the appellant’s stabbing
ground. Accused forthwith took turns in the victim in the heat of anger. As a rule,
stabbing the victim as the latter tried to stand there can be no treachery when an altercation
up. The prosecution failed to adduce any ensued between the appellant and the victim
evidence as to how the aggression started and (People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 147220, June 9,
who started the same. Should treachery be 2004, Callejo). Indeed in the case at bar, the
appreciated? No. The barefaced fact that the victim seemed to have expected trouble,
victim was helpless when he was stabbed does considering that upon seeing the appellant
not constitute proof of treachery. For and the latter’s friends, they got out of the
treachery to be appreciated, it must be river and moved away. Nevertheless,
present at the inception of the attack, and if treachery may still be appreciated even when
absent and the attack is continued, even if the victim was warned of danger to his person;
present at the subsequent stage, treachery is what is decisive is that the execution of the
not considered as a qualifying or generic attack made it impossible for the victim to
aggravating circumstance. The prosecution defend himself or to retaliate (People vs. Garin,
must adduce conclusive proof as to the G.R. No. 139069. June 17, 2004, Callejo).
manner in which the altercation started and
resulted in the death of the victim, and if the EMPLOMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN
prosecution fails to discharge its burden, the DEFENSE - If the employment of means to
crime committed is homicide and not murder weaken the defense of the victim renders the
(People vs. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 131035, victim defenseless, treachery absorbs
February 28, 2003). Case law has it that the circumstance of employing means to weaken
killing of minor children by adults qualifies defense (People vs. Tunhawan, G.R. NO. L-
the crime to murder even if the manner or 81470, October 27, 1988).
14 | P a g e
the night (People vs. Ventura and Ventura,
G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per
DISGUISE - If the accused covers his Curiam).
face with a handkerchief when he
treacherously killed the victim, the crime ABUSE OF SUEPRIOR STRENGHT
committed is murder qualified by treachery - Abuse of superior strength is an
and aggravated by disguise (People vs. Piring, aggravating circumstance if the accused
G.R. No. 45053, October 19, 1936). If the purposely uses excessive force out of
accused covers his face with a handkerchief
proportion to the means of defense
when he killed the victim, the crime
committed is murder qualified by employment available to the person attacked, or if
of means of affords impunity. there is notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and aggressor, and the
If the accused treacherously stabbed latter takes advantage of superior strength
the victim, and the crime committed is murder (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084,
qualified by treachery and aggravated by January 18, 2012).The victim need not be
disguise. If the accused covers his face with a completely defenseless in order for the
handkerchief when he killed the victim, the said aggravating circumstance to be
crime committed is murder qualified by appreciated (People vs. Paling, G.R.
employment of means of affords impunity.
No. 185390 March 16, 2011)If the victim
NIGHTTIME - Thus, treachery absorbs
is completely defenseless, treachery
nighttime where had it not been at night the should be appreciated. When the
offender, with his cohorts, would not have circumstance of abuse of superior
been able to approach the deceased without strength concurs with treachery, the
the latter's becoming aware of his presence former is absorbed in the latter (People vs.
and guessing his intention; If they were able to Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27,
catch victim completely unawares, it was due 2011).
to the darkness of the night which covered
them (People vs. Gumarang , GR N. 46413, An attack made by a man with a deadly
October 6, 1939). weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless
woman constitutes abuse of that superiority
As a general rule, nighttime is which his sex and the weapon used in the act
aggravating because the darkness of the night afforded him, and from which the woman was
facilitated the commission of the crime or unable to defend herself (People vs. Dionesio,
insured impunity. Thus, nighttime cannot G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003, Callejo).
aggravate the crime if it is committed in a
lighted place although at the wee hours of the EVIDENT PREMEDITATION - Evident
night (People vs. Clariño, G.R. NO. 134634, premeditation is not presumed from mere
July 31, 2001). The darkness of the night and lapse of time. The prosecution is burdened to
“not nighttime per se” is important in prove that the malefactors had decided to
appreciating it as modifying circumstance commit a crime and performed an "act
(People vs. Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June manifestly indicating that the offender had
15, 2004). But if the offender purposely clung" to a previous determination to kill. It
selected the wee hour of the night when must be shown that there was a period
neighbors and occupants of the house sufficient to afford full opportunity for
including the victim were sleeping to facilitate meditation and reflection, a time adequate to
the commission of the crime or to afford allow the conscience to overcome the
impunity, nighttime is appreciable even if the resolution of the will, as well as outward acts
place of commission is lighted. (People vs. showing the intent to kill. The premeditation
Demate, G.R. No. 132310, January 20, 2004, to kill should be plain and notorious. In the
En Banc).While accused were already outside absence of clear and positive evidence proving
the victims’ house at around 11:00 p.m., they this aggravating circumstance, mere
purposely waited until 2:00 a.m. before presumptions and inferences thereon, no
breaking into the residence so as not to call matter how logical and probable, would not be
the attention of the victims, household enough (People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R. No.
members and/or their neighbors. Taking 111098-99, April 3, 2003, Callejo). Accused
advantage of the fact that the victim and incensed at seeing the victim molesting his
household members were asleep, accused younger sister went to a notorious toughie in
entered the well-lighted bedroom and killed the area, and with two cohorts, proceeded to
the victim. Nighttime should be appreciated the house of the victim to confront him but
since accused took advantage of the silence of failed to see the victim. Thus, they positioned
15 | P a g e
themselves in the alley near the house and
waited for victim. When the victim arrived, AID OF ARMED MEN: Aid of armed
they killed him. Should evident premeditation men or persons affording immunity requires
be appreciated? No. The prosecution failed to (1) that the armed men are accomplices who
prove that the four intended to kill victim and take part in minor capacity, directly or
if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution indirectly (People vs. Lozano, G.R. Nos.
failed to prove how the malefactors intended 137370-71, September 29, 2003, En Banc)
to consummate the crime; Except for the fact and (2) that the accused availed himself of
that the offender and his three companions their aid or relied upon them when the crime
waited in an alley for Dario to return to his was committed. Thus, this circumstance
house, the prosecution failed to prove any should not be appreciated were armed men
overt acts on the part of the offender and his acted in concert to ensure the commission of
cohorts showing that that they had clung to the crime (People vs. Carino, G.R. No. 131117,
any plan to kill the victim (People vs. Biso and June 15, 2004, Callejo). In conspiracy, all
Yalong, G.R. No. 111098-99, April 3, 2003, conspirators are liable as principals. They are
Callejo) Comment: It is possible that the not accomplices.
criminal resolution of the accused is merely to
confront or take revenge short of killing. CRUELTY: The crime is not aggravated
by cruelty simply because the victim
DISREGARD OF SEX: Robbery with sustained ten stab wounds, three of which
homicide is essentially a felony against were fatal. For cruelty to be considered as an
property. The aggravating circumstance of aggravating circumstance there must be proof
disregard of the victim’s age is applied only to that, in inflicting several stab wounds on the
crimes against persons and honor. Moreover, victim, the perpetrator intended to exacerbate
the bare fact that the victim is a woman does the pain and suffering of the victim. The
not per se constitute disregard of sex. For this number of wounds inflicted on the victim is
circumstance to be properly considered, the not proof of cruelty (Simangan vs. People, G.R.
prosecution must adduce evidence that in the No. 157984. July 8, 2004, Callejo).
commission of the crime, the accused had
particularly intended to insult or commit The crime was qualified by
disrespect to the sex of the victim. In this treachery. The victim, who was barely
case, the appellant killed the victim because thirteen years old, was helpless and unable to
the latter started to shout. There was no defend himself. His feet and hands were tied
intent to insult nor commit disrespect to the while the appellant mauled and kicked him,
victim on account of the latter’s sex (People vs. and hit him with a piece of wood. The
Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, April 13, 2004, appellant was so depraved that he even
Callejo. electrocuted the victim by placing a live wire
on the latter’s palms and burying him
The circumstances of disregard of sex, alive. This is borne by the autopsy report of
age or rank should be taken singly or Dr. Suzette Yalung, which indicates that the
together. But the circumstance of dwelling victim died because of cardiac arrest due to
should be considered independently from the asphyxiation. By his detestable acts, the
circumstance of disregard of age, sex and appellant intended to exacerbate the suffering
rank since these circumstances signify of the victim. Hence, cruelty was attendant to
different concepts. In the latter, the the commission of the crime. However, cruelty
disrespect shown by offender pertains to the is absorbed by treachery (People vs. Chua,
person of the offended due to her rank, age G.R. No. 149538, July 26, 2004, Callejo).
and sex. In the former, the disrespect
pertains to the dwelling of the offended party MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
due to the sanctity of privacy which the law
accords it. In People vs. Puno, G.R. No. L- VOLUNTARY SURRENDER – In
33211, June 29, 1981, En Banc - Disregard order that voluntary surrender is appreciated
of rank and dwelling were appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following
independently. requisites must concur: (a) the accused has
not been actually arrested; (b) the accused
In robbery with violence and surrenders himself to a person in authority or
intimidation against persons, dwelling is the latter’s agent; and (c) surrender is
aggravating because in this class of robbery, voluntary (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No.
the crime may be committed without the 169084, January 18, 2012).
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house(People vs. Evangelio, The surrender made after 14 days from
G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011). the date of killing cannot be considered
16 | P a g e
voluntary since his act did not emanate from a an alternative circumstance (People vs. Ulit,
natural impulse to admit the killing or to save G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February 23, 2004).
the police officers the effort and expense that
would be incurred in his search and PASSION - Four days after the
incarceration. (People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. victims attempted on the virtue of his wife,
177751, December 14, 2011). accused killed them. The period of four
days was sufficient enough a time within
Surrender is not voluntary where the
which accused could have regained his
accused went to Barangay Chairman after the
composure and self-control. Hence,
killings to seek protection against the
retaliation of the victims’ relatives, not to passion should not be appreciated (People
admit his participation in the killing of the vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27,
victims (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 2011).
169084, January 18, 2012).
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
The appellants are not entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary Alternative circumstances are those
surrender. The evidence shows that the which must be taken into consideration as
appellants were arrested when the police aggravating or mitigating according to the
officers manning the checkpoint stopped the nature and effects of the crime and other
passenger jeepney driven by appellant Ronald conditions attending its commission. Based on
and arrested the appellants. The fact that the a strict interpretation, alternative
appellants did not resist but went peacefully circumstances are thus not aggravating
with the peace officers does not mean that circumstances per se. (People vs. Orilla, G.R.
they surrendered voluntarily (People vs. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004, En
Castillano, G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003, banc).
CALLEJO).
When the offender has committed a
VENDICATION: The mitigating felony in a state of intoxication, this
circumstance of having acted in the immediate circumstance may be mitigating or
vindication of a grave offense was, likewise, aggravating. If the intoxication is habitual or
properly appreciated. The appellant was intentional, the circumstance is aggravating. If
humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the the intoxication is not habitual or subsequent
deceased. Although the unlawful aggression to the plan to commit said felony, the
had ceased when the appellant stabbed circumstance is mitigating. For intoxication to
Anthony, it was nonetheless a grave offense be considered as a mitigating circumstance, it
for which the appellant may be given the must be shown that the intoxication impaired
benefit of a mitigating circumstance. But the the willpower of the accused that he did not
mitigating circumstance of sufficient know what he was doing or could not
provocation cannot be considered apart from comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts
the circumstance of vindication of a grave (People vs. Patelan, G.R. No. 182918, June 6,
offense. These two circumstances arose from 2011).
one and the same incident, i.e., the attack on
the appellant by Anthony, so that they should EVIDENT PEMIDITATION
be considered as only one mitigating
circumstance (People vs. Torpio, G.R. No. For evident premeditation to be
138984, June 4, 2004, Callejo). appreciated, the following must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when
In vindication of grave offense, criminal the accused determined to commit the crime;
exemption of accessories, alternative (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
circumstance of relationship and defense of accused clung to his determination; and (3)
stranger, the concept of relationship is the sufficient lapse of time between such
same. It refers to (1) spouse, (2) ascendants, determination and execution to allow him to
(3) descendants, or (4) legitimate, natural or reflect upon the circumstances of his act
adopted brothers or sisters or (5) of his (People vs. Duavis, G.R. No. 190861,
relatives by affinity in the same degrees. December 7, 2011).Accused told witness that
However, in defense of relative, there is an they were “going to kill the doctor”. After less
additional concept of relationship. It includes than thirty minutes, the accused killed the
relatives by consanguinity within the fourth victim, who is a doctor. Evident premeditation
civil degree. Thus, an uncle is a relative within should not be appreciated. The span of time
the concept of defense of stranger (Reyes). (less than thirty minutes), from the time the
However, relationship of uncle and niece is not accused showed their determination to kill the
victim up to the time they shot the victim,
17 | P a g e
could not have afforded them full opportunity application of the penalty for the second crime
for meditation and reflection on the committed in its maximum period unless it is
consequences of the crime they committed off-set by mitigating circumstance. Quasi-
(People vs. Patelan, G.R. No. 182918, June 6, recidivism is special aggravating
2011).Unlike evident premeditation, there is circumstance, the presence of which will
no requirement for conspiracy to exist that trigger the application of the penalty for the
there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to second crime or third crime in its maximum
afford full opportunity for meditation and period regardless of the presence of mitigating
reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the circumstance. Habitual delinquency is an
very moment the plotters agree, expressly or extraordinary or special aggravating
impliedly, to commit the subject felony (People circumstance, the presence of which will
vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July 6, trigger the imposition of additional penalty for
2011). the third or subsequent crime. This is not
subject to the off-set rule.
REPETITION SELF-DEFENSE
Differences of recidivism, quasi- SELF-HELP PRINCIPLE - In People vs.

recidivism, reiteracion and habitual Apolinar, CA, 38 O.G. 2870, it was held:
delinquency: Defense of property is not of such importance
as right to life, and defense of property can be
(a) Nature of crime – In recidivism, the invoked as a justifying circumstance only
first crime, and the aggravated second crime when it is coupled with an attack on the
are embraced in the same Title of the Revised person of one entrusted with said property.
Penal Code; In quasi-recidivism, the nature of However, in People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-
the first crime and aggravated second crime is 33466-67, April 20, 1983, the SC found the
not material. In reiteration, the penalty for the presence of unlawful aggression despite the
first crime is equal or greater than that for the fact that the invasion of his property right was
aggravated second crime or the penalty for the not coupled by an attack against the accused.
first two crimes is lighter than that for the The accused has the right to resist pursuant
aggravated third crime. In habitual Article 429 of the Civil Code, which provides:
delinquency, the first, second and third crimes “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
must be a habitual-delinquency crime, and the right to exclude any person from the
that is, serious or less serious physical enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification purpose, he may use such force as may be
of document. reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
actual or threatened unlawful physical
(b) Time element – In recidivism, the invasion or usurpation of his property.”
accused was convicted of the first crime by However, since the means employed to resist
final judgment at the time of trial of the second the invader (killing) is not reasonable, the
crime. In quasi-recidivism, the accused has accused is merely given the benefit of
been convicted by final judgment of the first incomplete self-defense. Justice Florenz
offense but before beginning to serve his Regalado stated that the rule in Apolinar case
sentence or while servicing of his sentence, he may be deemed to have been superseded by
committed the second crime. In reiteration, Narvaez case.
the accused was convicted of the first crime
(or first two crimes) and served his sentences UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION - Ordinarily
at the time he was convicted of the second there is a difference between the act of
crime (or third crime). In habitual drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing
delinquency, the accused was convicted of one’s gun at a target. The former cannot be
first habitual-delinquency crime; within 10 said to be unlawful aggression on the part of
years after conviction or release, he was found the victim. For unlawful aggression to be
guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the attendant there must be a real danger to life
second time; within 10 years after conviction or personal safety. Unlawful aggression
or release he was found guilty of habitual- requires an actual, sudden and unexpected
delinquency crime for the third time or attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not
oftener. merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
Here, the act of the victim in drawing a gun
(c) Nature of the aggravating from his waist cannot be categorized as
circumstance - Recidivism and reiteration are unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in
ordinary aggravating circumstances, the real peril the life or personal safety of
presence of any of which will trigger the appellant. The facts surrounding the case
18 | P a g e
must, however, be differentiated from current between the means of attack by the unlawful
jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. aggressor and the means of defense by the
Accused was justified in defending himself accused that would characterize the defense
considering that victim was a trained police as reasonable. The doctrine of rational
officer and an inebriated and disobedient equivalence presupposes the consideration not
colleague. Even if the victim did not point his only of the nature and quality of the weapons
firearm at accused, there would still be a used by the defender and the assailant—but
finding of unlawful aggression on the part of of the totality of circumstances surrounding
the victim (Nacnac vs. People, G.R. the defense vis-à-vis, the unlawful aggression.
No. 191913, March 21, 2012). Clearly, this “continuous attack” by accused
despite the fact that aggressor already was
Imminent unlawful aggression means neutralized by the blow constitutes force
an attack that is impending or at the point of beyond what is reasonably required to repel
happening; it must not consist in a mere the aggression—and is therefore unjustified
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely (Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No. 181071, March
imaginary, but must be offensive and 15, 2010).
positively strong (like aiming a revolver at
another with intent to shoot or opening a knife BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME:
and making a motion as if to attack). "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a
Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a scientifically defined pattern of psychological
mere threatening attitude of the victim, such and behavioral symptoms found in women
as pressing his right hand to his hip where a living in battering relationships as a result of
revolver was holstered, accompanied by an cumulative abuse (Section 3 of RA No. 9262).
angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a Each of the phases of the cycle of violence
pot (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, must be proven to have characterized “at
January 18, 2012). least two battering episodes” between the
accused and her intimate partner and such
final episode produced in the battered
In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent
177743, January 25, 2012 - Indeed, had harm from her batterer and an honest belief
victim really attacked accused, the latter that she needed to use force in order to save
would have sustained some injury from the her life. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981,
aggression. It remains, however, that no injury January 15, 2004). The three phases of the
of any kind or gravity was found on the person Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the
of accused when he presented himself to the tension-building phase; (2) the acute
hospital. In contrast, the physician who battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving
examined the cadaver of victim testified that or non-violent phase (People vs. Genosa, G.R.
he had been hit on the head more than once. No. 135981, January 15, 2004; Answer to the
The plea of self-defense was thus belied, for 2010 Bar Examination Questions by UP Law
the weapons used by accused and the location Complex). The essence of this defense of
and number of wounds he inflicted on victim “Battered Woman Syndrome” as a defense is
revealed his intent to kill, not merely an effort that battered woman, who suffers from
to prevent or repel an attack from victim. We physical and psychological or emotional
consider to be significant that the gravity of distress, is acting under an irresistible
the wounds manifested the determined effort impulse to defend herself although at the time
of the accused to kill his victim, not just to of commission of the crime the batterer-
defend himself. victim had not yet committed unlawful
aggression. In Genosa supra, it was held that
BURDEN OF PROOF - When the “it is crucial to the BWS defense is the state of
accused’s defense is self-defense he thereby mind of the battered woman at the time of the
admits being the author of the death of the offense. She must have actually feared
victim, that it becomes incumbent upon him imminent harm from her batterer and honestly
to prove the justifying circumstance to the believed in the need to kill him in order to save
satisfaction of the court. Burden of evidence her life.” That is why even in the absence of
shifts to the accused. (People vs. Del Castillo, “actual aggression” or any other element of
G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012). self-defense, a woman, who is found to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome is
not criminally liable for killing her husband.
DOCTRINE OF RATIONALE
EQUIVALENCE - Under doctrine of rationale IRRESISTABLE FORCE
equivalence, plea of self-defense would
prosper if there is a rational equivalence
19 | P a g e
A person who acts under the detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section
compulsion of an irresistible force, like one 41, RA 9344. Under the said provision, the
who acts under the impulse of an full time spent in actual commitment and
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, detention of juvenile delinquent shall be
is exempt from criminal liability because he credited in the services of his sentence.
does not act with freedom. Actus me invite
factus non est meus actus. An act done by me INSANITY
against my will is not my act. The force
contemplated must be so formidable as to Acts penalized by law are always
reduce the actor to a mere instrument who presumed to be voluntary, and it is improper
acts not only without will but against his to conclude that a person acted unconsciously
will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation in order to relieve him of liability, unless his
must be present, imminent and impending, insanity is conclusively proved (People vs.
and of such nature as to induce a well- Pambid, GR No. 124453, March 15,
grounded apprehension of death or serious 2000).Insanity is the exception rather than the
bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of rule in the human condition. The
future injury is not enough. The compulsion presumption, under Article 800 of the Civil
must be of such a character as to leave no Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone
opportunity for the accused for escape or self- who pleads the exempting circumstance of
defense in equal combat (People vs. Dequina, insanity bears the burden of proving it with
G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011) clear and convincing evidence. It is in the
nature of confession and avoidance. An
MINORITY accused invoking insanity admits to have
committed the crime but claims that he or she
To exempt a minor, who is 15 years old is not guilty because of insanity (People vs.
or more, from criminal liability, it must be Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010).
shown that he committed the criminal act
without discernment. Choosing an isolated
and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION
prevent detection and boxing the victim to TEST - The case of Formigonesestablished two
weaken her defense” are indicative of distinguishable tests to determine the insane
accused’s mental capacity to fully understand condition of the accused: (a) the Test of
the consequences of his unlawful action cognition – whether there was a “complete
(People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March deprivation of intelligence in committing the
16, 2011). criminal act” After satisfying his lust, accused
threatened the victim. This implies that
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE - While accused knew what he was doing, that it was
Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. It also
suspension of sentence can still be applied indicated that the crime was committed
even if the child in conflict with the law is during one of his lucid intervals. Accused is
already 18 years of age or more at the time of not exempt from liability for failure to pass the
the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section cognition test (People vs. Alipio, G.R. No.
40 of the same law limits the said suspension 185285, October 5, 2009) and (b) the test of
of sentence until the child reaches the volition – whether there was a “total
maximum age of 21. Hence, the child in deprivation of freedom of the will.” In the
conflict with the law, who reached 21 years, Bonoan case, schizophrenic accused, who
cannot avail of privilege of suspension of acted under irresistible homicidal impulse to
sentence. However, the child in conflict with kill (volition test), was acquitted due to
the law may, after conviction and upon order insanity. This is not anymore a good rule.
of the court, be made to serve his sentence, in Even if the mental condition of the accused
lieu of confinement in a regular penal had passed the volition test, the plea of
institution, in an agricultural camp and other insanity will not prosper unless it also passed
training facilities (People vs. Mantalba, G.R. the cognition test. The controlling test is
No. 186227, July 20, 2011). cognition (People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos.
147674-75, March 17, 2004). In recent
CREDIT OF THE PREVENTIVE Supreme Court cases, the plea of insanity of
IMPRISONMENT OF CHILD - Under Article person, who is suffering from schizophrenia,
29 of RPC, a convicted recidivist is not was rejected because of failure to pass the
entitled to a full or 4/5 credit of his cognition test. In sum, a schizophrenic
preventive imprisonment. However, if the accused must be deprived completely of
convict is a child, the applicable rule for intelligence to be exempt from criminal
crediting the period of commitment and liability (See: People vs. Medina, G.R. No.
20 | P a g e
113691, February 6, 1998; People vs. Pascual,
G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993).If a person (1) With conspiracy - If there is
(such as sex maniac, homicidal maniac or conspiracy, the criminal participator or
kleptomaniac)hadmerely passed the volition cooperator is a principal by direct
test but not the cognition test, he will only be participation. The act of the chief actor is
given the benefit of mitigating circumstance of considered the act of the criminal
illness. Diminution of freedom of the will is participator.
enough to mitigate the liability of the offender
suffering from illness (See: People vs. Rafanan, (2) Without conspiracy - If there is no
Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. No. 54135, conspiracy, criminal participator may be
November 21, 1991). held liable as principal by indispensable
cooperation, accomplice or accessory
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE IN CRIME AGAINST depending upon the nature and time of
PROPERTY participation. A criminal participator may
participate in the commission of the crime
No criminal liability is incurred by the by previous, simultaneous and/or
stepfather who commits malicious mischief subsequent acts.
against his stepson; by the stepmother who
commits theft against her stepson; by the (a) Previous or simultaneous acts –
stepfather who steals something from his The criminal participator by previous or
stepson; by the grandson who steals from his simultaneous acts is liable either as
grandfather; by the accused who swindles his principal by indispensable cooperation
sister-in-law living with him; and by the son or accomplice. If the cooperation is
who steals a ring from his mother (Intestate indispensable, the participator is a
Estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. principal by indispensable cooperation;
181409, February 11, 2010). The absolutory if dispensable an accomplice.
cause applies to theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. It does not apply to theft (b) Subsequent acts – The criminal
through falsification or estafa through participator by subsequent acts is liable
falsification (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. as an accessory. An accessory does not
People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). participate in the criminal design, nor
There are two viewson whether the cooperate in the commission of the
extinguishment of marriage by death of the felony, but, with knowledge of the
spouse dissolves the relationship by affinity commission of the crime, he
for purpose of absolutory cause. The first subsequently takes part by any of the
holds that relationship by affinity terminates three modes under Article 19.
with the dissolution of the marriage, while the
second maintains that relationship continues The liability of accessory and principal
even after the death of the deceased spouse. should also be considered as quasi-collective.
The principle of pro reocalls for the adoption of It is quasi-collective in the sense that the
the continuing affinity view because it is more principal and the accessory are liable for the
favorable to the accused (Intestate estate of felony committed but the penalty for the
Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, latter is two degrees lower than that for the
February 11, 2010). former.
PARTICIPATION RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE

IMPRISONMENT
Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor is
the person who actually committed the crime. If the law was amended to change the
He is the one who committed or omitted the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion
act, which causes the criminal result. He perpetua, the amendatory law, being more
directly perpetrated the acts, which lenient to the accused than the previous law,
constitute the crime. With or without should be accorded retroactive application.
conspiracy, the chief actor is a principal by The penalty of reclusion perpetua is a lighter
direct participation. penalty than life imprisonment. (People vs.
Pang, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011).
Criminal participator - Criminal
participator is the offender who participated ISLAW
in committing a crime by indispensable or
dispensable act. He performed an act, which RA 9165 provides that illegal
is not constitutive of felony but intended to possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu
give moral or material aid to the chief actor. is penalized with imprisonment of 12 years
21 | P a g e
and 1 day to 20 years. The court sentenced First exception: Fixed penalty in
the accused to suffer a straight penalty of period – If the penalty is composed of single
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day. Is the period, the graduated penalty must also be
penalty imposed by the court correct? No. The composed of single period. If the penalty
indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that, in prescribed by law is arresto mayor in its
case of a special law, the accused shall be maximum period, the penalty next lower in
sentenced "to an indeterminate sentence, the degree is arresto mayor in its medium period.
maximum term of which shall not exceed the If the penalty is composed of two periods, the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum graduated penalty must also be composed of
shall not be less than the minimum term two periods. If the penalty prescribed by law
prescribed by the same." (Asiatico vs. People, arresto mayor in its maximum period to
G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011) prision correctional in its minimum period,
the penalty next lower in degree is arresto
GRADUATION OF PENALTY mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
If the penalty is composed of three periods,
GRADUATING FACTORS - Under the graduated penalty must also be
these provisions, the fixed penalty shall be composed of three periods.
graduated by one or more degrees on the
basis of the following factors: First Exception: Fixed penalty with
period and penalty components – If the fixed
FACTORS penalty is composed of period component and
NUMBER OF DEGREES penalty component, the graduated penalty
Stage of Execution must be composed of three period
Frustrated stage components. Example: The penalty
---------------------------------------------------- 1 prescribed by law is “reclusion temporal in its
Attempted stage maximum period to reclusion perpetua.” This
--------------------------------------------------- 2 penalty has a period component and a full
Except: Frustrated homicide, parricide, penalty. Hence, one degree lower than this
murder ------ 1 or 2 penalty must composed of three periods, and
Attempted homicide, that is: “Prision mayor in its maximum period
parricide, murder -----1 or 2 to reclusion temporal in its medium period”
Nature of Participation
Accomplice SPECIAL MITIGATING
-------------------------------------------------------- CIRCUMSTANCE: Under Article 64 (5), the
1 presence of two or more mitigating
Accessory circumstances will graduate the “divisible
-------------------------------------------------------- penalty prescribed by law” to one degree
-- 2 lower. This is called special mitigating
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance circumstance. However, the appreciation of
Minority this circumstance is subject to two
-------------------------------------------------------- conditions: (1) the penalty prescribed by law
---------1 must be divisible; and (2) there must be no
Incomplete justification or exemption aggravating circumstance. In People vs.
---------------------------1 or 2 Takbobo, G.R. No. No. 102984, June 30,
(Except: Accident) 1993 - Accused was found guilty of parricide
punishable by the penalty of reclusion
The composition of a graduated perpetua to death. Applying Article 63, when
penalty will depend on the composition of the the penalty is composed of two indivisible
penalty fixed by law. penalties, the penalty cannot be lowered by
one degree, no matter how many mitigating
General Rule: Single Penalty - circumstances are present. The rule on
Graduated penalty is generally a single special mitigating circumstance is found in
penalty. Example – If the fixed penalty is Article 64 (5) which provides the "rules for the
death, the penalty next lower in degree is application of penalties which contain three
reclusion perpetua; if the fixed penalty is periods," meaning, divisible penalties. Article
reclusion perpetua, the penalty next lower in 64 (5) is inapplicable. Thus, the rule
degree is reclusion temporal; if the fixed applicable in said case is found in Article 63,
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the and not in Article 64.
penalty next lower in degree is also reclusion
temporal. The graduated penalty of reclusion If there are two mitigating
temporal is a single penalty. circumstances, the penalty prescribed law
shall graduated to one degree lower, and the
22 | P a g e
graduated penalty shall be applied in it THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION
medium period. If there are three mitigating RULE
circumstances taken as special mitigating, the
penalty prescribed law shall graduated to one Simultaneous service - When the culprit
degree lower, and the graduated penalty shall has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
be applied in it minimum period. Reason: The serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
two mitigating circumstances were taken to penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could
constitute special mitigating circumstance; serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine,
while the remaining mitigating circumstance prision correccional and perpetual absolute
was used to apply the graduated penalty in disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil
its minimum period. interdiction. In sum, while lingering in prison,
convict could pay fine, return the property
GRADUATING DEATH PENALTY - For confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or
purposes of graduating penalty, the penalty of to act function as a public officer. In
death is still the penalty to be reckoned Rodriguez vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-
with. RA No. 9346, which prohibits the 35386, September 28, 1972, En Banc -
imposition of death penalty, does not exclude Penalties which could be served
death penalty in the order of graduation of simultaneously with other penalties, are
penalties. In qualified rape, the penalty for perpetual or temporary absolute
accomplice is reclusion perpetua, the penalty disqualification, perpetual or temporary
next lower in degree than death prescribed for special disqualification, public censure,
the crime (See: People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. suspension from public office and other
182239, March 16, 2011). accessory penalties. There are only two modes
of serving two or more (multiple) penalties:
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION - A simultaneously or successively. Successive
special law prescribes the penalty of 10 years service – When the culprit has to serve two or
of imprisonment for violation thereof while more penalties, he shall serve them
another law prescribes the penalty of arresto successively if the nature of the penalties will
mayor. Can the rules on graduation of not permit simultaneous service. Convict
penalties or application of penalty on its must serve multiple penalties successively: (1)
proper imposable period under RPC applicable where the penalties to be served are destierro
to violation of these special laws?(a) Where the and imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties
special law has not adopted the Spanish to be served are imprisonment. However, the
penalties (10 years of imprisonment) under successive service of sentences is subject to
RPC, rules on graduation of penalties or the three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule.
application of penalty on its proper imposable
period is not applicable. Article 10 of RPC on a. Three-fold rule - The maximum
suppletory effects of the Code cannot be period of the imprisonment that convict must
invoked where there is a legal or physical suffer in serving multiple penalties must not
impossibility of such supplementary exceed threefold the length of time
application (People vs. Mantalba, G.R. No. corresponding to the most severe of the
186227, July 20, 2011). The penalty of 10 penalties imposed upon him. “A” was
years of imprisonment can neither be sentenced to suffer penalty of 7 years of
graduated by decrees nor divided into three prision mayor for serious physical injuries, 6
periods. (b) Where the special law has adopted years of prision correccional for qualified less
the Spanish penalty (arresto mayor) under serious physical injuries, 5 years of prision
RPC, rules on graduation of penalties or correccional for robbery and 5 years of prison
application of penalty on its proper imposable correccional for theft. The total duration of
period are applicable. Where the penalty the penalties imposed on him is 23 years.
under a special law is actually taken from the The most severe penalty imposed on him is 7
Revised Penal Code in its technical years of prision mayor. Thus, threefold the
nomenclature, the penal system under the length of time corresponding to the most
Code is necessarily applicable to this law (See: severe of the penalties is 21 years. “A” will be
People vs. Mantalba, supra). This adoption imprisoned for 21 years because of the three-
reveals the statutory intent to give the fold rule.
provisions on penalties for felonies under RPC
the corresponding application to said special b. Forty-year limitation rule – The
law, in the absence of any express or implicit maximum period of the imprisonment that
proscription in these special laws (See: People convict must suffer in serving multiple
vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994). penalties must not exceed forty years. “A”
was sentenced to suffer three penalties of 15
years of reclusion temporal for three counts of
23 | P a g e
homicide and the penalty of 10 years of combination of the offenses is not specified
prision mayor for serious physical injuries. but generalized, that is, grave and/or less
The total duration of the penalties imposed grave, or one offense being the necessary
on him is 55 years. The most severe penalty means to commit the other; (2) For a
imposed on him, is 15 years of reclusion composite crime, the penalty for the specified
temporal. Thus, threefold the length of time combination of crimes is specific; for a
corresponding to the most severe of the complex or compound crime, the penalty is
penalties is 45 years. “A” will be imprisoned that corresponding to the most serious
for 40 years because of the forty year offense, to be imposed in the maximum
limitation rule. period; and (3) A light felony that accompanies
a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony
Article 70 provides that “the maximum that accompanies the commission of a
duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be complex or compound crime may be the
more than threefold the length of time subject of a separate information (People vs.
corresponding to the most severe of the Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012).
penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be CONTINUED CRIME - In order that
inflicted after the sum total of those imposed continuous crime may exist, there should be:
equals the said maximum (1) plurality of acts performed separately
period. Such maximum period shall in no during a period of time; (2) unity of criminal
case exceed forty years.” Applying said rule, intent and purpose and (3) unity of penal
despite the four penalties of reclusion provision infringed upon or violated (Santiago
perpetua for four counts of qualified theft, vs. Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December
accused-appellant shall suffer imprisonment 2, 1993).
for a period not exceeding 40 years (People vs.
Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011). a. Single occassion - In People vs.
Tumlos, G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En
COMPLEX CRIME Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows owned
by six owners involved thirteen (13) acts of
There are two kinds of complex taking. However, the acts of taking took place
crimes. The first is known as compound at the same time and in the same place;
crime, or when a single act constitutes two or consequently, accused performed but one act.
more grave or less grave felonies. The second The intention was likewise one, namely, to
is known as complex crime proper, or when an take for the purpose of appropriating or
offense is a necessary means for committing selling the thirteen cows which he found
the other (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. grazing in the same place. The fact that eight
182551, July 27, 2011).The underlying of said cows pertained to one owner and five
philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised to another does not make him criminally
Penal Code, which follows the pro liable for as many crimes as there are
reo principle, is intended to favor the accused owners, for the reason that in such case
by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the neither the intention nor the criminal act is
crimes committed. The rationale being, that susceptible of division.
the accused who commits two crimes with
single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser “X” as punong barangay was angered
perversity than when the crimes are when he discovered a tap from the main line
committed by different acts and several of the public water tank. On separate
criminal resolutions (People vs. Gaffud, Jr., occasions, “X” threatened to kill and crack the
G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008) skulls of “A”, “B”, and “C”, who suspected to
be responsible for the tapping of water line.
COMPLEX CRIME AND COMPOSITE There is no continued crime since the three
CRIME - A composite crime, also known as a crimes of grave threat were not committed
special complex crime, is composed of two or under a single criminal impulse. “X’s” intent
more crimes that the law treats as a to threaten “A”, “B”, and “C” with bodily harm
single indivisible and unique offense for being arose only when he chanced upon each of his
the product of a single criminal impulse. It is victims. Several threats can only be
a specific crime with a specific penalty considered as continued crime if the offender
provided by law. The distinctions between a threatened three individuals at the same place
composite crime, on the one hand, and a and at the same time (Paera vs. People, G.R.
complex or compound crime under Article 48 No. 181626, May 30, 2011). In People vs.
are as follows: (1) In a composite crime, the Tumlos, G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En
composition of the offenses is fixed by law; In Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows owned by
a complex or compound crime, the six owners involved thirteen (13) acts of
24 | P a g e
taking. However, the acts of taking took place defamation was just a part of the crime of
at the same time and in the same place; threat. The letter containing the libelous
consequently, accused performed but one act. remarks is more threatening than libelous;
The intention was likewise one, namely, to the intent to threaten is the principal aim and
take for the purpose of appropriating or selling object of the letter. The libelous remarks are
the thirteen cows which he found grazing in merely preparatory remarks culminating in
the same place. The fact that eight of said the final threat.
cows pertained to one owner and five to
another does not make him criminally liable What is the effect of the elimination of
for as many crimes as there are owners, for the overt acts of violence in Article 135 by RA
the reason that in such case neither the No. 9668? In People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No.
intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of L-6025, July 18, 1956 – The Supreme Court
division. justified the doctrine of absorption in rebellion
since murder, robbery, and arson are just a
b. General plan - In People vs. Dela part of the “engaging in war against the forces
Cruz, G.R. No. L-1745, May 23, 1950, it was of the government", "committing serious
held that ransacking several houses located violence", and “destroying property in Article
within the vicinity of a sugar mill while two of 135. However, RA No. 6968 eliminated the
the bandits guarded the victims with guns phrases "engaging in war against the forces of
leveled at them is a continued crime of the government", "committing serious
robbery. Several acts of robbery were made violence" and “destroying property” in Article
pursuant to general plan to despoil all those 135. According to Florenz Regalado, the
in the said place, which is an indicative of a amendment of Article 135 does not affect the
single criminal design. accepted concept of rebellion and these “overt
acts of violence” are deemed “subsumed” in the
c. Foreknowledge doctrine - In provision on rebellion in Article 134. Under
Gamboa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November this principle of subsumption, engaging in
28, 1975 - Accused cannot be held to have combat against the forces of the Government,
entertained continuously the same criminal destroying property or committing serious
intent in making the first abstraction on violence is an essential ingredient of rebellion.
October 2, 1972 for the subsequent
abstractions on the following days and Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged
months until December 30, 1972, for the for rebellion under the Revised Penal Code
simple reason that he was not possessed of and obstruction of justice under PD No. 1829.
any fore-knowledge of any deposit by any The obstruction of justice case is based on the
customer on any day or occasion and which allegation that Enrile entertained and
would pass on to his possession and control. accommodated Col. Gregorio “Gringo”
At most, his intent to misappropriate may Honasan, fugitive from justice, by giving him
arise only when he comes in possession of food and comfort on December 1, 1989 in his
the deposits on each business day but not in house. The rebellion case is based on the
future, since petitioner company operates alleged fact that fugitive Col. Honasan and
only on a day-to-day transaction. As a result, some 100-rebel soldiers attended the mass
there could be as many acts of and birthday party held at the residence of
misappropriation as there are times the Enrile in the evening of December 1, 1989. It
private respondent abstracted and/or was held that the theory of absorption in
diverted the deposits to his own personal use rebellion cases must not confine itself to
and benefit (People vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. L- common crimes but also to offenses under
16943, October 28, 1961). special laws, which are perpetrated in
furtherance of the political offense. Hence,
DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION - Crime rebellion absorbs obstruction of justice (Enrile
is absorbed if it is a mere incident in the vs. Amin, G.R. No. 93335, September 13,
commission of another crime. In the case of 1990).
U.S vs. Sevilla (1 Phil. 143), the accused, who
struck the offended parties while MULTIPLE DEATHS
simultaneously threatening to kill them if
they would not return him the jewelry they SINGLE ACT RULE - If there is more
have lost, was held liable for slight physical than one death resulting from different acts
injuries. The threat was considered as part of there is no compound crime of multiple
the assault. In People vs. Yebra (109 Phil. homicides or murder. Article 48 speaks of a
613), it was held that defamatory statement “single act”. In People vs. Toling, G.R. No. L-
uttered in the course of committing the crime 27097, January 17, 1975 - Twin brothers,
of threat is not a separate crime. The who ran amok like “juramentados” in a
25 | P a g e
passenger train, and killed their eight co- impossible to ascertain the number of deaths
passengers, were held liable for eight (8) caused by each accused (People vs. Tabaco,
murders and one attempted murder. The G.R. No. 100382-100385, March 19, 1997). In
conduct of the twins evinced conspiracy and conspiracy, each conspirator is not only liable
community of design. The eight killings and for deaths attributable to him but also for
the attempted murder were perpetrated by deaths caused by others because in
means of different acts. Hence, they cannot be conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.
regarded as constituting a complex crime Thus, the Lawas doctrine should not be
under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, applied if there is conspiracy since the
which refers to cases where "a single act number of victims actually killed by each
constitutes two or more grave felonies, of, conspirator is not anymore material if there is
when an offense is a necessary means for conspiracy (People vs. Elarcosa, G.R. No.
committing the other. 186539, June 29, 2010).
In People vs. Punzalan G .R. No. SINGLE PURPOSE RULE - In People

199892, December 1, 2001 - Appellant was vs. Abella, 93 SCRA 25, the “Lawas principle”
animated by a single purpose, to kill the navy was applied despite the presence of
personnel, and committed a single act of conspiracy. In the said case, sixteen prisoners,
stepping on the accelerator, swerving to the who are members of the OXO gang, were able
right side of the road ramming through the to break into the cell of Sigue-Sigue gang and
navy personnel, causing the death of two killed fourteen (14) inmates. All accused were
persons and, at the same time, constituting convicted for a compound crime. It was held:
an attempt to kill others. The crime committed Where a conspiracy animates several persons
is complex crime of multiple murders and with a single purpose, their individual acts
attempted murder. done in pursuance of that purpose are looked
upon as a single act, the act of execution,
SINGLE IMPULSE RULE – Several acts giving rise to a complex offense. Various acts
committed by several offenders with one committed under one criminal impulse may
criminal impulse resulting in several deaths constitute a single complex offense. Basis -
constitute one crime: the compound crime of The “single purpose rule” was actually adopted
multiple homicides or murders. In People vs. in consideration of the plight of the prisoners.
Lawas, L-7618-20, June 30, 1955 - Members Requisites -There are two requisites to apply
of the Home Guard, upon order of their leader, the Abella principle: (1) there must be a
Lawas, simultaneously and successively fired conspiracy, which animates several persons to
at several victims. After a short time, the firing commit crimes under a single criminal
stopped immediately when Lawas ordered his purpose; and (2) the offenders committed
men to “cease fire”. As a result of the firing, crimes in prison against their fellow prisoners
fifty (50) persons died. It was held that the (People vs. Pincalin, et al., G.R. No. L-38755,
evidence positively shows that the killing was January 22, 1981).
the result of a single impulse, which was
induced by the order of the leader to fire, and MULTIPLE KIDDNAPPINGS
continued with the intention to comply
therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as the In People v Tadah, G.R. No. 186226,
leader gave the order to that effect. There was February 1, 2012 (5 victims)- Since the
no intent on the part of the accused either to prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable
fire at each and every of the victims as
doubt that the accused conspired to kidnap
separately and distinctly from each other. If
the act or acts complained of resulted from a the victims for ransom, and kidnapped and
single criminal impulse, it constitutes a single illegally detained them until they were
offense - compound crime of multiple released by the accused after the latter
homicides. received the P2,000,000.00 ransom xxx
Appellant Yusop Tadah is found guilty beyond
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY RULE reasonable doubt of 5 counts of kidnapping.
- Under the Lawas principle, if accused fired
their guns killing several victims pursuant to
NOVATION
a single impulse, they shall be held liable for
continued crime of murder. The Lawas
Novation can only be used as a defense
principle should only be applied in a case
in a crime where one of its elements is the
where (1) there is no conspiracy (People vs.
existence of contractual relationship between
Hon. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21, 1967;
the offender and the victim. Defense of
People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No.
novation is applicable to estafa through
184500. September 11, 2012) and (2) it is
misappropriation because the contractual
26 | P a g e
trust relationship between the parties can be check by the drawee bank (Bautista vs. Court
validly novated or converted by the parties of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001).
into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, However, the period of prescription for such
thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to crime commences to run from the date of the
insist on the original trust (People vs. Nery, expiration of the five-day period from receipt
G.R. No. L-19567, February 5, 1964, En of notice of dishonor by the drawer. Prior to
Banc). Novation cannot be used as a defense that date, the crime is not yet actionable
in case of theft or estafa through falsification since the offender can still avert criminal
of document. In theft case, there was no prosecution by satisfying the amount of the
contractual relationship or bilateral agreement check or making arrangement for its payment
which can be modified or altered by the within five day grace period.
parties (People vs. Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924,
April 29, 1968, En Banc).In estafa through Moreover, the running of prescription
falsification of public documents, the liability for crime punishable under special law shall
of the offender cannot be extinguished by be interrupted upon filing of complaint with
mere novation (Milla vs. People, G.R. prosecutor office for preliminary
No. 188726, January 25, 2012). investigation. It would be absurd to consider
the prescriptive period for crime under BP
PRESCRIPTION Blg. 22 as already running even prior to the
expiration of the grace period despite the fact
The crime of falsification of a public that the complainant could not cause its
document involving a deed of sale which was interruption by filing a complaint for
registered with the Registry of Deeds, the rule preliminary investigation since it is not yet
on constructive notice can be applied in the actionable.
construction of Article 91. Hence, the
prescriptive period of the crime shall have to In People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No.
be reckoned from the time the notarized deed 152662, June 13, 2012 - This Court reckons
of sale was recorded in the Registry of Deeds the commencement of the period of
(People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 74226, July 27, prescription for violations of BP Blg. 22
1989). Constructive notice rule is not imputed to accused sometime in the latter
applicable to registration of bigamous part of 1995, as it was within this period that
marriage in the Office of the Civil Registrar. the accused was notified by the private
Furthermore, P.D. 1529, which governed complainant of the fact of dishonor of the
registration of document involving real subject checks and, the five (5) days grace
property, specifically provides the rule on period granted by law had elapsed. The
constructive notice. On the other hand, Act private complainant then had, pursuant to Act
No. 3753 or the Family Code, which governed 3326, four years there from or until the latter
registration of marriage do not provide rule part of 1999 to file her complaint or
on constructive notice (Sermonia vs. Court of information against the petitioner before the
Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994); proper court.
hence the period of prescription commences
to run on the date of actual discovery of the INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION -
bigamous marriage. There is no more distinction between cases
under the RPC and those covered by special
COMMENCEMENT - As a rule, period laws with respect to the interruption of the
of prescription commence to run from the date period of prescription (People vs. Pangilinan,
of discovery of its commission. However, if the G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012). Under
crime is not yet actionable at the time of its Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the
commission, period of prescription will running of the period of prescription of
commence to run from the time it becomes offense shall be interrupted by the filing of
actionable. In false testimony, the crime was the complaint or information. The text of
committed at the time the accused falsely Article 91 did not distinguish whether the
testified in court. However, the period of complaint is filed in the court for preliminary.
prescription for false testimony commences to Hence, the filing of the complaint with the
run from the date of the finality of judgment of Fiscal’s Office also suspends the running of
a case in which the offender testified falsely. the prescriptive period of a criminal offense
Prior to the date of finality, the crime is not yet (Francisco and Bernardino vs. CA, G.R. No.
actionable (People vs. Maneja, G.R. No. 47684, L-45674, May 30, 1983). Under Act No. 3326,
June 10, 1941). the running of the prescription of offense
punishable under special law or ordinance
In violation of BP Blg. 22, the crime is shall be interrupted when “judicial
consummated upon the dishonor of the proceedings for investigation and
27 | P a g e
punishment” are instituted against the guilty
person. The proceeding is described as PROBATION
“judicial” since when Act No. 3326 was
passed on December 4, 1926, preliminary Probation distinguished from parole
investigation of criminal offenses was and pardon – (1) Grant of probation is judicial
conducted by justices of the peace. while that of parole and pardon is executive.
Considering that preliminary investigation in (2) Probation and parole are suspension
criminal case for purposes of prosecution has sentence while pardon is remission of
become the exclusive function of the penalty. (3) Offender can only apply for
executive branch, the term “proceedings” probation within the period of perfecting an
should now be understood either executive or appeal; offender is eligible for pardon after
judicial in character: executive when it conviction by final judgment; offender is
involves the investigation phase and judicial eligible for parole after serving the minimum
when it refers to the trial and judgment of the indeterminate penalty. (4) Offender,
stage. Hence, institution of proceeding, who was sentenced to suffer a penalty of
whether executive or judicial, interrupts the more than 6 years of imprisonment, is
running of prescriptive period. Investigations disqualified to apply for probation. Offender,
conducted by the Securities and Exchange who was sentence to suffer reclusion perpetua
Commission for violations of the Revised or death penalty, is not qualified for parole.
Securities Act and the Securities Regulations However, the President can pardon offender
Code effectively interrupts the prescription even if the penalty imposed upon him is
period because it is equivalent to the reclusion perpetua or death penalty.
preliminary investigation conducted by the
DOJ in criminal cases (SEC vs. Interport a. Non-probationable offense - The
Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, accused, who was convicted by the lower
October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court En court of a non-probationable offense
Banc). Commencement of the proceedings for (frustrated homicide), but on appeal was
the prosecution of the accused before the found guilty of a probationable offense
Office of the City Prosecutor effectively (attempted homicide), may apply for
interrupted the prescriptive period for the probation upon remand of the case to the
offenses they had been charged under BP RTC because of the following reasons: (1) The
Blg. 22 (Panaguiton vs. Department of Probation Law never intended to deny an
Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, accused his right to probation through no
2008). To rule otherwise would deprive the fault of his. The underlying philosophy of
injured party of the right to obtain probation is one of liberality towards the
vindication on account of delays that are not accused. Such philosophy is not served by a
under his control (People vs. Olarte, G.R. No. harsh and stringent interpretation of the
L-22465, 28 February 1967). Aggrieved statutory provisions; (2) If the accused will
parties, especially those who do not sleep on not be allowed to apply for probation, he will
their rights and actively pursue their causes, be made to pay for the trial court’s erroneous
should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily judgment with the forfeiture of his right to
further simply because of circumstances apply for probation; (3) While it is true that
beyond their control, like the accused’s probation is a mere privilege, the accused has
delaying tactics or the delay and inefficiency the right to apply for that privilege; (4) It is
of the investigating agencies (Panaguiton vs. true that under the probation law the
Department of Justice, supra). accused who appeals "from the judgment of
conviction" is disqualified from availing
MARRIAGE IN RAPE himself of the benefits of probation. But, as it
happens, two judgments of conviction have
Marriage between the offended party been meted out to accused: one, a conviction
and the offender in seduction, abduction, acts for frustrated homicide by the regional trial
of lasciviousness extinguishes the criminal court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction
liability of the latter and his co-principals, for attempted homicide by the Supreme Court
accomplice and accessories (Articles 89 and (Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748,
344 of RPC). But marriage between the December 13, 2011).
offended part and offender in rape will only
extinguishes criminal liability of the latter. b. Right of possessor of dangerous
Article 266-C did not expressly made drugs to apply for probation - The rule
applicable the extinction of criminal action under Section 24 of RA No. 9165, which
and penalty in rape case by reason of disqualifies drug traffickers and pushers for
marriage to co-principals, accomplice and applying for probations, does not extend to
accessories. possessor of dangerous drugs. In Padua vs.
28 | P a g e
People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008, it with the authority to detain or to order the
was held that: “The law considers the users detention of a person accused of a crime, is
and possessors of illegal drugs as victims acting in behalf of the State in arresting or
while the drug traffickers and pushers as detaining a person. If such public officer
predators. Hence, while drug traffickers and detained a person in violation of his
pushers, like Padua, are categorically constitutional right against unreasonable
disqualified from availing the law on seizure (or not in accordance with Section 5,
probation, youthful drug dependents, users Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
and possessors alike, are given the chance to Procedure), the crime committed is “arbitrary
mend their ways.” detention.” Unlawful arrest is a crime against
personal liberty and security. A public officer,
c. Right of child to apply for who is not vested with the authority to detain
probation despite appeal - Section 4 of PD or to order the detention of a person (e.g.
No. 968 provides: “Application for probation stenographer, researcher or municipal
must be filed within the period of perfecting an treasurer), is not acting in behalf of the State
appeal and no application for probation shall in making a warrantless arrest. Such public
be entertained or granted if the defendant has officer acting in his private capacity (or a
perfected the appeal from the judgment of private individual) could not violate the
conviction.” However, RA No. 9344 has Constitution (People vs Marti, G.R. No. 81561,
expressly amended Section 4 of PD No. 968 January 18,1991); hence, if he arrests or
and provides that a child in conflict with the detains a person not in accordance with
law can apply for probation at any time. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Section 42 of RA No. 9344 provides: “The Criminal Procedure, the crime committed is
court may, after it shall have convicted and “unlawful arrest”. The essence of this crime is
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and not violation of fundamental law of the law but
upon application at any time, place the child deprivation of liberty of the victim.
on probation in lie of service of his/her
sentence taking into account the best interest MURDER
to the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
Presidential Degree No. 968, otherwise known Murder, the prosecution must prove
as the “Probation Law of 1976”, is hereby that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused
amended accordingly.” The phrase “at any killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any
time” mentioned in Section 42 means the of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
child in conflict with the law may file Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither
application for probation even beyond the parricide nor infanticide (People vs. Camat,
period of perfecting an appeal and even if the G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012
child has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction. ATTEMPTED MURDER - Accused
opened the door of his vehicle and then drew a
UNLAWFUL ARREST AND ARBITRARY gun and shot victim once, hitting him just
DETENTION below the left armpit. Victim immediately ran
at the back of the car, while accused sped
In unlawful arrest, the private away. Is the accused liable for attempted
individual or public officer in its private murder? No. Accused only shot the victim
capacity arrests or detains the victim without once and did not hit any vital part of the
reasonable ground or legal authority for latter’s body. If he intended to kill him,
purpose of delivering him to the proper accused could have shot the victim multiple
judicial authority. In arbitrary detention, the times or even ran him over with the car. When
public officer, who has authority to make such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted
arrest, detains the victim without legal upon the victim, the crime is not attempted
grounds for the purpose of: (1) Delivering him murder but physical injuries only (Pentecoste,
to judicial authority (U.S. us. Gellada, 15 Phil. Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 167766, April 7,
120); (2) Conducting criminal investigation 2010).
(People vs. Oliva, 95 Phil. 962; U.S. vs.
Agravante, G.R. No. 3947, January 28, 1908); EXCESSIVE CHASTISEMENT
or (3) Determining if he committed or is
committing a crime [U.S. vs. Hawchaw, G.R. “X” tied his son to a coconut tree and,
No. L-6909, February 20, 1912]. there after hit on his right eye and right leg.
As a consequence, his son sustained injuries
Arbitrary detention is a crime against that would heal in one week upon medication.
fundamental law of the law or the Is “X” liable for slight physical injuries despite
Constitution. A public officer, who is vested the fact that his intention in beating his son is
29 | P a g e
merely to discipline him? Yes. “X” cannot misappropriation or the conversion of public
evade criminal culpability by the circumstance funds or property to one’s personal use, but
that he merely intended to discipline his son also by knowingly allowing others to make use
(People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, of or misappropriate the funds. The felony
2011). may thus be committed by dolo or by culpa.
The crime is consummated and the
MALVERSATION appropriate penalty is imposed regardless of
whether the mode of commission is with
The elements of malversation of public intent or due to negligence (People vs.
funds are: that the offender is a public officer; Pantaleon, Jr,, G. R. No. 158694-96, Mar. 13,
that he had the custody or control of funds or 2009).
property by reason of the duties of his office;
that those funds or property were public funds NON-ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER - The
or property for which he was accountable; and municipal mayor initiated the request for
that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or obligation of allotments and certified and
consented or, through abandonment or approved the disbursement vouchers. The
negligence, permitted another person to take municipal accountant obligated the allotments
them. despite lack of prior certification from the
budget officer. Municipal treasurer certified to
PRESUMPTION - The failure of a public the availability of funds and released the
officer to have duly forthcoming any public money even without the requisite budget
funds or property with which he is chargeable, officer’s certification. The signatures of
upon demand by any duly authorized officer, beneficiaries, who supposed to have received
is prima facie evidence that he has put such the money, were forged. Can the mayor and
missing fund or property to personal uses. accountant be held liable for malversation
Direct evidence of personal misappropriation even though they are not accountable officer?
by the accused is hardly necessary as long as Yes. Ordinarily, a municipality’s mayor and
the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the accountant are not accountable public officers
shortage in his accounts. The presumption is, as defined under the law. However, a public
of course, rebuttable. When the absence of officer who is not in charge of public funds or
funds is not due to the personal use thereof by property by virtue of his official position, or
the accused, the presumption is completely even a private individual, may be liable for
destroyed; in fact, the presumption is never malversation if such public officer or private
deemed to have existed at all (Icdang vs. individual conspires with an accountable
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185960, January public officer to commit malversation. In this
25, 2012). case, combined acts of the mayor and
accountant, and treasurer, an accountable
In Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. officer, conspired to defraud the government
No. 178626, June 13, 2012 - Verily, in the (People vs. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June
crime of malversation of public funds, all that 17, 2008).
is necessary for conviction is proof that the
accountable officer had received the public ESTAFA
funds and that he failed to account for the
said funds upon demand without offering ESTAFA THROUGH
sufficient explanation why there was a MISAPPROPRIATION - The offense
shortage. In fine, petitioner’s failure to present of estafa committed with abuse of confidence
competent and credible evidence that would has the following elements under Article 315,
exculpate her and rebut the prima paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as
facie presumption of malversation clearly amended: (a) that money, goods or other
warranted a verdict of conviction. personal property is received by the offender
in trust or on commission, or for
CULPABLE FELONY - Is it necessary administration, or under any other obligation
for the prosecution to prove that the public involving the duty to make delivery of or to
officer use the public property for his personal return the same; (b) that there be
benefit to establish malversation? No. It is misappropriation or conversion of such money
settled that a public officer is liable for or property by the offender, or denial on his
malversation even if he does not use public part of such receipt; (c) that such
property or funds under his custody for his misappropriation or conversion or denial is to
personal benefit, if he allows another to take the prejudice of another; and (d) there is
the funds, or through abandonment or demand by the offended party to the offender
negligence, allow such taking. The felony may (Magtira vs. People, G.R. No. 170964, March
be committed, not only through the
30 | P a g e
7, 2012). However, demand is not necessary if constitutes other deceit under Article 318. On
there is evidence of misappropriation. the other hand, in People vs. Rubaton, C.A., 65
O.G. 5048, issue of May 19, 1069, false
Misappropriation as an element of the representation that accused has a palay by
offense of estafa connotes an act of using, or reason of which the victim parted his money
disposing of, another’s property as if it were in consideration of the palay constitutes estafa
one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use under Article 315. Unlike in the Guinhawa
different from that agreed upon. Failure to case, the transaction in Rubaton case is
account upon demand for funds or property imaginary.
held in trust without offering any satisfactory
explanation for the inability to account is SUBSEQUENT FRAUD - Is the
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. fraudulent act committed by the accused
Demand for the return of the thing delivered subsequent to the time the victim parted his
in trust and the failure of the accused to money constitutes estafa? In the prosecution
account are similarly circumstantial evidence for this kind of estafa, it is indispensable that
that the courts can appreciate (Magtira vs. the false pretense or fraudulent act is
People, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012). committed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, it being essential
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND that such false statement or representation
DECEIT - The offense of estafa, in general, is constitutes the very cause or the only motive
committed either by (a) abuse of confidence or which induces the offended party to part with
(b) means of deceit. The acts his money. In the absence of such requisite,
constituting estafa committed with abuse of any subsequent act of the accused, however
confidence are enumerated in item (1) of fraudulent and suspicious it might appear,
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as cannot serve as basis for prosecution for
amended; item (2) of Article 315 estafa (Ambito, vs. People, G. R. No. 127327,
enumerates estafa committed by means of Feb. 13, 2009).
deceit. Deceit is not an essential requisite
of estafa by abuse of confidence; the breach of REPRESENTATION OF FUTURE
confidence takes the place of fraud or deceit, PROFIT - When will a representation of a
which is a usual element in the other estafas future profits or income be considered as an
(Brokmann vs. People, G.R. No. 199150, actionable fraud or estafa? Where one states
February 6, 2012). that the future profits or income of an
enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he
ESTAFA AND OTHER DECEIT - What actually knows that there will be none, or that
is the difference between estafa through false they will be substantially less than he
representation and other deceit? The common represents, the statements constitute an
elements of these two crimes are: (1) false actionable fraud where the hearer believes
pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be him and relies on the statement to his injury.
made or executed prior to or simultaneously In the present case, it is abundantly clear that
with the commission of the fraud; and (2) as a the profits which Elvira and her co-
result, the offended party suffered damage or conspirators promised to Elizabeth would not
prejudice. It is essential that such false be realized (Joson vs. People, G. R. No.
statement or fraudulent representation 178836, July 23, 2008).
constitutes the very cause or the only motive
for the private complainant to part with her OTHER DECEIT- Other deceit under
property. In estafa under Article 315, the false Article 316 (a) of RPC is committed by any
representation is committed by using fictitious person who, knowing that the real property is
name, or falsely pretending to possess power, encumbered, shall dispose of the same,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, although such encumbrance be not recorded.
agency, business or imaginary transactions; The law was taken from Article 455 of the
or by means of other similar deceits. Following Spanish Penal Code. However, the words
the principle of ejusdem generis, other deceit "como libre" in the Spanish Penal Code,
as a means to commit estafa must be similar which means "free from encumbrance" do not
to pretending to possess power, imaginary appear in the English text of RPC,
transaction etc. If the deceit is not similar to nonetheless, the same are deemed
pretending to possess power or imaginary incorporated in the RPC. The gravamen of the
transaction, the crime committed is other crime is the disposition of legally encumbered
deceit under Article 318. In Guinhawa vs. real property by the offender under the
People, G.R. No. 162822 August 25, 2005 express representation that there is no
(Callejo) - Fraudulent representation of the encumbrance thereon. Hence, for one to be
seller that the van to be sold is brand new criminally liable for estafa under the law, the
31 | P a g e
accused must make an express qualified theft. Because of this employer-
representation in the deed of conveyance that employee relationship, he cannot be
the property sold or disposed of is free from considered an agent of the company and is not
any encumbrance (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No. covered by the Civil Code provisions on
146770, February 27, 2003, Callejo). agency. Money received by an employee in
behalf of his employer is considered to be only
THEFT in the material possession of the
employee(People vs. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479,
QUALIFIED THEFT - The elements of October 19, 2011).
the crime of theft as provided for in Article
308 of RPC are as follows: (1) that there be The receiving teller of a bank, who
taking of personal property; (2) that said misappropriated the money received by him
property belongs to another; (3) that the for the bank, is liable for qualified theft.
taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the The possession of the teller is the possession
taking be done without the consent of the of the bank. Payment by third persons to the
owner; and (5) that the taking be teller is payment to the bank itself. The teller
accomplished without the use of violence has no independent right or title to retain or
against or intimidation of persons or force possess the same as against the bank (People
upon things. Theft becomes qualified when v. Locson, G.R. No. L-35681, October 18,
any of the following circumstances under 1932). In one case, a corporate officer received
Article 310 is present: (1) the theft is the property to be utilized in the fabrication of
committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft bending machines in trust from the corporation
is committed with grave abuse of confidence; and he has absolute option on how to use
(3) the property stolen is either a motor them without the participation of the
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the corporation. Upon demand, the officer failed to
property stolen consists of coconuts taken account the property. Since the corporate
from the premises of a plantation; (5) the officer received the property in trust with
property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond absolute option on how to use them without
or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the participation of the corporation, he
the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, acquired not only physical possession but also
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, juridical possession over the equipment. He is
vehicular accident or civil disturbance liable for estafa through misappropriation
(Miranda vs. People, G.R. No. 176298, (Aigle vs. People, G.R. No. 174181, June 27,
January 25, 2012). 2012).
THEFT THROUGH Driver of jeepney under boundary

MISAPPROPRIATION - Misappropriation of arrangement, who did not return the vehicle
personal property in possession of the accused to it’s owner, is liable for carnapping.In People
may constitute estafa or theft depending upon v. Isaac G.R. No. L-7561, April 30, 1955, the
the nature of possession. If his possession of rules prohibits motor vehicle operator from
the property is physical or de facto, allowing the use and operation of his
misappropriation thereof is constitutive of equipment by another person under a fixed
theft. If the possession is juridical or legal, rental basis. In the eye of the law the driver
misappropriation thereof is estafa through was only an employee of the owner rather
misappropriation. than a lessee. For being an employee, his
possession of the jeepney is physical, and
A travelling sales agent, who failed to misappropriation thereof is qualified theft. In
return to his principal the proceeds of goods People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June
he was commissioned or authorized to sell, is 8, 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed the
liable for estafa because his possession is principle in Isaac case, but found the accused
juridical. Under the Civil Code Article 1914 of guilty of carnapping in view of the passage of
the Civil Code, an agent can even assert, as RA No. 6539(Anti-Carnapping Act).
against his own principal, an independent,
autonomous, right to retain money or goods THEFT OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY -
received in consequence of the agency; as The term "personal property" in the
when the principal fails to reimburse him for Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in
advances he has made, and indemnify him for the context of the Civil Code. Consequently,
damages suffered without his fault (Guzman any personal property, tangible or intangible,
v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703). On the other corporeal or incorporeal, capable of
hand, branch manager of the company, who appropriation can be the object of theft.
misappropriate payments from customers that Business may be appropriated under Bulk
he collected and accepted, is liable for Sales Law. Thus, the business of providing
32 | P a g e
telecommunication and the telephone service telephone services and business.The act of
is a personal property (Laurel vs. Abrogar, conducting ISR operations by illegally
G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009,). connecting various equipment or apparatus to
PLDT’s telephone system, through which
The word "take" in the RPC includes petitioner is able to resell or re-route
controlling the destination of the property international long distance calls using
stolen to deprive the owner of the property, respondent PLDT’s facilities constitutes acts of
such as the use of a meter tampering, use of a subtraction (taking)penalized under the said
device to fraudulently obtain gas, and the use article(Laurel vs. Abrogar).
of a jumper to divert electricity. Appropriation
of forces of nature which are brought under THEFT OF BULKY GOODS - Is the
control by science such as electrical energy ability of the accused to freely dispose of bulky
can be achieved by tampering with any goods stolen from the owner determinative as
apparatus used for generating or measuring to the consummation of theft? No. In
such forces of nature, wrongfully redirecting Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No. 160188, June
such forces of nature from such apparatus, or 21, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc
using any device to fraudulently obtain such expressly abandoned the principle in Diño
forces of nature (Laurel vs. Abrogar). case. It was held that: The ability of the
offender to freely dispose of the property
A "phreaker" is one who engages in the stolen is not a constitutive element of the
act of manipulating phones and illegally crime of theft. Such factor runs immaterial to
markets telephone services. Phreaking the statutory definition of theft, which is the
includes the act of engaging in International taking, with intent to gain, of personal
Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized property of another without the latter’s
routing and completing of international long consent. While the Diño dictum is considerate
distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, to the mindset of the offender, the statutory
and/or air wave frequency and connecting definition of theft considers only the
these calls directly to the local or domestic perspective of intent to gain on the part of the
exchange facilities of the country where offender, compounded by the deprivation of
destined (Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, property on the part of the victim.
February 27, 2006 and January 13, 2009).
Unlawful taking is deemed complete
Can PLDT validly claim that the “long from the moment the offender gains
distance calls” are its properties stolen by the possession of the thing, even if he has no
phreaker? No. “International long distance opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful
calls” take the form of electrical energy. It taking, which is the deprivation of one’s
cannot be said that such international long personal property, is the element which
distance calls were personal properties produces the felony in its consummated stage.
belonging to PLDT since the latter could not At the same time, without unlawful taking as
have acquired ownership over such calls. an act of execution, the offense could only be
PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, attempted theft, if at all. Thus, theft cannot
decodes and transmits said calls using its have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
complex communications infrastructure and attempted or consummated (Valenzuela vs.
facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, En
telephone calls, then it could not validly claim Banc).
that such telephone calls were taken without
its consent (Laurel vs. Abrogar). Telephone
calls belong to the persons making the calls. THEFT OF CHECK - In Miranda vs.
People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012 -
Can phreaker be held criminally liable Petitioner was entrusted with checks payable
for engaging in ISR involving the telephone to complainant by virtue of her position as
facilities of PLDT? Yes. Phreaker can be held accountant and bookkeeper. She deposited
liable for access device fraud under RA No. the said checks to the joint account
8484 and theft under the Revised Penal maintained by complainant, then withdrew a
Code.PLDT’s business of providing total of P797,187.85 from said joint account
telecommunication or telephone service is using the pre-signed checks, with her as the
personal property which can be the object of payee. Petitioner argued that full ownership of
theft. While telephone calls are not properties the thing stolen needed to be established first
belonging to PLDT that can be stolen, it is the before she could be convicted of qualified
use of these communications facilities without theft. Held: The subject of the crime of theft is
the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime any personal property belonging to another.
of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the Hence, as long as the property taken does not
33 | P a g e
belong to the accused, who has a valid claim precludes the re-use thereof to complete the
thereover, it is immaterial whether said elements of falsification; and (b) the damage to
offender stole it from the owner, a mere third person is not caused by the falsity in the
possessor, or even a thief of the property. document but by the commission of
estafa(See: People vs. Beng, 40 O.G. 1913).
Stealing check payable to the company Note: If falsification of private document was
of the accused and presenting it for used as a means to commit estafa, the former
encashment to the drawee bank, which was committed ahead of the latter; hence,
dishonored it by reason of insufficiency of falsification absorbs the element of damage of
funds, constitutes impossible crime. There is estafa. If falsification of private document was
factually impossibility to accomplish the crime used as a means to conceal estafa, the latter
of qualified theft since the check is unfunded. was committed ahead of the former; hence,
(Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, estafa absorbs the element of damage of
2009). If the stolen check is funded, but the falsification.
bank alerted the payee of the check and
caused the apprehension of the accused, the What is the crime committed if public,
crime committed is attempted theft. If the official, or commercial document is falsified as
check is forged, and the bank caused the a necessary means to commit or conceal
apprehension of the accused, the crime estafa or malversation? Complex crime - Since
committed is attempted theft through damage to third person is not an element of
falsification of commercial document (Koh falsification of public, official or commercial
Tieck Heng vs. People, G.R. Nos. 48535-36, document, it consummates the very moment
December 21, 1990). the offender falsifies the document. If the
offender uses the falsified document to
FALSIFICATION defraud a third person or the government,
estafa or malversation is also committed.
Is intent to cause damage an element of Estafa or malversation consummates the
falsification of public or official document? No. moment the third person or government
In falsification of public or official documents, suffers damages. Since falsification is
it is not necessary that there be present the committed as a necessary means to commit
idea of gain or the intent to injure a third estafa or malversation, complex crime under
person because in the falsification of a public Article 48 is committed. (See: Ambito, vs.
document, what is punished is the violation of People, G. R. No. 127327, Feb. 13, 2009;
the public faith and the destruction of the People vs. Barbas, G.R. No. 41265, July 27,
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed (Regidor, 1934). Separate crimes - If falsification of
Jr., vs. People, G. R. Nos. 166086-92 Feb. public, official or commercial document is
13, 2009). used as a means to conceal estafa or
malversation, two distinct crimes of estafa (or
What is the crime committed if private malversation) and falsification are committed.
document is falsified as a necessary means to There is nocomplex crime since falsification is
commit or conceal estafa or malversation? not a necessary means to commit estafa or
Under the doctrine of common element, an malversation since the latter was already
element used to complete one crime cannot be consummated when the former was
legally re-used to complete the requisites of a committed (See: People vs. Monteverde, G.R.
subsequent crime (Regalado). The common No. 139610, August 12, 2002).
element of estafa or malversation and
falsification is damage to the victim. Thus, In Patula vs. People, G.R. No. 164457,
falsification of private document and estafa April 11, 2012 - According to the theory and
cannot co-exist. The use of damage as an proof of the Prosecution, petitioner
element in falsification precludes the re-use misappropriated or converted the sums paid
thereof to complete the elements of estafa, and by her customers, and later falsified the
vice versa. Falsification - If the offender duplicates of the receipts before turning such
committed falsification of private document as duplicates to her employer to show that the
a means to commit estafa, he is liable for customers had paid less than the amounts
falsification only. Falsification absorbs estafa. actually reflected on the original receipts.
(See: U.S. vs Chan Tiao, G.R. No. 12609, Obviously, she committed the falsification in
October 30, 1917).Estafa or malversation– If a order to conceal her misappropriation or
person falsified a private document to conceal conversion. Considering that the falsification
malversation or estafa, the crime is was not an offense separate and distinct from
malversation or estafa only. Falsification of the estafa charged against her, the
private document is not committed because: Prosecution could legitimately prove her acts
(a) the use of damage as an element in estafa of falsification as its means of establishing her
34 | P a g e
misappropriation or conversion as an the malefactor intends to kill and rob
essential ingredient of the crime duly alleged another, it does not preclude his conviction
in the information. In that manner, her right for the special complex crime of robbery with
to be informed of the nature and cause of the homicide. The fact that the intent of the
accusation against her was not infringed or felons was tempered with a desire also to
denied to her. avenge grievances against the victim killed,
does not negate the conviction of the accused
ROBBERY and punishment for robbery with homicide
(People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, April
Case law has it that whenever homicide 24, 2003).
has been committed by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery, all those who took c. Robbing, killing and raping - A
part as principals in the robbery will also be conviction for robbery with homicide is
held guilty as principals of robbery with proper even if the homicide is committed
homicide although they did not take part in before, during or after the commission of the
the homicide, unless it appears that they robbery. The homicide may be committed by
endeavored to prevent the homicide (People vs. the actor at the spur of the moment or by
Gonzales, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003); mere accident. Even if two or more persons
Essential for conviction of robbery with are killed and a woman is raped and physical
homicide is proof of a direct relation, an injuries are inflicted on another, on the
intimate connection between the robbery and occasion or by reason of robbery, there is
the killing, whether the latter be prior or only one special complex crime of robbery
subsequent to the former or whether both with homicide. What is primordial is the
crimes were committed at the same time. result obtained without reference or
Homicide is committed by reason or on the distinction as to the circumstances, cause,
occasion of robbery if its commission was (a) modes or persons intervening in the
to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the commission of the crime (People vs. Daniela,
culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003).
culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of
the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to d. One of the robbers is the victim
eliminate witnesses in the commission of the of homicide - It is immaterial that the death
crime. As long as there is a nexus between the would supervene by mere accident; or that
robbery and the homicide, the latter crime the victim of homicide is other than the
may be committed in a place other than victim of robbery, or that two or more persons
the situs of the robbery (People vs. Buyagan, are killed or that aside from the homicide,
G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012). rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of
authority, is committed by reason or on the
a. Intent to rob - A conviction for occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is
robbery with homicide requires certitude that the fact that the victim of homicide is one of
the robbery is the main purpose and objective the robbers; the felony would still
of the malefactor and the killing is merely be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is
incidental to the robbery. The animo committed by or on the occasion of the
lucrandi must proceed the killing. If the robbery, the felony committed
original design does not comprehend robbery, is robbery with homicide. All the felonies
but robbery follows the homicide either as an committed by reason of or on the occasion of
afterthought or merely as an incident of the the robbery are integrated into one and
homicide, then the malefactor is guilty of two indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
separate crimes, that of homicide or murder The word “homicide” is used in its generic
and robbery, and not of the special complex sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder,
crime of robbery with homicide, a single and parricide, and infanticide (People vs. Laog,
indivisible offense. It is the intent of the actor G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011).
to rob which supplies the connection between
the homicide and the robbery necessary to In People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No.
constitute the complex crime of robbery with 200922, July 18, 2012 - Accused snatched
homicide (People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. victim’s shoulder bag which was hanging on
139230, April 24, 2003). her left shoulder. No violence, intimidation or
force was used in snatching her shoulder bag.
b. Intent to kill and rob - However, Given the facts, the snatching of shoulder bag
the law does not require that the sole motive constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.
of the malefactor is robbery and commits Accused’s co-conspirator, who was driving the
homicide by reason or on the occasion motorcycle, died because he lost control of the
thereof. In one case, it was ruled that even if motorcycle and crashed in front of a taxi.
35 | P a g e
Since accused as passenger in the motorcycle, publish, or offering to prevent the publication
did not perform or execute any act that of, a libel for compensation under Article 356;
caused the death of his companion, he cannot and (3) robbery with intimidation against
be held liable for homicide. person. Example: X, DENR officer, threatened
to confiscate the hot logs from complainant
CONSPIRACY - All those who took part and prosecute it for illegal logging unless the
in the robbery are liable as principals even latter will give her P100,000. Complainant
though they did not actually take part in the gave X the amount demanded. The crime
killing. Case law establishes that whenever committed is robbery with intimidation
homicide has been committed by reason of or (extortion). In robbery with intimidation of
on the occasion of the robbery, all those who persons, the intimidation consists in causing
took part as principals in the robbery will also or creating fear in the mind of a person or in
be held guilty as principals of robbery with bringing in a sense of mental distress in view
homicide although they did not take part in of a risk or evil that may be impending, real or
the homicide, unless it appears that they imagined. Such fear of injury to person or
sought to prevent the killing (People vs. property must continue to operate in the mind
Castro, G.R. No. 187073, March 14, 2012) of the victim at the time of the delivery of the
money. In this case, the P100,000.00 "grease
UNINHABITED HOUSE - In Marquez money" was taken by X from complainant
vs. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, through intimidation. By using her position as
2012 - The records show that the store alleged the DENR officer, X succeeded in coercing the
to have been robbed by petitioners is not an complainants to choose between two
inhabited house, public building or building alternatives: to part with their money, or
dedicated to religious worship and their suffer the burden and humiliation of
dependencies under Article 299 and as prosecution and confiscation of the logs
defined under Article 301. From Valderosa’s (Sazon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150873,
testimony, it can be deduced that the February 10, 2009).
establishment allegedly robbed was a store not
used as a dwelling. In fact, after the robbery ARSON
took place, there was a need to inform
Valderosa of the same as she was obviously Is it necessary for the prosecution to
not residing in the store. “If the store was not prove wrongful intent to burn on the part of
actually occupied at the time of the robbery the accused to establish arson? No. Although
and was not used as a dwelling, since the intent may be an ingredient of the crime of
owner lived in a separate house, the robbery arson, it may be inferred from the acts of the
committed therein is punished under Article accused. There is a presumption that one
302. Neither was the place where the store is intends the natural consequences of his act;
located owned by the government. It was and when it is shown that one has deliberately
actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from set fire to a building, the prosecution is not
a private person. Hence, the applicable bound to produce further evidence of his
provision in this case is Article 302 and not wrongful intent. If there is an eyewitness to
Article 299 of the RPC. the crime of arson, he can give in detail the
acts of the accused. When this is done the
THREATS only substantial issue is the credibility of the
witness (People vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 180762,
What is the difference among grave March 4, 2009).
threats, light threats and other light threats?
In grave threats, the wrong threatened
amounts to a crime which may or may not be What is the crime committed if the
accompanied by a condition. In light threats, offender burned the building and there is
the wrong threatened does not amount to a person who died? In the classification of
crime but is always accompanied by a crimes committed by fire involving the killing
condition. In other light threats, the wrong of the victim, attention must be given to the
threatened does not amount to a crime and intention of the author. Main objective of the
there is no condition (Calauag vs. People, (G. offender determines the kind of crime
R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009). committed. (a) Intent to burn – If the main
objective is the burning of the building or
edifice, but death results by reason or on the
BLACKMAIL occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson
(qualified by dead of the victim), and the
Blackmailing may constitute: (1) Light resulting homicide is absorbed. (b) Intent to
threats under Article 283; (2) Threatening to kill – If the main objective is to kill a particular
36 | P a g e
person who may be in a building or edifice, UNTENABLE DEFENSE - In crimes
when fire is resorted to as the means to against chastity, the medical examination of
accomplish such goal the crime committed the victim is not an indispensable element for
is murder only. When the Code declares that the successful prosecution of the crime as her
killing committed by means of fire is murder, testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to
it intends that fire should be purposely convict the accused thereof (People vs. Ortega,
adopted as a means to that end. There can be G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012).
no murder without a design to take life.
Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs the In Sison vs. People, G.R. No. 187229,
crime of arson since the latter is an inherent February 22, 2012 -While petitioner was
means to commit the former (People vs. portraying AAA as a prostitute, the latter
Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010; cried. AAA's crying shows how she might have
People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27, felt after being raped by the petitioner and yet
1994) (c) Intent to conceal – If the objective is be accused of a woman of loose morals. The
to kill, and in fact the offender has already victim's moral character in rape is immaterial
done so, and arson is resorted to as a means where it is shown that intimidation was used
to cover up the killing, the offender may be for the victim to have sex with the accused.
convicted of two separate crimes of either
homicide or murder, and arson. Time and again, we have taken into
consideration how rapists are not deterred by
RAPE the presence of people nearby, such as the
members of their own family inside the same
It is commonly denominated as “organ room, with the likelihood of being discovered,
rape” or “penile rape” and must be attended since lust respects no time, locale or
by any of the circumstances enumerated in circumstance (People vs. Colorado, G.R. No.
subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. On 200792, November 14, 2012)
the other hand, rape under paragraph 2 of
Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by RAPE THROUGH FRAUDELENT
sexual assault. The perpetrator, under any of MACHINATION - In U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29
the attendant circumstances mentioned in Phil. 109, accused Hernandez, who seduced a
paragraph 1, commits this kind of rape by 15-year-old girl to live with him by procuring
inserting his penis into another person’s the performance of a fictitious marriage
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or ceremony with the help of Bautista, who
object into the genital or anal orifice of pretended to be a Protestant minister, was
another person. It is also called “instrument held liable for the complex crime proper of
or object rape”, also “gender-free rape” (People simple seduction (Art. 338) through
vs. Soria, G.R. No. I 79031, November 14, usurpation of official function (Art. 177).
2012). Usurping the function of a priest to solemnize
marriage is a necessary means to seduce a
MENTAL RETARDATION - In rape, minor. Comment: The case of Hernandez was
the phrase "deprived of reason" refers to decided prior to the effectivity of the RPC. At
mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation, that time, a religious official such as a bishop
which includes (a) idiot (equivalent to two- is a person in authority within the purview of
year old child); (b) imbecile (seven-year old the Old Penal Code (Smith, G.R. No. 14057,
child); (c) moron or feebleminded (twelve-year January 22, 1919). However, Article 152 of
old child) and (d) borderline intelligence. A RPC does not include religious minister as a
person is guilty of rape when he had sexual person in authority. Hence, performing the
intercourse with a female who was suffering function of religious minister in solemnizing
from a "borderline mental deficiency (People marriage is not usurpation of official
vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, function. It is submitted that the crime
2011; G.R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002, committed by accused is rape through
People vs. Dalandas,) fraudulent machination.
Mental retardation was not alleged in HOMICIDE - In the special complex

the information. However, the accused can be crime of rape with homicide, the term
convicted of with rape though intimidation "homicide" is to be understood in its generic
alleged in the Information. Having sex with a sense, and includes murder and slight
mentally retarded person even with consent physical injuries committed by reason or on
constitutes rape through intimidation (People occasion of the rape. Hence, even if the
vs. Balatazo, G.R. No. 118027, January 29, circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior
2004). strength and evident premeditation are alleged
in the information and duly established by the
37 | P a g e
prosecution, the same would not qualify the QUALIFIED RAPE - In People vs.
killing to murder and the crime committed is Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012 –
still rape with homicide. However, these Rape is qualified when the offender knew of
circumstances shall be regarded as ordinary the mental disability, emotional disorder
aggravating (People vs. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, and/or physical handicap of the offended
October 5, 2011). party at the time of the commission of the
crime. However, the information in the present
HOMICIDE ON OCCASION OF RAPE - case merely stated that the victim was blind; it
The phrase “by reason of the rape” obviously did not specifically allege that the appellant
conveys the notion that the killing is due knew of her blindness at the time of the
to the rape, which is the crime the offender commission of the rape. Hence, the crime
originally designed to commit. The victim of committed is simple rape.
the rape is also the victim of the killing. The
indivisibility of the homicide and the rape SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE AND
(attempted or consummated) is clear and NOT VOLUNTARY DESISTANCE - The term
admits of no doubt. In contrast, the import of spontaneous is not equivalent to voluntary.
the phrase on the occasion of the rape may not Even if the desistance is voluntary, the same
be as easy to determine. The phrase “on the could not exempt the offender from liability for
occasion of the rape” as shown by Senate attempted felony if there is an external
deliberations refers to a killing that occurs constraint. The term “spontaneous” means
immediately before or after, or during the proceeding from natural feeling or native
commission itself of the attempted or tendency without external constraint; it is
consummated rape, where the victim of the synonymous with impulsive, automatic and
homicide may be a person other than the rape mechanical (People vs. Lizada, G.R. No.
victim herself for as long as the killing is linked 143468-71, January 24, 2003, En Banc).
to the rape, became evident (People vs.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012). Accused had previously raped the
victim several times. During the subject
“A” and “B” were walking along the rice incident, accused was wearing a pair of short
paddies when “X” suddenly assaulted them pants but naked from waist up. He entered
with a lead pipe. “X” killed “A”, and thereafter, the bedroom of victim, went on top of her, held
raped “B”. “X” is liable for special complex her hands, removed her panty, mashed her
crime of rape with homicide. There is no doubt breasts and touched her sex organ. However,
that “X” killed “A” to prevent her from aiding accused saw Rossel peeping through the door
“B” or calling for help once she is able to run and dismounted. He berated Rossel for
away, and also to silence her completely so peeping and ordered him to go back to his
she may not witness the rape of “B”, the room and to sleep. Accused then left the room
original intent of “X” (People vs. Laog, G.R. No. of the victim. Held: Accused intended to have
178321, October 5, 2011). carnal knowledge of victim. The overt acts of
accused proven by the prosecution were not
In People vs. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, merely preparatory acts. By the series of his
November 21, 2012 - With respect to the overt acts, accused had commenced the
stabbings, it appears that Isla committed two execution of rape, which, if not for his
acts. The first was while he was ravishing desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape.
AAA. The Court considers this and the rape as Although accused desisted from performing all
one continuous act, the stabbing being the acts of execution, however, his desistance
necessary, as far as he was concerned, for the was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do
successful perpetration of the crime. When he so only because of the sudden and unexpected
testified, Isla claimed that he had to use the arrival of Rossel. Hence, accused is guilty
knife so he could have sexual intercourse with only of attempted rape (People vs. Lizada, G.R.
her. The second stabbing took place after No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, En Banc).
consummation of the rape act. According to
AAA, after her defilement, she noticed the ATTEMPTED RAPE - “X” removed the
knife bloodied and she tried to wrest it from towel wrapped in the body of “A”, laid her on
him. In their struggle, she was stabbed under the sofa and kissed and touched her. “A”
her lower left breast but she was able to force testified that “X” wanted to rape her. Is “X”
Isla to drop the knife. This second stabbing is liable for attempted rape? No. The acts of “X”
a separate and distinct offense as it was not a does not demonstrate the intent to have
necessary means to commit the rape. It was carnal knowledge of “A”; thus, dismissing the
intended to do away with her life. mere opinion and speculation of “A”, based on
her testimony, that “X” wanted to rape
her. Even so, the acts should not be left
38 | P a g e
unpunished as the elements of the crime of vagina of victim however slight (People vs.
acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Rellota, G.R. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30,
No. 168103. August 3, 2010) 2000, En Banc). Intent to have sexual
intercourse was clearly established in this
What is the crime committed if the case.
penis of the accused touched female organ of
the non-consenting victim?(a) If the “touching" “X” committed lascivious acts against
of the female organ constitutes the sliding of his 8-year old daughter by touching her
the penis into or the touching of either labia breasts and licking her vagina. The victim
majoraor labia minoraof the pudendum, the testified that “X” only touched her private part
crime committed is consummated rape. and licked it, but did not insert his finger in
Anything short of that will only result in either her vagina. Is “X” liable for rape through
attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness sexual assault? No. In rape through sexual
(People vs. Publico, April 13, 2011, G.R. No. assault, the slightest penetration of the tongue
183569). Sexual penetration even without or even its slightest contact with the outer lip
laceration of the hymen or even the briefest of or the labia majora of the vagina already
contact consummates rape (People vs. consummates the crime. However, in this
Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, November 14, case, it cannot be identified what specific part
2011). However, the penis that touches the of the vagina was defiled by “X”. Hence, “X”
external genitalia must be capable of should be held liable for acts of lasciviousness
consummating the sexual act to constitute in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610
consummated rape (People vs. Butiong, G.R. (People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June
No. 168932, October 19, 2011). (b) If the 6, 2011).
touching merely constitutes an epidermal
contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight In the following circumstances, the
brush or a scrape of the penis on the external accused were convicted of attempted rape: (1)
layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, kissing AAA’s nape and neck; undressing her;
the crime committed is either attempted rape removing his clothes and briefs; lying on top of
or acts of lasciviousness (People v. Campuhan, her; holding her hands and parting her legs;
G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000). Attempted and trying to insert his penis into her vagina;
rape is committed when the “touching” of the (2) The victim declared that the accused
vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent placed his penis on her vagina; and claimed
to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts that it touched her private parts. The victim’s
of lasciviousness. The difference between testimony is too ambiguous to prove the vital
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness lies element of penile penetration; (3) The victim
in the intent of the perpetrator as deduced testified that the accused placed his penis on
from his external acts. (People vs. Dadulla, G. top of her vagina, and that she felt pain. There
R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011; People vs. was no showing that the accused’s penis
Collado G.R. Nos. 135667-70, March 1, 2001). entered the victim’s vagina. The pain that the
victim felt might have been caused by the
“X” opened the zipper and buttons of accused’s failed attempts to insert his organ
the victim’s shorts, touching her, and trying to into her vagina; (4) The victim did not declare
pull her from under the bed. Is “X” liable for that there was the slightest penetration, which
acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape?The was necessary to consummate rape. (5) The
acts of “X” manifested lewd designs, not intent victim testified that the accused “poked” her
to lie with her. The evidence to prove that a vagina. The Court could not discern from the
definite intent to lie with the victim motivated victim's testimony that the accused attained
“X” was plainly wanting, therefore, rendering some degree of penile penetration, which was
him guilty only of acts of lasciviousness necessary to consummate rape. (5) The
(People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, victim’s statements that the accused was
February 9, 2011). “trying to force his sex organ into mine” and
“binundol-undol ang kanyang ari” did not
Mother of the victim saw “X” was prove that the accused’s penis reached the
kneeling before victim whose pajamas and labia of the pudendum of the victim’s vagina
panty were already removed, while his short (People vs. Pareja, G.R. No. 188979,
pants were down to his knees. Accused was September 5, 2012).
forcing his penis into victim’s vagina.
Horrified, she cursed the accused and boxed CONSPIRACY - Accused are liable
him several times. Is “X” liable for acts of for two (2) counts of rape on account of a clear
lasciviousness or attempted rape? “X” should conspiracy between them, shown by their
be held liable for attempted rape since it was obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate, one
not shown that his penis was able to penetrate after the other, the rapes. Each of them is
39 | P a g e
responsible not only for the rape committed
personally by him but also for the TENACIOSUS RESISTANCE - Is it
rape committed by the other as well (People necessary in rape through intimidation to
vs. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, show that the victim offered a “tenacious
2012). resistance” against the accused?No. Victim’
failure to offer tenacious and sufficient
ABDUCTION AND MULTIPLE RAPES - resistance does not imply her submission to
What is/are the crime/s committed if the bestial demands of the accused. It is not
the accused forcibly took the victim and raped required that she resists his sexual advances.
All that is necessary is that force and
her on four occasions?When the objective of
intimidation were employed by the accused
abduction is to deprive the victim of his liberty, against her, which enabled him to commit the
and thereafter, she was raped several times, crime. Neither is it necessary for the victim to
the crime committed is special complex crime sustain physical injuries. She need not kick,
of kidnapping with rape. No matter how many bite, hit or scratch the appellant with her
rapes had been committed in the special fingernails to prove that she had been
complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the defensive. It is sufficient that she yielded
because of a real application of bodily harm
resultant crime is only one kidnapping with
(People vs. Torres, G.R. No. 134766, January
rape. This is because these composite acts are 16, 2004).
regarded as a single indivisible offense as in
fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with Among the amendments of the law on
only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 rape introduced under Republic Act No. 8353
depreciated the seriousness of rape because (The Anti-Rape Act of 1997) is Section 266-D,
no matter how many times the victim was which adverts to the degree of resistance that
raped, like in the present case, there is only the victim may put up against the rapist, viz:
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical
one crime committed – the special complex
overt act manifesting resistance against the
crime of kidnapping with rape (People vs. act of rape in any degree from the offended
Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, party, or where the offended party is so
2011). When the abduction is made with lewd situated as to render her/him incapable of
design, the crime committed is complex crime giving valid consent, may be accepted as
of forcible abduction with rape. For the crime evidence in the prosecution of the acts
punished under Article 266-A (People vs.
of kidnapping with rape, the offender should
Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012).
not have taken the victim with lewd designs;
otherwise, it would be complex crime of At the Bicameral Conference Committee
forcible abduction with rape. If the taking was Meeting on the disagreeing provisions of S.B.
by forcible abduction and the woman was No. 950 and H.B. No. 6265, the forerunners of
raped several times, the crimes committed is R.A. No. 8353, the legislators agreed that
one complex crime of forcible abduction with Article 266-D is intended to "soften the
rape, in as much as the forcible abduction jurisprudence of the 1970's" when resistance
to rape was required to be tenacious. The
was only necessary for the first rape; and each
lawmakers took note of the fact that rape
of the other counts of rape constitutes distinct victims cannot mount a physical struggle in
and separate count of rape (People vs. cases where they were gripped by
Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, overpowering fear or subjugated by moral
2011). Hence, the accused should be held authority. Article 266-D tempered the case law
liable for three counts of rape and forcible requirement of physical struggle by the victim
with the victim's fear of the rapist or
abduction with rape. When the objective of the
incapacity to give valid consent. Thus, the law
abduction was to commit the rape, the offender now provides that resistance may be proved
cannot be held guilty of the complex crime of by any physical overt act in any degree from
forcible abduction with rape. Under the the offended party (People vs. Dulay, G.R. Nos.
circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible 144344-68, July 23, 2002, En banc)
abduction (People vs. Sabadlab, G.R. No.
175924, March 14, 2012). Hence, the accused In People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos.
should be held liable for four counts of rape. 148673-75, October 17, 2003, En Banc - At
around 10:00 o’clock in the evening he laid
In forcible abduction with rape unlike beside her daughter, Lorena, who was
in rape involving abduction, the victim must sleeping. Lorena was then 17 years old for
be detained for appreciable length of time. [she was] born on October 3, 1982. He
40 | P a g e
touched her private parts, removed her shorts offer of resistance would not affect the
and pant[y], undressed himself and laid on top outcome of the case because the overpowering
of her. He inserted his penis into her vagina and overbearing moral influence of the father
causing her pain. He then made the up and over his daughter takes the place of violence
down movement and ejected something hot and offer of resistance required in rape cases
from his penis. He told Lorena not to make committed by an accused who did not have
any noise since her siblings were sleeping in blood relationship with the victim (People vs.
the same room. He warned her not to tell Osma, G.R. No. 187734, August 29, 2012).
anyone about the incident because, if she did,
he would kill her. In People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239,
March 7, 2012 - Accused seeks to deny the
The rule is that resistance may be charge against him by stating that the victim,
proved by any physical overt act in any degree his daughter, did not shout during the alleged
from the offended party. Tenacious resistance, bestial act. Failure to shout or offer tenacious
however, is not required. Neither is a resistance does not make voluntary the
determined and persistent physical struggle victim’s submission to the perpetrator’s lust.
on the part of the victim necessary. It is true Besides, physical resistance is not an
that complainant’s testimony does not essential element of rape.
indicate that she put up any resistance
against the sexual advances of appellant. This ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS
notwithstanding, proof of resistance is not
necessary in light of appellant’s moral The elements of acts of lasciviousness,
ascendancy over the complainant. Being the punishable under Article 336 of the RPC, are:
father, appellant’s force or threat was (1) That the offender commits any act of
sufficient to create fear in the mind of the lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is done
complainant compelling her to submit to his
under any of the following circumstances: a.
sexual abuse.
By using force or intimidation; or b. When the
Physical resistance need not be offended party is deprived of reason or
established in rape when threats and otherwise unconscious; or c. When the
intimidation are employed, and the victim offended party is under 12 years of age; and
submits herself to her attackers because of (3) That the offended party is another person
fear. The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly of either sex (People vs. Garcia, G.R. No.
suggestive of force or at least intimidation,
200529, September 19, 2012)
and threatening the victim with a gun is
sufficient to bring her into submission. Thus, The modes of committing acts of
the law does not impose upon the private lasciviousness are the same as those of
complainant the burden of proving resistance committing rape under the old version.
(People vs. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093, February
1, 2012). CHILD PROSTITUTION
Where the offended party is so situated The elements of paragraph (a) are: 1.
as to render her/him incapable of giving valid the accused engages in, promotes, facilitates
consent, may be accepted as evidence in the or induces child prostitution; 2. the act is
prosecution of rape. This happens when the done through, but not limited to, the following
offender committed rape with grave abuse of means: a. acting as a procurer of a child
authority, which is now a new mode to commit prostitute; b. inducing a person to be a client
the crime of rape. of a child prostitute by means of written or
oral advertisements or other similar means; c.
In incestuous rape of a minor, actual taking advantage of influence or relationship
force or intimidation need not even be to procure a child as a prostitute; d.
employed where the overpowering moral threatening or using violence towards a child
influence of appellant, who is private to engage him as a prostitute; or e. giving
complainant’s father, would suffice (People vs. monetary consideration, goods or other
Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February 22, pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to
2012) In rape committed by a father, his engage such child in prostitution; 3. the child
moral ascendancy and influence over the is exploited or intended to be exploited in
victim substitute for the requisite force, prostitution and 4. the child, whether male or
threat, and intimidation, and strengthen the female, is below 18 years of age (People vs.
fear which compels the victim to conceal her Dulay, G.R. No. 193854. September 24, 2012).
dishonor (People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 186235,
January 25, 2012). The absence of violence or
41 | P a g e
In People vs. Dulay, G.R. No. prosecuted for either (1) sexual abuse under
193854. September 24, 2012 - To be a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610; or (2)
principal by indispensable cooperation, one rape (Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, November
must participate in the criminal resolution, a 14, 2011; People v. Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083,
conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and June 13, 2011).
cooperation in the commission of the offense
by performing another act without which it X taking advantage of his ascendancy
would not have been accomplished. Nothing committed sexual intercourse with his
in the evidence presented by the prosecution daughter (9 years of age). What crime can X be
does it show that the acts committed by prosecuted for? The child, who is under the
appellant are indispensable in the commission influence of an adult, is under 12 years of age.
of the crime of rape. From the time appellant Hence, X should be prosecuted for statutory
convinced AAA to go with her until appellant rape. Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 provides
received money from the man who allegedly that when the victim (child subjected to sexual
raped AAA, are not indispensable in the crime abuse) is under 12 years of age, the
of rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape
and offered the latter's services in exchange (People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-
for money and AAA could still have been 76, November 16, 2001).
raped. Even AAA could have offered her own
services in exchange for monetary X forced a child (10 years of age) in an
consideration and still end up being raped. isolated place and inserted his finger into her
Thus, this disproves the indispensable aspect vagina. What crime can X be held liable?
of the appellant in the crime of rape. It must Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 prescribes a
be remembered that in the Information, as penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
well as in the testimony of AAA, she was period for sexual abuse and provides that
delivered and offered for a fee by appellant, when the victim is under 12 years of age, the
thereafter, she was raped by “Speed.” perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape. On
However, the appellant is liable for child the other hand, the penalty for simple rape
prostitution. through sexual assault is prision mayor under
RA No. 8353"The Anti-Rape Law of
CHILD PROSTITUION AND SEXUAL ABUSE 1997."Despite the rule that “when the victim is
under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall
Children exploited in prostitution are be prosecuted for rape”, X should be held
those indulge in sexual intercourse or liable for sexual abuse. To rule otherwise is to
lascivious conduct for money, profit, or any create an absurd situation where the offender
other consideration. Having sexual intercourse is punished for a lesser penalty if the victim is
or lascivious conduct with child exploited in below 12 years of age or for a more severe
prostitution constitutes child prostitution. penalty if the child is older. To be sure, it was
Sexual abuse - Children subjected to other not the intention of the framers of RA No.
sexual abuse are those indulge in sexual 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of RA
intercourse or lascivious conduct due to the No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed against
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate child below 12 years of age. Despite the
or group. Having sexual intercourse or passage of RA No. 8353, RA No. 7610 is still
lascivious conduct with child subjected to good law (People vs. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323,
other abuse constitutes sexual abuse. March 16, 2011).
Can rape be complexed with child X taking advantage of his moral

prostitution or sexual abuse? No. Rape cannot ascendency inserted his finger and tongue into
be complexed with child prostitution or sexual the vagina of his 8-year-old daughter. What
abuse under RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the crime can X be held liable? Section 5 (b) of RA
Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a No. 7610 provides that when the victim is
felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall
rape) cannot be complexed with an offense be prosecuted for rape. Hence, X should be
penalized by a special law (Pangilinan, G.R. held liable for qualified rape through sexual
No. 183090, November 14, 2011; People v. assault.
Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011).
Since the crime committed is rape
X taking advantage of his ascendancy through sexual assault with qualifying
committed sexual intercourse with his circumstance of minority and relationship, the
daughter (15 years of age). What crime can X rationale of unfairness to the child victim that
be prosecuted for? The child is under the Chingh case wanted to correct is absent
influence of an adult. Hence, X can be because the Revised Penal Code already
42 | P a g e
prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal restrained from going home. Since “A” is a
for this crime. Hence, there is no more need to minor the duration of his detention is
apply the penalty prescribed by RA No. 7610 immaterial (People vs. Jacalne, G.R. No.
for child prostitution or sexual abuse (People 168552, October 3, 2011). Note: If the victim
vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, is not a minor, the detention must have lasted
2011). more than three days to constitute serious
illegal detention.
X forced a child (10 years of age) in an
isolated place and inserted his finger into her What is the meaning of deprivation as
vagina. Thereafter, X inserted his penis into an element of kidnapping and serious illegal
her vagina. What crimes can X be held liable? detention involving a minor? The deprivation
Separate crimes of sexual abuse and rape required by Article 267 of the RPC means not
(People vs. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March only the imprisonment of a person, but also
16, 2011). the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form
and for whatever length of time. It involves a
CONSENT OF THE VICTIM - Is situation where the victim cannot go out of the
consent of the victim a defense in rape, or place of confinement or detention or is
child prostitution or sexual abuse? Consent of restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. In
the victim is a defense in rape except if the other words, the essence of kidnapping is the
victim is under 12 years of age. However, actual deprivation of the victim's liberty,
consent of the minor prostitute is not a coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of
defense in child prostitution. Child exploited the accused to effect such deprivation.
in prostitution is incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual Where the victim in a kidnapping case
intercourse (People vs. Delantar, G.R. No. is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant
169143, February 2, 2007). Submissiveness of whether the offender forcibly restrained the
child under influence or psychological victim. Leaving a child in a place from which
coercion of adult is not likewise a defense in he did not know the way home, even if he had
sexual abuse (People vs. Larin, G.R. No. the freedom to roam around the place of
128777, October, 7 1998). However, if the detention, would still amount to deprivation of
sexual abuse is committed as alleged in the liberty (People vs. Baluya, G.R. No. 181822,
information against a child, who indulges in April 13, 2011).
sexual intercourse under coercion, the
prosecution must show lack of consent on the In this case, victim, a minor, was not
part of the victim. Showing that the child locked up. However, she was seized and taken
consented to the sexual intercourse will from her house through force and dragged to
negate “coercion” as an element of the crime the mountain. Since then, she was restrained
(see: People vs. Abello,G.R. No. 151952, March of her liberty by and kept under the control of
25, 2009). accused. She was prevented from going back
home for a period of about six days. Is
KIDNAPPING accused is guilty of kidnapping and illegally
detaining victim even if she was not lock-up.
As for the crime of kidnapping, the Yes. Under the Spanish Penal Code, the
following elements, as provided in Article 267 modes of committing illegal detention is
of the Revised Penal Code, must be proven: (a) "Secuestrare" and "Encerrare". "Secuestrare"
a person has been deprived of his liberty, (b) means sequestration. To sequester is to
the offender is a private individual, and (c) the separate for a special purpose, remove or set
detention is unlawful. (People vs. Jovel, G.R. apart, withdraw from circulation. It also
No. 189820. October 10, 2012). means to lock-up or imprison. "Encerrare" is a
broader concept than
“X” appellant dragged “A”, seven years secuestrare. Encerrare includes not only the
of age, to his house after the latter refused to imprisonment of a person but also the
go with him. Upon reaching the house, “X” deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and
tied her hands. When “A” pleaded that she be for whatever length of time (People vs.
allowed to go home, “X” refused. After more or Baldago, G.R. No. 128106-07, January 24,
less one hour, “X” released “A” and instructed 2003).
her on how she could go home. Can “X” be
held liable for kidnapping and serious illegal DEFAMATION
detention? Yes. When “X” tied the hands of
“A”, the former’s intention to deprive “A” of her Is truthful defamatory imputation
liberty has been clearly shown. For there to be against private individual and government
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is employee a defense in libel? Proof of truth of
43 | P a g e
defamatory imputation against private pertinent or relevant to the case (Malit vs.
individual is a defense if it is published with People, G.R. No. L-58681, May 31, 1982).
good motives and for justifiable ends. Proof of
the truth of defamatory imputation against FAIR COMMENT DOCTRINE - What is
government employees is a defense: (1) if it is the doctrine of fair comment? Under this
published with good motives and for justifiable doctrine, fair commentaries on matters of
ends; or (2) if the act or omission imputed public interest are privileged and constitute a
constitutes a crime; or (3) if the imputation valid defense in an action for libel or slander.
not constituting a crime is related to the The doctrine of fair comment means that while
discharge of his duties. Truthfulness of in general every defamatory and public
imputation of a crime or a function-related imputation is deemed false, and every false
defamatory act against a public officer is a imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless,
defense even though he does not prove that the when the defamatory imputation is directed
imputation was published with good motives against a public person in his public capacity,
and for justifiable ends (Vasquez vs. CA, G.R. it is not necessarily actionable. In order that
No. 118971, September 15, 1999). such defamatory imputation to a public
official may be actionable, it must either be a
false allegation of fact or a comment based on
MALICE - What are the different rules a false supposition. If the comment is an
on presumption involving malice as an expression of opinion, based on established
element of libel or oral defamation? 1. facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion
Disputable presumption of malice - Every happens to be mistaken, as long as it might
defamatory imputation is presumed to be reasonably be inferred from the facts (Borjal
malicious. Presumed malice is also known as vs. CA, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999).
“malice in law.” However, the following
circumstances negate the presumption of What is the difference between fair and
malice in a defamatory statement: (1) if there true report, and fair comment as a privilege
is a good intention and justifiable motive for communications? (1) In fair and true report,
making it is shown; (2) if the defamatory the accused makes a report on the function-
statements is a qualified privilege related acts performed by public officers
communication such (a) A private without any comments or remarks. On the
communication made by any person to other hand, in fair comment, the accused is
another in the performance of any legal, moral making a comment on the function-related
or social duty; and (b) A fair and true report, acts performed by public officers. (2) In fair
made in good faith, without any comments or and true report, the prosecution must prove
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other actual malice i.e., such as the report was
official proceedings which are not of made in bad faith. In fair comment, the
confidential nature, or of any statement, prosecution must actual malice i.e., comment
report or speech delivered in said proceedings, was made with knowledge that comment was
or of any other act performed by public false or with reckless disregard of whether it
officers in the exercise of their functions was false or not (Sulivan vs. Newyork Times
(Article 354 of RPC). The enumeration under doctrine; Guingguing vs. the Honorable Court
Article 354 is not an exclusive list of of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, September 30,
qualifiedly privileged communications since 2005) Only false statements made with the
fair commentaries on matters of public interest high degree of awareness of their probable
are likewise privileged (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No. falsity demanded by New York Times may be
126466 January 14, 1999). 2. Conclusive the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions
presumption of lack of malice – If the (Flor vs. People, G.R. No. 139987, March 31,
defamatory statements are an absolute 2005). (3) In fair and true report, the report
privilege communication, lack of malice is involving defamatory statement must be true.
conclusively presumed. Thus, the person In fair comment, the defamatory imputation in
making defamatory imputation is not the commentary is not true but the accused
answerable for libel. Absolutely privileged has no knowledge that it is false and has not
communications are those which are not recklessly disregarded to know whether it is
actionable even if the author has acted in bad false or not.
faith such as speech or debate in the Congress
or in any Committee thereof (Philippine Is error or misstatement in
Journalists, Inc vs. Thoenen, G.R. No. commentaries on function related acts of
143372, December 13, 2005) or words uttered public officer actionable in a news articles for
or published in the course of judicial being libelous? Even assuming that the
proceedings, provided the statements are contents of the articles are false, mere error,
inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove
44 | P a g e
actual malice. Errors or misstatements are relied only on his source at the Bureau of
inevitable in any scheme of truly free Customs. Is Tulfo liable for Libel? Yes.
expression and debate. Consistent with good Journalists bear the burden of writing
faith and reasonable care, the press should responsibly when practicing their profession,
not be held to account, to a point of even when writing about public figures or
suppression, for honest mistakes or matters of public interest. The report made by
imperfections in the choice of language. There Tulfo cannot be considered as "fair" and "true"
must be some room for misstatement of fact since he did not do research before making his
as well as for misjudgment. Only by giving allegations, and it has been shown that these
them much leeway and tolerance can they allegations were baseless. The articles are not
courageously and effectively function as "fair and true reports," but merely wild
critical agencies in our democracy (Borjal vs. accusations. He had written and published
CA, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999). the subject articles with reckless disregard of
whether the same were false or not (Erwin
Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, September
Brillante implicated Jejomar Binay, 16, 2008).
then the OIC Mayor of Makati, and Dr.
Nemesio Prudente, then President of the The article in Bander newspaper details
Polytechnic University of the Philippines in a the sexual activities of a certain “Miss S” and
planned assassination of Syjuco as well as one “Philip Henson” who had a romantic
election-related terrorism. Is the doctrine of liaison. The words used in the article convey
fair comment applicable in this libel case? The that “Miss S” is a sexual libertine with
New York Times principle is not applicable unusually wanton proclivities in the
since the utterances are unrelated to a public bedroom. Is the article defamatory and
officer’s performance of his duties (Brillante malicious? Is the writer liable for libel?
vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October Yes. In a society such as ours, where modesty
19, 2004). Obviously, commission of murder is still highly prized among young ladies, the
and terrorism is not related to the behavior attributed to “Miss S” by the article
performance of their duties as public officers. in question had besmirched both her
character and reputation. Since on its face the
Cristy Fermin imputed to Annabelle article is defamatory, there is a presumption
Rama Gutierrez an actress the crime of that the offender acted with malice. However,
malversation and of vices or defects for being the writer cannot be held liable for libel. The
fugitives from the law and of being a wastrel. libelous article, while referring to "Miss S,"
Is the doctrine of fair comment applicable in does not give a sufficient description or other
this libel case? No. It is unrelated to public indications which identify "Miss S." In short,
figure’s work (Fermin vs. People, G.R. No. the article fails to show that "Miss S" and
157643, March 28, 2008). The defamatory complainant are one and the same person.
imputation has nothing to do to with works of Although the article is libelous, complainant
Annabelle as a as an actress. could not have been the person defamed
therein (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 159787, May
In his series of articles of Erwin Tulfo, 25, 2007).
he targeted one Atty. "Ding" So of the Bureau
of Customs as being involved in criminal
activities, and was using his public position INTERNET LIBEL - Under Article 355,
for personal gain. He went even further than a libel committed by means of writing,
that, and called Atty. So an embarrassment to printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
his religion, saying "ikawnayataangpinakagago phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
at magnanakawsamiyembronito." He accused cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
Atty. So of stealing from the government with means. Is the internet used to post a
his alleged corrupt activities. And when Atty. malicious defamatory imputation through
So filed a libel suit against him, Tulfo wrote facebook within the contemplation of the
another article, challenging Atty. So, saying, phrase “any similar means” in Article 355?
"Nagalititongtarantadongsi Atty. So Yes. Writing, printing, lithography, engraving,
dahilbinabantayankosiya at in-expose radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
angkagaguhanniyasa [Bureau of Customs]." In exhibition, cinematographic exhibition has a
his testimony, Tulfo admitted that he did not common characteristic, and that is, their
personally know Atty. So, and had neither met permanent nature as a means of publication,
nor known him prior to the publication of the and this explains the graver penalty for libel
subject articles. He also admitted that he did than that prescribed for oral defamation
not conduct a more in-depth research of his (People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. L-17663, May
allegations before he published them, and 30, 1962). Hence, the phrase “any similar
45 | P a g e
means” should be understood in the lights of negligence remains one and the same, and
the said common characteristic of the means cannot be split into different crimes and
to commit libel. Since nature of internet as a prosecutions (Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro,
means of publication is likewise permanent, it G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010). Note:
should be considered as a means to commit The principle in Ivler case has abandoned the
libel. principle (Ortega view) that culpa is just a
modality by which a felony may be committed.
What is the venue for internet libel
committed? As a general rule, the venue of In People vs. Dumayag, G.R. No.
libel cases where the complainant is a private 172778, 26 November 2012 - The evidence
individual is limited to only either of two indubitably shows that before the collision,
places, namely: 1) where the complainant the passenger bus was cruising along its
actually resides at the time of the commission rightful lane when the tricycle coming from
of the offense; or 2) where the alleged the opposite direction suddenly swerved and
defamatory article was printed and first encroached on its lane. The accident would
published (Article 360 of RPC).However, the not have happened had Genayas, the tricycle
place where libelous article was accessed by driver, stayed on his lane and did not
the offended party in the internet is not recklessly try to overtake another vehicle while
equivalent to the place where the libelous approaching a blind curve. Section 37 of R.A.
article is “printed and first published”. To rule No. 4136 mandates all motorists to drive and
otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be operate vehicles on the right side of the road
prevented by the amendment to Article 360, or highway. When overtaking another, it
and that was the indiscriminate laying of the should be made only if the highway is clearly
venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far- visible and is free from oncoming vehicle.
flung areas, to harass an accused. At any rate, Overtaking while approaching a curve in the
Article 360 still allow offended party to file the highway, where the driver’s view is obstructed,
civil or criminal complaint for internet libel in is not allowed. Corollarily, drivers of
their respective places of residence (Bonifacio automobiles, when overtaking another vehicle,
vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149, G.R. No. are charged with a high degree of care and
184800, May 5, 2010). diligence to avoid collision. The obligation
rests upon him to see to it that vehicles
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE coming from the opposite direction are not
taken unaware by his presence on the side of
Following a vehicular collision in the road upon which they have the right to
August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged with pass.
reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries for injuries sustained by VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN
Maria and reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property for the Are the acts of attaching the face of his
death of Nestor and damage to their vehicle. ex-girlfriend on a nude body of a woman in a
Court convicted Jason for the first charged. picture, sending the picture to her through
Should the information for the second charge cell phone text message and threatening to
be quashed on the basis of the rule on double post it in the internet for all to see that caused
jeopardy? Reckless imprudence under Article substantial emotional and psychological
365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not distress to her constitutive of psychological
merely a means to commit other crimes; hence violence against woman under Section 5 (h) of
conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense RA No. 9262? Yes. Under Section 5 (h) of RA
bars subsequent prosecution for the same No. 9262 the following conduct that caused
quasi-offense, regardless of its various substantial emotional and psychological
consequences. The essence of the quasi distress to the woman with whom the offender
offense of criminal negligence under article has a marital, sexual or dating relationship is
365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the punishable: (1) Stalking (2) Peering in the
execution of an imprudent or negligent act window or lingering outside the residence of
that, if intentionally done, would be the woman or her child; (3) Entering or
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus remaining in the dwelling against her will; (4)
the negligent or careless act, not the result Destroying property and inflicting harm to
thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only animals; and (5) Engaging in any form of
taken into account to determine the penalty. It harassment or violence;
does not qualify the substance of the offense.
And, as the careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person or The acts described above are
several persons, the offense criminal considered harassment within the
46 | P a g e
contemplation of the phrase “any form of What are the differences between
harassment” in Section 5 (h) (5) (Ang vs. The hazing and homicide or murder? The
Honorable CA, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, differences of homicide or murder and hazing
2010). are as follows: (a) In homicide or murder, what
is criminal is the killing of person. Hence,
intent to kill is an indispensable element.
Is habituality an element of violence Death of the victim consummates the crime.
against women and their children under In hazing, what is prohibited is the infliction of
Section 5 (h)? No. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 physical harm. Hence, intent to kill is not
punishes "any act or series of acts" that material. Death of the neophyte is only
constitutes violence against women. This important to determine the proper imposable
means that a single act of harassment penalty. (b) Homicide or murder is malum in
contemplated in Section 5 (h), which se. Consent of the victim to the infliction of
translates into violence, would be enough. The harm may negate dolo or criminal intent,
object of the law is to protect women and which would make the killing punishable as
children. Punishing only violence that is reckless imprudence (Villareal vs. People, G.R.
repeatedly committed would license isolated No. 151258, February 1, 2012). Hazing is
ones (Ang vs. The Honorable CA, G.R. No. malumprohibitum. Consent of the neophyte is
182835, April 20, 2010). not a defense. (c) In homicide or murder,
praeterintentionem is appreciable as a
HAZING mitigating circumstance. In hazing, the law
expressly disallows the appreciation of this
The night before the commencement of circumstance. In homicide or murder, the
the rites, the neophytes of “AngGaling” basis of criminal liability is the actual and
fraternity were briefed on what to expect. They conspiratorial participation of the offender in
were told that there would be physical killing the victim. In hazing, criminal
beatings, that the whole event would last for responsibility is based on (1) actual
three days, that that they could quit anytime. participation in inflicting physical harm, (2)
“A”, a neophyte, consented to the initiation presumed participation (of those who are
ritual, having asked his parents for present during the hazing), (3) the presence of
permission to join the fraternity. Even after adviser, (4) participation in the planning (by
going through the fraternity’s grueling officers, former officers and alumni of the
tradition rituals—mainly being beaten by a fraternity); (5) knowledge (of the parent of frat
paddle on the arms and legs—during the first member in the home of whom hazing
day, “A” continued and completed the second occurred, owner of the place commission, and
day of initiation. As consequence of the school authorities). (d) In hazing, taking action
hazing, “A” died. What is the crime committed to prevent the occurrence of hazing is a
by members of the fraternity, who directly defense by any offender except (1) those who
participated in the infliction of harm against actually inflicted physical harm and (2) those
“A”? The crime committed is hazing. The (officers, former officers and alumni of the
principle in Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. fraternity), who planned the hazing.
151258, February 1, 2012 finding the accused
liable for reckless imprudence resulting in UNLICENSED FIREARM
homicide is not anymore controlling in the
lights of of RA No. 8049 (Anti-hazing Law) Under Republic Act No. 8294, the use
of an unlicensed gun to commit homicide (or
Under Section 4 of RA 8049, the officers murder) is a special aggravating circumstance
and members of the fraternity, sorority or (People vs. Badajos, G.R. No. 139692, January
organization who actually participated in the 15, 2004,). The lack of license to possess the
infliction of physical harmupon recruit, firearms is a negative averment, an essential
neophyte or applicant on occasion of hazing element of the crime which, under Section 8,
shall be liable as principals for the crime of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
hazing. Hazing is an initiation rite or practice Procedure, must be alleged in the Information
as a prerequisite for admission into (People vs. Allawan, G.R. No. 149887,
membership in a fraternity, sorority or February 13, 2004). The aggravating
organization (such as AFP, PNP, ROTC) or a circumstance of illegal possession of firearm
requirement for employment in a corporation can be appreciated, even though the firearm
by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant used was not recovered. The actual firearm
in some embarrassing or humiliating itself need not be presented if its existence can
situations. be proved by the testimonies of witnesses or
by other evidence presented (People vs.
Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011).
47 | P a g e
DANGEROUS DRUGS
Political crime -Under PD No. 1866, if
the commission of illegal possession of POSSESSION OF DIFFERENT DRUGS
unlicensed firearm is in furtherance of or - Accused was charged under two
incident to, or in connection with the crime of Informations, one for illegal possession of
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or marijuana and and the other for illegal
attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be possession of shabu. Can the court impose
absorbed as an element of the crime of single penalty (the higher penalty) for both
rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or charges? Yes. Absent any clear interpretation
attempted coup d’etat (People v. Rodriguez, as to the application of the penalties in cases
107 Phil. 659). Homicide or murder – If the such as the present one, this Court shall
offender killed a person with the use of construe it in favor of the petitioner for the
unlicensed firearm, he is liable for homicide subject provision is penal in nature. It is a
or murder aggravated by use of unlicensed well-known rule of legal hermeneutics that
firearm (People vs. Bergante, G.R. No. penal or criminal laws are strictly construed
120369-70, February 27, 1998). The law in against the state and liberally in favor of the
effect has explicitly decriminalized illegal accused. Thus, an accused may only be
possession of firearms. Nullum crimen, nulla convicted of a single offense of possession of
poena sine lege (People vs. Presiding Judge of dangerous drugs if he or she was caught in
RTC, Muntinlupa, G.R. No. 151005, June 8, possession of different kinds of dangerous
2004). Commission of other crimes: If the drugs in a single occasion. If convicted, the
offender committed illegal possession of higher penalty shall be imposed, which is still
firearm and crime other than murder, lighter if the accused is convicted of two (2)
homicide, rebellion, sedition, or coup d’etat, offenses having two (2) separate penalties.
the offender cannot be prosecuted separately This interpretation is more in keeping with the
for illegal possession of firearm. RA 8294 intention of the legislators as well as more
prescribes a penalty for possession of favorable to the accused. (David vs. People,
unlicensed firearm “provided, that no other G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011).
crime was committed.” A simple reading of PD
1866 shows that if an unlicensed firearm is ANIMUS POSSEDENDI - In Del Castillo
used in the commission of any crime, there vs. People, G.R. No. 185128, January 30,
can be no separate offense of simple illegal 2012 - It must be put into emphasis that this
possession of firearms present case is about the violation of Section
16 of R.A. 6425. In every prosecution for the
In Sison vs. People, G.R. No. 187229, illegal possession of shabu, the following
February 22, 2012 - A simple reading thereof essential elements must be established: (a) the
shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in accused is found in possession of a regulated
the commission of any crime, there can be no drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law
separate offense of simple illegal possession of or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the
firearms. We affirm petitioner's conviction for accused has knowledge that the said drug is a
the crime of rape. However, petitioner's regulated drug.
conviction of illegal possession of firearms is
set aside. In Del Castillo vs. People, G.R. No.
185128, January 30, 2012 - This crime
Under PD No. 1866 as amended by RA is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal
No. 9516, if possession of explosives is a intent is not an essential element. However,
necessary means for committing any of the the prosecution must prove that the accused
crimes, or is in furtherance of, incident to, in had the intent to possess (animus posidendi)
connection with, by reason of, or on occasion the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes
of any of the crimes, the penalty of reclusion not only actual possession, but also
perpetua shall imposed. Hence, commission of constructive possession. Actual possession
other crime shall be considered as a qualifying exists when the drug is in the immediate
circumstance that will require the imposition physical possession or control of the accused.
of reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of On the other hand, constructive possession
explosives. The offender can be held liable exists when the drug is under the dominion
with either qualified illegal possession of and control of the accused or when he has the
explosive or the other crime committed such right to exercise dominion and control over the
as murder; however, the offender cannot be place where it is found. Exclusive possession
held liable for both since Section 3-D of PD or control is not necessary. The accused
No. 1866 has adopted the rule on double cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
jeopardy. control and dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another.
48 | P a g e
non for the conduct of a buy-bust operation
KNOWLEDGE - Is knowledge an (People vs. Mendosa, G.R. No. 189327,
element of dangerous drugs despite this crime February 29, 2012)
is malum prohibitum? Yes. For illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the CONFIRMATORY TEST - In Ambre vs.
prosecution must establish that the accused People, G.R. No. 191532. August 15, 2012 - In
freely and consciously possessed the no instance did accused challenge, at the
dangerous drug without authority. However, RTC, the supposed absence of confirmatory
mere possession of dangerous drug drug test conducted on her. Accused only
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge questioned the alleged omission when she
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an appealed her conviction before the CA. It was
accused in the absence of any satisfactory too late in the day for her to do so. Well
explanation (Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No. entrenched is the rule that litigants cannot
195005, September 12, 2011). raise an issue for the first time on appeal as
this would contravene the basic rules of fair
ATTEMPTED SALE - “A”, poseur play and justice.
buyer, asked “X” if he has available “shabu”
for sale. “X” answered in the affirmative and PHOTOGRAPHY AND INVENTORY -
showed to “A” a plastic sachet containing The failure of the arresting officer to comply
shabu. “A” immediately identified himself as a strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No.
policeman, and then, apprehended “X” and 9165 (requiring photography and inventory of
confiscated the “shabu” from his pocket. What seized items) is not fatal. It will not render the
is the crime committed by “X”? “X” is liable for arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized
attempted sale of shabu punishable under or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
Section 26 of RA 9165. Attempt to of utmost important is the preservation of the
sell shabu was shown by the overt act of integrity and the evidentiary value of the
appellant therein of showing the substance to seized items, as the same would be utilized in
the poseur-buyer. The sale was aborted when the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the police officers identified themselves and the accused (People vs. Brainer, G.R. No.
placed appellant under arrest (People vs. 188571, October 10, 2012).
Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY - Chain of
DELIVERY - Is the absence of marked Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
money as evidence fatal to prosecution of sale movements and custody of seized drugs or
and delivery of dangerous drugs? No. The law controlled chemicals or plant sources of
defines deliver as “a person’s act of knowingly dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
passing a dangerous drug to another with or each stage, from the time of
without consideration.” Considering that the seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
appellant was charged with the sale and laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
the delivery of prohibited drugs, the court for destruction. Such record of
consummation of the crime of delivery of movements and custody of seized item shall
marijuana may be sufficiently established include the identity and signature of the
even in the absence of the marked money person who held temporary custody of the
(People vs. Domingcil, G.R. No. seized item, the date and time when such
140679, January 14, 2004). transfer of custody was made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
LACK OF COORDINATION WITH the final disposition.
PDEA - Silence of the law as to the
consequences of the failure on the part of the The different links that the prosecution
law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the must prove in order to establish the chain of
PDEA cannot be interpreted as a legislative custody in a buy-bust operation are: First, the
intent to make an arrest without such PDEA seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
participation illegal or evidence obtained illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of
(People vs. Clarite, G.R. No. 187157, February the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
15, 2012). Lack of coordination with the PDEA officer to the investigating officer; Third, the
will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. Such turnover by the investigating officer of the
coordination is not an indispensable illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
requirement in buy-bust operations. Neither laboratory examination; and Fourth, the
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 nor its turnover and submission of the marked illegal
Implementing Rules and Regulations make drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua
49 | P a g e
court (People vs. Bataluna, G.R. No. 189817,
October 3, 2012). PLEA BARGAINING - Section 23 of RA
No. 9165, any person charged under any
PARAPHERNALIA WITH TRACES OF crime involving dangerous drugs regardless of
SHABU – In People vs. Matinez, G.R. No. the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to
191366, December 13, 2010 - This Court avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
notes the practice of law enforcers of filing
charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the TRAFFICKING IN PERSON
presence of dangerous drugs as basis for
possession is only and solely in the form of Can accused be convicted of illegal
residue, being subsumed under the last recruitment and trafficking in person for the
paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, same of act of recruiting a person for
it would be more in keeping with the intent of prostitution without violating the rule on
the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead double jeopardy? Yes. When an act or acts
in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of violate two or more different laws and
drug use, provided that there is a positive constitute two different offenses, a prosecution
confirmatory test result as required under under one will not bar a prosecution under
Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last the other. The constitutional right against
paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of double jeopardy only applies to risk of
residue is imprisonment of twelve years and punishment twice for the same offense, or for
one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for an act punished by a law and an
first time offenders of drug use is a minimum ordinance. The prohibition on double jeopardy
of six months rehabilitation in a government does not apply to an act or series of acts
center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the constituting different offenses (People vs. Lalli,
basis of residue alone would frustrate the G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011).
objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users
and provide them with an opportunity to Is trafficking in persons limited to
recover for a second chance at life. transportation of victims? No. Trafficking in
Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of is not only limited to transportation of victims,
the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court but also includes the act of recruitment of
thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in victims for trafficking (People vs. Lalli, G.R.
dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper No. 195419, October 12, 2011).
discretion in filing charges when the presence
of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the Is recruitment of the victim for
form of residue and the confirmatory test prostitution with her consent or knowledge
required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of constitutive of the crime of trafficking in
dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the person? Yes. The crime of Trafficking in
accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing Persons can exist even with the victim’s
of charges for or involving possession of consent or knowledge (People vs. Lalli, G.R.
dangerous drugs should only be done when No. 195419, October 12, 2011).
another separate quantity of dangerous drugs,
other than mere residue, is found in the ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
possession of the accused as provided for in
Sec. 15. It is well-established in jurisprudence
that a person may be charged and convicted
PLANTING OF EVIDENCE - As a for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The
general rule, planting of evidence (such as reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal
unlicensed firearm) to incriminate an recruitment is malum prohibitum, while
innocent person constitutes the crime of
estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal
incriminating an innocent person under
Article 363 of RPC. However, if the intent of the accused is not necessary for
incriminatory evidence planted is dangerous conviction. In the second, such intent is
drugs or unauthorized explosives, the crime imperative (People vs. Chua, G. R. No.
committed is planting of evidence under RA 187052, September 13, 2012).
9165 for the dangerous drug and PD 1866 as
amended by RA 9516 for the explosive. BP BLG. 22
Unlike planting of explosive, PD 1866 has no
provision punishing planting of unlicensed What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
firearm. Hence, plating of unlicensed firearm punished was the mere act of issuing a
should be punished as incriminating worthless check. The law did not look either at
innocent person under RPC. the actual ownership of the check or of the
50 | P a g e
account against which it was made, drawn, or instance, by a debtor’s offer to arrange a
issued, or at the intention of the drawee, payment scheme with his creditor or making
maker or issuer. Also, that the check was not full payment of the entire amount of the
intended to be deposited was really of no dishonored checks. However, simply empty
consequence to her incurring criminal liability promise to pay complainant the value of the
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Resterio vs. bum checks issued in order to induce her to
People, G.R. No. 177438. September 24, part with her property in favor of accused is
2012). not an evidence of good faith that will rebut
the presumption of deceit. (See: People vs.
The giving of the written notice of Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004,
dishonor does not only supply the proof for Corona; Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 166810,
the second element arising from the June 26, 2008, De Castro; Recuerdo vs.
presumption of knowledge the law puts up but People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006,
also affords the offender due process. The law Callejo)
thereby allows the offender to avoid
prosecution if she pays the holder of the check NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP BLG.
the amount due thereon, or makes 22 - Notice of dishonor of a check to the
arrangements for the payment in full of the maker in BP Blg. 22 must be in writing. A
check by the drawee within five banking days mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of
from receipt of the written notice that the the dishonor of his check is not enough. If
check had not been paid. The Court cannot the maker or drawer pays, or makes
permit a deprivation of the offender of this arrangements with the drawee bank for the
statutory right by not giving the proper notice payment of the amount due within the five-
of dishonor (Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. day period from notice of the dishonor given
177438. September 24, 2012). to the drawer, it is a complete defense; the
accused may no longer be indicted for
NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN ESTAFA violation of Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22. If he is so
CASE - The essential elements of the felony indicted, he may set up the payment of the
are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in amount due as a complete defense. Assuming
payment of an obligation contracted at the that the accused had knowledge that he had
time it is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of insufficient funds in the drawee bank when
funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to he issued the questioned checks, he could
the payee thereof. It is criminal fraud or still have paid the checks or made
deceit in the issuance of a check which is arrangements with the drawee bank for the
made punishable under the RPC, and not the payment of the said checks if he had been
non-payment of a debt. The postdating or duly notified of their dishonor. In not
issuing of a check in payment of an obligation sending a notice or letter of dishonor to the
when the offender had no funds in the bank petitioner as required by law, the complaint
or his funds deposited therein are not deprived the accused of his right to avoid
sufficient to cover the amount of the check is prosecution for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Sia
a false pretense or a fraudulent act. However vs. G.R. No. 149695. April 28, 2004, Callejo).
deceit is presumed if the drawer of the check
fails to deposit the amount needed to cover FULL PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF
his check within three days from receipt of DISHONORED CHECKS - The full payment
notice of dishonor. of the amount appearing in the check within
five banking days from notice of dishonor is a
a. No notice of dishonor - If there is “complete defense” (Lina Lim Lao v. CA, 274
no notice of dishonor, the prosecution can SCRA 572) regardless of the strength of the
still prove the existence of deceit such as in a evidence offered by the prosecution (Meriz vs.
case where the accused knows that his People, G.R. No. 134498, November 13,
checking account is closed. The receipt by the 2001). The accused has the burden to
drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an establish by convincing, satisfactory and
element of the estafa through bouncing credible evidence that payment was made
check. within the grace period (Arceo vs. People, G.R.
No. 142641, July 17, 2006). Exceptions:
b. With notice of dishonor - If there In Griffith vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
is notice of dishonor, the presumption of 129764, March 12, 2002 and in Cruz vs.
deceit can still be rebutted by: (1) proof that Cruz, G.R. No. 154128, February 8, 2007
the check is issued in payment of a pre- considered full payment of the check after the
existing obligation or (1) evidence of good expiration of grace period of five days from
faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a receipt of notice of dishonor. The SC in these
check. Good faith may be demonstrated, for cases applied the “utilitarian doctrine”
51 | P a g e
instead of the mala prohibita principle. (1) In
Griffith, since the creditor have collected
already more than a sufficient amount to
cover the value of the checks for payment of
rentals, via auction sale, holding the debtor’s
president to answer for a criminal offense
under B.P. 22 two years after said collection,
is no longer tenable nor justified by law or
equitable considerations. (2) In Cruz vs. Cruz,
petitioner made full payment of the
dishonored check after eleven (11) days from
receipt of notice of dishonor. Respondent filed
the complaint almost six (6) months after the
said payment.
52 | P a g e

Campanilla Materials Crimlaw

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Campanilla Materials Crimlaw

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2013 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA

PRO REO There are three characteristics of

POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL GENERALITY - Generality principle is

f. Accident - If there is no intent to a. Intod principle - In Intod vs. Court

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME c. Committing another crime - “A”

e. Accessory – To make a person IGNONIMY - After killing the victim, the

Differences of recidivism, quasi- SELF-HELP PRINCIPLE - In People vs.

PARTICIPATION RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE

In People vs. Punzalan G .R. No. SINGLE PURPOSE RULE - In People

THEFT THROUGH Driver of jeepney under boundary

Mental retardation was not alleged in HOMICIDE - In the special complex

Can rape be complexed with child X taking advantage of his moral

S-ar putea să vă placă și