ATENEO

CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019

JORGE ALFONSO C. MELO

Bar Review Coordinator

LEILA S. LIM
Bar Review Secretariat

ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS

PATRICK EDWARD BALISONG

Chairman

KATRINA Y. COSCOLLUELA JONATHAN VICTOR NOEL CZARINA CHER CUERPO

GENICA THERESE ENDALUZ JOHN STEPHEN PANGILINAN BENIGNO ENCISO
Administration Committee Heads__________________ Academics Committee Heads_______________ Hotel Operations Committee Heads

JUDGE OSCAR PIMENTEL (RET.)

ASSOCIATE DEAN GIOVANNI VALLENTE
ATTY. RONALD C. CHUA
CRIMINAL LAW Faculty Advisers

ALELI JOYCE BUCU

BERNADETTE ENCARNACION
PATRICIA THERESE MIRADOR
CRIMINAL LAW Subject Heads

EUNICE A. MALAYO
FRANCES CHRISTINE F. SAYSON
Central Bar Operations
Academics Understudies

ELLAINE QUIZON
KALI NAVEA-HUFF FRICELA KIM CARREON
PATRICIA SORIANO
RICHELAPUNO OHRISTINA BALTAZAR
MIKA MONSALUD
DROTOTHY HELENA DULNOAN CARMINA LOISE ARAGON
ANGELIE RAMIE LEE
CRIMINAL LAW Volunteers
 ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

| I. REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK I | b. TERRITORIALITY

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Q: What is the Territoriality principle of

Criminal Law?
1. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA A: Penal laws have the force and effect only
within its territory. (Art 2, RPC)
Q: Distinguish malum in se from malum
prohibitum. Q: What are the exceptions to the Territoriality
A: principle of Criminal Law?
Malum in se Malum prohibitum A:
A crime where the act A crime where the act 1) Treaties; and
2) Laws of preferential application. (Art. 2,
done is inherently done is not
bad, evil and wrong inherently bad, evil RPC)
in nature, such that it or wrong but
is generally prohibited by law for Q: What are the exceptions to the rule that
penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable
condemned. The public good and
only within its territory?
moral traits of the welfare. Anyone who
A:
offender are taken voluntarily commits
1) Should commit an offense while on a
into account in the prohibited act
Philippine ship or airship;
punishing the crime. incurs criminal
Good faith or lack of liability. Good faith or 2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
criminal intent or lack of criminal intent currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
malice is a defense. or malice is not a
Government of the Philippine Islands;
(Garcia v. CA, G.R. defense. (U.S. v. Go
3) Should be liable for acts connected with the
No. 157171, 2006, Chico, G.R. No. 4963,
citing Reyes, Book 1, 1909) introduction into these islands of the
p. 55_____________ obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
4) While being public officers or employees,
2. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE
should commit an offense in the exercise of
PENAL CODE
their functions; or
5) Should commit any of the crimes against
a. GENERALITY national security and the law of nations.
(Art. 2, RPC)
Q: What is the Generality principle of Criminal
Law? Q: Must a ship be registered in the Philippines
A: Penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live for the exception to territoriality under Art. 2
or sojourn in the Philippine territory. (Art 14, CC)
of the RPC apply?
A: Yes. Registration of the vessel or aircraft
Q: What are the exceptions to the Generality makes it a Philippine ship/airship within the
principle of Criminal Law? purview of Art. 2. (Sec. 1, RA 6235) Otherwise,
A: the rule on territoriality applies, subject to the
1) Treaty stipulations and international English Rule.
agreements;
2) Law of preferential application; and Note: this exception only applies if the crime is
3) Principles of Public International Law. committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of
(Reyes, Book 1, p. 10) another country. (People v. Cheng, G.R. No. L-
18924, 1922)

Q: What is the English Rule? Differentiate it

from the French Rule.
A: The English Rule, which Philippine law follows,
punishes a crime committed on board a foreign
merchant vessel if within the territorial jurisdiction
Page 1 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

of the Philippines; unless the offense affects or Q: Distinguish between ex post facto law and
refers only to the internal management of the bill of attainder.
vessel. A:
Ex post facto Bill of attainder
The French Rule punishes a crime committed on Any law which makes A law which inflicts
board a foreign merchant vessel only if it affects an innocent act a punishment on a
or refers to the peace and security of the country crime after the act named individual or a
where committed. (Reyes, Book 1, p. 29) was committed. It is a group of individuals
Latin phrase which without judicial trial.
Q: A and B, Filipino citizens, went to Hong means "from (People v. Ferrer,
Kong on a pleasure trip. When they returned something done G.R. No. L-32613-14,
to, and were already in, the Philippines, B afterwards.” It could 1972).
discovered that A stole her diamond ring also be a law which
worth Php2,000 while they were in Hong aggravates a crime,
Kong. May our Criminal Law be applied in this or makes it greater
case? Explain your answer. than when it was
A: No, because the crime was committed in Hong committed, or which
Kong. This is not one of the cases where the changes the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be punishment and
enforced outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines inflicts greater penalty
as provided in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. than the law
(Art. 2, RPC; and Estrada, 2008) governing the crime
when committed.
c. PROSPECTIVITY (U.S. v Conde, G.R.
No. L-18208, 1922)
Q: What is the Prospectivity principle of
Criminal Law? 3. PRO REO PRINCIPLE
A: Crimes are punished under the laws in force at
the time of their commission. Thus, a penal law B. FELONIES
cannot punish an act done before its effectivity.
(Art. 366, RPC) 1. CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES

Q: What is the exception to the Prospectivity a. GRAVE vs. LESS GRAVE vs. LIGHT
principle of Criminal Law? FELONIES
A: When the new law is favorable to the accused
(Art. 22, RPC) such as when law prescribes a GRAVE FELONIES
lighter penalty for the crime committed. Punishable by reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, perpetua! or temporary absolute
Q: What are the exceptions to the exception to disqualification, perpetua! or temporary special
the Prospectivity principle of Criminal Law? disqualification and prision mayor.
A:
1) The new law is expressly inapplicable to LESS GRAVE FELONIES
pending actions or existing causes of actions Punishable by prision correccional, arresto
(Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-922, 1902); mayor, suspension and destierro.
and
2) The offender is a habitual criminal. (Art 22, LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for
RPC) the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos or
both, is provided.

Light felonies are punishable only when they

have been consummated. They produce such
light, such insignificant moral and material injuries

Page 2 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

that public conscience is satisfied with providing

a light penalty for their consummation. Although W died of heart attack, the said attack
was generated by H’s felonious act of hitting
EXCEPTION: Light felonies committed her with his fists. Such felonious act was the
against persons or property, are immediate cause of the heart attack, having
punishable even if attempted or materially contributed to and hastened W’s death.
frustrated. Even though H may have acted without intent to
kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment
Rationale: The commission of felonies when the victim dies. However, H may be given
against persons or property presupposes the mitigating circumstance of having acted
in the offender moral depravity. without intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed. (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC; and People
b. ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-42117, 1935)
PERSONAE, AND PRAETERINTENTIONEM
Q: A and B were fighting on a sidewalk of a
Error In Aberratio Praeter street. When A hit B on the face, the latter fell
Personae Ictus Intentionem on the street at the moment a passing
automobile was just a meter from where B fell.
Mistake in Mistake in The injurious As a result, B was run over and was killed. At
Identity the Blow result is the time he boxed B, A did not see the
greater than automobile. Is a liable for the death of B?
that intended A: No, because the blow given by A on the face
If the intended It is a Article 49 will of B was not the proximate cause of B’s death.
crime and compound not apply. Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural
crime actually crime when This is a and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
committed are the single mitigating efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
punished with act results in circumstance and without which the result would not have
different two or more . (Art. 13 par. occurred. In this case, there was an efficient
penalties: The crimes (Art. 3) intervening cause that broke the relation of cause
lesser penalty 48); and effect, and that is, the running over of B by
for the crime otherwise, the passing automobile. (People v. Villacorta,
intended or the offenses G.R. No. 186412, 2011)
committed is shall be
imposed. (Art. separately c. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
49) punished.
Q: What are the elements of an impossible
Q: The conduct of wife (W) aroused the ire of crime?
her husband (H). Incensed with anger almost A:
beyond his control, H could not help but inflict 1) Act would have been an offense against
physical injuries on W. Moments after H persons or property;
started hitting W with his fists, W suddenly 2) There was criminal intent;
complained of severe chest pains. H, realizing 3) Accomplishment is inherently impossible
that W was indeed in serious trouble, (legal impossibility or physical impossibility),
immediately brought her to the hospital. or inadequate or ineffectual means are
Despite efforts to alleviate W’s pains, she died employed; and
of heart attack. It turned out that she had been 4) Act is not an actual violation of another
suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What provision of the Code or of special law. (Art.
crime, if any, could W be held guilty of? 4, RPC)
A: H could be held liable for parricide because his
act of hitting his wife with fist blows, and therewith
inflicting physical injuries, is felonious. A person
committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability
although the 'wrongful consequence is different
from what he intended. (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC).
Page 3 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: What is the difference between legal or accident

impossibility and factual impossibility? other than
A :..................................... '..~ " .... '....‘ .............. his own
Legal Impossibility Factual spontaneous
______________________ Impossibility desistance. | ___________|______________
Refers to intended Refers to Extraneous (Art. 6, RPC)
acts even if circumstances
completed would not unknown to the actor Q: What are overt acts?
amount to a crime. or beyond his control A: An overt act is some physical activity or deed,
prevent the indicating the intention to commit a particular
consummation of the crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
intended crime, such which if carried to its complete termination
as a man who puts his following its natural course, without being
hand in another’s frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
pocket with intent to voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
steal and finds the logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
pocket empty. (Intod offense. It is possible that an overt act may not be
v. CA, G.R. No. by physical activity but by mere communication or
103119, 1992) proposal. (People v. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71,
citing Reyes, Book 1, p. 99)
Q: Are there attempted or frustrated
impossible crimes? Q: When is spontaneous desistance
A: There is no attempted or frustrated impossible exculpatory?
crime. The offender intending to commit an A:
offense has already performed all the acts of 1) When made during the attempted stage; AND
execution but does not produce the crime by 2) The acts already committed do not constitute
reason of the fact that it’s nature is one of any other offense. (People v. Villacorte, G.R.
impossible accomplishment or that the means No. L-21860, 1974) -
employed are essentially inadequate or
ineffectual. Since all the acts of execution have Note: Cause for desistance is immaterial. (People
already been performed, there could be no v. Villacorte, G.R. No. L-21860, 1974)
attempted impossible crime. The acts performed
by the offender are considered as constituting a Q: Define preparatory acts and distinguish
consummated offense. (Art. 4, RPC; Estrada, them from attempted stage of the acts of
2008; and Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 1992) execution. Are preparatory acts punishable?
A .

d. STAGES OF EXECUTION
IV
'ic [ id > a iu iy M u w L .A C U U IIU I! ill
Q: Distinguish three stages of Attempted Stage
committing a felony. Those initial acts of a Acts which are
A: person who has directly connected
Attempted Frustrated Consummated conceived the idea of to the intended
--------1
Offender Offender I Offender i committing a crime but crime. They are
commences performs all performs all the which cannot by overt acts with a
the the acts of acts of themselves logically and logical relation to a
execution of execution of execution and necessarily ripen into a particular concrete
the felony by the felony produces the concrete offense. They offense.
overt acts but does not felony. are not overt acts and,
but does not produce it hence, they do not
perform all by reason of constitute the attempted
the acts of causes stage of the acts of
execution by independent execution.
reason of of the will of (Estrada, 2008)
some cause the offender.
Page 4 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable,
because the law regards them as innocent or at
least permissible, except in rare and exceptional
cases. (Estrada, 2008)
Preparatory acts consisting in conspiracy to
commit a felony is punishable in treason,
rebellion and sedition, and proposal to commit a
felony is punishable in treason and rebellion. (Art.
115, 136, RPC)
Preparatory acts which are considered in
themselves, by law, as independent crimes are
punishable, like possession of picklocks which is
preparatory to the commission of robbery with
force upon things. (Arts. 229 and 302, RPC)
Q: What are the manners of committing a
crime?
A:
1) Formal crimes - these crimes are
consummated in one instant. There are no
attempted or frustrated stages.
2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal or overt act.
3) Felony by omission - there is no attempted
stage in these crimes since the offender does
not execute act, but rather fails or omits to
perform an act.
4) Crimes consummated by mere agreement
(requires the intervention of two persons).
5) Material crimes - crimes which have three
stages of execution (attempted, frustrated
and consummated). (Reyes, Book 1, page
121-123)
Q: A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in
extracting B’s wallet. Once in possession of
the wallet, A opened it, but finding it empty he
threw away the wallet. Is A guilty of an
impossible crime?
A: No, because the wallet has some value and
the crime of theft is consummated from the
moment the offender has taken possession of the
wallet with intent to gain. Hence, that person is
guilty, not of an impossible crime, but of theft. In
impossible crime, the act performed should not
constitute another offense, specifically punished
bylaw. (Intodv. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 1992)
Q: A went to a grocery store and bought two
boxes of Magic Flakes worth P1,423.00. B, the
manager, upon inspection, found that the
contents of the two boxes were not Magic
Page 5 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Flakes biscuits, but 14 smaller boxes of
Ponds White Beauty Cream worth P28,627.20.
A was caught and was charged with frustrated
theft. Can A be held guilty of this crime?
A: No. There is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The
Information can never be read to charge A of
consummated Theft because the indictment itself
stated that the crime was never produced.
Instead, the Information should be construed to
mean that A was being charged with theft in its
attempted stage only. Necessarily, A may only be
convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.
(Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442, 2015)
Q: Taking into account the nature and
elements of the felonies of coup d’ etat and
rape, may one be criminally liable for
frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape?
A: No, a person may not be held liable for
frustrated coup d’ etat or for frustrated rape
because in a frustrated felony, it is required that
all the acts of execution that could produce the
felony as a consequence must have been
performed by the offender but the felony was not
produced by reason of causes independent of the
will of the offender. In the said felonies, however,
one cannot perform all the acts of execution
without consummating the felony.
In coup d’ etat the mere attack directed against
the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of
the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks, public
utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise
and continued possession of power would
consummate the crime. (Art. 134-A, RPC)
There is likewise no such thing a frustrated rape.
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he
actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Nothing more
is left to be done by the offender, because he has
performed the last act necessary to produce the
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. (People
v . Orita, G.R. No. 88724, 1990).
The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the
frustrated stage. (Art. 6, RPC)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

e. CONTINUING CRIMES Q: Distinguish the following from each other:

1) Complex crime under Article 48 of the
Q: Define plurality of crimes. Revised Penal Code;
A: Plurality of crimes consists in the successive 2) Special complex crime; and
execution by the same individual of different 3) Delito continuado.
criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has
yet been declared. It is either formal or ideal Complex Special Delito
plurality (only one criminal liability) or real or Crime (Art. Complex continuado
material plurality (each act is a separate crime). 48) Crime
(Reyes, Book 1, page 701) It is made up of It is made up It is the term
two or more of two or more used to
Q: What is a continuing crime? crimes being crimes which denote as only
A: It is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts punished In are one crime a
but all arising from one criminal resolution. distinct considered series of
Although there is a series of acts, there is only provisions of only as felonious acts
one crime committed; thus, only one penalty shall the Revised components arising from a
be imposed. (Mallari v. People, G.R. No. L- Penal Code of a single single criminal
but alleged in indivisible resolution, not
58886, 1988)
one offense being susceptible of
information punished in division, which
f. COMPLEX CRIMES AND COMPOSITE either because one provision are carried out
CRIMES they were of the Revised in the same
brought about Penal Code; place and at
Q: Distinguish between compound and by a single hence, only about the
complex crime proper. felonious act one penalty is same time,
A: .................................................... or because specifically and violating
Compound Crime Complex Crime one offense is prescribed. one and the
Results when the Results when the a necessary The same penal
offender commits only offender commits an means for component provision. It
a single felonious act offense which is a committing the crimes are not involves a
from which two or necessary means for other offense regarded as concurrence
more grave or less committing another or offenses; distinct crimes of felonious
grave felonies are offense. (Art. 48, hence, only and so the acts violating
produced. RPC) Only one one penalty penalty for the a common
information shall be shall be most serious right, a
imposed. As to crime is not common
filed and if proven, the
penalties in an the penalty to penal
penalty for the more
ordinary be imposed provision, and
serious crime shall be complex nor in its Impelled by a
imposed. (People v. crime, the maximum single criminal
Pineda, G.R. No. L- penalty for the period. impulse
26222, 1967) most serious (People v. (People v.
crime shall be Laraaga . G.R. Ledesma ,
imposed and No. 138874- G.R. No. L-
in its maximum 75, 2004) 41522 1976).
period. (Art.
48, RPC)

Page 6 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: A, a collector of a commercial firm,
misappropriates for personal use, on different
dates, several amounts collected from
different persons. A was charged with
multiple counts of estafa. A raises the
defense that all the counts of estafa
constituted only one crime and was impelled
by a single criminal intention. Is A correct?
A: It depends. The foreknowledge rule applies.
The rule states that when the accused, at the time
he committed the first felonious act, already
intended to commit the succeeding felonious
acts, thereby showing that a single intention
determined the commission of all the acts, there
is a continuing crime. (People v. Cid, G.R. No. L-
45649-45652, 1938)
Q: Is there a complex crime of estafa through
falsification of private document?
A: No. If the falsification of a private document is
committed as a means to commit estafa, the
proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the
estafa can be committed without the necessity of
falsifying a document, the proper crime to be
charged is estafa. (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No.
139857, 2006)
Q: Does Article 48 (Complex Crimes) apply to
acts penalized under Article 365 (Reckless
Imprudence)?
A: No. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of
quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually
impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a
single act constituting two or more grave or less
grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a
necessary means for committing another. (Ivler v.
San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716. November 17,
2010)
Q: How should “homicide” be understood in
the special complex crime of rape with
homicide?
A: Homicide is to be understood in its generic
sense, and include murder and slight physical
injuries by reason or on occasion of the rape.
(People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, Aug. 21,
2001)
Q: X poked AAA, a house help, with a gun at
her throat while the latter was buying
pandesal and later forced her into the
backseat of a parked car. X along with two
other men, Y and Z, blindfolded her while in
transit. When they reached their destination,
Page 7 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
X undressed her and began kissing her body
from the neck downwards and thereafter
raped her. Y and Z also took turns in raping
her. X, Y and Z are charged for forcible
abduction with rape. Is this correct?
A: No, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.
The principal objective of X, Y and Z in abducting
AAA was to rape and ravish her. This became
evident when after reaching their destination; X
immediately undressed her and kissed her body
from the neck down. They cannot be held liable
for the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape when the objective of the abduction was to
commit the rape. (People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No.
175924, 2012)
2. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
a. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q: What is the difference between retaliation
and self-defense?
A:
Retaliation Self-defense
The aggression that The aggression still
was begun by the existed when the
injured party already aggressor was injured
ceased to exist when by the person
the accused attacked defending.
him.
(People v. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, 1994)
Q: What is the effect of claiming self-defense?
A: By invoking self-defense, the accused, in fact,
admitted that he inflicted injuries on the victim.
The burden of proving with clear and convincing
evidence the justifying circumstances to
exculpate him from criminal liability was thereby
shifted to him. (Tandoc v. People, G.R. No.
150648, 2007)
Q: X went to a taho factory looking for a
certain person but failed to locate the latter.
Frustrated, X stuck a knife into a taho pail. A
who saw this, confronted X, and invited X to a
fistfight on the condition that he put the knife
down. X complied and they engaged in a
fistfight. In the middle of the fight, X reached
for the knife and stabbed A. A ran away and
attempted to escape. B attempted to help A
with a bamboo stick. Unfortunately, B slipped
and fell face flat. X stabbed B, resulting to the
death of B. X was charged for the murder of B
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
as attended by treachery, and the attempted
homicide of A. X counters that with respect to
A, X only acted to defend hi mself.Did X act in
self-defense?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. X did not act in self-
defense. A did not exhibit unlawful aggression to
justify X’s actions as X was the aggressor.
Assuming arguendo that A exhibited unlawful
aggression when he participated in the fistfight
with X, the moment he ran away from the fight,
the unlawful aggression ceased to exist. Thus, X
did not act in seif-defense. (People v. Casas, G.R.
No. 212565, 2015)
Q: A came from a meeting and was on his way
home. X, who had issues to be settled with A,
confronted the latter. A tried to walk away
from the confrontation, but X punched him in
the face. X then took out his gun and shot A.
X was charged with the murder of A as
attended by treachery. X claimed he was
acting in defense of his person, as A
supposedly attempted to take a gun out first.
(1) Is treachery present? (2) Did X act in self-
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. The existence of
treachery negates the claim of self-defense.
(People v. Matibag, G.R. No. 206381, 2015)
Q: X was having a drinking spree with his
friends in a carinderia. Sometime thereafter,
the victim crossed the street going to the
carinderia, where he encountered X who
suddenly poked him with an iron pipe, which
turned out to be a homemade firearm or
sumpak. While the victim was on his way to
the hospital, he died as a result of the gunshot
wound and traumatic head injuries. X was
then charged with Murder with qualifying
circumstance of Treachery, among others.
However, X claims that he did it out of self-
defense, claiming that it was the victim who
approached and threatened to kill him. Was
self-defense present in this case?
A: No, the act of X was not out of self-defense.
Unlawful aggression from the victim is patently
absent. The life of X was not in danger during the
encounter. (People of the Philippines v. Ernie
Inciong y Orense, G.R. No. 213383, 2015)
Q: X stabbed Y. Y was able to grapple the knife
away from X and Y ran away. X chased Y
where they once again grappled over the
weapon. In the middle of grappling for the
Page
CRIMINAL LAW
weapon Y stabbed X which caused X’s death.
Y was charged with murder. Y claims self-
defese. Will his defense prosper?
A: No, although X initiated the attack against Y,
the unlawful aggression ceased when X was able
to take possession of the weapon. The
subsequent grappling over the weapon is not
considered unlawful aggression on the part of X
since Y still had possession of the weapon. Y’s
next move of stabbing X is retaliation, not self-
defense. (People v. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284,
2015).
Q: What are the two kinds of unlawful
aggression?
A:
Actual or Material Imminent Unlawful
Unlawful Aggression
Aggression
It is an attack with It is an attack that is
physical force or with impending or at the
a weapon, an point of happening; it
offensive act that must not consist in a
positively determines mere threatening
the intent of the attitude, nor must it be
aggressor to cause merely imaginary, but
the injury. must be offensive and
positively strong.
(People v. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284, 2015).
Q: What is the battered woman syndrome?
A: Battered woman syndrome refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse. (R.A. 9262, Sec. 3(c))
The three phases are: (1) tension-building
phase, (2) acute battering incident, and the (3)
tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase. (People v.
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 2004)
Q: Is the Battered Woman Syndrome a
defense against criminal liability?
A: Yes. Women suffering from BWS do not incur
any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
(RA 9262, Sec. 26)
of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: Can BWS be invoked during the tranquil
stage?
A: Yes, as long as it is proven that the three
phases of the cycle of violence have occurred
twice, and the syndrome is established (People v.
Genosa, G.R. No, 135981), further evidence of
actual physical assault (unlawful aggression) at
the time of the killing is not required. (R.A. 9262,
Sec. 26)
Q: When is obedience to an order of a
superior a justifying circumstance?
A: When the order is lawful. Also, if the accused
complied with an unlawful order under a mistake
of fact, he should not incur criminal liability.
However, where the act which accused was
ordered to do was clearly unlawful even to an
ordinary person, the justifying circumstance is
unavailing. (People v. Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445,
1955)
Q: A was standing on the road near his house
when B, who appeared to be drunk, boxed him
in the stomach. A tried to talk to B and calm
him down but B continued to attack A, hitting
him. A picked up a stone and hit the side of
B’s head several times. B fell to the ground. A
then left the scene. Records show that A
sustained no injury. A claims self-defense,
will A’s defense prosper?
A: No, the plea of self-defense was belied, by the
weapons used by A and the location and number
of wounds he inflicted on B revealed his intent to
kill, not merely an effort to prevent or repel an
attack from B. Significant is the gravity of the
wounds manifested which determines effort of the
accused to kill his victim, not just to defend
himself. (People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743,
2012)
Q: Is a barangay captain, who is also the
caretaker of the vacant lot, exempted from
criminal liability when he tore down the nipa
hut of one who believed her grandparents
owned the lot when in fact they were not?
A: No, he is not. Such an act is not a fulfillment of
duty when he took the law into his own hands and
summarily demolished the hut for he had no
authority. (Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 149718,
2003)
Page 9 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: A patrolman, with his armalite, shot a drunk
student who was rowdy, hence the latter died.
Is the patrolman liable?
A: Yes. The killing cannot be a necessary
consequence of the performance of his duty.
(People v. Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, 2000)
Q: What if the order is illegal, yet it is patently
legal and the subordinate is not aware of its
illegality, is the subordinate liable?
A: No, the subordinate is not liable, for then there
would only be a mistake of fact committed in good
faith. (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
103501-03, 1997)
b. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q: What are the tests for exemption on the
grounds of insanity?
A:
1) Cognition, where the accused acted with
complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing said crime. OR
2) Volition, where the accused acted with total
deprivation of freedom of will. (People v.
Rafaman, Jr., G.R. No. L-54135, 1991);
Q: What happens when the minor acts with
discernment?
A: When the child is 15 years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the crime, he shall
be exempted from criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subjected to an intervention
program pursuant to Sec. 20 of the Juvinile
Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA).
When a child above 15 years but below 18 and
he has acted with discernment, the child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with the JJWA. (Sec. 6, JJWA)
Q: A girl 15 1A years of age pushed her
playmate into a deep place of the river, with
intent to kill her. The intent to kill was proven
by the prosecution. Is she criminally liable for
causing the death of her playmate who died of
drowning? Explain.
A: Yes. A child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age who acted with
discernment is NOT exempt from criminal liability
and will be subjected to a court-ordered diversion
program (Sec. 6, JJWA).
 ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: What is the scope of minority?
A: (a) A child 15 years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability (Sec. 6, R.A. 9344). NOTE:
Shall be subject to an intervention program; or
(b) A child above 15 but below 18 years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability,
provided he acted without discernment.
NOTE: The child is subject to an (a) intervention,
a series of activities which are designed to
address issues that caused the child to commit
the offense, taking the form of an individualized
treatment program i.e. counseling, skills training,
education etc. to enhance psychological,
emotional and psycho-social well-being, or (b)
diversion program, program that the child in
conflict with the law is required to undergo after
being found responsible for an offense without
resorting to formal court proceedings. (R.A. 9344,
Sec. 4)
Q: Who is a child in conflict with the law
.(CICL)?
A: A child alleged as, accused of or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under PH laws
(Sec. 4(e), R.A. 9344). BUT only if such child is
15 years old or below at the time of the
commission of the crime. This is conclusive
presumption that CICL are incapable of
performing the criminal act due to complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or
intent. (Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085,
2008).
Q: How do you determine the child’s age?
A:
1) Through the birth certificate, baptismal
certificate, or any other pertinent
documents;
2) Based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other
persons, physical appearance of the child
and other relevant evidence; (Sec. 7, R.A.
9344) AND/OR
3) Lack of any contrary evidence showing that
the accused’s or his relative’s testimonies
are untrue. (Sierra v. People, G.R. No.
182941, 2009)
Page 10 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: What offenses are not applicable to
children?
A:
1) Prostitution under Art. 202 of the RPC;
2) Mendicancy under P.D. No. 1563; and
3) Sniffing of rugby under P.D. 1619 (Sec. 58,
R.A. 9344)
Q: May a child apply for Probation?
A: Yes. The court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a CICL, and upon
application at any time, place the child on
probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence
taking into account the best interest of the child.
(Sec. 42, R.A. 9344)
Q: X attacked Z, shooting several times. The
bullets also hit Z's friend, Y, causing his
instantaneous death. During trial, X claims
that it was an accident because Z was his
enemy, not Y. Will his defense prosper?
A: X cannot use accident as a defense. An
accident contemplates a situation where a person
is in the act of doing something legal, with due
care, then accidentally harms or injures another.
It happens outside the will of the accused, with no
intention to do wrong. Here, X initiated the attack,
intentionally fired the bullets directed to Y, hitting
both Y and Z. (Talampas vs. People, G.R. No.
180219, 2011)
Q: When a member of the PNP was instructed
to fetch the victim in his cell for investigation,
the latter tried to remove the former’s weapon
from its holster, to which a struggle ensued.
in the course of said struggle, the gun fired,
hitting and killing the victim. Is the PNP
member exempted?
A: Yes, all the requisites of accident concurred.
The act of fetching the victim from his cell and the
act of defending himself are lawful acts. Next, he
exercised due care when he kept his weapon’s
safety locked when he left his house and kept it
in his holster when in the premises of his work
area. He had no intent to harm the victim. Also,
the fatal shot occurred by mere accident in the
course of the struggle against the victim. (Pomoy
v. Philippines, G.R. No. 150647, 2004).
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
c. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q: When is voluntary surrender appreciated?
A: In order for it to be appreciated, the same
must be spontaneous in such a manner that it
shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because
he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes
to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. It
is no longer mitigating if the accused had already
been arrested. (People v. Lozano, G.R. No.
137370-71, 2003)
Q: A, B, C and D attacked Z. Z died. A then went
to the Barangay Chairman but he did so to seek
protection from retaliation of Z’s relatives. A
claims that he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender for
surrendering to the Barangay Chairman. Should
the circumstance be considered?
A: No. The third requisite of voluntary surrender,
that the surrender is voluntary is absent in this case.
The third requisite requires the surrender to be
spontaneous, indicating the intent of the accused
to unconditionally submit himself to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his
guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses necessary for his search and capture.
In this case although A went to Barangay
Chairman after the killing, he did so to seek
protection against the retaliation of the victims’
relatives, not to admit his participation in the
killing of the victims. Even then, A denied any
involvement in the killings when the police went
to take him from Chairman’s house. As such, A
did not unconditionally submit himself to the
authorities in order to acknowledge his
participation in the killings or in order to save the
authorities the trouble and expense for his arrest.
(People v. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, 2012)
d. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q: What is a special aggravating
circumstance?
A: They arise under special conditions to increase
the penalty for the offense to its maximum period
but not increase the penalty to the next higher
degree. Examples are quasi-recidivism and
complex crimes. It does not change the character
of the offense charged and cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. (Palaganas v.
People, G.R. No. 165483, 2006)
Page 11 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: What is the effect of pardon on the
appreciation of recidivism?
A: A pardon should not be an impediment to the
consideration of recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance for a pardon only produces the
extinction of the penalty, but not personal effects
of the record of the conviction. (U.S. v. Sotelo,
G.R. No. L-9791, 1914)
Q: How far apart must the two crimes be for
recidivism to be considered?
A: There is no limit. Recidivism must be taken into
account as an aggravating circumstance no
matter how many years have intervened between
the first and second felonies. (People v. Jaranilla,
G.R. No. L-28547, 1974)
Q: When is evident premeditation not
aggravating?
A: In the case of implied conspiracy, evident
premeditation may not be appreciated in the
absence of proof as to how and when the plan to
kill the victim was hatched or what time elapsed
before it was carried out, so that it cannot be
determined if the accused had “sufficient time
between its inception and its fulfillment
dispassionately to consider and accept the
consequences. (People v. Manansala, G.R. No.
88752,1992)
Even if all the elements of evident premeditation
were present, it still cannot be appreciated if the
actual victim is different from the intended one.
(People v. Barros, G.R. Nos. 10107-08, 1995)
Q: What differentiates cruelty from ignominy?
A:
Cruelty Ignominy
adds insult to the ignominy refers to the
injury, pertaining to moral effects of a
the physical suffering crime, pertaining to
of the victim. the moral order,
whether or not the
victim is dead or alive.
(Reyes, Book 1, p. 485)
Q: Is dwelling aggravating in robbery?
A: It depends. It is aggravating in robbery
committed through violence or intimidation of
persons only (People v. Cabato, G.R. No. L-
37400, 1988); it is inherent in robbery through
force upon things, even if committed inside an
inhabited house. (U.S. v. Cas, 14 Phil 21)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: What is the difference between the
aggravating circumstances of by a band and
aid of armed men or persons who afford
impunity?
A:
By a band Aid of armed men/
persons who afford
impunity
Four armed Two or more armed
malefactors take part men. The armed men
in its commission. are accomplices who
They are principals by take part in minor
direct participation. capacity, directly or
indirectly.__________
(Reyes, Book 1, p. 391)
Q: A attacked X, 7 years old and Y, 11-month
old baby. Is treachery present?
A: Yes. When an adult illegally attacks a child,
treachery exists even if the mode of attack is not
proved by the prosecution because the child of
tender years could not be expected to put up a
defense. (People v. Malolot, G.R. No. 174063,
2008)
Q: Is treachery aggravating in robbery with
homicide, considering that the circumstance
is applicable only in crimes against persons?
A: Yes, treachery is applied to the constituent
crime of “homicide” and not to the constituent
crime of “robbery.” (People v. Escote, G.R. No.
140756, 2003)
Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of by a
band applicable to crimes against persons?
A: Yes. Despite what has been said in some
cases to the effect thai it is io be appiiea oniy to
crimes against property, it is equally applicable to
crimes against persons, such as murder. (People
vs. Alcaraz, et. al., G.R. No. L-9064-67, 1958)
Q: A, B, C and D, all armed with pistols,
forcibly abducted a woman. What aggravating
circumstance, if any, do you find in this case?
Explain.
A: The abuse of superior strength may be present
in the commission of the crime of coercion or
forcible abduction, if the strength availed of is
clearly in excess of that required for the
realization of the offense. (People vs. Fernando,
at. al„ C.A., 48 O.G. 1717)
Page 12 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: When is “aid of armed men” absorbed in
“by a band,” and when can it be taken
separately as another aggravating
circumstance?
A: When the offenders are more than three, all
armed, and they actively cooperated in the
commission of the crime, “The aid of armed men”
is absorbed in “by the band.” (People vs. Piring,
63 Phil. 548)
But when the offender secured the services of
armed men to commit the crime, that offender
committed the crime with the aid of armed men.
(People vs. Ilane, G.R. No. 45902, 1938)
Q: A committed rape against B twice on
occasion of robbery. A was charged of
robbery with rape. The judge convicted A of
robbery with rape and considered the second
count of rape as an aggravating
circumstance. A appealed the decision
contending the appreciation of the
aggravating circumstance. Who is correct?
A: A, because the law does not provide that
additional rape or homicide should be considered
as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under the RPC is
exclusive as opposed to mitigating circumstances
which provide for analogous circumstances.
(People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, 2000)
Q: A went to B and encouraged the latter to
kill X in exchange for a reward. Later that
night, B carried a gun and proceeded to the
house of X. B, while on top of a tree, aimed at
and shot X through the window of X’s house.
X died. What crime/s, if any, did A and B
commit?
A: A committed homicide and B committed
- murder. While they are co-principals-in the killing
of X, treachery will only serve to aggravate the
liability of B because such circumstance consist
in the material execution of the act, or in the
means employed to accomplish the crime. As
such, it shall only serve to aggravate the liability
of B since A had no knowledge of it at the time of
the execution of the act. (Art. 62[4], RPC, U.S. v.
Gamao, G.R. No. L-6942, 1912)
Q: Against whom can the aggravating
circumstance of price reward or promise
appreciated?
A: This circumstance aggravates not only the
criminal liability of the receiver of the price, reward
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
or promise but also the criminal liability of the one
giving the offer. As all the defendants contributed
toward the attendance of this circumstance, it
should affect each and all of them. (People v.
Maharaja, G.R. No. 13312,1918)
Q: X was found guilty for Qualified Rape,
considering: (1) the state of mental
retardation of victim AAA was completely
established on account of the testimony and
psychiatric evaluation of a psychiatrist; and
(2) X failed to dispute AAA’s mental
retardation during trial. The psychiatrist
revealed that AAA was suffering from a mild
mental retardation with an IQ equivalent to a
9-year old child. Should the conviction be
upheld?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. Knowledge of the
offender of the mental disability of the victim
during the commission of the crime of rape is a
special qualifying circumstance. However, such
must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment and
proved during trial to be properly appreciated.
Moreover, mere relationship bv affinity between X
and AAA does not sufficiently create moral
certainty that the former knew of the latter’s
disability. (People v. Rico Niebres y Reginaldo,
G.R. No. 230975, 2017)
Q: X suddenly pulled a knife from the right
side of his back, held the victim’s shirt with
his left hand, and stabbed the victim with a
knife using his right hand. X was able to stab
the victim once before the latter managed to
run away. X ran after the victim and thereafter
held the latter’s shirt again, pulled him to the
ground, and stabbed him repeatedly,
resulting in the latter’s death. Are the
circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation attendant here to properly
qualify the crime to murder?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Treachery is present in
the commission of the crime. The essence of
treachery is that the attack is deliberate and
without warning, done in a swift and unexpected
way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape. The attack of X was sudden, deliberate
and unexpected. The victim was completely
unaware of any threat to his life as he was merely
walking with X. However, evident premeditation
cannot be appreciated because there is no
evidence that X had previously planned the killing
Page 13 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
of the victim. (People v. Crisanto Giray, G.R. No.
231359, 2018)
Q: X suddenly entered into the person’s
house and began attacking the residents
thereof, resulting to the death of one person
who is a minor. X then entered another house
nearby, where his 15-year old nephew was
sleeping, and delivered hacking blows
towards the latter, stopping only when the
victim (who was pretending to be dead) was
leaning on the wall, blood-stained. Was there
treachery in this case?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] (1) Yes. Treachery was
attendant in the killing of the two minors. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim
without the slightest provocation on his part. This
is even more true if the assailant is an adult and
the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by
reason of their tender years, cannot be expected
to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person
illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists. (People
v. Umawid, G.R. No. 208719, 2014)
Q: X went to a taho factory looking for a
certain person but failed to locate the latter.
Frustrated, X stuck a knife into a taho pail. A
who saw this, confronted X, and invited X to a
fistfight on the condition that he put the knife
down. X complied and they engaged in a
fistfight. In the middle of the fight, X reached
for the knife and stabbed A. A ran away and
attempted to escape. B attempted to help A
with a bamboo stick. Unfortunately, B slipped
and fell face flat. X stabbed B, resulting to the
death of B. X was charged for the murder of B
as attended by treachery, and the attempted
homicide of A. Was the commission of the
crime attended by treachery?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. To appreciate
treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the means of
execution employed gives the victim no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; (b) the
methods of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted. Applied in this case, there
is no treachery. Before engaging X, B knew that
A and X were in a fight. B was aware of the
existence of danger, thereby negating the first
element of giving the victim no opportunity to
defend himself. Moreover, X lacked deliberation
of killing A, negating the second element. The act
of killing was immediate as X did not expect B to
interfere. Absent these elements, treachery
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

cannot be appreciated. (People v. Casas, G.R. defend himself or evade the attack. (People v.
No. 212565, 2015) Ernie Inciong y Orense, G.R. No. 213383, 2015

Q: A came from a meeting and was on his way e. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

home. X, who had issues to be settled with A,
confronted the latter. A tried to walk away Q: What are the three alternative
from the confrontation, but X punched him in circumstances?
the face. X then took out his gun and shot A. A:
X was charged with the murder of A as 1) Relationship;
attended by treachery. X claimed he was 2) Intoxication; and
acting in defense of his person, as A 3) Degree of instruction and education of the
supposedly attempted to take a gun out first, offender. (Art 15, RPC)
is treachery present?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes. There is treachery Q: When are they considered as
when the offender commits any of the crimes aggravating/mitigating?
against the person, employing means, methods, A:
or forms in the execution thereof, which tend
directly and specially to ensure its execution, T‘ M it ig a W — Aggravating
without risk to himself arising from the defense In crimes against In crimes against
which the offended party might make. Here, property (Reyes, persons in cases
treachery is present. X is shown to have Book 1, p 489, Art. where the offended
deliberately adopted the means based from the 332, RPC by analogy) party is a relative of a
fact that X had issues to be settled with A and X higher degree than
confronted A with a loaded gun. More so, X’s act the offender, or when
of punching and shooting A was sudden and the offender and the
unexpected, leaving A without recourse to defend offended party are
himself. Thus, treachery is present. (People v. relatives of the same
Matibag, G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015) level. (Reyes, Book 1,
p 490)
Q: X was having a drinking spree with his In serious physical
friends in a carinderia. Sometime thereafter, injuries, if the
the victim crossed the street going to the offended party is a
carinderia, where he encountered X who descendant of the
suddenly poked him with an iron pipe, which offender, relationship
turned out to be a homemade firearm or is an aggravating
sumpak. While the victim was on his way to circumstance. (Art.
the hospital, he died as a result of the gunshot 263, RPC) But in less
wound and traumatic head injuries. X was serious or slight
then charged with Murder with qualifying physical injuries,
circumstance of Treachery, among others. -........... - .-.....-.............. relationship is
However, X claims that he did it out of self- mitiqatinq. (Art. 265,
defense, claiming that it was the victim who 266RPC)
approached and threatened to kill him. Was Note: Relationship is
treachery correctly appreciated? not considered if it is
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes, treachery is an element of the
correctly appreciated. Treachery is present when offense.
the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution, which tend directly and specially to Intoxication
insure its execution, without risk to the offender Mitigating Aggravating
arising from the defense which the offended party If (1) the intoxication If (1) the intoxication
might make. In this case, X suddenly fired a is not habitual, or (2) if is habitual, or (2) if it is
sumpak against the victim, leaving him unable to intoxication is not intentional
subsequent to the (subsequent to the
Page 14 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

plan to commit a plan to commit a 3. PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF

felony. felony). (People v. PARTICIPATION
Camano, G.R. No. L-
36662-63, 1982) a. PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND
Note: There is a ACCESSORIES
presumption that
intoxication is Q: Differentiate a conspirator from an
accidental. accomplice.
Degree of instruction and education of the A:
offender Conspirators Accomplices
Mitigating Aggravating Both know and agree with the criminal design
Low degree of High degree of Know the criminal Came to know about it
instruction and instruction and intention because after the principals
education or lack of it education is they themselves have reached the
is generally aggravating when the have decided upon decision, and only then
mitigating. (People v. offender avails it; do they agree to
Baltazar, G.R. No. L- himself of his learning cooperate in its
30557, 1980) in committing the execution;
crime. (Reyes, Book Decide that a crime Merely concur in it; and
1, p. 503 should be
committed; and
f. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE Authors of a crime. Merely instruments
who perform previous
Q: What are absolutory causes? or simultaneous acts
A: Absolutory Causes - those where the act not essential to the
committed is a crime but for reasons of public perpetration of the
policy and sentiment, there is no penalty offense.
imposed, These are: (People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, 1999)
1) Spontaneous desistance during
attempted stage (Art.6) and no other Q: When is an accused considered an
crime is committed; accomplice?
2) Light felony is only attempted or frustrated A:
and is not against person or property 1) The accused knows the criminal design of
(Art. 7); the principal and he concurs with the
3) Accessory is not liable in light felonies purpose;
(Art. 16); 2) The accused cooperates in the execution
4) Accessory is relative of the principal by previous or simultaneous acts, with
(Art.20) unless crime became a means to intent to supply material or moral aid in the
gain (Art. 19, par. 1); execution; and
5) Legal grounds for arbitrary detention 3) There is a relation between the acts done
(Art. 124); by the principal and those attributed to the
6) Slight or less serious physical injuries person charged as accomplice. (People v.
inflicted by person who surprised his Yao, G.R. No. 208170, 2014)
spouse or daughter in the act of sexual
intercourse with another person (Art. 247); Q: A and B were policemen. B ordered C, a
7) Legal grounds for trespass (Art.280); private individual, to enter the police car,
8) Mischief is committed against a relative driven by A. While inside the car, B
(Art. 332); intimidated C to give all his belongings to him.
9) Marriage of the offender with offended A did not do anything but continued to drive
party when the crime committed is rape the car and kept silent. Is A liable for the
(Art. 266-C), abduction, seduction, or acts robbery with intimidation?
of lasciviousness (Art. 344); and A: Yes. His silence during the crime did not
10) Instigation. (Reyes, Book 1, p. 254) negate his criminal liability. As a police officer, it
is his primary duty to avert by all means the
Page 15 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
commission of an offense. He should not have
kept his silence but should have protected C from
B. His silence can be viewed as a form of moral
support to B. (Fortune v. People, G.R. No.
135784, 2000)
Q: For the third means of becoming an
accessory (harbors, conceals or assists in
escape of principal), what is the distinction
between a public officer and a private person
who assists in the escape or concealment of
the principal?
A:
PUBLIC OFFICER PRIVATE PERSON
Acts with abuse of Principal committed
public functions (crime treason, parricide,
committed by principal murder, an attempt
is immaterial). (Art. against life of
19, par. 3, RPC) President, or is
known as habitually
guilty of another
crime. (Art. 19, par. 3,
RPC)
Q: When is an accessory exempt from
criminal liability?
A: When the principal is his spouse, or ascendant,
or descendant, or legitimate, natural or adopted
brother, sister or relative by affinity within the
same degree. (Art. 20, RPC) An accessory is
likewise exempt when the felony involved is a
light felony. There is no penalty two degrees
lower than that prescribed for light felonies.
(Reyes, Book 1, p. 583)
Q: When is an accessory not exempt from
liability despite such relation with the
principal?
A: If such accessory profited by the effects of the
crime, or assisted- the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime. (Art. 20, RPC)
Q: Can a person be tried as an accomplice or
accessory while the principals of the crime
remain at large?
A: Yes. As long as the commission of the offense
can be established, the determination of the
liability of the accomplice or accessory can
proceed independently of the principal. (People v.
Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, 2000)
b. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Q: Can conspiracy be implied?
Page 16 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
A: Yes. Conspiracy is implied when 2 or more
persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object,
each doing a part so that their combined acts,
though apparently independent of each other,
were, in fact, connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association
and a concurrence of sentiment. It may be
deduced from the acts of the malefactors before,
during and after the commission of the crime.
(People v. Allawan, G.R. No. 149887, 2004)
Q: What is the effect of failing to prove
conspiracy among the alleged conspirators?
A: The acquittal of a conspirator does not
necessarily absolve a co-conspirator from
criminal liability, if the prosecution fails to prove
conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be
held individually responsible for their own
respective acts (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No.
186141, 2012)
Q: Can there be conspiracy in violating a
special law, such as BP 22?
A: Yes. B.P. 22 does not expressly proscribe the
suppletory application of the RPC. Thus, RPC
may apply. (Ladonga v. People, G.R. No.
141066, 2005)
Q: A dropped his brother B in a gym. Minutes
after, B was forcibly abducted by three
persons. A received a text message,
instructing A to pay a sum of money for B’s
safety. A complied, but the abductors did not
release B. Later, through the help of the
police, B’s dead body was found. An
employee of the gym testified that he
participated in the plan to abduct B and that
he was the one who tipped the abductors on
the conditiorr that he will get a share of 4he
money. Was the commission of the crime
attended by conspiracy?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes. To establish
conspiracy, direct proof is not essential as it can
be presumed from and proven by the acts of the
accused pointing to a joint purpose, design,
concerted action, and community of interests. In
this case, the gym employee testified that prior to
abduction, he, together with the abductors,
hatched a plan to abduct B with the sole purpose
of extorting money from B’s brother. The gym
employee and abductors committed the
abduction with the joint purpose, design,
concerted action, and community of interest to
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
obtain money from the victim’s relative. Thus, the
commission of the crime was attended by
conspiracy. (People v. Dionaldo et al, G.R. No.
207949, July 23, 2014.)
c. MULTIPLE OFFENDERS (DIFFERENCES,
RULES, EFFECTS)
Q: Distinguish Recidivists from Quasi-
Recidivists, Habitual Delinquency and
Reiteracion.
A:
• Recidivist - one who, at the time of his trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised
Penal Code (Art. 14, par. 9, RPC)
• Quasi-recidivist - one who commits a felony
after having been convicted by final judgment
before beginning to serve such sentence or
while serving the same shall be punished by
the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by the law for the new felony (Art.
160, RPC)
• Habitual Delinquent - one who, within a
period of 10 years from the date of his release
or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of
said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62,
RPC)
d. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (P.D. NO.
1829)
Q: Who can be held liable for obstruction of
apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders (PD 1829)?
A: Any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases. (Sec. 1, P.D.
1829)
Page 17 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
C. PENALTIES
1. PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED AND
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
General Rule: A felony shall be punishable only
by the penalty prescribed by law at the time of its
commission. Note: Art. 21 implements the
constitutional prohibition against ex post facto
laws. It reflects the maxim that there is no crime
without a penalty and that there is no penalty
without a law (nullum crimen sine poena; nulla
poena sine lege). But as provided in Art. 22, ex
post facto laws are allowed if favorable to the
accused.
General Rule: Penal laws are applied
prospectively.
Exception: When retrospective application will
be favorable to the person guilty of a felony,
provided that:
1) The offender is NOT a habitual
criminal (delinquent) under Art. 62(5);
and
2) The new or amendatory law does
NOT provide against its retrospective
application.
Rationale for the exception in art. 22:
Basis: Strict justice and not on political
considerations. The sovereign, in enacting
subsequent penal law more favorable to the
accused, has recognized that the greater severity
of the former law is unjust.
The sovereign would be inconsistent if it would
still enforce its right under the conditions of the
former law, which has already been regarded by
conscientious public opinion as juridically
burdensome.
Note: No retroactive effect even when favorable
to the accused - if the new law is expressly
made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action. (Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil 468,
1902).
HABITUAL DELINQUENT
A person who within a period of 10 years from the
date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, is found
guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener.
ATENEO CENTRAL
bar o p e r a t io n s 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Notes: • According to L.B. Reyes, Art. 22 is NOT

• If retroactive effect of a new law is justified, it applicable to the provisions of the RPC.
shall apply to the defendant even if he is: Its application to the RPC can only be
9 Presently on trial for the offense; invoked where some former or
• Has already been sentenced but service of subsequent law is under consideration.
which has not begun; or
• Already serving sentence. BILL OF ATTAINDER - A legislative act
9 The retroactive effect of criminal statutes which inflicts punishment without a trial.
does NOT apply to the culprit’s civil liability.
2. CLASSIFICATION
Reason:
9 The rights of offended persons or innocent Q: How are penalties classified?
third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary A: They are classified into principal and
disposal of the State. accessory penalties.
9 The provisions of Art. 22 are applicable even
to special laws, which provide more Principal Penalties
favorable conditions to the accused. 1. Capital punishment:
2. Afflictive penalties:
Criminal liability under the repealed law o Reclusion perpetua;
subsists: o Reclusion temporal;
9 When the provisions of the former law are o Perpetual or absolute temporary
reenacted; disqualification;
• The right to punish offenses committed o Perpetual or temporary special
— under an old penal law is4iot extinguishedJf ________ disqualification; and
the offenses are still punishable in the o Prision mayor;
repealing penal law; 3. Correctional penalties:
o Prision correccional:
• When the repeal is by implication; or when
o Aresto mayor:
a penal law, which impliedly repealed an old
o Suspension: and
law, is itself repealed, the repeal of the
o Destierro:
repealing law revives the prior penal law,
4. Light penalties:
unless the language of the repealing statute
o Arresto menor; and
provides otherwise. If the repeal is absolute,
o Public censure;
criminal liability is obliterated; and
5. Penalties common to the three preceding
• When the repeal is absolute, the offense
classes:
ceases to be criminal. (People v. Tamayo,
o Fine: and
G.R. No. L-41423, 1935).
o Bond to keep the peace.
• When there is a saving clause.
Accessory Penalties
Notes:..........
1. Perpetual or temporary absolute
• No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards disqualification;
jurisdiction of court. 2. Perpetual or temporary special
• Jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal disqualification;
action is to be determined by the law in 3. Suspension from public office, the right to
force at the time of instituting the action, vote and be voted for, the profession or
not at the time of the commission of the calling;
crime. 4. Civil interdiction;
o Jurisdiction of courts in criminal 5. Indemnification;
cases is determined by the 6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments
allegations of the complaint or and proceeds of the offense; and
information, and not by the 7. Payment of costs. (Art. 25, RPC)
findings the court may make
after trial. (People v. Romualdo,
G.R. No. L- 3686, 1952)

Page 18 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: When shall a fine be considered an 4) Those convicted of piracy;

afflictive penalty, a correctional, and a light 5) Those who are habitual delinquents;
penalty? 6) Those who shall have escaped from
A: confinement or evaded sentence;
Penalty Amount 7) Those who violated the terms of conditional
Afflictive If it exceeds P6,000. pardon granted to them by the Chief
Correccional Does not exceed Executive;
P6,000 but is not less 8) Those whose maximum term of
than P200 imprisonment does not exceed one year;
Light If it be less than P200 9) Those who, upon the approval of the law
(Art. 26, RPC) (December 5, 1933), had been sentenced by
final judgment; and
Note: This has been amended by R.A. 10951, 10) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro
(Aug. 2017). or suspension. (Act. No. 4103, Sec. 2)
Penalty Amount
Afflictive If it exceeds P1.2M c. THREE-FOLD RULE
Coreccional Does not exceed
Q: What is the three-fold rule?
P1.2M but is not less
A: It provides that the convict shall not serve
than P40K
more than three times the most severe of the
Light If it be less than P40K penalties imposed on him, but in no case more
(RA 10951, for easier reference) than 40 years. Hence, there must at least be four
sentences, which he is supposed to serve. The
3. DURATION AND EFFECT rule is applicable only to principal penalties
and applies to all penalties imposed in all
Q: What is the difference between life proceedings or on different dates. It is covered
imprisonment and reclusion perpetual by the juridical accumulation system. (Art. 70,
A: RPC)
. Life Reclusion perpetua
imprisonment Q: What is successive service of sentence?
It has no definite It entails imprisonment for A: When the culprit has to serve two or more
duration and at least 30 years and penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
does not carry carries with it accessory the nature of the penalties will so permit.
any accessory penalties of perpetual Otherwise, the order of their respective severity
penalty. absolute disqualification shall be followed. However, the maximum
and civil interdiction. duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be
(>People v. Dolar, 6.R. No. 100805, 1994) more than three times the length of the most
severe penalty (three-fold rule) nor exceed 40
4. APPLICATION years. (Art. 70, RPC)

a. RPC PROVISIONS Q: A was convicted of different crimes with

the following penalties: arresto mayor, prision
b. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT correccional and prision mayor, should the
NO. 4103 AS AMENDED) three-fold rule apply?
A: No, the three-fold rule applies only when
Q: When is the benefit of the Indeterminate convict has to serve at least four sentences. (Art.
Sentence Law not applicable? 70, RPC)
A:
1) Persons convicted of offenses punishable
with death penalty or life imprisonment;
2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason;
3) Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage;

Page 19 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

d. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT D. Composed of Period

several periods, immediately
Q: Distinguish preventive imprisonment from corresponding to following the
subsidiary imprisonment. different divisible minimum
A: penalties prescribed and of
• Preventive Imprisonment - Accused is not the two next
allowed to enjoy provisional liberty while the following, taken
case is undergoing trial when the offense from the penalty
charged is nonbailable, or even if bailable, prescribed if
accused cannot furnish the required bail. (Art. possible,
29, RPC) otherwise from
• Subsidiary Imprisonment - Imposed after the penalty
final judgment when accused fails to pay the immediately
fine imposed upon the crime. (Art. 39, RPC) following________

5. GRADUATION OF PENALTIES Simplified Rules

Penalty Penalty next lower tn
Q: What are the rules for the graduation of Prescribed v degree
penalties? Consists in 3 3 periods down the
A: periods (of divisible scale
Penalty Penalty Next penalties)
Lower In Degree 2 periods 2 periods down the
A. Single and That immediately scale
indivisible following the Next period down the
indivisible penalty l4ieC10£L — scale
reclusion perpetua reclusion temporal (Art. 61, RPC)
B. (1) Composed of That immediately
two indivisible following the Q: What penalty is 2 degrees higher than
penalties, lesser of the reclusion temporal?
Or (2) 1 or more penalties A: Two degrees higher than reclusion temporal is
divisible penalties prescribed in the death (Art. 25, RPC). But, Art. 74 prohibits
imposed in full extent graduated scale imposition of death penalty resulting from
1. reclusion perpetua reclusion temporal graduation of penalty. Thus, the penalty shall be
to death reclusion perpetua but with the accessory
2. reclusion temporal prision mayor penalties of death under Art. 40. (People v.
3. prision correccional aresto mayor Canales, G.R. No. 126319, 1998)
to prision mayor
C. Composed of one Medium and
or two indivisible minimum periods
penalties, and the of the proper
maximum period of divisible penalty
another divisible and the maximum
penalty period of that
immediately
following in the
graduated scale
i.e. reclusion temporal i.e. prision mayor
maximum to death maximum to
reclusion temporal
minimum to
medium

Page 20 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: What are the rules when there are _ 6. ACCESSORY PENALTIES

aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances
present? Q: What are accessory penalties?
A: A: Those that are deemed included in the
Penalty Circumstance Penalty to imposition of the principal penalties, namely:
imposable Present be Imposed 1) Perpetual or temporary absolute
When Apply it Same as disqualification;
penalty is a regardless of imposable 2) Perpetual or temporary special
single any mitigating penalty disqualification;
indivisible or aggravating 3) Suspension from public office, the right to
penalty circumstance vote and be voted for, the profession or
calling;
Penalty is One Impose 4) Civil interdiction;
composed aggravating greater 5) Indemnification; and
of 2 penalty 6) Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
indivisible No aggravating Impose lesser proceeds of the offense. (Art. 25, RPC)
penalties or mitigating penalty
One mitigating Impose lesser 7. EXECUTION AND SERVICE
penalty
One mitigating Offset Q: What are the penalties that may be served
one simultaneously?
aggravating A: The penalties that may be served
2 or more Impose lesser simultaneously are imprisonment/destierro AND:
mitigating penalty (do 1) Perpetual Absolute Disqualification;
not lower by 2) Perpetual Special Disqualification;
one degree) 3) Temporary Absolute Disqualification
Privileged May lower by 4) Temporary Special Disqualification;
mitigating degree 5) Suspension from public office, the right to
Penalty No aggravating Medium vote and be voted for, and the right to
has three or mitigating period follow a profession or calling; and
periods 6) Fine; and any principal penalty with its
1 mitigating Minimum
accessory penalties. (Reyes, Book 1, p.
period
767)
1 aggravating Maximum
period
Q: Can probation be granted after perfecting
Aggravating Offset
an appeal?
and mitigating
A: The GENERAL RULE is even if a person may
present
be eligible for probation, the moment he
2 or more Penalty next perfects an appeal from the judgment of
mitigating and lower in the conviction, he cannot avail of probation
no aggravating period
anymore.
applicable
EXCEPTIONS:
according to
1) The court, may, after it shall have convicted
no./nature of
and sentenced a child in conflict with the
circumstance
law, and upon application at any time, place
2 or more Maximum the child on probation in lieu of service of his
aggravating period (do not sentence taking into account the best interest
go higher) of the child. (Sec. 42, RA 9344)
(Art. 62, RPC) 2) When a judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgment is modified
through the imposition of a probationable
penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to
apply for probation based on the modified
Page 21 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
decision before such decision becomes final.
(Colinares vs. People, G.R. No 182748, Dec
13, 2011; and Sec. 4, PD 968 as amended)
Q: Enumerate at least 5 instances or
situations in criminal cases wherein the
accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can
apply for and/or be granted a suspended
sentence.
A:
1) Where the accused became insane before
sentence could be promulgated (Art. 79,
RPC);
2) Where the offender, upon conviction by the
trial court, filed an application for probation
which has been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia,
G.R. No. L-59298, 1984);
3) Where the crime was committed when the
offender is under 18 years of age and he is
found guilty thereof in accordance with the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, but
the trial court subjects him to appropriate
disposition measures as prescribed by the
Supreme Court in the Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law;
4) The death sentence shall be suspended
upon a woman while she is pregnant or
within 1 year after delivery (Art. 83, RPC);
and
5) Section 66 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act.
Q: A was 2 months below 18 years of age
when he committed the crime. He was
charged with the crime 3 months later. He was
23 when he was finally convicted and
sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail
ierm, he sought a suspension of the sentence
on the ground that he was a juvenile offender.
Should he be entitled to a suspension of
sentence? Reasons.
A: No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the
sentence because he was already 23 years old at
the time of his conviction. The benefits of a
suspended sentence can no longer apply to A.
The suspension of sentence lasts only until
the child in conflict with the law reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
(People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, 2011)
Page 22 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: When A committed theft he was 14 years
old. During his trial for the crime he was 19
years old. Is A criminally liable? If so, can he
be given suspended sentence? Explain.
A: No, it appearing that at the time of the
commission of the crime A was under 15 years
of age, A is therefore exempt from criminal
liability.
It is the age of the minor at the time of the
commission of the crime, not his age at the time
of the trial, which determines whether or not he
is exempt from criminal liability.
Being exempt from criminal liability, A should be
acquitted and the case against him dismissed.
The suspended sentence contemplated in Art.
80, RPC, presupposes that the minor is not
exempt from criminal liability.
However, A can still be given a suspended
sentence because Sec. 38 of the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act provides that the child in conflict
with the law is entitled to an automatic suspension
of sentence even if he is already 18 years old or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his auilt
(Sec. 38, JJWA)
D. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Q: When is criminal liability totally
extinguished?
A: P2ADAMS
1) By Prescription of the crime;
2) By Prescription of the penalty; (Art. 89,
RPC)
3) By Amnesty which completely extinguishes
the penalty and ail its effects;
4) the Death of the convict (as to the personal
- penalties; as to the pecuniary penalties,
liability is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment)
5) By Absolute pardon;
6) By the Marriage of the offended woman (Art.
344, RPC); and by
7) Service of the sentence.
Q: What is the effect of offender’s death to
criminal and civil liabilities?
• Before final judgment: His death
extinguishes both his criminal and civil
liabilities. (People v. Alison, No. L-20612,
1972)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
• While the case is on appeal: Death of the
accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishes his criminal liability as well
as the civil liability based solely thereon.
(People v. Bayotas, GR No. 102007, 1994)
• After final judgment: Criminal liability is
totally extinguished, but pecuniary penalties
are not extinguished. (Art. 89, RPC)
Q: X was convicted of murder. Prior to the
Court declaration of the finality of the
Resolution affirming the conviction of X and
issuance of an Entry of Judgment, X died.
What is the effect of such death on the
criminal action and civil action?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] The criminal action, as
well as the civil action for the recovery of the civil
liability ex delicto, is ipso facto extinguished.
Article 89(1) of the RPC provides that the criminal
liability is totally extinguished by the death of the
accused. X’s civil liability based on sources other
than the subject delict survives and the victim
may file a separate civil action. (People v. Agapito
dimaala y Arela, G.R. No. 225054, 2017)
Q: One of the accused died pending appeal
and before promulgation of the final
judgment. Is the personal liability
extinguished both as to criminal liability and
civil liability?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes, the personal
liability both as criminal and civil liability are both
extinguished since the death occurred before
final judgment. The death of the accused pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto.
Accordingly, the criminal case against should be
dismissed. (People v. Alvin Cenido y Picones and
Remedios Contreras y Cruz, G.R. No. 210801,
2016)
Q: What are the effects of death of an accused
pending appeal on his liabilities?
A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] The effects of the death
of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities are
as follows:
1) the death of the accused prior to final
judgment terminates his criminal liability and
only the civil liability directly arising from and
based solely on the offense committed;
2) the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of
Page 23 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
obligation other than delict (i.e. laws,
contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts);
3) where the civil liability survives, an action for
recovery may be pursued but only by way of
filing a separate civil action enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the
estate of the accused; and
4) the statute of limitations on the civil liability is
deemed interrupted during the pendency of
the criminal case, to avoid apprehension on a
possible privation of right by prescription.
(People v. Layag, G.R. No. 214875, 2016)
Q: X and Y received jewelry and gold items
from A under the obligation of selling the
items. X and Y made partial payments but
failed to pay the rest of the obligation, and
they failed to return the jewelries. X and Y
were charged with estafa. X claims that the
partial payments to A novated the contract
from agency to loan and converted his liability
from criminal to civil. Is novation a mode of
extinguishing criminal liability?
A: No. Novation is not one of the grounds
prescribed by the RPC for the extinguishment of
criminal liability. Art 89 (on total extinguishment)
and Art 94 (on partial extinguishment) list down
the various grounds for extinguishment of
criminal liability. Not being included in the list,
novation is limited in its effect only to the civil
liability, hence, not an efficient defense in estafa.
The criminal liability for estafa already committed
is not affected by the subsequent novation of the
contract. Novation is relevant only to determine if
the parties have altered the nature of the
obligation prior to the commencement of the
criminal prosecution in order to prevent the
incipient criminal liability of the accused.
(,Deganos v. People, G.R. No. 162826, 2013)
Q: Mayor X served for two terms. On his
second term he was charged with plunder for
acts committed during his first term of office.
Mayor X insists that due to his re-election, the
offense has been condoned by the people and
so he cannot be held criminally liable. Is
Mayor X’s contention correct? Mayor X has
likewise been removed from office due to the
acts committed during his first term. Mayor X
alleges that under the doctrine of
condonation, he cannot be removed from
office based on acts committed during a
previous term. Is Mayor X’s contention
correct?
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

incident to, or in connection with the crimes of

A: No, condonation does not apply to a criminal rebellion and insurrection; and
case. (Insco v. Sanchez, etaL, 1967) In any case, 18) Violations of Articles of War
the doctrine of condonation as a mode of a. Desertion;
extinguishment of administrative liability has been b. Absence without leave;
overturned. (Carpio Morales vs. CA, G.R. Nos. c. Mutiny or sedition;
217126-27,2015) d. Failure to suppress mutiny or
sedition;
Q: When is criminal liability partially e. Various crimes; and
extinguished? f. Conduct unbecoming an officer and
A: gentlemen.
1) By conditional pardon;
2) By commutation of the sentence; and Q: Distinguish prescription of the crime
3) For good conduct allowances which the from prescription of the penalty.
culprit may earn while he is serving his A:
sentence. (Art. 94, RPC) Prescription of Prescription of
crime penalty
Q: In what cases are criminal liability Forfeiture or loss of Loss or forfeiture of
extinguished by marriage of the offended the right of the State the right of the
woman? to prosecute the Government to
A: In Seduction, Abduction, Rape and Acts of offender after the execute the final
lasciviousness (SARA). Such marriage benefits lapse of a certain time sentence after the
the co-principals, accomplices or accessories (Reyes, Book 1. p. lapse of a certain time
(Art. 344); except for rape since Art. 266-C does 867) (Reyes, Book 1, p.
not have the same provision. (People v. De la 867) —
Cerna, G.R. No. 136899-904, 2002)
Q: When is constructive discovery sufficient
Q: Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, for prescriptive period for crimes to
amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, commence to run?
certain crimes are covered by the grant of A:
amnesty. Name at least 5 of these crimes. Insufficient
A: It is sufficient in the Constructive
1) Rebellion or insurrection; crime of falsification of discovery is not
2) Coup d’etat; a public document. applicable to
3) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, Thus, from registration of
insurrection or coup d’etat; registration of the bigamous marriage in
4) Disloyalty of public officers or employees; public document, the the Office of the Civil
5) Inciting to rebellion or insurrection; period commences to Registrar because it
6) Sedition; run. This is favorable is ordinarily entered
7) Conspiracy to commit sedition; to the accused. into in a place where
8) Inciting to sedition; (People v. Reyes, the offender is not
9) Illegal assembly; G.R. No. 74226- known to be a
10) Illegal association; 27,1989) married person.
11) Direct assault; Thus, the period
12) Indirect assault; commences to run on
13) Resistance and disobedience to a person in the date of actual
authority or agents of such persons; discovery._________
14) Tumults and other disturbances of public (Sermonia v. CA, G.R. No. 109454, 1994)
order;
15) Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances;
16) Alarms and scandals;
17) Illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions,
and explosives, committed in furtherance of,
Page 24 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: What are the prescriptive periods of Q: What are the rules on the computation of
felonies? prescription of offenses? (FTA)
A: According to Art. 90, crimes punished by the A: According to Article 90:
following penalties have a prescriptive period of: 1) Period of prescription shall be interrupted by
Penalty Prescriptive Period the Filing of the complaint or information.
Afflictive penalties 15 years 2) It commences to run again when such
Correctional 10 years proceedings Terminate w/o the accused
penalties (except being convicted or acquitted, or are
arresto mayor) unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
Arresto mayor 5 years imputable to him.
Libel and similar 1 year 3) The term of prescription shall not run when
crimes the offender is Absent from the country.
Oral defamation 6 months
Slander by deed 6 months Q: When is prescription of penalty
interrupted? (FACS)
Light offenses 2 months (Art. 90,
A: According to Art. 93 of the RPC:
_______ RPC)............... 1) If he should go to some Foreign country with
which this Government has no extradition
Q: What are the prescriptive periods for treaty;
violations of special laws? 2) If he should commit Another crime before
A: If the offense is punishable by:____________ the expiration of the period of prescription
Penalty Prescriptive Period 3) If he is Captured; and
Fine or imprisonment 1 year 4) If the defendant should give himself up
for not more than 1 (Surrender).
month, or both
Imprisonment for 4 years Q: Taylor was convicted of a violation of the
more than 1 month, Election Code and was sentenced to suffer
but less than 2 years imprisonment of 1 year as minimum to 3 years
Imprisonment for 2 8 years as maximum. The decision became final and
years or more, but executory. Taylor failed to appear when
less than 6 years summoned for execution of judgment,
Any other offense 12 years prompting the judge to issue an order for his
punished by arrest. Taylor left for the US. 15 years later,
imprisonment for 6 Taylor returned to the Philippines and argues
years or more that the penalty imposed against him has
Treason 20 years already prescribed. Has the penalty
If violation of 2 months prescribed? (2015 BAR)
municipal ordinances (Act. No. 3326, Sec. A: No. The RPC provides that penalties of
_________ u _________ prescription commence to run from the date the
felon evades the service of his sentence. Evasion
Q: What is the basis for prescription in a of service of sentence can be committed only by
compound penalty? those who have been convicted by final judgment
A: When the penalty fixed by law is a compound by escaping during the term of his sentence. In
one, the highest penalty shall, according to the this case, Taylor never served a single minute of
last paragraph of Art. 90, be the basis of the his sentence. (Art. 93, RPC; and Del Castillo v.
application of prescription (Art. 90, RPC). For Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, 2002)
example, the penalty for perjury is compound,
arresto mayor minimum to prision correccional Q: What is amnesty?
minimum, the higher penalty which is prision A: It is an act of the sovereign power granting
correccional shall be the basis for prescription. oblivion, or a general pardon for the past offense,
Thus, the crime of perjury prescribes in 10 years. and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of single
(People v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-15132, 1960) individuals. It is usually exerted in behalf of
certain classes of persons who are subject to trial,

Page 25 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

but have not yet been convicted. (Brown v. recommendation of the COMELEC. (Sec. 5,
Walker, 161 U.S. 59) Art. IX-C)

Q: What is the effect of amnesty? Q: How is Allowance for Good Conduct

A: It completely extinguishes the penalty and all computed (Art. 97, as amended by R.A.
its effects. (Art. 89, par. 3, RPC) 10592), What is the special time allowance for
loyalty?
Q: What is absolute pardon? A:
A: Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the Situation Period deducted
power entrusted with the execution of the laws, First TWO YEARS of 20 DAYS for each
which exempts the individual from the imprisonment month of good
punishment the law inflicts for a crime committed. behavior
(Monsato v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, 1989) During THIRD to 23 days for each
FIFTH YEAR month of good
Pardon is the total extinction of the criminal (inclusive of his behavior
liability of the individual to whom it is granted imprisonment)
without any condition. It restores to the individual During FOLLOWING 25 days for each
his civil and political rights and remits the penalty YEARS until TENTH month of good
imposed for the particular offense of which he YEAR (inclusive of his behavior
was convicted. (Sec. 2 (g), Revised Rules and imprisonment)
Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole) During ELEVENTH 30 days for each
and SUCCESSIVE month of good
Q: What is the effect of absolute pardon? YEARS (inclusive of behavior
A: It does not ipso fact entitle the convict to his imprisonment)
reinstatement to the public office forfeited by Special time allowance for loyalty (Art. 98)
reason of his conviction. It restores his eligibility Under Art. 158 after 1/5 the period of
for appointment to the office, but the pardoned having evaded sentence
convict must still reapply for a new appointment. service of sentence,
(.Monsato v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, 1989) prisoner gives himself
up to the authorities
Q: What is conditional pardon? within 48 hours after
A: It is the exemption of an individual, with certain proclamation
limits or conditions, from the punishment which announcing the
the law inflicts for the offense he had committed passing of the
resulting in the partial extinction of his criminal calamity
liability. (Sec. 2, IRR Board of Pardons) Prisoner chose to stay 2/5 of period of
in place of sentence
Once delivered and accepted, it constitutes a confinement
contract between the sovereign power or the notwithstanding
executive and the criminal that-said criminal will eidstenca of calamity
be released upon compliance with the conditions.
(In Re: Infante, G.R. No. L-4164, 1952) Note: At any time during the period of
imprisonment, he shall be allowed another
Q: What are the constitutional limitations on deduction of fifteen days, in addition to the
pardon? abovementioned, for each month of study,
A: teaching or mentoring service time rendered (as
1) No pardon may be granted in impeachment amended by RA 10592).
cases (Art. VII, Sec. 19, PH Const.);
2) May only be granted after conviction by final
judgment (Sec. 19, Art. VII); and
3) No pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules,
and regulations shall be granted by the
resident without the favorable
Page 26 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

D. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES Q: What damages are granted in a case of

homicide?
Q: Distinguish between pecuniary penalty A: Moral damages and civil indemnity are always
from pecuniary liability. granted in homicide, it being assumed by the law
A: that the loss of human life absolutely brings moral
Pecuniary Penalty Pecuniary Liability and spiritual losses as well as a definite loss.
Refers to fine Refers to the civil Moral damages and civil indemnity require
(money) liability (Art. 100, neither pleading nor evidence simply because
RPC). death through crime always occasions moral
Includes: Includes: sufferings on the part of the victim's heirs. As
1. Fine 1. Restition explained in People v. Panad, a violent death
2. Cost of 2. Reparation of the invariably and necessarily brings about emotional
proceedings damage caused pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.
3. Indemnification of It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment,
the consequential pain and anger when a loved one becomes the
damages victim of a violent or brutal killing. The civil
Failure to pay Failure to pay indemnity and moral damages are fixed at
pecuniary penalty pecuniary liability will P75,000.00 each. (Ladines v People, G.R. No.
subjects the accused NOT subject the 167333, 2016).
to subsidiary accused to subsidiary
imprisonment if imprisonment (No I II. REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK II l
provided in the imprisonment for non­
sentence. (Art. 39, payment of debt.) A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
RPC) AND LAWS OF NATIONS

Q: Who are liable for the criminal acts of a Q: What are the elements of treason?
child? A: FRAP LAW (3)
A: 1) Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien
Child Nature of the Liability of residing in Philippines
Act Parents 2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved,
MINOR Civil Liability Primarily Liable
3) Offender either levies war against the
Ex Delito
government or adheres to the enemies by
Criminal Act None
giving them aid or comfort (Art. 114, RPC)
OF Civil Liability Subsidiarily
LEGAL Ex Delito liable
Q: The Abu Sayyaf declared war. There was
AGE Criminal Act None actual assembly of men. If the commanders
were arrested, can they be prosecuted for
The parents are primarily liable for the civil liability treason by levying war against the
arising from the criminal offenses committed by government?
their minor children under their legal authority or A: NO. Levying war must be in collaboration with
control or who live in their company UNLESS it is a foreign enemy. The first means of committing
proven that they acted with diligence of a good treason still requires adherence to enemies. If
father to a family. (Libi v. IAC, G.R. No. 70890, there is only civil uprising without intention of
1992) delivering the country in whole or in part to the
enemy, the crime is rebellion and not treason.
When a minor child was subject of an adoption (REYES, p. 6, 2012)
proceeding but he was still in the custody of the
natural parents and under their parental authority Q: Because peace negotiations on the
when said child committed a crime, retroactive Spratlys situation had failed, the People’s
effect may not be given to the decree of adoption Republic of China declared war against the
to impose a liability upon the adopting parents. Philippines. Y, a Filipina who lives with her
(Tamargo v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, 1992) Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail
correspondence between him and a certain
Page of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
General of China. Later on, Y discovered that
her boyfriend had sent an e-mail to the
General, in which he agreed to provide vital
information on the military defense of the
Philippines to the Chinese government in
exchange for P1M and his safe return to Italy.
Two weeks later, Y decided to report the
matter to the proper authorities. Did Y commit
a crime? Explain. (2010 BAR)
A: YES. Y committed Misprision of Treason, since
she did not inform the governor of provincial fiscal
or mayor of her city as soon as possible of the
activities of her Italian boyfriend. Misprision is
committed by not informing immediately about
any conspiracy to commit treason which is known
to her, during a time of war. (Art. 116, RPC)
Q: What are the modes of committing
espionage?
A:
1) By entering, without authority, a B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
warship/fort/military or naval
establishments/reservation to obtain any
information, plans, or other data of
confidential nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines;
2) By disclosing to the representative of a
foreign nation the contents of the articles data
or information referred to in the first mode
which he had in his possession by reason of
the public office he holds. (Art. 117, RPC).
Q: What are the punishable acts in piracy?
1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on high seas or
in PH waters; and
2) Seizing the whole or part of its cargo,
complement or passengers while vessel is on
high seas or PH waters (Art. 122, RPC).
Q: While a ship was still 300 miles from the-
shores of Aparri, its engines malfunctioned.
The repairs took 15 hours. The crew fell
asleep due to exhaustion. While the ship was
anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade
Ybanags cut the ship's engine and took away
crates of equipment. There was no violence
and they hurriedly left. The robbery was
discovered by the crew. What crime was
committed? (2006 BAR)
A: Piracy in the high seas was committed. The
elements of piracy are as follows: VON ASSE
1) That a Vessel is on the high seas or in
Philippine waters;
Page 28 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
2) That the Offenders are Not members of its
complement or passengers of the vessel; and
3) That the offenders
(a) attack or seize that vessel, or
(b) seize the whole or part of said
vessel, its equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or
passengers. (Art. 122, RPC).
Q: What are the circumstances which qualify
piracy?
A: BF A&A
1) Seizure of vessel by boarding or firing upon
the same;
2) Abandonment of victims without any
means of saving themselves; and
3) When crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape (Art.
123, RPC).
OF THE STATE
Q: What are the elements of arbitrary
detention?
A: PWD
1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
2) He detains a person; and
3) Detention is without legal grounds. (Article
124, RPC)
Q: Is the detention in an enclosure
necessary?
A: No. There is arbitrary detention even if the
victim is not kept in an enclosure. Psychological
Restraint is another form of detention. (Astorga v.
People, G.R. No 154130, October 1, 2003)
Q: When is detention without legal grounds?
A:------ --------- -------------------------- ------..........
1) When person detained has not committed
any crime or at least, there is no reasonable
ground for suspicion that he has committed
(i.e. valid warrantless arrest). (US v. Gellada,
G.R No. 5151, 1910).
2) He is not suffering from violent insanity or any
other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement in any hospital. (REYES, p. 44,
2012)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
detention? Explain each. (2006 BAR)
A: The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are: Q: What are the elements of rebellion or
1) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person insurrection?
without legal ground committed by any public A: PUTA RAG D
officer or employee who, without legal There must be
grounds, detains a person. (Art. 124, RPC) a) public uprising and
2) Delay in the delivery of detained persons b) taking arms against the government;
to the proper judicial authorities which is For the purpose either to:
committed by a public officer or employee a) To remove from the allegiance to
who shall detain any person for some legal government or laws: (i) territory of
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to Philippines (in whole or in part); (ii) body of
the proper judicial authorities within the land, or army/naval/other forces;
period of: 12 hours, for crimes or offense b) Deprive Chief Executive or Congress
punishable by light penalties, or their wholly or partially of powers or prerogatives.
equivalent; 18 hours for crimes or offenses (Art. 134, RPC)
punishable by correctional facilities, or their
equivalent; and 36 hours for crimes or Q: Is there a complex crime of rebellion with
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital murder and other common crimes?
penalties, or their equivalent. (Art. 125, RPC). A: None. Hernandez remains binding doctrine
3) Delaying release is committed by any public operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion
officer or employee who delays the release with any other offense committed on the occasion
for the period of time specified therein the thereof, either as a means necessary to its
performance of any judicial or executive order commission or as an unintended effect of an
for the release of the prisoner, or unduly activity that constitutes rebellion. (Enrile v.
delays the service of the notice of such order Salazar, G.R. No. 92163, 92164, June 5, 1990)
to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any
petition for the liberation of such person. (Art. Q: Distinguish rebellion from treason
126, RPC) A:
Rebellion (Art. 134, Treason (Art. 114,
Q: What is the difference between violation of RPC) RPC)
domicile and trespass to dwelling? (BAR Requires taking up of Does not require
2002) arms taking up of arms
A: Giving of comfort and Giving of comfort and
Trespass to moral aid alone is not moral aid is
dwelling (Art. Violation of domicile
(Art. 128, RPC) punishable punishable
280, RPC)
No foreign enemy Foreign enemy
Offender is a Offender in violation of domicile
private person or is a public officer acting under
required
a public officer color of authority Committed during Committed only
acting in private time of peace only during time of war
capacity (REYES, p. 87, 2012).
Committed only Violation of domicile is
by entering the committed in 3 different ways: Q: What are the elements of coup d’etat?
dwelling of (1) entering dwelling of A: OMPP
another against another against the will of 1) Offender: member of the military, police
the express or the latter;
force, or any public officer or employee;
implied will of the (2) searching papers and
latter. other effects in a dwelling 2) Means: swift attack accompanied by
without of the owner; or violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
(3) refusing to leave the stealth;
premises which he entered 3) Possible targets: duly constituted
surreptitiously, after being authorities of the Philippines, any military;
required to leave the camp/installation, communication networks,
premises. public utilities, or other facilities needed for

Page 29 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

the exercise and continued possession of 3) Inciting through the same media of
power; and. representation rebellious conspiracies or
4) Purpose: to seize or diminish state power riots;
(Art. 134-A, RPC) 4) Stirring people to go against lawful
authorities, or disturb the peace and public
Q: Distinguish Rebellion from Coup d'etat. order of the community or the Government;
(BAR 2004) or
A: 5) Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated
Rebellion (Art. 134, Coup d’etat (Art. evil practices (Art. 142, RPC).
RPC) 134-A, RPC)
Carried out by a May be committed by Q: What are the 2 rules relative to seditious
multitude of people. many or only one words?
No qualifications as to Principal offenders A:
offenders are members of the 1) Clear and present danger rule (Primicias v.
military, Philippine Fugoso, G.R. No. L-1800, 1948); and
National Police, or 2) Dangerous tendency rule (REYES, p. 113-
public officer, acting 114, 2012).
as principal offenders
Purpose is to Purpose is to Q: Who are deemed to be persons in authority
overthrow the destabilize the and agents of persons in authority? (BAR
government government or 2000)
diminish state power A: Persons in authority are persons directly
There is public There is a swift attack vestedwvith jurisdiction, whether as an individual
uprising and taking up thru strategy, stealth, or as a member of some court or government
of arms threat, violence or corporation, board, or commission. Barrio
intimidation against captains and barangay chairmen are also
duly constituted deemed persons in authority. Agents of persons
authorities of the in authority are persons who by direct provision of
Republic of the law or by election or by appointment by
Philippines, military competent authority, are charged with
camp or installation, maintenance of public order, the protection and
communication security of life and property, such as barrio
networks, public councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader
facilities or utilities and any person who comes to the aid of persons
needed for the in authority (Art. 152, RPC);
exercise and
continued possession In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151
of governmental of the RPC, teachers, professors and persons
powers charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private— schools, colleges and
Q: What are the different acts of inciting to universities, and lawyers in the actual
sedition? (BAR 2007, 2011) performance of their professional duties or on the
A: occasion of such performance, shall be deemed
1) Inciting others through speeches, writings, persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas
banners and other media of representation to Pambansa Big. 873).
commit acts which constitute sedition;
2) Uttering seditious words, speeches or Q: What are the ways to commit direct
circulating scurrilous libels against the assault?
Government of the Philippines or any of its A:
duly constituted authorities, which tend to 1) By employing force or intimidation, without a
disturb or obstruct the performance of official public uprising, with the aim of attaining any
functions, or which tend to incite others to of the purposes enumerated in defining the
cabal and meet for unlawful purposes; crimes of rebellion or sedition; and

Page 30 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
2) By attacking, employing force or seriously
intimidating or resisting any person in
authority or any of his agents while engaged
in the performance of official duties or on
occasion of such performance. (Art. 148,
RPC)
Q: When is direct assault qualified?
A: WPP (3)
1) When the assault is committed with a
weapon;
2) When the offender is a public officer or
employee; or
3) When the offender lays hand upon a person
in authority. (Art. 148, RPC)
Q: Can indirect assault exist without direct
assault?
A: No. Indirect assault can only be committed “on
occasion of the commission of any of the crimes
defined in the next preceding article.” Hence,
indirect assault can exist only when the offense of
Direct Assault was being committed. (Art. 149,
RPC, REYES, p. 147, 2012)
Q: When is there resistance and disobedience
to a person in authority or the agents of such
person?
A: When the offended party, who is a person in
authority or his agent, is in the actual performance
of his official functions, and when the offender,
who may be a private person or a public officer,
resists or seriously disobeys him. The act of
resistance or serious disobedience must not
constitute direct assault or indirect assault. (Art.
151, RPC)
Q: X gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of
Judge B. Armed with dos pordos, X hit Judge
B on the back, causing the latter’s
hospitalization for 30 days. Upon
investigation, it appeared that X had a grudge
against Judge B who, two years earlier, had
cited X in contempt and ordered his
imprisonment for three (3) days. Is X guilty of
Direct Assault? Why or why not? (BAR 2009)
A: No. Judge B was no longer a person in
authority when X hit him having retired from being
a judge. Direct assault is committed against a
person in authority. While B may have been
considered a person in authority because of his
position as a judge, he ceased to be so when he
reached 71 years old - past the age of retirement
of judges. (Art. 152, RPC)
Page 31 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a
hospital for emergency medical treatment. His
followers, all of whom were armed, went to the
hospital to take him away or help him escape.
The prison guards, seeing that they were
outnumbered and that resistance would
endanger the lives of other patients, decided
to allow the prisoner to be taken by his
followers. What crime, if any, was committed
by A’s followers? Why? (BAR 2002)
A: They committed the crime of Delivery of
Prisoner from Jail (Art. 156, RPC). The felony is
committed not only by removing from any jail or
penal establishment any person confined therein
but also by helping in the escape of such person
outside of said establishments by means of
violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other
means. This applies even if the prisoner is in a
hospital or an asylum. (REYES, p. 166, 2012)
D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Q: The baptism of A was solemnized by B, an
ecclesiastical minister, in the absence of C,
one of the godparents. Upon request of the
mother of A, B caused the inclusion of the
name of C in the baptismal certificate of A as
one of the godparents and allowed a proxy for
C during the baptismal ceremony. What is the
criminal liability, if any, of the ecclesiastical
minister?
A: The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally
liable because the insertion of the name of C in
the baptismal certificate will not affect the civil
status of A, which is a pre-requisite before he can
be charged with falsification under Art. 171. (Art.
171, RPC)
Q: What is the difference between falsification
of public or official documents and that of
private documents?
A: The essential difference between falsification
of private documents and that of public or official
documents lies in the fact that while in the former,
the prejudice to a third party is primarily taken in
to account so that if such damage is not apparent,
or there is at least no intention cause it, the
falsification is not punishable; in the latter, that is,
in the falsification of public or official documents,
the principal thing punished is the violation of
public faith and the perversion of truth which the
document solemnly proclaims, and for this reason
it is immaterial whether or not some prejudice has
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
been caused to third persons. (REYES, p. 240,
2012, People v. Pacana, G.R. No. L-22642,
1924)
Q: X, a Chinese national, filed a petition under
oath for naturalization, with RTC Manila. In his
petition, he stated that he is married and living
with Y in Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself
in an irreproachable manner during his stay in
the Philippines. However, at the time of the
filing of the petition, Y was already living in
Cebu, while X was living with Z in Manila, with
whom he has an amorous relationship. After
his direct testimony, X withdrew his petition
for naturalization. What crime or crimes, if
any, did X commit? Explain. (2005 BAR)
A: X committed perjury. His declaration under
oath for naturalization that he is of good moral
character and residing with Y are false. This
information is material to his petition for
naturalization. He committed perjury for this willful
and deliberate assertion of faisehood, which is
contained in a verified petition made for a legal
purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011,
March 14, 2003)
Q: When can a Filipino citizen residing in this
country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances.
(2006 BAR)
A:
a) As a pseudonym in cinema and other
entertainment field;
b) As a pen name in literary composition or
work; and
c) As a pseudonym in teievision and radio
broadcasting (R.A. No. 6085, Secs. 1 & 2)
Q: X leased his apartment to Y for PI 0,000 a
month. Y failed to pay the rent for 3 months.
Z, the son of X, prepared a demand letter
falsely alleging that his father had authorized
him to collect the unpaid rentals. Y paid the
unpaid rentals to Z who kept the payment.
What crime/s did Z commit? Can Z invoke his
relationship with X to avoid criminal liability?
(2008 BAR)
A: Z committed either the crime of falsification of
a private document (if damage or at least intent to
cause damage could be proved) or the crime of
swindling only. It could not be both falsification
and swindling or a complex crime of estafa
through falsification since the document falsified
Page 32 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
was a private document. The two crimes cannot
go together.
If Z would be made criminally liable for
falsification of a private document, he cannot
invoke his relationship with X, his father, to avoid
criminal liability because Art. 332 of the RPC
provides exemption from criminal liability in
crimes against property only, specifically for theft,
swindling or malicious mischief. If he would be
criminally liable for swindling, the exemption in
Art. 332 will obtain. (Art. 332; Art. 172, par. 2; Art.
315, par. 2[a], RPC)
Q: X submitted a photocopy of a Deed of Sale
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination
of the signatures found thereon. The
Document Examiner confirmed that the
subject deed was falsified. However, under
the Document Report submitted, it was said
that no definite conclusion can be rendered
due to the fact the questioned signatures are
photocopies wherein minute details are not
clearly manifested. Y is then charged with the
crime of Falsification of Public Documents
under Article 172(1) of the RPC. Can Y be
convicted of the crime?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. In every criminal
case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless
his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
absolute certainty; only moral certainty is
required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The
prosecution must establish the fact of falsification
or forgery by dear, positive, and convincing
evidence, as the same is never presumed. In this
case, the genuineness and due execution of a
photocopy could not be competently established
witbout a copy of-the original. The declaration of
the Document Examiner is unreliable and
inconsistent. Thus, it cannot support a finding of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Lamsen.
(Lamsen v. People, G.R. No. 227069. November
22, 2017)
Q: X, a VP of a company, instructed Y to
withdraw money from her account via ATM.
As the ATMs were offline, Y got the amount
through the petty cash custodian of the
company instead. The company’s finance
manager Z informed X of the situation and the
petty cash report and X immediately rectified
the situation. Z instructed the petty cash
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
custodian to reverse the report but informed
the president of the company of the situation.
Z then instructed the petty cash custodian to
retrieve the report, print it on a scratch paper,
and make it look old. X was administratively
charged for using office funds for personal
use on the basis of such report. X sued Z and
the petty cash custodian for Falsification of
Private Documents. The petty cash custodian
argued that she was just following Z’s
instructions. Is the petty cash custodian
guilty of Falsification of Private Documents?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. The elements of
Falsification of Private Documents under Article
172 (2) of the RPC are: (a) that the offender
committed any of the acts of falsification, except
those in Article 171 (7) of the same Code; (b) that
the falsification was committed in any private
document; and (c) that the falsification caused
damage to a third party or at least the falsification
was committed with intent to cause such damage.
On the other hand the elements of Falsification
under Article 171 (4) of the RPC are as follows:
(a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he
has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated
by him are absolutely false. In the instant case,
the MeTC, RTC, and CA all correctly found
Manansala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
aforesaid crime, considering that: (a) as UMC's
Petty Cash Custodian, she is legally obligated to
disclose only truthful statements in the
documents she prepares in connection with her
work, such as the subject report; (b) she knew all
along that Siy never made any cash advance nor
utilized the proceeds thereof for her personal use;
(c) despite such knowledge, she still proceeded
in revising the subject report by inserting therein
a statement that Siy made such a cash advance;
and (d) she caused great prejudice to Siy as the
latter was terminated from her job on account of
the falsified report that she prepared. (Manansala
v. People, G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015)
Q: X filed a case against Y and others,
accusing them, as public officers, of the
crimes of Falsification of Public Documents,
False Certification, and Slander by Deed. X
alleged that their statements in 2 separate
blotter entries were false, and made to
dishonor/discredit him. The Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) dismissed both
the complaint and the MR, and the Office of
Page 33 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) did the
same. X later filed a petition for review before
the CA, who dismissed it holding the ORSP is
not the final authority in the hierarchy of the
National Prosecution Service. Whether or not
there was probable cause for the crimes of
Slander by deed and False Certification?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) There is no probable
cause for crimes of Slander by Deed and False
Certification. As aptly found by the ORSP, there
was no improper motive on the part of
respondents in making the blotter entries as they
were made in good faith; in the performance of
their official duties as barangay officials; and
without any intention to malign, dishonor, or
defame Cariaga. Moreover, the statements
contained in the blotter entries were confirmed by
disinterested parties who likewise witnessed the
incidents recorded therein. On the other hand,
Cariaga's insistence that the blotter entries were
completely false essentially rests on mere self-
serving assertions that deserve no weight in law.
Thus, respondents cannot be said to have
committed the crime of Slander by Deed.
Furthermore, suffice it to say that the mere act of
authenticating photocopies of the blotter entries
cannot be equated to committing the crime of
False Certification under the law. (Cariaga v.
Sapigao, G.R. No. 223844, June 28, 2017)
E. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Q: A succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with B in consideration of 3000 pesos given
by A. That was the first time she had sexual
intercourse. Is B considered a prostitute?
A: No. One sexual intercourse with a man for
money or profit does not make a woman a
prostitute. A woman is a prostitute when she
1) habitually indulges in
a. sexual intercourse or
b. lascivious conduct
2) for money or profit. (Art. 202, RPC)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

F. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Q: What are the elements of Qualified

Bribery?
Q: Define malfeasance, misfeasance and A: ERI
nonfeasance. {2016 BAR) 1) Offender is a public officer entrusted with
A: law enforcement;
Malfeasance Misfeasance Nonfeasance 2) He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
Performance Improper Omission of offender who has committed a crime
of some act performance some act punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
which ought of some act which ought death; and
not to be which might to be 3) He refrains from arresting or persecuting the
done. lawfully be performed offender in consideration of any promise,
done gift, or present. (Art. 211-A, RPC)
(REYES, p. 374-375, 2013).
Q: May a judge, public prosecutor and police
Q: What are the elements of direct bribery? officer be charged and prosecuted for
A: PARE qualified bribery? Explain. (2010 BAR)
1) The offender is public officer; A: A judge cannot be prosecuted. A judge’s duty
2) The offender accepts an offer or promise or is neither to arrest nor prosecute, but to hear
receives a gift or present by himself or cases involving accused persons. A public
through another; prosecutor may be charged with this crime, since
3) Such offer or promise be accepted and the it is his duty to prosecute such offenders. A police
gift or present be received by the public officer may be charged with the crime, since it is
officer with a view of committing some crime, his duty to arrest offenders, as he is a person
or consideration of the execution of an act entrusted with law enforcement. (Art. 211-A,
which does not constitute a crime, but the act ~RPC)-----
must be unjust, or to refrain from doing
something which is his official duty to do; and Q: A, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch,
4) The act which the offender agrees to perform promised the plaintiff in a case pending
or which he executes is connected with the before the court that she would convince the
performance of his official duties. (Art. 210, Presiding Judge to decide the case in
RPC) plaintiff’s favor. In consideration therefor, the
plaintiff gave A, P20,000.00. A was charged
Q: Distinguish direct bribery from indirect with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act
bribery No. 3019. While the case was being tried, the
A: Ombudsman filed another information
Direct Bribery (Art. indirect Bribery (Art. against A for Indirect Bribery under the
210, RPC) 211, RPC) Revised Penal Code. A demurred to the
Agreement between No such agreement second information, claiming that she can no
the public officer and exists longer be charged under the Revised Penal
the giver of the gift - Code having^ been charged for the same act
Offender agrees to Not necessary that under R.A. 3019. Is A correct? (2009 BAR)
perform or performs the officer should do A: No, A is not correct. Although the charges for
an act, or refrains any particular act or violation of Sec. 3, RA 3019 and indirect bribery
from doing something even promise to do an arose from the same act, the elements
because of the gift or act, as it is enough constituting the two are different. The crimes
promise that he accepts gifts charged are separate and distinct from each
offered to him by other with different penalties. Hence, the second
reason of his office charge cannot be the subject of motion to dismiss
(Art. 210, 211, RPC) or motion to quash, as there is no double jeopardy
against the accused. Moreover, Sec. 3, RA 3019
provides for punishable acts “In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already penalized
by existing law.” (Art. 211, RPC; Sec. 3[b], RA

Page 34 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
3019, Mejia v. Pamaran, G.R. No. L-56741-42,
1988).)
Q: What is the consequence if the public
officer does not accept the gift?
A: Only the person making the offer or promise
will be held liable for attempted corruption of
public officer. (Art. 212 in relation to Art. 6, RPC)
Q: What are the punishable acts in
malversation of public funds or property?
A:
1) By appropriating public funds or property;
2) By taking or misappropriating the same;
3) By consenting or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property; or
4) By being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property. (Art. 217, RPC)
Q: May a private individual be charged with
malversation?
A: Yes, a private individual may be liable for
malversation if 1) he is charged with public funds
of the government or 2) acts in conspiracy with a
public officer. (People v. Sendaydiego, G.R. No.
L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253, 1978)
But see Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No.
116033, Feb. 26, 1997] where the Sandiganayan
ruled it had no jurisdiction over a person who was
given custody of distrained property. The Court
said, “ It is evident that the petitioner did not cease
to be a private individual when he agreed to act
as a depositary of the garnished dump truck.
When the information charged Azarcon and
Ancla were charged before the Sandiganbayan
for malversation of public funds, or property, the
prosecution was in fact charging two private
individuals without any public officer being
similarly charged as a co-conspirator.
Q: Petitioner X is a Local Treasurer Officer
assigned to collect and remit the “Patubig”
(local water system) collection. His
supervisor, Ms. Y, received a call that the
Patubig was collected but was not remitted. X
denied having collected the Patubig. Upon
investigation, cash money was found inside
X’s vault. X then denied misappropriating,
misapplying, and embezzling the patubig
collection, and explained that he deliberately
kept the collection in his vault upon learning
Page 35 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
that his wife had suffered a heart attack, and
that he did not yet need to remit the amount to
the OIC of the Cash Receipt Division because
it was still to be re-counted. Is
misappropriation, as one of the elements of
malversation, present in this case?
A: (BERSAMIN) Yes. Conformably with Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of the
petitioner to have the Patubig collection duly
forthcoming upon demand by the duly authorized
officer was prima facie evidence that he had put
such missing fund to personal use. Although the
showing was merely prima facie, and, therefore,
rebuttable, he did not rebut it, considering that he
not only did not account for the collection upon
demand but even steadfastly denied having
received it up to the time of the inspection of the
sealed vault. Under the circumstances, he was
guilty of the misappropriation of the collection.
(Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, 2015)
Q: What evidence is necessary for a
conviction of malversation?
A: (BERSAMIN) Malversation is committed either
intentionally or by negligence. All that is
necessary for a conviction is sufficient proof that
the accused accountable officer had received
public funds or property, and did not have them in
his possession when demand therefor was made
without any satisfactory explanation of his failure
to have them upon demand. For this purpose,
direct evidence of the personal misappropriation
by the accused is unnecessary as long as he
cannot satisfactorily explain the inability to
produce or any shortage in his accounts. (Mesina
v. People, G.R. No. 162489, 2015)
Q: What are the requisites of technical
malversation or illegal use of public funds or
property?
A: PP-AA (4)
1) That the offender is a public officer;
2) That there is public fund or property under
his administration;
3) That such public fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance; and
4) That he applies the same to a public use
other than that for which such fund or
property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance. (Art. 220, RPC)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: What are the principal distinctions of shelter assistance program and those for the
malversation and estafa? feeding program were separate items on X
A: Municipality’s annual budget. May Mayor
Malversation (Art. 217, Estafa with Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and
RPC) abuse of that he had no evil intent when he approved
confidence (Art. the transfer of the boxes of food? Explain.
315, RPC) (2015 BAR)
Funds/property usually Funds/property A: No. Criminal intent is not an element in
public are always technical malversation. The law punishes the act
private of diverting public property earmarked by law or
Offender is usually a public Offender is a ordinance for a particular public purpose to
officer who is accountable private individual another public purpose. It is the commission of an
for the public or even a public act as defined by the law, and not the character
funds/property officer who is not or effect thereof that determines whether or not
accountable for the provision has been violated. (Ysidoro v.
public People, G.R. No. 192330, 2012)
funds/property
Crime is committed by Crime is Q: X filed in the Department of Agrarian
appropriating, taking, or committed by Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a
misappropriating/consentin misappropriatin complaint for ejectment and collection of
g or through abandonment g, converting or rents against tenants. The petitioner Y, as
or negligence, permitting denying having Provincial Adjudicator, dismissed X’s
any other person to take received money, complaint for ejectment and collection of
public funds/property goods or other rents, and affirming the respective TCTs of the
personal tenants, thereby ignoring and disregarding
property the earlier final and executory decision of the
CA. Is Y guilty of usurpation of judicial
Q: What is the difference between illegal use functions under Art 241 of the RPC?
of public funds or orooerty and malversation? A: (BERSAMIN) No. To be liable under Art 241,
A: the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to
Illegal Use of Public Malversation (Art. perform an act for which the law has vested only
Funds or Property 217, RPC) in a judge. Y’s task as Provincial Adjudicator in
(Art. 220, RPC) the DARAB Case relates only to quasi-judicial
Offender does not Offender in certain functions. Thus, he could not be held liable under
derive any personal cases profits from the Art 241 of the RPC, considering that the acts
gain or profit proceeds of the crime constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were
Public fund or Public fund or property lacking therein. (Reyes v. People, G.R. Nos.
property is applied to is applied to the 177105-06, 2010)
another public use personal use and
benefit of the offender
or of another person against X, a government employee entrusted
with the collection of parking fees from
Q: A typhoon destroyed the house of many of various establishments and its remittance of
the inhabitants of X Municipality. The such with receipt to the City Treasurer of
municipality operated a shelter assistance Manila, for forging Official Receipts with
program but the beneficiaries stopped intent to defraud and gravely abuse the trust
helping with the construction for the reason and confidence granted to him. Is he guilty of
that they needed to earn income to provide the crime of Malversation of Public Funds
food for their families. Mayor Maawain through Falsification of Public Documents?
approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food A: The Court was able to prove all the elements
from X Municipality’s feeding program, which of the crime charged, given that: (a) X, being
were given to the families of the beneficiaries Clerk I! and then Special Collecting Officer, was
of the shelter assistance program. The a public officer; (b) the funds involved are public
appropriations for the funds pertaining to the funds for which he was accountable as they were
Page 36 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
due to and paid to the City of Manila; (c) he has
custody and control over the said funds by reason
of his office, since he was officially designated to
collect the monthly parking fees from various
establishments; and (d) he has appropriated,
taken, or misappropriated the said public funds
when he failed to discharge his duty of remitting
the same in full. (Dizon v. People, G.R. No.
227577. January 24, 2018)
Q: What are the elements of Malversation?
A: Article 217: Malversation of public funds or
property — presumption of malversation, states
that the elements are:
1) Offender is a public officer;
2) He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
3) Those funds or property were public funds for
which he was accountable; and
4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take
them.
Q: What are the elements of Falsification by a
Public Officer?
A: Under Article 171: Falsification by public
officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical
minister, the elements are:
1) That the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public;
2) That he takes advantage of his official
position;
3) That he falsifies a document by committing
any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made
by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its
meaning;
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists,
or including such copy a statement
Page 37 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
contrary to, or different from that of the
original; or
h. Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book; and
4) In case the offender is an ecclesiastical
minister, the act of falsification is committed
with respect to any record or document of
such character that its falsification may affect
the civil status of persons
G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Q: Is the killing of an eleven-year old boy
murder?
A: Yes. It is murder qualified by treachery under
Art. 248. It is not so much as to put emphasis on
the age of the victim rather it is more of a
description of the young victim’s state of
helplessness. Minor children, by reason of their
tender years, cannot be expected to put a
defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a
child, treachery exists. (People v Fallorina, GR
No. 137347, 2004)
Q: If the main objective of the offender is to
kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice and when fire is resorted to
as a means to accomplish such goal, what
crime is committed? (2012 BAR)
A: The crime committed is murder only. Murder
qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime of
arson since the latter is an inherent means to
commit the former. (People v Baluntong GR No.
182061, 2010; People v. Cedenio Gr No. 93485,
1994)
Q: Is intent to kill presumed in cases where
the victim dies because of a deliberate act of
the malefactors?
A: Yes. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In
such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the
crime is homicide because with respect to crimes
of personal violence, the penal law books
particularly to the material results following the
unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible
for all the consequences thereof. (Yapyuco v
Sandiganbayan GR No. 120744-46 2012)
Q: What are the instances embraced in “death
or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances”?
A:
ATENEG CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 20 t9
1) Any legally married person who having
surprised his spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person, shall
kill any or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon
them any serious physical injury; and
2) a parent who having surprised his daughter
under eighteen (18) years of age and living
with him, in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with her seducer, shall kill any or
both of them in the act of immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
serious physical injury (Art. 247, RPC). He
should not have promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse. (People v Puedan, GR No.
139576, 2002)
Q: When does Art. 247 operate as a mitigating
circumstance? When does it operate as an
absolutory cause?
A: Art. 247 does not define a crime but grants a
mitigating circumstance for parricide, homicide
and serious physical injuries committed under the
exceptional situation. If only less or slight physical
injuries were inflicted, Art. 247 shall operate as an
absolutory cause. (People v. Abarca, G.R. No.
74433, 1987).
Q: W kicked A’s stomach twice, after which, W
picked up a rock to throw at A but was
restrained from doing so. As A stood up, Q
punched him on the stomach, causing him to
collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, A was
taken to the hospital. A was diagnosed to be
suffering from "blunt abdominal trauma with
injury to the jejunum" and was set for
operation. A suffered cardiac arrest during
the operation, and while he was revived—
through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he
lapsed into a coma after the operation. Due to
financial constraints, A was taken out of the
hospital against the doctor's orders and
eventually, died the next day. While A’s death
certificate indicated that the cause of his
death was "cardiopulmonary arrest
antecedent to a perforated ileum and
generalized peritonitis secondary to
mauling," an autopsy performed on his
remains revealed that the cause of his death
was "rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt
traumatic injuries. The RTC found W and Q
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
Page 38 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray. The
CA modified W and Q’s conviction to that of
Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC with
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong. With the
attending facts, are Q and C guilty of
Homicide or Tumultuous Affray?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The SC agreed with the
modification of the CA. The elements of Death
Caused in a Tumultuous Affray are as follows: (a)
that there be several persons; (b) that they did not
compose groups organized for the common
purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally; (c) that these several persons
quarrelled and assaulted one another in a
confused and tumultuous manner; (d) that
someone was killed in the course of the affray; (e)
that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed
the deceased; and (j) that the person or persons
who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used
violence can be identified. Based on case law, a
tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel
occurs between several persons and they
engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in
the course of which some person is killed or
wounded and the author thereof cannot be
ascertained.
In the instant case, there was no tumultuous
affray between groups of persons in the course of
which A died. On the contrary, the evidence
clearly established that there were only two (2)
persons, W and Q, who picked on one
defenseless individual, A, and attacked him
repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches and
kicks on the poor victim. There was no confusion
and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a
reciprocal aggression in that fatefui incident.
Since W and Q were even identified as the ones
. . . u . o r c > n , iif a |_ _
to have been caused in a tumultuous affray.
Therefore, W and Q’ s act of mauling A was the
proximate cause of the latter's death; and as
such, they must be held criminally liable
therefore, specifically for the crime of Homicide.
(WacoyyBitol v. People, G.R. No. 213792, June
22, 2015)
Q: X, who was seated beside a vendor,
suddenly shot Y at the back of his head as the
latter was helping his daughter disembark
from a motorcycle. X fled but was chased by
Z, a security guard of the nearby school. X
was caught by the police the next day and was
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
subjected to a paraffin test, where X was
positive for gun residue. X denied the
allegations and said that he was sleeping in
his house all morning and that a police officer
offered him to test his gun, and after firing the
gun, he was invited to the police station as
suspect. RTC convicted X with murder, saying
that X failed to present his wife or his brother
to corroborate his testimony and to show that
it was physically impossible for him to be at
the place of the incident. In fact, the short
distance of 100 meters between the crime
scene and X’s house, where he said he was,
did not foreclose the possibility of his
presence at the crime scene since it would
only take around 20 minutes to get to the
place. Is X correctly convicted for Murder?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. In order to convict
a person charged with the crime of Murder, the
prosecution must establish the following
elements beyond reasonable doubt:(a) that a
person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or
her; (c) the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the RPC; and (d) the killing does not constitute
Parricide or Infanticide. One of the circumstances
which qualifies the killing to Murder is the
existence of treachery. There is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. In this case, the
prosecution was able to prove that X’s attack on
Y was so sudden and executed in such a manner
that Y was caught off-guard on what X intended
to do. (People v. Parba y Solon, G.R. No. 214506
(Resolution). October 19, 2015)
An eyewitness testified that X fired four (4)
gunshots towards Y, resulting to the latter's
death. To ensure Y's demise, X approached Y
and shot him again. Thereafter, accused-
appellants fled the scene. The next day, Y's
body was found near the duhat tree,
prompting police officers to conduct an
investigation from which were gathered the
following evidence and information: (a) a
piece of bamboo was recovered three (3)
meters away from Y's corpse; (b) Y
purportedly had a previous misunderstanding
with X sometime in 1997, yet the same was
settled before the barangay; and (c) Y
Page 39 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
allegedly had a drinking spree with his friends
at the time of the incident. An autopsy was
likewise conducted on Y's body, revealing
that there were four (4) incised wounds on his
left hand, a stab wound on his left chest, and
five (5) gunshot wounds on his body; that
based on the nature and sizes of his wounds,
it was possible that the firearm used was of
the same caliber; and that his injuries could
not have been inflicted by a single person.
RTC and CA convicted the accused with the
crime of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed
Firearm. Are the lower courts correct?
A. (PERLAS-BERNABE) No. The accused
should only be held liable for simple Murder, and
not Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed
Firearm. To successfully prosecute the crime of
Murder, the following elements must be
established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) the
accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code; and (4) the killing is not parricide or
infanticide. The prosecution, through the
testimony of an eyewitness had established
beyond reasonable doubt that: X chased, ganged
up, and eventually, killed Y, and likewise, it was
shown that they deliberately used weapons (i.e.,
gun and bamboo stick), which rendered Y
defenseless from their fatal attacks. Killing was
attended with the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, which perforce
warrants Y’s conviction for Murder.
It is undisputed that Y sustained five (5) gunshot
wounds which led to his demise, it is unclear from
the records: (a) whether or not the police officers
were able to recover the firearm used as a murder
weapon; and (b) assuming arguendo that such
firearm was recovered, whether or not such
firearm was licensed. The Court notes that the
disquisitions of the courts a quo were silent
regarding this matter. Having failed in this
respect, the Court cannot simply appreciate the
use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating
circumstance. (Manny Ramos, Roberto Salonga
and Servillano Nacional v. People of the
Philippines; G.R. No. 218466. January 23, 2017)
Q: One evening, several other people were
sitting outside F’s house when R arrived and
looking for a certain N. When A replied that N
wasn't there, R approached A and cocked a
gun at him. At that point, accused-appellant S
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
arrived and, without any warning, shot G in
the chest. G was able to run away, and as S
was chasing him, F heard another gunshot.
Moments later, S returned alone and left
together with R. F tried to contact G and when
the latter did not respond, F went to look for
him. Eventually, G was found dead in a
kangkong swamp. RTC found S guilty and
appreciated treachery as a qualifying
circumstance. The CA affirmed the ruling and
agreed with the findings of the RTC that the
killing of G was attended with treachery. The
accused-appellant S claimed that such were
acts of self-defense. With the foregoing facts,
was treachery present?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE ) YES. Among the
qualifying circumstances found in Article 248 of
the RPC is treachery. Under Article 14 of the
same Code, there is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, ’without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. In People v. Tan, the
Court held that the essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack, without the
slightest provocation on the part of the person
attacked. In this case, the prosecution was able
to prove that S attack on Gabriel was so swift and
sudden, and without any warning. Eyewitnesses
testified that immediately upon his arrival and
without any exchange of words, S pulled out his
gun and shot G. As the RTC and CA aptly pointed
out, although the attack was frontal, it was so
sudden and unexpected which made it
impossible for G to defend himself. The gunshot
wound on G’s chest caused massive bleeding
which led to his death not long after. Thus, in view
of the long-standing principle that .factual findings
of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the
CA, deserve great weight and respect, the Court
concludes that treachery was correctly
appreciated. (People v. Samuya, G.R. No.
213214, April 20, 2015)
Q: Z who slept at at B’s residence heard 4
successive gunshots. Z looked through the
open door of B’s house and saw two (2) men
armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a
meter away from B. He saw P deliver the
fourth shot to B, but he could not identify the
other shooter. Thereafter, the two (2)
assailants fled on a motorcycle. Z brought B
Page 40 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
to a Hospital. On the way to the hospital, B
told Z that it was P who shot him. At around
11 o’clock in the morning of even date, B died
due to gunshot wounds on his head and
trunk. RTC convicted P of the crime of murder
and opined that it was attended with
treachery. The RTC, however did not
appreciate evident premeditation. The CA
affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Was the
murder attended with treachery?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE ) There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes
against a person, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. There are two (2)
conditions therefore that must be met for
treachery to be appreciated: (a) the employment
of means of execution that gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate; and (b) the means of execution was
deliberately or consciously adopted . The essence
of treachery is that the attack comes without
warning in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, granting the victim no chance to resist or
escape. The attack must be sudden and
unexpected rendering the victim unable and
unprepared to put up a defense. The Court
agreed with the findings of the RTC and the CA
that P killed B, and that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery attended the same.
The records show that B was outside when two
(2) assailants shot him. During the attack, B had
no opportunity to raise any meaningful defense
against his assailants; and consequently, he
suffered multiple gunshot wounds on his head
and trunk, causing his death. (People v. Palanas,
G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015)
_
Q: X was walking with Y towards the mall,
when suddenly X stabbed Y repeatedly until
the latter died. X tried to flee but was caught
by the police and was charged with the crime
of Murder. Z, a witness, testified against X. X
denied the allegations by saying that he did
not know Y and that he was assisting a car
parked in the area where he was arrested. RTC
convicted him of Murder with qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation, which
it inferred from the act of X in bringing with
him a knife and waiting for the perfect moment
to consummate the plan to kill Y. CA
sustained the findings along with the
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
qualifying circumstance of treachery, as Y
was caught off-guard and had no way of
defending himself, and thus, the mode of
attack was deliberately and consciously
adopted by X to insure the execution of the
crime without risk to himself. Is CA correct to
affirm the conviction of Murder?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE ) NO. To successfully
prosecute the crime of Murder, the following
elements must be established: (1) that a person
was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her;
(3) that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide
or infanticide. In this case, and as correctly found
by the courts a quo, the prosecution was able to
establish a confluence of the foregoing elements,
considering the following: (1) Y was killed; (2) X
was positively identified as the one who killed
him; (3) Y’s killing was attended by treachery, a
qualifying circumstance; and (4) the killing is
neither parricide nor infanticide. However, there
is no evident premeditation as there has been
nothing offered to establish when and how he
planned and prepared for the same, nor was
there a showing that sufficient time had lapsed
between his determination and execution.
(People v. Cirbeto y Giray, G.R. No. 231359.
February 7, 2018)
Q: What is treachery?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Treachery is the direct
employment of means, methods, or forms in the
execution of the crime against persons which
tends directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from
the defense which the offended party might
make. The essence of treachery is that the attack
is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift
and unexpected way, affording the hapless,
unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape. In order for treachery to be
properly appreciated, two elements must be
present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim
was not in a position to defend himself; and (2)
the accused consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods, or forms
of attack employed by him. (People v. Cirbeto y
Giray, G.R. No. 231359. February 7, 2018)
Q: What are the elements of evident
premeditation?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) For evident
premeditation to be considered as a qualifying or
Page 41 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
an aggravating circumstance, the prosecution
must prove: (a) the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime; (b) an act
manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of
time between the determination and execution, to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will. (People v. Cirbeto y Giray,
G.R. No. 231359. February 7, 2018)
Q: At 3am, the witness saw: A killing V by
hitting the latter with a rolling pin while he was
asleep. As to, W, X, who were both women,
and Y (baby), they were stabbed by A and B
with the use of knives, while they were
sleeping. As to Z, he was stabbed by B. What
crime/s is/are A guilty of?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) 4 counts of Murder and
1 count of Homicide. The elements of Murder are:
a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him
or her; (c) the killing is not Parricide or infanticide;
and (d) the killing was accompanied with any of
the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.
248 of the RPC. If the accused killed the victim
without the attendance of any of the qualifying
circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide
or Infanticide, a conviction for the crime of
Homicide will be sustained.
It was established that the killings of V, W, X, Y,
and Z were attended with treachery. The
circumstances that they were sleeping, at the
middle of the night, left the victims with no
opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate and
thus, ensuring the execution of the criminal act.
Although, A and B used deadly weapons against
defenseless women, abuse of superior strength
cannot be considered as the qualifying
circumstance since it does not appear that A and
B specifically sought the use of weapons as to
take advantage of their superior strength against
the victims. Their criminal design to raid the
house and use deadly weapons in killing
whomever they encounter was applied
indiscriminately, regardless of whether their
victims were male or female. Thus, since the
killings were attended with treachery A, is liable
for 4 counts of Murder. The killing of Z, was not
qualified with any circumstance, thus it was
appropriate that A should be guilty of 1 count of
Homicide. (People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 239137.
December 5, 2018.)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q: What crime is committed in firing a gun? circumstance constituting the crime

A: charged?
Alarms and If the gun was fired in A: (BERSAMIN) Yes. When the crime is rape with
Scandals (Art. 155, a public place and not homicide, there may usually be no living
RPC) aimed at anybody witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet,
Illegal Discharge of If the firearm was the Rules of Court allows circumstantial evidence
Firearm (Art. 254, directed at somebody to establish the commission of the crime as well
RPC) else, fired, without as the identity of the culprit. Circumstantial
intent to kill and not hit evidence may be resorted to when to insist on
Frustrated Illegal If directed at direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a
Discharge (Art. 254, somebody without felon free. (People v. Villaflores y Olano, G.R. No.
RPC) intent to kill and bullet 184926, 2012)
jams
Impossible Crime If accused fired the Q: What are the necessary elements of
(Art. 4, RPC) gun without knowing statutory rape?
that there were no A: (BERSAMIN) The elements of statutory rape
bullets are that:
Grave Threats (Art. If gun was pointed to a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is
282, RPC) victim and demented; and
discharged, but the b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the
victim was not hit and victim.
the offender desisted
Attempted Murder if gun is directed at Considering that the essence of statutory rape is
or Homicide (Art. somebody else with carnal knowledge of a female without her
248, 249, RPC). intent to kill but was consent, neither the use of force, threat or
not hit or the wound intimidation on the female, nor the female’s
was not mortal - deprivation of reason or being otherwise
Frustrated Murder If gun was aimed at unconscious, nor the employment on the female
or Homicide (Art. somebody with intent of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of
248, 249, RPC) to kill, fired and hit the authority is necessary to commit statutory rape.
target and the wound Full penile penetration of the female’s genitalia is
was mortal - not likewise required, because carnal knowledge
is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily
Q: Will the subsequent marriage of the connections with a woman. (People v. Teodoro,
offender and the offended party extinguish G.R. No. 175876, 2013).
the criminal action or the penalty imposed in
crimes of rape? Explain. (2002 BAR) Q: X was convicted of statutory rape by the
A: Yes. By express provision of law, subsequent RTC. While the qualifying circumstance of
valid marriage between the offender and relationship was not proven, the victim’s
offended party-shallextmguishThe criminal action ___ testimony showed that her age was only 11
or the penalty imposed, although rape has been years at the time of the rape. X failed to object
reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that to the said testimony regarding the victim’s
of a crime against persons. (Art. 266-C, RPC) age. Should X be held guilty only of simple
rape given that during the trial, the victim’s
Q: Y, a 5-year old minor, was found dead in a birth certificate was not submitted as
sack and after the autopsy conducted by the evidence?
PNP, it was found out that the child was raped. A: Yes. The Pruna guidelines provides that in
After two witnesses made corroborated proving the victim’s age, the complainant’s
statements pointing to X as the perpetrator of testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly
the crime, the latter was charged with the and clearly admitted by the accused and that the
crime of rape with homicide. Was the State failure of the accused to object to the testimonial
able to discharge its burden to prove beyond evidence regarding age shall not be taken against
reasonable doubt every fact and him. Since the only evidence offered to prove the
victim’s age was her own testimony, it was
Page 42 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
necessary for X to clearly admit to the victim’s
alleged age for the testimony to be admitted. X’s
mere failure to object to the testimony regarding
the victim’s age cannot be taken against him.
(.People v. Lupac, G.R. 182230, 2012).
Q: What is the rule on sweet heart defense as
an affirmative defense in the crime of rape?
A: The “sweetheart defense” is a much abused
defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the
Court and sorely tests its patience. Being an
affirmative defense, it must be established with
convincing evidence by some documentary
and/or other evidence like mementos, love
letters, notes, pictures and the like.
Likewise, the “sweetheart theory” is effectively an
admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and
consequently places on him the burden of proving
the supposed relationship by substantial
evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance,
such a defense should be supported by
documentary, testimonial or other evidence.
(People vs. Grande, G.R. No. 170476, 2009)
Q: A is a 29-year-old woman with a mental age
of a six to seven-year-old. One evening, B, her
neighbor, lured A to his house and succeeded
to have carnal knowledge with her. Can B be
found guilty of rape?
A: (BERSAMIN) Yes. B can be found guilty of
rape. Carnal knowledge with a mental retardate
is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the
RPC because a mental retardate is not capable
of giving her consent to a sexual act. It is
sufficient for the State to establish, one, the
sexual congress between the accused and the
victim, and, two, the mental retardation of the
victim. The Court has consistently held that carnal
knowledge of a female mental retardate with a
mental age below 12 years of age, as rape of a
woman deprived of reason. (People v. Butiong,
G.R. No. 168932, 2011)
Q: A was sleeping when she was awakened by
someone who was touching her feet. She saw
that it was B, who was poking her neck with a
knife. She resisted but B threatened to hurt A.
B dragged A outside the house and brought A
to a nearby tree, where he injected an
unknown substance into A’s stomach. A fell
unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness,
she found herself naked, and her vagina was
Page 43 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
aching and soaked with white and red
substance. A alleges that B raped her but B
interposes that there is no proof that it was
him due to the fact that A was said to be
unconscious and therefore could not be sure
that she was in fact raped or that it was B who
did such. Was B sufficiently proven guilty of
raping A?
A: (BERSAMIN) Yes. The commission of the
rape was competently established although A
had been unconscious during the commission of
the act. Conviction for rape may be based on
circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot
testify on the actual commission of the rape as
she was rendered unconscious when the act was
committed, provided that more than one
circumstance is duly proved and that the totality
or the unbroken chain of the circumstances
proven lead to no other logical conclusion than
the appellant’s guilt of the crime charged. (People
v. Belgar, G.R. No. 182794, 2014)
Q: KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit,
alleging that her husband raped her at their
residence and then boxed her shoulder days
after the rape incident for refusing to have sex
with him. The accused posits that consent to
copulation is presumed between cohabiting
husband and wife unless the contrary is
proved and that the standards for determining
the presence of consent or lack thereof must
be adjusted on the ground that sexual
community is a mutual right and obligation
between husband and wife. Can rape exist
within a marriage?
A: Yes. R.A. No 8353 is one of the measures that
eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape
cannot exist because a husband has absolute
proprietary rights over his wife’s body and thus
her consent to every act of sexual intimacy with
him is always obligatory or at least, presumed.
Rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within
marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without
her consent or against her will commits sexual
violence upon her. He cannot be permitted to
violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a
sexual act without her full and free consent.
CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration,
defines and penalizes the act as rape under R.A.
No. 8353. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495,
2014)
Q: X was on her way home when Y arrived and
offered to take her home. However, Y took X
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
to a motel and allegedly raped her. Y then
dropped her off at a public market where X
proceeded to buy groceries before going
home. Y was then charged with Rape. In his
defense, Y claimed that they were
sweethearts and that the sexual act was
consensual. Witnesses, including two of X’s
friends, supported the claim that the two were
in a relationship. Can Y be convicted of Rape?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. To be convicted of
Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, the
prosecution must prove the following elements
beyond reasonable doubt: (a) offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim; and (b) such act was
accomplished through force, threat, or
intimidation, in rape cases, the victim's sole
testimony must still stand the test of credibility. In
this case, Y’s allegation of relationship with X was
overwhelmingly corroborated by his other
witnesses. The finding of a then subsisting
relationship between the parties raises
suspicions on the truthfulness of X’s testimony,
wherein she vehemently denied having a
relationship with the accused. Furthermore, the
conduct of X immediately following the alleged
sexual assault is significant in establishing the
truth or falsity of the charge of rape. The value of
a witness's testimony should be compatible with
human knowledge, observation, and common
experience, such that whatever is repugnant to
these standards becomes incredible and must lie-
outside judicial cognizance. Considering the
totality of the evidence presented in this case,
there is doubt whether Y employed force or
intimidation upon X during their sexual encounter.
Thus, Y should be acquitted for failure of proving
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (People v.
Rubillar Jr. y Gaberon, G.R. Ng. 224631. August
23, 2017)
Q: X pointed a gun at Y, a 15-year-old girl, and
threatened to kill her and her parents. X then
dragged Y to a barn and raped her. Y told the
incident to Z but wished for the latter to
remain silent, Z obliged. Y was unable to
focus on her studies so she moved to the city
to continue her studies. X was able to track
her down and made Y his sex slave by forcing
her to take shabu and then sexually abusing
her. Eventually, Y got hooked on drugs and
portrayed herself as X’s paramour and
decided to live together. The illicit
relationship was reported to the barangay by
X’s wife and Y’s parents. Y eventually
Page 44 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
underwent rehabilitation and, along with her
parents, filed Rape against X. RTC charged
him with the crime of rape, which the CA
affirmed saying that assuming arguendo that
he indeed eventually had a relationship with
Y, their first sexual encounter was without the
latter's consent and was attended with force
and intimidation as he pointed a gun at her
while satisfying his lustful desires. Shall the
conviction for the crime of Rape be upheld?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. For a charge of
Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A
(1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, to
prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
(b) he accomplished this act under the
circumstances mentioned in the provision, e.g.,
through force, threat or intimidation. The
gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a
woman against her will. In this case, the
prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the presence of all the
Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA
8353. Through Y's positive testimony, it was
indeed established that on their first sexual
encounter, X threatened Y, removed her lower
garments, covered her mouth, and proceeded to
have carnal knowledge of her without her
consent. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found
Y's testimony to be credible, noting further that X
failed to establish any ill motive on her part which
could have compelled her to falsely accuse him
of the aforesaid act. In this relation, case law
states that the trial court is in the best position to
assess and determine the credibility of the
witnesses presented by both parties, and hence,
due deference should be accorded to the same.
(People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861. July 2,
2018) ................... .......... .......... 1 _ _ ______
Q: What are the elements of Rape?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Article 266-A of the
RPC states that Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1
hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. (People v. Ejercito, G.R. No.
229861. July 2, 2018)
Q. What should be the charge when both the
elements of Rape under Article 266-A and
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 are present?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Between Article 266-A
of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 and Section
5 (b) of RA 7610, the Court deems it apt to clarify
that Y should be convicted under the Article 266-
A. Verily, penal laws are crafted by legislature to
punish certain acts, and when two (2) penal laws
may both theoretically apply to the same case,
then the law which is more special in nature,
regardless of the time of enactment, should
prevail. RA 8353 is not only the more recent
statutory enactment but more importantly, the
more comprehensive law on rape; therefore, the
Court herein clarifies that in cases where a minor
is raped through sexual intercourse, the
provisions of RA 8353 amending the RPC ought
to prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 although
the latter also penalizes the act of sexual
intercourse against a minor. (People v. Ejercito,
G.R. No. 229861. July 2, 2018)
Q: One evening, AAA, who was sleeping
beside her brother BBB, suddenly woke up
with X, her father, already on top of her, and
the latter's penis already inside her vagina.
Startled by the pain she felt in her vagina, AAA
pushed X and scampered away from him in
order to move closer to BBB. This left X with
no choice but to leave the room. The incident
was repeated twice. After the 3rd incident,
AAA finally had the courage to report the
foregoing incidents to the police. AAA was
then examined by a physician who found her
to have sustained lacerations in her hymen
which could have been caused by the
penetration of a hard object, such as an erect
penis. X interposed the defenses of denial and
alibi. What is the criminal liability of X?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) X is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Qualified
Rape and one (1) count of Attempted Qualified
Page 45 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Rape. The elements of Rape under Article 266-A
(1) (a) are: (1) The offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (2) aid carnal
knowledge was accomplished through force,
threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is
sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.
Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) is
committed by having sexual intercourse with a
woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless
of her consent, or lack of it, to the sexual act.
Proof of force, threat, or intimidation, or consent
of the offended party is unnecessary as these are
not elements of statutory rape, considering that
the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the victim is below the age of
twelve (12). The law presumes that the offended
party does not possess discernment and is
incapable of giving intelligent consent to the
sexual act. Thus, to sustain a conviction for
statutory rape, the prosecution must establish the
following: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the
identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual
intercourse between the accused and the
complainant.
The foregoing acts of Rape shall be qualified
pursuant to Article 266-B (1) of the RPC if: (1)the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and (2)
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
In the case at bar, the Court agrees with the
finding of the courts a quo that the prosecution
was able to prove that X: (a) had carnal
knowledge of her without her consent on two (2)
separate occasions, the first occurring sometime
in 2006 and the second in February 2008; and (b)
attempted to have carnal knowledge of her on
May 17, 2009, but was stopped by a reason other
than his own desistance, i.e., BBB's intervention.
Suffice it to say that X's flimsy defense of denial
and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and
categorical testimony of AAA identifying him as
the perpetrator of the crimes. (People of the
Philippines v. Godofredo Comboy Y Cronico;
G.R. No. 218399. March 2, 2016)
Q: AAA, her mother and sister, and her
sister's common-law spouse, X, lived at the
same house. One afternoon, AAA was in the
house of a neighbor, when suddenly, X, who
was drunk at the time, pulled her into their
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
house while AAA's mother and sister were not
around. Once inside, X ordered AAA to take
off her clothes, covered her mouth, and then
proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her.
Later that day, AAA's mother noticed that
AAA was pale, bruised, limping, and her dress
soiled, making her suspect that X had
something to do with AAA's disheveled
appearance. Such suspicion was later
confirmed when AAA admitted to her sister
that X raped her, prompting AAA's mother and
sister to bring her to the hospital for medical
examination. They also went to the police
station to report the matter. During the trial, a
psychiatric consultant testified that: (a) while
AAA is already 20 years old, she has a mild to
moderate mental retardation, with a mental
age of 6-7 years old; (b) children of this mental
age can recall and narrate events if coupled
with subtle prodding; and (c) AAA has
difficulty in answering questions and can only
respond in phrases; (d) AAA had no overtures
or distortions in her perceptions or memory;
and (e) AAA was not suffering from
psychosis, which meant that she was in touch
with reality and not hallucinating strangely.
What is the criminal liability of X?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) X is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined
and penalized under Art. 266-A (1) of the RPC.
For a charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under
Article 266-A (1) of the RPC to prosper, the
prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he
accomplished this act through force, threat or
intimidation, when the victim was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority, or when the victim is under 12 years of
age or is demented. Jibe gravamen of Rape is
sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.
The Court agrees with the findings of both the
RTC and the CA that the prosecution established,
among others, that: (a) on May 1,2006, AAA was
in her neighbor's house when X pulled her into
their own house; (b) once inside, X covered her
mouth then had carnal knowledge of her; (c) AAA
confessed to her sister that X took advantage of
her; and (d) a medical examination confirmed that
AAA was indeed raped.
AAA's mental retardation cannot be taken into
account. It must be stressed that in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of
Page 46 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
the nature and cause of the accusation against
him to ensure that his due process rights are
observed. Thus, every indictment must embody
the essential elements of the crime charged with
reasonable particularity as to the name of the
accused, the time and place of commission of the
offense, and the circumstances thereof. In this
case, suffice it to say that AAA's mental
retardation, while proven during trial, cannot be
considered in view of the fact that it was not
specifically alleged in the Information charging X
of Rape. (People of the Philippines v. Mario Galia
Bagamano; G.R. No. 222658. August 17, 2016)
Q: Respondent X is charged with the crime of
Statutory Rape. It is alleged that, on two
separate instances, he forced himself upon
his 9-year-old niece. Should the conviction be
upheld?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Yes. There is no
plausible reason for X’s niece to testify against
her own relative. Additionally, it is noted that, for
Statutory Rape, proof of threat or force are not
necessary elements of the crime, considering that
the absence of consent is presumed when the
victim is below 12 years. Furthermore, the Court
found that the acts must be upgraded to Qualified
Statutory Rape, because X is a relative by affinity
within the third civil degree. (People v. De
Guzman y Buhay, G.R. No. 234190, October 1,
2018)
Q: Accused-appellants A and C intercepted
AAA, threatened her with a bladed weapon,
dragged her to a cottage at a nearby beach
resort, and bound her hands and feet.
Thereafter, they removed her clothes and
placed her on the floor. A then mounted AAA
and inserted his penis into her vagina. After A
satisfied his lust, C took over and raped her.
Thereafter, accused-appellants left AAA at the
cottage. An hour later, C returned and
dragged AAA to a store owned by a certain
Lino Ostero (Ostero). There C undressed her
again, mounted her, and inserted his penis
into her vagina. Afterwards, AAA was
returned to the cottage. The next day, AAA's
father found her crying at the cottage. The
RTC found accused appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape which
was affirmed by the CA. Accused-appellants
appealed. Whether or not the presence of
either circumstance - "use of a deadly
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
weapon" or "by two or more persons" -
qualifies the crime.
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Given that the rape
occurred during the effectivity of the old rape
provision, it shall be controlling in the case. Under
Art 335, “Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman
is under twelve years of age or is demented.
Either circumstance is qualifying”. When the two
circumstances are present, there is no legal basis
to consider the remaining circumstance as a
generic aggravating circumstance for either is not
considered as such under Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code enumerating what are
aggravating circumstances. (People of the
Philippines v. Arugta, G.R. No. 213216, April 20,
2015)
Q: Whether or not force employed in the
commission of the crime of rape must be
irresistible?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) In this case, records
reveal that accused-appellants threatened AAA
with a bladed instrument and tied her up before
having carnal knowledge of her without her
consent. Jurisprudence holds that force or
intimidation, as an element of Rape, need not be
irresistible; as long as the assailant's objective is
accomplished, any question of whether the force
employed was irresistible or not becomes
irrelevant. Intimidation must be viewed from the
lens of the victim's perception and judgment and
it is enough that the victim fears that something
will happen to her should she resist her
assailant's advances. In this regard, case law
provides that the act of holding a bladed
instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of
force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the
victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into
submission. (People of the Philippines v. Arugta,
G.R. No. 213216, April 20, 2015)
Q: C, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with his common-law-wife’s
daughter, [AAA], a minor who was then about
8 years and 5 months old and with whom
accused has moral ascendancy as she
considered him as her father and carries his
surname although she is not his daughter but
Page 47 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
a daughter of another man having previous
relationship with his common-law-wife, which
sexual act was against the will and consent of
said [AAA]. The first two (2) rape incidents
occurred prior to the passage of Republic Act
No. (RA) 8353, otherwise known as the "Anti-
Rape Law of 1997," hence, C was charged
under the old rape provision, i.e., Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On the other
hand, the third rape incident occurred in June
2000, or after the passage of RA 8353, hence,
the accused was charged under the amended
rape provision, i.e., Article 266-A of the RPC,
as amended. The RTC convicted C of three (3)
counts of statutory rape and noted the
qualifying circumstance of relationship. The
CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Were all the
elements of statutory rape present?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Statutory rape is
committed by sexual intercourse with a woman
below 12 years of age regardless of her consent,
or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force,
intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they
are not elements of statutory rape, considering
that the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the victim is below the age of 12.
At that age, the law presumes that the victim does
not possess discernment and is incapable of
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus,
to convict an accused of the crime of statutory
rape, the prosecution carries the burden of
proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the
identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual
intercourse between the accused and the
complainant. The elements of statutory rape were
present. First, the presentation of AAA’s
Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born
on July 25, 1998 has proven that she was below
12 years of age when the three (3) rape incidents
happened on December 26 and 27, 1996, and in
June 2000, respectively. Second ,the prosecution
proved that C indeed had carnal knowledge of
AAA on three (3) separate occasions through the
latter’s positive, categorical, and spontaneous
testimony, as corroborated by the medico-legal
report. (People v. Cadano, G.R. No. 207819,
March 12, 2014)
Q: One evening, AAA joined her co-worker for
a vacation in the province of Nueva Ecija as
they were both laid off from work, and they
stayed at the one-storey house of the latter’s
62-year old mother, BBB. Thereat, AAA would
sleep at the papag while BBB slept on a
 ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
mattress on the floor. At around 2:30 in the
morning of January 5,1996, AAA awoke to the
sound of BBB's pleas for mercy. Aided by the
kerosene lamp placed on the floor, AAA saw
BBB being mauled and stabbed to death by X
and Y. Thereafter, X approached AAA and
restrained her arms, while Y pulled AAA’s
pants and underwear down and started
having carnal knowledge of her. After Y was
done, he switched places with X and the latter
took his turn ravishing AAA. As AAA was able
to fight back by scratching X's back, X
punched her on the left side of her face while
Y hit her left jaw with a piece of wood. AAA
then lost consciousness and woke up in a
hospital, while BBB succumbed to her
injuries. What is the criminal liability of X and
Y?
A. (PERLAS-BERNABE) X should be convicted
of one (1) count of Qualified Rape and one (1)
count of Homicide. This will no longer affect Y as
he had already withdrawn his appeal prior to the
promulgation of this ctecision:--T-o- successfully
prosecute the crime of homicide, the following
elements must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed that person without any justifying
circumstance; (3) that the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that
the killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is
said to have performed all the acts of execution if
the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and
could cause the death of the victim without
medical intervention or attendance.
On the other hand, under Art. 335 of the RPC, the
elements of Rape are:(1) the offender had carnal
_______ knowledge of the victim; and (2) said carnal
knowledge was accomplished through the use of
force or intimidation; or the victim was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the
victim was under twelve (12) years of age or
demented. The provision also states that if the act
is committed either with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two (2) or more persons, the crime
will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the
imposition of a higher penalty.
The Court deems it proper to upgrade the
conviction in said case from Simple Rape to
Qualified Rape. Article 335 of the RPC states that
if the rape is committed under certain
Page 48 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
circumstances, such as when it was committed
by two (2) or more persons, the crime will be
Qualified Rape, as in this instance. (People of the
Philippines v, Alberto Alejandro Y Rigor And Joel
Angeles YDe Jesus; G.R. No. 225608 March 13,
2017.)
Q: AAA was playing with C, her cousin and the
daughter of her uncle, herein appellant, at the
second floor of the latter’s house. At the time,
appellant, M, happened to also be at the
second floor of the house. When C went to the
ground floor to urinate, M approached AAA
and began to remove his shorts. Thereafter,
he laid AAA, raised her skirt and pulled down
her underwear. Then, appellant inserted his
penis into her vagina, causing AAA to feel
pain and to shout for help from C. When
appellant realized that his daughter C might
be returning anytime, he let AAA go. AAA did
not recount her ordeal to anyone until she
complained to her mother, CCC, of the pain in
her ^vagina. AAA then confessed that her
uncle, appellant herein, inserted his penis into
her vagina. White M ’s other niece, BBB, was
with him in his house, he inserted his penis
into her mouth and threatened her not to tell
anyone what he had done. BBB did not report
the incident immediately because she feared
M. M was convicted for Simple Rape and for
Rape by Sexual Assault. RTC gave full weight
and credence to the testimonies of the private
complainants, which it found to be
straightforward, candid, and bearing the
earmarks of truth and sincerity. It considered
as inconsequential the finding of the doctor
that there was ”[n]o laceration nor discharge"
on AAA’s hymen, explaining that the slightest
penetration of the woman’s private organ is
considered as rape. Should the testimonies of
AAA and BBB be given weight?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Testimonies of child-
victims are normally given full weight and credit,
since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor,
says that she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact
been committed. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to
give credit to her account of what transpired,
considering not only her relative vulnerability but
also the shame to which she would be exposed if
the matter to which she testified is not true Youth
and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
sincerity. A young girl’s revelation that she had
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
been raped, coupled with her voluntary
submission to medical examination and
willingness to undergo public trial where she
could be compelled to give out the details of an
assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily
dismissed as mere concoction.”
In proving the age of victims, there must be
independent evidence proving the age of the
victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and the absence of denial by the
accused." Documents such as her original or duly
certified birth certificate, baptismal certificate or
school records would suffice as competent
evidence of her age. (Here, there was nothing on
record to prove the minority of "AAA" other than
her testimony, appellant’s absence of denial, and
their pre-trial stipulation. The prosecution also
failed to establish that the documents referred to
above were lost, destroyed, unavailable or
otherwise totally absent.) (People v. Mendoza,
G.R. No. 205382, April 2, 2014)
Q: X, the husband of Y’s sister, raped Y (a 16-
year-old girl) on two occasions. After
complaining to her mother about abdominal
pains, Y was brought to the doctor who
discovered that she was 5 to 6 months
pregnant. The doctor also declared that she
was suffering from a mild mental retardation
with an intelligence quotient equivalent to a
nine-year-old child. RTC ruled that X is guilty
of Simple Rape as the qualifying
circumstance of relationship by affinity was
not alleged in the information. CA ruled that X
should be convicted for Qualified Rape as (a)
the state of mental retardation of Y was
completely established on the account of the
testimony and psychiatric evaluation of the
doctor and (b) X failed to dispute the mental
retardation of Y during trial. Should the
qualifying circumstance be considered?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO, X shall only be
convicted for Simple Rape. The CA erred in
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of X
knowledge of Y’s mental disability at the time of
the commission of the crime, there being no
sufficient and competent evidence to substantiate
the same. Such qualifying circumstance,
however, must be sufficiently alleged in the
indictment and proved during trial to be properly
appreciated by the trial court. It must be proved
with equal certainty and clearness as the crime
itself; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the
Page 49 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
crime in its qualified form. The fact that X did not
dispute Y's mental retardation during trial is
insufficient to qualify the crime of rape, since it
does not necessarily create moral certainty that
he knew of her disability at the time of its
commission. It is settled that the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits
and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Additionally, mere relationship by affinity between
X and Y does not sufficiently create moral
certainty that the former knew of the latter's
disability. (People v. Niebres, G.R. No. 230975.
December 4, 2017)
Q: What are the elements of the crime of
Qualified Rape?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Article 266-A (1) of the
RPC states that, rape is committed by a man who
shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
A. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
B. When the offended party is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious;
C. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
D. When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present (People v.
Niebres, G.R. No. 230975. December 4,
2017)
Q: What are the requisites to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt to convict one with
the crime of Qualified Rape?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) For a successful
prosecution of the crime of Rape by sexual
intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, it
is necessary that the elements thereof are proven
beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (a) the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) he
accomplished this act through force, threat or
intimidation, when the victim was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority, or when the victim is under 12 years of
age or is demented. Moreover, case law states
that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a
mental retardate, with a mental age below 12
years old, constitutes statutory rape. In People v.
Deniega, the Court clarified that if a mentally-
retarded or intellectually-disabled person whose
mental age is less than 12 years is raped, the
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
rape is considered committed under paragraph 1
(d) and not paragraph 1(b), Article 266-A of the
RPC. (People v. Niebres, G.R. No. 230975.
December 4, 2017)
Q: AAA (14 y/o) had just returned home from
school and since B (AAA’s father) did not
want her to leave the house, she decided to
just take an afternoon nap. At that time, B
asked AAA's siblings to leave the house and
thereafter, approached AAA who was lying in
bed, removed her shorts and underwear, and
threatened to spank her if she told anybody
about this incident. B then removed his shorts
and underwear, mounted AAA, restrained her
hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
AAA resisted and even told B that she was
having her menstruation, but B simply told
her to keep quiet and that it was better as she
will not get pregnant. While B was ravishing
AAA, the latter’s sister sought the help of their
neighbor, who then peeped through a hole,
interrupting B in his dastardly act. Thereafter,
AAA's sister and their neighbor reported the
incident to the barangay hall, which led to B’s
apprehension. The RTC found B to be guilty
of Qualified Rape. The CA affirmed the ruling
of the RTC. Should B’s conviction be upheld?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The elements of
Qualified Rape under the foregoing provisions
are as follows: (a) the victim is a female over 12
years but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender
is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has
carnal knowledge of the victim either through
force, threat or intimidation; or when she is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
or by means of fraudulent machinations or grave
abuse of authority. A young girl would not concoct
a sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at the
hands of her very own father, allow the
examination of her private part, and subject
herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a
public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent
desire to seek justice. (People v. Balcueva G.R.
No. 214466 July 1,2015)
H. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY
Q: Y worked as a housemaid and yaya of the
one-week old son of the spouses A and B.
Page 50 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
When Y learned that her 70 year-old mother
was seriously ill, she asked B for a cash
advance of P1K but B refused. One morning,
Y gagged the mouth of B’s son with
stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it
with masking tape and placed the box in the
attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded
P5K as ransom for the release of his son. B
did not pay the ransom. Subsequently, Y
disappeared.
After a couple of days, B discovered the box
in the attic with his child already dead.
According to the autopsy report, the child
died of asphyxiation barely three minutes
after the box was sealed. What crime or
crimes did Y commit? Explain. (BAR 2005)
A: Murder was committed. There is no kidnapping
with murder but only murder where a 3-year old
child was gagged and hidden in a box where the
child died and accused asked for ransom. The
demand did not convert the offense into
kidnapping with murder because the accused
was aware that the victim would suffocate to
death within minutes after. The demand is only a
part of the diabolic scheme to conceal the body
and demand money before discovery of the body.
(People v. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, 1982)
Q: A, a private individual, kidnapped B, a
minor. On the second day, A released B
before any criminal information was filed. At
the trial of his case, A raised the defense that
he did not incur any criminal liability since he
released the child before the lapse of the 3-
day period and before criminal proceedings
for kidnapping were instituted. Will A's
defense prosper? (2004 BAR)
A: No, A's defense will not prosper. Voluntary
release by the offender of the offended party in
kidnapping is not absolutory. Restraint need not
be permanent to be punished for kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. (Art. 267, RPC, US v.
Peralta, G.R. No. L-3273, 1907)
Q: X, a private person, entered Y’s house by
pushing her when she answered the door and
shouting at her to let him in or else he would
hurt her. This was in order to get away from a
gang who was chasing after him with bolos.
What is X’s criminal liability?
A ' W o in r 'i ir e n o c r i m i n a l lia b ilit y / T h o n r o
s x. * svii tvvnv i iv wiiMiiuUi iiUK/lilW
j
f• l l I
V W
vlV
/i ^
oIio
V
nOe o
/l I W
fI
Art. 280 on qualified trespass to dwelling shall not
be applicable to any person who shall enter
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing
some serious harm to himself. In this case, he
entered Y’s house in order to avoid some serious
harm on himself and so he incurs no criminal
liability. (Art. 280, par. 3, RPC)
Q: X was forcibly taken from her house by a
group of men. For several days, X was kept in
a house where she was guarded by several
men. The kidnappers demanded ransom
money from X’s family. On the day of the pay­
off, the kidnappers were able to take the bag
containing the ransom but were subsequently
arrested. Can they be convicted with
Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of
the RPC?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. The elements of
the crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a
private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains
another, or in any manner deprives the latter of
his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping
must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the
offense any of the following circumstances is
present: i) the kidnapping or detention lasts for
more than three days; ii) it is committed by
simulating public authority; iii) any serious
physical injuries are inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made; or iv) the person kidnapped or detained is
a minor, female, or a public officer. Notably, the
duration of detention is immaterial if the victim is
a minor, or if the purpose of the kidnapping is to
extort ransom. There must be a purposeful or
knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain
the victim coupled with intent. In this case, the
kidnappers illegally detained the X against her will
for the purpose of extorting ransom from her
family. Thus, they are guilty of Kidnapping for
ransom. (People v. Lidasan, G.R. No. 227425.
September 4, 2017)
I. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Q: X, armed with a long bladed weapon,
entered Y’s house. Y’s wife shouted
“magnanakaw!” and X stabbed Y’s wife, and
stole from Y’s wallet. X was charged with
robbery with homicide. X maintains that the
Prosecution did not prove that violence or
intimidation was employed in the course of
the robbery. X argues that he could not be
held liable for robbery by using force upon
things considering that the culprit had neither
broken any wall, roof, floor, door or window to
Page 51 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
gain entry in the house nor entered the house
through an opening not intended for entrance.
If at all, he could be liable only for the separate
crimes of theft and homicide, not of the
composite crime of robbery with homicide.
Prosecution counters that the evidence
showed that the X’s principal intent had been
to rob the victim’s house, with the homicide
being perpetrated as a mere incident of the
robbery. Could X be held liable for robbery
with homicide, instead of the separate crimes
of theft and homicide?
A: (BERSAMIN) Yes. The fact that X was armed
with the long-bladed weapon, which was
undoubtedly a deadly weapon, competently
proved the presence of violence or intimidation
against persons that qualified the offense as
robbery instead of theft. For sure, too, the patent
intent of the appellant was originally to commit
robbery, with the homicide being committed only
in the course or on the occasion of the
perpetration of the robbery. As the records show,
Y was awakened by someone shouting
"Magnanakaw!" The shout was most probably
made by the victim, whom X then stabbed in order
to facilitate his escape. (People v. Esugon y Avila,
G.R. No. 195244, 2015).
Q: How is Robbery with Rape committed?
A: The offender must have the intent to take the
personal property of another under
circumstances that makes the taking one of
robbery, and such intent must precede the rape.
If the original plan was to commit rape, but the
accused after committing the rape also
committed robbery when the opportunity
presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as
a separate and distinct crime. (People v. Moreno,
GR No. 140033, Jan. 25, 2002)
Q: A and his family were inside their car, stuck
in traffic. B suddenly appeared at the side of
the car, poking a gun at him, asking for his
phone. B then shot him after getting the
phone. Despite medical intervention, A died.
Is the RTC and the CA correct in finding B
guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. The special
complex crime of robbery with homicide takes
place when a homicide is committed either by
reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. To
sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, it
must be proven that there was: (1) the taking of
personal property belonging to another; (2) with
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person; and (4) on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of
homicide, as used in its generic sense, was
committed.
Furthermore, Homicide is said to have been
committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if
it was committed: (a) to facilitate the robbery or
the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the
possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent
discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d)
to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the
crime. Thus, the intent to rob must precede the
taking of human life but the killing may occur
before, during or after the robbery.
It was established that B poked his gun at A, took
the latter’s phone, and thereafter, shot him,
resulting his death. (People v. Balute y
Villanueva, G.R. No. 212932. January 21, 2015)
Q: Respondents planned to rob the house of
A. They used a knife to get through the fence,
destroyed the knob of the kitchen door and
gained entry, where they took valuable items
of A. When A woke up, he was assaulted and
stabbed by one of the respondents, which led
to his death. Are the respondents guilty of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. The elements for
the crime of robbery with homicide are: (a) the
taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the
property belongs to another; (c) the taking is
animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on
the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
homicide was committed. A conviction requires
that the robbery is the main purpose and the
killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The
intent to rob must precede the taking of human
life, but the killing may occur before, during or
after the robbery.
It was established that the respondents were all
armed with knives when they broke into the house
of A, took personal properties, and in the course
thereof, stabbed A, resulting to his death. (People
v. Palma y Varcas, G.R. No. 212151. February
18, 2015)
Q; While A, B, C and D were robbing a bank,
policemen arrived. A crossfire ensued
between the bank robbers and the responding
policemen, and X, one of the policemen, was
Page 52 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
killed. What crime or crimes, if any, had been
committed? Explain. (2009 BAR)
A: The crimes committed are Robbery with
Homicide, a single indivisible offense, and Direct
Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a
complex crime. Robbery with Homicide was
committed because one of the responding
policemen was killed by reason or on occasion of
the robbery being committed. The complex crime
of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted
Homicide was committed in respect of the
offender’s firing guns at the responding
policemen who are agents of person in authority
performing their duty when fired at to frustrate
such performance. (Art. 294(1), RPC, People v.
Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 2000)
Q: Suppose in the course of the robbery,
before the policemen arrived, B shot and
killed A following a heated disagreement on
who should carry the money bags, what
would be the criminal liability of B, C and D?
Explain.
A: B would be liable for Robbery with Homicide
since killing A is considered to be by reason of
robbery. C and D would be liable for robbery only
since they conspired upon committing robbery
only - unless they were present with A and B and
could have prevented the killing, in which case
they shall also be liable for Robbery with homicide
even if they did not actually kill B. (Art. 294(1),
RPC)
Q: On her way home, X saw an injured puppy.
Since the puppy did not have a collar, she
brought it home so she could have it as a pet.
Her son in fact begged X to keep the puppy.
The following day, X bought a collar for the
puppy and brought it to a veterinarian for
treatment. Did X incur criminal liability in
bringing the puppy home as a pet? Did she
incur civil liability? (2010 BAR)
A: Yes, X incurred criminal liability for the crime of
simple theft. Since Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code used the words personal property
without qualification, it follows that all personal
properties as understood in the context of the
Civil Code, may be the subject of theft. The puppy
is personal property which is susceptible of taking
and has pecuniary value. She took it with intent to
own it, hence, with intent to gain. She also may
incur civil liability if the owner of the puppy would
incur loss due to non-restitution or return thereof
to the owner. Finding any property of value,
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
legally regarded as lost property, would constitute
theft if the finder failed to deliver the same to local
authorities or to its owner. Once she is found
liable of theft criminally, she will also be civilly
liable. (Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, 2009,
RPC)
Q: Can international telephone calls be an
object of theft?
A: Yes. Any property which is not included in the
enumeration of real properties under the Civil
Code and capable of appropriation are
considered personal properties and can be the
subject of theft under the RPC. (Laurel v.
Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, 2009)
Q: What determines the consummation of
theft?
A: It is consummated upon the voluntary and
malicious taking of the property, which is realized
by the material occupation of the thing whereby
the thief places it under his control and in such a
situation that he could dispose of it once. There is
no crime of frustrated theft. (Valenzuela v.
People, GR No. 160188, 2007)
Q: How is Qualified Theft committed?
A: DAMF
1) If theft is committed by a domestic servant;
2) If theft is committed with grave abuse of
confidence;
3) If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter, large cattle, coconuts taken from
the premises of a plantation, or fish taken
from a fishpond or fishery ; or
4) If property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption,
or and other calamity, vehicular accident,
or civil disturbance. (Art. 310, RPC as
amended by RA 120 and BP 71, 1980)
Q: X lives with his long-time girlfriend Y in a
condominium in Makati. He has been secretly
saving money in an envelope under their bed
to buy her an engagement ring. One day, while
Y was cleaning their room, she found the
envelope, took the money, and left X. As
prosecutor, what crime, if any, would you
charge Y? Explain. (2010 BAR)
A: Y can be prosecuted for qualified theft. She
took away personal property belonging to
another, without consent. The fact that this
property was money supports a theory that she
had intent to gain. Furthermore, she committed
Page 53 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
this with grave abuse of confidence, as she was
trusted by X and they shared a house together.
However, Y can invoke Art. 332, which says that
theft between spouses only gives rise to civil
liability. As held in the case of People v.
Constantino, common-law spouses are included
in the term spouses, as used in Art. 332. (Art. 310,
332, RPC)
Q: Forest Ranger A was patrolling a
Watershed when he noticed a big pile of cut
logs outside the gate. He then saw X & Y
coming out of the gate with some more newly-
cut logs. He apprehended X & Y charged them
with the proper offense. What is that offense?
(2004 BAR)
A: The offense is qualified theft. Sec. 68 of PD
705 penalizes any person who directly or
indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products from any of the
public forest. The watershed is protected under
the said law. (Sec. 68, P.D. 705)
Q: X was the President and Chairman of the
Board of Trustees of Company A. X allowed
his son Y to tap into the electricity and water
supply of Company A. When X died, Z
succeeded him as President and filed a
criminal complaint against Y for qualified
theft, attended by the qualifying circumstance
of grave abuse of confidence. Y argues that
he was explicitly allowed by X to use such
electricity and water supply and no
opposition was aired by anyone. Can Y be
convicted with qualified theft?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. The elements of
lack of owner’s consent and intent to gain are
evidently absent in this case. First, Y was
permitted by X to tap into the electricity and water
supply. As such, Y had no criminal intent to
appropriate the personal property as he acted on
the faith of his father's authority, on behalf of
Company A. There is no theft where the taker
honestly and in good faith believes the property is
his own or that of another, and that he has a right
to take possession of it for himself or for another".
His bona fide belief that he had authority from the
real owner of the electricity and water supply will
not make him culpable of the crime of qualified
theft because he was acting with a color of
authority or a semblance of right to do such act.
Second, The Board of Trustees clothed X with
such apparent authority to act on behalf of
Company A. By giving X apparent authority, the
 ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Board of Trustees cannot now deny and
repudiate the legal effect of X’s consent to use the
electricity and water supply. The element of lack
of owner's consent is thus absent in this case.
Thus, the case should be dismissed. (People v.
Delos Santos, G.R. No. 220685. November 29,
2017)
Q: While working as a housemaid,
Respondent X took her employer’s jewelry
amounting to more than P1 million. X claimed
that she was tricked into doing so via a phone
call that her employer had gotten into an
accident and needed to be delivered to a third
party. After delivering the jewelry, she
returned to her employer. Both the RTC and
the CA convicted X of the crime of Qualified
Theft. X claims that her low educational
attainment must be a basis to presume that
she was not fully aware of her actions.
Furthermore, she maintains that her non­
flight manifests her lack of intent to gain.
''..Decide.
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) No, her excuse that
she was tricked cannot be given credence,
especially in view of the fact that her employer
had explicitly warned her against scammers and
to not entertain such calls. Jurisprudence
provides that intent to gain can be established
through the overt acts of the offender, and is
presumed from the proven unlawful taking. Actual
gain is irrelevant. (People v. Manlao y Laquila,
G.R. No. 234023, September 3, 2018)
Q: Company V ordered diesel fuel from
Company U, owned by L. C is a truck driver
employed by L and was dispatched to deliver
such diesel fuel to Company V. Later that day,
it was found that Company V never received
_ their—order_The NBI—agents—found—the
abandoned lorry truck emptied of the diesel
fuel. Under the foregoing premises, L filed a
complaint against C for Qualified Theft. Is C
guilty of the crime Qualified Theft?
A: (PERLAS-BERNAB) YES. There is a
confluence of all the following elements of
Qualified Theft: a) taking of personal property; b)
said property belongs to another; c) the said
taking be done with intent to gain; d) it be done
without the owner’s consent; e) it be
accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things; and f) it be done under any of the
Page 54 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
circumstances enumerated in Art. 310 of the
PRC, i.e. with grave abuse of confidence.
It was sufficiently established that the diesel fuel
loaded into the truck driven by C for delivery to
Company V was taken by him, without the
authority and consent of L, the owner of the diesel
fuel, and that C abused the confidence reposed
upon him by L, as his employer. (Candelaria v.
People, G.R. No. 209386. December 8, 2014)
Q: What are the elements of estafa with
unfaithfulness?
A: DAD
1) Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver
something of value;
2) He alters its substance, quantity, or
quality; and
3) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person/s. (Art. 315(1)(a), RPC)
Q: What are the elements of estafa with abuse
of confidence?
A: OMPD
1) Money, goods, or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return the same;
2) Offender misappropriates or converts such
money or property, or denies receipt of the
same;
3) Such misappropriation, conversion, or denial
is to the prejudice of another ; and
4) There is demand made by the offended
party to the offender. (Art. 315 (1)(b), RPC)
Intent to defraud is not a necessary ingredient of
embezzlement under Art. 315(1 )(b) of-the RPG. it
is the breach of confidence or infidelity in the
conversion or diversion of trust funds that takes
the place of the usual element of fraud or deceit.
(Dayawon v. Judge Bautista, AM No. MTJ-00-
1309, 2000)
Q: What are the elements of estafa by taking
undue advantage of the signature in blank?
A: BDWD
1) The paper with the offended party’s signature
is in blank;
2) The offended party delivered the same to
the offender;
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
3) The offender wrote a document above the
offended party’s signature without authority
to do so; and
4) The document so written creates a liability of,
or causes damage to the offended party or
to third person/s. (Art. 315 (1)(c), RPC)
Q: What are the ways of committing Estafa by
means of deceit?
A:
1) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending
to possess power, influence, qualification,
property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other
similar deceits;
2) By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business;
3) By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee;
4) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank or the funds were
insufficient to cover the amount of the check.
Failure to deposit the necessary amount
within 3 days from receipt of notice of
dishonor from the bank and/or payee or
holder shall be prima facie evidence of the
deceit; or
5) By obtaining any food, refreshment, or
accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house and the like without paying therefor,
with intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at
hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment house by the
use of any false pretense, or by abandoning
or surreptitiously removing any party of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment
house after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment, or accommodation therein
without paying for his food, refreshment, or
accommodation. (Art. 315(2), RPC)
Q: Petitioner X alleged that he had a telephone
conversation with Accused Y wherein Y
agreed to issue a BPI check as payment for
the goods Y bought, but the check was
dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. On
the contrary, Y claimed that he issued the
check to Z, his brother-in-law, that he did not
have a telephone conversation with X, and
that it was Z who transacted with X proven by
Page 55 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
documents showing that Z received the
goods from X. Is proof beyond reasonable
doubt established to convict Y of the crime of
estafa?
A: (BERSAMIN) No. In order to constitute estafa,
the act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation must be the efficient
cause of the defraudation. This means that the
offender must be able to obtain money or property
from the offended party by reason of the issuance
of the check, whether dated or postdated. The
accused, to be guilty of estafa as charged, must
have used the check in order to defraud the
complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud
or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless
check. Moreover, the allegation of X that it was Y
who transacted with him on the phone is not
reliable for lack of authentication. (People v.
Wages, G.R. No. 157943, 2013)
Q: What are the ways of committing Estafa by
fraudulent means?
A:
1) By inducing another to sign any document;
2) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game; or
3) By removing, concealing or destroying
documents. (Art. 315(3), RPC)
Q: Can there be estafa through negligence?
A: No. There is no such crime as estafa through
negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must be
obtained by the accused personally, through his
own acts, and his mere negligence in allowing
another to take advantage of or benefit from the
entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa.
(People v. Nepomuceno, CA, 46 OG 6135)
Q: What are other forms of swindling?
A:
1) Any person who, pretending to be owner of
any real property, shall convey, sell,
encumber or mortgage the same.
2) Any person, who, knowing that real property
is encumbered, shall dispose of the same,
although such encumbrance be not recorded.
3) The owner of any personal property who shall
wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to
the prejudice of the latter or any third person.
4) Any person who, to the prejudice of another,
shall execute any fictitious contract.
5) Any person who shall accept any
compensation given him under the belief that
it was in payment of services rendered or
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
labor performed by him, when in fact he did
not actually perform such services or labor.
6) Any person who, while being a surety in a
bond given in a criminal or civil action, without
express authority from the court or before the
cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by
him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other
manner, encumber the real property or
properties with which he guaranteed the
fulfillment of such obligation. (Art. 316, RPC)
Q: X draws a check upon request of Y, the
payee, who told X that he would merely show
the check to his creditor to gain more time to
pay his account. The check bounced upon
presentation by the creditor. Under the
circumstances, who can be prosecuted for
estafa based on the dishonored check? (2011
BAR)
A: Y can be prosecuted for estafa as the one who
negotiated the check contrary to the agreement
which resulted to the prejudice of the offended
party. The purpose of the issuance of the check
was only to show the check to the creditors and
not to be used as payment. (REYES, p. 797,
2012, Art. 315 (1)(b), RPC)
Q: Is the principal liable for estafa for
appropriation of the proceeds of the sale thru
an agent without paying the agent’s
commission? How is this case distinguished
from failure of a lessee to return leased chattel
at the termination of the lease?
A: No, because there is no juridical transfer of
possession from the agent to the principal who is
entitled to receive the full proceeds with the duty
to pay the agent for services rendered. The
obligation to pay does not arise from any duty to
deliver or return the money to its supposed
owner, but rather from the duty of a principal to
give just compensation to its agent for the
services rendered by the latter. On the other
hand, even in the absence of fiduciary
relationship, the lessee is obliged to return the
chattel under lease to the lessor who originally
had juridical possession which was transferred to
the lessee by virtue of the lease. Breach of the
duty to return constitutes Estafa. (Murao, et. at.
vs. People, G.R. No. 141485, 2005)
Page 56 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: What can the accused raise as a defense
when he is charged with estafa?
A: (BERSAMIN) Estafa will not lie when the
parties waive the negotiable character of a
check, and instead treat the same as proof of
an obligation. For instance, when there is an
agreement between the parties at the time of the
issuance and postdating of the checks that the
obligee shall not encash or present the same to
the bank, the obligor cannot be prosecuted for
estafa because the element of deceit is lacking.
When the payee was informed that the checks
are not covered by adequate funds, bad faith or
estafa shall not arise. (People v Villanueva, G.R.
No. 163662, 2015).
Q: X was neither licensed nor authorized to
recruit workers for employment abroad. X
then offered an employment opportunity
abroad to Y. X asked Y to provide documents
and pay placement fees to process the visa.
However, Y never received the visa, and when
he went to look for X, could no longer find the
latter. Is X guilty of Estafa?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. Estafa by means
of deceit is committed when these elements
concur: (a) the accused used fictitious name or
false pretense that he possesses power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or other
similar deceits; (b) he used such deceitful means
prior to or simultaneous with the commission of
the fraud; (c) the offended party relied on such
deceitful means to part with his money or
property; and (d) the offended party suffered
damage. In this case, X defrauded Y by
representing that he can provide them with jobs
abroad even though he had no license to recruit
workers. He even collected irrelevant documents
and placement fees. Furthermore, Y could no
longer locate X to recover the amounts paid.
Thus, X is guilty of Estafa. (People v. Racho y
Somera, G.R. No. 227505. October 2, 2017)
Q: X received several pieces of jewelry for
sale on consignment from Y under the
obligation that X will remit the proceeds of the
sale or if not sold, to return them to Y after
seven (7) days from receipt of the same.
However, X willfully and unlawfully
misappropriated the benefits to her own
persona! use. When X failed to return the
proceeds and the jewelry, Y demanded for the
same. X failed to do so and further argued that
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
her liability only civil and not criminal. RTC
found X guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of estafa defined and penalized under
Article 315 (1)(b) of RPC. Should X be
convicted of Estafa?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES, X is guilty of
Estafa. The facts clearly show the existence of all
the elements of the crime charged, considering
that: (a) X received various pieces of jewelry from
Y on a sale-on-consignment basis, as evidenced
by the consignment document; (b) X was under
the obligation to either remit the proceeds of the
sale or return the jewelry after the period of seven
(7) days from receipt of the same; (c) X failed to
perform her obligation, prompting Y to demand
compliance therewith; and (d) X failed to heed
such demand, thereby causing prejudice to Y.
(Rivac v. People, G.R. No. 224673. January 22,
2018)
Q: What are the elements of Estafa?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The elements of
Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC are as
follows:
1) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or
other personal property in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to
deliver or to return the same;
2) misappropriation or conversion by the
offender of the money or property received,
or denial of receipt of the money or property;
3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is
to the prejudice of another; and
4) demand by the offended party that the
offender. (Rivac v. People, G.R. No. 224673.
January 22, 2018)
Q: X and Y entered into an agreement whereby
X shall deliver pieces of jewelry to Y for the
latter to sell on commission basis. After one
month, Y is obliged to either: (a) remit the
proceeds of the sold jewelry; or (b) return the
unsold jewelry to the former. On different
dates, X delivered various sets of jewelry to Y.
Upon the delivery of last batch of jewelry, Y
issued a check as full security for the first two
deliveries and as partial security for the last.
When Y failed to remit the proceeds or to
return the unsold jewelry on due date, X
presented the check to the bank for
encashment, but was dishonored due to
insufficient funds. Upon assurance of Y, X re­
deposited the check, but again, the same was
Page 57 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
dishonored because the drawee account had
been closed. X then decided to confront Y,
who then uttered "Akala mo, babayaran pa
kita?" Thus, X was constrained to file three (3)
separate Informations charging Y of the crime
of Estafa defined and penalized under Art.
315(1)(b) of the RPC. Is Y guilty of three
counts of Estafa?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Yes. The elements of
Estafa are: (1) The offender's receipt of money,
goods, or other personal property in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to
return, the same; (2) Misappropriation or
conversion by the offender of the money or
property received, or denial of receipt of the
money or property; (3) The misappropriation,
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and (4) Demand by the offended party that the
offender return the money or property received.
The essence of this kind of estafa is the
appropriation or conversion of money or property
received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a
return should be made. The words "convert" and
"misappropriate” connote the act of using or
disposing of another's property as if it were one's
own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different
from that agreed upon. In proving the element of
conversion or misappropriation, a legal
presumption of misappropriation arises when the
accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale
or to return the items to be sold and fails to give
an account of their whereabouts. Hence, Y is
guilty of Estafa defined and penalized under Art.
315(1 )(b). (PAZ CHENG y CHU v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES; G.R. No. 174113. January
13, 2016)
Q: X contracted the services of Y, a broker, for
the sale of a share of stock. Y later introduced
Z and they entered into a Deed of Absolute
Sale. However, such sale was later annulled
by the court. Thus, X returned to Z the sum of
money which the latter paid for the share, plus
interest, and applied with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) for the refund of the
taxes paid for the annulled sale. Meanwhile, X
requested Y for an accounting of the sum she
received on behalf of X. In response, Y faxed
documents. Examining the documents, X
noticed a discrepancy in the faxed Capital
Gains Tax Return: while the typewritten
portion of the Return indicated P1,480,000.00
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
as the capital gains tax paid, the machine
validation imprint reflected only P80,000.00 as
the amount paid. To clarify the discrepancy, X
secured a certified true copy of the Capital
Gains Tax Return from the BIR that reflected
only P80,000.00 as the capital gains tax paid
for the sale of the share. As a result, X
demanded Y to properly account for the
P2,800,000.00 allegedly given to her for the
payment of taxes and broker's fees, but to no
avail. This led to the filing of an Information
for the crime of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) against Y before the RTC. The RTC and
CA ruled that the prosecution failed to
establish that the elements of Estafa are
present. The question is whether Y can still be
held liable for civil liability ex delicto?
A. (PERLAS-BERNABE) No, Y cannot be held
liable for civil liability ex delicto. When the element
of misappropriation or conversion is absent, there
can be no Estafa and concomitantly, the civil
Art. 315 (1)(b), the fraud which the law considers
as criminal is the act of misappropriation or
conversion. When the element of
misappropriation or conversion is missing, there
can be no estafa. In such case, applying the
foregoing discussions on civil liability ex delicto,
there can be no civil liability as there is no act or
omission from which any civil liability may be
sourced. However, when an accused is acquitted
because a reasonable doubt exists as to the
existence of misappropriation or conversion, then
civil liability may still be awarded. This means
that, while there is evidence to prove fraud, such
evidence does not suffice to convince the court to
the point of moral certainty that the act of fraud
amounts to estafa. As the act was nevertheless
proven, albeit without sufficient proof justifying
the imposition of any criminal penalty, civil liability
exists. (Estate of Honorio Poblador, Jr.,
Represented By Rafael A. Poblador V. Rosario L.
Manzano; G.R. No. 192391. June 19, 2017)
Q: Private complainants allege that
Respondent X, and other members of his
company, convinced them to invest large
sums of money into his company. The RTC
found that X fraudulently induced
complainants to invest their money, despite
knowing that he is prohibited from soliciting
investments from the general public.
Furthermore, it was discovered that X issued
Page 58 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
checks representing the investment of the
complainants plus interest, only for the
checks to be dishonored upon presentment
for being drawn against closed accounts. Is X
guilty of the crime of Syndicated Estafa?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Yes. X, along with
other members of his company, repeatedly
induced the public to invest in his company on the
undertaking that they would yield a huge
percentage of returns. However, the accused
knew from the start that the company had no clear
trade by which it can pay the assured profits to its
investors. Though not all proposals to invest in
certain business ventures constitute fraud;
actionable fraud arouse when X had knowledge
that the venture proposed would not reasonably
yield the promised results but, despite such
knowledge, deliberately continues with the
misrepresentation. It became Syndicated Estafa
because X was accused alongside 5 or more
people. (People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 234818,
November 5, 2018)
Q: A was the Loans Bookkeeper of the Bank
and she was authorized to collect and/or
accept loan payments of the Bank’s clients
and issue receipts therefor, and remit
payments to her supervisor. The Bank
discovered that fraud and certain
irregularities attended the same since there
was non-remittance of some loan payments.
The Bank demanded an explanation and to
return the unremitted money involved. Is A
guilty of Estafa through misappropriation?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. The elements of
Estafa through misappropriation (Art 315 par. 1)
are: a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or
other personal property in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the dutyiodeliver,-orto
return, the same; (b) misappropriation or
conversion by the offender of the money or
property received, or denial of receipt of the
money or property; (c) the misappropriation,
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and (d) demand by the offended party that the
offender return the money or property received.
Under the first element, there must also be
juridical possession, which means a possession
which gives the transferee a right over the thing
which the transferee may set up even against the
owner.
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
In this case, A was merely a collector of loan
payments from the Bank’s clients. The money
merely passes into her hands and she takes
custody thereof only for the duration of the
banking day. The sum of money received by A, is
considered to be only in her material possession,
not juridical possession. Hence, conversion of
personal property in the case of an employee
having mere material possession of the said
property constitutes theft, whereas in the case of
an agent to whom both material and juridical
possession have been transferred,
misappropriation of the same property constitutes
Estafa. Lacking the first element of the crime, A
cannot be convicted of the crime Estafa.
(Benabaye v. People, G.R. No. 203466. February
25, 2015.)
Q: What are the elements of carnapping?
A: The elements of carnapping as defined and
penalized under the law are as follows:
a) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
b) That the vehicle belongs to a person other
than the offender himself;
c) That the taking is without the consent of the
owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things; and d) that the offender intends
to gain from the taking of the vehicle. (People
v. Renato Lagaty Gawan, G.R. No. 187044,
2011)
Q: What are the special aggravating
circumstances in Arson?
A: IBSS (4)
1) If committed with intent to gain;
2) If committed for the benefit of another;
3) If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred
towards the owner or occupant of the
property burned;
4) If committed by a syndicate (planned or
carried out by a group of 3 or more persons).
(Sec. 4, PD 1613)
Q. What are the guidelines when death occurs
on the occasion of arson?
A: Look at the offender’s main intent.
Intent was to burn the building Arson
• But death results by
reason or on occasion of
arson
• Homicide is absorbed.
Page 59 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Fire is used to Murder
kill the person
(becomes a
Intent was to kill a qualifying
person circ.)
Fire is used to Arson
cover up the and
killing. Murder.
If homicide, murder, arson is Arson is
committed for the purpose of only a
obtaining widespread panic for the predicate
purpose of giving in to an unlawful crime
demand, under the HUMAN
SECURITY ACT
(People v. Malngan, GR No. 170470, 2006)
Q: What are the special cases of malicious
mischief?
A: PPIP
1) Causing Damage to obstruct performance of
public functions;
2) Using any poisonous or corrosive
substance;
3) Spreading any infection or contagion
among cattle;
4) Causing damage to the property of the
National Museum or National Library or to
any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public. (Art. 328, RPC)
Q: What are the exemptions from criminal
liability in crimes against property?
A: No criminal but only civil liability shall result
from the commission of the crime of theft,
swindling, or malicious mischief committed or
caused mutually by the following persons:
1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants or
relatives by affinity in the same line;
2) The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed to
the possession of another; and
3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law living together. (Art. 332, RPC)
Q: What is the effect on the relationship after
death of one spouse?
A: Relationship by affinity between the
surviving spouse and the kindred of the
deceased spouse continues even after the
death of the deceased spouse, regardless of
whether the marriage produced children or not.
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
(Carunacona v People and Sato GR. No.
181409. 2010 )
J. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Q: Should there be a marriage for adultery to
exist?
A: Yes. Even if the marriage of a guilty woman
with the offended party be subsequently declared
void, there is still adultery because until the
marriage is declared to be null and void by
competent authority in a final judgment, the
offense to the vows taken and the attack to the
family exist. (Art. 333, RPC, Pilapil v. Ibay-
Somera, G.R. No. 80116, 1989)
Q: When is adultery consummated?
A: Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is
consummated and exhausted or completed at the
moment of the carnal union. Each sexual
intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery.
(People v. Zapata, G.R. No. L-3047, 1951)
Q: Suspecting that her husband was having
an affair, Z hired a private investigator to spy
on him. After two weeks, the private
investigator showed Z a video of her husband
having sexuai intercourse with another
woman in a room in a five star hotel. Based on
what she saw in the video, Z accused her
husband of concubinage. Will the case
prosper? Explain. (2010 BAR)
A: No, there are only 3 ways to commit
concubinage:
1) by keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling,
2) cohabiting with a woman not one’s wife in any
other place, and
3) having sexual intercourse with a woman not
one’s wife under scandalous circumstances.
The husband committed none of these three acts
by having one instance of sexual intercourse with
a woman not his wife in the privacy of a hotel
room. Therefore, he cannot be charged with
concubinage. (Art. 334, RPC)
Q: What is the difference between acts of
lasciviousness and attempted rape?
A:
Acts of Attempted Rape
Lasciviousness (Art. (Art. 266, RPC)
336, RPC) _______ _
Page 60 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Lascivious acts are Lascivious acts are
final objective sought but preparatory acts
by the offender to the commission of
rape
Offender’s lascivious Acts performed by
acts do not indicate offender clearly
intent to have sexual indicate that his
intercourse. purpose was to lie
with the offended
party.
Manner of commission is the same
The performance of lascivious character is
common to both
Offended party is a person of either sex
(REYES, p. 920, 2012)
Q: In cases of acts of lasciviousness, is it
necessary that intimidation be irresistible?
A: No. in cases of acts of lasciviousness, it is not
necessary that intimidation be irresistible. It being
sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to
intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise
of the wiii of the offended party. (Simbolon, Jr. vs.
People, G.R. No. 175888, 2009)
Q: A was roused from sleep by B, her father,
touching her body. Noticing that her shorts
were already unzipped and unbuttoned, A
zipped and buttoned them up and covered
herself with a blanket. When B was trying to
unzip the shorts again, A was able to go under
the bed to evade him. Upon hearing A say that
she would not get out from under the bed
because of what B was doing to her, B
stopped and withdrew. Was there attempted
rape?
A: (BERSAMIN) No, only acts of lasciviousness.
Attempted rape is committed when the “touching”
of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the
intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be
acts of iasciviousness.
In this case, B’s act of opening the zipper and
buttons of A’s shorts, touching her, and trying to
pull her from under the bed manifested lewd
designs, not intent to lie with her. The evidence to
prove that a definite intent to lie with A motivated
B was plainly wanting, therefore, rendering him
guilty only of acts of lasciviousness. (People v.
Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321, 2011)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: What are the acts constituting qualified
seduction?
A:
1) Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under
18 by other person such as a person in
authority, priest, teacher, etc.; and
2) Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
her age or reputation. (Article 337, RPC)
Q: What are the elements of forcible
abduction?
A: WAL (3)
1) Person abducted is any woman regardless of
her age, status, or reputation;
2) Abduction is against her will; and
3) Abduction is with lewd designs. (Art. 342,
RPC)
Q: Is sexual intercourse necessary?
A: No. In order to demonstrate the presence of
lewd designs, actual illicit criminal relations with
the person abducted need not be shown. The
intent to seduce the girl is sufficient. (U.S. v.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 13997, 1919)
Q: In two occasions, X, a 35-year-old man,
ordered Y, who was then 11 years old, to hold
his penis and masturbate him. Was CA
correct in convicting X for violation of Section
5(b), Article III, of RA 7610, otherwise known
as the "Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act"?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. In instances where
the child subjected to sexual abuse through
lascivious conduct is below twelve years of age,
the offender should be prosecuted under Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, but
suffer the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in
its medium period in accordance with Section 5
(b), Article III of RA 7610. Before an accused can
be convicted of child abuse through lascivious
conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the
requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article
336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the
requisites for sexual abuse. (Fianza v. People,
G.R. No. 218592. August 2, 2017)
Page 61 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: What are the elements of Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The elements are:
1) the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
2) the lascivious act is done under any of the
following circumstances:
a) by using force or intimidation;
b) when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c) when the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age; and
3) the offended party is another person of either
sex. (Fianza v. People, G.R. No. 218592.
August 2, 2017)
Q: What are the elements of Sexual Abuse as
defined under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA
7610?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The elements are:
1) the accused commits an act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2) the said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and
3) the child is below eighteen (18) years old.
(Fianza v. People, G.R. No. 218592. August
2, 2017)
Q: In two occasions, X, a 35-year-old man,
ordered Y, who was then 11 years old, to hold
his penis and masturbate him. Is Y considered
a “child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse”?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. A child is deemed
subjected to other sexual abuse when the child
indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion
or intimidation, or influence of any adult.
Lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult exists when there is some
form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation
which subdues the free exercise of the offended
party's free will. Case law states that a child is
presumed to be incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act. In this case, the age
disparity between the parties clearly placed X in
a stronger position over Y which enabled him to
wield his will on the latter. (Fianza v. People, G.R.
No. 218592. August 2, 2017)
Q: It is alleged that Respondent X is guilty of
“Acts of Lasciviousness” for squeezing the
genitalia of private complainant. The RTC
ruled that the prosecution failed to establish
A TE N E G C E N TR A L
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

the element of lewdness, and that the overt overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by
act of squeezing does not show that X conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or
intended to gratify his sexual desires. The Lascivious.
RTC held that X was guilty of Unjust Vexation.
Is this ruling correct? The crime should be qualified rape. The elements
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) No. The SC overturned of Qualified Rape under these provisions are: (a)
this ruling, holding that he should instead be the victim is a female over twelve (12) years but
charged with Acts of Lasciviousness. The Court under eighteen (18) years of age; (b ) the offender
found that the mere fact of “squeezing” the private is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
part of a child only 12 years of age could have relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
signified only an indecent intention. “Lewd” is civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
defined as obscene and lustful, signifying the parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has
form of immorality that has relation to moral carnal knowledge of the victim either through
impurity. (People v. Ladra, G.R. No. 221443, July force, threat, or intimidation. A perusal of the
17, 2017) records reveals that all these elements are
present. Both the RTC and the CA found credible
Q: Y was charged with the crimes of Acts of BBB's categorical testimony that on November
Lasciviousness for touching the private organ 18, 2003, Y had carnal knowledge of her without
of AAA, a fourteen (14) year-old girl, in three her consent; that she was sixteen (16) years old
separate instances and Qualified Rape when at that time; and that Monroyo is her uncle, being
he forced his penis inside the private organ of the husband of her mother’s half-sister. (People
BBB, a sixteen (16) year-old girl, while she v. Monroyo y Mahaguay, G.R. No. 223708, June
was sleeping. RTC convicted Y for 3 counts of 28, 2017)
Acts of Lasciviousness and Rape. Two
minors gave their testimony to Y’s alleged Q: Distinguish forcible abduction from other
crimes, which the RTC gave full faith and crimes.
credence to. The CA affirmed the rulings of A:
the RTC. is the conviction of the RTC as Forcible Abduction i Kidnapping and
affirmed by the CA correct? Serious illegal
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Recital of the facts in Detention
the information constitute violations of Acts of Presence of lewd Deprivation of liberty
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in design makes it with no lewd design
relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.The elements forcible abduction
for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 are: (Art. 342, 267, RPC, REYES, p. 943-944, 2012)
(1) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) Forcible Abduction Corruption of
by using force or intimidation, or (b) when the Minors
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise Purpose is to commit Purpose is to lend her
unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is lascivious acts to illicit intercourse
under twelve (12) years of age; and (3) that the with others
offended party is another person of either sex. (Art. 342, 340, RPC, REYES, p. 943, 2012)
The elements under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 are:
(1) the accused commits the act of sexual Forcible Abduction Rape
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act
Purpose is to commit Main objective is to
is performed with a child exploited in prostitution
lascivious acts have carnal
or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the
(abduction with lewd knowledge (to rape
child, whether male or female, is below 18 years
design) victim) so may absorb
of age. Common to both legal provisions is the
forcible abduction.
element of lascivious conduct or lewdness. The
(Art. 342, 266, RPC, REYES, p. 945, 2012)
term "lewd" is commonly defined as something
indecent or obscene. It is characterized by or
intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an
accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste
design is a mental process that can be inferred by
Page 62 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
K. CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS
Q: A and B were scheduled to marry each
other but on the day of the wedding, the
supposed officiating priest refused to
solemnize the marriage upon learning that the
couple failed to secure a marriage license. A
and B went to a different church and
requested C to perform the ceremony. C
agreed despite having been informed that the
couple had no marriage license. C was
charged with violation of Article 352,
Performing an Illegal Ceremony. Will the case
prosper?
A: Yes. Article 352 of the RPC, as amended,
penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who
shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony. The elements of this crime are as
follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer;
and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage
ceremony. Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted
the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that
the essential and formal requirements of
marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage
ceremony, therefore, was illegal. (Ronulo v.
People, G.R. No. 182438, 2014)
Q: What are the elements of bigamy?
A: (BERSAMIN) The elements of the crime of
bigamy are as follows:
1) that the offender has been legally married;
2) that the marriage has not been legally
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
3) that he or she contracts a second or
subsequent marriage; and
4) that the second or subsequent marriage has
all the essential requisites for validity.
(Lasanas v. People, G.R. No. 159031,2014)
Q: X and Y were married in the Philippines. X
went to New York and met his former
girlfriend Z. They renewed their friendship
and finally decided to get married. The first
wife, Y, heard about the marriage and secures
a copy of the marriage contract in New York.
Y filed a case of Bigamy against X in the
Philippines. Will the case prosper? If Y gave
her consent to the second marriage, what will
your answer be? (2008 BAR)
A: The case will not prosper. The venue where
the action should be instituted is jurisdictional. If
Page 63 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
this is not complied with, it would render the
prosecution invalid. The answer would be the
same if Y gave her consent. Bigamy is a public
crime and is thus not subject to agreement
between the victim and accused. Also, this is in
consonance with the principle of territoriality in
Criminal Law. (Art. 2, RPC, REYES, p. 979, 2012)
Q: Is the nullity of the second marriage a
defense in bigamy?
A: (BERSAMIN) No. The crime of bigamy is
consummated from the moment a second
marriage is contracted without the first marriage
being first judicially declared null and void,
because at the time of the celebration of the
second marriage, the first marriage to is still
deemed valid and subsisting due to such
marriage not being yet declared null and void by
a court of competent jurisdiction. Art. 349 of the
RPC penalizes the mere act of contracting a
second or subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage. (Lasanas v.
People, G.R. No. 159031, 2014)
Q: X decided to wed Z, her suitor, who had no
inkling that she was previously married to Y.
X and Z accomplished an application for
marriage license which they subscribed and
swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. X
declared, in the application, that she is single.
The marriage licensed was issued. In due
time, the couple were married by the mayor. X
and Z had their first sexual intercourse later in
the evening. What crime or crimes, if any, did
X commit?
A: X committed the crime of bigamy. The crime of
bigamy is consummated from the moment a
second marriage is contracted without the first
marriage being first judicially declared null and
void, because at the time of the celebration of the
second marriage, the first marriage to is still
deemed valid and subsisting due to such
marriage not being yet declared null and void by
a court of competent jurisdiction. X also
committed adultery by having sexual intercourse
with Z, who is not her husband. The intercourse
cannot be absorbed in the bigamous marriage
because the crime of bigamy was already
consummated when adultery was committed.
(Arts. 349 and 333, RPC, Lasanas v. People,
G.R. No. 159031, 2014)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
L. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Q: A and B were convicted of libel for their
participation in a libelous article against C. A
posits that it is mandatory that the publisher
knowingly participated in or consented to the
preparation and publication of the libelous
article. Correct?
A: No. To sustain a conviction for libel, proof of
knowledge of and participation in the publication
of the offending article is not required, if the
accused has been specifically identified as
“author, editor, or proprietor” or “printer/publisher”
of the publication. (Fermin v. People, G.R. No.
157643, 2008)
Q: What are the cases where defamatory
imputations are not presumed malicious?
A:
1) Private communication in performance of
legal, moral or social duty.
2) Fair and true report made in good faith,
without any comments and remarks, of
judicial, legislative or other official
proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of a statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by a public officer in the
exercise of his functions; (Art. 354, RPC)
Q: Explain the doctrine of fair comment as a
defense in actions for libel or slander.
A: The doctrine of fair comment means that while
in general every discreditable imputation publicly
made is deemed false, and every false imputation
is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a
public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. In order that such
discreditable imputation to a public official may be
actionable, it must either be a false allegation of
fact or a comment based on a false supposition.
If the comment is an expression of opinion, based
on established facts, then it is immaterial that the
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it
might reasonably be inferred from the facts.
(Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466,
1999)
Q: What are the guidelines in the imposition
of penalties in libel cases?
A: The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
sound discretion, and taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case,
Page 64 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone
would best serve the interests of justice or
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment
would depreciate the seriousness of the offense,
work violence on the social order, or otherwise be
contrary to the imperative of justice. Should only
a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to
pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the
application of the Revised Penal Code provision
on subsidiary imprisonment.
(Administrative Circular No. 08-2008)
Q: A police officer surreptitiously placed a
marijuana stick in a student’s pocket and then
arrested him for possession of marijuana
cigarette. What crime can the police officer be
charged with? (2011 BAR)
A: The police can be charged with the complex
crime of incriminating an innocent person through
unlawful arrest. The two acts that were committed
had closely followed each other, and that the act
of planting the incriminatory evidence was a
necessary means to commit the unlawful arrest.
(Art. 363, RPC, People v. Alagao, et al., G.R. No.
L-20721, 1996)
Q: S wrote a ietter to his friends stating that
Judge O loves obscene magazines and keeps
these in his desk. Charged with libel, can S
present proof that Judge O indeed loves
obscene magazines and keeps these in his
desk for the case not to prosper?
A: No, even if S proves the truth of such activities,
S may still be charged with libel. Defamatory
remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of
public officers which are not related to the
discharge of their official duties will not constitute
libel if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation. But any attack upon the private
character of the public officer on matters which
are not related to the discharge of their official
functions may constitute libel. (Peopie v. Dei
Fierro and Padilla, C.A. GR No. 3599-R, 1950).
Q: X and Y got into a quarrel in front of Y’s
house, which led to X uttering, “Vulva of your
mother, prostitute, illiterate, you built a very
big house, it overshadows my house”.
However, no evidence was presented to show
that X started the fight, as Y is alleging. Is X
guilty of Grave Oral Defamation?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO, X is guilty only of
Simple Oral Defamation. Oral Defamation or
Slander is libel committed by spoken means. It is
AtENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory
words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of
livelihood." An allegation is considered
defamatory if it ascribes to a person the
commission of a crime, the possession of a vice
or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission,
condition, status or circumstance which tends to
dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or
which tends to blacken the memory of one who is
dead. Whether the offense committed is serious
or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon
the sense and grammatical meaning of the
utterances but also upon the special
circumstances, like the social standing or the
advanced age of the offended party. In particular,
it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the
heat of anger, with some provocation on the part
of the offended party constitutes only a light
felony. (Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 226454.
November 20, 2017)
Q: What are the elements of Oral Defamation?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The elements of oral
defamation are:
1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, status or circumstances;
2) made orally;
3) publicly;
4) and maliciously;
5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or
one who is dead;
6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed. (Ramos v.
People, G.R. No. 226454. November 20.
2017)
M. QUASI-OFFENSES fOR CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE!
Q: What are the punishable acts for criminal
negligence?
A:
1) Committing through reckless imprudence any
act which (had it been intentional) would
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light
felony;
2) Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or less serious felony;
3) Causing damage to the property of another
through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence; and
Page 65 of 130
CRIM INAL LAW
4) Causing through simple imprudence or
negligence some wrong which (if done
maliciously) would have constituted a light
felony. (Article 365, RPC)
Q: Distinguish imprudence from negligence.
A:
NEGLIGENCE IMPRUDENCE
Deficiency of Deficiency of
Perception; Action;
Failure in Failure in
Advertence; and Precaution; and
Avoided by paying Avoided by taking
(REYES, p.1053-1054, 2012)
Q: X brought his son Y to a local faithhealer.
He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being
possessed by an evil spirit. X thereupon
authorized the conduct of a "treatment”
calculated to drive the spirit from the boy’s
body. Unfortunately, the procedure
conducted resulted in the boy’s death. The
faithhealer and 3 others was charged with
murder and convicted by the lower court. If
you are appellate court Justice, would you
sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain
your answer. (2007 BAR)
A: In a similar case, the SC held that the liability
arises from their reckless imprudence because
they ought to know that their actions would not
bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
not of murder. The elements of reckless
imprudence are apparent in the acts done by
accused-appellants which, because of their lack
of medical skill in treating the victim of his alleged
ailment, resulted in the latter's death. (People v.
Carmen; G.R. No. 137268, 2001).
Q: S, a councilor of the City of Malabon, made
a false narration in his Personal Data Sheet. S
denied the existence of a criminal case
against him for assault upon the agent of a
person in authority before the MTC. S denied
the falsification charged and claimed that it
was M, his staff, who prepared the PDS. The
Sandiganbayan found S guilty of falsification
of public documents through reckless
imprudence. Was the designation of the
offense correct?
A: No. "Falsification of public document through
reckless imprudence" implies that reckless
imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

modality of committing it. In intentional crimes, was a direct causal connection between such
the act itself is punished; in negligence or negligence and the injuries or damages
imprudence, what is principally penalized is the complained of. It is B’s act of driving very fast on
mental attitude or condition behind the act, the the wrong side of the road that was the proximate
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, cause of the collision, resulting to the death of A
the imprudencia punible. Much of the confusion and serious physical injuries to his children.
has arisen from the common use of such Excessive speed, combined with other
descriptive phrase as 'homicide through reckless circumstances such as the occurrence of the
imprudence', and the like; when the strict accident on or near a curve, as in this case,
technical sense is, more accurately, 'reckless constitutes negligence. B acted recklessly and
imprudence resulting in homicide'; or 'simple imprudently in driving at a fast speed on the
imprudence causing damages to property’." wrong side of the road while approaching the
(Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. 194390, 2004) curve where the incident happened, thereby
rendering him criminally liable. It is the
Q: A was driving a motorcycle, with his 2 inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious
children, on an ascending curving road, on indifference to the consequences of the conduct
their proper lane. B was driving a car, swiftly which supplies the criminal intent and brings an
descending on the same lane from the act of mere negligence and imprudence under the
opposite direction. A blew the horn to signal operation of the penal law, without regard to
B to return to its proper lane but he remained whether the private offended party may himself
in the same lane. In order to avoid collision, A be considered likewise at fault. (Gonzaga V.
tried to swerve but B suddenly swerved People, G.R. No. 195671. January 21, 2015.)
towards the same direction and collided head-
on with the motorcycle. As a result, they were
thrown off the motorcycle. A was pinned
beneath the car and his children’s legs were
injured. The victims were brought to the
hospital, A died and his children were
confined. Is B guilty of the crime Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with
Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage
to Property?
A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. Reckless
imprudence, as defined in Art. 365 of the RPC,
consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing
or failing to do an act from which material damage
results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing
or failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and
other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place. Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide with Double Serious Physical Injuries
and Damage to Property is a complex crime. Art.
48 of the RPC provides that when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime (Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide) must be imposed.

In order to establish B’s liability for the negligent

operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there
Page 66 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

TABLE OF PENALTIES AND CORRESPONDING CRIMES

Penalties Duration Crimes
See Article 63 of Book I for • Treason (for citizens)12
applicability • Qualified piracy
• Parricide
The Indeterminate Sentence • Murder
Law is not applicable • Infanticide
• Rape under paragraph 1 of Art. 266-A (if
committed with the use of deadly
weapon, or by two or more persons, or
the victim has become insane, or rape is
attempted and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof)
• Kidnapping or detention that lasted for
more than 5 days; or committed
simulating public authority; If any serious
physical injuries shall have been inflicted
Reclusion Perpetua to upon the person kidnapped or detained;
Death or if threats to kill him shall have been
made; or if any person kidnapped or
detained shall be a minor, female, or
public officer. The penalty shall be death
where the kidnapping or detention was
committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances
above-mentioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
• Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
• Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons (if by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide have been committed; or if the
robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation or arson)
See Article 63 of Book I for • Piracy in general and mutiny on the high
applicability seas or in Philippine waters3
• Person who promotes, maintains, or
The Indeterminate Sentence heads a rebellion or insurrection
Law is not applicable • Person who leads or in any manner
Reclusion Perpetua
directs or commands others to undertake
coup d’etat
• Rape under par. 2 of Art. 266-A (if by
reason or on the occasion of the rape,
homicide is committed)
Reclusion Temporal Minimum: 17 years, 4 months • Treason (for aliens)4
Maximum to Death and 1 day to 20 years

1 ISL not applicable

2 Misprision of treason - accessory to treason
3 ISL not applicable
4 ISL not applicable
Page 67 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Correspondence with hostile country (if

Medium: Reciusion Perpetua Offender intended to aid the enemy by
giving such notice or information)
Maximum: Death • Murder

One degree lower is prision

mayor maximum to reclusion
temporal medium.

Two degrees lower is prision

correctional maximum to
prision mayor medium.
Minimum: 17 years, 4 months • Attempted and frustrated robbery
and 1 day to 18 years and 8 committed under certain circumstances
months • Destructive Arson

Medium: 18 years, 8 months

and 1 day to 20 years

Reclusion Temporal Maximum: Reclusion

Maximum to Perpetua
Reclusion Perpetua
One degree lower is prision
mayor maximum to reclusion
temporal medium.

Two degrees lower is prision

correctional maximum to
prision mayor medium.
Minimum: 12 years and 1 day
to 16 years
Medium: 16 years and 1 day to
20 years
Reclusion Temporal
Medium to Reclusion
Maximum: Reclusion Perpetua
Perpetua
Minimum: 14 years, 8 months
and 1 day to 16 years, 5
months and 10 days
Reclusion Temporal Medium: 16 years, 5 months
Medium and and 11 days to 18 years, 2
Maximum months and 20 days
Maximum: 18 years, 2 months
and 21 days to 20 years
• Malversation of public funds or property
(if amount exceeds Php20,000)
• Mutilation
• Rape under par. 2 of Art. 266-A (if rape is
attempted and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof)
• Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons (if by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision
of 1 of Article 263 shall have been
inflicted)
• Malversation of public funds or property
(if amount does not exceed Php20,000)
• Serious physical injuries (if injured
person become insane, imbecile,
impotent, or blind) if committed to
persons enumerated under Art. 246 or
with attending circumstance of Art. 248
•
_____________________________________ I

Page 68 of 130
ateneo central
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

One degree lower is prision

mayor maximum to reclusion
temporal minimum.

Two degrees lower is prision

mayor minimum & medium.
Minimum: 14 years, 8 months
and 1 day to 15 years, 6
months and 19 days

Medium: 15 years, 6 months

and 20 days to 16 years, 5
months and 9 days
Reclusion Temporal Maximum: 16 years, 5 months
Medium and 10 days to 17 years and 4
months.

One degree lower is reclusion

temporal minimum.

Two degrees lower is prision

mayor maximum.
Minimum: 12 years and 1 day • Forging treasury or bank notes or other
to 12 years, 10 months and 20 documents payable to bearer; importing,
days and uttering such false or forged notes
and documents (if the document is an
Medium: 12 years, 10 months obligation or security of the US or the
and 21 days to 13 years, 9 Philippines)
months and 10 days
Reclusion Temporal Maximum: 13 years, 9 months
Minimum and 11 days to 14 years and 8
months

One degree lower is prision

mayor maximum.

Two degress lower is prision

mayor medium.
Minimum: 12 years and 1 day • Inciting to war or giving motives for
to 14 years and 8 months reprisals (for public officer or employee)
• Correspondence with hostile country (if
Medium: 14 years, 8 months notice or information be given thereby
and 1 day to 17 years and 4 which might be useful to the enemy)
months • Arbitrary detention (if detention exceeded
Reclusion Temporal six months)
Maximum: 17 years, 4 months • Person merely participating or executing
and 1 day to 20 years the commands of others in a rebellion or
insurrection
One degree lower is prision • Person in the government service who
mayor. participates or executes directions or

Page 69 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Two degrees lower is prision commands of others in undertaking a

correctional coup d’etat
• Counterfeiting the great seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands,
forging the signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive
• False testimony against a defendant (if
defendant have been sentenced to
death)
• Homicide
• Giving assistance to suicide (if such
person did the killing himself)
• Infanticide (if committed by the maternal
grandparents for the purpose of
concealing the mother’s dishonor)
• Intentional abortion (if used violence
upon the person of the pregnant woman)
• Responsibility of participants in a duel (if
the adversary is killed)
• Rape under par. 2 of Art. 266-A (if victim
become insane)
• Slight Illegal Detention, or anyone who
furnished the place for the perpetration of
the crime
• Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons (if by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision
2 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted)5
• Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship (if
value exceed Php250)6
• Crimes involving destruction (if the
commission has endangered the safety
of any person, otherwise, the penalty of
prision mayor shall be imposed)
• Forcible abduction
Minimum: 10 years 1 day to 12 • Robbery with violence against or
years, 5 months and 10 days intimidation of persons (if the violence or
intimidation employed in the commission
Prision Mayor Medium: 12 years, 5 months of the robbery snail have been carried to
Maximum To and 11 days to 14 years, 10 a degree clearly unnecessary for the
Reclusion Temporal months and 20 days commission of the crime, or when in the
Medium course of its execution, the offender shall
Maximum: 14 years, 10 months have inflicted upon any person not
and 21 days to 17 years and 4 responsible for its commission any of the
months physical injuries covered by subdivisions
3 and 4 of Article 263)7

5 Maximum period if committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or with the use of firearm on a street, road, or alley
6 If committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious
worship - penalty next lower in degree
7 Maximum period if committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or with the use of firearm on a street, road, or alley
Page 70 of 130
 ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

One degree lower is prision

correctional maximum to
prision mayor medium.

Two degrees lower is prision

correctional maximum to
prision correctional medium.
Minimum: 10 years and 1 day
to 11 years, 6 months and 20
days

Medium: 11 years, 6 months

and 21 days to 13 years, 1
month and 10 days
Prision Mayor
Maximum To Maximum: 13 years, 1 month
Reclusion Temporal and 11 days to 14 years and 8
Minimum
months.

One degree lower is prision

mayor minimum & medium.

Two degrees lower is prision

correctional medium &
maximum.
Minimum: 8 years and 1 day to • Malversation of public funds or property
10 years, 2 months and 20 (if amount does not exceed Php12,000)
days • Rape under paragraph 2 of Art. 266-A (if
with deadly weapon, or by two or more
Medium: 10 years, 2 months persons)
and 21 days to 12 years, 5 •
months and 10 days
Prision Mayor
Maximum To Maximum: 12 years, 5 months
Reclusion Temporal and 11 days to 14 years and 8
Minimum months

One degree lower is prision

correctional medium to prision
mayor minimum.

Two degrees lower is arresto

mayor medium to prision
correctional minimum.
Minimum: 8 years 1 day to 9 • Direct bribery
years and 4 months • Infanticide (if committed by the mother for
Prision Mayor Medium
the purpose of concealing her dishonor)
And Maximum
Medium: 9 years, 4 months and • Brigandage8
1 day to 10 years and 8
months

8 Penalty of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them
are not punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high penalties.
Page 71 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Maximum: 10 years, 8 months
and 1 day to 12 years
One degree lower is prision
correctional maximum to
prision mayor minimum.
Two degrees lower is prision
correctional minimum &
medium.
Minimum: 6 years and 1 day to •
7 years and 4 months
Medium: 7 years, 4 months and
1 day to 8 years and 8 months
Maximum: 8 years, 8 months
and 1 day to 10 years
Prision Mayor
One degree lower is prision
Minimum And Medium
correctional medium & from the commencement of the
maximum.
Two degrees lower is arresto
mayor maximum to prision
correctional minimum. • Theft (if the value of the thing stolen is
Minimum: 10 years and 1 day •
to 10 years and 8 months
Medium: 10 years, 8 months
and 1 day to 11 years and 4 •
months
Prision Mayor
Maximum Maximum: 11 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 12 years
One degree lower is prision
mayor medium.
Two degrees lower is prision
mayor minimum.
9 But if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one
prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which
may be imposed shaii not exceed twenty years.
10 Higher by two degrees
Page 72 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Making and importing and uttering false
coins (if the counterfeited coin be silver
coin of the Philippines or coin of the
Central Bank of 10 centavo denomination
or above)
• Malversation of public funds or property
(if amount does not exceed Php6000)
• Slight Illegal Detention if offender shall
voluntarily release the person so
kidnapped or detained within three days
detention, without having attained the
purpose intended, and before the
institution of criminal proceedings against
him
more than 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos)9
• Qualified Theft10
Person not in the government service
who participates, or in any manner
supports, finances, abets or aids in
undertaking a coup d’etat
Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer; importing,
and uttering such false or forged notes
and documents (if the document is a
circulating note issued by any banking
association duly authorized by law to
issue the same)
• Slavery for the purpose of immoral traffic.
ateneo central
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Minimum: 8 years and 1 day to
8 years and 8 months
Medium: 8 years, 8 months 1
day to 9 years and 4 months
Prision Mayor Medium Maximum: 9 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 10 years
One degree lower is prision
mayor minimum.
Two degrees lower is prision
correctional maximum.
Minimum: 6 years and 1 day to •
6 years and 8 months
• Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
Medium: 6 years, 8 months and •
1 day to 7 years and 4 months •
Prision Mayor Maximum: 7 years, 4 months
Minimum
and 1 day to 8 years
One degree lower is prision
correctional maximum.
Two degrees lower is prision
correctional medium.
Minimum: 6 years and 1 day to
8 years
Medium: 8 years and 1 day to
10 years
Maximum: 10 years and 1 day
to 12 years
One degree lower is prision
Prision Mayor correctional.
Two degrees lower is arresto
mayor.
11 ISL not applicable
12 Same condition for arbitrary detention
13 Same condition for arbitrary detention
Page 73 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
• Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer; importing,
and uttering such false or forged notes
and documents (if document was issued
by a foreign government)
Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d’etat
Sedition (if leader)
Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer; importing,
and uttering such false or forged notes
and documents (if document is a
circulating note or bill issued by a foreign
bank duly authorized therefor)
• Maltreatment of prisoners (if purpose of
maltreatment is to extort a confession)
• Conspiracy to commit treason11
• Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals (for private individual)
• Correspondence with hostile country (if
the correspondence be carried on in
ciphers or conventional signs)
• Arbitrary detention (if detention has
continued more than fifteen but not more
than six months)
• Delay in the delivery of detained persons
to the proper judicial authorities12
• Delaying release13
• Violation of parliamentary immunity
• Using forged signature or counterfeit seal
or stamp
• Falsification by public officer, employee,
or notary or ecclesiastical minister
• False testimony against a defendant (if
defendant have been sentenced to
reclusion temporal or perpetua)
• Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions, and indecent shows
ateneo central
Ba r OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Knowingly rendering unjust judgment

Minimum: 4 years, 2 months •
and 1 day to 6 years, 1 month
and 10 days
Medium: 6, years, 1 month and •
11 days to 8 years and 20
Prision Correctional days
Maximum To Prision
Mayor Medium
Maximum: 8 years and 21 days
to 10 years
• Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents (if serious damage shall have
been caused thereby to a third party or to
the public interest)
• Death caused in a tumultuous affray
• Giving assistance to suicide
• Intentional abortion (if without violence
but without consent of the pregnant
woman)
• Serious physical injuries (if injured
person become insane, imbecile,
impotent, or blind)
• Rape under paragraph 2 of Art. 266-A
• Slavery (plus a fine not exceeding
10,000)
• Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship (if
value does not exceed Php250)1415
• Fraudulent insolvency (if he be a
merchant)
• Corruption of minors1 56
1
4
• Simulation of births, substitution of one
child for another and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child.
• Usurpation of civil status.
• Bigamy
Illegal assemblies (if organizers or
leaders)
• Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons (in other cases)17
Fraudulent insolvency (if he be not a
merchant)
• Swindling (if the amount of the fraud is
over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos)18

One degree lower is arresto

mayor maximum to prision
correctional medium.

14 If do not carry arms - penalty in its minimum period

15 If committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious
worship - penalty next lower in degree
16 if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall
aiso suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification.
17 Maximum period if committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or with the use of firearm on a street, road, or
alley
18 If such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period
Page 74 of 130
ateneo central
bar OPERATIONS 2019
Two degrees lower is destierro
maximum or arresto mayor
minimum and medium.
Minimum: 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months
and 10 days
Medium: 5 years, 5 months and
11 days to 6 years, 8 months
and 20 days
Prision Correctional
Maximum To Prision Maximum: 6 years, 8 months
Mayor Minimum and 21 days to 8 years
One degree lower is prision
correctional minimum & with attending circumstance of Art. 248
medium.
Two degrees lower is arresto
mayor medium & maximum.
Minimum: 2 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 4 years, 2 months
and 20 days
Medium: 4 years, 2 months and
21 days to 6 years, 1 month
and 10 days
Prision Correctional
Medium To Prision Maximum: 6 years, 1 month
Mayor Minimum and 11 days to 8 years
One degree lower is arresto
mayor medium to prision
correctional minimum.
Two degrees lower is destierro
medium and maximum or
arresto mayor minimum.
Minimum: 2 years, 4 months •
and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months
and 20 days
Prison Correctional Medium: 3 years, 6 months and
Medium And 21 days to 4 years, 9 months •
Maximum and 10 days
Maximum: 4 years, 9 months
and 11 days to 6 years
19 Same condition for arbitrary detention
20 Same condition for arbitrary detention
Page 75 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
• Direct bribery (if public officer was
refrained from doing something which it
was his official duty)
• Serious physical injuries (if injured
person lost the use of speech or the
power to hear or to smell, or shall have
lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a
leg, or shall have lost the use of any such
member, or shall have become
incapacitated for the work in which he
was habitually engaged) if committed to
persons enumerated under Art. 246 or
• Tumults and other disturbances of public
officer (if disturbance or interruption is of
a tumultuous character)
• Frauds against the public treasury and
similar offenses
• Maltreatment of prisoners
• Aiding and abetting a band of brigands
Arbitrary detention (if detention has
continued more than three but not more
than fifteen days)
• Delay in the delivery of detained persons
to the proper judicial authorities19
Delaying release20
• Violation of domicile (if 1) offense
committed at nighttime; 2)any papers or
effects not constituting evidence of a
crime are not returned immediately
• Interruption of religious worship (if with
violence and threats)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
One degree lower is arresto •
mayor maximum to prision
correctional minimum.
Two degrees lower is arresto •
mayor minimum & medium. . Counterfeiting, importing, and uttering
21 Next lower in degree if illegal possession and use of false treasury of bank notes and other instruments of credit
Page 76 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Direct assaults (if 1) assault is committed
with a weapon, 2) offender is a public
officer or employee, 3) offender lays
hands upon person in authority)
Evasion of service of sentence
instruments not payable to bearer21
Falsification by private individuals and
use of falsified documents
Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph,
and telephone messages, and use of said
falsified messages
Manufacturing and possession of
instruments or implements for
falsifications
Malversation of public funds or property
(if amount does not exceed Php200)
Conniving with or consenting to evasion
(if the fugitive shall have been sentenced
by final judgment)
Revelation of secrets by an officer (if the
revelation of such secrets or the delivery
of such papers shall have caused serious
damage to the public interest)
Abuses against chastity
Death caused in a tumultuous affray (if it
cannot be determined who inflicted the
serious physical injuries on the deceased
- to all those who have used violence
upon the person of the victim)
Intentional abortion (if with consent of the
pregnant woman)
Abortion practiced by the woman herself
or by her parents
Serious physical injuries (if injured person
lost the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye,
a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, or shall
have lost the use of any such member, or
shall have become incapacitated for the
work in which he was habituaiiy engaged)
Serious physical injuries (if injured person
shall have become deformed, or shall
have lost any other part of his body, or
shall have lost the use thereof, or shall
have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for a period of more
than 90 days) if committed to persons
enumerated under Art. 246 or with
attendinn circumstance of Art. 248
ateneo central
b a r o p e r a t io n s 2019
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day
to 1 year, 8 months and 20
days
Medium: 1 year, 8 months and
21 days to 2 years, 11 months
and 10 days
Maximum: 2 years, 11 months
and 11 days to 4 years and 2
months
One degree lower is arresto
mayor medium & maximum.
Two degrees lower is arresto
mayor minimum or destierro
Prision Correctional
maximum.
Minimum And Medium
22 Higher by two degrees
Page 77 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
• Abandoning of a minor that lead to death.
• Qualified trespass to dwelling (if the
offense be committed by means of
violence or intimidation)
• Theft (if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos.)
• Qualified Theft22
• Damage and obstruction to means of
communication
• Adultery
• Consented abduction
• Marriage contracted against provisions of
laws.
• Illegal associations (if founders,
directors, or presidents)
• Indirect assaults
• Making and importing and uttering false
coins (if the counterfeited coin be any of
the minor coinage of the Philippines or
coin of the Central Bank below 10
centavo denomination)
• Usurpation of authority or official
functions
• Indirect bribery
• Officer breaking seal
• Disobedience to order of superior
officers, when said order was suspended
by inferior officer
• Abandonment of office or position (if
office shall have been abandoned in
order to evade the discharge of duties of
preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any
of the crimes falling within Title One and
Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two
of RPC)
• Abuses against chastity (if the person
solicited be the wife, daughter, sister, or
relative within the same degree by affinity
of any person in custody)
• Discharge of firearms
• Unintentional abortion
• Abortion practiced by the woman herself
or by her parents (if to conceal dishonor)
• Serious physical injuries (if injured
person shall have become deformed, or
shall have lost any other part of his body,
or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall
have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Minimum: 4 years, 2 months •
and 1 day to 4 years, 9 months
and 10 days
Medium: 4 years, 9 months and •
11 days to 5 years, 4 months
and 20 days
Prision Correctional
Maximum
Maximum: 5 years, 4 months
and 21 days to 6 years
One degree lower is prision
correctional medium.
Two degrees lower is prision
correctional minimum.
Prision Correctional Minimum: 2 years, 4 months •
Medium and 1 day to 2 years, 11
months and 10 days • Conspiracy to commit sedition
23 Higher by two degrees
24 Penalty next higher in degree if committed by any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not
she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age
Page 78 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
habitually engaged for a period of more
than 90 days)
• Serious physical injuries if committed to
persons enumerated under Art. 246 or
with attending circumstance of Art. 248 (if
injured person have illness or incapacity
for labor for more than 30 days)
• Less serious physical injuries (if inflicted
upon the offender’s parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators, teachers, or persons
of rank, or persons in authority
• Exploitation of child labor.
• Abandoning of a minor that lead to
endangerment of the life of the minor.
• Exploitation of minors
• Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence
• Revelation of industrial secrets
• Theft (if the value of the property stolen
is more than 200 pesos but does not
exceed 6,000 pesos.)
• Qualified Theft23
• Swindling (if the amount of the fraud is
over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos)
• Malicious mischief (if the vaiue of the
• damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos)
• Concubinage
• Qualified seduction24
• Libel means by writings or similar means.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion or
insurrection
• Sedition (if other persons participating)
• Inciting to sedition
Evasion of service of sentence (if by
means of unlawful entry, by breaking
doors, windows, gates, wails, root's, or
floors, or by using pickiocks, false keys,
disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation,
or through connivance with other convicts
or employees of the penal institution)
• Falsification of legislative documents
• Gambling (if maintainer, conductors, or
banker)
Proposal to commit rebellion or
insurrection
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Gambling (if knowingly and without lawful

Medium: 2 years, 11 months
and 11 days to 3 years, 6
months and 20 days
Maximum: 3 years, 6 months •
and 21 days to 4 years and 2
months
purpose have in possession any lottery
list, paper, or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbols used in
jueteng)
Direct bribery (if officer shall not have
accomplished the act)

One degree lower is prision

correctional minimum.

Two degrees lower is arresto

mayor maximum.
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day • Violation of domicile
to 1 year, 1 month and 10 • Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution
days of peaceful meetings
• Interruption of religious worship
Medium: 1 year, 1 month and • Disloyalty of public officers or employees
11 days to 1 year, 8 months • Direct assault (if without the
and 20 days circumstances in Art 148, 1st par)
• Other cases of evasion of service of
Maximum: 1 year, 8 months sentence25
and 21 days to 2 years and 4 • Making and importing and uttering false
months coins (if the counterfeited coin be
currency of a foreign country)
One degree lower is arresto • Mutilation of coins26
mayor maximum. • False testimony in civil cases (if the
amount in controversy shall exceed
Two degress lower is arresto Php5,000)
Prision Correctional mayor medium. • Machinations in public auctions.
Minimum • Monopolies and combinations in restraint
of trade
• Substituting and altering trademarks,
trade names, or service marks
• Unfair competition, fraudulent registration
of trade name , trademark, or service
mark, fraudulent designation of origin,
and false description
• Malicious delay in the administration of
justice
• Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance.
• Betrayal of trust by an attorney or
solicitor.
• Prohibited transactions
• Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts
• Illegal use of public lands or property

25 However if the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall suffer the
unexpired portion of his original sentence
26 One degree lower if selling of false or mutilated coin without connivance
Page 79 of 130
ATENEO central
b a r o p e r a t io n s 2019
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day •
to 2 years and 4 months
Medium: 2 years, 4 months and •
1 day to 4 years and 2 months
Maximum: 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 6 years
One degree lower than prision
correctional is arresto mayor
Two degree lower than prision
correctional is destierro.
Prision Correctional
And Destierro One degree lower than
destierro is arresto menor.
Two degrees lower than
destierro is fine.
27 ISL not applicable
28 ISL not applicable
29 Penalty next higher in degree if offender is a public officer
30 Destierro
31 Destierro
Page 80 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
• Conniving with or consenting to evasion
(if the fugitive shall not have been finally
convicted)
• Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents (if no serious damage shall
have been caused thereby to a third party
or to the public interest)
• Revelation of secrets by an officer (if did
not cause serious damage to the public
interest)
« Prolonging performance of duties and
powers
• Usurpation of legislative powers
• Challenging to a duel
Proposal to commit treason272 9
8
• Espionage2829
• Violation of neutrality
Correspondence with hostile country (if
the correspondence has been prohibited
by the Government)
• Expulsion
• Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the
Assembly
• Violation of parliamentary immunity (if
public officer or employee arrest or
search any member of the Assembly
while in regular or special session)
• Illegal assemblies (if persons merely
present but armed)
• False testimony against a defendant (if
defendant have been sentenced to any
other afflictive penalty)
• Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of
gold, silver, or other precious metals or
their alloys.
• Importation and disposition of faisely
marked articles or merchandise made of
fold, silver, or other precious metals or
their alloys
• Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances30
• Inducing a minor to abandon his home
|• Failure to give bond for good behavior31
ateneo central
bar OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Grave coercion32
• Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
private building33
• Concubinage (if the concubine)34
• Acts of lasciviousness
Minimum: 4 months and 1 day • Reckless imprudence (if the act would
to 1 year, 7 months and 10 constitute a grave felony)
days

Medium: 1 year, 7 months and

11 days to 2 years, 10 months
and 20 days
Arresto Mayor
Maximum: 2 years, 10 months
Maximum To Prision
and 21 days to 4 years and 2
Correctional Medium
months

One degree lower is destierro

maximum or arresto mayor
minimum and medium.

Two degrees lower is destierro

minimum and medium or
arresto menor maximum.
Minimum: 4 months and 1 day •
to 1 year
Medium: 1 year and 1 day to 1 •
year, 8 months
Maximum: 1 year, 8 months •
and 1 day to 2 years and 4
Arresto Mayor months
Maximum To Prison
Correctional Minimum One degree lower is arresto
mayor minimum & medium.
Two degrees lower is destierro
medium and maximum.
Search warrants maliciously obtained
and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained
Offending the religious feelings
• Delivering persons from jail (if with
violence, intimidation, or bribery)
Person who use falsified dispatch to the
prejudice of a third party or with intent to
cause such prejudice
• False medical certificates, false
certificates of merit or service (if
physician, surgeon, or public officer)
• Person who with intention of using them
shall have in his possession any of the
instruments or implements intended to be
used in the commission of the offenses of
counterfeiting or falsification
• False testimony favorable to the
defendant (if for a felony punishable by an
afflictive penalty)

32 If committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage, or for the purpose of compelling another to perform
any religious act or to prevent him from exercising such right or from doing such act - penalty next higher in
degree
33 When the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower
in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
34 Destierro
Page 81 of 130
ATENEQ CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Minimum: 2 months and 1 day •
to 4 months
Medium: 4 months and 1 day to
6 months
Maximum: 6 months and 1 day
to 2 years and 4 months
Arresto Mayor
Medium To Prision
Correctional Minimum
Minimum: 2 months and 1 day
to 3 months and 10 days
Arresto Mayor
Medium: 3 months and 11 days
Medium And
to 4 months and 20 days
Maximum
Maximum: 4 months and 21
days to 6 months
35 Same condition for arbitrary detention
36 Same condition for arbitrary detention
37 Higher by two degrees
Page 82 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
• False testimony in civil cases (if the
amount in controversy shall not exceed
Php5,000)
• False testimony in other cases and
perjury in solemn affirmation
• Importation and sale of lottery tickets or
advertisements
• Evasion through negligence
• Serious physical injuries (if injured person
have illness or incapacity for labor for
more than 30 days)
• Services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt.
• Possession of picklocks or similar tools.
• Swindling (if such amount is over 200
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos)
• Slander
• Slander by deed
Arbitrary detention (if detention has not
exceeded three days)
• Delay in the delivery of detained persons
to the proper judicial authorities35
• Delaying release36
• Tumults and other disturbances of public
officer
• Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer
• Open disobedience
• Refusal of assistance
• Usurpation of executive functions
• Usurpation of judicial functions
• Theft (if the value of the property stolen is
over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200
pesos)
• Qualified Theft37
• Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings.
• Searching domicile without witnesses
• Giving assistance to suicide (if not
suicide not consummated)
• Other mischiefs (if the value of the
damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos)
• Simple imprudence (if act would
constitute a grave felony)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

One degree lower is either

destierro maximum or
arresto mayor minimum.

Two degrees lower is destierro

minimum and medium.
Minimum: 1 month and 1 day to
2 months
Medium: 2 months and 1 day to
3 months
Arresto Mayor Maximum: 3 months and 1 day
Minimum And Medium to 4 months
One degree lower is desierro
medium & maximum.
• Theft (if the value does not exceed 5
pesos).
• Qualified Theft38
• Other forms of swindling
• Other mischiefs (if such value is over 200
pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos)
• Reckless imprudence (if the act would
constitute a less grave felony)
•

Two degrees lower is arresto

menor maximum or destierro
minimum.
Minimum: 4 months and 1 day
to 4 months and 20 days • Swindling (if such amount does not
exceed 200 and fraud committed in the
Medium: 4 months and 21 days means provided)
to 5 months and 10 days
Arresto Mayor Maximum: 5 months and 11
Maximum
days to 6 months

One degree lower is arresto

mayor medium

Two degrees lower is arresto

mayor minimum
Minimum: 2 months and 1 day
to 2 months and 20 days

Medium: 2 months and 21 days

to 3 months and 10 days
Arresto Mayor Maximum: 3 months and 11
Medium days to 4 months

One degree lower is arresto

mayor minimum

Two degrees lower is arresto

mayor minimum
Arresto Mayor Minimum: 1 month and 1 day to • Unjust interlocutory order
Minimum 1 month and 10 days • Light coercion

38 Higher by two degrees

Page 83 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Simple imprudence (if act would

Medium: 1 month and 11 days constitute a less grave felony)
to 1 month and 20 days •

Maximum: 1 month and 21

days to 2 months
Minimum: 1 month and 1 day to • Flight to enemy’s country
2 months • Disturbance of proceedings
• Illegal assemblies (if persons merely
Medium: 2 months and 1 day to present, unarmed)
4 months • Illegal associations (if members)
• Disobedience to summons issued by the
Maximum: 4 months and 1 day National Assembly, its committees or
to 6 months subcommittees or divisions
• Resistance and disobedience to a person
in authority or the agents of such person
• Tumults and other disturbances of public
officer (if person in any meeting,
association, or public place shall make
an outcry tending to incite rebellion or
sedition or in such place display placards
or emblems which provoke a disturbance
of the public order
• Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances
• Delivering persons from jaii (if without
violence, intimidation, or bribery)
• False medical certificates, false
certificates of merit or service (if private
Arresto Mayor person)
• Using fictitious name
• Illegal use of uniforms or insignia
• False testimony against a defendant (if
defendant have been sentenced to a
correctional penalty, or a fine, or shall
have been acquitted)
• False testimony favorable to the
defendant (if for a felony punishable not
by an afflictive penalty)
• Illegal betting on horse races (if employs
a totalizer or other device or scheme for
betting)
• Grave scandal.
• Judgment rendered through negligence
• Failure of a responsible public officer to
render accounts before leaving the
country
• Failure to make delivery of public funds
or property.
• Opening of closed documents
• Public officer reveaiing secrets of private
individual
• Refusal to discharge elective offices
Page 84 o f 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Abandonment of office or position

• Disobeying request for disqualification
• Order or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority
• Unlawful appointments
• Responsibility of participants in a duel
• Less serious physical injuries
• Unlawful arrest (plus payment of fine)
• Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim.
• Abandoning a minor.
• Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody; indifference of
parents.
• Neglect of children by not giving them
education which their financial conditions
permit.
• Inducing a minor to abandon his home (if
the father or mother committed the crime)
• Qualified trespass to dwelling
• Grave threats39 (if not have been made
subject to a condition)
• Other similar coercions - Compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment
of wages by means of tokens
• Formation, maintenance, and prohibition
of combination of capital or labor through
violence or threats
• Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence (if offender shall not
reveal such secrets)
• Theft (if such value is over 5 pesos but
does not exceed 50 pesos.)
• Qualified Theft40
• Swindling a minor
• Other deceits
• Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
property.
• Malicious mischief (if such value does not
exceed the abovementioned amount
• but it is over 200 pesos)
• Simple seduction
• Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of
the offended party
• Premature marriages.
• Threatening to publish and offer to
present such publication for a
compensation._____________________

39 if offender made a threat, penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to
commit
40 Higher by two degrees
Page 85 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Prohibited publication of acts referred to

Minimum: 1 day to 10 days
Medium: 11 days to 20 days
Maximum: 21 days to 30 days
Arresto Menor
Temporary Minimum: 10 years and 1 day
Disqualification to 11 years disqualification
Maximum Period To
Perpetual Medium: 11 years and 1 day to
Disqualification 12 years disqualification
in the course of official proceedings
• Resistance and disobedience to a person
in authority or the agents of such person
(if not of a serious nature)
• Person who bury with pomp the body of a
person who has been legally executed in
relation to last clause of Article 85
• Alarms and scandals
• Using false certificates
• Concealing true name
• Gambling
• Possession of lottery tickets or
advertisements
• Illegal betting on horse races
• Illegal cockfighting
• Slight physical injuries and maltreatment
• Other forms of trespass
• Other light threats
• Other coercion or unjust vexation
• Theft (if committed under the
circumstances enumerated in paragraph
3 of the next preceding article and the
value of the thing stolen does not exceed
5 pesos)
• Theft (when the value of the thing stolen
is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall
have acted under the impulse of hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of earning a
livelihood for the support of himself or his
family.41
• Altering boundaries or landmarks.
• Malicious mischief (if such value does not
exceed 200 pesos)
• Other mischiefs (if the amount involved
does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot
• be estimated)
• Slander (if not of serious nature)
• Slander by deed (if not of serious nature)
• Incriminating innocent person.
• Intriguing against honor.
• Reckless imprudence (if the act would
constitute a light felony)42

41 Arresto menor in its minimum period

42 Arresto menor in its maximum period
Page 86 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Maximum: Perpetual
disqualification
Minimum: 10 years and 1 day
to 10 years and 8 months
Temporary
Medium: 10 years, 8 months
Disqualification
and 1 day to 11 years and 4
Maximum Period
months
Maximum: 11 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 12 years
Minimum: 6 years and 1 day to
6 years and 8 months
Temporary
Medium: 6 years, 8 months and
Disqualification
1 day to 7 years and 4 months
Minimum Period
Maximum: 7 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 8 years
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day
to 8 years
Temporary
Medium: 6 years, 8 months and
Disqualification
1 day to 7 years and 4 months.

Maximum: 7 years, 4 months

and 1 day to 8 years
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day
to 8 years

Medium: 1 year, 8 months and

Suspension Minimum
21 days to 2 years, 11 months
And Medium
and 10 days

Maximum: 2 years, 11 months

and 11 days to 4 years and 2
months
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day • Unjust interlocutory order.
to 1 year, 8 months and 20 • Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
days tolerance.
• Anticipation of duties of a public office
Medium: 1 year, 8 years and 21
Suspension days to 2 years, 11 months and
10 days

Maximum: 2 years, 11 months

and 11 days to 4 years and 2
months

Page 87 of 130
 ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
l III. SPECIAL LAWS
A. ANTI-ARSON LAW (PD 16131: (RA 7659)
Q: How is Simple Arson committed?
A: Simple arson is committed when fire is
inflicted:
1) to the property of another; OR
2) to his own property under circumstances
which expose to danger the life or property of
another (Sec. 1).
Q: How is Destructive Arson committed?
A: Destructive Arson is committed if the property
burned is any of the following [PUTEMI]:
1) Any building, devoted to the Public in general,
regardless of whether the offender had
knowledge that there are persons in said
building and whether the building is actually
inhabited or not;
2) Any building, and any appurtenances thereto,
for public Utility service;
3) Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
airship or airplane, devoted to Transportation
or conveyance, or for public use,
entertainment or leisure;
4) Any building the burning of which is for
concealing or destroying Evidence of another
violation of law, or for concealing bankruptcy
or defrauding creditors or to collect from
insurance (RA 7659, Sec. 10)]
5) Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or Military
powder or fireworks factory, ordinance
storehouse, archives or general museum of
the government;
6) Any inhabited place, any storehouse or
factory of Inflammable or explosive materials
(Sec. 1, PD 1744).
Q: What are other cases of arsons?
A: Other cases of arsons are the burning of: [G-
PRIME]
1) Any government building;
2) Any plantation, farm, grain field, forest, etc;
3) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse;
4) Any inhabited house or dwelling;
5) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central;
6) Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil
well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel (Sec. 3).
Page 88 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
l Q: What are the Prima Facie evidence of
Arson?
A: [VP-SWIFT]
1) If a demand for Valuable consideration was
made before the fire in exchange for the
desistance of the offender or for the safety of
the person or property of the victim.
2) If during the lifetime of the fire insurance
Poiicy more than two fires have occurred in
the premises owned or under the control of
the offender and/or insured.
3) Fire started Simultaneously in more than one
part of the building.
4) if shortly before the fire, a substantial portion
of the effects insured and stored in a building
or property had been Withdrawn from the
premises except in the ordinary course of
business.
5) If the building or property is Insured for
substantially more than its actual value at the
time of the issuance of the policy.
6) If substantia! amount of Flammable materials
is stored within the building not necessary in
the business of the offender nor for
household use.
7) If any contrivance designed to start a fire, or
ashes or Traces of any of the foregoing are
found in the ruins or premises of the burned
building or property (Sec. 5, PD 1613).
B. ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009
IRA 97751
Q: Who is a Child?
A: A child is:
1) a person below eighteen (18) years of age
OR over, but is unable to fully take care of
himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition;
2) a person regardless of age who is
presented, depicted or portrayed as a child
as defined herein; and
3) a computer-generated, digitally or manually
crafted images or graphics of a person who is
represented or who is made to appear to be
a child as defined herein (Sec. 3 (a)).
Q: What is Child Pornography?
A: It refers to any representation, by whatever
means, of a child engaged in real or simulated
explicit sexual activities (Sec 3 (hi).
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: What is explicit sexual activity?
A: Explicit sexual activity includes actual or
simulated:
1) Sexual intercourse or lascivious act including,
but not limited to, contact involving genital to
genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or oral
to anal, whether between persons of the
same or opposite sex;
2) Bestiality;
3) Masturbation;
4) Sadistic or masochistic abuse;
5) Lascivious exhibition of the genitals,
buttocks, breast, pubic area and/or anus;
6) Use of any object or instrument for lascivious
acts (Sec. 3(c)).
Q: What are the punishable acts?
A: [VP4-FLEx-C2PA]
1) To provide a Venue for the commission of
prohibited acts such as, but not limited to,
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas,
houses or in establishments purporting to be
a legitimate business;
2) To hire, Persuade, induce or coerce a child to
perform in the creation or production of any
form of child pornography;
3) To Produce or create any form of child
pornography;
4) To Possess any form of child pornography;
3) To Possess any form of child pornography
with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast: Provided, that possession of three
(3) or more articles of child pornography of
the same form shall be prima facie evidence
of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or
broadcast;
6) For Film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies to distribute
any form of child pornography;
7) To engage in the Luring or grooming of a
child;
3) To publish, sell, distribute, broadcast, Export
or import any form of child pornography;
9) For a parent, legal guardian or person having
Custody or control of a child to knowingly
permit the child to engage in any form of child
pornography;
10) To Conspire to commit any of the prohibited
acts stated in this section;
11) To engage in Pandering of any form of child
pornography;
12) To willfully Access any form of child
pornography (Sec. 4).
Page 89 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: How is syndicated child pornography
committed?
A: Syndicated child pornography is committed
when carried out by a group of 3 or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another
(Sec. 5).
C. ANTI-FENCING LAW (PD 1612): AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS
Q: What is Fencing?
A: It is an act of any person who, with intent to
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or dispose
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner
deal in any article, item, object or anything of
value which he knows, or should be known to him,
to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft (Sec. 2(a)).
Q: What are the Elements of Fencing?
A: The elements are: [KRIB]
1) The accused Knows or should know that the
article has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime;
2) Robbery or theft has been committed;
3) The accused has intent to gain for himself or
for another; and
4) The accused, who is neither a principal or
accomplice in the theft or robbery, Buys,
receives or possesses, conceals, acquires,
keeps, sells or disposes or in any manner
deals with the proceeds of the crime (Ong v.
People, G.R. 190475, 2013).
Q: What is the presumption on fencing?
A: Mere possession of any good, article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing (Sec. 5).
D. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT (RA 30191
Q: Who are Persons Liable and what are the
punishable acts under the law? [PAFICS]
A:
1) Public officer who shall perform any of the
following acts: (Sec. 3)
a. Persuading, or influencing another
public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
authority or an offense in connection with the
official duties of the latter, or allowing himself
to be persuaded or influenced to commit
such violation or offense.
b. Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, percentage, or benefit
for himself or for any other person in
connection with any contract or
transaction between the government and
any other party wherein the public officer in
his official capacity has to intervene under
the law.
c. Directly, or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, or other pecuniary or
material benefit, for himself or for another,
from any person for whom the public
officer, has secured or obtained, or will
secure or obtain, any Government permit
or license, in consideration for the help
given or to be given.
d. Accepting or having any member of his
family accept employment In a private
enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency
thereof or within one year after its
termination.
e. Causing any undue injury to any
party, including the Government, or giving
any private party any unwarranted benefits,
or preference in the discharge of his official
function through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
f. Neglecting or refusing, after due
demand or request, without sufficient
justification, to act within a reasonable time
on any matter pending before him for the
purpose of obtaining directly or indirectly,
from any person interested in the matter
some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his
own interest or giving undue advantage in
favor of or discriminating against any other
interested party.
g. Entering, on behalf of the
Government, into any contract or
transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or
Page 90 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
h. Directly or indirectly having financial or
pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction in connection with
which he intervenes or take part in his
official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the constitution or by any
law from having any interest.
i. Directly or indirectly becoming
interested, for persona! gain, or having a
material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel,
or group of which he is a member, and
which exercises discretion in such
approval, even if he votes against the same
or does not participate in the action of the
board, committee, panel or group.
j. Knowingly approving or granting any
license, permit, privilege, or benefit in
favor of any person not qualified for or not
legally entitled to such license, permit,
privilege, or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled.
k. Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his
office or by him on account of his official
position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of
its authorized release date.
2) Spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or
Affinity, within the 3rd civil degree, of the
President of the Philippines, the Vice-
President, the President of the Senate, or
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
who shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in
any business transaction, contract or
application with the government (Sec. 5).
3) Any person having Family or close personal
relation with any public official who shall take
advantage of such personal relation by
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any present, gift, or material, or pecuniary
advantage from any person having some
business, request, or contract with the
government in which such public official has
to intervene (Ibid.).
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
4) Any person who shall knowingly ]nduce or
cause any public official to commit any of the
offenses under Sec. 3 of RA 3019 (Sec. 4(b)).
5) Any member of Congress, during the term for
which he has been elected, who shall any
personal pecuniary interest in any specific
business enterprise which shall be directly
benefited by any law or resolution authored
or recommended by him previously or
adopted by Congress during his term; (Sec.
6) AND
6) Any public officer who shall fail to file a true,
detailed and sworn statement of assets and
liabilities (SALN) within 30 days after
assuming office and thereafter on or before
the 15th day of April following the close of
every calendar year, as well as upon the
expiration of his term of office, or upon his
resignation or separation from office (Sec. 7).
Q: X, as mayor, heard rumors that all the port
handlers in Port A such as Y were engaged in
illegal smuggling and drug trading. Because
of this, he refused to renew the business
license of Y thus halting her operations for a
year and causing the loss of her perishables.
But, Y’s other businesses were given permits
and she had complied with all the requisites
to renew her business license. Eventually, X
renewed the license but Y filed a case against
him for the violation of Sec 3(e) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices. Will the case
prosper?
A: Yes, the requisites of 3(e) of RA 3019 are (a)
that the accused must be a Public Officer
discharging administrative, judicial, or official
functions (or a private individual acting in
conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action
caused any undue injury to any party, including
the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference
in the discharge of his functions. For the 1st
element, X is a Mayor so he is a Public Officer.
For the 2nd element, X had both manifest
partiality and bad faith. There is "manifest
partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or
person rather than another. Meanwhile, there is
"evident bad faith" if there is bad judgment, and
palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
Page 91 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
Manifest partiality is shown by the fact that only
Y’s license was not renewed despite the rumors
saying all the ship handlers of Port A were
engaged in illegal activities, and that Y’s other
businesses were given permits. There was also
bad faith since Y had already done the
requirements to renew her license. X denied her
the permit based on rumors without giving Y the
chance to rebut them, thus denying her due
process. For the 3rd element, the act of X caused
the loss of Y’s perishables and her opportunity to
do business. (Fuentes v. People, G.R. No.
186421, April 17, 2017)
E. ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018 (RA 8049. AS
AMENDED BY RA 110531
Q: What is Hazing?
A: Hazing is:
1) Any act that results in physical or
psychological suffering, harm, or injury;
2) Inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or
member as part of an initiation rite or
practice made as a prerequisite for
admission or a requirement for continuing
membership in a fraternity, sorority, or
organization;
3) Including, but not limited to, paddling,
whipping, beating, branding, forced
calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced
consumption of any food, liquor, beverage,
drug or other substance, or any other brutal
treatment or forced physical activity
which is likely to adversely affect the
physical and psychological health of such
recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member.
4) Additionally, hazing includes any activity,
intentionally made or otherwise, by one
person alone or acting with others, that
tends to humiliate or embarrass, degrade,
abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit,
neophyte, applicant, or member to do
menial, silly, or foolish tasks. (Sec. 2)
Q: What is an Organization as defined under
the law?
A: It is an organized body of people which
includes, but is not limited to, any club,
association, group, fraternity, and sorority. This
term shall include the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police
(PNP), the Philippine Military Academy (PMA),
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA),
and other similar uniformed service-learning
institutions. (Sec. 2).
Q: What forms of hazing are prohibited?
A: All forms of hazing shall be prohibited in
fraternities, sororities, and organizations in
schools, including citizens' military training and
citizens' army training, including not school-
based such as community-based and other
similar organizations. (Sec. 3)
HOWEVER, the following shall not be
considered hazing:
1) Tests, trainings, practices and procedures
employed for prospective regular
members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National
Police (PNP), as approved by the Secretary
of National Defense and the National Police
Commission duly recommended by the Chief
of Staff of AFP and the Director General of
PNP;
2) Similar procedures and practices approved
by the respective heads of other
uniformed learning institutions as to their
prospective members; and,
3) Any customary athletic events or other
similar contests and competitions, or any
activity or conduct that furthers a legal and
legitimate objective, subject to prior
submission of a medical clearance or
certificate.
No hazing shall be made a requirement for
employment in any business or corporation.
Q: What initiation rites or practices do not
constitute hazing?
A: School-based initiation rites do not constitute
hazing provided that -
1) A written application to conduct initiation
rites shall be made to the proper authorities
of the school not later than seven (7) days
prior to the conduct of initiation;
2) The written application must indicate:
a) Place and date of the initiation rites;
b) Names of the recruits, neophytes or
applicants to be initiated;
c) Manner by which they will conduct the
initiation rites; and,
d) Names of the incumbent officers of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization and
any person or persons who will take
Page 92 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
charge in the conduct of the initiation
rites;
3) The application shall be under oath with a
declaration that it has been posted in the
official school bulletin board, the bulletin
board of the office of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization, AND two (2) other conspicuous
places in the school or in the premises of the
organization.
4) The application shall be posted from the
time of submission of the written notice to the
school authorities or head of organization and
shall only be removed from its posting
three (3) days after the conduct of the
initiation rites;
5) The initiation rites shall not last more than
three (3) days; and,
6) There are at least two (2) representatives of
the school present during the initiation.
School officials shall have the authority to impose
after due notice and summary hearing,
disciplinary sanctions, in accordance with the
school's guidelines and regulations on the matter.
Ail members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization, who participated in the
unauthorized initiation rites, even if no hazing was
conducted, shall also be punished accordingly.
Q: Who are the persons liable under the law?
A: The following persons are liable as under the
law as principals -
1) All persons who actually planned OR
participated in the conduct of the hazing;
2) All incumbent and former officers,
nonresident members, or alumni of the
fraternity, sorority or organization who are
actually present during the hazing;
3) The adviser of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who is -
a) Present when the acts constituting the
hazing were committed; and
b) Failed to take action to prevent the
same; or,
c) Failed to promptly report the same to
the law enforcement authorities, if such
adviser or adviser or advisers can do so
without peril to their person or their
family.
4) Officers or members who knowingly
cooperated in carrying out the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present thereat;
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
5) Members who are present during the
hazing when they are intoxicated or under
the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs;
6) Any person who shall intimidate, threaten,
force, or employ, or administer any form of
vexation against another person for the
purpose of recruitment in joining or
promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or
organization.
The persistent and repeated proposal or
invitation made to a person who had
twice refused to participate or join the
proposed fraternity, sorority, or
organization, shall be prima facie
evidence of vexation.
7) Owner or lessee of the place where hazing
is conducted, when he has actual knowledge
of the hazing but failed to take action to
prevent the same, OR failed to promptly
report the same if they can do so without peril
to their person or their family;
8) Parents if held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity, group,
or organization, when they have actual
knowledge the hazing conducted but failed to
take any action to prevent the same OR
failed to promptly report the same if they can
do so without peril to their person or their
family.
The presence of any person, even if such
person is not a member of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization, during the hazing is prima facie
evidence of participation therein as a principal,
unless such person or persons prevented the
commission of the acts punishable, or promptly
reported the same to the law enforcement
authorities if they can do so without peril, to their
person or their family.
The following persons are liable as under the law
as accomplices -
1) School authorities, barangay, municipal or
city officials who consented to the hazing or
who have actual knowledge, but failed to take
any action to prevent the same, OR failed to
promptly report the same if they can do so
without peril to their person or their family;
Page 93 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
F. PROHIBITING CERTAIN ACTS INIMICAL TO
CIVIL AVIATION. ALSO KNOWN AS THE ANTI-
HIJACKING LAW fRA 62351
Q: What are the prohibited acts under the
law? [CLE]
A:
1) Compelling a change in the course or
destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry,
or seizing or usurping the control thereof
while it is in flight;
2) Compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to
land in the Philippine territory or to seize or
usurp the control thereof while it is in the said
territory; and,
3) Shipping, loading, or carrying in any
passenger aircraft operating as a public
utility within the Philippines, any explosive,
flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance
or material (Secs. 1 and 3).
Q: When is an aircraft considered in flight?
A: An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its
external doors are closed following embarkation
until any of such doors is opened for
disembarkation (Sec. 1).
G. ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT
OF 2009 fRA 99951
Under this Act, the following terms shall be
defined as follows:
1) Broadcast - to make public, by any means,
a visual image with the intent that it be viewed
by a person or persons;
2) Capture - with respect to an image, means
to videotape, photograph, film, record by any
means, or broadcast;
3) Private area of a person - the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, pubic area,
buttocks or female breast of an individual
(Sec. 3).
Q: What are the prohibited acts under this
law?
A:
1) To take photo or video coverage of a
person or group of persons performing
sexual act or any similar activity or to
capture an image of the private area of a
person/s such as the naked or undergarment
clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female
breast without the consent of the person/s
involved and under circumstances in which
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
2) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be
copied or reproduced, such photo or video
or recording of sexual act or any similar
activity with or without consideration;
3) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
distributed, such photo or video or recording
of sexual act, whether it be the original, copy
or reproduction thereof; or
4) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be
published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo
or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through
VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
similar means or device.
• The prohibition under nos. (2) to (4)
shall apply notwithstanding that
consent to record or take photo or video
coverage of the same was given by such
person/s (Sec. 4).
Q: When does a person have a reasonable
expectation of privacy?
A: A person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy under circumstances in which a
reasonable person would believe that he/she
could disrobe in privacy, without being
concerned that an image or a private area of the
person was being captured; or circumstances in
which a reasonable person would believe that a
private area of the person would not be visible
to the public, regardless of whether that
person is in a public or private place (Sec. 3).
H. ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (RA 7080, AS
AMENDED BY RA 76591
Q: What is Ill-Gotten Wealth?
A: It covers any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of any person
acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates,
and/or business associates by any combination
or series of the following means or similar
schemes: [FU-DAMP] (Sec. 1(d))
1) By obtaining, receiving or accepting, directly
or indirectly, any form of interest or
participation, including the promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
Page 94 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
2) By taking undue advantage of official
position, authority, relationship, connection or
influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people
and the Republic of the Philippines;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of government assets;
4) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other
combinations, and/or implementation of
decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests;
5) Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse or malversation of public funds; and,
6) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or
entity in connection with any government
contract or project or by reason of the office.
Q: What is “combination”?
A: It refers to at least two (2) acts falling under
different categories of enumeration (Sec. 1(d)).
Q: What is “series”?
A: It refers to two (2) or more overt or criminal acts
falling under the same category of enumeration
found in sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation,
malversation and raids on the public treasury, all
of which fails under sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1).
“Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or
distinctive meaning for “combination” and
“series”, it would have taken greater pains in
specially providing for it in the law” (Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 2001).
Any person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of plunder is also liable
under this law.
Q: What are the elements of Plunder?
A: [PAC-50]
1) Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates and subordinates or
other persons;
2) Amasses, accumulates, or acquires ill-
gotten wealth;
3) through a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts as described under above; and
4) in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least 5<f MILLION PESOS, shall be guilty of
the crime of plunder (as amended by RA
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
7659) (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148560, 2001).
Q: What is the Rule of Evidence?
A: For purposes of establishing the crime of
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each
and every criminal act done, it being sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of
overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall
unlawful scheme or conspiracy (Sec. 4).
I. ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
(RA 7877)
Q: Who are the persons liable?
A: They are the employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other
person who, having [AIM] authority, influence
or moral ascendancy over another in a work or
training or education environment (Sec. 3).
Q: What are the punishable acts under the
law?
A: [WE]
1) Work-Related or Employment Environment:
a) Sexual favor is made as a condition:
i. For hiring or employment;
ii. Re-employment or continued
employment;
iii. Granting promotions,
favorable compensation, or
privileges; or,
iv. Refusal to grant the sexual
favor results in classifying the
employee which would
discriminate or deprive
employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect said
employee
b) Acts would impair the employee’s rights
or privileges under existing labor laws;
and,
c) Acts would result in an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive environment for the
employee
2) Education or Training Environment:
a) Against one who is under the care,
custody or supervision of the offender;
b) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted
to the offender;
c) Sexual favor is made a condition:
i. giving of a passing grade or
Page 95 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
ii. granting of honors and
scholarships or
iii. payment of a stipend,
allowance or other benefits,
privileges, or consideration
d) The sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or
apprentice (Sec. 3).
Q: What is the liability of the Employer, Head
of Office, Educational or Training Institution?
A: He shall be solidarily liable for damages if
informed of such acts by the offended party and
no immediate action is taken (Sec. 5).
J. ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009 fRA 97451
Q: What are the elements of Torture?
A: [SIP2-PIDI]
1) Any act by which severe physical or mental
pain or suffering;
2) Is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with
the consent or acquiescence of a person in
authority or his agent;
3) Intentionally inflicted on a person;
4) For the purpose of:
a) Punishment for an act he or a third
person has committed, or is suspected of
having committed;
b) Intimidation or coercion;
c) Any reason based on discrimination of
any kind; and
d) Obtaining information or a confession
(Sec. 3(a)).'
Q: What acts are considered as other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment?
A: Acts which are deliberate and aggravated
treatment or punishment not enumerated under
Section 4 of RA 9745 inflicted by a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority against
a person under his/her custody, which attains a
level of severity causing suffering, gross
humiliation or debasement to the latter. (Sec. 3
[b])
Q: What are acts of Torture?
A: [PMO]
1) Physical Torture - Form of Treatment or
Punishment Inflicted by a Person in Authority
Upon Another in His Custody that causes
ateneo central
bar OPERATIONS 2019
severe Pain, Exhaustion, Disability or
Dysfunction in one or more Parts of the Body.
2) Mental/Psychological Torture - Acts
Committed by a Person in Authority or His
Agent which are Calculated to Affect or
Confuse the Mind and/or Undermine a
Person’s Dignity and Morale.
3) Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (Sec. 4).
Q: Can the crime of Torture absorb or be
absorbed by any other crime or felony?
A: No. Torture is a separate and independent
crime whose penalties shall be imposable without
prejudice to any other criminal liability provided
for by domestic and international laws (Sec. 15).
K. ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF
2003 fRA 9208. AS AMENDED BY RA 103641
Q: What are the punishable acts?
A: To recruit, obtain, offer, maintain, or transfer:
[PORSE-A2T2 FMO]
1) A person, by any means, for Prostitution,
pornography or sexual exploitation;
2) A person, by means of threat, force, fraud,
deceit, violence, coercion or intimidation for
the removal or sale of his Organs;
3) A child, to engage him in aRmed activities in
the Philippines or abroad;
4) A person, for forced labor, slavery, debt
bondage, and involuntary servitude;
5) A child, for Exploitation or trading them;
6) To adopt persons by any form of
consideration or to facilitate the same;
7) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons;
8) For the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering,
selling or Trading to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
tabor,' slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
S) To undertake or organize Tours and travel
plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution, pornography
or sexual exploitation;
10) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
other consideration, any person or any
Filipino woman to a Foreign national, for
marriage; and
11) To offer or contract Marriage, real or
simulated;
Page 96 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
12) To Organize or direct other persons to
commit the offenses defined as acts of
trafficking under this Act (Sec. 4).
Q: Should trafficked persons be penalized
under the law?
A: No. Trafficked persons shall not be penalized
for unlawful acts committed as a direct result or
incident, or in relation to being trafficked
enumerated in this act. In this regard, the
consent of a trafficked person to the intended
exploitation set forth in this Act shall be
irrelevant (Sec. 17).
Q: Is there any relevance to past sexual
behavior?
A: No. The past sexual behavior or the sexual
predisposition of a trafficked person shall be
considered inadmissible in evidence for the
purpose of proving consent of the victim to
engage in sexual behavior, or to prove the
predisposition, sexual or otherwise, of a trafficked
person.
The consent of a victim of trafficking to the
intended exploitation shall be irrelevant where
any of the means of trafficking has been used
(Sec. 17-B).
Q: When shall trafficking in persons be
qualified?
A: When it is committed by the following:
[CAS2M2APE]
1) The victim is a Child;
2) An Adoption is made under the Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995 (RA8043) for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude, or debt bondage;
3) It is committed by a Syndicate (committed by
3 or more people in conspiracy) or in large
scale (committed against 3 or more persons);
4) The offender is a Spouse, ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian, or person with authority
over the victim, or is a public officer or
employee;
5) Victim is recruited to engage in prostitution
with a member of the Military or law
enforcement agency;
6) Offender is a member of the Military or law
enforcement agency;
7) Because of the trafficking, victim dies,
becomes insane, mutilated, or afflicted with
HIV or AIDS;
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
8) Offender commits one or more acts punished
by this law for a Period of over 60 or more
days;
9) Offender directs or thru another manages the
victim in carrying out the Exploitive purpose
of trafficking. (Sec. 6)
Q: X and Y are the parents of minor children
A, B, and C. X and Y were charged with 4
counts of qualified trafficking in persons. The
information alleged that the parents would
make their 14, 10, and 9 year old children
perform sexual activities on camera for online
clients, and that once, Y brought A to an
American client in Makati for prostitution. X
and Y were convicted on 3 and counts of
qualified trafficking, respectively. Is the
conviction correct?
A: Yes. The act of trafficking in persons is
committed when one “recruits, transports,
transfers, harbors, provides or receives a person
by any means [...] for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation
[...],” and when one maintains or hires a person
to engage in prostitution or pornography. The
crime of trafficking in persons becomes qualified
under the circumstances where the trafficked
person is a child, and when the offender is an
ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or other
person exercising authority over the trafficked
person.
Here, qualified trafficking in persons was
established since prosecution showed beyond
reasonable doubt that X and Y were the parents
of A, B, and C, who are all their minor children;
that they made their children perform cybersex
acts for foreign clients, thereby engaging them in
prostitution and pornography; they received
money in exchange for the sexual exploitation of
their children; and they achieved their criminal
design by taking advantage of their children’s
vulnerability by deceiving them that the money
the children make from they lewd shows is
needed for the family’s daily sustenance. (People
v. XXX, G.R. No. 235652, Jul. 9, 2018)
Q: Members of the Regional Anti-Human
Trafficking Task Force (RAHTTF) conducted
surveillance on establishment X since its
customers would come in and pay for sexual
intercourse with X’s Guest Relations Officers
(GROs). They conduct an entrapment
operation which results in multiple arrests
and the rescue of women and minors. Later
Page 97 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
on, 6 of these women execute affidavits
identifying A andB as the owner of X.
Thereafter, A and B were charged with
violating the Anti-Trafficking in Persons law.
The RTC, however, dismissed the case
against A and B for lack of probable cause.
They said the affidavits of the women together
with those of the RAHTTF members failed to
show that A and B knew of the illegal
operations of X, and that the Deed of
Assignment by A and B showed that X was no
longer owned by them. Was the RTC correct
in dismissing the case?
A: No, a judge may only dismiss a case for lack
of probable cause if records readily show
uncontroverted and established facts which
unmistakably negate the existence of the
elements of the crime charged. Here, the
prosecution was able to establish a prima facie
case for the violation of the Anti-Trafficking in
Persons law (RA 9208). Also, the defense of A
and B that they are no longer the owner of X is
evidentiary in nature, so it is best threshed out in
a full-blown trial. Thus, the proper course of action
on the part of the RTC was not to dismiss the
case but to proceed to trial. (Young v. People,
G.R. No. 213910, February 03, 2016)
L. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 fRA 92621
Q: What is the Battered Woman Syndrome?
A: It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychologically and behavioral symptoms found
in women living in battering relationships as a
result of cumulative abuse. Victim-survivors
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the RPC (Secs. 3 & 26).
Cycle of Violence
1) Tension building phase;
2) Acute battering incident; AND
3) Tranquil, loving phase (non-violent phase)
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 1395981, 2004).
NOTE: In the determination of the state of mind
of the woman who was suffering from battered
woman syndrome at the time of the commission
of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists and psychologists. (Sec. 26)
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: What are the different types of violence that
can be committed against women and
children?
A: [PEPS]
1) Physical Violence- Refers to acts that include
bodily or physical harm
2) Sexual Violence - Refers to an act which is
sexual in nature, committed against a woman
or her child
3) Psychological Violence- Refers to acts or
omissions causing or likely to cause mental
or emotional suffering of the victim such as
but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule
or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and
mental infidelity. It includes causing or
allowing the victim to witness the physical,
sexual or psychological abuse of a member
of the family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to
witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful
or unwanted deprivation of the right to
custody and/or visitation of common children.
4) Economic Abuse - Refers to acts that make
or attempt to make a woman financially
dependent (Sec. 3(a)).
Q: What are the acts of violence against
women and their children?
A: [CTA-ICO-SRA]
1) Causing physical harm to the woman or child;
2) Threatening to cause physical harm to
woman or child
3) Attempting to cause physical harm to woman
or child ;
4) Placing woman or child in fear of Imminent
physical harm;
5) Attempting to Compel woman or child from
engaging in conduct they have a right to
desist from, or restrict them from conduct
they have a right to engage in;
6) inflicting or threatening to inflici physical harm
to Oneself to control their actions or
decisions;
7) Causing or Attempting to cause them to
engage in Sexual activity, not rape, thru
force, physical harm, or intimidation;
8) Engaging in purposely Reckless conduct that
cause them substantial emotional or
psychological distress;
9) Causing them mental or emotional Anguish,
public ridicule, or humiliation. (Sec. 5)
Page 98 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: Against whom are the said violent acts
committed?
A: Said violent acts are committed against:
1) A woman:
a) who is his wife,
b) who is his former wife, or
c) with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship, or
d) with whom he has a common child.
2) The woman’s child:
a. whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode (Sec. 3(a)).
Q: What are the different protection orders
granted under the law?
A: The different protection orders are:
1) Barangay Protection Order (BPO) - Issued
by punong barangay, after ex parte
determination of the basis of the application,
which orders perpetrator to desist from
committing acts under Section 5 (1) and (2)
of this Act.
Effective for fifteen (15) days.
2) Temporary Protection Order (TPO) -
Issued by the court on the date of filing of the
application after ex parte determination that
such order should be issued.
Effective for at least a period of thirty (30)
days and may be extended by order of the
court. The court shall schedule a hearing on
the issuance of a PPO prior to or on the date
of the expiration of the TPO.
3) Permanent Protection Order (PPO) -
Issued by the court after notice and hearing.
Effective until revoked by a court upon
application of the person in whose favor the
order was issued (Sec. 14-16).
Q: KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit,
alleging that her husband raped her at their
residence and then boxed her shoulder days
after the rape incident for refusing to have sex
with him. There were also several incidents
when he would force KKK into having sex with
him by destroying her clothes and underwear,
sometimes even in front of their children. The
accused however posits that consent to
copulation is presumed between cohabiting
husband and wife unless the contrary is
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

proved and that the standards for determining them any mental or emotional anguish.
the presence of consent or lack thereof must Conviction under Sec. 5(e) is proper since the
be adjusted on the ground that sexual deprivation or denial of support by itself, without
community is a mutual right and obligation the element of psychological violence, is already
between husband and wife. Can rape exist specifically penalized therein. (Melgar v. People,
within a marriage? G.R. No. 223477, Feb. 14, 2018)
A: Yes. R.A. No 8353 is one of the measures that
eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape M. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BP 22) PLUS
cannot exist because a husband has absolute ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 RE:
proprietary rights over his wife’s body and thus PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF BP 22 AND
her consent to every act of sexual intimacy with ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 RE:
him is always obligatory or at least, presumed. CLARIFICATION OF ADMIN. CIR. NO. 12-2000:
Rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within AND PD 1689 fINCREASING THE PENALTY
marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF SWINDLING OR
ESTAFA1
her consent or against her will commits sexual
violence upon her. He cannot be permitted to
Q: What are the elements of Sec. 1, par. 1 (Act
violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a
1)?
sexual act without her full and free consent.
A: [MKIW5]
CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration,
1) Any person Makes or draws and issues a
defines and penalizes the act as rape under R.A.
check to apply on account or for value
No. 8353. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495,
2) At which time, he had Knowledge that he
2014)
does not have sufficient funds in the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full
Q: X and Y have a common child together but
upon its presentment
are not married. X cheated on Y, so they broke
3) The (a) drawee bank dishonors the check
up. X was charged and convicted of a
for Insufficiency of funds, lack of funds, or
violation of the VAWC law on economic
account closed; or (b) would have been
abuse, Sec.5(e) of RA 9262, since he was not
dishonored for the same reason had not the
complying with the order of the court to give
drawer, without any valid reason, ordered
support to his illegitimate son with Y. X says
the bank to stop payment.
that since the information alleged that the acts
4) The payee or holder of the dishonored
complained of caused mental or emotional
check gives a Written notice of dishonor and
anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to Y
demand for payment
and the son, the conviction is improper since
5) After receipt of the written notice and
those are elements to be alleged in relation to
demand, refuses or fails to pay the value of
Sec. 5(i) instead. Is the conviction correct?
the check within 5 banking days.
A: Yes, the conviction under Sec. 5(e) of the
VAWC Law is proper. Economic abuse may
Q: What are the elements of Sec. 1, Par. 2 (Act
include the deprivation of support of a common
child of the man-accused and woman-victim,
2)?
A: [M-S-F-D-W5]
whether the common child is legitimate or not.
1) Any person Makes or draws and issues a
The deprivation of financial support is considered
check
the act of violence against women and children.
2) He had Sufficient funds in or credit with the
The act of denying support to a child is a
drawee bank
continuing offense.
3) He Failed to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of
Under Sec. 5(i), a form of psychological violence,
the check if presented within 90 days from
punishes the act of causing mental or emotional
the date appearing thereon
anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the
4) The drawee bank Dishonors the check for
woman and her child including emotional and
such reason
verbal abuse as well as the denial of financial
5) The payee or holder of the dishonored
support. The prosecution showed that X deprived
check gives a Written notice of dishonor and
Y and the child of support, no evidence was
demand for payment
adduced to show the deprivation caused either of
Page 99 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
6) After receipt of the written notice and
demand, refuses or fails to pay the value of
the check within 5 banking days.
Q: What is the evidence of knowledge of
“Insufficient Funds”?
A: The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such
bank, when presented within 90 days from the
date of check, shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder the amount due, or makes arrangement,
within 5 banking days after receiving the notice of
dishonor. (Sec. 2)
Q: What is the Rule on Notice of Dishonor?
A: It states that the drawer should give him the
opportunity to make good the value of the check
within 5 banking days by sending a notice of
dishonor.
Q: X issued to Y a check in the amount of
P50,000 to apply on account or for value,
despite knowledge of insufficiency of funds in
the drawee bank; which check when
presented for encashment was dishonored by
the drawee bank for the reason "ACCT.
CLOSED"; and despite notice of dishonor and
demands for payment, X failed pay the holder
thereof or to make arrangements for payment
in full by the drawee of such check within five
(5) banking days after receiving the notice of
dishonor. The said notice was given through
registered mail to which X denies having
receipt of. Is X liable for BP 22? (BERSAMIN)
A: No. For a violation of BP 22, the following
elements must be present: (1) The making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue
there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and (3) The dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or the dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment.
Here, the third element is missing.
The notice of dishonor to be given to the drawer,
maker or issuer of a check should be written. If
the service of the written notice of dishonor is by
registered mail, the proof of service consists not
Page 100 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
only in the presentation as evidence of the
registry return receipt but also of the registry
receipt together with the authenticating affidavit of
the person mailing the notice of dishonor. Without
the authenticating affidavit (lacking in this case),
the proof of giving the notice of dishonor is
insufficient unless the mailer personally testifies
in court on the sending by registered mail.
Therefore, X is not liable (Resterio v. People, GR
177438,2012)
N. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002 IRA 9165. AS AMENDED BY RA
106401
Q: What are the punishable acts under the
law?
A: [MISDEA-FUC-CA-PAGI-WY]
1) Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals;
2) Importation of dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, regardless of quantity or purity
involved;
3) Saie, trading, administration, dispensation,
delivery, distribution and transportation of
dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals;
4) Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort
5) Being an Employee of a den, dive or resort,
who is aware of the nature of the place as
such;
6) Any person who is Aware of the nature of the
place as a den, dive, or resort, and knowingly
visits the same;
7) Failure to maintain or keep original records of
transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals;
8) Use of Dangerous Drugs, after being found
positive via a confirmatory test;
9) Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources thereof;
10) Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals;
11) Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals;
12) Possession of Dangerous Drugs, regardless
of purity of the quantities laid down in the Act;
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
13) Possession of equipment, instrument,
Apparatus and other paraphernalia for fit or
intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the
body;
14) Possession of dangerous drugs during
parties, social Gatherings or meetings, or in
the proximate company of at least two (2)
persons, regardless of quantity and purity,
shall suffer maximum penalty;
15) Possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for fit or
intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the
body, during parties, social gatherings or
meetings, or in the proximate company of at
least two (2) persons, shall suffer maximum
penalty;
16) Unlawful prescription of drugs; and
17) Unnecessary prescription of dangerous
drugs (Art. II).
Q: What Is the Chain of Custody Rule?
A: The chain of custody rule is a procedure that
must be followed by enforcement agencies and
officers to establish the integrity of the drugs
confiscated [IFO-ODS-BOP-N]
1) At the place where the search warrant is
served, or nearest police station, or nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, there
must be the inventory and photographs done
in the presence of the accused, or his/her
representative or counsel with:
a) An elected public official; and
b) Representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media.
2) Within 24 hours from seizure, items must be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic laboratory for
examination.
3) Immediately upon receipt of the subject
item/s, a certification under oath of the
forensic laboratory examiner shall be made.
4) Within 72 hours from filing of criminal case, an
ocular inspection shall be made.
5) Within 24 hours from filing of ocular, the drugs
seized must be destroyed by the PDEA in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ,
civil society groups and any elected public
official.
Page 101 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
6) A representative sample in min. quantity shall
be retained. Those that belong to lawful
commerce shall be donated or recycled for
legitimate purposes.
7) Sworn certification of destruction shall be
issued by the Board and submitted to the
court with jurisdiction of the case, along with
the sample.
8) Accused or representative are allowed to
observe proceedings. If accused has no
counsel within 72hrs from written notice prior
to destruction, court shall appoint a counsel
from PAO.
9) Within 24 hours from receipt of judgment -
trial prosecutor shall inform the Board and
request for leave to turn over the samples to
PDEA for destruction.
Provided, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures and custody over said
items (Sec. 21).
Q: What are the instances when the Chain of
Custody Rule is violated?
A:
1) Accused was not present during the
photography of the seized items (People v.
Cordova, 231130, 2018)]
2) A representative of either the National
Prosecution Service or the media was absent
during the photography and inventory of the
seized items (People v. Cordova, 231130,
2018)\
3) Three days had passed since the items were
seized from the accused (People v. Cordova,
G.R. No. 231130, 2018);
4) Two separate inventories were conducted
which were attended by different witnesses
(People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826,
2018)]
5) The drugs were turned over to the crime
laboratory 10 days after seizure (People v.
Ching, G.R. No. 223556, 2017)]
6) The drugs were turned over immediately to
the crime laboratory, without it being first
delivered to an investigating officer (People v.
Calibod, G.R. No. 230230, 2017)]
7) The drugs were not directly turned over to the
forensic chemist. Instead, it was only left
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
within the premises of the crime laboratory
(People v. Calibod, G.R. No. 230230, 2017)]
8) There were discrepancies in the labels of the
seized items (People v. Alvaro, G.R. No.
225596, 2018)]
9) There was a discrepancy in the weight of the
seized items (People v. Ramos, G.R. No.
233744, 2018)]
10) There was a discrepancy in the number of the
sachets shown in the photographs and the
number of sachets for which the accused is
being charged of illegally possessing (People
i/. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, 2018)]
11) No physical inventory was conducted for the
items taken (People v. Mercader, G.R. No.
233480, 2018)]
12) No photographs of the seized items were
taken (People v. Mercader, G.R. No. 233480,
2018).
Q: What are links that the prosecution must
endeavor to establish with respect to the
Chain Of Custody in a buy-bust operation:
A: The following links must be established:
1) Seizure and marking of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer
2) Turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating
officer
3) Turn over by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination
4) Turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist
to the court (People v. Watamama, G.R. No.
18871, 2014).
Q: X was charged with a violation of RA 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002. Several personal non-drug effects
were taken from him by the PDEA, including a
2004 Honda Accord car. X filed a motion to
demand for the car’s return, alleging that the
car did not belong to him but to his wife, who
did not participate in the crime. The lower
court released the car. CA affirmed. The PDEA
objected. Whether the car should be
released?
A: No. A proper court may order the return of
property solely held as evidence should the
government unreasonably delay in bringing a
criminal prosecution. Pursuant to Section 20 of
Page 102 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
RA 9165, proceeds and instruments or tools shall
be confiscated in favor of the government, unless
they be the property of a third person not liable for
the offense. However, in this case, the release of
the car was made prematurely. The
determination of whether any article confiscated
in relation to the unlawful act would be subject of
forfeiture could be made only when the judgment
was to be rendered in the proceedings. Hence,
lower courts should comply strictly with Section
20 and should not release articles, whether drugs
or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and
before the rendition of the judgment, even if
owned by a third person who is not liable for the
unlawful act (PDEA v. Brodett, G.R. No. 196390,
2011).
Q: An informant went to the authority to report
the illegal drug dealings of the accused on
Reparo Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City.
The authority immediately acted on the report
through a buy bust operation. The buy-bust
team designated X as the poseur buyer. It was
agreed that the informant would drop a
cigarette butt in front of the suspect to identify
him to X; and that X would scratch his head to
signal to the buy-bust team that the
transactions with the suspect had been
consummated. The plan was successfully
initiated by the authority thereafter the
accused was charged with illegally selling
shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165. Was the operation an entrapment or an
instigation?
A: Entrapment. A buy-bust operation, considered
as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of
arresting violators of RA 9165. In a buy-bust
operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or
prodding him to commit the offense. Moreover, a
prior surveillance is not necessary to render a
buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when
the informant accompanies the operation to the
target area. A police officers act of soliciting drugs
from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or
what is known as a "decoy solicitation," is not
prohibited by law and does not render invalid the
buy-bust operations (People v Bajo, GR 191726,
2013).
Q: A buy bust operation was conducted in
McDonald’s where Respondents A and B sold
200 pills of ecstasy to the poseur buyer. A and
B were seated beside each other when the
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
poseur buyer arrived. A waved at him. Upon
approaching their table, A handed a cough
syrup box containing the pills to B, who in
turn handed it to the poseur buyer. The latter
handed the two stacks of marked boodle
money to B. They were thereafter arrested and
convicted. Only B appealed arguing that he
was only implicated because he was in the
company of A during the buy-bust, and that a
real drug pusher would not just approach
anyone in order to sell drugs. Was it
sufficiently established that B acted in
conspiracy with A?
A: Yes, because a conviction for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs like ecstasy is proven by: a) the
identity of the buyer and seller; b) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment thereof. The
decisive proof is that the sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the
poseur buyer testified that respondents sold
ecstasy to him during the buy-bust operation; and
that he recovered the buy-bust money from A
after the sale. The certification of the forensic
chemist of the presence of a dangerous drug, the
200 ecstasy pills, and marked money were all
presented in court. Records also show that B
acted in conspiracy with A based on the testimony
of the poseur buyer to the effect that they were of
one mind in selling ecstasy to him. The
respondents acted with a common purpose and
community of interest during the transaction.
(People v. Medenceles, G.R. No. 181250, 2012).
Q: A team was formed to conduct a buy-bust
operation against X. The officer-poseur-buyer
was given a bill as buy-bust money, on which
he placed his initials. Said officer and an
informant then approached X as the rest of
team took up positions nearby. The informant
left, and an exchange of shabu was made
between the officer and X. The officer signaled
the back-up members, who rushed forward
and arrested X. Was the illegal sale and
possession of shabu established beyond
reasonable doubt?
A: Yes. What is material in prosecutions for illegal
sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 177320,
2010)
Page 103 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: Accused X was caught carrying a box
containing several kilograms of shabu. X
claims that, while he indeed had possession
of the box, he had merely been asked by a
certain Y to deliver the box to a 3rd party and
that X had no knowledge of the content of the
box. When apprehend by the NBI, X tried to
escape their custody. He was eventually
caught with even more drugs and thus the
appropriate information was filed against him.
These defenses were not accepted by the RTC
and CA, grounding their rulings on the fact
that mere possession of a prohibited drug is
enough for conviction unless there is
convincing testimony that the accused had no
actual knowledge of the possession. As such,
is the mere denial of knowledge of possession
sufficient enough basis to acquit X?
A: No. The Court ruled that there must be animus
possidendi on the part of the accused, such being
indispensable. The same, however, is a state of
mind and must be proven by facts and actions,
not the mere denial of possession. X’s own
admission of possession is enough cause to
convict him as there is a presumption of intent
that can only be overturned by the credible action
and testimony of the defense. The actions of X
(evading custody and the hardly believable story
of being asked to serve a courier of the drugs)
showed the intent to possess and thus could not
overturn the evidence against him (People v. De
Los Santos, G.R. No. 170839, 2012).
Q: Accused-appellants are charged with
violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
According to the prosecution, a police team
planned a buy-bust operation in a motel after
an informant notified them that accused Z was
engaged in the sale of shabu. Acting as a
poseur-buyer, the informant called Z and
ordered shabu for delivery to the former’s
room. When Z arrived, Z handed over the
shabu to the informant. The informant
executed the pre-arranged signal, prompting
the police to arrest Z. When the police
searched Z, they found more sachets
containing shabu. These were seized and
properly marked by the Special Investigator
(SI). When SI was about to prepare the
inventory of the items, Z voluntarily informed
the policemen that accused Y was his source
of contraband, and agreed to cooperate for
Y’s arrest. The police then arranged another
operation to arrest Y. Due to these
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

developments, the conduct of inventory by SI A: The Court stated that although no mistake can
was suspended, and he retained custody of be ascribed to filing charges against a person
the seized items from Z. After the successful under Sec. 11 (having a greater penalty), it would
operation to arrest Y, SI conducted a formal be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file
inventory of the items seized from Z and Y, in charges against such person under Sec. 15 in
the presence of representatives from the order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug
media, DOJ and barangay. Another Special use (Cruz v. People, GR 200748, 2014).
Investigator took photographs of the seized
items. Seized items were personally delivered
by the SI to the custody of the Crime
Laboratory. The examination revealed that the
sachets indeed contained shabu. Are the
accused-appellants guilty of violations of
Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165?
A: YES, all the elements of Illegal Delivery and
Possession Drugs are proven in this case.

For Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, it must

be proven that the accused passed on
possession of a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means; that
such delivery is not authorized by law; and that
the accused knowingly made the delivery. On the
other hand, in the crime of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove
that the accused is in possession of an item or
object, which is identified as a prohibited drug;
that such possession is not authorized by law;
and that the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.

In this case, the lower courts correctly found that

all the elements of the above-mentioned crimes
were clearly established: (a) Z himself delivered
the plastic sachet of shabu to the informant during
a legitimate buy-bust operation; and (b) upon his
arrest, the arresting officers searched Z and
found more sachets of shabu. Both courts also
properly found that there was no break in the
chain of custody of the sachets from Z as Si had
sole possession of the sachets from Z’s arrest
untii the SI turned them over to the laboratory for
examination. (People v. Jao y Calonia, G.R.
225634, June 7, 2017)

Q: If you are a law enforcer who is about to file

a criminal complaint against a defendant but
could not decide whether to charge him under
Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) or
under Sec. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs), and
with the only evidence being the presence of
dangerous drugs in the form of residue on the
drug paraphernalia and drug test, which
charge would you apply?
Page 104 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

O. COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND 5) registered firearms in the possession of an

AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT IRA 105911 individual other than the licensee
6) those with revoked licenses
Q: What are the punishable acts under the
law? Q: What are the rules concerning the crime of
A: illegal possession of firearms if committed
1) Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, with other crimes?
Disposition or Possession of: [EFEFAIE] A:
a) Firearms- any handheld weapon, small COMBINATION PENALTY
or light weapon, that expels a bullet or (P)-POSSESSION
any projectile; this includes a barrel, P only Prision Mayor (the
frame, or receiver. penalty for illegal
b) Light weapons (Class-A)- self-loading possession of
pistols, rifles, etc. not exceeding caliber firearms)
7.62MM which have fully automatic P + inherent in the Penalty for the
mode.
crime crime +
c) Light weapons (Class B)-designed for aggravating
use of 2 or more persons, which has a circumstance
caliber exceeding 7.62MM.
P + used in crime with Prision Mayor (the
d) Small Arms- intended for individual use,
a lower penalty penalty for illegal
to be fired from hand or shoulder, not
possession of
capable of fully automatic burst.
firearms)
e) Ammunition
P + used in crime with Penalty for crime
f) Instruments used or intended to be used
same penalty + Prision Mayor
in the manufacture of firearms or
minimum
ammunition; or
P + not used in the Penalty for the
g) Explosives
crime crime + Prision
Mayor (the
2) Other Punishable Acts [PLORANS]:
penalty would be
a) Planting of evidence
separate and
b) Failure to notify the Firearms and
distinct)
Explosive Office of the PNP of any lost or
P + furtherance of, The crime of P is
stolen firearm within 30 days
c) Carrying registered firearms outside his/ incident to, or in absorbed
connection with the
her residence without any legal authority
d) Failure to notify the FEO of change of crime of rebellion, or
insurrection, sedition,
residence or office address as indicated
attempted coup d’etat
in the license card
e) Tampering, obliteration, or alteration of
firearms identification Q: What are the Rules on Dealing with
f) Unlawful transfer to any person who has Explosives concerning the knowledge of the
not yet obtained or secured the offender?
necessary license or permit thereof; and 1) Knowledge of explosive character, where
g) Arms smuggling the explosive device is capable of producing
destructive effect on contiguous objects or
Q: What are the instances when the law on causing injury or death to any person is an
Illegal Possession of Firearms apply? element of the crime.
A: They are only applicable for loose firearms 2) Conversely, a transient or temporary
which means: possession of such explosives without
1) unregistered firearm knowledge of its explosive character is not a
2) an obliterated or altered firearm violation of this law nor is surrender of such
3) firearm which has been lost or stolen items to the authorities.
4) illegally manufactured firearms 3) But, such possession is prima facie
(rebuttable) evidence that the person had
knowledge of its explosive character.
Page 105 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: Accused Z was charged with illegal
possession of firearms under PD 1866. Police
officers were informed that there was a man
firing a gun at the back of the PLDT Building
in Dagupan City. Upon arrival, the police saw
two (2) men, one of whom is Z, holding a gun
and a knife. Upon seeing the police officers,
the men became uneasy, prompting the police
to swoop in. The police recovered from the
men a caliber .45 pistol and a knife. Paraffin
and gun powder residue test were later done
in the precinct. Z denied having a firearm with
him, much less illegally discharging the same,
when he was flagged down by police officers.
He claimed that they were merely framed up
and questioned the validity of the warrantless
arrest. The lower courts found Z guilty of the
crime charged. Did the lower courts err in
finding Z guilty of the illegal possession of
firearms?
A: NO, because the prosecution successfully
proved the existence of the firearm which was
seized from the accused which was properly
admitted as evidence at trial, and that Z
possessed the same when he does not have the
license or permit to possess it.
The Court finds no reason to deviate from the
factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by
the CA, as there is no indication that it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the
surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.
Also, the Court held that the warrantless arrest
done by the police was valid. Clearly, the police
conducted a valid in flagrante delicto warrantless
arrest on Z, thus, making the consequent search
incidental thereto valid as well. It should be noted
that the offense of illegal possession of firearms
is malum prohibitum punished by special law and,
in order that one may be found guilty of a violation
of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had
no authority or license to possess a firearm, and
that he intended to possess the same, even if
such possession was made in good faith and
without criminal intent. (Peralta v. People, G.R.
221991, August 30, 2017)
Page 106 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
P. CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
fRA101751
Q: What are the punishable acts under the
law?
1) Offenses Against the Confidentiality,
Integrity and Availability of Computer
Data and Systems:
a) Illegal Access — the access to the
whole or any part of a computer system
without right.
b) Illegal Interception — the interception
made by technical means without right of
any non- public transmission of computer
data to, from, or within a computer
system including electromagnetic
emissions from a computer system
carrying such computer data.
c) Data Interference — the intentional or
reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or
deterioration of computer data, electronic
document, or electronic data message,
without right, including the introduction or
transmission of viruses.
d) System Interference — the intentional
alteration or reckless hindering or
interference with the functioning of a
computer or computer network by
inputting, transmitting, damaging,
deleting, deteriorating, altering or
suppressing computer data or program,
electronic document, or electronic data
message, without right or authority,
including the introduction or transmission
of viruses.
e) Misuse of Devices
i. The use, production, sale,
procurement, importation,
distribution, or otherwise making
available, without right, of:
aa. A device, including a computer
program, designed or adapted
primarily for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses
under this Act; or
bb. A computer password, access
code, or similar data by which
the whole or any part of a
computer system is capable of
being accessed with intent that
it be used for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses
under this Act.
ii. The possession of an item referred
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb)
above with intent to use said
devices for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses
under this section.
f) Cyber-squatting — the acquisition of a
domain name over the internet in bad
faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation,
and deprive others from registering the
same, if such a domain name is:
i. Similar, identical, or confusingly
similar to an existing trademark
registered with the appropriate
government agency at the time of
the domain name registration:
ii. Identical or in any way similar with
the name of a person other than
the registrant, in case of a personal
name; and
iii. Acquired without right or with
intellectual property interests in it.
2) Computer-Related Offenses:
a) Computer-related Forgery —
i. The input, alteration, or deletion of
any computer data without right
resulting in inauthentic data with
the intent that it be considered or
acted upon for legal purposes as if
it were authentic, regardless
whether or not the data is directly
readable and intelligible; or
ii. The act of knowingly using
computer data which is the product
of computer-related forgery as
denied herein, for the purpose of
perpetuating a fraudulent or
dishonest design.
b) Computer-related Fraud — the
unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion
of computer data or program or
interference in the functioning of a
computer system, causing damage
thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided,
That if no damage has yet been caused,
the penalty imposable shall be one (1)
degree lower.
c) Computer-related Identity Theft — the
intentional acquisition, use, misuse,
transfer, possession, alteration or
deletion of identifying information
belonging to another, whether natural or
juridical, without right:
Page 107 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
3) Content-Related Offenses:
a) Cybersex — the willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation,
directly or indirectly, of any lascivious
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual
activity, with the aid of a computer
system, for favor or consideration.
b) Child Pornography — the unlawful or
prohibited acts denied and punishable by
Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009, committed
through a computer system.
c) Unsolicited Commercial
Communications — The transmission
of commercial electronic communication
with the use of computer system which
seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
products and services are prohibited
unless:
i. There is prior affirmative consent
from the recipient; or
ii. The primary intent of the
communication is for service and/or
administrative announcements from
the sender to its existing users,
subscribers or customers; or
iii. The following conditions are
present:
aa. The commercial electronic
communication contains a
simple, valid, and reliable way
for the recipient to reject,
receipt of further commercial
electronic messages (opt-out)
from the same source;
bb. The commercial electronic
communication does not
purposely disguise the source
of the electronic message; and
cc. The commercial electronic
communication does not
purposely include misleading
information in any part of the
message in order to induce the
recipients to read the
message.
NOTE: Declared unconstitutional by
D isini Jr. vs. Secretary o f Justice.
Libel — the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel
as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
similar means which may be devised in
the future.
NOTE: It only penalizes online libel as valid
and constitutional with respect to the
original author of the post; but void and
unconstitutional with respect to others
who simply receive the post and react to
it.
4) Other Offenses:
a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission
of Cybercrime - any person who willfully
abets or aids in the commission of any of
the offenses enumerated in this Act shall
be held liable.
NOTE: As amended by Disini Jr. vs. Secretary of
Justice, it only penalizes aiding or abetting and
attempt in the commission of cybercrime as valid
and constitutional only in relation to:
i. Illegal Access
ii. Illegal Interception
iii. Data Interference
iv. System Interference
V. Misuse of Devices
vi, Cyber Squatting
vii. Computer- related Forgery
viii. Computer- related Fraud
ix. Computer-related Identity Theft
X. Cybersex
But void and unconstitutional in relation to:
i. Child Pornography
ii. Online Libel
b) Attempt in the Commission of
Cybercrime — any person who willfully
attempts to commit any of the offenses
enumerated in this Act shall be held
liable.
Q. HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 IRA 93721
Q: What are the punishable acts under the
law?
A: The punishable acts are:
Elements-Terrorism: [CFC]
1) Any person who commits an act punishable
under any of the following:
a) Piracy in genera! and Munity in the High
Seas or in the Philippine Waters;
b) Rebellion or Insurrection;
Page 108 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
c) Coup d’etat, including acts committed by
private persons;
d) Murder; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention;
e) Crimes Involving Destruction or under
The Law on Arson;
f) Toxic Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990;
g) Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability
Act of 1968;
h) Anti-Hijacking Law;
i) Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery
Law of 1974; and
j) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of
Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives;
2) Thereby Sowing and Creating Widespread
and Extraordinary Fear and Panic among the
Populace; And
3) To Coerce the Government to Give in to an
Unlawful Demand
NOTE: Anyone found guilty of terrorism or
conspiring to commit terrorism shall
suffer the penalty of 40 years
imprisonment, without the benefit of
parole as provided for under Act No. 4103
(the Indeterminate Sentence Law) (Sec.
3).
Q: Is conspiracy to commit terrorism
punishable?
A: Yes. There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the crime of terrorism as defined
in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the
same. (Sec. 4}
Q: When is a person considered an
accomplice?
A: A person is an accomplice when he cooperates
in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts PROVIDED he is not a
principal under Art. 17 of the RPC or a conspirator
in Sec. 4 hereof.
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: When is a person considered an
accessory?
A: A person is an accessory when:
1) He has knowledge of the commission of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism
2) Without having participated, as principal or
accomplice, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner:
[PCH]
a) by profiting himself or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the
crime;
b) by concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects, or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery;
c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting
in the escape of the principal or
conspirator of the crime
NOTE: The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall NOT be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees,
EXCEPT those who profit or assist the
offender to profit.
Q: What is the Territorial Application of The
Law?
A: The law applies to any person who commits an
act covered by the law if committed: [WIBECG]
1) Within the terrestrial domain, interior waters,
maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines
2) Inside the territorial limits of the Philippines
3) On board a Philippine ship or airship
4) Within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic
premises belonging to or occupied by the
Philippine government in an official capacity
5) Against Philippine citizens or persons of
Philippine descent where their citizenship or
ethnicity was a factor in the commission of
the crime including those committed outside
the territorial limits
6) Directly against the Philippine government
including those committed outside the
territorial limits (Sec. 58).
Page 109 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
R. NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016 fRA
108831
Q: What are the Elements of Carnapping?
A: [IA-WUV]
1) Taking, with Jntent to gain;
2) A motor vehicle belonging to Another;
a. Without the latter’s consent;
b. by Using force upon things; or
c. by means of Violence against or
intimidation of persons.
•
Q: What are the punishable acts under
Carnapping?
A:
1) Carnapping; (Sec. 3)
2) Concealment of Carnapping; (Sec. 4)
Q: When should bail be denied?
A: Bail shall be denied when the evidence of guilt
is strong against any person charged with
carnapping and when the crime of carnapping is
committed: [GVF -KR]
1) by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates;
2) by means of violence or intimidation of any
person or persons;
3) by means of forced upon things;
4) when the owner, driver, passenger, or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or
raped in the course of the carnapping. (Sec.
3)
NOTE: To prove the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide, there must be proof
not only of the essential elements of carnapping,
but also that it was the original criminal design of
the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the
course of carnapping or on the occasion thereof.
The killing of the victim cannot qualify the
carnapping into a special complex crime because
the carnapping was an afterthought when the
victim’s death was already fait accompli (People
v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, 2014).
ateneo central
bar OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

S. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LAW (PD 18291 Q: What is the difference between Obstruction
of Justice and Accessory to a Crime?
Q: What are the punishable acts? A:
A: The law penalizes any person who knowingly
OBSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY TO
or willfully obstructs or delays the apprehension
JUSTICE A CRIME
of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
Punished as a separate Part of the original
of criminal cases by committing any of the
crime crime
following acts: (BAWS-DIE-FiFa)
Offender here is Offender is an
1) Preventing Witnesses from testifying in any
PRINCIPAL ACCESSORY
criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of Focuses on the
Focuses on the
any offender/s by means of bribery, prevention of the
PROSECUTION of the
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force DISCOVERY of the
crime
or threats; crime
2) Altering, destroying or concealing any
Document, or object, with intent to impair it as T. SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
evidence in any investigation of or official AGAINST CHILD ABUSE. EXPLOITATION AND
proceedings in, criminal cases; DISCRIMINATION ACT (RA 7610)
3) Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
Escape of, any person he knows, or has Q: Who are considered children covered
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has under this law?
A: Children refers to:
committed any offense under existing penal
laws; 1) Person below 18 years of age or
2) Those over but are unable to fully take care of
4) Publicly using a Fictitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime, evading themselves or protect themselves from
prosecution or the execution of a judgment, abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
or concealing his true name and other discrimination because of physical or mental
disability or condition. (Sec. 3 [a])
personal circumstances for the same
purpose;
5) Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by Q: What is the punishable act of child
obstructing the Service of process or court prostitution and other sexual abuse?
A: When children, whether male or female, who
orders or disturbing proceedings in the
fiscal's offices; for money, profit, other consideration or due to
6) Using any document, or object with coercion by an adult, is made to indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct.
knowledge of its FAIsity and with intent to
affect the course or outcome of the
investigation or official proceedings in, It is punishable when: [PSA]
criminal cases; 1) Any adult who engages in, promotes,
7) Soliciting or agreeing to accept any Benefit in facilitates, or induces child Prostitution by:
consideration of abstaining from or impeding a) acting as procurer;
the prosecution of a criminal offender; b) inducing a client;
8) Threatening directly or indirectly another with c) taking advantage or influence or relation
the infliction of any wrong upon his person, to procure a child as prostitute;
honor or property or that of any immediate d) threatening or using violence to engage
member of his family in order to prevent such a child as a prostitute;
person from Appearing in the investigation of, e) giving pecuniary benefit or goods to a
child with intent to engage in prostitution.
or official proceedings in, criminal cases, and
2) Any adult who commits Sexual intercourse or
9) Giving of false or fabricated information to
lascivious conduct with a child exploited; and
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
3) Any person who derives profit or Advantage,
agencies from apprehending the offender or
such as the manager or owner of
from protecting the life or property of the
establishment, ^Sec. 5^
victim; or fabricating information from the
data gathered by investigating authorities
(Sec. 1).
Page 110 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
Q: What are considered as other acts of
abuse?
A: When any person: fDCDMBI
1) Commit any acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for conditions
prejudicial to the child’s development;
2) Keep in his company a minor twelve (12)
years or under, or who is ten (10) years his
junior, unless related within the 4th degree;
3) Induce, deliver, or offer a minor to anyone
prohibited by this Act;
4) Managers, owners of establishments or any
person who allows a person to take along
with him any minor herein described to places
of accommodations, residence, etc.; and
5) Use, coerce, force or intimidate a child to beg
for a living, act as middleman in drug
trafficking, or conduct any illegal activities.
(Sec. 10)
Q: AAA is a 14 year old female third year high
school student. BBB, her ROTC Commandant
told her if she wanted to become an ROTC
officer, he would have to initiate her. BBB told
her to follow him to is house, where he
confessed he has a crush on her, pulled her
onto his lap, told her to kiss him on the cheek
and lips, lifted her shirt and underwear and
suckled her breast for 2 minutes. She was
frightened and couldn’t complain, until a year
later when other students also complained
that BBB molested them as well. Later, AAA
filed a case against him for lascivious
conduct in relation to RA 7610 Sec. 5(b), and
BBB was convicted by the RTC. BBB raised in
his appeal that force and intimidation were not
established by the prosecution. Was BBB
properly convicted of lascivious conduct
under RA 7610?
A: Yes, the conviction was proper. At the time,
AAA was a minor, thus the provisions of RA 7610
come into play. The requisites for sexual abuse
under RA 7610 Sec. 5(b) are (1) the accused
commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or
female, is below 18 years of age. The IRR of RA
7610 provides that lascivious conduct includes
the intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, the breast of any person whether of the
same or opposite sex, with an intent to humiliate,
abuse, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the
sexual desire of any person.
Page 111 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Force and intimidation were proven. BBB was
AAA’s ROTC commander and teacher, thus BBB
had moral ascendancy and influence over her
when he did the acts in question. Force and
intimidation are subsumed by coercion and
influence, and that lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any adult exists when
there is some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the exercise of free
will by the other party. Influence means the
improper use of power or trust in any way that
deprives a person of free will and substitutes
another’s objective. Coercion is the improper use
of power to compel another to submit to the
wishes of one who wields it. Clearly, in this case,
BBB used his influence over AAA by telling her
that only by acceding to his lewd requests would
she gain rank in the ROTC. (Orsos v. People,
G.R. No. 214673, Nov. 20, 2017)
Q: X, a 17 year old high school student, met Y,
a 23 year old college student, and they
became sweethearts. Y convinced X to have
sexual intercourse several times by saying
she wouldn’t get pregnant since he would use
the withdrawal method, and that he would
marry X. Later, X became pregnant and they
were forced to break up. Y was charged with
violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, and
convicted by the court. On appeal, he argued
that his promise to marry or to use the
withdrawal method are not equivalent to the
elements of persuasion or inducement that
would lead to his conviction of the offense,
since the sex was consensual. Were the
elements of the crime of lascivious conduct
properly established?
A: Yes. The elements of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 are
(1) the accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child,
whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
The first and third elements are clearly present,
since X and Y repeatedly had sexual relations
while X was a minor. The second element is also
present, since a child is deemed subjected to
other sexual abuse when the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult, which exists when there is
some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free exercise of
the party’s free will. The court considered the fact
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
that X was a minor, Y was 6 years older, Y gave
ail sorts of assurances like marriage and the
withdrawal method, and Y pressured X several
times until she gave in to his requests. (Caballo
v. People, G.R. No.198732, Jun. 10, 2013)
Q: 13-year-old A was raped by B. Because of
this, B was convicted of rape under RA 7610
(Anti-Child Abuse Law). However, B is saying
that he should be convicted of rape under the
RPC. Should he be convicted of rape under
the RPC?
A: No, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12
years of age, the offender should be prosecuted
for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1 )(d) of the
RPC. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years
or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA
7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except
paragraph 1[d]) of the RPC.
Here, since A was 13 years old, B can be
prosecuted either under Art 3 Sec. 5(b) of RA
7610 for sexual abuse, or under Article 266-A of
the RPC, except for rape under paragraph 1(d).
So, his conviction under RA 7610 is proper.
(People v. Matias y Dela Fuente, G.R. No.
186469, June 13, 2012)
U. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW fISLI
(ACT NO. 4103. AS AMENDED BY RA 42031
Q: How is the ISL Applied?
A: The ISL provides for a maximum and
minimum, instead of a single fixed penalty. The
prisoner must be sentenced to imprisonment for
a period 'which is not more than the maximum and
not less than the minimum. The period between
the minimum and maximum is indeterminate in
the sense that the prisoner may be exempted
from serving said indeterminate period in whole
or in part.
The prisoner must serve the minimum before he
is eligible for parole.
The law does not impair the powers of the Chief
Executive under the Administrative Code (Sec.
n the offense is punished by any other law, the
Page 112 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: How is the ISL applied in Special Laws?
A:
UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
Case: A is convicted c>f illegal possession of
firearms punishable b>>1 year and 1 day to 8
years of im prisonment
Maximum term Shall not exceed 8
years as fixed by law
Minimum term Shall not be less than
the minimum period
of 1 year and 1 day
as prescribed by law.
Q: What is the coverage of the ISL?
A: The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not
apply to the following persons: [D3TM-PHEG]
1) Sentenced to death penalty or life
imprisonment;
2) Maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed 1 year;
3) Sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
suspension only.
4) Jreason, or conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason;
5) Misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage;
6) Piracy;
7) Habitual delinquents;
8) Escaped from confinement, or evaded
sentence;
9) Granted with conditional pardon by the
president, but violated the terms thereof (Sec.
2).
Q: X was charged and convicted for a
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA
7659) for the sale of four (4) tea bags of
marijuana under a buy-bust operation. Does
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) apply in
drug cases, such as the case at bar?
A: Yes. Drug offenses are not included in, nor has
appellant committed any act which would put him
within the exceptions to ISL. R.A. No. 7659, has
unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the
Revised Penal Code in their technical terms,
hence with their technical signification and
effects. Such offense, although provided for in a
special law, is now in effect punished by and
under the Revised Penal Code. It states that “if
court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and he minimum shall not be less than the
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019
minimum term prescribed by the same”. The
Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as the maximum thereof. (People v.
Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994).
V. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF
2006 (RA 9344 AS AMENDED BY RA 103601
READ IN RELATION WITH THE CHILD AND
YOUTH WELFARE CODE (PD 603 AS
AMENDED!
Q: What are the classifications of children
under the law?
A:
1) Children at Risk - those who are vulnerable
to and at the risk of committing criminal
offenses because of personal, family, and
social circumstances.
2) Children In Conflict with the Law (CICL) -
those who are alleged as, accused of or
adjudged as having committed an offense
under Philippine laws (Sec. 4)
Q: Who are Exempted from Criminal
Responsibility?
A: A child 15 years of age or under at the time of
the commission; and a child above 15 but under
18 years at the time of the commission, unless he
acted with discernment (Sec. 6).
Q: What is Automatic Suspension of
Sentence?
A: When the child is convicted of a crime, instead
of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
court shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of
application. The child must have been eighteen
years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense.
The benefit of automatic suspension of sentence
shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already
eighteen years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt (Sec. 38).
Q: When is intervention applicable?
A: Intervention is applicable when the child in
conflict with the law is either fifteen years of age
or under or above fifteen years but below
eighteen years of age and acted without
discernment (Sec. 6).
Page 113 of 130
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: When is diversion applicable?
A: Diversion is applicable when the child in
conflict with the law is above fifteen years old but
below eighteen and who acted with discernment
(Sec. 22)
W. PROBATION LAW (PD 968: PD 1257: R.A.
10707!
Q: When should one apply for Probation?
A: After conviction and sentencing of a defendant
for a probationable penalty and upon application
within the period of perfecting an appeal and
if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction, no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted (Sec. 4).
Q: What is the Colinares Doctrine?
A: In Colinares v. People, petitioner Arnel was
found guilty of frustrated homicide and imposed a
penalty beyond six (6) years, disqualifying him
then for probation. After his appeal, the court
found that he was only liable for attempted
homicide with a penalty less than six (6) years.
The court held that Arnel is not disqualified from
applying for probation despite an appeal. The
court ruled that the finding of attempted homicide
is an original conviction that for the first time
imposes on Arnel a probationable penalty. Had
the RTC done Arnel right from the start, it would
have found him guilty of the correct offense and
imposed on him the right penalty of two years and
four months maximum. This would have afforded
Arnel the right to apply for probation (Colinares v.
People, G.R. No. 182748, 2011).
Note: Colinares doctrine is already embodied in
R.A. 10707 which amends Sec. 4 of P.D. 968.
Q: When is the application for Probation
denied?
A: [DUCT]
1) Probation will Depreciate the seriousness of
the offense committed.
2) There is Undue risk of committing another
crime during the probation period.
3) The offender is in need of Correctional
Treatment that can be provided effectively by
his commitment to an institution.
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Q; Who are Disqualified from Availing the

Probation Law?
A: The benefits of the decree shall not be
extended to those: [M-SPPADE]
1) Sentenced to serve a Maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years;
2) Convicted of Subversion or any crime against
the national security;
3) Previously convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of more
than 6 months and 1 day and/or a fine more
than P1,000;
4) Once placed on Probation;
5) Already serving sentence at the time the
Decree became applicable (Sec. 9)
6) Those who have appealed or were convicted
of Drug trafficking or drug pushing; and
7) Convicted of Election offenses under the
Omnibus Election Code.

Page 114 of 130

ATENEO central
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

Special Penal Laws

___ _ ANTI-ARSON LAW
Oases of Simple arson PO Burning:
1) the property of another; or
2) his own property under circumstances which expose
to danger the life or property of another.
Cases of Destructive PUTEMI Burning:
arson 1) Any building, devoted to the public in general,
regardless of whether the offender had knowledge
that there are persons in said building and whether
the building is actually inhabited or not;
2) Any building, and any appurtenances thereto, for
public utility service;
3) Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or
for public use, entertainment or leisure;
4) Any building the burning of which is for concealing or
destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to
collect from insurance (RA 7659, Sec. 10);
5) Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder
or fireworks factory, ordinance storehouse, archives
or general museum of the government; or
6) Any inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials {Sec. 1, PD 1744)
Other cases of arsons G-PRIME Other cases of arsons are the burning of: [G-PRIME]
7) Any government building;
8) Any plantation, farm, grain field, forest, etc;
9) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse;
10) Any inhabited house or dwelling;
11) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central;
12) Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or
mine shaft, platform or tunnel (Sec. 3).
Prima facie evidence of VP-SWIFT 1) If a demand for valuable consideration was made
arson before the fire in exchange for the desistance of the
offender or for the safety of the person or property of
the victim.
2) If during the lifetime of the fire insurance policy more
than two fires have occurred in the premises owned
or under the control of the offender and/or insured.
3) Fire started simultaneously in more than one part of
the building.
4) If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the
effects insured and stored in a building or property
had been withdrawn from the premises except in the
ordinary course of business.
5) If the building or property is insured for substantially
more than its actual value at the time of the issuance
of the policy.
6) If substantial amount of flammable materials is
stored within the building not necessary in the
business of the offender nor for household use.

Page 115 of 130

a t e n e o central
bar OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

7) If any contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or

traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins
or premises of the burned building or property.
ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009
Punishable Acts [VP4-FLEx-C2PA] 1) To provide a Venue for the commission of prohibited
acts such as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms,
cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments
purporting to be a legitimate business;
2) To hire, Persuade, induce or coerce a child to
perform in the creation or production of any form of
child pornography;
3) To Produce or create any form of child
pornography;
4) To Possess any form of child pornography;
5) To Possess any form of child pornography with the
intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast:
Provided, that possession of three (3) or more
articles of child pornography of the same form shall
be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell,
distribute, publish or broadcast;
6) For Film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies to distribute any form
of child pornography;
7) To engage in the Luring or grooming of a child;
8) To publish, sell, distribute, broadcast, Export or
import any form of child pornography;
9) For a parent, legal guardian or person having
Custody or control of a child to knowingly permit the
child to engage in any form of child pornography;
10) To Conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts
stated in this section;
11) To engage in Pandering of any form of child
pornography;
12) To willfully Access any form of child pornography
(Sec. 4).
ANT -FENCING LAW
Elements of Fencing [KRIB] The elements are:
1) The accused Knows or should know that the article
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime;
2) Robbery or theft has been committed;
3) The accused has Intent to gain for himself or for
another; and
4) The accused, who is neither a principal or accomplice
in the theft or robbery, Buys, receives or possesses,
conceals, acquires, keeps, sells or disposes or in any
manner deals with the proceeds of the crime (Ong v.
People, G.R. 190475, 2013).
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Punishable acts PAFICS 1) Any public officer who shall perform any of the
following acts:
• Persuading, or influencing another public officer to
perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the
Page 116 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be

persuaded or influenced to commit such violation
or offense.

• Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any

gift, percentage, or benefit for himself or for any
other person in connection with any contract or
transaction between the government and any
other party wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law.

• Directly, or indirectly requesting or receiving any

gift, or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom
the public officer, has secured or obtained, or will
secure or obtain, any Government permit or
license, in consideration for the help given or to be
given.

• Accepting or having any member of his family

accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.

• Causing any undue injury to any party, including

the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, or preference in the
discharge of his official function through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.

• Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or

request, without sufficient justification, to act within
a reasonable time on any matter pending before
him for the purpose of obtaining directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the matter
some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage,
or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or
giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested party.

• Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any

contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby.

• Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary

interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or take part
in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited
by the constitution or by any law from having any
interest.

Page 117 of 130

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

• Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for

personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a
board, panel, or group of which he is a member,
and which exercises discretion in such approval,
even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.

• Knowingly approving or granting any license,

permit, privilege, or benefit in favor of any person
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such
license, permit, privilege, or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled.

• Divulging valuable information of a confidential

character, acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to unauthorized
persons, or releasing such information in advance
of its authorized release date.

2) Spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or affinity,

within the 3rd civil degree, of the President of the
Philippines, the Vice-President, the President of the
Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives,
who shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business transaction, contract or application with the
government;

3) Any person having family or close personal relation

with any public official who shall take advantage of
such personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift, or material,
or pecuniary advantage from any person having
some business, request, or contract with the
government in which such public official has to
intervene;

4) Any person who shall knowingly induce or cause any

public official to commit any of the offenses under
Sec. 3 of RA 3019;

5) Any member of Congress, during the term for which

he has been elected, who shall any personal
pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise
which shall be directly benefited by any law or
resolution authored or recommended by him
previously or adopted by Congress during his term;

6) Any public officer who shall fail to file a true, detailed

anu sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SALN)
within 30 days after assuming office and thereafter on
or before the 15th day of April following the close of
Page 118 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of

his term of office, or upon his resignation or
separation from office.
ANTI-HAZING LAW
Procedure for Allowing APOT School-based initiation rites do not constitute hazing
Hazing provided that -
1) A written application to conduct initiation rites shall
be made to the proper authorities of the school not
later than seven (7) days prior to the conduct of
initiation;
2) The written application must indicate:
a. Place and date of the initiation rites;
b. Names of the recruits, neophytes or applicants to
be initiated;
c. Manner by which they will conduct the initiation
rites; and,
d. Names of the incumbent officers of the fraternity,
sorority, or organization and any person or
persons who will take charge in the conduct of
the initiation rites;
3) The application shall be under oath with a
declaration that it has been posted in the official
school bulletin board, the bulletin board of the office
of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, AND two (2)
other conspicuous places in the school or in the
premises of the organization.
4) The application shall be posted from the time of
submission of the written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization and shall only be
removed from its posting three (3) days after the
conduct of the initiation rites;
5) The initiation rites shall not last more than three (3)
days; and, there are at least two (2) representatives
of the school present during the initiation
Persons liable 1) All persons who actually planned OR participated
As principals in the conduct of the hazing;
2) All incumbent and former officers, nonresident
members, or alumni of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who are actually present during the
hazing;
3) The adviser of the fraternity, sorority or organization
who is -
a. Present when the acts constituting the hazing
were committed; and
b. Failed to take action to prevent the same; or,
c. Failed to promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities, if such adviser or
adviser or advisers can do so without peril to their
person or their family.
4) Officers or members who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be
present thereat;

Page 119 of 130

ATENEO c e n t r a l
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

5) Members who are present during the hazing when

they are intoxicated or under the influence of
alcohol or illegal drugs;
6) Any person who shall intimidate, threaten, force, or
employ, or administer any form of vexation against
another person for the purpose of recruitment in
joining or promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or
organization.
7) Owner or lessee of the place where hazing is
conducted, when he has actual knowledge of the
hazing but failed to take action to prevent the same,
OR failed to promptly report the same if they can do
so without peril to their person or their family;
8) Parents if held in the home of one of the officers or
members of the fraternity, group, or organization,
when they have actual knowledge the hazing
conducted but failed to take any action to prevent the
same OR failed to promptly report the same if they
can do so without peril to their person or their family.
Persons liable School authorities, barangay, municipal or city officials
As accomplices who consented to the hazing or who have actual
knowledge, but failed to take any action to prevent the
same, OR failed to promptly report the same if they can
do so without peril to their person or their family;
AN ACT PROHIBITING CERTAIN ACTS IN MICAL TO CIVIL AVIATION OR THE ANTI-HIJACKING
LAW
Punishable acts CLE 1) by compelling a change in the course or destination
of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or seizing or
usurping the control thereof while it is in flight;
2) by compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to land in
Philippine territory or seizing or usurping the control
thereof while it is in the said territory; and
3) by shipping, loading, or carrying in any passenger
aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosive or
poisonous substance or material.
ANTI-PHOTO AND V DEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009
Punishable Acts CRDB 1) To take photo or video coverage of a person or
group of persons performing sexuai act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of the
private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or
female breast without the consent of the person/s
involved and under circumstances in which the
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of
privacy;
2) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration;
3) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or
distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexuai act, whether it be the original, copy or
reproduction thereof; or
Page 120 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

4) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or

broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or
show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or
recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and
other similar means or device.
ANT -PLUNDER ACT
Ill-Gotten Wealth FU-DAMP It covers any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person acquired by him
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
subordinates, and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes: (Sec. 1(d))
1) By obtaining, receiving or accepting, directly or
indirectly, any form of interest or participation,
including the promise of future employment in any
business enterprise or undertaking;
2) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense
and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
people and the Republic of the Philippines;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of government assets;
4) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations, and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to
benefit particular persons or special interests;
5) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or
malversation of public funds; and,
6) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project
or by reason of the office.
Elements of Plunder PAC-50 1) Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates and
subordinates or other persons;
2) Amasses, accumulates, or acquires ill-gotten wealth;
3) through a combination or series of overt or criminal
acts as described under above; and
4) in the aggregate amount or total value of at least 50
MILLION PESOS, shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder fas amended by RA 7659) (Estrada v.
Sandigartbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 2001).
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT
Punishable Act WE 1) Work-Related or Employment Environment:
a. Sexual favor is made as a condition:
i. For hiring or employment;
ii. Re-employment or continued
employment;
iii. Granting promotions, favorable
compensation, or privileges; or,

Page 121 of 130

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

iv.
Refusal to grant the sexual favor
results in classifying the employee
which would discriminate or deprive
employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect said
employee
b. Acts would impair the employee's rights or
privileges under existing labor laws; and,
c. Acts wouid result in an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for the employee

2) Education or Training Environment:

a. Against one who is under the care, custody or
supervision of the offender;
b. Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the
offender;
c. Sexual favor is made a condition:
i. giving of a passing grade or
ii. granting of honors and scholarships or
iii. payment of a stipend, allowance or
other benefits, privileges, or
consideration
d. The sexual advances result in an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the
student, trainee or apprentice (Sec. 3).
ANT -TORTURE ACT
Elements of Torture S!P2-P!D! 1 ) Any act by which severe physical or mental pain or
suffering;
2) Is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or
his agent;
3) Intentionally inflicted on a person;
4) For the purpose of:
a. Punishment for an act he or a third person has
committed, or is suspected of having committed;
b. Intimidation or coercion;
c. Any reason based on discrimination of any kind;
and
d. Obtaining information or a confession (Sec.
3(a)).
Acts of Torture PMO 1 ) Physical Torture - Form of Treatment or
Punishment Inflicted by a Person in Authority Upon
Another in His Custody that causes severe Pain,
Exhaustion, Disability or Dysfunction in one or more
Parts of the Body.
2) Mental/Psychological Torture - Acts Committed by
a Person in Authority or His Agent which are
Calculated to Affect or Confuse the Mind and/or
Undermine a Person’s Dignity and Morale.
3) Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
m, — — 4-
r u i iio i h i i u i ii

Page 122 of 130

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT

Punishable Acts [PORSE-A2T2 To recruit, obtain, offer, maintain, or transfer:
FMO] 1) A person, by any means, for Prostitution,
pornography or sexual exploitation;
2) A person, by means of threat, force, fraud, deceit,
violence, coercion or intimidation for the removal or
sale of his Organs;
3) A child, to engage him in aRmed activities in the
Philippines or abroad;
4) A person, for forced labor, slavery, debt bondage,
and involuntary servitude;
5) A child, for Exploitation or trading them;
6) To adopt persons by any form of consideration or to
facilitate the same;
7) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons;
8) For the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling
or Trading to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
9) To undertake or organize Tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
10) To introduce or match for money, profit, or other
consideration, any person or any Filipino woman to a
Foreign national, for marriage; and
11) To offer or contract Marriage, real or simulated;
12) To Organize or direct other persons to commit the
offenses defined as acts of trafficking under this Act
(Sec. 4).
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN ACT
Types of violence PEPS 1) Physical Violence
2) Sexual Violence
3) Psychological Violence
4) Economic Abuse
Cycle of Violence TAT 1) Tension building phase;
2) Acute battering incident; and
3) Tranquil, loving phase (non-violent phase). (People v.
Genosa, G.R. No. 1395981, 2004)
Acts of violence against CTA-ICO-SRA 1) Causing physical harm to the woman or child;
women and their 2) Threatening to cause physical harm to woman or
children child
3) Attempting to cause physical harm to woman or child
j

4) Placing woman or child in fear of Imminent physical

harm;
5) Attempting to Compel woman or child from engaging
in conduct they have a right to desist from, or restrict
them from conduct they have a right to engage in;
6) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm to
Oneself to control their actions or decisions;
7) Causing or Attempting to cause them to engage in
Sexual activity, not rape, thru force, physical harm, or
intimidation;
Page 123 of 130
ATENEO central
bar OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

8) Engaging in purposely Reckless conduct that cause

them substantial emotional or psychological distress;
9) Causing them mental or emotional Anguish, public
ridicule, or humiliation. /Sec. 5)
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Elements of Sec. 1, MKIW5 1) Any person makes or draws and issues a check to
Par. 1 apply on account or for value
2) At which time, he had knowledge that he does not
have sufficient funds in the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment
3) The (a) drawee bank dishonors the check for
Insufficiency of funds, lack of funds, or account
closed; or (b) would have been dishonored for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
4) The payee or holder of the dishonored check gives a
written notice of dishonor and demand for payment
5) After receipt of the written notice and demand,
refuses or fails to pay the value of the check within 5
banking days
Elements of Sec. 1, M-S-F-D-W5 1) Any person makes or draws and issues a check
Par. 2 2) He had sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank
3) He failed to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within 90 days from the date appearing
thereon
4) The drawee bank dishonors the check for such
reason
5) The payee or holder of the dishonored check gives a
written notice of dishonor and demand for payment
6) After receipt of the written notice and demand,
refuses or fails to pay the value of the check within 5
banking days.
COMPREHENSIV DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
Punishable acts MISDEA-FUC- 1) Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
CA-PAGI-WY Precursors and Essential Chemicals;
2) importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, regardless of
quantity or purity involved;
3) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals;
4) Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort
5) Being an employee of a den, dive or resort, who is
aware of the nature of the place as such;
6) Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is aware
of the nature of the place as such and shall
knowingly visit the same;
7) Failure to maintain or keep original records of
transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals;
Page 124 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

8) Use of Dangerous Drugs, after being found positive

via a confirmatory test;
9) Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources thereof;
10) Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals;
11) Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals;
12) Possession of Dangerous Drugs, regardless of
purity of the quantities laid down in the Act;
13) Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus
and other paraphernalia for fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into
the body;
14) Possession of dangerous drugs during parties,
social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate
company of at least two (2) persons, regardless of
quantity and purity, shall suffer maximum penalty;
15) Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus
and other paraphernalia for fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or Introducing any dangerous drug into
the body, during parties, social gatherings or
meetings, or in the proximate company of at least
two (2) persons, shall suffer maximum penalty;
16) Unlawful prescription of drugs; and
17) Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs.
Chain of custody rule IFO-ODS-BOP-N 1) At the place where the search warrant is served, or
nearest police station, or nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, there must be the
Inventory and photographs done in the presence of
the accused, or his/her representative or counsel
with:
a. An elected public official;
b. Representative of the National Prosecution
Service; or
c. The media.
2) Within 24 hours from seizure, items must be
submitted to the PDEA forensic laboratory for
examination.
3) Immediately upon receipt of the subject item/s, a
certification under oath of the forensic laboratory
examiner shall be made.
4) Within 72 hours from filing of criminal case, an ocular
inspection shall be made.
5) Within 24 hours from filing of ocular, the drugs seized
must be destroyed by the PDEA in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the

Page 125 of 130

a t e n e o central
Ba r OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any

elected public official.
6) A representative sample in min. quantity shall be
retained. Those that belong to lawful commerce shall
be donated or recycled for legitimate purposes.
7) Sworn certification of destruction shall be issued by
the Board and submitted to the court with jurisdiction
of the case, along with the sample.
8) Accused or representative are allowed to observe
proceedings. If accused has no counsel within 72hrs
from written notice prior to destruction, court shall
appoint a counsel from PAO.
9) Within 24 hours from receipt of judgment - trial
prosecutor shall inform the Board and request for
leave to turn over the samples to PDEA for
destruction.
10) Provided, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
ILL!EGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
Punishable acts EFEFAIE Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition Or
Possession Of:
1) Firearms- any handheld weapon, small or light
weapon, that expels a bullet or any projectile; this
includes a barrel, frame, or receiver.
2) Light weapons (Class-A)- self-loading pistols, rifles,
etc. not exceeding caliber 7.62MM which have fully
automatic mode.
3) Light weapons (Class B)-designed for use of 2 or mre
persons, which has a caliber exceeding 7.62MM.
4) Small Arms- intended for individual use, to be fired
from hand or shoulder, not capable of fully automatic
burst.
5) Ammunition
6) Instruments used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of firearms or ammunition; or
_7) Explosives
Other punishable acts PLORANS ~~~~
1) Planting of evidence
2) Failure to notify the Firearms and Explosive Office of
the PNP of any lost or stolen firearm within 30 days
3) Carrying registered firearms outside his/ her
residence without any legal authority
4) Failure to notify the FEO of change of residence or
office address as indicated in the license card
5) Tampering, obliteration, or alteration of firearms
identification
6) Unlawful transfer to any person who has not yet
obtained or secured the necessary license or permit
tknt'rvrvf' ^ii iU
li ICI CUi , C 4
7) Arms smuggling

Pa9e 126 of 130

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT

Punishable Acts c 3o 1) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems
2) Computer-related Offenses
3) Content-related Offenses
4) Other Offenses
HUMAN SECURITY ACT
Elements of Terrorism CFC 1) Any person who commits an act punishable under
any of the following:
a. Piracy in general and Munity in the High Seas or
in the Philippine Waters;
b. Rebellion or Insurrection;
c. Coup d’etat, including acts committed by private
persons;
d. Murder; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention;
e. Crimes Involving Destruction or under The Law
on Arson;
f. Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear
Waste Control Act of 1990;
g. Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of
1968;
h. Anti-Hijacking Law;
i. Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of
1974; and
j. Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives;
2) Thereby Sowing and Creating Widespread and
Extraordinary Fear and Panic among the Populace;
And
3) To coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand
Territorial Application WIBECG 1) Within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime
zone and airspace of the Philippines
2) Inside the territorial limits of the Philippines
3) On board a Philippine ship or airship
4) Within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine
government in an official capacity
5) Against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine
descent where their citizenship or ethnicity was a
factor in the commission of the crime including those
committed outside the territorial limits
6) Directly against the Philippine government including
those committed outside the territorial limits (Sec. 58)
NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016
Elements of IA-WUV 1) Taking, with Intent to gain;
Carnapping 2) A motor vehicle belonging to Another;
a. Without the latter’s consent;
b. by Using force upon things; or
c. by means of Violence against or intimidation of
persons.
Page 127 of 130
ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

When bail should be GVF-KR Bail shall be denied when the evidence of guilt is strong
denied against any person charged with carnapping and when
the crime of carnapping is committed:
1) by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates;
2) by means of violence or intimidation of any person or
persons;
3) by means of forced upon things;
4) when the owner, driver, passenger, or occupant of
the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course
of the carnapping. (Sec. 3)
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LAW
Punishable Acts BAWS-DIE-FiFa 1) Preventing Witnesses from testifying in any criminal
proceeding or from reporting the commission of any
offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of
bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force
or threats;
2) Altering, destroying or concealing any Document, or
object, with intent to impair it as evidence in any
investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
3) Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the Escape of,
any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any offense under
existing penal laws;
4) Publicly using a Fictitious name for the purpose of
concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name
and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose;
5) Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
obstructing the Service of process or court orders or
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices;
6) Using any document, or object with knowledge of its
FAIsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome
of the investigation or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
7) Soliciting or agreeing to accept any Benefit in
consideration of abstaining from or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender;
8) Threatening directly or indirectly another with the
infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member of his
family in order to prevent such person from
Appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, and
9) Giving of false or fabricated Information to mislead or
prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered by investigating authorities
(Sec. 1).

Page 128 of 130

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND

DISCRIMINATION ACT
Child Prostitution and PSA 1) Any adult who engages in, promotes, facilitates, or
Sexual Abuse induces child Prostitution by:
a. acting as procurer;
b. inducing a client;
c. taking advantage or influence or relation to
procure a child as prostitute;
d. threatening or using violence to engage a child
as a prostitute;
e. giving pecuniary benefit or goods to a child with
intent to engage in prostitution.
2) Any adult who commits Sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited; and
3) Any person who derives profit or Advantage, such as
the manager or owner of establishment. (Sec. 5)
Other Acts of Abuse DCDMB 1) Commit any acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation
or be responsible for conditions prejudicial to the
child’s development;
2) Keep in his company a minor twelve (12) years or
under, or who is ten (10) years his junior, unless
related within the 4th degree;
3) Induce, deliver, or offer a minor to anyone prohibited
by this Act;
4) Managers, owners of establishments or any person
who allows a person to take along with him any minor
herein described to places of accommodations,
residence, etc.; and
5) Use, coerce, force or intimidate a child to beg for a
living, act as middleman in drug trafficking, or conduct
anv illeqal activities. (Sec. 10)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Coverage of ISL D3TM-PHEG The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to the
following persons:
1) Sentenced to death penalty or life imprisonment;
2) Maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1
year;
3) Sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension
only.
4) Treason, or conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason;
5) Misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage;
6) Piracy;
7) Habitual delinquents;
8) Escaped from confinement, or evaded sentence;
9) Granted with conditional pardon by the president, but
violated the terms thereof;

Page 129 of 130

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT

Classifications of RL 1) Children at risk
children 2) Children in conflict with the law
Exempted from criminal UD 1) A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the
responsibility commission;
2) A child above 15 but under 18 years at the time of the
commission, unless he acted with discernment.
PROBATION LAW
Disqualified from MS PAPED 1) Sentenced to serve a Maximum term of
availing the probation imprisonment of more than 6 years;
law 2) Convicted of Subversion or any crime against the
national security;
3) Previously convicted by final judgment of an offense
punished by imprisonment of more than 6 months
and 1 day and/or a fine more than P1,000;
4) Already serving sentence at the time the Decree
became applicable;
5) Once placed on Probation;
6) Convicted of Election offenses under the Omnibus
Election Code;
7) Those who have appealed or were convicted of Drug
trafficking or drug pushing.

Page 130 of 130