Sunteți pe pagina 1din 28

CRIMINAL LAW

1. ARTICLE 4. PROXIMATE CAUSE

It is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.

If the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the original act
can be held criminally liable.

Instances when there is a proximate cause


and when there is none:

Instance Criminally Liable?


When there is an intervening disease
If disease is closely related to the wound YES.
If disease is unrelated to the wound NO.
If disease is combined force with wound YES. Mortal wound is a contributing
factor to victim’s death.

NOTE: A mortal wound is a contributing


factor when :
i. The wound is sufficient to cause
the victim’s death along with the
disease
ii. The mortal wound was caused by
actions committed by the accused
When the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the
unskilled medical treatment from the doctors
If the wound is mortal YES. Unskilled treatment and infection
are NOT efficient intervening causes
If the wound is slight NO. Unskilled treatment and infection
are efficient intervening causes

Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
a. There is an active force between the felony committed and the resulting injury, such
active force is distinct from the felony committed.
b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim, i.e. fault or carelessness of
the victim to increase the criminal liability of the assailant.
1
Page
2. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Requisites: (PEIN)
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual; and

Inadequate
It means is insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison).
Ineffectual
It means employed did not produce the result expected (e.g. pressed the trigger of the
gun not knowing that it is empty).

Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:


a.Legal impossibility – where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount
to a crime. E.g. Stealing a property that turned out to be owned by the stealer (See
Gemma T. Jacinto vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009).
b.Physical impossibility – When extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. E.g. When one
tries to murder a corpse (See Sulpicio Intod vs Honorable Court of Appeals and People
of the Philippines G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992).

4. That the act performed should NOT constitute a violation of another provision of the
RPC.

Notes:
a. Felony against persons or property should not be actually committed, for otherwise, he
would be liable for that felony; there would be no impossible crime to speak of.
b. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is always consummated and
applies only to grave or less grave felonies.
c. Under Article 59, the penalty for impossible crimes is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from
200-500 pesos.
2
Page
3. STAGES OF EXECUTION

Stages of execution: (does NOT apply to crimes under special laws unless otherwise provided, crimes by
omission, and formal crimes)
1. Consummated felony
When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.

2. Frustrated Felony
Elements:
a. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
b. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (belief of accused as to whether or
not he had performed all acts of execution is immaterial)
c. But the felony is not produced; and
d. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?


They are those which, by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender cannot possibly perform all the
acts of execution to bring the desired result without consummating the offense.

Examples:
a. Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, no matter how slight the
penetration, the felony is consummated.
b. Indirect Bribery, because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public officer by reason of his
office. If he does not accept, he does not commit the crime. If he accepts, it is consummated.
c. Direct Bribery.
d. Corruption of Public Officers, because the offense requires the concurrence of the will of both parties,
such as that when the offer is accepted, the offense is consummated. But when the offer is rejected, the
offense is merely attempted.
e. Adultery, because the essence of the crime is sexual congress.
f. Physical Injury, since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or serious
unless and until consummated.
g. Theft, because the unlawful taking immediately consummates the offense and the disposition of the
thing is not an element thereof.
3. Attempted Felony
Elements:
a. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
b. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
c. He is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; and
d. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than the offender’s
own spontaneous desistance.

Overt acts
a. These are some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit a particular crime.
b. More than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles, nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will
logically ripen into a concrete offense (Reyes, 2008, p. 87).

Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following are present:
a. That there be external acts;
3

b. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
Page
4. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Justifying Circumstances
Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to
have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except in
par. 4 of Art. 11 where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.

An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof is on the accused who must prove it by clear and convincing
evidence.

There is both NO crime and NO criminal.

Basis: Lack of criminal intent.

Par. 1. Self-Defense

Subjects of Self-Defense: (PRPH)


a. Defense of Person
b. Defense of Rights
c. Defense of Property
d. Defense of Honor

Requisites: (URL)
1. Unlawful aggression (condition sine qua non);
Kinds of aggression:
a. Lawful
i. In the exercise of a right
ii. In the fulfillment of a duty
b. Unlawful
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (if by a peace officer, reasonable
necessity of the means employed to overcome opponent); and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Unlawful aggression
a. Equivalent to an actual physical assault; or
b. Threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing
the wrongful intent to cause injury.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed


1. It involves two elements, necessity for the course of action and necessity of the means employed, which
should be reasonable.
2. In determining reasonable means, some factors are to be considered such as: (PINES)
a. Presence of imminent danger;
b. Emergency to which the person defending himself has been exposed to;
c. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the accused compared to the weapon of the aggression;
d. Impelled by the instinct of self-preservation;
e. Size and/or physical character of the aggressor compared to the accused and other circumstances
that can be considered showing disparity between aggressor and accused.

This element should be interpreted liberally in favor of the law-abiding citizen.

Lack of Sufficient Provocation


Sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending himself/accused, and it must immediately
precede the aggression.

Defense of property should be coupled with danger to the person defending oneself; if there is no danger to
the person or the person’s life or limb, defense of property cannot be invoked.
4
Page
Par. 2. Defense of Relatives

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein.

Relatives that can be defended: (SADBroSAC4)


1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers and Sisters, or relatives by Affinity in the same degrees. Death of
the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity.
5. Relatives by Consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.

There is no distinction in the Revised Penal Code whether the descendant should be legitimate or illegitimate;
when the law does not distinguish the courts cannot distinguish.

Par. 3. Defense of Stranger

Stranger
They are any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under par. 2 of Art. 11.

Damage to another includes injury to persons and damage to property.

A person defending his common-law spouse or adopted child will fall under this paragraph.

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2.Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3.The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Motive is relevant only in this kind of defense.

Par. 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury

Requisites: (EIN)
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

It is only in this par. (4) that the person defending himself incurs civil liability, since generally in this article
there is no civil liability on the part of the accused. Such liability is borne by the person benefited.

Greater evil must not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence or violation of law by the actor.

Par. 5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office

Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of
duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
5
Page
People vs. Delima (46 Phil 738, 1922) –The deceased who escaped from prison while serving sentence was
under the oligation to surrender, and had no right, after evading the service of his sentence to commit assault
and disobedience with a weapon on his hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such extreme
means, which although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances.

The shooting by prisoner guards of escaping prisoners is always justified.

Doctrine of “SELF-HELP”
Article 429 of the Civil Code is applicable under this paragraph. The article states, “The owner or lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession.
If it is a mere disturbance of possession, force may be used against it at any time as long as it continues, even
beyond the prescriptive period of forcible entry. If the invasion consists of a real dispossession, force to regain
possession can be used only immediately after the dispossession

Par. 6.Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior;
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

Par. 6 presupposes that what was obeyed by the accused was a lawful order; but if the accused complied
with an unlawful order under a mistake of fact, he should not incur criminal liability (Regalado, 2009, p. 58).

Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality and he is not negligent.

6
Page
5. MINORITY AS PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006


(RA 9344)

Child in conflict with the law


It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine
laws (Sec. 4e).

Minimum age of Responsibility - Under RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), the following
are EXEMPT from criminal liability (Sec. 6):
a. Child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense. The child shall be however
subject to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.

If after the intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be returned to the court for the promulgation
of the decision against the minor; and then the court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the
intervention.

b. Child above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment.

Discernment
It is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong as determined by the
child’s appearance, attitude, comportment and behavior not only before and during the commission of
the offense but also after and during the trial. It is manifested through:
i. Manner of committing the crime
ii. Conduct of the offender

Discernment Intent
Refers to moral Refers to the desired
significance the person act of the person
ascribes to the act

After initial investigation, the local social worker may:


a. Proceed in accordance with Section 20 if the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15)
but below eighteen (18) years old, who acted without discernment; and
b. If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with discernment,
proceed to diversion under the following without undergoing court proceedings subject to the
following conditions: (Section 23)
i. Where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment, the PunongBarangay or
law enforcement officer shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation.
ii. Where the imposable penalty exceeds 6 years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted
to only by the court.

Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability.

Determination of age – The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority until he/she is
proven to be 18 years old or older (Section 7, par.1).

The age of a child may be determined from:


a. child's birth certificate,
b. baptismal certificate or
c. any other pertinent documents.

In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself,
testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence.

In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
7
Page
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law may:

a. If the case against the child has not yet been filed – file a case in a summary proceeding for the
determination of age prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court before the Family Court
which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all
interested parties.
b. If a case has been fiied against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court -
file a motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending
hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.

The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary investigation and file an information upon determination of
probable cause in the following instances (Section 33):
a. When the child in conflict with the law does not qualify for diversion.
b. When the child, his/her parents or guardian does not agree to diversion; and
c. Upon determination by the prosecutor that diversion is not appropriate for the child in conflict with the
law.

Automatic Suspension of Sentence – Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of commission
of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil
liability which may have resulted from the offense committees. However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with law under suspended sentence,
without need of application and impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme
Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (Section 38).

Upon recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the child, the court shall order the final
discharge of the child. The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability
resulting from the commission of the offense (Section 39).

Status Offenses – any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not
be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child

Offenses not applicable to children – Persons below 18 years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for
the crime of:
a. Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC)
b. Mendicancy (P.D. No. 1563)
c. Sniffing of Rugby (P.D. No. 1619)

PROVIDED, that said persons shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program

Summary of Rules

If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall immediately take effect without suspension and the decision
shall be promulgated and pronounced.

If the judgment is conviction, the promulgation of the decision and the sentence shall be suspended by the
court, the minor shall be ordered to undergo intervention, which shall have the following effects:

a. If after the intervention, there is reform on the part of the minor, the minor shall be returned to the court to
dismiss the criminal case and dismiss the charges against the minor.
b. If after the intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be returned to the court for the promulgation of
the decision against the minor; and then the court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the
intervention.

Note: Only when there is (1) refusal to be subjected to reformation or (2) when there is failure to reform can
the child be subjected to criminal prosecution and the judicial system.

Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence.


8
Page
6. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

Par. 7, Art 13. Surrender and confession of guilt

Two mitigating circumstances:


1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

If both are present, there will be two independent ordinary mitigating circumstances.

Requisites of voluntary surrender: (NSV)


1. That the offender had Not been actually arrested;
2. That the offender Surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent; and
3. That the surrender was Voluntary.

Person in authority
He is one directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern and to execute the laws, whether as
an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission.

Agent of a person in authority


He is one who by direct provision of the law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority (Art. 152, as amended by RA 1978).

When surrender is voluntary


1. Must be spontaneous.
2. Intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities must be either because:
a. He acknowledges his guilt; or
b. He wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
3. The conduct of the accused determines the spontaneity of the arrest.
4. Intention to surrender without actually surrendering is not mitigating.
5. Not mitigating when defendant was in fact arrested.
6. It is not required that, to be appreciated, it be prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. (People vs.
Turalba, G.R. No. L-29118, Feb. 28, 1974)
7. Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with voluntary surrender.

Requisites of voluntary plea of guilty: (SOPO)


1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the
case;
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution; and
4. That the confession of guilt was to the offense charged in the information.

Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies and in crimes punished by special laws.

Where in the original information the accused pleaded not guilty, but he pleaded guilty to the amended
information, it is considered a voluntary plea of guilty and considered a mitigating circumstance.(People vs.
Ortiz, G.R. No. L-19585, Nov. 29, 1965)

Basis: Lesser perversity of the offender.


9
Page
7. RECIDIVISM, REITERACION, HABITUAL DELINQUENCY, AND QUASI-
RECIDIVISM

Where a person, on separate occasions, is


Recidivism (par. 9,Art. 14) – Generic convicted of two offenses embraced in the same
Aggravating Circumstance title in the RPC.

Where the offender has been previously punished


for an offense to which the law attaches an equal
Reiteracion or Habituality(par. 10, Art. 14) – or greater penalty or for two crimes to which it
Generic Aggravating Circustance attaches a lighter penalty.

Where a person within a period of ten years from


the date of his release or last conviction of the
Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
(Art. 62, par, 5) – Extraordinary Aggravating robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty
Circumstance of the said crimes a third time or oftener.

Where a person commits felony before beginning


Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Special to serve or while serving sentence on a previous
Aggravating Circumstance conviction for a felony.

8. COMPLEX CRIME
Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two
categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding
from its operation light felonies; and (2) when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
The legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties,
will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.
A. Concept:
1. In complex crime, although 2 or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime
in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender.
2. The offender has only one criminal intent, hence there is only one penalty imposed for the commission
of a complex crime.

B. Two kinds of complex crimes:


10

1. Compound crime (delito compuesto) – a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
Page

Requisites:
a. That only a single act is performed by the offender;
b. That the single act produces:
i. Two or more grave felonies, or
ii. One or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, or
iii. Two or more less grave felonies.

Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or
may be absorbed by the grave felony.

When the crime is committed by force of violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed such as in
direct assault and rape. Reason: the slight physical injuries are the necessary consequence of the
force or violence inherent in the crimes of direct assault and rape.

Art. 48 speaks of two or more grave or less grave felonies resulting from a single act, which excludes
crimes punishable by special laws.

2. Complex crime proper (delito complejo) – an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
The first offense must be consummated.
Requisites:
a. That at least two offenses are committed;
b. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other; and
c. That both or all of the offenses must be punished under the same statute.
Note: Necessary means is NOT equivalent to indispensable means.

C. No complex crime in the following cases:


1. In case of continuous crimes
2. When one offense is committed to conceal the other;
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part or an element of the other offenses;
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law;
5. When the provision provides for a two-tiered penalty, e.g. Usurpation of property (Art. 312), malicious
procurement of a search warrant (Art 129), bribery (Art 210 par 1), maltreatment of prisoners (Art
235).

Notes:
Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit.
Reason: the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct
acts (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 542-543).
11

The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum
Page

period.
When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.
There is NO complex crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of Private Document as both crimes require damage
as an element which if used for one renders the other incomplete, hence the query is as to which crime was
committed first.
If at the outset, the accused took a woman away against her will and with lewd designs on his part, and he
thereafter raped her, this would clearly be the complex crime of abduction with rape (People vs. Oso, 62 Phil.
271).
On the other hand, the rule has been that if he had no lewd designs at the time of the forcible taking of the
victim, but the taking advantage later when the victim was in his custody he raped her, he committed two
separate crimes of kidnapping, a crime against personal liberty, and rape, then a crime against chastity
(People vs. Quitain, 99 Phil. 226).
Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape for even while
the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction was already comsummated, so that
each of the three succeeding rapes cannot be complexed with forcible abduction (People vs. Jose, No. L-
282232, Feb. 6, 1971).
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes.
Where the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of extorting ransom under pain of death, and he was later
killed when no such ransom was paid, the complex crime of kidnapping with murder was committed
(Regalado, 2009, p.189).
Article 48 Does not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but “the mental attitude x xx behind
the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight x xx,” a single mental attitude regardless of the
resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or more
consequences. 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.
Indeed, this is a constitutionally compelled choice. By prohibiting the splitting of charges under Article 365,
irrespective of the number and severity of the resulting acts, rampant occasions of constitutionally
impermissible second prosecutions are avoided, not to mention that scarce state resources are conserved
and diverted to proper use.
Hence, we hold that prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the
number or severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the
penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of
charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first level court.
This ruling secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of their
constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of
the favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus caused is more than
compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as “light offenses” (or, as
here, for the more serious consequence prosecuted belatedly). it is so minded, Congress can re-craft Article
365 by extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty
shall be imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized as grave, less grave or
light offenses. This will still keep intact the distinct concept of quasi-offenses (Ivler v. San Pedro and Ponce
G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010).
Rules in Art. 48 are NOT applicable:
1. When the crimes subject of the case have common elements;
12

2. When the crimes involved are subject to the rule of absorption of one crime by the other;
Page
3. Where the two offenses resulting from a single act are specifically punished as a single crime, such as less
serious physical injuries with serious slander of deed, since this is punished under Art. 265 par. 2, as the
single crime of less serious physical injuries with ignominy;
4. In special complex crimes or composite crimes;
5. When the crimes involved cannot be legally complexed, viz.:
a. Malicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
b. Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
c. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious physical injuries;
d. Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious physical injuries; and
e. Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275) and crimes against minors (Arts. 276 to 278) with any
other felony.

II. Special Complex Crimes – those which are treated as single indivisible offenses although comprising
more than one specific crime and with specific penalty.

Examples:
1. Rape with homicide,
The homicide must always be consummated, otherwise, separate offenses. The rape may either be
consummated or attempted.
2. Kidnapping with homicide,
3. Kidnapping with rape,
Kidnapping with rape is different from abduction with rape. In the latter, there is lewd design (People vs.
Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971).
4. Robbery with homicide,
Additional homicide NOT aggravating.
5. Robbery with rape,
Additional rape not aggravating.

NOTE: There is no complex crime of Arson with (Multiple) Homicide. Accordingly, in cases where both
burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated – whether arson,
murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
a. if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion
of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;
b. if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice,
when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly,
c. if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire
is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed
– homicide/murder and arson (People of the Philippines v. Edna Malngan G. R. No. 170470, September
26, 2006).
13
Page

When the crimes involved cannot be legally complexed, viz:


1.Malicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
2.Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
3.Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious physical injuries;
4. Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious physical injuries; and
5. Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275) and crimes against minors (Arts. 276-278) with another
felony.

Special Complex Crime or Composite


Ordinary Complex Crime
Crime

As to their Concept
It is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct It is made up of two or more crimes which
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one are considered only as components of a
information either because they were brought about by a single single indivisible offense being punished
felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for in one provision of the Revised Penal
committing the other offense or offenses. Code.

As to Penalty
Penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its It is the penalty specifically provided for
maximum period. the special complex crime that shall be
applied according to the rules on
imposition of the penalty.

Note: One information should be filed when a complex crime is committed.

III. Continuous crime – a single crime, consisting of a series of acts, but all arising from ONE CRIMINAL
RESOLUTION; length of time in the commission is immaterial.
Requisites:
1. Multiplicity of acts;
2. Unity of criminal purpose or intent; and
3. Unity of criminal offense violated.
Not a complex crime because the offender does not perform a single act, but a series of acts, and one offense
is not a necessary means for committing the other
In determining venue, a continued, continuous or continuing crime is DIFFERENT from a transitory crime
(moving crime) – in the latter case, criminal action may be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality,
city or province wherein any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.
Real or Material Plurality Continued Crime

There is a series of acts performed by the offender. There is a series of acts performed by the offender.

Each act performed by the offender constitutes a The different acts constitute only one crime, all of the
14

separate crime, each act is generated by a criminal acts performed arise from one criminal resolution.
impulse.
Page
9. THREE-FOLD RULE

When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit.
Otherwise, the order of their severity (under this article) shall be followed – so that they may be executed
successively

Penalties which may be simultaneously served are:


1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public censure
8. Fine and bond to keep the peace
9. Civil interdiction
10. Confiscation and payment of costs

If the sum total of all the penalties does NOT exceed the most severe of all the penalties multiplied by three,
the three-fold rule does NOT apply.

The Three-Fold Rule: (3:4:40)


1. The maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall NOT be more than three times the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
2. But in no case to exceed 40 years.
3. This rule shall apply only when the convict is to serve 4 or more sentences successively.
4. Subsidiary penalty forms part of the penalty.
15
Page
10. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
How criminal liability totally extinguished: (DSP3AM)
1. By the death of the convict as to personal penalties; but as to pecuniary penalties, liability is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
2. By service of sentence; however, it does not extinguish the civil liability; (Salgado vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 89606, August 30, 1990)
3. By absolute pardon;
4. By prescription of the crime;
5. By prescription of penalty;
6. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
7. By marriage of the offended woman with the offender in the crimes of rape, seduction, abduction,
and acts of lasciviousness. In the crimes of rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness,
the marriage, as provided under Art. 344, must be contracted in good faith.
Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically extinguish civil liability (Petralba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
no. 8137, August 16, 1991).
Death of the offended party will not extinguish the criminal liability of the accused even in private offenses.
Civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
Judgment becomes final:
1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal; or
2. When the sentence has been partly or totally satisfied or served; or
3. The defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal (Sec. 7, Rule 16, Rules of Court).

Effect of death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction


General Rule: The death of the accused pending the appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as his civil liability based solely on the offense committed.
Exception: Civil liability arising from sources other than the crime committed survives and may be pursued
in a separate civil action. Sources of civil liability other than crime are law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts. (People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 152007, September 2, 1994)

Amnesty
It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general pardon for a past offense, and is rarely if ever
exercised in favor of a single individual, and is usually extended in behalf of certain classes of persons who
are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.

Pardon
It is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the
individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.
Pardon must be given AFTER final judgment, otherwise, there will be violation of the Doctrine of Separation
of Powers.
16
Page
Absolute Pardon Conditional Pardon

The total extinction of criminal liability of the The exemption of an individual within certain limits
individual to whom it is granted without any or conditions from the punishment which the law
condition. inflicts for the offense he had committed resulting
in the partial extinction of his criminal liability.

It restores to the individual his civil and political


rights and remits the penalty imposed for the
particular offense of which he was convicted.

Pardon Amnesty

Includes any crime and is exercised individually by A blanket pardon to classes of persons or
the President communities who may be guilty of political
offenses.

Exercised when the person is already convicted May be exercised even before trial or investigation
is had

Merely looks FORWARD and relieves the Looks BACKWARD and abolishes and puts into
offender from the consequen- ces of an offense of oblivion the offense itself; it so overlooks and
which he has been convicted; it does not work for obliterates the offense with which he is charged
the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or that the person released by amnesty stands
the right of suffrage, unless such rights are before the law precisely as though he had
expressly restored by means of pardon. committed no offense.

Does not alter the fact that the accused is a Makes an ex-convict no longer a recidivist,
recidivist as it produces only the extinction of the because it obliterates the last vestige of the crime
personal effects of the penalty

Does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender Does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender

Being a PRIVATE ACT by the President, it must Being a Proclamation of the Chief Executive with
be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned the concurrence of Congress; it is a PUBLIC ACT
of which the courts should take judicial notice
17
Page
11. GOOD CONDUCT AND TIME ALLOWANCE; R.A. 10592

ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender
qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this
Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or
detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following
deductions from the period of his sentence:

"1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a


deduction of twenty days for each month of good behavior during detention;

"2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good
behavior during detention;

"3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each
month of good behavior during detention;

"4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior
during detention; and

"5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed


another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof,
for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.

"An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above
allowances for good conduct."
18
Page
12. ESTAFA and BP 22

Article 315 No. 2 (D)


Elements:
1. That the offender postdated a check, OR issued a check in payment of an obligation;
and

2. That such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds in
the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check.

 The issuance by the offender of the check (whether postdated or not), prior to or simultaneous
with the transaction, must be for the purpose of contracting the obligation, otherwise if the check
is issued in payment of a preexisting obligation, no estafa is committed, only a civil liability.

 If the check was issued by the debtor only for security of the creditor, as in the nature of
promissory notes but not to be encashed, no estafa will be involved.

 Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by postdating or issuing a check (People v.


Villapando, 56 Phil 31).

 Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing offense.

 There is prima facie evidence of deceit when the drawer fails to pay or make arrangement for
payment three (3) days after receiving notice of dishonor.

 The payee or person receiving the check must be damaged or prejudiced (Reyes, p.825).

13. ESTAFA AND ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Article 315 No. 2 (A):

1. By using a fictitious name.


2. By falsely pretending to possess (a) power, (b) influence, (c) qualifications, (d)
property, (e) credit, (f) agency, (g) business or imaginary transactions.
3. By means of other similar deceits.

There is use of fictitious name when a person uses a name other than his real name. Thus, when a
person found a pawnshop ticket in the name of another and, using the name of that another person,
redeemed the jewelry mentioned therein, he committed estafa by using fictitious name (People vs.
Yusay, G.R. No. L-26957, September 2, 1927).

The offender must be able to obtain something from the offended party because of the false pretense,
that is, without which the offended party would not have parted with it.
19
Page
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Under the Migrant Workers Act
(R.A. No. 8042 as amended by R.A. No. 10022)

Illegal Recruitment
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring contract services, promising
or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-
holder of authority.
Any such non-licensee or non-holder of authority who, for a fee, offers and promises employment abroad to
two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged in illegal recruitment.
It shall likewise include the acts enumerated under Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 10022, whether committed by any
person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
Economic Sabotage:
1. Illegal recruitment by syndicate – committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another.
2. Large Scale Illegal Recruitment – committed against three (3) or more persons.

Penalty for Illegal Recruitment involving economic sabotage is punishable by life imprisonment and fine
of P2,000,000 to P5,000,000.
In People v. Calonzo (G.R. Nos. 115150-55, Sept. 27, 1996), The SC reiterated the rule that a person
convicted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, as amended, can be convicted for estafa, under
Art 315 (par. 2), if the elements of the crime are present.

14. THEFT vs QUALIFIED THEFT


ARTICLE 308
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
Theft
Is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
Elements:
1. That there be taking of personal property;
2. That said property belongs to another;
3. That the taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.

Theft is likewise committed by:


1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner.
It is necessary to prove:
a. The time of the seizure of the thing;
b. That it was a lost property belonging to another; and
c. That the accused having had the opportunity to return or deliver the lost property to its owner or to the
20

local authorities, refrained from doing so.


Page
The term “lost property” embraces loss by stealing.
The finder in law can also be held liable for theft under this paragraph.
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of
the fruits or object of the damage caused by him.

3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner; shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals,
or other forest or farm products.
Elements:
a. That there is an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another;
b. That the offender enters the same;
c. That the offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products
in the estate or field; and
d. That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the owner.

The fishing referred to in this article is not fishing in the fishpond or fishery; otherwise it is qualified theft
under Art.310.
Theft is not a continuing offense.
In theft, the phrase used is “shall take personal property of another”, not “shall take away such property”.
From the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even if the culprit had no opportunity to
dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is complete (People vs. Salvilla, GR. No. 86163, April 26, 1990).
The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime
of theft. It finds no support or extension in Article 308, whether as a descriptive or operative element of theft
or as the mens rea or actus reus of the felony (Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 160188,
June 21, 2007).
Theft is not limited to an actual finder of lost property who does not return or deposit it with the local
authorities but includes a policeman to whom he entrusted it and who misappropriated the same, as the
latter is also a finder in law.
Theft of electricity is also punishable under RA 7832, the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission
Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994.

ARTICLE 310
QUALIFIED THEFT

There is qualified theft in the following instances:


1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant
2. If committed with grave abuse of confidence
3. If the property stolen is (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter or (c) large cattle
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of plantation.
5. If the property stolen is taken from a fishpond or fishery
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance

Elements:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
21

3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;


4. That it be done without the owner’s consent;
Page

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
and

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence (People v. Puig, G.R. Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008).

Penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that provided in Art. 309.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified, and it is not necessary to show that it was committed with grave
abuse of confidence.
To constitute “grave abuse of confidence,” in the second kind of qualified theft, there must be allegation in the
information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance between the accused
and the offended party, that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which the accused
abused. (People v. Koc Song, G.R. No. L-45043, Aug. 28, 1936)

15. MURDER and HOMICIDE

ARTICLE 248
MURDER

Murder
Unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or infanticide, provided that any of the following
circumstances is present:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation; or
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing
at his person or corpse (As amended by RA No. 7659).

Elements:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248; and
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

Rules for the application of the circumstances which qualify the killing to murder:
1. That murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in Art. 248.
2. Where there are more than one qualifying circumstance present, only one will qualify the killing, with the
rest to be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
3. That when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot
be considered as generic aggravating.
4. That any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 must be alleged in the information.

Outraging (physical act)


22

Means to commit an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act.


Page
Scoffing (verbal act)
Means to jeer, and implies a showing of irreverence.
Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim and qualifies
the killing to murder (People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004).
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (R.A. No. 8294, Sec. 1)
Treachery and Evident Premeditation are inherent in murder by means of Poison BUT the Use of Poison is
not inherent in murder. It only becomes inherent if there is intent to kill and the poison is used as a means to
kill.

ARTICLE 249
HOMICIDE

Homicide
The unlawful killing of any person, which is NOT parricide, murder or infanticide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death results; evidence of intent to kill is important only in
attempted or frustrated homicide.
Intent to kill is usually shown by the kind of weapon used and part of the body wounded.

Elements:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him 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.

The use of an unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide and is NOT to be considered as
a separate offense (RA No. 8294, Sec. 1).
Corpus Delicti
Actual commission of the crime charged and not the body of the person killed.
Accidental Homicide

 Is the death of a person brought about by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill and without
homicidal intent. e.g. death in boxing bout. There is NO FELONY committed in this case.
 In an attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill the victim. If there is no
intent to kill on the part of the offender, he is liable for physical injuries.
 In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element of an offense, there must be
satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact of death and (2) the identity of the victim.
 When there is no way of determining how the attack was committed, treachery cannot be considered and
the accused is guilty of homicide only (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 152176, October 1, 2003).
 There is no such crime as frustrated homicide through imprudence.
23
Page
16. MURDER AND ARSON

Rules as to the use of fire:

Act of the Accused Crime Committed


Intent was only to burn but Simple arson but with a specific
somebody died penalty (Art.326)

If fire was used as a means to kill Murder

If fire was used to conceal the Separate crimes of arson and


killing murder/ homicide

17. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

Robbery with Homicide


The term “homicide” is used in its generic sense and includes any kind of killing, whether parricide or murder
or where several persons are killed and the name of this special complex crime shall remain as robbery with
homicide. The qualifying circumstance (e.g. treachery in murder) will only become an aggravating
circumstance.
The juridical concept of robbery with homicide does not limit the taking of life to one single victim. All the
homicides or murder are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is robbery with homicide so long as
all the killings were perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (People vs. Madrid, G.R. No. L-
3023, January 3, 1951).
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery. What is essential is that the offender must have
intent to take personal property before the killing.
Where the offender’s intention to take personal property of the victim arises as an afterthought, where his
original intent was to kill, he is guilty of two separate crimes of homicide or murder, as the case may be, and
theft.
The phrase “by reason” covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another,
as long as the motive of the offender in killing is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought
to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle, killing a person after robbery to do away with a witness or to
defend the possession of the stolen property.
There is robbery with homicide even if the person killed was a bystander and not the person robbed or even
if it was one of the offenders. The law does not require the victim of the robbery be also the victim of homicide.
Robbery with homicide exists even if the death of the victim supervened by mere accident. It is sufficient that
a homicide resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. (People v. Mangulabnan, G.R. No. L-8919,
September 28, 1956).
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals
in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored
to prevent the same. (People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 139697, June 15, 2004).
24
Page
18. VAWC; ECONOMIC ABUSE

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262


ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004

AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR
PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Acts Punishable (Section 5): (C-TAPA- ICE-C)
The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
5. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to
engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or
conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation
directed against the woman or child.
6. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or
decisions;
7. Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not
constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the
woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
8. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another that alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child.
9. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but
not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor
children of access to the woman's child/children.

Economic abuse – acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is
not limited to the following:

1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/ partner objects on valid,
serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. Deprivation or threat of deprivation of the use of financial resources and the right to the use and
enjoyment of property owned in common;
3. Destroying household property;
4. Controlling the victim’s own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.
25
Page
19. SINGLE-DATING RELATIONSHIP

(e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties live as


husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically
involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the
relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two
individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.

20. R.A. 9165

SECTION 5.

Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous


drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Section 5).

In order to sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the element of sale must be unequivocally
established. What the law proscribes is not only the act of selling but also the act of delivering. What
is important is that the poseur-buyer received the drugs from the accused (People v. Ponferada, G.R.
No. 101004, March 17, 1993).

The following elements must concur:


a. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and
b. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor (People v. Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465,
June 2, 2011).

"Delivery" necessarily involves the knowledge on the part of the one delivering that what he is
delivering is DD. If there is no evidence to show this knowledge, accused will be acquitted (Boado,
p. 525). “Deliver” under RA 9165 is defined as “knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration” (People v. Jumao-as,
G.R. No. 101334, February 14, 1994).

SECTION 11

Possession of dangerous drugs (Sec. 11).

Elements
a. Unauthorized;
b. Either actual or constructive;
c. Irrespective of its quantity; and
d. With intent to possess or with full knowledge that what was possessed was any of the prohibited
drugs.

SECTION 21

Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,


Paraphernalia etc. (Sec. 21)
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all DD, CP/EC and equipment/ paraphernalia
confiscated, seized or surrendered for proper disposition.
26

a. Physical inventory and photograph the articles seized in the presence of the accused, his
Page

representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.
b. Submit the article within 24 hours to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination.
c. Certification of the results of the laboratory examination within 24 hours from the receipt of
the subject items. When the volume of the subject does not allow the completion of the
examination within 24 hours, a partial laboratory report shall be issued, with a final
certification to follow within the next 24 hours.
d. Filing of the criminal case in court.
e. Ocular inspection by the Court of the subject seized, confiscated or surrendered.
f. Within the next 24 hours, the burning or destroying of the items in the presence of the
accused or his counsel, representative from the media, DOJ, civil society, and any elected
public official.
g. Sworn certification of the burning or disposal is issued by the DDB.
h. Submission of the sworn certificate of destruction or burning to the court.
i. After promulgation of judgment by the court, the representative sample, with leave of court,
shall be turned over to the PDEA which shall destroy the same within 24 hours from its
receipt.
j. The DDB shall be informed of the termination of the case.

Chain of Custody
The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition (Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002,
implementing RA 9165).

Note: Non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21(a), of Republic Act No. 9165, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers
(People v. Lopez, GR No. 181747, September 29, 2008).

21. LIBEL AND CYBER-LIBEL

LIBEL (Article 353-362, RPC) “CYBER-LIBEL” (Sec. 4(c)(4), R.A. 10175)

ART. 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a Article 355, RPC committed through a
public and malicious imputation of a computer system or any other similar
crime, or of a vice, or defect, real or means which may be devised in the
imaginary, or any act, omission, future.
condition, status, or circumstance tending
to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person,
or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.

This provision should be read in relation with


Article 355 of the same Code which states:
27

ART. 355. Libel by means of writings or


Page

similar means. – A libel committed by


means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods or a fine
ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both,
in addition to the civil action which may
be brought by the offended party.

Thus, for an imputation to be libelous, the


following requisites must be present: (a) it must
be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it
must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must
be identifiable. (Novicio v. Aggabao, G.R. No.
141332, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 138,
143, citing Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241
SCRA 51 (1995). Absent one of these elements,
a case for libel will not prosper.

28
Page

S-ar putea să vă placă și