273584078-2015-Materials-Criminal-Law.docx

2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA PRO REO In dubio pro reo is means "when in doubt, for the accused.” Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL THERORY The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed. The purpose of penalties is to secure justice. The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but must also be reformative, to give the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive and civic-spirited member of the community. The adoption of the aspects of the Positivist theory is exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, impossible crime, privilege mitigating circumstance of minority and modifying circumstances, rule on imposition of penalties for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes) (Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418- 19, December 10, 2003;). Under the classical theory, man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will choose between good and evil. When he commits a felonious or criminal act, the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily, i.e. with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired (People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000). Since the Revised Penal Code is based on the classical school of thought, it is the identity of the mens rea which is considered the predominant consideration and, therefore, warrants the imposition of the same penalty for conspirators on the consequential theory that the act of one is thereby the act of all (Hon. Sandiganbayan, Honrado, G.R. No. 115439-41, July 16, 1997). Under this theory, the criminal liability is based on the result of the felonious act (proximate cause rule). CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW There are three characteristics of criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2) territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The general, territorial and prospective characteristics of criminal law are principles that define and demarcate the scope and limitation of the operation of criminal law. Under these three principles, the operation or enforceability of criminal law is limited to wrongful acts committed on or after its effectivity (prospectivity) within the territory of the Philippines (territoriality) by person living and sojourning therein (generality). GENERALITY - Generality principle is akin to territoriality principle in the sense that the demarcating factor of both principles is the territory of the Philippines. Under generality principle, criminal law is enforceable to person living or sojourning in the territory of the Philippines. Under the territoriality principle, criminal law is applicable only to criminal act committed within the territory of the Philippines. But the concept of generality is different from territoriality. The applicability of territoriality principle or generality principle will depend on the issue raised by the accused in questioning the jurisdiction of the court. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court because of the unique characteristic of his person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military, hermit, primitive, ambassador, legislator, President), the applicable principle is generality. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court due to the unique characteristic of the place where the crime was committed (e.g. the place of commission is foreign vessel, embassy or high sea) etc, the applicable principle is territoriality. 1. Military officers - The Revised Penal Code and special criminal laws are enforceable against military men living or sojourning in the Philippines. However, CA 408 (Articles of War) which vests jurisdiction over members of the AFP to the courts-martial. RA 7055 (AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY) did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try cases involving "service-connected crimes or offenses" under CA 408 (Example: Mutiny or sedition, quarrels, frays; disorders, breaking an arrest or escaping from confinement, releasing prisoners without proper authority, wrongful appropriation of captured property, corresponding with, or aiding the enemy, spies, dueling, fraud against the government affecting matters and equipment). In fact, RA No. 7055 mandates that these service-connected crimes shall be tried by the court-martial (Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, October 25, 2004). CA 408 is a law of preferential application since it excludes members of the AFP from the operation of the Revised Penal Code and special criminal laws if the crimes committed by them are service-connected as defined by RA 7055. 1|Page 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA 2. Consular officers - Despite the ruling in Schneckenburger vs. Moran, consular officers and employees are now enjoying immunity from criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of consular function under 1967, Convention on Consular Relation. Slander (Liang vs. People, GR NO 125865, January 28, 2000) or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is not function-related. Consul is liable for committing this crime. TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: Under the principle of territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its territory except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. 1. Embassy - The ground occupied by US embassy is in fact the territory of the USA to which the premises belong through possession or ownership. A person who committed a crime within the premises of an embassy will be prosecuted under the law of Philippines because of the principle of territoriality (See: Reagan vs. Commission on Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968, En Banc; Answers to 2009 Bar Examination Questions by UP Law Complex). However, jurisdiction of the Philippines over the embassy is limited or restricted by “the principles of inviolability of diplomatic premises”, which is a generally accepted principle of international law. Warrant of arrest cannot be served inside US embassy without waiver of American government of its right under the principle of inviolability. 2. English rule - There are two fundamental rules in International Law regarding crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel (not military vessel), if the same is within the 12- mile territorial water (not internal or archipelagic water or high seas) of the Philippines to wit: (1) French rule - Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial water of the Philippines are subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state (extra-territoriality principle) unless their commission affects the peace and security of our country. (2) English rule – Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial water of the Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of the Philippines (territoriality principle) unless their commission does not affect its peace and security, or has no pernicious effect therein. It is the English rule that obtains in this jurisdiction. 3. Convention of the law of the Sea - Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant vessel passing through the territorial sea has jurisdiction over crimes committed therein. However, the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage in the following cases: (1) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State; (2) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea; (3) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or (4) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. 4. Drug trafficking - Following the English rule, the Philippines has no jurisdiction over transportation of opium in a foreign vessel in transit in territorial water of our country because possession of opium does not have a pernicious effect on our country (U.S. vs. Look Chaw). But under the Convention of the law of the Sea, the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation involving transportation of dangerous drugs since this is a measure necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - Under the principle of extra-territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory for those five instances mention in Article 2 such as crime committed in vessel of Philippines registry (ownership is not material), function- related crime committed by public officer (such as corruption or direct bribery), crimes against national security (such as treason, espionage; rebellion is not a crime against national security), and crime against law of nation such as piracy and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001- “Piracy is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law (Article 2). The same principle applies even if accused were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, PD No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world.” PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC - If the court in trying an accused, who committed a crime prior to the passage of the law, should give retroactive effect to the law provided that: (1) it is favorable to the accused and (2) the accused is not a habitual delinquent (Article 22). Ex post facto law - Congress in passing a law can insert retroactive effect provision therein subject 2|Page 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA to the Constitution of ex post facto law. If the retroactive provision of the law has passed the constitutional test on prohibition against ex post facto law, the court must give retroactive effect to this law even if the accused is a habitual delinquent. Nullum crimen poena sine lege – If the law repeals a previous law or provision defining a crime, the applicable principle is not Article 22 of RPC but nullum crimen poena sine lege (There is no crime when there is no law punishing it). Since the intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable by the repealed law, the accused should be acquitted or released if the already convicted, even though he is a habitual delinquent. X committed crime under RA No. 6425, the penalty for which is life imprisonment. RA No. 7659 amended RA No. 6425 by prescribing the penalty of reclusion temporal. Should RA No. 7659 be given retroactive effect? Answer: Yes. The maximum duration of reclusion temporal is 40 years of imprisonment while life imprisonment has no duration. Thus, reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment. The amendatory law, being more lenient and favorable to the accused than the original provisions thereof should be accorded retroactive application (People vs. Morilla, GR No. 189833, February 05, 2014). RA No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty, prescribes reclusion perpetua in lieu of death penalty or life imprisonment if the special law does not use the nomenclature of the penalties under RPC and declares a person sentenced to reclusion perpetua as a prescribed or reduced penalty is ineligible for parole. This law has a retroactive effect. Penal laws which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied under Article 22 of RPC, which provides: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal (People vs. Talaro, et.al., GR No. 175781, March 20, 2012). REPEAL: Decriminalization - Repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000; Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; U.S. vs. Reyes, 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. Academia, 10 Phil. 431; Arizala vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43633, September 14, 1990; Almuete, et al., G.R. No. L-265, February 27,19 76). The intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law. Thus, person cannot be punished for subversion under RA 1700, which was repealed by RA 7637, even though he is a habitual delinquent. New regulation - Repeal with re-enactment of a penal law does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal. Such repeal even without a saving clause would not destroy criminal liability of the accused (U.S. vs. Cana, 12 Phil. 241). The intention of the new law is not to decriminalize an act punishable of old law but merely to provide new regulation. If the new law is favorable to the accused, who is not a habitual delinquent, it shall be given retroactive effect. Example: “A” was charged for the crime of rape under Article 336 of RPC for raping his minor daughter. However, RA 8353 expressly repealed Article 336 but re-enacted the provision on rape by reclassifying it as a crime against person, redefining it and prescribing a graver penalty for the commission thereof. The repeal of Article 336 does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try and punish “A” for rape under Article 336. RA No. 8353 shall not be given retroactive effect since it is not favorable to the accused. DECRIMINALIZATION 1. Vagrancy - Before Article 202 of RPC punishes vagrancy and prostitution. But Article 202 of RPC as amended merely penalizes prostitution. In sum, RA No. 10158 has decriminalized vagrancy by omitting portions of Article 202 involving crime vagrancy. A reading of the Senate deliberation pertaining to the passage of law decriminalizing vagrancy shows that they considered vagrants as victims of poverty and that the law on vagrancy serves to oppress the very people that the government sought to protect. In view of the new policy of the State decriminalizing vagrancy, which is embodied in RA No. 10158, ordinance, which punishes vagrancy, should be declared as contrary to law, and hence, invalid. Settled is the rule that what the national legislature expressly allows by law, a local legislature may not disallow by ordinance or resolution (Lina vs. Pana, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001). The spring cannot rise higher than its source. As aptly explained by Justice Nachura in his book, “An ordinance must not be contrary to the Constitution or law. Prohibited activities may not be legalized in the guise of regulation; activities allowed by law cannot be prohibited, only regulated.” RA No. 10158 shall be given retroactive effect. Under Section 2 and 3 thereof, all pending cases for vagrancy shall be dismissed and all persons serving sentence for vagrancy shall be 3|Page 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA immediately released. Since Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 10158 expressly provide retroactive application to the law without distinction, whether the offender is a habitual delinquent or not. 2. Premature marriage - Under Article 351 of RPC, a woman in contracting marriage within 301 days from death of husband, or dissolution or annulment of marriage is liable for the crime of premature marriage. However, RA No. 10655 decriminalizes premature marriage by repealing Article 351. Premature marriage was decriminalize since Article 351 discriminates women because this provision is not applicable to men. Moreover, Article 351 sought to prevent a possible confusion as to whether the father of the child born after the dissolution of the marriage is the first husband or the second. This preventive measure is not anymore necessary since paternity and filiation could now be easily determined through modern technology. MISTAKE OF FACT PRINCIPLE: Requisites: (1) That the acts done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be (2) that the mistake of fact is not due to negligence or unlawful intent of the offender. The Supreme Court in several cases had applied the “mistake of fact” doctrine, which allowed the accused, who committed a crime on a mistaken belief, to enjoy the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self-defense (United States vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488), defense of person and right (US vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 10678 August 17, 1915), defense of honor (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil. 391), performance of duty, (People vs. Mamasalaya, G.R. No.L- 4911, February 10, 1953), and the exempting circumstance of obedience of an order of superior officer (People vs. Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445, February 28, 1955). In Ah Chong, the accused, who believed that the victim was a robber and that his life was in danger because of the commencement of unlawful aggression, was acquitted due to mistake of fact doctrine in relation to the rule on self-defense. In Oanis vs. Galanta, the accused, who believed that the sleeping victim is a notorious criminal to be arrested by them, was held guilty of murder for shooting him since the mistake of fact principle in relation to performance of duty is not applicable. Second element is not present since they did not ascertain first his identify despite opportunity. The first element is not likewise present since the killing of victim believed to be a criminal was not necessary consequence of the due performance of duty of the accused as police officers. The gist of the theft is the intent to deprive another of his property in a chattel, either for gain or out of wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the thing taken. This cannot be where the taker honestly 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, for the protection of the latter. However, the belief of the accused of his ownership over the property must be honest and in good faith and not a mere sham or pretense. If the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, taking the property of another will not protect the taker (Gaviola vs. People, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006). This belief of ownership as a defense in theft is in accordance with the mistake of fact doctrine. X informed the authorities regarding armed rebel elements on board a vehicle in a certain barangay. Several policemen, Barangay officers and members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) responded to information and set a check point. X pointed at an approaching jitney occupied by rebels. They flagged down the vehicle but the same did not stop. They attacked the vehicle with automatic weapons by firing directly thereat. One died and another was wounded. It turned out however that the victims are unarmed innocent civilians. Are those responsible for the death and injuries of the victims liable for homicide? Is the doctrine of mistake of fact applicable? Answer: They are liable for homicide and attempted homicide. The duty of those manning the check point is to identify the occupants of their suspect vehicle and search for firearms inside it to validate the information they had received; they may even effect a bloodless arrest. While, rebellion is a continuing offense, they cannot open fire at or kill the suspects under any and all circumstances. There is no evidence showing that they were placed in real mortal danger in the presence of the victims. Hence, the mistake of fact principle is not applicable since there is negligence or bad faith on their part (Yapyucu vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 120744-46, June 25, 2012). South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide after the judge found he killed his girlfriend by mistake. The judge said the athlete had acted "negligently" when he fired shots through a toilet door, but in the "belief that there was an intruder". If the case happened here, should the athlete be convicted of homicide or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide? Answer: The athlete should be held liable with homicide with privilege mitigating circumstance of defense of property. 4|Page Ah Chong. If a person died due to violence. voluntariness is an essential element. Actus non facit reum. March 17. In sum. the means employed and the motive of the accused (Recuerdo vs. intent to kill is conclusively presumed. No. must be proved by the State just as any other essential element. April 20. which would allow him to use reasonable means to repel it in accordance with the self-help doctrine under Article 429 of the Civil Code and defense of property under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. such absence must be proved by the accused (Ah Chong case. a specific intent is not presumed. nisi mens sit rea.R. and understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. it is important requisite that that act would have been lawful had the fact been as the accused believed them to be. There are other specific intents that are presumed. PRESUMED MALICE . The accused was acquitted not because of the absence of intent to kill (specific intent) but by reason of lack of general intent (dolo or malice). Generally. Its existence.e. In estafa. the accused was acquitted because of mistake of fact principle even though the evidence showed that he attacked the deceased with intent to kill (United States vs.The general criminal intent (malice) is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense. the offender must commit the act prohibited by RPC with specific criminal intent and general criminal intent. November 8. the prosecution does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the author of the crime. Ojeda. Nos. 1983). and that friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime. or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person (People vs. A man’s act is presumed voluntary. 7929.” Thus. June 27. L-33466-67.R. for the moral and legal presumption is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind. 1912. intelligence and intent makes up the “criminal mind” behind the “criminal act.R. i. intentional felony must be committed with dolo (malice). June 3. 2006. As held in a long line of cases. CAMPANILLA In mistake of fact. G. If there was really an intruder inside the toilet. VOLUNTARINESS – Concurrence of freedom. by the nature of the act. the act must. ). 2004). culpable felony with culpa. The act to be considered a crime must be committed with freedom and intelligence. G. which was established by the statement of the accused "If you enter the room I will kill you. it would be considered as unlawful aggression against his property. 168217. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 104238-58. This may be shown. 2006).Motive gains importance only when the identity of the assailant is in doubt. Nos. the accused was able to rebut the presumption of general criminal intent or malice). People. The lack or absence of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction where there are reliable witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the 5|Page . that acts were done unconsciously. The human mind is an entity. Opuran. Narvaez. General criminal intent (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Presumption of voluntariness: In the determination of the culpability of every criminal actor. Apego. to constitute a crime. specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing. generally and in most cases. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of malice by intent. G. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have been killed for no apparent reason at all. which negates dolo. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent (People vs. On the other hand. the imputation of criminal responsibility and the imposition of the corresponding penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. and mala prohibita under special law with intent to perpetrate the act or with specific intent (such as animus possidendi in illegal possession of firearm). CRIMINAL INTENT – To be held liable for intentional felony. the means employed by him firing shots through the toilet door is not reasonable. Voluntariness is an element of crime. Dissenting opinion of J.R. as a matter of fact. No. G. No. 2004). Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a felony. Intent to gain is presumed from taking property without consent of owner. the act would have been attended by the privilege mitigating circumstance of incomplete justification had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. G. People. Nos." Article 249 (homicide) should be read in relation to Article 3. the circumstances under which it was committed. and hence.R. June 27. whether committed by dolo or culpa or punishable under special law. he is only entitled to privileged migrating circumstance of incomplete defense of property (See: People vs. in homicide intent to kill. be accompanied by a criminal intent. In addition to voluntariness. 168217. 147674-75. However.R. however. MOTIVE Doubt as to the identity of the culprit . The accused was positively identified by witnesses. Trent). the specific intent is to defraud. It is improper to assume the contrary. the prosecution did not have to identify and prove the motive for the killing. Thus. G. in theft intent to gain (Recuerdo vs. Without it. In the US vs. 2013). exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection. 186412. produces the injury. People. En Banc . PROXIMATE CAUSE Proximate cause is the primary or moving cause of the death of the victim. and was already touching her genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. Lightning that kills the injured victim or tetanus infecting the victim several days after the infliction of injuries.The direct relation between the intentional felony and death may be broken by efficient intervening cause or an active force which is either a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. and thus. May 16. The incubation period of severe tetanus is less than 14 days. GR No. Since the victim was infected of severe tetanus. lack of proper treatment is not an intervening cause.R. inferring from such circumstances that rape. Cornel. and to have sexual congress with her. However. to cause physical injury to its occupants. Hence. which. INDETERMINATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE – In People vs. People. In sum. 43530. In Cruz vs. the proximate cause of the death of the victim is not the infliction of injuries. prompting Romulo to get mad at the deceased. the accused is liable for physical injuries because of the intervening cause rule. and no other. the crime the he intended to commit inside the store is indeterminate. which in the natural and continuous sequence unbroken with any “efficient intervening cause” produces death and without which the fatal result could not have happened. If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected when the accused inflicted injuries upon him.R. or "susceptible of double interpretation" (People v.The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim. On the other hand. Accused was chased by the deceased eastward after the slapping and hitting incident. and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed it. G. the crime committed is homicide (People vs. or involuntary removal of the drainage. it is not an overt act of robbery since the intention of the accused once he succeeded in entering the store is not determinate. despite his lust for and lewd designs towards her being fully manifest. in natural and continuous sequence. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Accused had motive to kill the deceased because during the altercation the latter slapped and hit him with a bamboo. he died the next day. It is the cause. Said accused was the last person seen with the deceased just before he died. L-204. motive becomes material when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive. September 11. Proximate cause has been defined as "that cause. The act of making an opening on the wall of the store is an overt act of trespassing since it reveals an evident intention to enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. 2014 . 3. The accused was held liable for physical injuries. Such circumstances remained equivocal. The following circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict accused: 1. Lamahang). was his intended felony would be highly unwarranted. the accused is liable for the death because of the proximate cause rule. carelessness of the victim.R. CAMPANILLA petitioner as the perpetrator of the felony (Kummer vs. 2011 (Justice De Castro).Accused who was caught in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store was held guilty of attempted trespassing and not attempted robbery. G.R. October 08. 1935. he could not have been infected at the time of the stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before the victim was rushed to the hospital. His final objective could be to rob. 1947). No. an attempt to commit it is not punishable as attempted felony. Verily. No. In Villacorta vs. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. (4) Accused and Antonio Trinidad surrendered to police authorities with the samurai. or to commit any other offense. for some other felony like simple seduction (if he should employ deceit to have her yield to him) could also be ultimate felony. Hence. People. and without which the result would not have occurred." Although there was no direct injury on his vital organs of 6|Page . (5) Some of the wounds inflicted on the deceased were caused by a bolo or a knife. his felony would not exclusively be rape had he been allowed by her to continue. September 7. or voluntary immersing the wounds to aggravate the crime committed by accused is an intervening cause. GR No. Thus. Yet. June 13. (Trinidad vs. G. No. The infection of victim’s stab wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause. it is the cause. G.Indeed. there had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when victim was rushed to hospital. 166441. Lamahang. People. The accused is not liable for homicide because tetanus is an efficient intervening cause. This was so. Intervening cause . the crime committed is physical injuries. 192241. 174461. If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected after the accused inflicted injuries upon him. Thus. August 3. Circumstantial or inconclusive evidence . 2012). 2. it is subject to different interpretations. which is the nearest in the order of responsible causation (Black’s Law Dictionary). No. Trinidad. since with respect to crimes of personal violence the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.R. 2010). L-38930. G. the court shall impose the penalty for the intended crime or committed crime. No. Enriquez. 177218. G.In case of aberratio ictus. (2) The wrongful act done.In case of error in personae. The circumstance of aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) can neither exempt the accused from criminal responsibility nor mitigate his criminal liability. However. his wounds affected his kidneys. Jr. ABERRATIO ICTUS . 51 Phil. 1. 536). 189834. Praeter intentionem may be appreciated as mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong than that committed.R. person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. Maglian. who was actually killed. causing multiple organ failure and eventually his death.In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae. CAMPANILLA the victim. People vs. November 23. 967. 181052. The court shall impose the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period. Accused is liable for homicide. The crime committed against the intended victim and victim injured due to aberratio ictus shall be made a complex crime (compound crime). Sr. G. the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony. 172896. 2012). 7|Page . When death resulted.If accused employed means to render the victim defenseless. Evident premeditation. Requisites: In order to make a person criminally liable in case of error in personae. 2011). March 30. 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs. not just physical injuries. G. No. June 28. the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony. the SC did not appreciate evident premeditation since the victim. praeter intentionem and evident premeditation can be independently appreciated. vs. Trinidad. is not contemplated in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. ERROR IN PERSONAE . Sales. October 3. the crime is homicide. the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony. No. No. G. April 30. 180219. 1988. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used. 58 Phil. People vs. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused. (2) The consequent victim against whom the felony was directed is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. (2) The consequent victim against whom the felony was directed is different from that intended due to mistake of identity. 3. Without the stab wounds. April 19. criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended (Matic vs. No. People. People vs. treachery shall be appreciated even if the killing is due to error in personae (People vs. 2011). accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim (Belbis.The mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem cannot be appreciated if the acts employed by accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim (People vs.R. NO. L-38930.R.. 25459. which is graver than that intended. Under Article 4 of RPC. person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although its wrongful consequence is graver than that intended. G.R. Mabug-at. June 28.. No. G. Mitigating circumstance . He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (Seguritan vs. G.The mitigating circumstance that “the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed” or praeter intentionem is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. Mabug-at.R. even if there was no intent to kill. the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim (People vs. Requisites: In order to make a person criminally liable in case of aberratio ictus. Requisites: In order to make a person criminally liable under Article 4 (1) in case of praeter intentionem.R. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. If the penalty for the intended crime is different from that of the committed crime. November 14. No. People. 2011). the victim could not have been afflicted with an infection which later on caused multiple organ failure that caused his death.R. 1988). GR No. 2. Del Castillo. there is no incompatibility between evident premeditation and no intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is based on the state of mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the crime (Reyes. natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender. whichever is lesser. People. person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due to mistake of identity. is the direct. Treachery . PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case of praeter intentionem. L-32995. b.R. 1926.R. conspirator. or intent to rape. concealing the body of the crime to prevent its discovery makes him liable as an accessory in homicide. a retardate. Garcia should be held liable for the death as principal in homicide. Burning the clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical injuries on his person. the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result. December 16. Recklessness – Even if there is no intent to kill and evil intent. the deceased. accused is liable for the direct. offender is liable for culpable felony if the victim died as a result of the recklessness of the former. 125909. No. the accused Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the Ferris wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former. 38511. November 21. Hence. G. With intent to threaten – In US vs. a felony. Hence..Ortega stabbed the victim.Conspirators. 39519. July 24. G. who never even fired a single shot and whose only participation was to drive their getaway vehicle and to lend his firearm to his back rider so that the latter could finish off the target victim was not found accountable for the injury sustained by the unintended victim was just a star-crossed bystander who was accidentally hit in the process (aberratio ictus) (People vs. In People vs. 1996. natural and logical consequence of his felonious act of assisting Ortega in hiding the body of the victim. CAMPANILLA August 10. Clearly.The accused in rage he moved towards victim with a big knife in hand. Deceased used to run errands for Pugay and at times they slept together.R. During a town fiesta fair was held in the public plaza. Valdez. March 22. the accused Samson set victim on fire making a human torch out of him. Since proximate cause of death of the victim is the felonious and accessory act of throwing the victim into the well. Cagoco. 112716- 17. The act of the Accused was merely a part of their fun-making that evening.Intentional infliction of injury resulting in death of the victim constitutes homicide or murder. this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. No. No.. and Buenaflor. intent to silence the hold-up victim. Intent to inflict injury . Victim died due to drowning. INTENT TO KILL: Intent to kill is an element of homicide and murder. intent to threaten victim. G. His act. a. he must be held responsible therefor. Not content with what they were doing with the deceased. The act of threatening to stab victim constitutes a felony of threat. Victim believing himself in great and immediate peril jumped into the water where he was drowned. however. offender is liable for homicide or murder if the victim died as a result of the “felonious act” of the former. Crime committed by Pugay: Having taken the can from under the engine of the Ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased. Garcia was committing an intentional felony. Pinto. who appeared to be drunk. 116736. It was held that: "If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape. Pugay and Samson with several companions. G. Accused. But even if offender had no intent to kill. Garcia assisted Ortega in concealing the body of the victim by throwing the body into the well. En Banc . made the deceased dance by tickling him with a piece of wood. With intent to hide the body of the crime – In People vs. 2000). (Note: The crime is not murder qualified by means of fire because the fire was not use to kill but merely to inflict injury). Flora and Flora. he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every 8|Page . et al. and in so doing he injures himself. No. who conspired to kill a particular parson. Garcia should be held liable for the direct. People vs. Since such felony of physical injuries resulted into a graver offense. The stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice even before pouring the same. 1988. threatening to stab him. and the accused Pugay were friends. natural and logical consequence of his intentional and felonious act. 1991). G. he would be held just the same liable for homicide or murder if his felonious act is the proximate cause of the death of the latter. 1997 . Even if there is no intent to kill. Herbias. are equally liable for the killing of another person due to error in personae (People vs. No 74324.R. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Pugay.R. November 17. 1933) 4. Conspiracy . No. Offender is liable for homicide because it is the natural. No. June 23. Pugay and Samson were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning. intent to hide the body of the crime. Jr. Issue: Is Garcia liable for the death of the victim as principal in homicide even if his intention was not to kill the victim but merely to assist Ortega in concealing his dead body not knowing that the victim was still alive at that time? In assisting Ortega carry the body of victim to the well. direct and logical consequence of an act committed with criminal intent. e. Then. The offender’s act is considered felonious if it is accompanied with criminal or evil intent such as intent to inflict injury. 16486. Crime committed by Samson: There is no intent to kill. En Banc) or with the circumstance of praeter intentionem (People vs." d. Jr. Accused merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire. However. October 6. 1921. No. G. Ortega.R. The accused was found guilty of homicide. does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. however. Thus. Desiring to stop the encounter. the victim was not present in said place and thus. The act of depositing the check is committed with evil intent. and hit an innocent by-stander. the accused failed to accomplish their end due to its factual impossibility. RA 8353 reclassifies rape from crime against chastity to crime against person. It was held that: “The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence.In Intod vs. where the victim is supposed to be sleeping. if a person raped a dead person believing that she was just sleeping. (3) offender did not commit the offense because of the impossibility of its accomplishment or employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. received check from the customer of her employer. an offender for raping a dead person without knowing that she was already dead may now be held liable for impossible crime. although in reality. G. While hunting. No one was hit by the gun fire.R. evil intent and recklessness on the part of the accused. Reyes). the slaying having been unintentional.45 caliber pistol and shot twice in the air.. G. Raping a dead person . employee of Mega Inc. In the Philippines.R. People. What is the crime committed by X? Answer: The crime committed is impossible crime of qualified theft.Prior to RA 8353. Putting the hand inside an empty pocket with intention to steal a wallet is impossible crime because of factual impossibility.R. 9|Page . It was held that accused is not criminally liable. En Banc .. However. he drew a .If there is no intent to kill. Tanedo (15 Phil. G. f. 103119. Qualified theft is a crime against property. offender could not be held liable for impossible crime (J. July 13. Nocum. No. Note: The accused could not have foreseen that the slug after hitting the chicken would recoil and hit deceased. Court of Appeals. hence where the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible of accomplishment. so he fired another shot at the ground. where the offense is legally impossible of accomplishment. Victim died. 2009). On the other hand. he is not liable for his intentional act. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME Offender shall be held liable for impossible crime if the following requisites are present: (1) offender performing an act which would have been an offense against person or property. As these paid him no attention. the offender shall be liable for attempted crime. X deposited the check under her account. Rep. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. the crime committed is impossible crime if the offense sought to be committed is factually or legally impossible. and (4) offender in performing an act is not violating another provision of the law (Luis B.There was a fistic fight between two persons. accused with intent to kill fired at the bedroom. the drawee bank dishonored the check because of insufficiency of funds. Intod principle . In United States vs. not seeing deceased about and not knowing or having any reason to believe that he was in that vicinity shot the chicken. The bout continued. 162540. the accused came upon a wild chicken. 1992 – Outside the house of the victim. 25 February 1947. showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Life was taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm. Hence. There is factually impossibility to accomplish the crime of qualified theft since the check is unfunded. but unfortunately the bullet ricocheted. CAMPANILLA undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased. 196). which caused the death of the victim. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Ramon Aquino). rape is a crime against chastity. and the likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement of the Manila thoroughfare. The accused were convicted of impossible crime. criminal laws are silent regarding impossible crimes. (Jacinto vs. (2) offender performed an act with evil intent. In impossible crime the act could have constituted the crime against person or property if its accomplishment was not impossible. resident of the place. In the United States. L-482. However. The bullet that hit the chicken recoiled and hit the deceased. No. Rape is neither a crime against person nor against property. Note: The accused should have foreseen that the slug after hitting the pavement would recoil and might hit somebody. Accused shoot the place where he thought his victim would be. and. October 21. The accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Accident . The mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Inc. The principle enunciated in Tanedo case will not apply if the place where the accused lawfully discharged his firearm is populated. Killing a dead person is impossible crime because of legal impossibility. It is apparent that defendant willfully discharged his gun- for without taking the precautions demanded by the circumstance that the district was populated. Instead of remitting the check to her employer. No. the actor cannot be held liable for any crime. In People vs. Impossible crime of theft . accused shouted at the combatants.X. deceased went with the accused to hunt wild chickens at the forest. To determine whether the felony is at the attempted or frustrated stage. If the wounds inflicted upon the victim with intent to kill are non-mortal. but not enough to consequently produce the felony. CAMPANILLA Committing another crime . acts of execution of execution of a felony must be identified. thus his external acts would “not produce” the felony as a consequence. STAGES ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES: In attempted felony. the offender performs directly an overt act. In attempted felony and frustrated felony. but in an attempted felony. the accused performed all acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence. To be exempt from criminal liability for frustrated felony. “A” is liable of discharged of firearm and not impossible crime.“A” discharged shotgun at “B” from a distance of 300 yards. the commission of which has no frustrated stage since the performance of all the acts of execution immediately consummates the felony. But since sexual penetration consummates rape. 10 | P a g e . thus. if the mortally wounded victim did not die due to medical intervention. “B” sustained non-mortal wound. Negative Act . what consummates homicide or murder is not the infliction of mortal wounds but the death of the victim as a consequence of the mortal wound inflicted. If the accused administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend whom he believed to be pregnant. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE – In attempted felony and frustrated felony. Example: The acts of execution that would produce homicide or murder are infliction of mortal wounds upon the victim. which consists of one or more acts of execution. if the felony is produced the crime committed is consummated. offender is not exempted from liability for frustrated felony even if he voluntary desisted from further doing criminal act. the crime committed is frustrated felony. the offender failed to accomplish his criminal objective by reason of extraneous causes. Positive Act – If the offender performs all the acts of execution. there are felonies. b. on the other hand in a frustrated felony. In homicide or murder case. the offender must do a “positive act” to be exempt from criminal liability. In the frustrated stage of the execution of a felony. in rape once the offender sexually penetrate the labia of the vagina of the victim. since the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence. In frustrated felony. the accused will be liable for serious physical injuries and not impossible crime of abortion (Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio). the offenders perform all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a matter of consequence. which would produce the felony as a consequence. there are no occasions where the offender performed all the acts of execution and yet the felony was not produced as a consequence. homicide or murder is only at the frustrated stage. FRUSTRATED AND CONSUMMATED . his external acts “would produce” the felony as a consequence. the offender failed to perform all the acts of execution. Where the offender unlawful entered the house and took a watch that turned out to be his own. To be exempt from criminal liability for attempted homicide or murder. the offender performed all the acts of execution. all the acts of execution are considered performed. which turned out not to be true. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. a. Thus. once the offender inflicted mortal wound on the victim. there is no such thing as frustrated rape since the performance of all the acts of execution immediately consummates rape. Example: “A” with intent to kill shot “B”. he must spontaneously desist from further doing criminal acts that will complete all the acts of execution. However. Spontaneous desistance is a defense in attempted felony but not in frustrated felony. Example: “A” with intent to kill shot “B”. but because of the limited range of the firepower of the shotgun. If the felony is not produced due to external cause. but the woman became ill for more than 30 days. if wounds are mortal. In frustrated felony. the external acts performed by the offender and the intended felony must have a direct connection. he is liable for trespass to dwelling and not impossible crime (Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). he must do something to prevent. “B” sustained mortal wound. the crime committed is frustrated homicide. all the acts of execution are considered performed. the offender must do a “negative act” to be exempt from criminal liability for attempted felony. However. the offender performed all the acts of execution but the felony was not produced as a consequence due to extraneous cause. On the other hand.In frustrated and consummated felony. “A” must spontaneously desist from further shooting “B” in order not to inflict mortal injury upon him. it would be impossible for “A” to harm “B”. or thwart the production of the felony. the crime committed is attempted homicide. since the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence. the accused will be absolved from criminal liability.In the attempted stage of the execution of a felony. if the causes are not extraneous. In sum. The spontaneous desistance is not a valid defense since “A” had already inflicted mortal wound on “B” that would cause his death as a consequence. “A” returned the chicken to the place under the house of “B”. the latter still managed to run towards his house to ask for help. accused is guilty only of attempted rape (People vs. En Banc). he could have repeatedly hacked him to ensure the latter’s death. his desistance was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel. No. offender cannot undo what was done. The term “spontaneous” means proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint. however. c. G. and the conduct of the malefactors before.R. What is the crime committed? Answer: X only shot the victim once and did not hit any vital part of the latter's body. vs. which.R. Hence. Invoking the doctrine in Pentecostes. will ripen into the crime of rape. A single hacking blow in the neck could be enough to decapitate a person and leave him dead.R. which produced the crime of theft before he returned the chicken (Reyes). location and number of wounds sustained by the victim. CAMPANILLA it is not enough that “A” would desist from further shooting “B”. April 07. “A” must save the life of “B” by treating his wound. Not absolutory cause – If the felony is consummated. People. removed her panty. “A” had already performed all the acts of execution. he shot the victim in the chest. as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage. January 24. October 07. Nonetheless. January 30. Case No. hitting him just below the left armpit. (2) “A” stole chicken under the house of “B” one evening. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of. Accused then left the room of the victim. No. accused saw Rossel peeping through the door and dismounted.The term spontaneous is not equivalent to voluntary. may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. went on top of her. He berated Rossel for peeping and ordered him to go back to his room and to sleep. Accused had previously raped the victim several times. People. SPONTANOEUS DESISTANCE . or immediately after the killing of the victim (Escamilla vs. G. What could have been a fatal blow was already delivered and there was no more desistance to speak of (People vs. Using a gun. 1998. the use of a scythe against victim’s neck was determinative of the homicidal intent of X. Thus. En Banc). Is the argument tenable? Answer: No. January 24. Lizada. En Banc). X sped away. Although accused desisted from performing all the acts of execution. at the time of. No. Jr. By the series of his overt acts. Pentesoste Jr. X could have shot the victim multiple times or even ran him over with the car. 143468-71. 2003. GR No. 167766. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Example: (1) Restitution of funds malversed immediately and voluntarily made before the case was instituted is not an absolutory cause (Navarro vs. February 27. 313. automatic and mechanical (People vs. Since the crime of theft was already consummated. En Banc). During the subject incident. 128106-07. a non-vital part of the body. Jr. X claimed that had he intended to kill victim. 143468-71. the return of the stolen property does not relieve “A” of criminal responsibility. mashed her breasts and touched her sex organ. X was charged with frustrated murder for hacking the neck of victim with the use of a scythe. (3) The fact that the accused abandoned victim after six days of captivity does not lessen his criminal culpability much less exempt him from criminal liability for the kidnapping and detention of victim (Baldogo.R. Refraining from further hacking the victim does not negate intent to kill. He entered the bedroom of victim. 2003. HOMICIDE OR MURDER – The intent to kill. Offender would not be absolved from criminal liability even if he had done something that will mitigate the effects of the felonious act. G. the latter will not be held liable for frustrated felony because the homicide was not produced due to the will of “A”. the crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries only (Pentecostes. The overt acts of accused proven by the prosecution were not merely preparatory acts. The wound sustained by A is not fatal. the means used. Lizada. Since intent to kill is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim. However. Held: Accused intended to have carnal knowledge of victim. 198400. If “B” did not die because “A’s” medical treatment. 2003. case is not applicable since the victim in that case was shot in the arm. Even if the desistance is voluntary. X opened the door and while still in the car drew a gun and shot A once. accused had commenced the execution of rape. petitioner continued 11 | P a g e . 2010). Abella. In this case. the same could not exempt the offender from liability for attempted felony if there is an external constraint. 188551. January 24. GR No. 2013). accused was wearing a pair of short pants but naked from waist up. it is synonymous with impulsive. 2013). Meneses III. inter alia. Realizing that what he did was wrong. Despite a bloodied right upper torso. if not for his desistance. held her hands. No.. CBD Adm. If he intended to kill him. G. the nature. 2010). One who plans the commission of a crime is liable as conspirator and principal by inducement (People vs. GR No. Vera. Even though the other victim did not suffer mortal wounds. Such doubt should be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability—that of a mere accomplice (People vs. that he fetched Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz. People. COMPLEX CRIME Killing persons and injuring two more by treacherously detonating a hand grenade in a dancing place constitutes the complex crime of multiple murders with double attempted murder. Evidently. No. 8282 for his failure to remit SSS contributions of his employees and was sentenced to suffer up to 20 years of reclusion temporal. 2004. 192251. However. 188314. 2012 - The “evidence of a chain of circumstances. The wound sustained by the victim is fatal. Single act of detonating an explosive device may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses. CAMPANILLA to shoot at him three more times. Comiling. Although an accused is convicted under a special penal law. the courts are bound to apply the law as it is and impose the proper penalty. because accused was motivated by the same intent to kill when he detonated the explosive device inside the dancing place (People vs.To exempt himself from criminal liability. that he gave the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime. G. a conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof (People vs. yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of perversity. GR No.Accused.” to wit: that appellant went inside the house of Romines to ascertain that the victim was there. 183891. taken collectively. the act of one is the act of all and the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime (People vs. February 27. 128966. What is important is that inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the crime. In conspiracy.Notwithstanding. October 19. G. he could be held liable as principal on the basis of implied conspiracy. appeared in the company of his employer. there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime.It is immaterial whether appellant acted as a principal or as an accomplice because the conspiracy and his participation therein have been established. G. August 18. unarmed. there is doubt as to whether accused acted as a principal or just a mere accomplice. RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY Accused was convicted of crime RA No. The armed presence of 12 | P a g e . shows a community of criminal design to kill the victim. G.R. the crime committed is not physical injuries. the fact that one was not at the crime scene. No. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. January 10.To be held liable as conspirator. however. No. No. 1999). without it. Under Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. No. People. PRESENCE . DISSOCIATION .R. The fact that the companion of the criminal actor is armed may mean that the former is supplying moral assistance to the latter. 2013). albeit unsuccessfully. 2010). The command or advice made by principal by inducement was of such nature that. 2011). 181635 November 15. 2010).R. 140405. Barde.R. His employer shot and killedthe victim. G. G.The fact that accused appeared together with employer and another and fled with them proves a certain degree of participation and cooperation in the execution of the crime. March 4. En banc). No. 183094. the crime would not have materialized (People vs. 186472. 2011). Accused did nothing to prevent the killing. September 22. The penalty is excessive since he already paid his delinquent contribution. Dollendo.R. Ebet. Siongco.R. July 5. the Court is not precluded from giving the Revised Penal Code suppletory application in light of Article 10 of the same Code (Mendoza vs. The same provision. no matter how harsh it might be. If the accused is armed at the time.R. MASTERMIND . CONSPIRACY IMPLIED CONSPIRACY . Tomas. evidence proved that he was the mastermind of the criminal act or the principal by inducement. G.In People vs. February 16. G. it must also be shown that the accused performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy except in the case of the mastermind of a crime (People vs. Janjalani. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY . and another person. and that they both fled after the stabbing. No. 188551. 2011). No.R. Accused fled together with his employer and other person. 181701. gives the Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions it deems appropriate but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive. January 18. The crime committed is frustrated homicide (Escamilla vs. 2870. Hence. The accused has the right to resist pursuant Article 429 of the Civil Code. Thus. 141066. Apolinar. Ebet.In People vs. a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for violation of BP Blg. March 25. and then detained her in a safe house for purpose of extorting ransom. Anticamaray. June 08. Robbery with rape – When a homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. 178771. 168852. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. En Banc). that appellant attempted to prevent the killing. the SC found the presence of unlawful aggression despite the fact that the invasion of his property right was not coupled by an attack against the accused. 133887." applies in this case (People vs. 181635. 179943. Kidnapping with rape . April 20. GR NO. However. 2008) Anti-graft law . B and C kidnapped X from her house. 2013) If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery.R. GR No. May 28. 181635.R. a person (such as mother-in-law). Anticamaray. GR No. G. People. GR No. the latter is responsible for the rape committed by former since there is no showing that B endeavored to prevent A from raping X (People vs. Diu. B is also liable for special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. Diu. 3019 even if the public officer. 2005). Therefore.A. 201449. since the means employed 13 | P a g e . 2013). 168539. in People vs. People vs. supra). February 17. SELF-DEFENSE SELF-HELP PRINCIPLE . 201449. with whom he was alleged to have conspired. 2014. and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. Since there is no evidence that he is aware of the commission of rape. Blg. Since conspiracy is established between A and B in the commission of kidnapping.P. 1983. These two crimes should be integrated together to form a composite crime where the law prescribes a single penalty. 22 does not expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Nos. CA. (Ladonga vs. No. unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing. 2002. 2009. en banc). it was held: Defense of property is not of such importance as right to life.May a private person be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. B and C? Answer: A is liable for special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. June 26. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime. Hence. G. 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. although not all profited and gained from the robbery.R. SPECIAL LAW . L-33466-67. The only thing extinguished by the death of the public officer is his criminal liability. Go. which provides: “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.R.” However. such rule may be applied supplementarily. April 03. GR No. has died prior to the filing of the Information? Answer: Yes.G. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private individual (People vs. who has no marital. 22 on the basis of conspiracy. While C went to Jolibee to buy food. C is only liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Ebet. GR No. The death of the public officer does not mean that the allegation of conspiracy between him and private individual can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. No. 38 O. People vs. GR No. A raped X in the presence of B. The records are bereft of any evidence to prove. 9262. 2010. April 03. 2010. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized (People vs. Raping the kidnapped victim is a qualifying circumstance. CAMPANILLA conspiratorial companion may prove a sense of security and encouragement on the part of the material executor or may serve as deterrence against possible defender or rescuer (Galgo. G. What is the crime committed by A. Since X is a female. 2011). he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. he could not have prevented A from raping the victim. all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the killing. the basic principle in conspiracy that the "act of one is the act of all. November 15. G.B. Thus. can be held liable for violence against woman on the basis of conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. taking her away from her house against her will and holding her as captive constitute kidnapping and serious illegal detention. No. sexual or dating relationship with the victim. Go. or even remotely suggest. De Leon. he is not responsible for the rape (People vs. People vs. For this purpose. Narvaez. September 30. The principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No. November 15. Verily.R. the latter would have sustained some injury from the aggression. No. 2012. G. it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude. People. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. or. Unlawful aggression requires an actual. Gamez. nor must it be merely imaginary. and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is self-defense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim. 184601. The rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence is that the accused. January 18. be differentiated from current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. however. Here. such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered. the physician who examined the cadaver 14 | P a g e . imminent. G. G. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self- defense. People. considering that the Prosecution’s evidence. Roman. November 12. it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense (People vs. 2012). For unlawful aggression to be attendant there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. November 14. No. 198110. that no injury of any kind or gravity was found on the person of accused when he presented himself to the hospital. Roman. GR No. cannot be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing (People vs. only the onus probandi shifts to the accused. GR No. 2012 (Justice De Castro) Ordinarily there is a difference between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s gun at a target. Accordingly. and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful (People vs. GR No. 2013). CAMPANILLA to resist the invader (killing) is not reasonable. 191913. March 21. People vs. 2013). GR No. otherwise.R. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. January 25. In other words. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening.R. The facts surrounding the case must. Jr. It must be continuous. No. not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution. and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. which carries it until the end of the proceedings. Justice Florenz Regalado stated that the rule in Apolinar case may be deemed to have been superseded by Narvaez case. or like aiming to throw a pot (People v. even if weak.R. 2013. (b) the attack or assault must be actual.Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression. 2012). July 31. that it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. or imminent danger thereof. Without it. to invoke self-defense successfully. the act of the victim in drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Fontanilla. Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim. October 23. who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack (Belbis. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. accompanied by an angry countenance. however. the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon. Malicdem. 2012 . sudden and unexpected attack. for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof. 2013). July 31. 181052. The former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. had victim really attacked accused. GR No. July 31. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – The essential requisites of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). People vs. Accused was justified in defending himself considering that victim was a trained police officer and an inebriated and disobedient colleague. vs. 198110.” It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. In People vs. Kinds of aggression . that can validly be invoked. “There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life. an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. at least. Even if the victim did not point his firearm at accused. 202847.Indeed. 198110. No. namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault. there can be no self-defense. Roman. He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence. 169084. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State. 177743. there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused. or right of the person invoking self-defense. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression. the accused is merely given the benefit of incomplete self-defense. by his admission. It remains. limb. In contrast. Del Castillo. is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. whether complete or incomplete. G. there would still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim (Nacnac vs. loving or non-violent phase (People vs. who was in possession of the same weapon. The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the assailant—but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-à-vis. Necessary means . this “continuous attack” by accused despite the fact that aggressor already was neutralized by the blow constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the aggression—and is therefore unjustified (Espinosa vs. Ceased aggression . Clearly.The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted. November 14. vs. the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him. and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. People. all at the back portion of the body. who is found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome is not criminally liable for killing her husband. G. four stab wounds that are the product of direct thrusting of the bladed weapon are not necessary to prevent what the accused claim to be the continuous unlawful aggression from the victim as the latter was already without any weapon. 2004). March 15. Jr. and (3) the tranquil.R. January 15. The duress. 135981. People. The three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-building phase. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. a woman. plea of self-defense would prosper if there is a rational equivalence between the means of attack by the unlawful aggressor and the means of defense by the accused that would characterize the defense as reasonable. Genosa. It is hard to believe based on the location of the stab wounds. who suffers from physical and psychological or emotional distress. In connection therewith. like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. and of such nature as to 15 | P a g e . having established that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he was stabbed.R. the unlawful aggression. Thus. force. imminent and impending. The plea of self-defense was thus belied. Such an aggression can also be surmised on the four stab wounds sustained by the victim on his back. 181052. Actus me invite factus non est meus actus. 2010). already became the unlawful aggressor. the first element of self-defense is not present (Belbis. not merely an effort to prevent or repel an attack from victim. IRRESISTABLE FORCE A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. In retaliation. Genosa. while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused. November 14. It would have been different if the wounds inflicted were located in the front portion of the victim's body. No. there is no doubt that the latter. No. Under doctrine of rationale equivalence. GR No. Although there was still some struggle involved between the victim and accused. fear or intimidation must be present. G. (2) the acute battering incident. Jr. In Genosa supra. People. (People vs. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.R. She must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill him in order to save her life. 9262). vs.” That is why even in the absence of “actual aggression” or any other element of self-defense.The unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased when accused Rodolfo was able to get hold of the bladed weapon. Answer to the 2010 Bar Examination Questions by UP Law Complex). for the weapons used by accused and the location and number of wounds he inflicted on victim revealed his intent to kill. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME: "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 (Section 3 of RA No. is acting under an irresistible impulse to defend herself although at the time of commission of the crime the batterer-victim had not yet committed unlawful aggression. is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. that accused was defending himself. An act done by me against my will is not my act. 2004. 181071. January 15. not just to defend himself. 2012). No. We consider to be significant that the gravity of the wounds manifested the determined effort of the accused to kill his victim. In the present case. The essence of this defense of “Battered Woman Syndrome” as a defense is that battered woman. 135981. CAMPANILLA of victim testified that he had been hit on the head more than once. accused cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense (Belbis. 181052. GR No. it was held that “it is crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense. 2012). G. to prevent detection and boxing the victim to weaken her defense” are indicative of accused’s mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his unlawful action (People vs. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age. are given the chance to mend their ways. since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state. Exempting circumstance of minority . Monticalvo. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable law (Section 68 of RA No. Privilege mitigating circumstance – In People vs. 968 provides: “Application for probation must be filed within the period of perfecting an appeal and no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. shall be graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority (People vs. Jacinto. the victim and his heirs. 9344. G. 2011) 3. Arpon. are categorically disqualified from availing the law on probation. In sum. January 30. G. 2013 – Accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. People vs. A child. July 20.R. Mantalba. who reached 21 years. the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment. CAMPANILLA induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.The rule under Section 24 of RA No. 182239.Section 4 of PD No.R. December 14. who is 15 years old or more.R. G. June 22. after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law. place the child on probation in lie of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest to the child. and upon application at any time. No. 2011. People vs. Section 42 of RA No.To exempt a minor. which disqualifies drug traffickers and pushers for applying for probations. No. youthful drug dependents. while drug traffickers and pushers. In Padua vs. Under Section 98 of RA No. January 7. 186227. A threat of future injury is not enough. the provisions in RPC is not applicable unless the accused is a minor. 177751. Hence. the penalty of life imprisonment for illegal possession of dangerous drug committed by a minor. 2011) MINORITY The rights and privileges of a child in conflict with the law are as follows: 1. People vs. July 23. January 19. 968 and provides that a child in conflict with the law can apply for probation at any time.R. 168546. Choosing an isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime. No. the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered reclusion perpetua. 9165. 9165. The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section 42 means the child in conflict with the law may file application for probation even beyond the period of perfecting an appeal and even if the child has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. 2013). G. January 30. Hence. No. G. Right of possessor or user of dangerous drugs to apply for probation .While Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. 2011 (Justice De Castro. No.R. which graduates the penalty one degree lower. 186227.R.” However.R. 193507. 2011. who are already serving sentence. Montalaba. G. 2011). 2008. Suspension of sentence . if the accused is a minor.” 16 | P a g e . Salcedo. 193507. No.R. No.Right to apply for probation despite appeal .R. No. RA No. 186523. March 16. Article 68 of RPC on the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority shall apply to crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug even though this is malum prohibitum punishable by life imprisonment. shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of RA 9344. G. This is regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration. 183563. Hence. 9344 provides: “The court may. 2. from criminal liability. it must be shown that he committed the criminal act without discernment. People vs. 2013). it was held that: “The law considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while the drug traffickers and pushers as predators. Monticalvo. the child in conflict with the law. G. No. July 20. GR No. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat (People vs. cannot avail of privilege of suspension of sentence (People vs. 4. People. does not extend to possessor of dangerous drugs. 177570. Probation . In such case. which is treated as reclusion perpetua. G. Dequina. like Padua. 9344 has expressly amended Section 4 of PD No. Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. users and possessors alike. Agacer. and not the mental age. hence. 2010). GR No. G. No. Butiong. G. 200793. Exempting circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated since he is not a minor. 2014 . 1997) In People vs. An idiot or imbecile is exempt from criminal liability. No. 5. G. No. No. However. 6. 186523. one is sentenced to suffer a penalty (maximum indeterminate penalty) of more than is not qualified to apply for probation. and it is improper to conclude that a person acted unconsciously in order to relieve him of liability. 188320. after conviction and upon order of the court. October 19. GR No. In exempting circumstance of imbecility. This implies that accused knew what he was doing. INSANITY Acts penalized by law are always presumed to be voluntary.R. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. Mantalba. Under the said provision. Roxas. 2011). be made to serve his sentence. In People vs. in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution. If the mental age of the accused is 12 years old. 183563. October 13.The case of Formigones established two distinguishable tests to determine the insane condition of the accused: (a) The test of cognition – whether there was a “complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act” After satisfying his lust. He is not an imbecile since his mental age is not 7 years. June 04. what is important is the chronological age of the accused. 173822. Nunez. he is not exempt from criminal liability (People vs. Exempting circumstance of imbecility cannot be appreciated. No. December 14. a first time minor offender can apply for probation for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug even if the penalty is higher than 6 years of imprisonment.R. 2011. 9344. Justice De Castro). 9165. Roxas. the applicable rule for crediting the period of commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41. 186227. A feebleminded is not an imbecile. Butiong). June 22. 9344 (People vs. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. Accused is not exempt 17 | P a g e . Insanity as an exempting circumstance must relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which accused is charged (People vs. Section 6 clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one’s birth date. Tibon. IMBECILITY In exempting circumstance of minority under Section 6 of RA No. Arpon. G. G. he is an idiot.The child in conflict with the law may. the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence (Atizado vs. 2011.R. RA 9344. if his mental age is 7 years old. in an agricultural camp and other training facilities in accordance with Section 51 of RA No. COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION TEST . he is an imbecile (People vs. Pambid. accused threatened the victim. 124453. and wanted to keep it a secret. supra). what is important is the mental age of the accused.In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability. It also indicated that the crime was committed during one of his lucid intervals. However. People vs. 2010. under Article 800 of the Civil Code. People vs. NO. he is a feebleminded (People vs. People. 112429-30. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. March 15. July 23. under Section 70 of RA No. unless his insanity is conclusively proved (People vs. Salcedo.R. If the actual age of the child is 15 years or under.R. No.R. G. 2000). if the convict is a child. If the mental age of the accused is 2 years. he is exempt from criminal liability.Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. G. Full credit of preventive imprisonment . CAMPANILLA Right to apply for probation even if the penalty for possession of dangerous drug is more than 6 years – Under Section 9 of PD 968. 2011. the chronological age of the victim is 18 years while his mental age is 9 years old. that it was wrong. 168932. July 20. Agricultural camp or other training facilities . is that every human is sane. His actual age is not below 18 years. a convicted recidivist is not entitled to a full or 4/5 credit of his preventive imprisonment.Under Article 29 of RPC. June 29.R. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity (People vs. The presumption. Tibon. Jr. otherwise. in order to prosecute him. while entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction (People vs.R. had no intention to commit. In recent Supreme Court cases. 181409. February 11. while entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction. otherwise. March 17. R. G. who acted under irresistible homicidal impulse to kill (volition test). Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused. Pascual. that it was wrong. 175605. Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused. was rejected because of failure to pass the cognition test. February 6. October 05. Alipio. People. 1993). Only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered (People vs. by the stepfather who steals something from his stepson. October 5.R. People. it indicated that the crime was committed during one of lucid intervals of accused (People vs. homicidal maniac or kleptomaniac)had merely passed the volition test but not the cognition test. by the grandson who steals from his grandfather. G. Alipio. The first holds that relationship by affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage. No. November 21. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 1998. G. had no intention to commit. G.R. People. The controlling test is cognition (People vs.” In the Bonoan case. Espiritu. In instigation. 181409. August 28. CAMPANILLA from liability for failure to pass the cognition test (People vs. 201. In instigation. 1991. No. No. G. 113691. the plea of insanity of person. Garchitorena. 2010).R. he threatened victim. Accused will be convicted if he was not totally deprived of reason and freedom of will (People vs. This is not anymore a good rule. G. G. who is suffering from schizophrenia. by the stepmother who commits theft against her stepson.R. after satisfying his lust. G.R. Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he. 184757. It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a criminal. the criminal intent to commit an offense originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. No.R." It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a criminal.R. G. in order to prosecute him. 2013). January 9. 2009 (Justice De Castro). that accused knew what he was doing. he will only be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance of illness. Medina. February 11. 2009) and Evidence tended to show that accused was not deprived of reason at all and can still distinguish right from wrong when. the criminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses and schemes. In sum. INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT “Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he. No. swindling and malicious mischief. There are two viewson whether the extinguishment of marriage by death of the spouse dissolves the relationship by affinity for purpose of absolutory cause. supra). Justice De Castro). 181409. Diminution of freedom of the will is enough to mitigate the liability of the offender suffering from illness (See: People vs.R. for one. 95029. Opuran. It does not apply to theft through falsification or estafa through falsification (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. No. February 11. The principle of pro reo calls for the adoption of the continuing affinity view because it is more favorable to the accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. No. a schizophrenic accused must be deprived completely of intelligence to be exempt from criminal liability (See: People vs. 2010). 2004). by the accused who swindles his sister-in-law living with him. while the second maintains that relationship continues even after the death of the deceased spouse. The absolutory cause applies to theft. 18 | P a g e . People vs. No. 54135. the criminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses and schemes. No. November 21. March 24. (b) The test of volition – whether there was a “total deprivation of freedom of the will.R. 185285. This single episode irresistibly implies. the criminal intent to commit an offense originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. Even if the mental condition of the accused had passed the volition test. G. In entrapment. 180919. And for another. Nos. Rafanan. G. 147674-75. 1991). schizophrenic accused. In entrapment. 2010). No. and wanted to keep it a secret. was acquitted due to insanity. and by the son who steals a ring from his mother (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. the plea of insanity will not prosper unless it also passed the cognition test. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE IN CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY No criminal liability is incurred by the stepfather who commits malicious mischief against his stepson.If a person (such as sex maniac. Bulagao. or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission. 177751. Espiritu et. Justice De Castro). either because he acknowledges his guilt. any of the following will not exculpate the accused: "(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way. Agacer. 131856-57. Moreover. VOLUNTARY CONFESSION . It is not required that the prosecution must have presented all its evidence when the plea of guilty was made to negate the appreciation of mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession (People vs. It must be recalled that it was only upon receipt of a report of the drug trafficking activities of Espiritu from the confidential informant that a buy-bust team was formed and negotiations for the sale of shabu were made. coerced or induced through incessant entreaties to source the prohibited drug for Carla and PO3 Cariño and this she even categorically admitted during her testimony. 2010. Tabarnero. and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. appellant testified that she agreed to the transaction of her own free will when she saw the same as an opportunity to earn money. G. He even denied the said charge upon his purported surrender. January 9. 2011). CAMPANILLA In People vs. 180919.R. the evidence clearly established that the police operatives employed entrapment. and (3) the surrender was voluntary. Justice De Castro) The surrender made after 14 days from the date of killing cannot be considered voluntary since his act did not emanate from a natural impulse to admit the killing or to save the police officers the effort and expense that would be incurred in his search and incarceration. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous. 169084. December 14. No. G. Castillano. 168169. 2010. This is "especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed. The accused surrendered only after having been informed of the charge of rape against him or about two months from the commission of the alleged crime. G. not to admit his participation in the killing of the victims (People vs. 2003). Salle.Here. January 21. therefore. or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. G. or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act. a police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation. The alleged surrender. to capture appellant and her cohorts in the act of selling shabu. No. Al. Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance (People vs. Notably too. 139412. G. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. February 24. En Banc). showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities.R. if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer. does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance (People vs.R. No. in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs.R. appellant was able to quickly produce a sample. Montinola." MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES VOLUNTARY SURRENDER – To appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. (People vs. she was never forced. No.R. Clearly. Del Castillo. or what is known as the "decoy solicitation. not instigation. 2012). July 9.R. namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested. The fact that the appellants did not resist but went peacefully with the peace officers does not mean that they surrendered voluntarily (People vs. The evidence shows that the appellants were arrested when the police officers manning the checkpoint stopped the passenger jeepney driven by appellant Ronald and arrested the appellants. 19 | P a g e ." is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation. January 18. G. No. No.. 2001. This confirms that she had a ready supply of the illegal drugs. Surrender is not voluntary where the accused went to Barangay Chairman after the killings to seek protection against the retaliation of the victims’ relatives. No. (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority. even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu. April 2. 2013 .R. appellant’s defense of instigation will not prosper. the following requisites must be proven." Hence.A plea of guilty made after the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence cannot be considered voluntary since it was made only after the accused realized that the evidence already presented by the prosecution is enough to cause his conviction. Also. G. 181083. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator. Nos. It refers to (1) spouse. No. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION . G. March 4. G. which is the date of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied the requirement (People vs. 2004)` 20 | P a g e . ignominy cannot be taken against the accused (People vs. there is an additional concept of relationship. January 15. but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. March 15.R. June 28. IGNOMINY . 2011). it was nonetheless a grave offense for which the appellant may be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance. No.R. Nos. June 4. It is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. and must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. CAMPANILLA VENDICATION: The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense was. 123982.R. No. Jr. 1999. G. 131799-801. People vs. Although the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed Anthony. However. it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance (People vs. relationship of uncle and niece is not an alternative circumstance (People vs. Four days after the victims attempted on the virtue of his wife. vs. No.. Justice De Castro) Section 8. Villa. during which the perpetrator might have recovered his normal equanimity (People vs.R. In vindication of grave offense. It includes relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. De Leon. January 21. L-51304. passion should not be appreciated (People vs. People vs. G. PASSION . 2004). But the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense.The mere use of service firearm is not enough to constitute taking advantage of public position. September 30. July 27. 182551. 2002. En Banc. Cachola. for example. No. 2011. mauled and almost stabbed by the deceased. 179943. November 25. For ignominy to be appreciated. G. 1983. in defense of relative.. 2004. G. accused killed them.R. alternative circumstance of relationship and defense of stranger. No. Dadulla. or (4) legitimate. 2009).e. i. Thus. Should ignominy be appreciated? No. The period of four days was sufficient enough a time within which accused could have regained his composure and self-control. thus adding to the victim’s moral suffering.R. G. GR No.R. En Banc. These two circumstances arose from one and the same incident.The following essential requirements must be present: (1) there was an act that was both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition (passion or obfuscation) of the mind. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has expressly required that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specifically alleged in the information. natural or adopted brothers or sisters or (5) of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees. Fact that accused made use of firearms which they were authorized to carry or possess by reason of their positions. Rebucan. 2000.R. properly appreciated. No. 140407-08 and 141908-09. Ulit. G. Otherwise. 2000. G. an uncle is a relative within the concept of defense of stranger (Reyes).After killing the victim. No. Joyno. En Banc). and People vs. April 27. (3) descendants. G. No. criminal exemption of accessories. 2009. However. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered. It must always be alleged and charged in the information. Villamor. 137347. Justice De Castro). the accused severed his sexual organ. the concept of relationship is the same. 2004). R. February 9. they cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment. Fallorina. February 23. 129899.R.The crime in question. likewise. Comillo. 186538. it is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating. Nos. June 26. The appellant was humiliated. People vs. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. even. 2009). and (2) such act was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. if they are subsequently proved during trial (Sombilon. (2) ascendants. Torpio. 148712-15. 172321. G. the attack on the appellant by Anthony. the Court has authorized its retroactive application in favor of even those charged with felonies committed prior to December 1.R. Mandolado. 138984. Hence. could have been committed by the defendants in the same or like manner and with the same case if they had been private individuals and fired with unlicensed weapons (People vs. G. Jr. could not supply the required connection between the office and the crime. 175528. so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance (People vs.R. Due to such requirement being pro reo. Moreover. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Generic aggravating circumstances has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period. People. G. October 19. 2011). Per Curiam). No. If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he killed the victim. As a general rule. 2011). 1939).Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. June 29. No. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery. the crime committed is murder qualified by employment of means of affords impunity. NO. Paling. July 31. nighttime is aggravating because the darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime or insured impunity. in this case. 2014 (Justice De Castro). Thus.R.R.If the employment of means to weaken the defense of the victim renders the victim defenseless.R. No. 2009 (Justice De Castro).To warrant a finding of evident premeditation. August 28. June 15. (People vs. 2010). G. CAMPANILLA TREACHERY – To appreciate treachery. As the killing.R. Ventura and Ventura. (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. En Banc). Clariño. treachery absorbs nighttime where had it not been at night the offender. two (2) conditions must be present. Barde G. If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he killed the victim. No. If the victim is completely defenseless. and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted (People vs.m.R. G. G. 175605. 2001). No. Dadao. ABUSE OF SUEPRIOR STRENGHT . Piring. NO. 46413. the former is absorbed in the latter (People vs. et. 2010). 131117. L-81470. 185390 March 16. it was due to the darkness of the night which covered them (People vs. (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung 21 | P a g e . G. is perpetrated with both treachery and by means of explosives. No. Garchitorena.While accused were already outside the victims’ house at around 11:00 p. G. 2011). 190861. 1988). No. the crime committed is murder qualified by employment of means of affords impunity.If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he treacherously killed the victim.R. before breaking into the residence so as not to call the attention of the victims. July 27. 2004). 183094. Gumarang . GR N. But if the offender purposely selected the wee hour of the night when neighbors and occupants of the house including the victim were sleeping to facilitate the commission of the crime or to afford impunity. the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal mode of attack. Demate. January 20. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible crime (People vs.R. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION . accused entered the well-lighted bedroom and killed the victim. July 5. the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by disguise (People vs. would not have been able to approach the deceased without the latter's becoming aware of his presence and guessing his intention. Banhaon. Nighttime should be appreciated since accused took advantage of the silence of the night (People vs. 132310. 1936).R. January 22. namely. G. Taking advantage of the fact that the victim and household members were asleep. the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. GR No. Reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance (People vs. September 22.R. 148145-46. Baron. considering that a situation of superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime (People vs.Thus. EMPLOMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE . 2004. No.m. Tunhawan. October 6. If they were able to catch victim completely unawares. 182551. with his cohorts. DISGUISE .The victim need not be completely defenseless in order for the said aggravating circumstance to be appreciated (People vs. treachery should be appreciated (People vs. If the accused treacherously stabbed the victim. nighttime is appreciable even if the place of commission is lighted. October 27. G. No. December 07. 188601. household members and/or their neighbors. Duavis. G.al. G. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. NIGHTTIME . No. and the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by disguise.. Rebucan. 134634. The darkness of the night and “not nighttime per se” is important in appreciating it as modifying circumstance (People vs.R. 45053. 2004.. they purposely waited until 2:00 a. R.R. G. treachery absorbs circumstance of employing means to weaken defense (People vs. 201860. nighttime cannot aggravate the crime if it is committed in a lighted place although at the wee hours of the night (People vs. Sabangan. G. In People vs. to commit the subject felony (People vs. Accused told witness that they were “going to kill the doctor”. the first. 2011). For cruelty to be considered as an aggravating circumstance there must be proof that. 191722. December 11. No. 191256. G. G. June 15. estafa or falsification of document. GR No.R. CAMPANILLA to his determination.R. G. 182918. directly or indirectly (People vs. sex and rank since these circumstances signify different concepts. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment (People vs. in inflicting several stab wounds on the victim. Nos. They must not be acting in the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused.Disregard of rank and dwelling were appreciated independently. 1981. Carino. age or rank should be taken singly or together. the perpetrator intended to exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. otherwise they are to be regarded as co-principals or co- conspirators (People vs. The span of time (less than thirty minutes). and the aggravated second crime are embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. robbery.Differences of recidivism.R. 131117. 2013. The number of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof of cruelty (Simangan vs. In quasi-recidivism. G. No. dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery. G. this circumstance should not be appreciated were armed men acted in concert to ensure the commission of the crime (People vs. June 6. No. 137370-71. 204894. In habitual delinquency. In the latter. G. who is a doctor. 181902. there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. DISREGARD OF SEX: Robbery with homicide is essentially a felony against property. Enoja. 153119. reiteracion and habitual delinquency: (a) Nature of crime – In recidivism. the first crime. the bare fact that the victim is a woman does not per se constitute disregard of sex. The circumstances of disregard of sex. G. the penalty for the first crime is equal or greater than that for the aggravated second crime or the penalty for the first two crimes is lighter than that for the aggravated third crime. In “aid of armed men. and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act (People vs. Patelan. G. Moreover. three of which were fatal. Thus. Evident premeditation should not be appreciated. In reiteration. could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed (People vs. August 31. 2003.R. the disrespect pertains to the dwelling of the offended party due to the sanctity of privacy which the law accords it. conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. But the circumstance of dwelling should be considered independently from the circumstance of disregard of age. the accused killed the victim. July 8. September 18. Lozano.R. serious or less serious physical injuries. AID OF ARMED MEN: Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires (1) that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons. After less than thirty minutes. the disrespect shown by offender pertains to the person of the offended due to her rank. 2014). expressly or impliedly. Instead. REPETITION . Carandang. July 6. 2004). Justice De Castro). No.Unlike evident premeditation. the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house(People vs. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victim’s age is applied only to crimes against persons and honor. March 10. 2004. age and sex. 2011). and that is. In the former. the nature of the first crime and aggravated second crime is not material.R. No. No. En Banc) and (2) that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. For this circumstance to be properly considered. 157984.R. June 29. People. from the time the accused showed their determination to kill the victim up to the time they shot the victim. 2004). Puno. En Banc . 2013). GR No. Alinao. 2011). L-33211. the prosecution must adduce evidence that in the commission of the crime.R. 175926. No. CRUELTY: The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because the victim sustained ten stab wounds. Reyes.R. April 13. theft. second and third crimes must be a habitual-delinquency crime.” the men act as accomplices only. Evangelio. the accused had particularly intended to insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim (People vs. quasi-recidivism. September 29. 22 | P a g e . No. G. if dispensable an accomplice. within 10 years after conviction or release. With or without conspiracy. No. it must establish that the intoxication is habitual or intentional (People vs. Patelan. which causes the criminal result.R. 184177. the participator is a principal by indispensable cooperation. June 6. (2) Without conspiracy . intoxication is neither aggravating nor mitigating. the accused has been convicted by final judgment of the first offense but before beginning to serve his sentence or while servicing of his sentence. 23 | P a g e . the criminal participator or cooperator is a principal by direct participation. prior to the commission of the crime. He is the one who committed or omitted the act. intoxication is aggravating as long as intoxication is habitual or intentional and it boasted the courage of accused that propelled him to commit the crime.If there is no conspiracy. If the prosecution claims intoxication as aggravating. he was found guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the second time. En banc). PARTICIPATION Chief actor .R. Criminal participator . 2011). In reiteration.R. Ga. (a) Previous or simultaneous acts – The criminal participator by previous or simultaneous acts is liable either as principal by indispensable cooperation or accomplice. If accused claims intoxication as mitigating. He performed an act. No. CAMPANILLA (b) Time element – In recidivism. Orilla. the presence of any of which will trigger the application of the penalty for the second crime committed in its maximum period unless it is off-set by mitigating circumstance. 2010. 148939-40. G. (People vs. Based on a strict interpretation. alternative circumstances are thus not aggravating circumstances per se.If there is conspiracy. he must establish that his intoxication was not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime and that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage. June 27. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. Quasi-recidivism is special aggravating circumstance. the presence of which will trigger the imposition of additional penalty for the third or subsequent crime. it is not necessary that degree of intoxication must have impaired the will power of the accused (People vs. which constitute the crime. February 13. In quasi-recidivism. Nos. 2004.Criminal or chief actor is the person who actually committed the crime. the chief actor is a principal by direct participation. A criminal participator may participate in the commission of the crime by previous. Failure of the prosecution or the accused to do so. the accused was convicted of the first crime (or first two crimes) and served his sentences at the time he was convicted of the second crime (or third crime). Justice De Castro). 49831. 1990). Fontillas. Habitual delinquency is an extraordinary or special aggravating circumstance. as would blur his reason (People vs. If the cooperation is indispensable. the accused was convicted of first habitual-delinquency crime. December 15. G. He directly perpetrated the acts. No. (1) With conspiracy . In habitual delinquency. which is not constitutive of felony but intended to give moral or material aid to the chief actor. G. the accused was convicted of the first crime by final judgment at the time of trial of the second crime. 182918. Even if the accused could still fully comprehend what is right and what is wrong. To aggravate the liability of the accused. simultaneous and/or subsequent acts. the presence of which will trigger the application of the penalty for the second crime or third crime in its maximum period regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstance.Criminal participator is the offender who participated in committing a crime by indispensable or dispensable act. within 10 years after conviction or release he was found guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the third time or oftener. The act of the chief actor is considered the act of the criminal participator. accomplice or accessory depending upon the nature and time of participation. he committed the second crime. (c) Nature of the aggravating circumstance .Recidivism and reiteration are ordinary aggravating circumstances.R. this circumstance may be mitigating or aggravating. criminal participator may be held liable as principal by indispensable cooperation. This is not subject to the off-set rule. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. If the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication. 2013). Cruz. Hence. that is knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. (1) that there be community of design. Without the participation of accused. Consequently. it appears that it was only Bongon who inflicted those wounds. the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal (People vs. It should be noted that the accused-appellant’s presence and company were not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom. What really matters is that the conspiracy was proven and he took part in it. the other three accused should be granted the benefit of doubt and should considered merely as accomplices.R. Accused entered the room where the victim was detained and conversed with kidnappers regarding stories unrelated to the kidnapping. because in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all (People vs. No. GR No. such agreement is usually inferred from their "concerted actions" while committing it. she is only liable as an accomplice. there is doubts that the three agreed beforehand with Bongon to kill victim. Assuming arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was a swimming party. but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. ACCOMPLICE AND CONSPIRATOR . An accessory does not participate in the criminal design. GR No. The defenses raised by accused are not sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. causing him to fall. However. they owned the safehouse. Since Bongon shot victim thrice at very close range. October 01. A rational person would have suspected something was wrong and would have reported such incident to the police. 168446. but. The liability of accessory and principal should also be considered as quasi-collective. 2009). chose to keep quiet. October 01. in the case at bar. It was held that when there is doubt as to whether a guilty participant in a homicide performed the role of principal or accomplice. 2013 . 182152. thus. It is quasi-collective in the sense that the principal and the accessory are liable for the felony committed but the penalty for the latter is two degrees lower than that for the former. CAMPANILLA (b) Subsequent acts – The criminal participator by subsequent acts is liable as an accessory. considering that the prosecution evidence did not show that the shots three other accused fired from their guns made their marks. X and Y did not participate when the victim was forcibly abducted. however. X assisted the kidnappers when the victim the basement stairs of the safehouse. 172707. The line that separates a conspirator by concerted action from an accomplice by previous or simultaneous acts is indeed slight. the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime." He should be given the benefit of the doubt and can be regarded only as an accomplice. It is immaterial whether accused acted as a principal or an accomplice. February 25. It cannot rule out the possibility that they fired their guns merely to scare off outside interference. (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed. He was the one who paved the way for victim to board the vehicle and his closeness with the victim led the latter to trust the former. accomplishing their devious plan of kidnapping him. where the kidnapped victim was detained. accomplices are the persons who. cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. and to add to that. nor cooperate in the commission of the felony. hence. he subsequently takes part by any of the three modes under Article 19. 2013).In order that a person may be considered an accomplice. 172707. Gambao. Y brought foods to the safehouse. he concurs with the latter in his purpose. the offense would not have been committed. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. It has been held before that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. GR No. and (3) that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice (People vs. not being principals. Accused should be held liable as accomplice. Moreover. Gambao. with knowledge of the commission of the crime. Jr. she even spent the night at the cottage. in case of doubt. ACCOMPLICE . On the other hand. it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when she saw victim being guarded in the room. the Court should favor the "milder form of responsibility. Accused. And. the basement of their house. September 18.In People vs.It noted that victim had only three gunshot wounds despite the many shots fired at him. namely. Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement or conspired to commit a crime.. with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. Are X and Y liable as accomplice or principal by direct participation? They are liable 24 | P a g e . PO1 Eusebio G. The solution in case of doubt is that such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. G. Still. No. July 12. G. keeps. sells or disposes. No. or in any manner deals in any article. 190475. There is no showing that the said decision was already final and executory when the trial court rendered its decision in the fencing case. G. Admittedly. Section 6 of P.In Dimat vs. possesses. the vehicle having been carnapped. 181184. who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. indeed. Accused was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the past 24 years. No. that the principal had. 2013). January 25. possesses. He said that Tolentino showed him its old certificate of registration and official receipt. G. and (4) There is on the part of the accused.R. April 10. Knowledge . Go approached accused and offered to sell the 13 tires (which were stolen) and he did not even ask for proof of ownership of the tires. (2) the accused. and thereafter concurred with and participated in the execution of the criminal design (People vs. requiring no proof of criminal intent. b. object or anything of value. 146584. In Francisco vs.R. or buys and sells. Tolentino had no documents to show. who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft (or carnapping but not malversation or estafa). Accused was acquitted. receives. However. buys. accused sold the same to complainant who apparently made no effort to check the papers covering her purchase. Ownership of the safehouse and their participations reasonably indicate that they were among those who at the outset planned. No. . which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime. item. That complainant might herself be liable for fencing is of no moment since she did not stand accused in the case. 190475. Their participations are of minor importance. item. or in any manner deals in any article. 2004. (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article. article. People. which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. But this certainly could not be true because. their acts coincide with their ownership of the safehouse. GR No. 134298. Salvador. The essential elements of the crime of fencing under PD No. Proving robbery or theft – Commission of robbery or theft by the principal as an element of fencing should be proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict the fencer. People. 1999) Failure to show finality of conviction of theft against the principal is fatal to prosecution for fencing. intent to gain for oneself or for another (Ong vs. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. the prosecution must still prove that accused knew or should have known that the Nissan Safari he acquired and later sold to complainant was derived from theft or robbery and that he intended to obtain some gain out of his acts. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. from the proposal to buy until the delivery of tires happened in just one day. 2004). establishments or entities dealing in the buying and selling of any good. (3) The accused knows or should have known that the said article. item. a. 2013). GR No. This will create doubt if theft was really committed (Tan vs. its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum. ] ought to have known the ordinary course of business in purchasing from an unknown seller. July 12. August 26. 146584. and (4) there is. acquires. One may not be convicted of the crime of fencing if the complainant did not lodge a criminal complaint against the principal in the crime of theft. 2013). conceals. item.D. or buys and sells. People.R.R. Accused knew the requirement of the law in selling second hand tires. April 10. People. Accused was convicted of fencing (Ong vs. FENCING The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed. (2) The accused. Of course. GR No. stolen the jewelry. 2012 – But Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and. item. They provided the place where the victim is to be detained. People. 201443. 1612 requires stores. acquires. keeps. therefore. These acts pertain to those committed by mere accomplices. object or anything of value. That Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to produce new documents undoubtedly confirmed to accused that the Nissan Safari came from an illicit source. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. which is logically a primary consideration in a conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom. conceals. intent to gain for himself or for another (Francisco vs. His experience from the business should have given him doubt as to the legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it was his first time to transact with Go and the manner it was sold is as if Go was just peddling the 13 tires in the streets. Accused knew that the Nissan Safari he bought was not properly documented. receives. The entire transaction. object or anything else of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier 25 | P a g e . 1612 are as follows: (1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed. People. on the part of one accused. sells or disposes. April 10. CAMPANILLA as principals because of conspiracy. buys.The decision of the trial court convicting the principal of theft does not constitute proof against the accused for the crime of fencing. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction. The nature and condition of the goods sold. However. The issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be raised as a defense in the charge of fencing. object. Recently stolen property – If suspect is found in possession of recently stolen property. in this particular transaction. 1996). 835). 118590. the possessor is still presumed to have violated PD No. G. 1612 (Ong vs. No. This presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft (Ong vs.R. People. 2013). OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Obstruction of justice under PD No. authenticity. any person he knows. use of stolen property gives rise to the presumption of fencing. In this case. Presumption: Section 6 of PD No. suppressing or concealing any paper.”Possession is not limited to actual manual control of the offender over the stolen property but extends to power and dominion over it. July 11. G. Rule 131. both of which may not be in accord with the usual practices of commerce. criminal cases. People.D.R. the user may be held liable for fencing even though he did not materially benefit from crime of theft. item. 1994) or by showing official receipts covering the purchases of property. Circumstances normally exist to forewarn. or object. 190475. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. 2013). Such circumstances include the time and place of the sale. for instance. However. 1612 that “mere possession of any goods.. accused has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances from the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell but. the presumption under Section 3 (j). The presumption of fencing may be overcome by showing proof that accused bought the item from a licensed dealer of second-hand items (Hizon- Pamintuan vs. 1612. or facilitating the escape of. or official proceedings in. or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. c. 190475. Riding in a stolen vehicle is “not profiting” within the contemplation of Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code since it does not improve his economic position. If the subject property is not recently stolen. Ungal. 26 | P a g e . April 10. however. 1829 is committed by any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs. (2) harboring or concealing. criminal cases. April 10. Settled is the rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilt of the crime of theft ( US vs. vs. Inc. and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its address were fictitious. or to be used in the investigation of. impedes. No. he was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption under Section 5 of P. availability. The accessory in theft should materially benefit from it. he was remiss in his duty as a diligent businessman who should have exercised prudence (Ong vs. No. Hence. with intent to impair its verity. 37 Phil. April 10. that defense is disputable. Under Section 3 (j). legibility. he should be charged as principal in the crime of theft or robbery. or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in. document. the validity of the issuance of the receipt was disputed. destroying. object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing”.D. Esguerra. Under the law. Profiting is not synonymous to intent to gain as an element of theft (Gregorio). In fact. which is the subject of fencing (D. Thus. GR No. People. mere possession of stolen property gives rise to the presumption of fencing. article. and therefore should caution the buyer. 2013). in violation of PD No. record. Accused failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove the legitimacy of the transaction. frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by (1) altering. The presumption of theft is disputable. GR No. 190475. a reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. 11414. establishment or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the public. GR No. People. a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of recently wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. 1612 even if the property being possessed was not recently stolen. and the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise suggest the illegality of their source. M Consunji. 1612 provides: “Mere possession of any good. Rule 131 will not arise. July 30. This justifies the presumption found in Section 5 of P. d. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA thereof to secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where that store. 2000) e. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Hence. Under the Revised Penal Code. not an element .R. it is not required that the offenders must not have participated as principals. In some. CAMPANILLA a. who acted with abuse of his public functions. even though the suspect did not commit a crime. had prescribed. September 29. the Hon. However. G. Obstructing criminal investigation or prosecution . To be held liable for obstruction of justice.“A” and “B” killed “X”. Accessory – To make a person liable as accessory under the Revised Penal Code. However. “C” placed the gun used in perpetrating suicide inside the bag of “B”. To commit obstruction of justice. who destroyed dangerous drugs as evidence for monetary consideration. parricide. what is important is not knowledge of the commission of a crime but awareness of an ongoing or impending investigation and prosecution of a criminal case. Commission of crime. f. is liable for obstruction of justice in addition to graft and corruption and direct bribery (2005 Bar Exam) If a respondent in a preliminary investigation altered the allegation in the complaint- affidavit as to the date of criminal incident to make it appear that the crime. No. Accessories of the second or third kind are exempt also from criminal responsibility if they are related to the criminal actor (Article 20 of the Code). Preventing an illegal arrest – Harboring or concealing a criminal suspect in order to prevent a lawful warrantless arrest or the implementation of a warrant of arrest constitutes obstruction of justice. 1829 contemplates a lawful arrest (Posadas vs. they cannot claim criminal exemption under the Revised Penal Code. “C” cannot be held liable as accessory because murder was not really committed. murder. Principal of the crime .To be held liable as accessory under the Revised Penal Code. 1829. with which he was charged. in addition to murder. On the other hand. The term “arrest” in Section 1 (c) of PD No. obstruction of justice is committed if he knowingly obstructs. 131492. or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive or a principal. mere suspicion is enough to establish the second element of the offense. Ombudsman. PD No.An accessory under Revised Penal Code must have knowledge of the commission of the crime by the principal. Knowledge . or frustrates the said investigation and prosecution. c.An accessory under Article 19 (3) of the Revised Penal Code must have knowledge of the commission of the crime by the principal. “C” committed the crime of obstruction of justice for having obstructed the investigation of a criminal case involving the death of “A”. However. it is not necessary that the crime was committed by a criminal suspect. they can be charged with the crime of obstruction of justice for destroying an object to impair its availability as evidence in a case. impedes. b. or upon very slight evidence or upon no evidence at all (Reyes). 1829. 1829 even though he has no knowledge of the commission of the crime as long as he has reasonable ground to believe or suspects that the person he assisted has committed a crime. it is required that the crime was committed by the principal. if the accessories of the crime were charged with the crime of obstruction of justice. it is required that he is a public officer. 1829 has no provision on criminal exemption. d. After the slaughter.Accessories are exempt from criminal liability if the principal merely committed a light felony (Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code). This requirement is not applicable if the accused is charged with obstruction of justice. No exempting circumstance . The word suspicion is defined as being the imagination of the existence of something without proof. To make it appear that “B” murdered “A. the alteration is constitutive of the crime of falsification of document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and obstruction of justice under PD No. or that the person assisted is guilty as principal in treason. e. harboring or concealing a criminal suspect to prevent an illegal arrest is not a crime.Public officer. Entertaining suspicion is not itself proof of knowledge that a crime has been committed. Under PD No. the offender may violate Section 1 (c) of PD No. In fact. d. “A” and “B” burned the dead body of “X” in the forest to prevent its discovery. they cannot be charged as accessories. who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Suspicion . Example: “A” committed suicide. “Knowledge” and “suspicion” are not synonymous. Can “A” and “B” be charged as accessory of the crime to murder or obstruction of justice? “A” and “B” are principals by direct participation in the crime of murder qualified by employment of means to afford impunity. 27 | P a g e . accessories must not have participated in the commission of the crime as principals. however. which is defined as a written declaration of a detained prisoner. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. An accused who is recidivist. Full time credit . a. No credit by reason of disqualification – The grant of credit of preventive imprisonment shall not apply to the following: a. in writing. Preventive imprisonment – Under Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence. and b. b. The undertaking is called detainee’s manifestation. the applicable rule for crediting the period of commitment and detention is not Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code but Section 41. the detainee must execute a written waiver. 28 | P a g e .If the offender is a child. provided. An accused who. except for the following: 1) Recidivist 2) Habitual Delinquent 3) Escapee 4) Person charged with heinous crimes If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro. an accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited. b. if the same is under review. a. RA 9344. Full time credit for child in conflict with the law . 4/5 time credit . 10592 and its implementing rules and regulations. for his actual detention or service of his sentence. either full or four-fifths (4/5) term. An accused who has been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime. Such undertaking is executed with the assistance of the counsel. the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence. stating his refusal to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon a prisoner convicted by final judgment and thus be entitled to a credit of four-fifths (4/5) of the time during preventive imprisonment. Immediate release – Under Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. With the assistance of counsel. He shall do in writing b. In sum. 10592. whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the imposable maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet decided. with the assistant of a counsel.An accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment if. provided he is not disqualified. to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners. and c. which is called detainee’s waiver defined as a written declaration of a detained prisoner. stating his refusal to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon a convicted prisoner for the purpose of availing the full credit of the period of his preventive imprisonment c. he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal. that if the accused is absent without motu propio order the re-arrest of the accused. d. The computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance. he shall be released after thirty (30) days of imprisonment. CAMPANILLA Article 29 of RPC RA NO.An accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment and who does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon prisoners convicted by final judgment shall be credited by the service of his sentence with four-fifths (4/5) of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment if. 2. Under the said provision. He agrees voluntarily. 10592 and its implementing rules 1. a. has failed to surrender voluntarily before a court of law. with the assistant of a counsel. Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years. entitled to special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) or liable for evasion of sentence. 29 | P a g e . In such case. and b.A prisoner is also entitled to Time Allowance for Study. 10592. only prisoner service sentence is entitled to allowance for good conduct. b. Fortuno vs. rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail for his good conduct and exemplary behaviour. equivalent to a deduction of a maximum of fifteen (15) days for every month of study or mentoring services 5. Acenas. CAMPANILLA 3. or similar catastrophe. whether detained or convicted by final judgment. Article 98 under the original version does not grant special allowance for loyalty to prisoner who did not escape despite the existence of calamity (Losada vs. Director of Prisons. Special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) . He may not give himself up to the authorities within said period of forty-eight hours. Good conduct time allowance (GCTA) – Before. A detention prisoner qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment for his good conduct and exemplary behaviour. as a reward for having earned a post post-graduate degree or collage degree.In case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe. who has evaded preventive imprisonment or service of sentence during said calamity. 10529 sought to correct this rule since a prisoner who did not escape despite of the calamity manifests a higher degree of loyalty to the penal system than those who evaded their sentence but thereafter gives themselves up upon the passing away of the calamity. L- 810. a. Evasion – In case the prisoner chose to evade evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence during the calamity and the President issued a proclamation by the President announcing the passing away of such calamity. GR NO. he is liable for evasion of sentence under Article 158. the prisoner. Time Allowance for Study.Special time allowance for loyalty is a privilege granted to a prisoner. the following shall be entitled to good conduct time allowance: a. under Article 94 of RPC as amended by RA 10592. The penalty for evasion under Article 158 is equivalent to one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence. 1948). 4. RA No. a certificate of completion of a vocational or technical skills or values development course. Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM) . he is entitled to deduction of two- fifths (2/5) of the period of his sentence. earthquake. In case of disorder in the penal institution resulting from a conflagration. No evasion . The good conduct time allowances under Article 97 as amended are as follows: First 2 years of imprisonment – 20 days for each month of good behavior 3rd to 5th year – 23 days for each month of good behavior 6th to 10th year – 25 days for each month of good behavior 11th year and successive years – 30 days for each month of good behavior An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct. In such case. prisoner is not entitled to special time allowance for loyalty if he has committed other offense or any act in violation of the law. a high school or elementary diploma or to one serving his fellow prisoner as a teacher or mentor while incarcerated. This a new rule introduced by RA No. 1947. February 2. He may give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the President announcing the passing away of such calamity. GR NO. which is privilege granted to a prisoner. he has to options: 1. A prisoner convicted by the final judgment in any penal institution. whether detained or convicted by final judgment. March 31. and surrendered to the authorities within forty-eight (48) hours following the proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity and the catastrophe referred to in the said article in the form of the deduction of one fifth (1/5) from his preventive imprisonment or service of sentence or a deduction of two fifth (2/5) if prisoner opted to stay in jail or prison during the calamity. or 2. or during a mutiny in which the prisoner has not participated. L-1782. However. which in no case shall exceed six months. explosion. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Teaching and Mentoring. However. he is entitled to one fifth (1/5) special time allowance for loyalty under Article 98. divisible penalties. should be accorded retroactive application. 2011). February 02. Reason: The two mitigating circumstances were taken to constitute special mitigating circumstance. Is the penalty imposed by the court correct? No. G. when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties. The indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that. October 19. People.R. Takbobo. the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. No. No." meaning. 9346. the presence of two or more mitigating circumstances will graduate the “divisible penalty prescribed by law” to one degree lower. 2015. being more lenient to the accused than the previous law.R. which prohibits the imposition of death penalty. no matter how many mitigating circumstances are present. the court should prescribe the correct penalties in complex crimes in strict observance of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.Accused was found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION .A special law prescribes the penalty of 10 years of imprisonment for violation thereof while another law prescribes the penalty of arresto mayor. the penalty prescribed law shall graduated to one degree lower. in case of a special law. March 16. G.R. who shall evade the service of his sentence during calamity and fail to give himself up within the period. 10592 amended Article 98 to extend the benefit of a special allowance to preventive prisoner but the amendment does not include Article 158.R. and (2) there must be no aggravating circumstance. People. G. The rule on special mitigating circumstance is found in Article 64 (5) which provides the "rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. the court should impose the penalty for the graver offense in the maximum period. This is called special mitigating circumstance. GRADUATING DEATH PENALTY . the amendatory law. and the graduated penalty shall be applied in it minimum period. In estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The crime of evasion under Article 158 is committed only by a convict. 195005. However. the penalty next lower in degree than death prescribed for the crime (See: People vs. while the remaining mitigating circumstance was used to apply the graduated penalty in its minimum period. RA No. the penalty cannot be lowered by one degree. the accused shall be sentenced "to an indeterminate sentence. Otherwise." Special allowance is given to prisoner. and will not attain finality. CAMPANILLA Prisoner is entitled to special time allowance for loyalty whether he is a convicted or detention prisoner. 10592 provides "This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence. and the graduated penalty shall be applied in it medium period. 171672. 182239. 2011). 30 | P a g e . RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT If the law was amended to change the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua. the appreciation of this circumstance is subject to two conditions: (1) the penalty prescribed by law must be divisible. 102984. ISLAW RA 9165 provides that illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years." (Asiatico vs.R. No. 1993 . 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. and not in Article 64. does not exclude death penalty in the order of graduation of penalties. 2011) SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: Under Article 64 (5). Applying Article 63. However. Article 64 (5) is inapplicable. the penalty for accomplice is reclusion perpetua. No. PENALTY In De Castro vs. the penalty prescribed is invalid. the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.For purposes of graduating penalty. the penalty prescribed law shall graduated to one degree lower. Article 98 of RPC as amended by RA No. In qualified rape. 176229. RA No. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment. Jacinto. the rule applicable in said case is found in Article 63. a detention prisoner is not liable for evasion of sentence under Article 158 of RPC if he fails to give himself up within forty-eight hours following the announcement of the passing away of such calamity. June 30. No. No. Thus. Pang. G. G. In People vs. The court sentenced the accused to suffer a straight penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day. (People vs. If there are two mitigating circumstances. If there are three mitigating circumstances taken as special mitigating. September 12. who evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence during calamity but give himself up within the required period. during the period of time established in the preceding rules. Article 10 of RPC on suppletory effects of the Code cannot be invoked where there is a legal or physical impossibility of such supplementary application (People vs. There are only two modes of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. The penalty of 10 years of imprisonment can neither be graduated by decrees nor divided into three periods. in the absence of any express or implicit proscription in these special laws (See: People vs. 192727. shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists. he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied. return the property confiscated. L-35386. People. G. No.In Escalante vs. rules on graduation of penalties or application of penalty on its proper imposable period is not applicable. G. the convict. 1994). and shall not exceed fifteen days. Mantalba. 4.The penalty for election offense is imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. subject to the following rules: 1. the penal system under the Code is necessarily applicable to this law (See: People vs.R. rules on graduation of penalties or application of penalty on its proper imposable period are applicable. 93028. Where the penalty under a special law is actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature. he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court. no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. while lingering in prison. July 29. G. G. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine. convict could pay fine. 10159 Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence. September 28. 5. prision correccional and perpetual absolute disqualification. which shall not exceed six (6) years. SUBSIDIARY PENALTY UNDER RA No. be disallowed to cast his vote or to act function as a public officer. En Banc . 186227. 1972. Thus. supra). if for a fight felony. convict could serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine. and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. This adoption reveals the statutory intent to give the provisions on penalties for felonies under RPC the corresponding application to said special law. if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony. In sum. are perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. Special law . but such penalty is of fixed duration. he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. or reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction. 10159 provides: If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article. January 9. Successive service – When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties. and in no case shall it continue for more than one year. THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION RULE Simultaneous service . No. CAMPANILLA Can the rules on graduation of penalties or application of penalty on its proper imposable period under RPC applicable to violation of these special laws?(a) Where the special law has not adopted the Spanish penalties (10 years of imprisonment) under RPC. the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. and a minimum period which shall not be less than one (1) year. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional or arresto and fine. In Rodriguez vs. Director of Prisons. (b) Where the special law has adopted the Spanish penalty (arresto mayor) under RPC. suspension from public office and other accessory penalties. if the offense is punished by special law. Under ISLAW. 3. No.R. 2011). 2013 . 2. perpetual or temporary special disqualification. Applying the ISLAW. the imposable penalty for violation of the election gun ban should have a maximum period.Penalties which could be served simultaneously with other penalties.R. No. he shall serve them successively if 31 | P a g e . Simon. the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution. the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months.R. public censure. Mantalba. July 20. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correctional.When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties. In Mejorada vs. “A” was sentenced to suffer penalty of 7 years of prision mayor for serious physical injuries. People vs. “A” will be imprisoned for 40 years because of the forty year limitation rule. 2011. and he was in fact killed by his abductor. the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed. It merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of these penalties the maximum of which is forty years. June 30. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE Old rule: (1) Where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him. GR No. En Banc) killing the person is murder. Sandiganbayan.R. 2011). G. The most severe penalty imposed on him is 7 years of prision mayor.R. Forty-year limitation rule – The maximum period of the imprisonment that convict must suffer in serving multiple penalties must not exceed forty years. G. a. two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed. Convict must serve multiple penalties successively: (1) where the penalties to be served are destierro and imprisonment. However. Montanir. Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence”. October 19. Ramos. 2014) However. despite the four penalties of reclusion perpetua for four counts of qualified theft. April 04. People vs. July 22. regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought. “A” will be imprisoned for 21 years because of the three-fold rule. The most severe penalty imposed on him. 6 years of prision correccional for qualified less serious physical injuries. GR No. threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties is 21 years. 1987. 171655. the crime committed is complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder (See: People vs. February 3. 118570. accused-appellant shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years (People vs. October 12. En Banc .The maximum period of the imprisonment that convict must suffer in serving multiple penalties must not exceed threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. and (2) where the penalties to be served are imprisonment. 2004. (2) Where the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought. but shall be punished as a special complex crime (People vs. G. July 23.R. L-51065-72. special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated homicide. No. If kidnapping is a necessary means to commit frustrated murder. 1986) or intent to deprive liberty (People vs. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. Estacio Jr. En Banc. Dionaldo. Roxas. 207949. 172604. Three-fold rule . 2009. No. Demand for ransom will not convert the crime into kidnapping. 193479. the crime committed was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder as the kidnapping of the victim was a necessary means of committing the murder. Mirto.This article is to be taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed. Thus. is 15 years of reclusion temporal. 5 years of prision correccional for robbery and 5 years of prison correccional for theft. In this situation. August 17. No. No. G. People vs. 1998. 187534.R. Masilang. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum period. The total duration of the penalties imposed on him is 23 years..R. No. G.” Applying said rule. En Banc. Homicide as a component of special complex crime must be at the consummated stage. CAMPANILLA the nature of the penalties will not permit simultaneous service. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. where there is no actual detention (People vs. threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties is 45 years. 138874-75. “A” was sentenced to suffer three penalties of 15 years of reclusion temporal for three counts of homicide and the penalty of 10 years of prision mayor for serious physical injuries. Thus. The total duration of the penalties imposed on him is 55 years. Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about the "imposition of penalty". b. nor be treated as separate crimes. the successive service of sentences is subject to the three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule. Article 70 provides that “the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. 2010) 32 | P a g e . Present rule: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention. Larranaga. R.R. These are not separate crimes of murder and rape since the bestiality at the threshhold of death of the victim shall be regarded either as a form of ignominy causing disgrace or as a form of cruelty which aggravated the murder because it was unnecessary to the commission thereof (People vs. November 21.The phrase “by reason of the rape” obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape. or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape. Isla claimed that he had to use the knife so he could have sexual intercourse with her. CAMPANILLA RAPE WITH HOMICIDE Raping a dying victim – Stabbing the victim and raping her while she was dying is not a special complex crime of rape with homicide because the original design of the victim is kill and not to rape the victim. 184926. G.R. 2011). 2008) COMPLEX CRIME AND COMPOSITE CRIME . even if the circumstances of treachery. Laspardas. 182551. 23.R. The first was while he was ravishing AAA. There is no doubt that “X” killed “A” to prevent her from aiding “B” or calling for help once she is able to run away. G. No. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. October 16. after her defilement. Bernabe. The rationale being. By reason or on occasion of rape . Jr. No. No. The phrase “on the occasion of the rape” as shown by Senate deliberations refers to a killing that occurs immediately before or after. also known as a special complex crime. Oct.R. 178321. abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation are alleged in the information and duly established by the prosecution. as far as he was concerned.With respect to the stabbings. G. G. and thereafter. According to AAA. 2011). October 5. In their struggle. The first is known as compound crime. 168050. which is the crime the offender originally designed to commit. G. it appears that Isla committed two acts. 2012). the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape may not be as easy to determine. 178321. April 11. When he testified.R. 2012 . The second stabbing took place after consummation of the rape act. No. and also to silence her completely so she may not witness the rape of “B”. is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a 33 | P a g e . September 19. 2009. the stabbing being necessary. No. where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape. G. the original intent of “X” (People vs. Laog. COMPLEX CRIME There are two kinds of complex crimes. The second is known as complex crime proper. she was stabbed under her lower left breast but she was able to force Isla to drop the knife. Hence. Hitting the victim thrice with a piece of wood and inserting toothbrush into the anal orifice while the victim was dying is not special complex crime of rape through sexual assault with homicide because the original design of the victim is kill and not to sexually assault the victim. the term "homicide" is to be understood in its generic sense. However. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. for the successful perpetration of the crime..In People vs. or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other (People vs.R. Isla. Justice De Castro) Homicide . she noticed the knife bloodied and she tried to wrest it from him. that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions (People vs. “X” is liable for special complex crime of rape with homicide. No. It was intended to do away with her life.The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code. G. “X” killed “A”. 2011). the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed is still rape with homicide.R. No. Laog. these circumstances shall be regarded as ordinary aggravating (People vs.In the special complex crime of rape with homicide. and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the rape. Villaflores. This second stabbing is a separate and distinct offense as it was not a necessary means to commit the rape. These are not separate crimes of murder and rape through sexual assault since the bestiality at the threshhold of death of the victim shall be regarded as a form of cruelty which aggravated the murder because it was unnecessary to the commission thereof (People vs. Gaffud. October 5. Rebucan. July 27. became evident (People vs. The indivisibility of the homicide and the rape (attempted or consummated) is clear and admits of no doubt. is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed. 199875. “A” and “B” were walking along the rice paddies when “X” suddenly assaulted them with a lead pipe.A composite crime. 185726. The Court considers this and the rape as one continuous act. G. L-46146. which follows the pro reo principle. No. Stabbing after the rape . or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. In contrast. 1979). raped “B”. June 30. Villaflores. 1975 . The single act of running over the victims with a van constitutes compound crime of multiple murders (People vs. and a complex or compound crime under Article 48 are as follows: (1) In a composite crime. June 26. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. grave and/or less grave. evidence does not conform to the Information. of.If there is more than one death resulting from different acts there is no compound crime of multiple homicides or murder. the concept of complex crimes is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the number of crimes committed.compound crime of multiple homicides. Can X be convicted of separate crimes of murder and attempted murder or complex crime? Answer: On the basis of evidence. 199892. As a result of the firing. as the firing stopped as soon as the leader gave the order to that effect. April 11. Article 48 speaks of a “single act”.R. which was induced by the order of the leader to fire. X committed separate crimes of murder and attempted murder. causing the death of two persons and. they cannot be regarded as constituting a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. If the act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal impulse. simultaneously and successively fired at several victims.R. constituting an attempt to kill others. who ran amok like “juramentados” in a passenger train. Information merely states that accused shot the victims. Justice De Castro). In People vs. G. the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized. In a complex or compound crime. After a short time. the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense.R. Several shootings rule out the application of the concept of complex crime. GR No. CAMPANILLA single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law. GR No. December 10. There was no intent on the part of the accused either to fire at each and every of the victims as separately and distinctly from each other. (2) For a composite crime. December 1. However. 2013. the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific. it constitutes a single offense . Lawas. Single criminal impulse – Several acts committed by several offenders with one criminal impulse resulting in several deaths constitute one crime: the compound crime of multiple homicides or murders. G. and killed their eight co-passengers. No. fifty (50) persons died. 1955 . COMPOUND CRIME The single act of pitching or rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of one victim and injuries to other victims constituted a compound crime of multiple murders qualified by means of explosion (People vs. on the one hand. and (3) A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed. Single act rule . which refers to cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies. to be imposed in the maximum period. 34 | P a g e . June 03. To rule that the accused should be convicted of two separate offenses of murder and attempted murder pursuant to the evidence presented but contrary to the allegations in the Information is to violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (People vs.R. L-7618-20. 2012 (Justice De Castro) X was charged with complex crime with murder and attempted murder. Toling. Punzalan G . the accused may be convicted only of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder. No. This is a compound crime since murder and attempted murder was produced by a single act of shooting. After all. Lawas. In People vs. In the absence of a clear statement of several shootings in the Information. upon order of their leader. However. 2012). The distinctions between a composite crime. and continued with the intention to comply therewith.Appellant was animated by a single purpose. 189846. No. and committed a single act of stepping on the accelerator. L-27097. The conduct of the twins evinced conspiracy and community of design. which contains no allegation accused shot the victims several times. at the same time. The information alleges that the accused shot the victim. Punzalan. that is. 184926. for a complex or compound crime. or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. No. 2013). 199892. were held liable for eight (8) murders and one attempted murder. when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. the evidence show that accused shot her and her father several times. January 17. but it does not allege that he did so several times. Jr.Twin brothers. In People vs. a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information (People vs. The crime committed is complex crime of multiple murders and attempted murder. It was held that the evidence positively shows that the killing was the result of a single impulse. swerving to the right side of the road ramming through the navy personnel. 2001 .. Mores. Bernardo. The eight killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts.Members of the Home Guard. G. the composition of the offenses is fixed by law. the firing stopped immediately when Lawas ordered his men to “cease fire”. 198789. Hence. to kill the navy personnel. Hon. that is to say. In the said case.S. Various acts committed under one criminal impulse may constitute a single complex offense. Nelmida.. The Lawas doctrine. vs. 186539.The application of the Abella doctrine. Elarcosa. Collective responsibility replaced individual responsibility. performing the function of religious minister in solemnizing marriage is not usurpation of official function. No. giving rise to a complex offense. 14057.R. the Lawas doctrine should not be applied if there is conspiracy since the number of victims actually killed by each conspirator is not anymore material if there is conspiracy (People vs. No. 2012 . 29 Phil. each conspirator is not only liable for deaths attributable to him but also for deaths caused by others because in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.Significantly. this Court was merely forced to apply Article 48 of RPC because of the impossibility of ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused. they shall be held liable for continued crime of murder. Abella would not apply. No. L-6025. who pretended to be a Protestant minister. Thus. G. Requisites -There are two requisites to apply the Abella principle: (1) there must be a conspiracy. 2010). 35 | P a g e . killed and/or caused injury to the victims already becomes immaterial. Basis .R. However. the Lawas doctrine is more of an exception than the general rule.The “single purpose rule” was actually adopted in consideration of the plight of the prisoners. It was held: Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose.In U. January 22. G. June 29. et al. July 21. appellants had assumed joint criminal responsibility ─ the act of one is the act of all. if accused fired their guns killing several victims pursuant to a single impulse. In Lawas.What is the effect of the elimination of the overt acts of violence in Article 135 by RA No. 1956 – The Supreme Court justified the doctrine of absorption in rebellion since murder. who are members of the OXO gang. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.R. thus the definitional phrase "a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. who seduced a 15-year-old girl to live with him by procuring the performance of a fictitious marriage ceremony with the help of Bautista. Tabaco. G. September 11. 1919). sixteen prisoners. there must be singularity of criminal act. Abella.R. Comment: The case of Hernandez was decided prior to the effectivity of the RPC. No. 2012 . September 11. At that time. 100382-100385.In People vs. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER . their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act. No. Each one is criminally responsible for each one of the deaths and injuries of the several victims. The ascertainment of who among them actually hit. CAMPANILLA Under the Lawas principle. All accused were convicted for a compound crime. Since conspiracy was not proven therein. accused Hernandez. Hernandez. In People vs. Pincalin. joint criminal responsibility could not be attributed to the accused. Usurping the function of a priest to solemnize marriage is a necessary means to seduce a minor.R. If the killings did not involve prisoners or it was not a case of prisoners killing fellow prisoners. G. singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law.R. 1997). G. 184500. has already been clarified in Pincalin. G. 184500. which animates several persons to commit crimes under a single criminal purpose. the act of execution. 338) through usurpation of official function (Art. but not involving prisoners. Nelmida. a different rule may be applied. 1981). L-26222. cannot be applied. a religious official such as a bishop is a person in authority within the purview of the Old Penal Code (Smith. However. 177). The severalty of the acts prevents the application of Article 48." To apply the first half of Article 48. L-38755. Pineda. In conspiracy. 9668? In People vs. was held liable for the complex crime proper of simple seduction (Art. the “Lawas principle” was applied despite the presence of conspiracy. were able to break into the cell of Sigue-Sigue gang and killed fourteen (14) inmates. and arson are just a part of the “engaging in war against the forces of the government". The applicability of Article 48 depends upon the singularity of the act. 109. the killings would be treated as separate offenses. G. In People vs. With the presence of conspiracy in the case at bench. thus: where several killings on the same occasion were perpetrated. 93 SCRA 25. No. Single purpose rule .R. No. there was no conspiracy in Lawas case. robbery. March 19. G. Each accused could not be held liable for separate crimes because of lack of clear evidence showing the number of persons actually killed by each of them. January 22. Hernandez. and (2) the offenders committed crimes in prison against their fellow prisoners (People vs. The Lawas principle should only be applied in a case where (1) there is no conspiracy (People vs. July 18. premised on the impossibility of determining who killed whom. the act of one is the act of all. In conspiracy. It is as though each one performed the act of each one of the conspirators. DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION . 1967) and (2) it is impossible to ascertain the number of deaths caused by each accused (People vs.R. Hence. No. Article 152 of RPC does not include religious minister as a person in authority. G. If the accused committed robbery. G. 1993.. The difference between rape through forcible abduction and kidnapping with rape lies on the criminal intention of the accused at the precise moment of abduction. hence. No. This is the crime committed regardless of the number of rapes. RA No. Mirandilla. 186417. No. Larranaga. Jose. with respect to the first rape. forcible abduction will be considered as a necessary means to commit the first rape but not the subsequent rape. which is incidental to the commission of rape. G. 2004). Under this principle of subsumption. February 6. Robbery absorbs kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Nuguid.R. On the other hand. 178771. 2014). G. G.R. 2011). Amaro. Jr.R. Hence. People vs. Even if the victim was detained for one week and in the course thereof. the crime committed is complex crime of robbery through kidnapping and serious illegal detention. People vs. However. G. According to Florenz Regalado. L-28232.R. 2012. the crime committed is rape through forcible abduction. July 27. People vs. engaging in combat against the forces of the Government. L- 71765-66. No. People vs. No. Jr. If as a consequence of illegal detention.. Nos. No. she was 36 | P a g e . If the accused committed robbery.R. the crime committed is robbery only. Multiple rapes will be considered as a component of this special complex crime (People vs. they took one of the victims and detained him for seven days in another place for purpose of demanding ransom.R. they are liable of separate crimes of robbery by band and kidnapping for ransom (People vs. Garcia. February 3. En Banc). No. the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape (People vs. January 21. 199100.R. The detention was not merely a matter of restraint to enable the malefactors to escape. but thereafter. The detention was only incidental to the main crime of robbery. forcible abduction is an indispensable means to commit rape. No. 6968 eliminated the phrases "engaging in war against the forces of the government". Anticamaray. No. Almanzor.R.R. 2011. Salvilla. if the victim was brought in a house or motel or in a place with considerable distance from the place where she was abducted. 148991. No. July 11. Justice De Castro). October 10. 2002) or illegal detention (People vs. Abduction to deprive liberty – If the accused abducted the victim without clear showing of lewd design. Basao. July 30. and later forestall their capture by the police. As a rule. 1971. if the abduction is committed without lewd design. Both the homicide and rape will be considered as a component of this special complex crime (People vs. 2004. G. En Banc. Mejoraday. If as a consequence of illegal detention. ABDUCTION AND MULTIPLE RAPES Main objective is to rape – If the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim. G. the act should not be considered as a separate offense (People vs. and “destroying property in Article 135. the victim was rape and then killed. CAMPANILLA "committing serious violence". 2011). but deliberate as a means of extortion for an additional amount. However. is absorbed. the crime committed is rape. July 27.R. 29 April 1987). the crime committed is rape though forcible abduction while the subsequent rapes will be treated as separate crimes (People vs. July 18. hence. they detained the victims to forestall their capture by the police. 1990). the victim was rape. G. the Astor principle is not applicable (People vs. destroying property or committing serious violence is an essential ingredient of rebellion.R. 141125. the crime committed is a special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. that threats to kill were made. G. No. 86163 April 26. Mirandilla. Abduction with lewd design – If forcible abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. and although in the course thereof women and children were also held. No. 102705. February 28. 186417. the latter absorbs the former. but thereafter. but thereafter. forcible abduction will be considered as a necessary means to commit rape. the crime committed is a special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape. 2002. the crime committed is complex crime proper. they detained the victims to demand additional money.R. 189820. If the accused committed robbery by band. 124916. multiple rapes were committed. G. G. the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention since it will appear that the intention of the accused is to deprive victim of his liberty. Astor. The detention was availed of as a means of insuring the consummation of the robbery. 138874-75. The doctrine of absorption rather than Article 48 of RPC is applicable since forcible abduction or illegal detention is an indispensable means to commit rape. Forcible abduction (People vs. this is a complex crime proper under Article 48 of RPC. "committing serious violence" and “destroying property” in Article 135. Hence. However. the amendment of Article 135 does not affect the accepted concept of rebellion and these “overt acts of violence” are deemed “subsumed” in the provision on rebellion in Article 134. If the abduction is committed with lewd design. June 8. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA rape, the crime committed is rape through forcible abduction if the abduction is committed with lewd design (People vs. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100, July 18, 2014). MULTIPLE KIDDNAPPINGS - In People v Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012 - Since the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to kidnap the 5 victims for ransom, and kidnapped and illegally detained them until they were released by the accused after the latter received the P2,000,000.00 ransom xxx Appellant Yusop Tadah is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 5 counts of kidnapping. DELICTO CONTINUADO In order that continuous crime may exist, there should be: (1) plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; (2) unity of criminal intent and purpose and (3) unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated (Santiago vs. Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December 2, 1993). a. Single criminal impulse to steal - In People vs. Tumlos, G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows owned by six owners involved thirteen (13) acts of taking. However, the acts of taking took place at the same time and in the same place; consequently, accused performed but one act. The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. The fact that eight of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally liable for as many crimes as there are owners, for the reason that in such case neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division. b. Single criminal impulse to commit robbery - In People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L- 1745, May 23, 1950, it was held that ransacking several houses located within the vicinity of a sugar mill while two of the bandits guarded the victims with guns leveled at them is a continued crime of robbery. Several acts of robbery were made pursuant to general plan to despoil all those in the said place, which is an indicative of a single criminal design. Accused intended only to rob one place; and that is the Energex gasoline station. That they did; and in the process, also took away by force the money and valuables of the employees working in said gasoline station. Clearly inferred from these circumstances are the series of acts which were borne from one criminal resolution. A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy. The perpetrated acts were not entirely distinct and unconnected from one another. Thus, there is only single offense or crime (People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009). c. Single criminal impulse to satisfy lust - In People vs. Aaron, G.R. NOS. 136300- 02, September 24, 2002 - The accused inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina; he then withdrew it and ordered the latter to lie down on the floor and, for the second time, he inserted again his penis into the victim’s vagina; the accused, thereafter, stood up and commanded the victim to lie near the headboard of the makeshift bed and, for the third time, he inserted again his penis into the victim’s vagina and continued making pumping motions. Accused is convicted of only one count of rape. Accused thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part of victim. However, the three penetrations occurred during one continuing act of rape in which the accused obviously motivated by a single criminal intent. Accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault merely because of his lustful desire to change positions inside the room where the crime was committed. In People vs. Lucena, GR No. 190632, February 26, 2014 - Accused thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part of victim. The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein the accused would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he has regained his strength, he would again rape the victim. When the accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon victim, he was not motivated by a single impulse, but rather by several criminal intents. Hence, his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is indubitable. d. Foreknowledge doctrine - In Gamboa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November 28, 1975 - Accused cannot be held to have entertained continuously the same criminal intent in making the first abstraction on October 2, 1972 for the subsequent abstractions on the following days and months until December 30, 1972, for the simple reason that he was not possessed of any fore-knowledge of any deposit by any customer on any day or occasion and which would pass on to his possession and control. At most, his intent to misappropriate may arise only when he comes in possession of the deposits on each business day but not in future, since petitioner 37 | P a g e 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA company operates only on a day-to-day transaction. As a result, there could be as many acts of misappropriation as there are times the private respondent abstracted and/or diverted the deposits to his own personal use and benefit (People vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. L-16943, October 28, 1961). “X” as punong barangay was angered when he discovered a tap from the main line of the public water tank. On separate occasions, “X” threatened to kill and crack the skulls of “A”, “B”, and “C”, who suspected to be responsible for the tapping of water line. There is no continued crime since the three crimes of grave threat were not committed under a single criminal impulse. “X’s” intent to threaten “A”, “B”, and “C” with bodily harm arose only when he chanced upon each of his victims. Moreover, “X” has no foreknowledge that will change upon the second and third victims at the time he was committing the first threat. Several threats can only be considered as continued crime if the offender threatened three individuals at the same place and at the same time (Paera vs. People, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011). NOVATION The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state, only the latter can renounce it (Degaños vs. People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013). It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to (Degaños vs. People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013). Although the novation of a contract of agency to make it one of sale may relieve an offender from an incipient criminal liability, that did not happen here, for the partial payments and the proposal to pay the balance the accused made during the barangay proceedings were not at all incompatible with Degaños’ liability under the agency that had already attached. Rather than converting the agency to sale, therefore, he even thereby confirmed his liability as the sales agent of the complainants. The acceptance of partial payments, without further change in the original relation between the complainant and the accused, cannot produce novation. For the latter to exist, there must be proof of intent to extinguish the original relationship, and such intent cannot be inferred from the mere acceptance of payments on account of what is totally due. Much less can it be said that the acceptance of partial satisfaction can effect the nullification of a criminal liability that is fully matured, and already in the process of enforcement. Thus, this Court has ruled that the offended party’s acceptance of a promissory note for all or part of the amount misapplied does not obliterate the criminal offense (Degaños vs. People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013). DEATH OF THE ACCUSED Novation can only be used as a defense in a crime where one of its elements is the existence of contractual relationship between the offender and the victim. Defense of novation is applicable to estafa through misappropriation because the contractual trust relationship between the parties can be validly novated or converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor- debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust (People vs. Nery, G.R. No. L-19567, February 5, 1964, En Banc). Novation cannot be used as a defense in case of theft or estafa through falsification of document. In theft case, there was no contractual relationship or bilateral agreement which can be modified or altered by the parties (People vs. Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924, April 29, 1968, En Banc).In estafa through falsification of public documents, the liability of the offender cannot be extinguished by mere novation (Milla vs. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012). In People v. Bayotas, the Court laid down the rules in case the accused dies prior to final judgment: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, 38 | P a g e 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA “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, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.” 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: law; contracts; quasi-contracts; quasi-delicts; 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription (People vs. Amistoso, GR No. 201447, August 28, 2013) PRESCRIPTION The crime of falsification of a public document involving a deed of sale which was registered with the Registry of Deeds, the rule on constructive notice can be applied in the construction of Article 91. Hence, the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned from the time the notarized deed of sale was recorded in the Registry of Deeds (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 74226, July 27, 1989). Constructive notice rule is not applicable to registration of bigamous marriage in the Office of the Civil Registrar. Furthermore, P.D. 1529, which governed registration of document involving real property, specifically provides the rule on constructive notice. On the other hand, Act No. 3753 or the Family Code, which governed registration of marriage do not provide rule on constructive notice (Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994); hence the period of prescription commences to run on the date of actual discovery of the bigamous marriage. COMMENCEMENT - As a rule, period of prescription commence to run from the date of discovery of its commission. However, if the crime is not yet actionable at the time of its commission, period of prescription will commence to run from the time it becomes actionable. In false testimony, the crime was committed at the time the accused falsely testified in court. However, the period of prescription for false testimony commences to run from the date of the finality of judgment of a case in which the offender testified falsely. Prior to the date of finality, the crime is not yet actionable (People vs. Maneja, G.R. No. 47684, June 10, 1941). In violation of BP Blg. 22, the crime is consummated upon the dishonor of the check by the drawee bank (Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001). However, the period of prescription for such crime commences to run from the date of the expiration of the five-day period from receipt of notice of dishonor by the drawer. Prior to that date, the crime is not yet actionable since the offender can still avert criminal prosecution by satisfying the amount of the check or making arrangement for its payment within five day grace period. Moreover, the running of prescription for crime punishable under special law shall be interrupted upon filing of complaint with prosecutor office for preliminary investigation. It would be absurd to consider the prescriptive period for crime under BP Blg. 22 as already running even prior to the expiration of the grace period despite the fact that the complainant could not cause its interruption by filing a complaint for preliminary investigation since it is not yet actionable. In People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012 - This Court reckons the commencement of the period of prescription for violations of BP Blg. 22 imputed to accused sometime in the latter part of 1995, as it was within this period that the accused was notified by the private complainant of the fact of dishonor of the subject checks and, the five (5) days grace period granted by law had elapsed. The private complainant then had, pursuant to Act 3326, four years there from or until the latter part of 1999 to file her complaint or information against the petitioner before the proper court. 39 | P a g e 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA Blameless ignorance doctrine - Generally, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day the crime is committed. An exception to this rule is the "blameless ignorance" doctrine, incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326. Under this doctrine, "the statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which will support a cause of action. Considering that during the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail the legality of the transactions involving cronies such as behest loan, it would be unreasonable to expect that the discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible prior to 1986 (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September 11, 2013). Hence, the prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019 commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation (Presidential Ad hoc fact-finding committee vs. Hon. Desierto, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011) INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION – Under Act No. 3326, the running of the prescription of offense punishable under special law shall be interrupted when “judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment” are instituted against the guilty person. The proceeding is described as “judicial” since when Act No. 3326 was passed on December 4, 1926, preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the peace. Considering that preliminary investigation in criminal case for purposes of prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive branch, the term “proceedings” should now be understood either executive or judicial in character: executive when it involves the investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage. Hence, institution of proceeding, whether executive or judicial, interrupts the running of prescriptive period (Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008). Thus, the commencement of the following proceedings for the prosecution of the accused effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offense charged: (1) Filing of complaint for violation of BP 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor (Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, supra); (2) Filing of complaint for violations of the Revised Securities Act and the Securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc); and (3) Filing of complaint for violation of RA No. 3019 with the Office of the Ombudsman (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823- 24 and 174764-65, September 11, 2013) Exceptions: 1. Violation of ordinance – In Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992 - The proceedings referred to in Section 2 of Act No. 3326 are “judicial proceedings” (which does not include administrative proceedings). Thus, a crime such as violation of ordinance may prescribe even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor's office if, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late. In Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Lidua, Sr., GR No. 169588, Oct. 7, 2013, the Supreme Court applied the Zaldivia principle to prescription of violation of ordinance. In this case, what is involved in this case is violation of ordinance of Baguio City, a chartered city. Accordingly, when the representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of the Information. They had two months to file the Information and institute the judicial proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. While the case of Pangilinan categorically abandoned the Zaldivia principle, the Supreme Court in Jadewell case ruled the doctrine of Pangilinan pertains to violations of special laws but not to ordinances. In sum, if what is involved is prescription of violation of special law, institution of administrative proceeding for investigation interrupts the prescriptive period. Zaldivia is not controlling. If what is involved is prescription of violation of ordinance, institution of judicial proceeding is required to interrupt the running of prescription. Zaldivia case is controlling. 2. Invalid proceeding – In People vs. Romualdez and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166510, April 29, 2009 - The investigatory power of the PCGG extended only to alleged ill-gotten wealth cases, absent previous authority from the President for the PCGG to investigate such graft and corruption cases involving the Marcos cronies. Accordingly, the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG leading to the filing of the first information is void ab initio, and thus could not be considered as having tolled the fifteen (15)-year prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019. After all, a void ab initio proceeding such as the first preliminary investigation by the PCGG could not be accorded any legal effect. 40 | P a g e Such philosophy is not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory provisions. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused — to wager on the result of his appeal — that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal… he now applies for probation as an “escape hatch” thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction (Almero vs. Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. In so doing. 968. who was sentenced to suffer a penalty of more than 6 years of imprisonment. (2) Probation and parole are suspension sentence while pardon is remission of penalty. since rape is now a crime against person. Under this provision. is disqualified to apply for probation. People. (3) Offender can only apply for probation within the period of perfecting an appeal. It seems that RA 8353 adopted the first rule in Article 344 of RPC but not the second rule. 2014). GR No. who was sentence to suffer reclusion perpetua or death penalty. 2014). may apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC because of the following reasons: (1) The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no fault of his. and may be granted by the court to a deserving defendant. marriage between the offender and offended party will not extinguish the criminal liability of the co- principal. It is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society.D. b. GR No. Second. acts of lasciviousness and rape. People. the provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals. who was convicted by the lower court of a non-probationable offense (frustrated homicide). In case of rape.The accused. (4) Offender. 188191. March 12.D. the rationale for the treatment of appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically opposed legal positions. an act of grace and clemency conferred by the State. GR No. The underlying philosophy of probation is one of liberality towards the accused. 188191. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have accepted the judgment. 2014). as amended by P. and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused (Almero vs. offender is eligible for parole after serving the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. Non-probationable offense . While accused did not file an appeal before applying for probation. People. effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. accomplice or accessory of the crime of rape PROBATION Probation distinguished from parole and pardon – (1) Grant of probation is judicial while that of parole and pardon is executive. March 12. in cases of seduction. the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. a. Mutual exclusive remedies . the President can pardon offender even if the penalty imposed upon him is reclusion perpetua or death penalty. he attempted to circumvent P. The law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation. is not qualified for parole. it should be considered ad deleted from the text of Article 334. 188191. People. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the state of time. 188191. (2) If the accused will not be allowed to apply for 41 | P a g e . March 12. subsequent marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or penalty. GR No. However. No. Accordingly.Probation is not a right but a mere privilege. which seeks to make appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies (Almero vs. Offender. March 12. 1990. offender is eligible for pardon after conviction by final judgment. accomplices and accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes. the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court. but on appeal was found guilty of a probationable offense (attempted homicide). This was the reason why the Probation Law was amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction – even if the sentence is probationable – for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid (Almero vs. Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused. Hence. The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which led to the judgment of conviction. 2014). the applicable rule is Article 266-C of RPC as amended by RA 8353. According to Regalado. he assailed the validity of the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of probation. abduction. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. First. CAMPANILLA MARRIAGE IN RAPE There are two rules under Article 334 of RPC in connection with marriage as a mode of criminal extinction. Justice De Castro . 2009). 2013). People.Commercial documents are. which is a probationable crime.R. No. But. documents or instruments which are “used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. he will be made to pay for the trial court’s erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of his right to apply for probation.S. as it happens. April 23. 1908). January 18. The essence of this crime is not violation of fundamental law of the law but deprivation of liberty of the victim. malversation or theft 42 | P a g e . because of lack of dolo. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). a conviction for attempted homicide by the Supreme Court (Colinares vs. A public officer. the SC found them liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. in general. No. U. they did not participate in the act or proceeding. (3) While it is true that probation is a mere privilege.R. 13. However. A cashier’s check necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check and withdraw the amount indicated therein (Tanenggee vs. G. what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed (Regidor. the accused has the right to apply for that privilege.S. G.Is intent to cause damage an element of falsification of public or official document? No.In Lonzanida vs. vs. Agravante. Nos. People.R. R.1991). 166086-92 Feb. the crime committed is “unlawful arrest”. accused was convicted of homicide. stenographer. G.S. Damage as an element . No. 179448. A public officer. CAMPANILLA probation. or (3) Determining if he committed or is committing a crime [U. L-6909. 189093.R.” Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for convenience in business transactions. the public officer. People. He committed falsification by causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or proceeding when in fact and in truth. 81561. CRIMES AGAINST FUNDEMENTAL LAW UNLAWFUL ARREST AND ARBITRARY DETENTION In unlawful arrest. 151258. and. it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document. No. In falsification of public or official documents. The SC reaffirmed the Colinares case in Villareal vs. vs.g. who is authorized to administer oath. if he arrests or detains a person not in accordance with Section 5.R. detains the victim without legal grounds (People vs. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2009.R. If such public officer detained a person in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable seizure (or not in accordance with Section 5. 2010) for the purpose of: (1) Delivering him to judicial authority (U. the crime committed is “arbitrary detention. No. 962. 182748. GR No. February 20. Arbitrary detention is a crime against fundamental law of the law or the Constitution. by the trial court. 95 Phil. vs. who is not vested with the authority to detain or to order the detention of a person (e. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST FALSIFICATION Affidavit . hence. is acting in behalf of the State in arresting or detaining a person.” Unlawful arrest is a crime against personal liberty and security. People. June 26.R. us. the private individual or public officer in its private capacity arrests or detains the victim without reasonable ground or legal authority for purpose of delivering him to the proper judicial authority.. Such public officer acting in his private capacity (or a private individual) could not violate the Constitution (People vs Marti. December 1. Nos. attested to the fact that the affiants swore and signed their affidavits in his presence when in fact they never did. Commercial document . 2014. 120). (4) It is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals "from the judgment of conviction" is disqualified from availing himself of the benefits of probation. 3947.Petitioner as mayor. G. G. who has authority to make arrest. two. now set aside. Hawchaw. July 20. They can still apply for probation. Bringas G. two judgments of conviction have been meted out to accused: one. who is vested with the authority to detain or to order the detention of a person accused of a crime. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. In arbitrary detention. Jr. Oliva. researcher or municipal treasurer). January 28. December 13. a conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional trial court. Gellada. is not acting in behalf of the State in making a warrantless arrest. a non-probationable crime. 2011). G. People. (2) Conducting criminal investigation (People vs. No. Falsification and estafa. 1912]. G. 15 Phil. 160243-52. and vice versa. hence. 1917. G. People. The use of damage as an element in falsification precludes the re-use thereof to complete the elements of estafa. In Ruzol vs. 131131.S.R. 127327. Sandiganbayan. GR Nos. the former was committed ahead of the latter. 2013) or theft (People vs. G. No. 186739-960.R. Other view: If falsification is committed for purpose of enabling the accused to commit malversation (People vs. 1932) or theft. November 10. G. estafa absorbs the element of damage of falsification. Salonga. Zafra vs.R. August 06. En Banc). If falsification of private document was used as a means to commit estafa.R. 181409. G. No. Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. People vs. the latter was committed ahead of the former.R. Justice De castro.R. People. L-41265.R. No.R. Using a falsified check to defraud the bank is estafa through falsification of commercial document (Tanengee vs. Beng. G. USURPATION OF FUNCTION Usurpation of authority is committed by knowingly and falsely representing himself to be an officer. 43 | P a g e . April 17. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a private document. According to prosecution. and (b) the damage to third person is not caused by the falsity in the document but by the commission of estafa (See: People vs. official or commercial document as a necessary means to commit malversation (People vs. 2006). G. G. 1978. February 11. 186739-960. April 17. Usurpation of function is committed by performing any act under pretense of official position pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the government or any foreign government. No. (See: U. 1995. 85667. No. G. estafa (People vs. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa. 20140. hence. Using a stolen and falsified check to defraud the bank is theft through falsification of commercial document (People vs. Villanueva.R. No. When the offender commits falsification of public. July 27. Falsification absorbs estafa. If a person commits falsification of private document to conceal malversation or estafa. 2013). misappropriation of public funds is malversation (People vs. 2013 . falsification absorbs the element of damage of estafa.R. 1931). DENR is the only government instrumentality that can issue the permits to transport salvaged forest products. L-33252-54. February 23. 1933. No. the crime is malversation or estafa only. People). Sandiganbayan). misappropriation of funds is estafa (Ilumin vs. 2010. 36979. Nos. 40 O. G. Benito. If the public officer is an accountable officer. November 23. without being lawfully entitled to do so (Ruzol vs. Sandiganbayan. Tanenggee vs. No. People vs. CAMPANILLA When the offender commits falsification of public. June 26. 2001). If the public officer is not an accountable officer. 12609.Accused. January 20. Go. L-43120. NO. GR Nos. 191015.R. an element used to complete one crime cannot be legally re-used to complete the requisites of a subsequent crime (Regalado). 39047. 2009. Silvanna. Sendaydiego. official or commercial document as a means to conceal malversation (People vs. People vs. This is not complex crime proper since one is not a necessary means to commit another. July 23.R. October 30. 179448. No. vs Chan Tiao. 1934). No. G. the crime committed is complex crime proper under Article 48 of RPC. G. Sandiganbayan. agent or representative of any department or agency of the government or of any foreign government. G. the accused is liable for complex crime proper. No. People. falsification of private document and estafa cannot co-exist. 1913). GR No. estafa (Ilumin vs. Falsification of private document is not committed because: (a) the use of damage as an element in estafa precludes the re-use thereof to complete the elements of falsification. 139610. 2014) or estafa (People vs. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. August 12. G. G.G. G. the proper crime to be charged is estafa (Batulanon vs. October 31. or any agency thereof. he is liable for falsification only. February 13.R. No.R. L-34516. the proper crime to be charged is falsification. 176317. Ambito vs. Barbas. September 15. Monteverde. 1935. Barbas). 2002. No. Reyes. Thus. 139857. Salonga). If falsification of private document was used as a means to conceal estafa.R. People. People. a mayor issued permits to transport salvaged forest products. Under the doctrine of common element. July 27. If the offender commits falsification of private document as a means to commit estafa. June 21. The common element of estafa or malversation and falsification is damage to the victim. the crimes are separate. and concerned citizens. 2011). and (5) That he appropriated. any disbursement and release of public funds require their approval. What is clear from the records is that accused. (2) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. permitted another person to take them (Legrama vs. or through abandonment or negligence. Under the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. If. Pajaro. In other words. who supposed to have received the money. The municipal accountant obligated the allotments despite lack of prior certification from the budget officer. The municipal mayor initiated the request for obligation of allotments and certified and approved the disbursement vouchers. LGUs may also exercise such authority. Accused chose to exercise the right to protect the environment and to share in this responsibility by exercising his authority as municipal mayor––an act which was executed with the cooperation of non-governmental organizations. Good faith is a defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions. and treasurer. The requirement of permits to transport was accused’s decision alone. The mayor and treasurer had control and 44 | P a g e . the presence of DENR official during the Multi-Sectoral Assembly strengthens accused’s claim of good faith. Can the mayor and accountant be held liable for malversation even though they are not accountable officer? Yes. accused intended to usurp the official functions of the DENR. the fact that as part of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it. Ordinarily. it was a result of the collective decision of the participants during the Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly. is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. were forged. The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee. Accountable officer – An accountable public officer is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. (4) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable. June 13. intended to regulate and monitor salvaged forest products in order to avert the occurrence of illegal logging in the area. The signatures of beneficiaries. a school principal of a public high school may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same (Torres vs. municipal mayors are chief executives of their respective municipalities. the signatures of the mayor and the treasurer are needed before any disbursement of public funds can be made. combined acts of the mayor and accountant. In this case. (3) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.R. Nos. August 31. His acts may be invalid but it does necessarily mean that such mistakes automatically justify his conviction. he is responsible for all government funds pertaining to the municipality. pursuant to the general welfare clause. GR No. a municipality’s mayor and accountant are not accountable public officers as defined under the law. CAMPANILLA The prosecution asserted that accused usurped the official functions that properly belong to the DENR. Municipal treasurer certified to the availability of funds and released the money even without the requisite budget officer’s certification. Thus. The DENR is not the sole government agency vested with the authority to issue permits relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest products. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. an accountable officer. There is no showing that accused possessed that “criminal mind” when he in his capacity as mayor issued the subject permits. Sandiganbayan. 2008). he would not have asked the presence of a DENR official who has the authority and credibility to publicly object against accused’s allegedly intended usurpation. a public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of his official position. GR No. stakeholders. indeed. misappropriated or consented. People. 178626. However. In addition. 2012). No checks can be prepared and no payment can be effected without their signatures on a disbursement voucher and the corresponding check. may be liable for malversation if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICER MALVERSATION The essential elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) That the offender be a public officer. June 17. Hence. As a required standard procedure. G. or even a private individual. took. considering that. 167860-65. 175074. as municipal mayor. conspired to defraud the government (People vs. Even when the Information charges intentional malversation. or on or before March 20. and (4) that he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. 2012). 2014 . Under COA Circular. July 7.R. In fine. 158413. and while the prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense. August 31.R. petitioner is required to liquidate the same within 20 days after the end of the year or on ore before January 20. that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made. Petitioner was liable for failure to render account under Article 218 because it took him over six years before settling his accounts. To sustain a charge of malversation. G. Presumption of malversation .R.R. To be sure. this presumption is disputable and rebuttable by evidence showing that the public officer had fully accounted for the alleged cash shortage (Legrama vs. KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGEMENT To commit the offense of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. 2012). (2) that he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property. Any unlawful disbursement or misappropriation of the municipal funds would make them accountable for malversation (Evangelista vs.166680. conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. 1995. The 45 | P a g e . not one who merely committed an error of judgment or taken the unpopular side of a controversial point of law. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper (Torres vs. 1995. When these circumstances are present. 2011). June 13. February 08. and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. whether in the service or separated therefrom. People. August 31. neither is the mere failure of the public officer to turn over the funds at any given time sufficient to make even the prima facie case. 2012). No. all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds. 185960. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 2011). or to a provincial auditor. (3) that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit. Sandiganbayan. conversion must be proved. No. Under Article 217. a presumption was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized officer. or passively through negligence. Petitioner received cash advance for payment of the insurance coverage of motorcycles purchased by the Municipality in 1994.Article 218 of RPC consists of the following elements: (1) that the offender is a public officer. GR No. To avoid liability under Article 218. an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation so long as there is evidence of shortage in his account which he is unable to explain. G. a “presumption of law” arises that there was malversation of public funds or properties. G. Sandiganbayan. Intentional and culpable malversation – Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property. CAMPANILLA responsibility over the funds of the municipality. However. People. Lumauig. they are accountable officers. G. the offender must be a judge who is adequately shown to have rendered an unjust judgment. the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property – with which said officer is accountable – should be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to personal use. In the crime of malversation. Hon. Sandiganbayan. FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTING In People vs. No. Article 218 merely provides that the public officer be required by law and regulation to render account. Hence. GR No. it will not preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence because both are equally punishable for malversation (Torres vs. Demand before an accountable officer is held liable for a violation of the crime is not required. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts (Icdang vs. 175074. No. Even if the mode charged differs from mode proved. January 25. there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. 178626.Mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion. 175074. he should have liquidated the cash advance within two months from the time it was due. 177105- 06. RAPE INTIMIDATION . 202847. the crime of usurpation of judicial authority involves the following elements: (1) that the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government. The failure of the judge to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable (Re: Verified Complaint for Disbarment of AMA LAnd Inc.M. therefore. Leonardo. When such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim. against CA Association Justice Bueser et. April 7. “X” cannot evade criminal culpability by the circumstance that he merely intended to discipline his son (People vs. conscious and deliberate intention to do an injustice. A clerk of court. A. October 23. while accused sped away. 2010). and (2) that he assumes judicial powers.R. 2010). G. there after hit on his right eye and right leg. the judge was motivated by hatred. the accused. CAMPANILLA term knowingly means “sure knowledge.. A. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS PARRICIDE Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed. 167766. Is the accused liable for attempted murder? No. his son sustained injuries that would heal in one week upon medication.M.R. No. or child. and (3) the deceased is the father. who is not an officer of the executive branch. Camat. MURDER Murder. accused could have shot the victim multiple times or even ran him over with the car. No. No. If he intended to kill him. 2011). a clerk of court. These elements were alleged in the information. P-01-1472. 188612. (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248. June 26. vs. P-03-1675. Pamulag. cannot be held liable for usurpation of judicial function. the ground for liability. July 30. the complainant must not only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently contrary to law or not supported by the evidence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. 177218. OCA IPI No. Intimidation is a relative term.It is a well-entrenched law that intimidation in rape includes the moral kind of intimidation or coercion. 6 August 2003. P-05-2067. and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide (People vs. attempts to perform an act the authority for which the law has vested only in a judge (Miñoso v. depending on the age. March 11. 2014). 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. October 3. size and 46 | P a g e .M. whether legitimate or illegitimate. EXCESSIVE CHASTISEMENT “X” tied his son to a coconut tree and. Is “X” liable for slight physical injuries despite the fact that his intention in beating his son is merely to discipline him? Yes. considering that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were lacking herein (Reyes vs. 31 August 2005. Auguis. revenge. Mayor Irisari was an officer of the executive branch (Munez vs. Nos. A.” Thus.M. or the legitimate spouse of the accused (People vs. G. Pace v. who rendered judgment in DARAB Case in the performance of a quasi-judicial function. 1995). Jr. who is not a judge. However. Accused only shot the victim once and did not hit any vital part of the latter’s body. (2) the accused killed him. therefore. (2) the deceased is killed by the accused. greed or some other similar motive in issuing the judgment. who usurped judicial prerogative of the judge by issuing the arrest of an accused in a criminal case. the crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries only (Pentecoste. People. MTJ- 94-985. or obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. GR No. the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed. hitting him just below the left armpit. In other words. No. 2013). 2012 ATTEMPTED MURDER . A. A Provincial Adjudicator.al. mother. Gamez. August 12. 12-204-CA-J. As a consequence.Accused opened the door of his vehicle and then drew a gun and shot victim once. Arino. Good faith and the absence of malice.R. Bad faith is. No. In usurpation of judicial function. No. G. Sales. USURPATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY Under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code. could not be held liable under Article 241 of RPC. closely akin to the function of a judge of a court of law. is administratively liable for grave misconduct (Albior vs. or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant.). 2003). G. corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses that will shield a judge from the charge of rendering an unjust decision. People. Victim immediately ran at the back of the car.R. February 21. No. It can be addressed to the mind as well. threat. No. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend.The sweetheart theory. the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused. The legislators agreed that Article 266-D is intended to soften the jurisprudence on tenacious resistance (People vs.R. 2013). June 11.R. G. March 7. March 20. Leonardo G.R. September 04. If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality. 195239. March 14. Ortega. Broca. his moral ascendancy and influence over the victim substitute for the requisite force. Dulay. GR No. something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter. People. Failure to shout should not be taken against the victim (People vs. for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof. In People vs. People vs. as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Samandre. For purposes of sexual abuse. remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of adults. 198732. For rape to exist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. En Banc . 189324. 2003. No. July 10. MENTAL RETARDATION – In People vs. Sweetheart theory . consent is immaterial in cases involving sexual absue under Section 5 of RA 7610. as a defense. January 09. The use of a weapon. 203086. 200508. would suffice (People vs.fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused. February 22. People vs. It necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries. June 05. 2013). 2013). Rubio. Nos. 47 | P a g e . appellant’s force or threat was sufficient to create fear in the mind of the complainant compelling her to submit to his sexual abuse. 2002. Sweetheart defense will not exculpate accused from liability for rape against mentally retarded person.R. who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual (People vs. after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case. En banc). Candellada. It is therefore enough that it produces fear -. 2012. GR No. and intimidation. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker (People vs. 2012. 2013. G. 189280. who is private complainant’s father. 183093. No.R. G. Caoile. 2013). 2013. GR No. hit or scratch the offender with her fingernails to prove that she had been defensive.Among the amendments of the law on rape introduced under RA No. People vs. 2014 .Being the father. 2012. A child was not capable of fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in consequence. 2012. Osma. 187734. In the rape of a woman deprived of reason or unconscious.R. deficiency. Deligero. June 10. Dalan. GR No. Rivera. necessarily admits carnal knowledge. which provides “Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party. 8353 is Section 266-D. Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape (People vs. Nos. April 17. 189324. is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation. and strengthen the fear which compels the victim to conceal her dishonor (People vs. Tenacious resistance . 175924. 181036. 2010). No. or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent. No. No. July 23. No. 189293. G. 201447. August 29. 134766. The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim (People vs. 181497. actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant. 2004). G. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person (Caballo vs. 2012) In rape committed by a father. the sweetheart defense is unacceptable.R. In incestuous rape of a minor. January 16. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. G. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution rape” (People vs. October 17. G. GR No. Torres. bite. Penilla.The term statutory rape should only be confined to situations where the victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of age. Abanilla. GR No.R.R. 148673-75. March 20. G. No. Tubat. Unlike rape.R. Sabadlab. 2012). No. 203041. G. January 25. but also when she is suffering some mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will. and their relationship with each other. No. Penilla. 2013). She need not kick. 2013 People vs. CAMPANILLA strength of the parties. February 1. see: People vs. July 6. Justice De Castro). therefore. Justice De Castro). Such lack of will may exist not only when the victim is unconscious or totally deprived of reason.R. and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission (People vs. It is sufficient that she yielded because of a real application of bodily harm (People vs. the first element of rape. G. G. the victim has no will. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast rule. 144344-68. 186235.R. GR No. by itself. The absence of will determines the existence of the rape. In rape. 188978. Accused was charged in the Information with rape of a demented person with mental capacity below 18 years old. Dalandas) Intimidation . the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. On the other hand. (c) moron or feebleminded (twelve-year old child) and (d) borderline intelligence. Cohabitation with a feebleminded.R. the phrase deprived of reason includes those suffering from mental abnormality. A person is guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a "borderline mental deficiency (People vs. deficiency.” Accused was charged in the Information with rape of a demented person with a mental age of 7 years old. deficiency or retardation. Sr. GR No. Butiong. But a deafmute is not necessarily deprived of reason.” and not one who is “demented. CAMPANILLA or retardation. G. October 19. At any rate. 2011). GR No. The mistake will not exonerate accused. GR No. G. 2014). Justice De Castro).R. GR. carnal knowledge with a mental retardate with mental age of below 12 years. G. and a maximum intellectual factor in adult life equivalent to that of the average two-year old child. These circumstances must be proven. and the particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him (People vs. No. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.The traditional but now obsolescent terms applied to those degrees of mental retardation were (a) idiot. No. Dollano. However. 2013). No. People vs. His rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him were violated. Thus. STATUTORY RAPE . idiotic woman is rape. 2002. having an IQ of 50 to 69 and a maximum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average twelve-year old child.The deprivation of reason need not be complete. Ventura. which is a condition of deteriorated mentality. Evidence however shows that the victim is not demented but mentally retarded. the phrase "deprived of reason" refers to mental abnormality. June 05. Intercourse with a deafmute is not rape of a woman deprived of reason. at the time he committed the rape. proof of force. Balatazo. 2012 (Justice De Castro). 140209. a mental retardate can be properly classified as a person who is “deprived of reason. March 12. Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough.In statutory rape. Caoile. in the absence of proof that she is an imbecile (People vs. June 05.The term demented refers to a person who has dementia. madness.R. Jr. Sexual intercourse with an insane woman was considered rape. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape (People vs. having an IQ of 0-19. characterized by marked decline from the individual’s former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy. October 19.RPC punishes the rape of a mentally disabled person regardless of the perpetrator’s awareness of his victim’s mental condition. Thus. Evidence however shows that the victim is not demented but mentally retarded. 203041. However. 168932. (b) imbecile (seven-year old child). In short. January 29. what the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age.Mental retardation was not alleged in the information. or insanity. 2004). The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years (People vs. Mistake in the information will not exonerate the accused he failed to raise this as an objection. June 13. 2011.R. Deafmute . while akin to statutory rape should still be designated as simple rape. or retardation. Borderline intelligence . Demented person . Having sex with a mentally retarded person even with consent constitutes rape through intimidation (People vs. 203041. Psychiatrists and psychologists apply the term “borderline” intelligence to those with IQ between 70 to 89. The allegation that the victim is a person with a mental age of 7 years old is sufficient to inform accused of the nature of the charges against him. which includes (a) idiot (equivalent to two-year old child). December 27. 118027. G. 2013. Bayrante. (b)imbecile by an IQ of 20 to 49 and a maximum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average seven- year old child. threat or intimidation is dispensed with in both statutory rape and rape with a person who is deprived of reason. qualifies the crime 48 | P a g e . the accused can be convicted of with rape though intimidation alleged in the Information. No. Caoile. 188851. the crime committed is simple rape committed against a person "deprived of reason" .. 205230. A person is guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a “borderline mental deficiency (People vs. QUALIFIED RAPE . the perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability. No. (c) moron or feebleminded. November 14. UNTENABLE DEFENSE . 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. is of no moment. such as the members of their own family inside the same room. 2014 - Husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. October 19. 188315. if credible. she can lawfully opt to give or withhold her consent to marital coitus. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused. He must be legally appointed was first (People vs. the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone. In any event. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Lascano. No. No.R. March 21.R. G. G. 2012). the crime committed is simple rape. No.R. GR No. Jr. Ortega. Hence. June 05. CAMPANILLA (People vs. 187495. CONSPIRACY . No. G. 2013).. 192180. This is the clear State policy expressly legislated in Section 266-C of RPC as amended by RA No. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter’s will or 49 | P a g e . since lust respects no time. 188851. 203041. 2012) It is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that AAA gave birth ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. In Sison vs. In People vs. she does not divest herself of the human right to an exclusive autonomy over her own body and thus. 186235. 2011). February 22. it must be formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution (People vs. GR No. G. it did not specifically allege that the appellant knew of her blindness at the time of the commission of the rape. abduction. GR No. the latter cried. PARDON . 2012 -While petitioner was portraying AAA as a prostitute. except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. or by some unknown individual. January 25. He can seek succor before the Family Courts that can determine whether her refusal constitutes psychological incapacity justifying an annulment of the marriage. Obogne.R.For crimes of seduction. In qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship in rape and special aggravating circumstance under Section 31(c) of RA No. G. and acts of lasciviousness. March 24. Hence. 188897. 7610 in sexual abuse under Section 5. we dismiss appellant’s contention as immaterial to the case at bar because jurisprudence tells us that impregnation is not an element of rape. Sexual intercourse. June 06. pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions (People vs. However. 2012). A husband aggrieved by his wife’s unremitting refusal to engage in sexual intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to make her yield. 187229. pardon and marriage extinguish criminal liability. MARITAL RAPE – In People vs.R. August 25. 199740. 2014). 192180. No. 2012 –the information in the present case merely stated that the victim was blind. the rapes. rape is no longer considered a private crime or that which cannot be prosecuted. People. Husbands are once again reminded that marriage is not a license to forcibly rape their wives. Bonaagua. 2011). 200792. No. Rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. Jumawan. the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. G. By marrying. GR No.” RA No 8353 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. which provides “in case it is the legal husband who is the offender. 2010). albeit within the realm of marriage. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where it is shown that intimidation was used for the victim to have sex with the accused. Consequently.R. Time and again. Since knowledge is an element of this qualifying circumstance. is sufficient to convict the accused thereof (People vs. is rape. Caoile. one after the other. March 21. AAA's crying shows how she might have felt after being raped by the petitioner and yet be accused of a woman of loose morals. Colorado. shown by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate. presumed. April 21. locale or circumstance (People vs. Dollano. A husband does not own his wife’s body by reason of marriage. Each of them is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but also for the rape committed by the other as well (People vs. Lascano. the guardian must be a person who has legal relationship with his ward.Accused are liable for two (2) counts of rape on account of a clear conspiracy between them. with the likelihood of being discovered. No. pardon by the offended party of the offender in the crime of rape will not extinguish the offender's criminal liability (People vs. we have taken into consideration how rapists are not deterred by the presence of people nearby. if not consensual.R. Flores G.In crimes against chastity. R. The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness lies in the intent of the perpetrator as deduced from his external acts. In some cases even. accused will be convicted of consummated Rape if there are evidence that the pain felt by the victim. or the mons pubis. the sex organ of the victim suffered injury. January 09. September 19. the penis that touches the external genitalia must be capable of consummating the sexual act to constitute consummated rape (People vs. April 13.R.R. 2014) or the offender actually commenced to force his penis into the victim's sexual organ (People vs. The strength and dilability of the hymen varies from one woman to another such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. even though the victim testified that there was no penetration and the accused simply rubbed his penis in the victim's vagina. are: (1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness. Justice De Castro). Nos. 189280. may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue. 129433. there can only be acts of lasciviousness.R. 200529. Dadulla. February 19. By using force or intimidation. G. G. Likewise. or b. No. Accused was convicted of attempted rape (People vs. G. (People vs. 2013. 129433. Gahi. 166441. March 30. while his short pants were down to his knees. whether the accused’s penis fully or only partially penetrated the victim’s genitalia. GR No. No. Campuhan.Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ. March 30.R. No. October 08.R. Broca. No. December 11. and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex (People vs. Rellota. October 19. When the offended party is under 12 years of age.R.R. 50 | P a g e .Sexual penetration even without laceration of the hymen or even the briefest of contact consummates rape (People vs. People. No. Mother of the victim saw “X” was kneeling before victim whose pajamas and panty were already removed. GR No. it is still possible that her hymen would remain intact because it was thick and distensible or elastic. 193666. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS . GR No. Attempted rape is committed when the “touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. G. G. Accused was forcing his penis into victim’s vagina. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 2011). the hymen is still intact even after the woman has given birth (People vs. CAMPANILLA without her consent. No. However. Pareja. No. 2000). No. Anything short of that will only result in either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Justice De Castro). 2011). 2011. 2013. Butiong. touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis. and there is bleeding of the victim's genitalia. 135667-70. or on the other hand. No. 2000. G. Banzuela. 129433. and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner (People vs. Is “X” liable for acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape? “X” should be held liable for attempted rape since it was not shown that his penis was able to penetrate vagina of victim however slight (People vs. stroking or grazing of organs. (People vs. 172321. 2014. R. En Banc). Deligero. i. Castillo. a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina. 183090. However.e. 2000). 202976.In People vs. Justice De Castro . Campuhan. 2011. Garcia. No. No. STAGES CONSUMMATED RAPE – If the “touching" of the female organ constitutes the sliding of the penis into or the touching of either labia majoraor labia minoraof the pudendum. 188979. GR No. 201447. It is possible for the victim’s hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.R. March 1.R. there can be no consummated rape. Horrified. November 14. it must be shown that erectile penis is in the position to penetrate (Cruz vs. April 17. otherwise. Hymen is intact . When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Collado G. 183569). February 19. March 30. Publico. People vs. Pangilinan. People vs. G. 202060. Intent to have sexual intercourse was clearly established in this case. the crime committed is consummated rape. 2012). G.The elements of acts of lasciviousness. 168932. The victim’s statements that the accused was “trying to force his sex organ into mine” and “binundol-undol ang kanyang ari” did not prove that the accused’s penis reached the labia of the pudendum of the victim’s vagina. she cursed the accused and boxed him several times. G.R. 2013). September 5. or c. Touching must be made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis capable of penetration (People vs. 2012. No. the crime committed is either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness (People v. G. G. To be held liable of attempted rape.R. Circumstantial evidence . punishable under Article 336 of the RPC. G. 2014. Campuhan. ATTEMPTED RAPE – If the touching merely constitutes an epidermal contact. February 9. (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. 2001). Cuaycong. Undressing the victim (People vs. but the crime proven is rape through sexual assault. a child. January 29.R. testified that X touched her private part and licked it but he did not insert his finger inside her vagina. is open to various interpretation. The perpetrator. 202868. 2015). the accused will be convicted of acts of lasciviousness (People vs. No. Banzuela) or rubbing his penis on the mons pubis of the pudendum (People vs. G. touches the outer lip of the vagina. 196051. G. X is liable for acts of lasciviousness (People vs. the accused will be convicted of the latter because of the variance rule. Sanico. August 13. October 17. Acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in the charge of rape. which were as acts of lasciviousness before. 188897. 2011). The accused will be convicted of separate crimes of rape through sexual intercourse and rape through sexual abuse. Abanilla. upon the passage of RA No. Doctrine of absorption – If the accused commits rape and acts of lasciviousness. No. in an act of cunnilingus. G. 8353. He was convicted of rape through sexual assault by inserting his penis into the mouth of the victim and rape by sexual intercourse.R. acts. (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. No. and had sexual intercourse with her. also “gender-free rape” (People vs. January 15. 148673-75.R. commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice. June 06. Thus. 8353. 183652. Prior to RA No. Espera. August 03. 196435. under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1. But if the accused commits rape through sexual intercourse and rape through sexual abuse. 208469. If the crime charged is rape through sexual intercourse. Nos. the accused cannot be convicted of the latter. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Justice De Castro. 2012). and thereafter. G.R. the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault. What is the crime committed? Answer: If the tongue. People vs. The modes of committing acts of lasciviousness are the same as those of committing rape under the old version.Justice De Castro – Accused inserted his penis into the mouth of the victim. Dy. GR No. 2013 . 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. and (3) the child is below 18 years old. Doctrine of absorption was not applied. 202122. 1. not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. October 02. 2003) is merely acts of lasciviousness. but the crime proven is acts of lasciviousness. No. No.R. CHILD PROSTITUION AND SEXUAL ABUSE Sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R. The variance rule is not applicable since rape through sexual assault is not necessarily included in the charge of rape through sexual intercourse.R. rape her. the latter is absorbed by the former (People vs. 51 | P a g e . Thus. G. G. 2014 – Accused on the same occasion inserted a lit cigarette stick into genital orifice of victim (6 years of age) and her anal orifice. 2013. G. People vs. February 25. It is also called “instrument or object rape”. November 14. Pareja. However. However. The elements of these two crimes are materially and substantially different. GR No. are now treated as rape through sexual assault. In People vs. No. CA. the concept of rape through sexual assault has not acquired some of the characteristic of acts of lasciviousness. RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT It is commonly denominated as “organ rape” or “penile rape” and must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. 115236-37. or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Variance rule – If the crime charged is rape. 2.A. I 79031. October 02. CAMPANILLA 168103 . X cannot be convicted of rape through sexual assault. In such case. A. Nos. however. In People vs. Soria. rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. Justice De Castro. 2014. This testimony of the victim. rape through sexual assault is considered as acts of lasciviousness. 2010).R. the doctrine of absorption is not applicable. 2002). GR No. Crisostomo. He is guilt for two counts of rape by sexual assault and rape through sexual intercourse. 2014) or touching her vagina by the hand of the accused (People vs. Bonaagua. January 29. On the other hand. since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by X. There is no allegation of coercion or influence. Hon. it stands to reason that she was put in a situation deprived of the benefit of clear thought and choice. Hence. X can be prosecuted for either (1) sexual abuse under violation of RA No. Court of Appeals. with which he succeeded. inner thigh. indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. GR No. the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated (People vs. persuasion. 2013). he may be charged only for either (Alberto vs. breast."Sexual abuse" includes the employment. but a statement of a conclusion of law. 7610 although the caption charged him with child abuse under Section 10 (a). the victim eventually yielded. Rayon. G. degrade. No. Thus. Hence. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person (Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases) Child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse . 182130. What crime can X be prosecuted for? The child is under the influence of an adult. asked him to leave. or the introduction of any object into the genitalia. whether of the same or opposite sex. Pangilinan. accused is guilty of sexual abuse (Caballo vs. 7610. 2011. GR No. June 10. groin. Abay. or rape under Article 266-A of RPC. January 30. Under the law. The actuations of the accused may be classified as "coercion" and "influence" within the purview of Section 5 of RA 7610.R. 183090. which is an indispensable ingredient of this crime. are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse (Section 5 of RA No 7610). 198732. of any person. G. June 10. anus. 183090. bestiality. 2013). February 24. In addition.R.Children. 2013) Sexual intercourse or 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 (Caballo vs. either directly or through clothing. Child 12 years of age or above – X taking advantage of his ascendancy committed sexual intercourse with his daughter (15 years of age). GR No. The act is committed with psychological intimidation or grave abuse authority. sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation. X should not be charged for Rape in relation to sexual abuse. 2009. G. ). however. rather. he also guaranteed that she would not get pregnant since he would be using the "withdrawal method" for safety. a minor subjected to sexual abuse. profit. Likewise. syndicate or group. Thus. or assist another person to engage in. 52 | P a g e . 194236. promised to marry her. with an intent to abuse. An important factor is that the victim refused accused's incipient advances and in fact. 7610? Answer: No. 177752. However. People. No. Nov. The Information alleged that accused committed acts of lasciviousness upon the person of victim. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA Sexual abuse and lascivious conduct . or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching. GR No. 2013). of the genitalia. People. or buttocks. Can the accused be convicted for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. The information is void for being violative of the accused’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (People vs. Existing jurisprudence. Pangilinan. People vs. X cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. use. enticement or coercion of a child to engage in. committing lascivious conduct upon a child under coercion or influence of an adult or group is sexual abuse. harass. It does not contain the essential facts constituting the offense. Accused (23 years of age) repeatedly assured the victim (17 years) of his love for her. proscribes charging an accused for both crimes. 7610. 198732. masturbation. and even. prostitution. or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult. The averments in the information against the accused clearly make out a charge for sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA No. However. November 14. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. accused cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under such Information. anus or mouth.R. Under Section 48 of RPC. The age disparity between an adult and a minor placed accused in a stronger position over the victim so as to enable him to force his will upon the latter. No. or incest with children. This is rape. humiliate. a felony cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law (People v. This is sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. who for money. inducement. 14. whether male or female. June 19. rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. These were meant to influence her to set aside her reservations and eventually give into having sex with accused. ).R. Hon. June 6. which must be applied when the victims are children (People vs. 2011. 182130. X taking advantage of his ascendancy committed sexual intercourse with his daughter (9 years of age). Chingh. the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape under RPC (People vs. 8353 is prision mayor while the penalty under RA No. 2013). No. profit.R. 7610 is still good law. would you impose the penalty under RA No. is under 12 years of age. it was not the intention of the framers of RA No. Accused was convicted of rape through sexual assault committed against a 4 year old child. the rationale of unfairness to the child victim that Chingh case wanted to correct is absent because RPC as amended by RA No. 8353. 7610? Answer: One who commits acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA No. 8353. 7610? Answer: Since the crime committed is rape through sexual assault with qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship. Under Section 5 of RA No. in an isolated place and inserted his finger into her vagina. That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age. the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape (People vs. Provided. 7160 should be imposed. No. G. The penalty under RA No. 2011). Dahilig. is reclusion temporal in its medium period. his finger. (c) The penalty for rape through sexual assault under RPC as amended by RA No. 8353. The penalty under RPC should be imposed.R. Matias. There is no allegation in the Information that the child is indulged in lascivious conduct for money. (a) For what crimes can X be prosecuted if A is 17 years of age at the time? Answer: X committed rape through sexual assault. March 13. 188897.R. X can only be prosecuted either for rape or sexual abuse. or object or instrument rape under RPC since he inserted object. Bonaagua. a minor. when the child subjected to sexual abuse is under twelve (12) years of age. 7610 for acts of lasciviousness committed against a child subjected to sexual abuse. G. would you impose penalty penalty under RA No. GR No. into the vaginal orifice of A by using force. People. People v. under 12 years of age. G. there is no more need to apply the penalty prescribed by RA No. 2011. CAMPANILLA 2011. Pangilinan. No. G.R. Section 5 (b) of RA No. which is merely punishable by prision mayor. Despite the passage of RA No. X should be prosecuted for statutory rape. 132875- 76. June 19.X forced A. who is a child indulged in lascivious conduct under coercion of an adult. is under 12 years of age. G. . 7610 provides that when the victim (child subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of age. Court of Appeals. November 16. (b) Would your answer be the same if the age A is 10 years old? Answer: Since A. People v. 53 | P a g e . No. to have disallowed the applicability of RA No. The crime of sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA No. or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult. the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape and for rape or lascivious conduct. R. 8353 or under RA No. March 16. 8353 or under RA No. Hence. 7610 suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the one who commits rape through sexual assault. Jalosjos. 7160 is also committed since A is indulged in lascivious conduct under coercion of an adult. In sum. 187083. If A is the 10 year-old daughter of X. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. as the case may be: Provided. 8353 already prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for this crime. If the age of A is 10 years old. 2001). G. To be sure. syndicate or group. 2012 and Alberto vs. 2011). June 13. No. who is under the influence of an adult. 186469. 183090. 2013) Rape through sexual assault and sexual abuse . 178323. 7610 for sexual abuse (People vs. No. November 14.A. However. Child under 12 years Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse. 7610. the penalty under RA 7160 was not imposed since the information failed to allege that the victim is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse (Pielago vs. X should be prosecuted for rape through sexual assault under RPC. Nos. That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period (Section 5). 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Accused was punished under RPC. June 13. What crime can X be prosecuted for? The child. This is undeniably unfair to the child victim. GR No. 202020.R. (d) The penalty for qualified rape through sexual assault is reclusion temporal under RPC as amended by RA No. Hence. Larin. cruelty.R. X convinced A to accompany her. September 24. CHILD PROSTITUTION The elements of child prostitution are: (1) The accused engages in. G. But if the sexual abuse is committed as alleged in the information against a child. (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival. When they reached Kubuhan. attempt 54 | P a g e .Is consent of the victim a defense in rape. From the time X convinced A to go with her until X received money from Y are not indispensable in the crime of rape. but not limited to. Dulay. September 24.R. "child abuse" refers to the maltreatment. People vs. X is liable for child prostitution under Section 5 of RA No. X and Y told A not to tell anyone what had happened or else they would get back at her. 7610. GR No. Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means. 7 1998). Showing that the child consented to the sexual intercourse will negate “coercion” as an element of the crime (see: People vs. CHILD ABUSE Under Section 10 (a) of RA No. X facilitated or induced child prostitution. (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. the following means: (a) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute. 2012). or giving monetary consideration. who was 12 years old at that time. However. GR No. No. Y wielded a knife and tied A’s hands to the papag and raped her. No. exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition" is incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse (People vs. cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of PD No. degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Delantar. The act of X in convincing A. Under Section 3 (b). or child prostitution or sexual abuse? A child exploited in prostitution may seem to "consent" to what is being done to her or him and may appear not to complain. 193854. G. 2007). or (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death. 128777.R. such as food and shelter. child abuse or cruelty is committed by any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse. Submissiveness of child under influence or psychological coercion of adult is not likewise a defense in sexual abuse (People vs. cruelty. (c) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute. whether male or female. sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment. September 24. facilitates or induces child prostitution. A asked for X's help when she saw the latter peeping into the room while she was being raped. 603. March 25. offer her for sex to a man in exchange for money makes her liable for child prostitution (People vs. neglect. Dulay. 193854. (2) The act is done through. a child who is "a person below eighteen years of age or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. of the child which includes any of the following: (1) Psychological and physical abuse. 2012). 169143. GR No. Section 10 (a) punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 of PD No. (b) child cruelty. No. 193854. October. (d) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute. but X did not do so. We stress that Section 10 refers to acts of child abuse other than child prostitution and other sexual abuse under Section 5. i. promotes. is below 18 years of age (People vs. (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases. 7610. goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution. (a) child abuse. Y gives money to X and tells her to look for a younger girl. G. who indulges in sexual intercourse under coercion. Anyone could have accompanied A and offered the latter's services in exchange for money and A could still have been raped.. but also four distinct acts. Dulay. Abello. neglect. to go with her and thereafter. 603 but not covered by the RPC. CAMPANILLA CONSENT OF THE VICTIM . February 2. Note: Conspiracy was not alleged in the information. the prosecution must show lack of consent on the part of the victim. X suddenly pulled A inside a room where Y. (3) The child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution and (4) The child. child trafficking under Section 7. 151952. Thereafter. 2012. What is the crime committed by X? Answer: X is not liable as principal by indispensable cooperation. whether habitual or not. attempt to commit child prostitution under Section 6. 2009). After the rape.e. as a schoolteacher. 1(b) is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. In Rosaldes vs. June 18. Since the accused committed the act at the spur of the moment. which has expressly banned the infliction of corporal punishment by a school administrator. In Bongalon vs. 173988. Rayon. the appointment of sub- agent was not expressly prohibited by A. She could not justifiably claim that she acted only for the sake of disciplining him. No. 2013 . there is no conversion since the same were not devoted to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. 165411. People. or for administration. 2013). People. March 7. 2012). The boy even fainted from the violence suffered at her hands. demand is not necessary if there is evidence of misappropriation. a subagent. could duly discipline her minor student.Although the accused. G. or disposing of. Thus. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money. People. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage. 165411. legally sanctioned. No. 2009. GR No. Since properties were given by X to Y to achieve the very same end for which they were delivered to her in the first place." Aside from the fact that no condition or limitation was imposed on the mode 55 | P a g e . Her physical maltreatment of him was precisely prohibited by no less than the Family Code. GR No. 170964. Is X liable for estafa through conversion? Answer: No.R. and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender (Tabaniag vs. 2009). People. par. the crime committed is not child abuse under RA 7610 but merely slight physical injuries. or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.R. Demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account are similarly circumstantial evidence that the courts can appreciate (Magtira vs. teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority. Y failed to return the jewelry. People. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own. 2012). another’s property as if it were one’s own. Misappropriation as an element of the offense of estafa connotes an act of using. 2014 . accused struck minor-victim at the back with his hand and slapped his face. June 18. No. 194236. However. it cannot be said that X's act of entrusting the jewelry to Y is characterized by abuse of confidence because such an act was not proscribed and is. In the acknowledgement receipt. they are perpetrated without intent to debase his "intrinsic worth and dignity" as a human being. and obscene publications and indecent shows under Section 9 (People vs. or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. People. 169533. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission.R. (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. No. her infliction of the physical injuries on him was unnecessary.R. March 7. The essence of estafa under Article 315. it cannot be said that X delivered them to Y "without right. X is prohibited from selling jewelry the jewelry on credits or giving it for safekeeping. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ESTAFA ESTAFA THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION – The elements of estafa under Article 315. par. October 08. January 30. 170964. (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. G. March 20. No. G. or denial on his part of such receipt. Accused was convicted of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA No. Magtira vs.Accused saw the victim and his companions hurting his minor daughters. Failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust without offering any satisfactory explanation for the inability to account is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. G. 7610. X received from A jewelry with obligation to return the same if unsold or deliver the proceeds of sale. Similarly. but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right (Tabaniag vs. Neither does it appear that X was verbally forbidden by A from passing on the jewelry to another person. Angered. CAMPANILLA to commit child trafficking under Section 8. It must be pointed out that the law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary between the agent and the principal.R. G. in fact. Without such intent. X transferred the jewelry to Y. violent and excessive. In the case at bar. or to humiliate or embarrass him. issue of May 19. 2013). What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit. GR No. People. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation.. property. Unlike in the Guinhawa case. which is a usual element in the other estafas (Brokmann vs. G. People. Can X be held liable for estafa on the basis of conspiracy? Answer: No. the false representation is committed by using fictitious name. No. GR No. Reyes. GR No. 2009). People. 165411.A. 2009).R.What is the difference between estafa through false representation and other deceit? The common elements of these two crimes are: (1) false pretense. the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender (People vs. in People vs. 157943. 2013). However. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. imaginary transaction etc. ESTFA THROUGH ISSUANCE OF BOUNCING CHECK . People. qualifications. credit. GR No. and (4) damage to the payee thereof. No. then the former would be answerable for the acts of his co-conspirators. and (2) as a result.Fraudulent representation of the seller that the van to be sold is brand new constitutes other deceit under Article 318.The essential elements of estafa through bouncing check: (1) the accused shall defraud another by issuing or postdating check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued. On the other hand. 165411. false representation that accused has a palay by reason of which the victim parted his money in consideration of the palay constitutes estafa under Article 315. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. nor is it proof of misappropriation or conversion (Tabaniag vs. In other words. September 04. the transaction in Rubaton case is imaginary. not the non-payment of a debt. ESTAFA AND OTHER DECEIT . In Guinhawa vs. 2005 () . June 18. Can X be held liable for estafa through negligence? Answer: No. 2012). influence. The acts constituting estafa committed with abuse of confidence are enumerated in item (1) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa by abuse of confidence.The offense of estafa. CAMPANILLA or manner by which X was to effect the sale. business or imaginary transactions. it is also consistent with usual practice for the seller to necessarily part with the valuables in order to find a buyer and allow inspection of the items for sale (Tabaniag vs. Rubaton. February 6. 5048. whether dated or postdated. is committed either by (a) abuse of confidence or (b) means of deceit. 157943. agency. 165411. 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. It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive for the private complainant to part with her property. (3) check was issued or postdated prior to or simultaneously with the parting of money or property by the payee. other deceit as a means to commit estafa must be similar to pretending to possess power. C. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND DECEIT . or falsely pretending to possess power. the crime committed is other deceit under Article 318. 56 | P a g e . June 18. Accused could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he had issued the check used to defraud complainant. or by means of other similar deceits. in general. 2009). 199150. the mere fact that X failed to return the pieces of jewelry upon demand is not proof of conspiracy. People. June 18. fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. If an agent acted in conspiracy with subagent in carrying out the actual misappropriation. 162822 August 25. the breach of confidence takes the place of fraud or deceit. Following the principle of ejusdem generis. (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check. It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it had been accused as the drawer who had defrauded complainant by means of the check. the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. 1069. September 04. In estafa. not the mere issuance of the worthless check. In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision. Reyes. as amended. To be guilty of estafa the accused must have used the check in order to defraud the complainant. through his own acts. G.G. item (2) of Article 315 enumerates estafa committed by means of deceit.R. 65 O. In estafa under Article 315. and his mere negligence in permitting another to take advantage or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa (Tabaniag vs. the profit or gain must be obtained by the accused personally. Complainant admitted that it was another person who received the rice from him and who delivered the bearer check to him (People vs. GR No. If the deceit is not similar to pretending to possess power or imaginary transaction. However. the false pretense made by accused that Primelink was authorized to sell membership shares is estafa. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE .Primelink entered into joint venture agreement with the owner of a certain land to develop a club.When will a representation of a future profits or income be considered as an actionable fraud or estafa? Where one states that the future profits or income of an enterprise shall be a certain sum. July 23. Theft becomes qualified "if committed by a domestic servant. (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain. The projected was aborted. 2009). 199294. typhoon. but he actually knows that there will be none. nonetheless. earthquake. (2) that said property belongs to another. there is no showing that Primelink possessed no power (capability) to develop the Club and that accused knew that the Club was a bogus project. The law was taken from Article 455 of the Spanish Penal Code. However. knowing that the real property is encumbered. GR No. False pretense of qualification (to sell securities) is within the contemplation of the provision on estafa (Lopez vs. In this case. mail matter or large cattle.The elements of the crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal property. or any other calamity. No. the same are deemed incorporated in the RPC. or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. People. for one to be criminally liable for estafa under the law. 1996. the statements constitute an actionable fraud where the hearer believes him and relies on the statement to his injury. volcanic eruption. GR No. In the absence of such requisite. vs. In other words. People. where the accused had never been vested physical access to. vehicular accident or civil disturbance (People vs. February 27. it has already released money for the initial funding of the project. fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. OTHER DECEIT. July 31. Bayon. 2003. July 02. ). Primelink is a legitimate developer. The project was only aborted because of the problem with the owner of the land. 2010). although such encumbrance be not recorded. however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear. Accused is not liable for estafa for such representation. or if property is taken on the occasion of fire. 168627. However. People. or that they will be substantially less than he represents. Hence. False pretense of power to develop the Club resulting in damage to buyer is estafa. G. which occurred after October 10. the law requires that the false pretense be used “prior to or simultaneous with the execution of the fraud. Abing. R. 57 | P a g e . or material possession of. there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed between the offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence ]or that the stolen goods have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused. it is abundantly clear that the profits which Elvira and her co-conspirators promised to Elizabeth would not be realized (Joson vs. 178836. (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. G. the accused must make an express representation in the deed of conveyance that the property sold or disposed of is free from any encumbrance (Naya vs. the stolen goods. hence. 2013). shall dispose of the same. and that is October 10. or if the property stolen is a motor vehicle. Accused represent to complainant on October 10. The gravamen of the crime is the disposition of legally encumbered real property by the offender under the express representation that there is no encumbrance thereon. 2008). No. any subsequent act of the accused. Feb. 205180. cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa (Ambito. CAMPANILLA Authority to sell . 1996.To warrant the conviction and.Is the fraudulent act committed by the accused subsequent to the time the victim parted his money constitutes estafa? In the prosecution for this kind of estafa. People. THEFT QUALIFIED THEFT .R. 2013) SUBSEQUENT FRAUD . 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Because of this representation complainant purchased a Club share. R. which means "free from encumbrance" do not appear in the English text of RPC. imposition of the penalty for qualified theft. However. and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. G. GR NO. 146770. the Club was not completed because the owner of the property mortgaged it in violation of their agreement. 1996 Primelink will finished the Club by July 1998. In fact. 13. it may not be said that he or she exploited such access or material possession thereby committing such grave abuse of confidence in taking the property (Viray vs. In the present case. it is indispensable that the false pretense or fraudulent act is committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 127327. REPRESENTATION OF FUTURE PROFIT .Other deceit under Article 316 (a) of RPC is committed by any person who. November 11. No. the words "como libre" in the Spanish Penal Code. or with grave abuse of confidence. Accused betrayed the trust and confidence reposed on him when he. the owner of the construction materials. 332 is not applicable. G. The error in the designation of the offended party in the information is immaterial and did not violate accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. 2013). 12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the information. March 20. the same breaking of the door does not constitute the qualifying element of grave abuse of confidence. GR No. misappropriation thereof is constitutive of theft. as project manager. Is the argument tenable? Answer: No. as the subject matter of the offense could no longer be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged (Senador vs. He is liable for qualified theft. is liable for estafa because his possession is juridical. Since money is generic and has no earmarks that could properly identify it. wherein the identity of the person against whom the defamatory words were directed is a material element.” Thus. If the subject matter of a crime against property is specific or one described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged. Marigondon.R. GR No. repeatedly took construction materials from the project site. a crime against property that does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper designation of the name of the offended party. 2013). On the other hand. is liable for qualified theft. autonomous. Court of Appeals. November 11. in case of an error in the designation of the offended party in crimes against property. In Uba case. Thus. Rather.Misappropriation of personal property in possession of the accused may constitute estafa or theft depending upon the nature of possession. the case should be dismissed. an agent can even assert. branch manager of the company. On the contrary. People. identity of the offended party is material and necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged. March 06. who failed to return to his principal the proceeds of goods he was commissioned or authorized to sell. 205180. Such error would not result in the acquittal of the accused (Senador vs. The principle in People vs. CAMPANILLA In Zapanta vs. a crime against honor.A travelling sales agent. No. 201620. accused was charged with estafa. 170863. Taking committed by accused cannot be qualified by the breaking of the door. Sec. 2013 . GR No. Accused asserted that the person named as the offended party in the Information is not the same person who made the demand and filed the complaint. as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made. it cannot be said that complaint had a “firm trust” on accused and that the same trust facilitated taking of the personal properties (Viray vs. 201620. Rule 110. Thus. during trial. According to accused. Thus. the private complainant in the Information went by the name “Cynthia Jaime. as against his own principal. Moreover. 106 Phil.00. then an erroneous designation of the offended party is not material and would not result in the violation of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.” whereas.685. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. If the possession is juridical or legal. the subject matter of the offense does not refer to money or any other generic property. People.” Applying the Uba principle. The very fact that accused “forced open” the main door because he was denied access to complainant’s house negates the presence of such confidence in him by private complainant. the only way that it (money) could be described and identified in a complaint is by connecting it to the offended party or the individual who was robbed as its owner or possessor. misappropriation thereof is estafa through misappropriation. without the authority and consent of Engr. Because of this employer-employee relationship. an erroneous designation of the person injured is material. THEFT THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION . right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency. Agency . People. 2013). Uba. not its dismissal. in the instant case. Under the Civil Code Article 1914 of the Civil Code. as it was not alleged in the Information. what is absolutely necessary is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the information. who misappropriate payments from customers that he collected and accepted. In this case. and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault (Guzman v. an independent. If the subject matter of a crime against property was money. People. March 06. the appellant was charged with oral defamation. 1. Instead. 99 Phil. If his possession of the property is physical or de facto. the private complainant turned out to be “Rita Jaime. Without ready access to the interior of the house where the properties were taken. he cannot be considered an agent of the company and is not 58 | P a g e . the erroneous designation of the offended party would also be material. the information specified the subject of the offense as “various kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of P705. 703). A corporate officer received the property to be utilized in the fabrication of bending machines in trust from the corporation and he has absolute option on how to use them without the participation of the corporation. 148233. The possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. Thus. the officer failed to account the property.R. but found the accused guilty of carnapping in view of the passage of RA No. 1955. October 18. 1. is liable for carnapping. G. the petitioner used the property for a purpose other than that agreed upon. which she can set up against employer. Upon demand. No. 204025. 6539(Anti-Carnapping Act). In the eye of the law the driver was only an employee of the owner rather than a lessee. September 22. People. The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. Hence. there are instances where the possession of the employee is considered as juridical. 2014 – Accused received money from complainant for the purpose of buying palay with the corresponding obligations to (1) deliver the palay to the Palay Buying Station or (2) return the money in case of failure to purchase palay. In People vs. R. Employer-employee relationship – As a rule.R.Accused was merely a collector of loan payments from clients of his employer. 2. No. who misappropriated the money received by him for the bank.R. Over the funds. G. 1932 . In Aigle vs. 193479. However. People.R. CAMPANILLA covered by the Civil Code provisions on agency. specifically. Mirto. and misappropriation thereof is qualified theft. 2015 . who did not return the vehicle to it’s owner. as an employee of the Bank. 2014 . G. 2011). No. April 30. People. and even reduce the amounts due.R. 203466. the qualifying circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated. In Benabaye vs. 2012 . November 26. Failure to return is estafa. but the crime proven is theft. In Balerta vs. In People v. the possession of the employee is only physical possession.R. the case was dismissed without prejudice. No. No. No. G. October 19. 59 | P a g e . his possession of the jeepney is physical.R. L-7561.By selling the jewelry on credit. September 17. People. its temporary cash custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank teller. 205144. Since the corporate officer received the property in trust with absolute option on how to use them without the participation of the corporation. February 25. June 27. 2014 – Accused induced to complainant to entrust to her the funds for the taxes because she knew someone at the BIR who could help her facilitate the remittance. Locson. is liable for qualified theft. He is liable for estafa through misappropriation. No. People. Money received by an employee in behalf of his employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee (People vs. Possession is juridical. In Velayo vs. G. she had mere physical or material possession. In Carganillo vs. juridical possession of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation is absent. The teller has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. In People v. In Tria vs. Bustinera. Hence. he acquired not only physical possession but also juridical possession over the equipment. June 8. the rules prohibits motor vehicle operator from allowing the use and operation of his equipment by another person under a fixed rental basis. she had juridical possession of money.The receiving teller of a bank. G. L-35681.R. G. the Supreme Court affirmed the principle in Isaac case. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Driver of jeepney under boundary arrangement. People. but she held no independent right or title. 182424. No. she had no juridical possession over the missing funds but only their physical or material possession. 2004. 2014 – Accused was handling the funds lent by Care Philippines to his employer as cash custodian. No. Hence. Isaac G. November 26. misappropriation of property is considered as theft. If the property is accessible to the employee. 204755. The crime committed is estafa. Since the accused was charged with estafa.R. She received the money for remit the same to the BIR with full freedom and discretion. 174181. No. G. Payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. For being an employee. G. R. People. Can PLDT validly claim that the “long distance calls” are its properties stolen by the phreaker? No. it is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft. People.R. In Valenzuela vs. with intent to gain. Consequently. It cannot be said that such international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. augments. the offense could only be attempted theft. and the use of a jumper to divert electricity. The word "take" in the RPC includes controlling the destination of the property stolen to deprive the owner of the property. At the same time. capable of appropriation can be the object of theft. 2009. R. G. January 13. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls. antennae. even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. the Supreme Court En Banc expressly abandoned the principle in Diño case. Abrogar. enhances. use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas. No. and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined (Laurel vs. It was held that: The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime of theft. His possession is juridical. decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. 2009).The act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to PLDT’s telephone system. A "phreaker" is one who engages in the act of manipulating phones and illegally markets telephone services. 155076. Thus. Abrogar). The term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code. PLDT merely encodes. misappropriating the money is estafa. In People vs. compounded by the deprivation of property on the part of the victim. Appropriation of forces of nature which are brought under control by science such as electrical energy can be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for generating or measuring such forces of nature. tangible or intangible. 191015. No.Accused employed as Liaison Officer of a pawnshop received money in trust to secure or renew licenses and permits. Business may be appropriated under Bulk Sales Law. 160188. No. June 21. 188052. without unlawful taking as an act of execution. 155076.PLDT’s business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is personal property which can be the object of theft. which is the taking. “International long distance calls” take the form of electrical energy. the statutory definition of theft considers only the perspective of intent to gain on the part of the offender. 2014 .). such as the use of a meter tampering. 2007. February 27. Phreaking includes the act of engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines. of personal property of another without the latter’s consent. G. any personal property. 2006 and January 13. While telephone calls are not properties belonging to PLDT that can be stolen. 2014 – The President of the Bank is holding the bank’s fund in trust or for administration for the bank’s benefit. through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDT’s facilities constitutes acts of subtraction (taking)penalized under the said article(Laurel vs. THEFT OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY . Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing. Can phreaker be held criminally liable for engaging in ISR involving the telephone facilities of PLDT? Yes. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 8484 and theft under the Revised Penal Code. then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent (Laurel vs. wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus. corporeal or incorporeal. Abrogar. August 6. Hence. Abrogar). No. Hence. which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business. Unlawful taking. Theft 60 | P a g e . Telephone calls belong to the persons making the calls. Thus. Go. 3. April 21. While the Diño dictum is considerate to the mindset of the offender. G. Such factor runs immaterial to the statutory definition of theft. which is the deprivation of one’s personal property.R. Abrogar). No. the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service is a personal property (Laurel vs. is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. Phreaker can be held liable for access device fraud under RA No. theft cannot have a frustrated stage. G. THEFT OF BULKY GOODS .Is the ability of the accused to freely dispose of bulky goods stolen from the owner determinative as to the consummation of theft? No. misappropriating the funds by making fictitious loan is estafa. CAMPANILLA 2. cables.R. or using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature (Laurel vs. His possession is juridical. if at all. In Gamboa vs. G. who has a valid claim thereover. the crime of homicide. 2011. GR No. Ladiana. c. De Leon. November 15. Stated in a different manner. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before.R. January 25. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide. Gatarin. d. April 03. What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner.However. a conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose. 2013). 179943. 2007. the latter being the perpetrator’s main purpose and objective. or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery. parricide. on the occasion or by reason of robbery.R. People. April 24. R. or usurpation of authority. it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery. 2012 - Petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to complainant by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper.In Miranda vs.R. En Banc). the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. GR NO. 178321. Held: The subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out (People vs. then withdrew a total of P797. 201449. Robbing. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. People. 139230. it was ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another. GR No. or even a thief of the property. (3) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain. intentional mutilation. as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused. rape. Laog.It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident. during or after the commission of the robbery.A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before. or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide. the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons. (2) the property belongs to another. Diu. People vs. 2009. In one case.187.A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. Assuming that robbery was indeed committed. CAMPANILLA can only be attempted or consummated (Valenzuela vs. The fact that the intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against the victim killed. May 30. 2003). 2014). GR No. GR No. It is not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob. G. 61 | P a g e .R. Intent to kill and rob . No. 160188. and infanticide (People vs. 181635. a. Ebet. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. as used in the generic sense. a mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient. G. Homicide. (People vs. People vs. 2010. 198022. 174660. G. No. Intent to rob . of the robbery. Daniela.85 from said joint account using the pre-signed checks. b. THEFT OF CHECK . June 21. October 5. G. there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. the felony would still be robbery with homicide. a mere possessor. and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime (People vs. April 24. 176298. June 26. April 07. but the killing may occur before. does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide (People vs. ROBBERY Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason. Daniela. during or after the robbery (People vs. 2011). 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. cause. The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense. was committed. during or after the robbery. One of the robbers is the victim of homicide . the felony committed is robbery with homicide. What is crucial for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to firmly establish the offender’s intent to take personal property before the killing. No. and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. with her as the payee. is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. or on occasion. No. 139230. killing and raping . thus. the prosecution must establish with certitude that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery. includes murder. Petitioner argued that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be convicted of qualified theft. She deposited the said checks to the joint account maintained by complainant. 2003). Hence. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers. G. No. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another. Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation. including the personal properties inside. 2013). April 03. whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were committed at the same time (People vs. GR No. he cannot be held liable for homicide. g. Direct connection between robbery and homicide . involved in the disputed claims among the siblings. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. GR No. and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape (People vs. Diu. conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. GR No. The homicide may take place before. GR No.R. 2009. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent” (Sy vs. July 18. without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. GR No. died because he lost control of the motorcycle and crashed in front of a taxi. Accused’s co-conspirator. e. 171579. GR No. De Leon. 2009. November 15. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. People vs. When the fact of taking has been established beyond reasonable doubt. (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. The following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. while two of the robbers were stealing. “Actus non facit reum. Ebet. Concepcion. G. Since accused as passenger in the motorcycle. November 15. GR No. 181635. the snatching of shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft. November 14. 181902. X should not be held liable for the alleged unlawful act absent a felonious intent.Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. No. 2012). 2010. One who takes the property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable. 2011). X brought out from the unit her personal belongings. not robbery. 187733.In robbery with homicide. during or after the robbery. or. it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit. the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery (People vs.Accused snatched victim’s shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder. robbery and homicide. April 03. 2012).R. No violence. 2010. lead to the inescapable conclusion that the accused raped AAA: first. f. 2013). GR No. G. Gutierrez. People vs. People vs. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. 201449. h. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved (People vs. August 31. for instance. appellant and one of the robbers brought AAA inside the comfort 62 | P a g e . X took property openly and avowedly under that claim of ownership. Evangelio. Buyagan. did not perform or execute any act that caused the death of his companion. 181635. Failure to present the stolen property . It is only the result obtained. According to A. Ebet. with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. After all.). the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. 181635. intimidation or force was used in snatching her shoulder bag. 179943. is the subject of estate proceedings pending in another court and is. GR No. June 26. who was driving the motorcycle. X armed with a Board Resolution authorizing him to break open the door lock system of 10th floor unit of a building and to install a new door lock system went up to the subject unit to implement said resolution. June 26. nisi mens sit rea. People vs. Is X liable for robbery? Answer: No. i. Given the facts. (2) the property taken belongs to another. Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if. causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. must be consummated (People vs.The 10th floor unit of a building is owned by a corporation and served as the family residence prior to the death of the parents of X and A. The fact that these properties were taken under claim of ownership negates the element of intent to gain. 2010. the following elements must concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons. Homicide through reckless imprudence . CAMPANILLA In People vs. 200922. the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery. Claim of ownership . Robbery with rape . November 15.To be convicted of robbery with rape. when analyzed and taken together. De Leon. The unit. (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot. The constitutive elements of the crime. The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Diu. namely. (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery. Ebet. 201449. 179943. February 8. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide. therefore. 2012 . No. 7659. Nocum et. when AAA resisted and struggled. regardless of size. Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of arson. 1613. GR No. People vs. 1994) (c) Intent to conceal – If the objective is to kill. and when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building. Under RA 9346. Evangelio. currently governs simple arson. April 1. Macabando. and national security implications than destructive arson (People vs. What is the crime committed if the offender burned the building and there is person who died? In the classification of crimes committed by fire involving the killing of the victim. but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof" (People vs. political. Article 320 of RPC contemplates the malicious burning of structures. In fact. in her vagina which was then bleeding (People vs.R. August 31. Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is an inherent means to commit the former (People vs. on the other hand. buildings. but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson. shall not be eligible for parole. persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this law. and arson. No. 63 | P a g e . it can be deduced that the establishment allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. Hence. AAA was stripped off her clothes and her panty. there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same as she was obviously not residing in the store. vessels. G. G. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.R. G. appellant and the other robber banged her head against the wall. No. (a) Intent to burn – If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice. G. stomach and. since the owner lived in a separate house. she suffered pain in her knees. third. Baluntong. government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons.. When the Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is murder. Main objective of the offender determines the kind of crime committed. the prosecution is not bound to produce further evidence of his wrongful intent. the crime is simply arson (qualified by dead of the victim). 181902. No. aircraft. 182061.D. Al. Section 3 of PD No. and the resulting homicide is absorbed. 181138. edifices. 2012 - The records show that the store alleged to have been robbed by petitioners is not an inhabited house. This law punishes simple arson with a lesser penalty because the acts that constitute it have a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness. inside the comfort room. July 31. Simple arson contemplates crimes with less significant social. head. the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner or driver of the vehicle is killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. Neither was the place where the store is located owned by the government. as amended by Republic Act No. P.In Marquez vs. March 15. CAMPANILLA room. it may be inferred from the acts of the accused. trains. 188708. there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping. “If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling. March 4. 2013). December 3. the culprits were already gone and she saw her shorts and panty strewn at her side. and in fact the offender has already done so. not included in Article 320 of the RPC. People. No. the robbery committed therein is punished under Article 302. after the robbery took place. G. 1613 contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures. UNINHABITED HOUSE . fourth. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide. attention must be given to the intention of the author. There is a presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his act. hotels. and arson is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing. If there is an eyewitness to the crime of arson.Under the Anti-Carnapping Act. second. and fifth. No. No.R.R. causing her to lose consciousness. he can give in detail the acts of the accused. De Leon. most of all. 2010. CARNAPPING . ARSON Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove wrongful intent to burn on the part of the accused to establish arson? No. factories and other military. R. 180762. both public and private. When this is done the only substantial issue is the credibility of the witness (People vs. public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as defined under Article 301. when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only. it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end. GR No. when she regained consciousness. June 27. 2009). economic. Cedenio. From Valderosa’s testimony. the offender may be convicted of two separate crimes of either homicide or murder. 179041. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private person. 93485. the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not Article 299 of the RPC. 2011). There can be no murder without a design to take life. (b) Intent to kill – If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice. After more or less one hour. (b) it is committed by simulating public authority. must be proven: (a) a person has been deprived of his liberty. No. Because of his tender age. 168552. and (c) the detention is unlawful. 2012). as provided in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. pointed a knife at him." On the other hand. When X tied the hands of A. (b) the offender is a private individual. 188708. but the conflagration spread to the neighboring houses (People vs. 2011). The accused testified that his burnt two-story house was used as a residence. Burning of inhabited house or dwelling is simple arson under Section 3 of P. 168552.D. X tied her hands. July 31. odious and hateful offenses and which. and that the fire spread to other inhabited houses. Jacalney. When A pleaded that she be allowed to go home. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty. or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. Jacalney. Because of her tender age. or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty. July 31. 2011). These allegations were established by evidence. and because she did not know her way back home. X brought A to a in a place strange and unfamiliar to him. (2) he kidnaps or detains another. 189820. CAMPANILLA 2013). (People vs. 9 years of age. 1613. the duration of his detention is immaterial (People vs. October 03. viciousness. In a case 64 | P a g e . 188708. coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention. If the victim is a minor. This is irrespective of the length of time that she stayed in such a situation. 1613. Burning personal property is also simple arson under Section 1 of PD No. October 10. The established evidence only showed that the appellant intended to burn his own house. 320 of The Revised Penal Code constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes "for being grievous. GR No. Jovel. economic. GR No. female or a public official (People vs. atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just. any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days. G.R. 168552. she was then and there deprived of her liberty. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY AND SECURITY KIDNAPPING As for the crime of kidnapping. political and national security implications than Destructive Arson (People vs. X released A and instructed her on how she could go home. since the appellant’s act does not appear to be heinous or represents a greater degree of perversity and viciousness when compared to those acts punished under Article 320 of the RPC. No. the former's intention to deprive the latter of her liberty has been clearly shown. he did not know the way back home. Macabando. What is the crime committed? Answer: The crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention. In other words. For there to be kidnapping. X called victim’s mother to inform her that the child is in his custody and of threatening her that she will no longer see her son if she failed to show his wife to him. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. a minor. 2013). The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender. Note: Setting fire to his own property under circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another is arson under Section 1 of PD No. That the appellant’s act affected many families will not convert the crime to destructive arson. by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness. to his house after the latter refused to go with him. and not destructive arson under RPC. the following elements. The crime has the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual. 2013). GR No. 2011). X seized A. The Information alleged that the appellant set fire to his own house. The acts committed under Art. GR No. or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move (People vs. civilized and ordered society. Macabando. (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal. GR No. 1613. Jacalney. Upon reaching the house. Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social. and (4) in the commission of the offense. (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made. acts committed under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. X dragged A. October 03. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. October 03. he refused. him by twisting his right arm. G. or suffer the burden and humiliation of prosecution and confiscation of the logs (Sazon vs. Bigamy Even if the first marriage is null and avoid because of psychological incapacity of either or both parties (Wiegel v. 2009). In other light threats. She was prevented from going back home for a period of about six days. People. X argued s free to go home if he wanted to because he was not confined. needs no judicial declaration of nullity. who performed a marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the couple had no marriage license. a libel for compensation under Article 356.R. "Secuestrare" means sequestration. 128106-07. Example: X.00 "grease money" was taken by X from complainant through intimidation. People. GR No. a minor. the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a condition. or offering to prevent the publication of. 150873. CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS A priest. victim. Sandiganbayan. It also means to lock-up or imprison. ). April 13. the principle that “one who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy” is not applicable where the parties merely signed the marriage contract without marriage ceremony performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. No.000. R. Encerrare includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time (People vs. Where the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor. 2009). No. the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no condition (Calauag vs. withdraw from circulation. cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which one might be held liable 65 | P a g e . CAMPANILLA for kidnapping and serious illegal detention.000. Under the Spanish Penal Code. detained or deprived of his liberty. To sequester is to separate for a special purpose. (G. No. For under such a situation. G. she was seized and taken from her house through force and dragged to the mountain. In light threats. the child’s freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor (People vs.R. contracting a second marriage constitutes the crime of bigamy unless a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage has been secured beforehand. In robbery with intimidation of persons. Since then. Accused is guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining victim even if she was not lock-up. light threats and other light threats? In grave threats. DENR officer. X succeeded in coercing the complainants to choose between two alternatives: to part with their money. January 24. and (3) robbery with intimidation against person. Such act alone. No. real or imagined. it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim. threatened to confiscate the hot logs from complainant and prosecute it for illegal logging unless the latter will give her P100. Is the argument tenable? Answer: No. she was restrained of her liberty by and kept under the control of accused. the intimidation consists in causing or creating fear in the mind of a person or in bringing in a sense of mental distress in view of a risk or evil that may be impending. it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly. However. without more. Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus. Such fear of injury to person or property must continue to operate in the mind of the victim at the time of the delivery of the money. THREATS What is the difference among grave threats. However. the P100. In this case. was not locked up. February 10. BLACKMAIL Blackmailing may constitute: (1) Light threats under Article 283. the modes of committing illegal detention is "Secuestrare" and "Encerrare". remove or set apart. 2003). the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition. Complainant gave X the amount demanded. June 23. 2011. would still amount to deprivation of liberty. "Encerrare" is a broader concept than secuestrare. Baldago. (2) Threatening to publish. Sempio-Diy. 171511. 2014). 143 SCRA 499) or the absence of a marriage license or of an affidavit of cohabitation (Lasanas vs.R. The crime committed is robbery with intimidation (extortion). G. March 4. By using her position as the DENR officer. For kidnapping to exist. even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention. is liable for illegal marriage. 159031. Baluya. 181822. Article 352 does not make this an element of the crime. The non-filing of a criminal complaint against the couple does not negate criminal liability of the petitioner. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. In this case. GR No. It is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. July 17. The moment X contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void. he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done (Morigo vs. which is a rule of procedure. (b) Would your answer be the same if the declaration of nullity of the first marriage was obtained before the filing of the complaint for bigamy against X? Yes. Thus. People. July 03. (d) Would your answer be the same if the second marriage was the one declared null and void? Yes. X filed a petition for the annulment of his first marriage with A on the ground of psychological incapacity which was granted. for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void. a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him (People vs. Otherwise. should be applied retroactively because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. first marriage. what transpires is a bigamous marriage. 191566. No." The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. 2004). GR No. and so long as there is no such declaration. 66 | P a g e . Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense and from that instant. 183805. 2010.R. Odtuhan. reprehensible and immoral. procedural laws (Jarillo vs. ). 145226. ). G. Odtuhan. CAMPANILLA for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. X moved for the quashal of the information and dismissal of the criminal complaint alleging that his first marriage had already been declared void ab initio. which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by X from the time he contracted the second marriage with B. but during the subsistence of such marriage X married B. (e) Would your answer be the same if both the first marriage and the second marriage are declared null and void? Yes. Article 40. February 06. A filed a complaint for bigamy against X. liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint or information is material only for determining prescription (People vs. 2013. ). 164435. X married A. the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of X’s second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him (Walter vs. nor arise from. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of X’s two marriages cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. and from that instant. What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. July 17. liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law. no vested right may attach to. Therefore. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity. The reason is that as a general rule. 191566. It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. or else. People. the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage. (c) Would your answer be the same if the first marriage was contracted prior to the Family Code? Yes. GR No. the presumption is that the marriage exists. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. June 29. 2013). 2013. (a) Is the argument tenable? No. GR No. People. Article 40 of the Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. 164435.R. 1999). Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void.R. the following circumstances negate the presumption of malice in a defamatory statement: (1) if there is a good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. People.Article 352 of the RPC. G. and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. 2005) or words uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings. it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. made in good faith. July 02. or of any statement. 1982). and every false imputation is deemed malicious. there should be the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer. 67 | P a g e . Thoenen. 118971.” However. For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has been conducted. and (b) A fair and true report. No. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. G. May 31. or (2) if the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime. 143372. People. Inc vs. moral or social duty. fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. provided the statements are pertinent or relevant to the case (Malit vs. MALICE . No. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of second marriage make any difference. a marriage certificate is not included in the requirements. FAIR COMMENT DOCTRINE . as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts (Borjal vs. 1999). nevertheless. and second. CA. penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR DEFAMATION Is truthful defamatory imputation against private individual and government employee a defense in libel? Proof of truth of defamatory imputation against private individual is a defense if it is published with good motives and for justifiable ends.R. No. Proof of the truth of defamatory imputation against government employees is a defense: (1) if it is published with good motives and for justifiable ends. September 29. report or speech delivered in said proceedings. as amended. 126466. In order that such defamatory imputation to a public official may be actionable. September 15. No. No. Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith such as speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof (Philippine Journalists. The law sets the minimum requirements constituting a marriage ceremony: first. 1999). Disputable presumption of malice . or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions (Article 354 of RPC). 2. G. GR No. G. G. January 14. of any judicial. without any comments or remarks. The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer. If the comment is an expression of opinion. The enumeration under Article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged (Borjal vs.What are the different rules on presumption involving malice as an element of libel or oral defamation? 1.R. Conclusive presumption of lack of malice – If the defamatory statements are an absolute privilege communication. What the law penalizes is the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage" (Jarillo vs. People. (2) if the defamatory statements is a qualified privilege communication such (a) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every defamatory and public imputation is deemed false.R. 126466 January 14.R. 2009) Illegal marriage In Ronulo vs. Truthfulness of imputation of a crime or a function-related defamatory act against a public officer is a defense even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends (Vasquez vs. Presumed malice is also known as “malice in law. 182438. the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. Thus. December 13. L-58681.Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. when the defamatory imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity. lack of malice is conclusively presumed. CA. their declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife. CAMPANILLA was deemed valid and subsisting. it is not necessarily actionable. 2014 . then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken. legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature. or (3) if the imputation not constituting a crime is related to the discharge of his duties. based on established facts. the person making defamatory imputation is not answerable for libel. No. G. CA.What is the doctrine of fair comment? Under this doctrine. R.R. such as the report was made in bad faith.. Guingguing vs. The libelous article. he targeted one Atty." but merely wild accusations. 157643. March 31. People. in fair comment. 161032. "Nagalititongtarantadongsi Atty. Nos. September 30. CA.R.e. March 28. September 16. where modesty is still highly prized among young ladies. The report made by Tulfo cannot be considered as "fair" and "true" since he did not do research before making his allegations. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. and Dr. He went even further than that. while referring to "Miss S." He accused Atty. In a society such as ours.. The defamatory imputation has nothing to do to with works of Annabelle as a as an actress. G. and relied only on his source at the Bureau of Customs. Is the doctrine of fair comment applicable in this libel case? No. commission of murder and terrorism is not related to the performance of their duties as public officers. He had written and published the subject articles with reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not (Erwin Tulfo vs. The words used in the article convey that “Miss S” is a sexual libertine with unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom. mere error. the prosecution must actual malice i. G. Is the doctrine of fair comment applicable in this libel case? The New York Times principle is not applicable since the utterances are unrelated to a public officer’s performance of his duties (Brillante vs. So an embarrassment to his religion. Newyork Times doctrine. and was using his public position for personal gain. People. G. No. 126466. the press should not be held to account. He also admitted that he did not conduct a more in-depth research of his allegations before he published them. Cristy Fermin imputed to Annabelle Rama Gutierrez an actress the crime of malversation and of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law and of being a wastrel. No. and fair comment as a privilege communications? (1) In fair and true report. Nemesio Prudente. 2008). Is Tulfo liable for Libel? Yes. 128959. Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing their profession. Since on its face the article is defamatory. to a point of suppression. saying. It is unrelated to public figure’s work (Fermin vs." In short. comment was made with knowledge that comment was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Sulivan vs. Only by giving them much leeway and tolerance can they courageously and effectively function as critical agencies in our democracy (Borjal vs." does not give a sufficient description or other indications which identify "Miss S. Tulfo wrote another article. then President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines in a planned assassination of Syjuco as well as election-related terrorism. there is a presumption that the offender acted with malice. and had neither met nor known him prior to the publication of the subject articles." In his testimony. However. People. saying "ikawnayataangpinakagago at magnanakawsamiyembronito. In fair comment. and called Atty. In his series of articles of Erwin Tulfo. On the other hand. the accused is making a comment on the function-related acts performed by public officers. 2004).R. Tulfo admitted that he did not personally know Atty. October 19. the report involving defamatory statement must be true. for honest mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language. So. So dahilbinabantayankosiya at in-expose angkagaguhanniyasa [Bureau of Customs]. even when writing about public figures or matters of public interest. Is error or misstatement in commentaries on function related acts of public officer actionable in a news articles for being libelous? Even assuming that the contents of the articles are false.R. the behavior attributed to “Miss S” by the article in question had besmirched both her character and reputation. G. 118757 & 121571. then the OIC Mayor of Makati. So. So of stealing from the government with his alleged corrupt activities. So filed a libel suit against him. inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice. the Honorable Court of Appeals. The articles are not "fair and true reports. CAMPANILLA What is the difference between fair and true report. CA. 2005). challenging Atty. G. (2) In fair and true report. 1999). "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs as being involved in criminal activities. the accused makes a report on the function-related acts performed by public officers without any comments or remarks. And when Atty. the writer cannot be held liable for libel. The article in Bander newspaper details the sexual activities of a certain “Miss S” and one “Philip Henson” who had a romantic liaison. No. the prosecution must prove actual malice i.e. the article fails to show that 68 | P a g e . January 14. 2005) Only false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions (Flor vs. 139987. 2008). There must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as for misjudgment. the defamatory imputation in the commentary is not true but the accused has no knowledge that it is false and has not recklessly disregarded to know whether it is false or not. In fair comment. Obviously. Consistent with good faith and reasonable care.R. G. No. Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. Brillante implicated Jejomar Binay. No. Is the article defamatory and malicious? Is the writer liable for libel? Yes. (3) In fair and true report. lithography. 2007). No. to harass an accused. 167764. Article 360 still allow offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for internet libel in their respective places of residence (Bonifacio vs. (2) If the offended party is a private individual. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. G.. Is the Information quashable for improper venue? Answer: Yes. L-17663.However. Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. At any rate.R. or any similar means. it should be considered as a means to commit libel. namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. G. People. Jason Ivler was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by Maria and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of Nestor and damage to their vehicle. What is the venue for internet libel committed? As a general rule. radio. painting. cyber libel is actually not a new crime since Article 353. Should the information for the second charge be quashed on the basis of the rule on double jeopardy? Reckless imprudence 69 | P a g e . 2009). 2009. Jr. printing. 2014). painting. Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel (Disini vs. radio. cinematographic exhibition has a common characteristic. in relation to Article 355 of the penal code. a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo" only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City. No. G. the criminal action may also be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. In effect. phonograph. the action may be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense (Foz. the phrase “any similar means” should be understood in the lights of the said common characteristic of the means to commit libel. Information alleged that the libelous writings were published in Panay News.. and that was the indiscriminate laying of the venue in libel cases in distant. or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published (Article 360 of RPC). To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be prevented by the amendment to Article 360. CAMPANILLA "Miss S" and complainant are one and the same person. Writing. isolated or far-flung areas. engraving. No. (3) If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense. 159787. 167764. May 25. and this explains the graver penalty for libel than that prescribed for oral defamation (People vs. the place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the internet is not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is “printed and first published”. While the Information alleges that complainant is a physician in Iloilo City. 184800. 2010). already punishes it. Although the article is libelous. GR No. RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE Following a vehicular collision in August 2004. May 30. Jr. their permanent nature as a means of publication. It is possible that complainant was actually residing in another place (Foz. cinematographic exhibition. 20335. ). People.R.The rules on venue for libel in Article 360 of RPC are as follows: (1) Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person. the action may be filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Since nature of internet as a means of publication is likewise permanent.Under Article 355. Hence. such allegation did not clearly and positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense. 1962). complainant could not have been the person defamed therein (Diaz v. vs. Makati. G. the criminal action may be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published. a libel committed by means of writing. theatrical exhibition. The allegations in the Information that "Panay News. May 5. GR No. VENUE . Secretary of Justice. lithography. October 09.R. the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places. vs. No. phonograph. engraving. February 18. and that is. People. Indeed. printing. Branch 149. INTERNET LIBEL . Court convicted Jason for the first charged.R. RTC. October 09. Is the internet used to post a malicious defamatory imputation through facebook within the contemplation of the phrase “any similar means” in Article 355? Yes. Santiago. a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and that complainant (private individual) is a physician in Iloilo. (4) If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila. The Information failed to allege the residence of complainant. theatrical exhibition. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. In Sevilla vs. Modesto-San Pedro. 194390. November 17. 2014 . No. if intentionally done. (3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling against her will. No. 9262? Yes. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act.R. People. The Honorable CA. Overtaking while approaching a curve in the highway.The evidence indubitably shows that before the collision. G. is not allowed. 70 | P a g e . The acts described above are considered harassment within the contemplation of the phrase “any form of harassment” in Section 5 (h) (5) (Ang vs. the standard of care by which the specialist is judged is the care and skill commonly possessed and exercised by similar specialists under similar circumstances.R. G. whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons. considering that accused’s PDS was haphazardly and recklessly done. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty. 4136 mandates all motorists to drive and operate vehicles on the right side of the road or highway. The object of the law is to protect women and children. GR No. This means that a single act of harassment contemplated in Section 5 (h). No. the Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. it should be made only if the highway is clearly visible and is free from oncoming vehicle. the PDS was prepared by his secretary. Section 37 of R. 192123. accused cannot be convicted of falsification of public document since he did not act with malicious intent to falsify the aforementioned entry in his PDS. a a municipal councilor marked the box corresponding to the “no” answer despite the pendency of a criminal case against him for direct assault. the passenger bus was cruising along its rightful lane when the tricycle coming from the opposite direction suddenly swerved and encroached on its lane. Here. And. sending the picture to her through cell phone text message and threatening to post it in the internet for all to see that caused substantial emotional and psychological distress to her constitutive of psychological violence against woman under Section 5 (h) of RA No. According to the accused. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN Are the acts of attaching the face of his ex-girlfriend on a nude body of a woman in a picture. In Solidum vs. where the driver’s view is obstructed.That in answer to the question of whether there is a pending criminal case against him. accused was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of document. Section 3(a) of R. regardless of its various consequences. March 10. are charged with a high degree of care and diligence to avoid collision. The specialty standard of care may be higher than that required of the general practitioner. No. 182835. accused. The essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that. and (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence. However. Corollarily. if not impossible. However. the offense criminal negligence remains one and the same. When overtaking another. which translates into violence. 2010). No.R.A. Note: The principle in Ivler case has abandoned the principle (Ortega view) that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed. Dumayag. and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions (Ivler vs. would be enough. Under Section 5 (h) of RA No. and in the case of a specialist (like an anesthesiologist). People. hence conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense. 172716. It was held that there was a legal obligation on the part of accused a to disclose in his PDS that there was a pending case against him.A. would be punishable as a felony. The accident would not have happened had Genayas. (4) Destroying property and inflicting harm to animals. to determine whether the first three elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant. drivers of automobiles. August 13. sexual or dating relationship is punishable: (1) Stalking (2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child. It does not qualify the substance of the offense. the tricycle driver. G. Is habituality an element of violence against women and their children under Section 5 (h)? No. when overtaking another vehicle. stayed on his lane and did not recklessly try to overtake another vehicle while approaching a blind curve. G. as the careless act is single.The standard of medical care of a prudent physician must be determined from expert testimony in most cases. It would consequently be truly difficult.R. 26 November 2012 . 9262 punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women. April 20. 2014 . not the result thereof. CAMPANILLA under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes. The obligation rests upon him to see to it that vehicles coming from the opposite direction are not taken unaware by his presence on the side of the road upon which they have the right to pass. 9262 the following conduct that caused substantial emotional and psychological distress to the woman with whom the offender has a marital. In People vs. which resulted in several false entries therein. 2010). 172778. “A”.R. G. As consequence of the hazing. Even after going through the fraternity’s grueling tradition rituals—mainly being beaten by a paddle on the arms and legs—during the first day. 171222. hazing – is insufficient and incomplete. Bayabos). The principle in Villareal vs. People. They were told that there would be physical beatings. HAZING The night before the commencement of the rites. Organization includes – but is not limited to – groups. that the whole event would last for three days. Failure to allege that the physical or psychological harm were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused. No. 2012). February 1. intent to kill is not material. “A” died. (c) In homicide or murder. CAMPANILLA Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones (Ang vs. companies. having asked his parents for permission to join the fraternity. either as principal or as accomplice. The Honorable CA. which would make the killing punishable as reckless imprudence (Villareal vs. and school authorities are liable for hazing as accomplices. and school authorities). owner of the place commission. Consent of the neophyte is not a defense. partnerships. April 20. What is the crime committed by members of the fraternity.R. February 1. (2) presumed participation (of those who are present during the hazing). What are the differences between hazing and homicide or murder? The differences of homicide or murder and hazing are as follows: (a) In homicide or murder. a neophyte. No. G. “A” continued and completed the second day of initiation. The Philippine Merchant Marine Academy is included in the term organization within the meaning of the law (People vs. for the crime of hazing. Bayabos. and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s admission or entry into an organization (People vs. Hence. former officers and alumni of the fraternity). the law expressly disallows the appreciation of this circumstance. No. Death of the neophyte is only important to determine the proper imposable penalty.R. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. (4) participation in the planning (by officers. teams. (b) Homicide or murder is malum in se. In hazing. what is criminal is the killing of person. citizen army training corps. G. sororities. 8049 (Anti-hazing Law). People. the basis of criminal liability is the actual and conspiratorial participation of the offender in killing the victim. clubs. The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or injury. intent to kill is an indispensable element. In hazing. Death of the victim consummates the crime. who directly participated in the infliction of harm against “A”? The crime committed is hazing. In homicide or murder. the neophytes of “AngGaling” fraternity were briefed on what to expect. consented to the initiation ritual. (5) knowledge (of the parent of frat member in the home of whom hazing occurred. Hence. fraternities. that that they could quit anytime. 151258. the PNP. In hazing. 2015).R. Under Section 4 of RA 8049. as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law (People vs. 151258. praeter intentionem is appreciable as a mitigating circumstance. neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations. sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm upon recruit. educational institutions. The owner of the place commission. they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown that (1) 71 | P a g e . Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity. neophyte or applicant on occasion of hazing shall be liable as principals for the crime of hazing. sorority or organization or a requirement for employment in a corporation by placing the recruit. 2012 finding the accused liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is not anymore controlling in the light of RA No. and the AFP. societies. Hazing is malum prohibitum. what is prohibited is the infliction of the infliction of physical or psychological suffering on another in furtherance of the latter’s admission or entry into an organization (People vs. cooperatives. corporations. February 18. 182835. criminal responsibility is based on (1) actual participation in inflicting physical harm. G. 2010). (3) the presence of adviser. No. the officers and members of the fraternity. Bayabos). Bayabos). In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no direct participation in the act. Plain reference to a technical term – in this case. Consent of the victim to the infliction of harm may negate dolo or criminal intent. the penalty for the latter shall be applied. For example. the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense. – The use of a loose firearm. In such a case. If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of. However. the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal (People vs. if the crime is committed by the person with the use of loose firearm. the penalty of reclusion temporal prescribed for shall be applied in its maximum period. That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms. (2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members. For example. or attempted coup d’ etat. That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm. if the maximum penalty prescribed for the other crime is equal to that for illegal possession of loose firearm. if a loose firearm is used in the commission of rebellion. 10591 provides: “SEC. sedition or coup ‘d etat. Lastly. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm. CAMPANILLA hazing. and accessory are distinct from each other.If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm. For example. and (3) they consented to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof (People vs. Furthermore. if a loose firearm was used in committing homicide. or as a mere element of rebellion. shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided. illegal possession of loose firearm is not a separate offense. taking action to prevent the occurrence of hazing is a defense by any offender except (1) those who actually inflicted physical harm and (2) those (officers. or attempted coup d’ etat. the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period prescribed under RA 10591 shall be imposed. if the penalty for illegal possession of loose firearm is graver than that prescribed for other crime committed. In hazing. the illegal possession of loose firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance or a special circumstance that justifies that imposition of graver penalty or additional penalty. such circumstance shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal. the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period in addition to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a loose firearm involving a Class B light weapon is used to commit homicide. Conversely. or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection. the latter shall be absorbed in the former. the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. former officers and alumni of the fraternity).such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection. when use of a loose firearm in committing is inherent in the commission of other crime. If a loose firearm classified as small arm is used in committing simple robbery. as established by the above elements.” USE OF LOOSE FIREARM AS AGGRVATING CIRCUMSTANCE . DISTINCT AND SEPARATE CRIME . accomplice. the penalty of reclusion perpetua is prescribed for homicide and illegal possession of a Class B light weapon. sedition or coup d’ etat. the penalty for simple robbery is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period while the penalty for illegal possession of small arm under Section 28 of RA No. who planned the hazing. the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged:Provided. 72 | P a g e . further. 29. LOOSE FIREARM Section 29 of RA No. Bayabos).As a rule. Bayabos). prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the other crime. As long as the commission of the offense (hazing) can be duly established in evidence. or incident to. the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense (RA No. 10591). 10591 is prision mayor in its medium period. when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. occurred. No.” Considering that under RA No. People. 1998 . January 30. Under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294. 115008-09.. if the offender killed a person with the use of unlicensed firearm.R. such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. 2011. October 17. are as follows: (1) offender is liable for homicide or murder with aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm. insurrection. and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug (David vs.R. July 24. People. rebellion. or absorbed as an element of rebellion. the rules obtaining. (2) offender is liable independently for homicide or murder and illegal possession of firearm.. 8294. 185128. En Banc. (b) such possession is not authorized by law. and (2) the crimes of murder or homicide and illegal use or possession of firearm are integrated into a single offense. homicide. CA. No. if the offender killed a person with the use of unlicensed firearm.Prior to RA 8294. robbery. and the use of the unlicensed firearm should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 120369-70. grave threat. only one offense should be punished. either homicide or murder. physical injuries or absorbed as an element of rebellion. 181861. sedition or attempted coup detat. This crime is mala prohibita. sedition or attempted coup detat. sedition or coup d’ etat) any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense. Possession. either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide.R. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. G. the Supreme Court ruled that: “When the other crime involved is one of those enumerated under RA 8294 (e. includes not only actual possession. GR No. ). the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. When the other crime involved is not one of those enumerated under RA 8294. ). any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of loose firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense. No.The violation of PD No. CAMPANILLA QUASABLE INFORMATION . it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug.. 10591 use of loose firearm is not only an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide but also in other crime such as robbery or grave threat.” In short. fortunately for appellant. 2012. and. constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. the accused must be exonerated of illegal possession of firearms if he is convicted of some other crime. Following the same line of reasoning in the case of Celino. In Celino vs. However. 1996. PD No. February 27. the rules. murder. The separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted. Gr No. 2007. Mere possession of a dangerous drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory 73 | P a g e . criminal intent is not an essential element. DANGEROUS DRUGS POSSESSION OF DRUGS – For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper. under the law. Since accusation is not synonymous with guilt. is shared with another (Del Castillo vs. either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide. the illegal possession of firearm should not be considered a separate and distinct crime if other crime is committed and the use of loose firearm in inherent therein. On the other hand. which provides that “if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Bergante. 1866 should have been punished separately conformably with our ruling in the case of Quijada G. G. it cannot establish outright that “other crime” was committed. Settled is the rule that an accused cannot be convicted for illegal possession of firearm if another crime was committed at the same time. but also constructive possession.g. insurrection. June 29. viz. were as follows: (1) use of unlicensed firearm was not an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide under PD 1866. In People vs. 1866 was recently amended by RA No. Nevertheless. alarm and scandal. as such. 170562. any information for illegal possession of firearm should not be quashed. However. 74 | P a g e . Jr. 2014). It was too late in the day for her to do so. Figueroa. i. “A” immediately identified himself as a policeman. vs. 2011). August 15. 2014. KNOWLEDGE . Bis. Mendosa.e.In Ambre vs. once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 195005. August 31. The law defines deliver as “a person’s act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another with or without consideration. G. January 29. PHOTOGRAPHY AND INVENTORY – Under Section 21 of RA No. Accused only questioned the alleged omission when she appealed her conviction before the CA. April 11. People. Hence. 2012 . 187157.R. G. 196146. 191360. No. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). G. mere possession of dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation (Asiatico vs. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant under arrest (People vs. 9165. 2012).R. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. Well entrenched is the rule that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice. People. and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. September 12. 2011. No. 186141.. No. However. the consummation of the crime of delivery of marijuana may be sufficiently established even in the absence of the marked money (People vs. immediately after seizure and confiscation.A. .Silence of the law as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the PDEA cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without such PDEA participation illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible (People vs. 189327.Is the absence of marked money as evidence fatal to prosecution of sale and delivery of dangerous drugs? No. No. CAMPANILLA explanation of such possession . Clarite. 9165 (David vs. DELIVERY . No. People vs.“A”. G. Attempt to sell shabu was shown by the overt act of appellant therein of showing the substance to the poseur-buyer. 2014.R.the onus probandi is shifted to the accused. February 29. Domingcil. the prosecution must establish that the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority. Such coordination is not an indispensable requirement in buy-bust operations. People. February 15. physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized.In no instance did accused challenge. March 13. Lack of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R. the Implementing rules of RA No. 2012). GR No. March 10. 181861. Neither Section 86 of Republic Act No.Is knowledge an element of dangerous drugs despite this crime is malum prohibitum? Yes. People. ATTEMPTED SALE . G. GR No. October 17. 201156. 2004). ). No. For illegal possession of dangerous drugs. People vs. the supposed absence of confirmatory drug test conducted on her. the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation.” Considering that the appellant was charged with the sale and the delivery of prohibited drugs. 2011. Ladip. poseur buyer.R. such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. without a specter of doubt. January 14. 9165 provides that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. People. the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall. at the RTC. No. the items being offered in court as exhibits are. What is the crime committed by “X”? “X” is liable for attempted sale of shabu punishable under Section 26 of RA 9165. 9165 will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. asked “X” if he has available “shabu” for sale. March 12. G. However. 140679. LACK OF COORDINATION WITH PDEA . People vs. G. apprehended “X” and confiscated the “shabu” from his pocket. Gr No. Morate.R. 176077. 9165 nor its Implementing Rules and Regulations make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for the conduct of a buy-bust operation (People vs. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi (Miclat. 2013. GR No. 197207. 2012) CONFIRMATORY TEST . No. and then. or his/her representative or counsel. 191532. Marquez vs. “X” answered in the affirmative and showed to “A” a plastic sachet containing shabu.R.R. GR No. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference point. April 3. 199689. “planting” or contamination of evidence. Gonzales. the value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings. in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received. the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People vs.R. G. if practicable. March 12. However.Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. 2013) 75 | P a g e . CAMPANILLA In People vs. Constantino. must have to be justified by the State’s agents themselves. the scenario attending this case is likely to be repeated many times. the Court states that the unexplained non-compliance with the procedures for preserving the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs has frequently caused the Court to absolve those found guilty by the lower courts. Drug peddling in schools is prevalent. No. G. The absolution of accused should then follow. the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. and provided that the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti was preserved. 188653. It would include testimony about every link in the chain. Jr. Moreover. To our mind. There was also no showing that markings were made in the presence of the accused in this case (Lopez vs. Considering that PO1 Dimla tendered no justification in court for the non-compliance with the procedures. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. second. Constantino. for we cannot deny that the observance of the chain of custody as defined by the law was the only assurance to him that his incrimination for the very serious crime had been legitimate and insulated from either invention or malice.R. the seizure and marking. Thus. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. the exception did not apply herein. from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence. 182417. March 12. even a less-than-stringent application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. and fourth. obviating switching. 2014). In this connection. There was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution witnesses that markings were made.By way of exception. much less immediately upon confiscation of the seized items. third. March 12. 2014). Jr. CHAIN OF CUSTODY – As a method of authenticating evidence. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession. the evidentiary value of the seized specimen remains intact as long as the school personnel who had initial contact with the drug/s was able to establish that the evidence had not been tampered with when he handed it to the police (Marquez vs. the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires (People vs. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same (People vs. the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first. No. GR No. GR No. To impose on school personnel the observance of the same procedure required of law enforces (like marking) – processes that are unfamiliar to them – is to set a dangerous precedent that may eventually lead to the acquittal of many drug peddlers. Jr. 199689. 2014) MARKING . Republic Act No. There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. 9165 and its IRR both state that the non-compliance with the procedures thereby delineated and set would not necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs provided there were justifiable grounds for the non-compliance. the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. January 29. 197207. 2014) The rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. GR No. 199689. People. GR No. to be excusable. Constantino. People. But the non-compliance with the procedures. March 13. 2013 . 195419. Is trafficking in persons limited to transportation of victims? No. When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses. TRAFFICKING IN PERSON Can accused be convicted of illegal recruitment and trafficking in person for the same of act of recruiting a person for prostitution without violating the rule on double jeopardy? Yes. is found in the possession of the accused as provided for in Sec. In such cases. No. the filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. while the penalty under Sec. Casio). but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking (People vs. September 24. or for an act punished by a law and an ordinance. 195419. If the accused sell the child to another for purpose of prostitution on a single occasion. Casio. October 17. this Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 9208 (People vs. 9165. the crime committed is child prostitution under Section 5 (a) of RA No 7610 (People vs. December 13. No. PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA AND SHABU . Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to transportation of victims. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center.As a general rule. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day. Lalli. the crime committed is qualified trafficking in person under Section 4 and 6 of RA No. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 195419.R. planting of evidence to incriminate an innocent person constitutes the crime of incriminating an innocent person under Article 363 of RPC. No. No. if the incriminatory evidence planted is dangerous drugs or unauthorized explosives. However. The crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victim’s consent or knowledge (People vs. G. Lalli. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue. December 03.R. October 12.Section 23 of RA No. Lalli.Possession of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a single occasion constitutes a single offense of possession of dangerous drugs (David vs. the crime committed is planting of evidence under RA 9165 for the dangerous drug. Even without the use of coercive. G. G. 2011). 193854. In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use. October 12. other than mere residue. Matinez. 2011).Accused took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a child and as one who need money. Dulay. 15. abusive. a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under the other. being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. to afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated. 191366. The prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting different offenses (People vs. 211465. No. 2010 . 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. 15. it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 2014 . G. 2011). 181861. abusive. GR No. To file charges under Sec.R.This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 76 | P a g e . provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. PLEA BARGAINING . 10591. CAMPANILLA PARAPHERNALIA WITH TRACES OF SHABU – In People vs. People. or deceptive means. a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will. PLANTING OF EVIDENCE . 2012). October 12. In People vs. G.R. The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive. G. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life. PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516 for the explosive and RA No. Although not incorrect. 2011). or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense. any person charged under any crime involving dangerous drugs regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. If the accused maintained the child for prostitution. Is recruitment of the victim for prostitution with her consent or knowledge constitutive of the crime of trafficking in person? Yes. loose firearm. No.R.R. People. June 3. People. The postdating or issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false pretense or a fraudulent act. R. June 27. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Hence. the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. Nos. or makes arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of the amount due within the five-day period from notice of the dishonor given to the drawer. 22 punished was the mere act of issuing a worthless check.The essential elements of the felony are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum. G. (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check. 104238-58. he could still have paid the checks or 77 | P a g e . 168217. qualification or limitation (Mitra Vs. G. G. No. (See: People vs. No notice of dishonor . De Castro. No. 22 . 166810. that the check was not intended to be deposited was really of no consequence to her incurring criminal liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. Blg. Assuming that the accused had knowledge that he had insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issued the questioned checks. or issued. the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act. 22. 2006. b. 2012). drawn. 187052. G. CAMPANILLA ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. Corona. With notice of dishonor . In the second. Also. If he is so indicted. 2008. No. June 26. 2004. No. In the first. 177438. July 5. Recuerdo vs. and (3) damage to the payee thereof. the presumption of deceit can still be rebutted by: (1) proof that the check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation or (1) evidence of good faith. It is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the RPC. September 24.R. G. 22 (Resterio vs. This provision does not contain any condition. The giving of the written notice of dishonor does not only supply the proof for the second element arising from the presumption of knowledge the law puts up but also affords the offender due process.R. or at the intention of the drawee. G. such intent is imperative (People vs. Chua. ) NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP BLG. maker or issuer. 2012). company or entity. G. or makes arrangements for the payment in full of the check by the drawee within five banking days from receipt of the written notice that the check had not been paid. the accused may no longer be indicted for violation of Section 1.R. No. People. the prosecution can still prove the existence of deceit such as in a case where the accused knows that his checking account is closed." This provision recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its officers. a defense in estafa by postdating a check. People and Tarcelo. simply empty promise to pay complainant the value of the bum checks issued in order to induce her to part with her property in favor of accused is not an evidence of good faith that will rebut the presumption of deceit. Ojeda. People. September 13. 22 What Batas Pambansa Blg.R. 2012). for instance. The receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an element of the estafa through bouncing check. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made. 2010) NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN ESTAFA CASE . by a debtor’s offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor or making full payment of the entire amount of the dishonored checks.Notice of dishonor of a check to the maker in BP Blg. No.If there is notice of dishonor. The Court cannot permit a deprivation of the offender of this statutory right by not giving the proper notice of dishonor (Resterio vs. while estafa is mala in se. However. he may set up the payment of the amount due as a complete defense. 191404. The law thereby allows the offender to avoid prosecution if she pays the holder of the check the amount due thereon. it is a complete defense. A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is not enough.R. If the maker or drawer pays. 177438.If there is no notice of dishonor. its wording is unequivocal and mandatory – that the person who actually signed the corporate check shall be held liable for a violation of BP 22. and not the non-payment of a debt. B. Lopez vs. a. However deceit is presumed if the drawer of the check fails to deposit the amount needed to cover his check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor.R. Good faith may be demonstrated. Where the check is drawn by a corporation. BP BLG. September 24. 22 must be in writing.P. 78 | P a g e . For this reason. 2014 . the presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. 200090.In Lim vs. For this reason. But the prosecution failed to show that the letter ever reached accused.R. the Court cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of B. Justice De Castro -Under Section 114(d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law. there is no circumstance whatsoever to show that the accused had every intention to mitigate or totally alleviate the ill effects of his issuance of the unfunded check. San Juan which the security guard refused to accept. In not sending a notice or letter of dishonor to the petitioner as required by law. stands. then there is no equitable and compelling reason to preclude his prosecution. the complaint deprived the accused of his right to avoid prosecution for violation of B. and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks. for B. 187401. 2008. In such a case. petitioner is not entitled to be given a notice of dishonor. In said case of estafa. the payment of the checks before the filing of the informations has already attained the purpose of the law. In San Mateo vs. CAMPANILLA made arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of the said checks if he had been duly notified of their dishonor. November 26. June 26. 22 (Sia vs. No. It will merely satisfy the civil liability of the crime but not the criminal liability. 190834. G. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. In effect. On the first occasion. G. People. 2004). In Campos vs. People. counsel sent a demand letter to accused by registered mail which was returned with the notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05" and that accused did not claim it despite three notices to her. 22.Exerting efforts to reach an amicable settlement with her creditor after the checks which she issued were dishonored by the drawee bank is a circumstantial evidence of receipt of notice of dishonor. 2013 . the trial court’s directive for San Mateo to pay the civil liability in the amount representing the total value of the checks plus 12% interest per annum from the time the said sum became due and demandable until fully paid. It should be emphasized as well that payment of the value of the bounced check after the information has been filed in court would no longer have the effect of exonerating the accused from possible conviction for violation of B.P. 22. PAYMENT . complainant’s counsel sent a demand letter to accused’s residence at Greenhills. The crime involved in Lopez vs. par. the liaison officer left the letter with the security guard with the instruction to hand it to accused. The spirit of the law which. paying the value of the dishonored check will not free the accused from criminal liability. is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking system. People. would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. Lopez vs. Blg. People. or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. Accused would not have entered into the alleged arrangements if she had not received a notice of dishonor from her creditor.P. the letter of the law should be applied to its full extent. 2014 . or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank. No.P. the Court's ruling in this case should be well differentiated from cases where the accused is charged with estafa under Article 315. Nevertheless. Big. where the fraud is perpetuated by postdating a check.R. No. On the second occasion. 166810. it is submitted the Lopez principle can be applied to violation of BP 22.Complainant tried to serve the notice of dishonor to the accused two times. Thus. September 17. damage and deceit are the essential elements of the offense. G. An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages. G. 149695.R. Since there is insufficient proof that accused actually received the notice of dishonor. However. 22. In such a case.R. and the check is merely the accused's tool in committing fraud. Since petitioner's bank account was already closed even before the issuance of the subject check.P.R. he had no right to expect or require the drawee bank to honor his check. Big. to avoid any confusion. No. April 28. No. Since from the commencement of the criminal proceedings in court. notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in either of the following cases where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the check. By virtue of the aforequoted provision of law. accused’s acquittal does not entail the extinguishment of her civil liability for the dishonored checks. March 6.The fact that the issuer of the check had already paid the value of the dishonored check after having received the subpoena from the Office of the Prosecutor should have forestalled the filing of the Information in court. Furthermore. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. People is estafa through issuance of bouncing check. G. R. it was only more than three months after. Zoleta. in connection with a contract or transaction has the right to intervene (Merencillo vs. if there is proof of the crime and conspiracy of dead public officer with private individual. GR No. Hence. 2014). Notice of dishonor was received by X. CAMPANILLA SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT . G.The Supreme Court considered the Senate deliberation of Section 3 (a) of RA No. present.R. No. G. Section 9 provides penalty for public officer or private person for crime under Section 3. Thus. August 26. April 13. if there is conspiracy. 3019 is imputable to the private individual although there are not similarly situated in relation to the object of the crime. (3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person. No. the act of the public officer in violating RA No. 169098. 2. 3.The elements of the crime under Section 3 (b) of RA No. G. Thus. the SC said that Acting Secretary of Justice did not commit a violation of the same as there is no proof that she received consideration in exchange for her decision to allow Mr. The offender persuades. March 25. Go. However. 126995. G. People. 3019 (People vs. percentage or benefit. After three months. 79 | P a g e . induces or influences another public officer to perform an act or the offender allows himself to be persuaded. 2008) (b) Would your answer be the same if the order of suspension was issued before the presentment for payment of the check when the drawee bank and the sending of notice of dishonor? Answer: No. the latter should also be acquitted (Marcos vs. When a contract is suspended. People. in an official capacity under the law. 2007). January 15. (4) the request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the government and (5) he has the right to intervene.X in his capacity as officer of Z corporation issued a corporate check in favor of A. induced. 172602. 3019. 3019. 2007). at the time A presented the check for encashment. SECTION 3 (a) . Because the logic and intention of the sponsor (Senator TOLENTINO) of the aforecited provision. Death extinguishes the criminal liability but not the crime. The offender is public officer.R.R. However.warranting the termination of the suspension of the contract. 192685. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. Considering that there was a lawful Order from the SEC. SEC issued order creating the Management Committee and ordering the suspension of all pending actions for claims against Z corporation. 12. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES LAW RA NO. No. and it again becomes operative when a condition occurs . 1998). July 31. Raman to travel abroad despite the Hold Departure Order issued by the Secretary of Justice. 3019 are: 1. 22? Answer: Yes. the contract is deemed suspended. Even if the public officer with whom the private individual allegedly conspired. 22.or a situation arises . In Baviera vs. Hence. as there was yet no obligation due from X (Gidwani vs. Nos. the offense is not committed under the bill. SECTION 3 (b) . (2) he requested or received a gift. The check bounced due to DAIF. April 13. Co. it temporarily ceases to be operative.R.R.The elements of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 Conspiracy – Only public officer can be held criminally liable for violation of RA No. G. G. (a) Is X liable for violation of BP Blg. the public officer with whom the private individual allegedly conspired is acquitted. 142369-70. its birth takes place or its effectivity commences only if and when the event that constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled. X was formally notified of the dishonor of the checks. According to Senator Tolentino. GR NO. 3019 (Go vs. X is not liable for violation of BP Blg. Sandiganbayan. the latter can still be convicted of violation of RA No. if there is no proof of the consideration in the use of the influence. 2014). 3019 are: (1) the offender is a public officer. When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition. That the act performed by the other public officer or committed by another constitutes a violation of ruled and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duty of the latter (Ampil vs. 3019 in resolving the case. a private individual can be prosecuted for violation of RA No. Ombudsman. Oct. 168539. 2013. Hon. that the SEC issued order for the suspension of all pending actions for claims against Z corporation. X was not precluded from making good the checks during that three-month gap when he received the letter and when the SEC issued the order (Tiong Rosario vs. October 6. The Fifth Division. 195064. the latter can still be prosecuted for violation of RA No. Yet. Moreover. 133608. No. it had no right to do so. share. 2006 . or influenced to commit an act. Sandiganbayan. No. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. or by culpa. for himself or for any other person. 65952. G. This crime has the following essential elements: 1. Thus. 171671. Here. What is more. is considered a public officer discharging official functions when she misused such position to be able to take out a loan from complainant. No. percentage. No.A. or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. Following the constitutional mandate that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc. 164068-69. as when the 80 | P a g e . Sandiganbayan. as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality. Nos. July 31. Hence. G. CAMPANILLA Section 3 (b) of RA No. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. was acting on behalf of the municipality. judicial or official functions. no.” not applied to some public use. Mejorada principle . His action caused any undue injury to any party. vs. November 19. A. wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law is punishable. Atienza. acting in conspiracy with each other and with evident bad faith and manifest partiality. 3019 for causing damage to complainant. It was just fortunate that the mayor instructed the bank to stop payment of the checks issued by petitioner. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions (People vs. including the government. the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged would be violated if they are tried for technical malversation under criminal informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R. the case of Zoomzat cannot reverse the pronouncement in Mejorada. First element .In Dela Cuersta vs. directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift.” intended by internal arrangement for use in paving a particular road but applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay workers in the municipality. the municipal treasurer can be held liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. People vs. Sandiganbayan. giving unwarranted benefit to the same and causing undue injury to the Government. Sandiganbayan. 2008 – Admittedly. Clearly.R. Preliminary investigation is not a contract or transaction is not a contract or transaction within the contemplated of Section 3 (b). 3019. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo. He must have acted with manifest partiality. March 28. June 18. those informations allege that those sums were unlawfully donated to “a private entity. For instance there is no earmarking if money was part of the municipality’s “general fund.The accused must have acted with manifest partiality. People. 3019 filed against them.The informations alleged that accused as members of the Philippine Coconut Authority. and Justice Secretary Perez). 1984. who was misled into the belief that former. a private entity. Jr. share. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. That portion of the general fund was not considered appropriated since it had not been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. the former case having been decided by a Division of the Court. 2012). Second element .M. P-06-2257. in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party.R. and 3. Mejorada was decided by the Court en banc. SECTION 3 (e) . requesting or receiving money in connection with a preliminary investigation is not a violation of this provision (Soriano. Section 3 (b) is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene under the law. the informations do not allege that the subject P2 million and P6 million were applied to a public use other than that for which such sums had been appropriated. 175750. as municipal treasurer. gave financial assistance to COCOFED. GR No. In Consigna vs. there is no allegation in the informations that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been earmarked for some specific expenditures. The victim could have been the Municipality of General Luna since the checks signed by the mayor was issued to the complainant. without an appropriate budget. April 2. The petitioner misrepresented that the loan is to be used to pay for the salaries of the employees of the municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium. 2014. Quite the contrary. the SC re-affirmed the principle in Mejorada.R. 2013 .R. Sabas. present. a municipal treasurer. 2014 – Petitioner. 175750.In Stilgrove vs. or benefit. No. the Court made a statement in Zoomzat that for one to be held liable under Section 3 (e). In Consigna vs. G. 2. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. People. The earlier case of Mejorada however. The element in the crime of technical malversation that public fund be appropriated for a public use requires an earmarking of the fund or property for a specific project. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. judicial or official functions. squarely addressed the issue on the proper interpretation of Section 3 (e). G. he must be an officer or employee of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. April 2. 166967. mayor issued and encashed municipal checks despite the facts that the disbursement vouchers were in the name of Kelly Lumber but the checks were not payable to the supplier. Moreover.R. Exception: Public officers can incur collective criminal responsibility through a conspiracy for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling. No. 2014 . The cash advance remained unliquidated to the 81 | P a g e .D. January 28. 81563 & 82512. July 8. 2005). vouchers. Perez kept mum and chose to continue causing undue injury to the government. memoranda. the auditor is not ordinarily expected to call the restaurant about the amount of the bill. 134493. head of the office of the city administrator relied on the acts of the heads of the Office of the City Treasurer. the Office of the City Accountant in granting cash advance to a paymaster (Jaca vs.R. it is essential to prove the breach of duty borders on malice and is characterized by flagrant. G. 164921. the elements of which are agreement and decision to commit a crime. who is relying on his subordinate e. 2005).All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. The concept of conspiracy. No. 2013). G. There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction. There are hundreds of documents.In Arias v. 187268. Rivera vs. Nos. If a department secretary entertains important visitors. January 28. Conspiracy of silence or inaction would almost always be inferred only from the surrounding circumstances and the parties' acts or omissions that. People. G. Sandiganbayan. No.e. Perez should have placed himself on guard when the documents and vouchers given to him by his subordinates did not indicate the retention money required by P. 3019 through gross and inexcusable negligence. and sufficiency. People. (3) Where the public official invoking the Arias principle is not acting in his capacity as head of office. Non-applicability of the Arias principle – The principle of Arias case where reliance on the subordinate was considered as a defense in case of violation of Section 3 (e) RA No. People. No. GR No. (2) Where there is deviation from ordinary procedure – e. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. No. purchase supplies.R. Deplorably. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 166967. December 03. G. 2013).R. 4. No. To establish this kind of conspiracy. the principle of conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime or for purpose of applying the collective responsibility rule is only applicable to intentional felony. palpable and willful indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. People. mayor signed the inspection report and the disbursement voucher despite the fact that he had foreknowledge that the materials delivered by Guadines have already been confiscated by the DENR (Escara vs. Arias principle . September 04. he should have noticed the financial weakness of the contractor and the defective works.In the case at bench. question each guest whether he was present at the luncheon. indicate a common understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting the commission of the offense.g.R. Persons cannot definitely agree and decide to commit a culpable crime. and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. People. People. letters. 2013). In Jaca vs. supra . and of incurring. G. Kelly Lumber and that checks were payable upon his order (Cruz vs.g. The Hon. when he personally inspected the construction site of PAL Boat. inquire whether the correct amount of food was served. August 16. and otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's accuracy. or enter into negotiations. G.As a rule. 3019 is not applicable: (1) Where the accused has foreknowledge of existing anomaly .A paymaster obtained cash advances despite the fact that she has previous unliquidated cash advances. CAMPANILLA accused committed gross inexcusable negligence (Plameras vs. taken together. The duties and responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry and the degree of relationship of interdependence of the different offices involved here determine the existence of conspiracy where gross inexcusable negligence was the mode or commission of the offense (Jaca vs. 156577.g. Sandiganbayan. propriety. 1594. No other conclusion can be inferred other than his manifest partiality towards PAL Boat Conspiracy of silence or inaction . 19 December 1989 . This is called conspiracy of silence and inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence.R. are not consistent with culpable felony. He entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government. 3019. absent any showing of some dishonest or wrongful purpose. The disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) (Rivera vs. the lawmakers opted to use "private party" rather than "private person" to describe the recipient of the unwarranted benefits. the prosecution must establish the following elements: 1. namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party. City Accountant and City administrator are liable because of conspiracy of silence or inaction. but as a detainee charged with murder. Sandiganbayan. 3(g). 175457. Hon. 2014)." in the context of Section 3(e) RA No. and 3.R.R. administrative and judicial functions. Erroneous interpretation of the law . 2013 . vs. does not constitute and does not necessarily amount to bad faith (Ysidoro vs. not in his official capacity as a mayor. advantage or preference for a reason. 195032. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. There are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of RA No. 195032. the Hon. or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit. No. 2012). 156577. In the present case. namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party. G. June 06. No." It is required that undue injury must be specified. July 06. 3019 is the same as the civil law concept of "actual damage. The City Administrator approved the voucher and countersigned the check. December 03. G.His action caused undue injury to any party. in the exercise of his official. February 06. In Braza vs. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. The term "party" is a technical word having a precise meaning in legal parlance as distinguished from "person" which. R.A. 2013 .R. G. The disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R. G. Jr. conjecture or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding specific facts which could afford some basis for measuring compensatory or actual damage (M. advantage or preference. 2011 . the presence of one would suffice for conviction. Jimenez Inc. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. refers to a human being. The contract or transaction is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. for purposes of applying the provisions of Section 3(e). Sandiganbayan. 2.R. February 20. the Hon. No. a private person simply pertains to one who is not a public officer. including the Government. The City Treasurer.An erroneous interpretation of a provision of law regarding the entitlement of a government employee who was wrongfylly removed to RATA. While a private party is more comprehensive in scope to mean either a private person or a public officer acting in a private capacity to protect his personal interest. SECTION 3 (g) – In Braza vs.'s residence. 82 | P a g e . 3019. including the government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. 155307. advantage or preference. 3019 in the performance of his functions. No.A. Speculative or incidental injury is not sufficient. The Hon. G. or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit. The petitioners' attitude of buck-passing in the face of the irregularities in the voucher and the absence of supporting documents and their indifference to their individual and collective duties to ensure that laws and regulations are observed in the disbursement of the funds of the local government of Cebu can only lead to a finding of conspiracy of silence and inaction.In Ambil vs.A. People. it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another. No. when petitioners transferred Mayor Adalim from the provincial jail and detained him at petitioner Ambil. 3019. 3019 in the performance of his functions. the petitioners are all heads or their respective offices that perform interdependent functions in the processing of cash advances. No. Private party . ] In other words. Leonardo-De Castro. 2011). they accorded such privilege to Adalim. Thus. No.There are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.R. The damages suffered cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation. Thus. lawful and incurred under my direct supervision. G. The City Treasurer certified that the cash advances are necessary. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. No. CAMPANILLA damage of the city.A.R. No. Sandiganbayan. Adalim was a private party. in general usage. Third element . 171513. The City Accountant certified that the expenditures are supported by documents and previous cash advances are liquidated and accounted for. The concept of "undue injury." The element of damage is not required for violation of Section 3 (e) under the second mode. According to SC. "To be found guilty under the second mode. February 20.For conviction of violation of Sec. Ombudsman. The paymaster is liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. The offender is a public officer.In drafting the Anti-Graft Law. quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty. including the Government. 3 (g) of R. application. 2013 – The elements of the offense under Section 4 (a) of R. even the walis tingting furnished the audit team by petitioners and the other accused was different from the walis tingting actually utilized by the Parañaque City street sweepers at the time of ocular inspection by the audit team. 181999 & 182001-04 and Marquez vs. including the government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. In the first place. Sandiganbayan. It could not be concluded that there was an overpricing of the fire extinguishers when the prosecution single out only one company. transaction. the elements of one offense should ideally encompass or include those of the other. It was held that: The comparison of prices between Bato-bato Enterprises with that of Zodiac Trading is rather unacceptable. CAMPANILLA On the other hand. G. The veracity of such quotation was not proven.000 less of Bato-Bato’s price. which apparently quoted a lower price than that of Bato-Bato Enterprises. At the barest minimum. Zodiac trading was not properly identified as a company dealing with fire extinguishers or a leading company selling fire extinguishers. in order to substantiate the allegation of overpricing. No. G. 3019 are: (1) That the offender has family or close personal relation with a public official. (2) That he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present. for that matter. The components of its fire extinguishers were not actually proven to be the same as that of Bato-Bato Enterprises. Although violation of Sec.R. No. In fact. 169823-24 and 174764-65. Overpricing – In Sajul vs. 83 | P a g e . request. Sandiganbayan. supra . Nos. G. Fourth Division. provided that the following elements are present: 1. 3(e) of the same law share a common element. What the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two offenses. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. it is rather unfair to compare the prices of Bato- Bato Enterprises with that of Zodiac Trading when the basis of the comparison has not been established.500 which was P1. No. The accused must have acted with manifest partiality. material or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business. No. 182020-24. Sandiganbayan.In Disini vs. (3) That the public official with whom the offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction.A. People. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.R. September 2. 2009 – The evidence of the prosecution did not include a signed price quotation from the walis tingting suppliers of Parañaque City. The essential elements of each are not included among or do not form part of those enumerated in the other. 3019. Nobody from the company appeared in court to testify about its company or its product. Only then could it be concluded that the walis tingting purchases were disadvantageous to the government because only then could a determination have been made to show that the disadvantage was so manifest and gross as to make a public official liable under Section 3(g) of R. the latter is not inclusive of the former. The quotation of Zodiac Trading was merely solicited. In order to show that there was an overpricing in the subject transaction.A. For double jeopardy to exist. 2. 3019 and violation of Sec. Absent this competent evidence. should have been identical to the walis tingting purchased in 1996-1998.R. Considering all these circumstances. which he had authority to do so even without the benefit of bidding. 3019. or contract with the government. In Caunan vs. a canvass of different suppliers with their corresponding prices should have been procured which could readily show the differences in the price quotations.A. SECTION 4 (a) . No. the evidence presented by the prosecution. request. gift. the prosecution presented a quotation from Zodiac Trading which states that a fire extinguisher of the same make and kind would allegedly cost only about P1. an accused may be held criminally liable of violation of Section 3 (e) of R. it is rather unfair to conclude that the price of Bato-Bato Enterprises was exorbitant on the basis alone of a submitted quotation of one company and to further rule that the contract was grossly injurious to the government. The contract entered into by the petitioner would not cause obvious or glaring injury to the government when petitioner merely continued the purchase from a regular supplier. judicial or official functions. application. the accused being a public officer. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. His action caused undue injury to any party. Nos.A.To substantiate the assertion that the price of Bato-Bato Enterprises was exorbitant. or contract with the government. September 11. and 3. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. A. A. the offender should only be prosecuted and punished either under one or the other. and (c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service. (b) on or before April 30. the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided. being the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini. XXXXXX The documents must be filed: (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office. Article 11. except those who serve in an honorary capacity. (2) Disini. June 8. with the Office of the President. of every year thereafter. a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities.000. 2005). their assets. shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head. to promote transparency in government. considering that: (1) Disini. No. SECTION 7 – Section 7 of RA No. a public official. and net worth. and at the same time the family physician of the Marcoses. Every public officer. laborers and casual or temporary workers. liabilities. with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House. including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income. intervened to secure and obtain for Burns & Roe the engineering and architectural contract. submit a declaration under oath of his assets. Since both laws provide a penalty for failure to file SALN. or upon his resignation or separation from office. upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law. may file their statements in the following months of January.M. SCC-08-12. Usman. In fact. No.000. the public officer with whom Disini had family or close personal relations. P-99-1342. would establish the elements of the offense. CAMPANILLA The allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.M.” On the other hand.000. Statement of assets and liabilities. 84 | P a g e . That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year. requested and received $1. 6713 provides: “SECTION 8.00 from Burns & Roe and $17. and within the month of January of every other year thereafter. G. This serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of public officials and employees in compliance with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption. Statements and Disclosure. 3019. Section 8 of RA No. 197307. liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth. the entities then having business. and to ensure that all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives. and for Westinghouse the construction of the PNPPP. or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office. transaction.000.R. within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming office. Office of the Umbudsman. 2014). 6713 and Section 7 of RA No. — Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of. the public is able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official. net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. 3019 provides: “Section 7. February 26. or in the case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof. 3019 (Concerned Taxpayer vs. No. — All public officials and employees. and the public has the right to know. taking advantage of such family and close personal relations. (3) President Marcos. Doblada. No. It is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a complete disclosure of his assets.00 from Westinghouse. with the end in view of curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service (OCA vs. liabilities.” The rule directing full disclosure of wealth in the SALN is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at minimizing if not altogether curtailing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. as well as upon the expiration of his term of office. Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. shall file under oath their Statement of Assets. By the SALN.” Failure to file SALN as required by law is a violation of Section 8 of RA No. if hypothetically admitted. and application with the Government in connection with the PNPPP. A public officer or employee shall. 2011). Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “Section 17. (A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. A. filing SALN is a constitutional duty. it serves as a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth (Gupilan-Aguilar vs. the first cousin of First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos. October 19. had close personal relations and intimacy with and free access to President Marcos. therefore. N L-32950. 1971 – Where the preliminary investigation was for falsification. SECTION 13 . the office of the prosecutor could not validly charged the petitioner with the graver crime of violation of RA No. L-61776 to L-61861. 172035. G. No. No. Pre-suspension hearing . Presumption of innocence .R.” The accused public official’s right to challenge the validity of the information before a suspension order may be issued includes the right to challenge the (i) validity of the criminal proceeding leading to the filing of an information against him. “taking into account the serious and far reaching consequences of a suspension of an elective public official even before his conviction. 3019. 146217. No. laborers and casual or temporary workers from the requirement of filling SALN.6713 is passed precisely to implement the constitutional provision on SALN. Hence. April 7. January 18. 2000). 2005.R.R.The preventive suspension under Section 13 of RA No. who serve in an honorary capacity. January 18. Hon. 1993). Usurpation of public authority (Miranda vs. is pending in court. which is being ordered before a judgment of conviction is reached. July 04. he is entitled to a new preliminary investigation. 2006). 3019 or of the provisions on bribery of the Revised Penal Code (Miguel vs. 132378. This is merely preventive measures before final judgment. 2012). 6713 excludes public officials and employees. Sandiganbayan. Thus. Escareal. G. 1984).R. Hon. suspension. People. By parity of reasoning. and (ii) propriety of his prosecution on the ground that the acts charged do not constitute a violation of R. 3019. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. 110216.While the suspension of a public officer under this provision is mandatory. the time regulation and the exclusionary rule under RA No. In the contrary case. The suspended accused. 6713 and not “within the month of January of every other year” as mandated under RA No.R. CAMPANILLA However. which squarely raises question that 85 | P a g e . No. It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. Should the fiscal find no case. They are required to file the SALN “on or before April 30. July 30.R. If these public officers are excused from filling SALN under RA 6713. is not violation of constitutional right to be presumed innocent (Bunye vs. crimes committed by public officer under RPC or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation. the suspension from office. Sandiganbayan. 154098. Mariano. No. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that public officers are now submitting SALN in compliance with Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees issued by the Civil Service Commission. No. 3019 for failure to file it. G.R. 6713.A. G. September 10. G. In fact. In Luciano vs. 3019. Section 8 of RA No.Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information for crime of corruption under RA 3019.Article 24 (3) of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. which he failed to receive during suspension. shall be suspended from office. RA No. 3019. 6713 regarding the filing of SALN is controlling even if the accused is charged for failure to file SALN under Section 7 of RA No. 3019 has been modified by Section 8 of RA No. 3019 which requires that the SALN should be filed within the month of January. the suspension requires a prior hearing to determine “the validity of the information” filed against him. 2000) are offenses involving fraud upon the government. of the public officer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its effectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on ex post facto law (Bayot vs. NO. 3019 is not penalty. are still entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence (Juan vs. 6713 he should not be made criminally liable under RA No. Section 8 of RA No. respondent court will then have to hear and decide petitioners' pending motion to quash before it. it would be absurd to criminally make them responsible under RA No. En Banc) and election offense (Juan vs. Thus. the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits. G. Sandiganbayan. G. pending trial. 3019 is enacted in 1960 or prior to the 1987 Constitution. of every year” as required under RA No. No. Falsification of document (voucher) is offense involving fraud upon public funds or property (Bustillo vs. G.R. Sandiganbayan. 132378. while RA No. July 27. Ex post facto law . whose culpability remains to be proven. it is submitted that Section 7 of RA No. he will then so inform the trial court and move to dismiss the case. People. Not being a penal provision. if acquitted. March 23. 6713 is the latest legislative expression that gives spirit and substance to State policy of transparency and public accountability. and hence no suspension order can issue. The ruling on the validity of the information is to be held in abeyance until after the outcome of the preliminary investigation of violation of RA No. if a public officer filed a SALN in April of a certain year in compliance of RA No. CAMPANILLA the facts charged do not constitute an offense and are not punishable under section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. (2) That he amassed.Upon the filing of such information.There was really no sufficient justification tendered by the State for the long delay of more than five years in bringing the charges against the respondents before the proper court.g. percentage. 3019. What is indispensable is that the trial court duly hear the parties at a hearing held for determining the validity of the information.R. gift. Sandiganbayan.R. that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 96131. 3019. such show-cause order of the trial court would no longer be necessary.R. On the charge of robbery. 2013 . No. 7080 1. or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury. In fine. September 6. 2012) Period of preventive suspension. and the respondents had been identified as the perpetrators. G. No. accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation. the trial court should issue an order with proper notice requiring the accused officer to show cause at a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to 13 of RA No. 86 | P a g e . (b) by receiving. 134272. whether elective or appointive officer or employee (Gonzaga vs. the suspension should not be indefinite. Sandiganbayan. 172035. December 11. Hon. No. Procedure . Because of the inordinate delay in resolving the criminal complaint by the Ombudsman against respondent. issuing the corresponding order of suspension should it uphold the validity of the information or withholding such suspension in the contrary case. G. had been adequately bared before the Office of the Ombudsman. any commission. the intimidation or pressure allegedly exerted on Cong. the preliminary investigation would not require more than five years to ascertain the relevant factual and legal matters. that is. subordinates or other persons. The elements of plunder are: (1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family. 1991). The said 90-day maximum period for suspension shall apply to all those who are validly charged under RA 3019. 1999) may be adopted in fixing the duration of suspension under RA 3019. the Office of the Ombudsman transgressed the respondents’ right to due process as well as their right to the speedy disposition of their case. The basic elements of the offense.D. the duration of suspension under the Administrative Code. Jimenez. Section 13 of RA No. G. Where either the prosecution seasonably files a motion for an order of suspension or the accused in turn files a motion to quash the information or challenges the validity thereof. or he may present a motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (Miguel vs. conversion. relatives by affinity or consanguinity. and Perez. SPEEDY DISOPOSITION OF CASES . 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.R. that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation. No. 188165. vs. contrary to the information's averment. Suffice it to state that the accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him. The obtention of the bank documents was not indispensable to establish probable cause to charge them with the offense. misuse.Even though the law is silent on the duration of the preventive suspension. No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. 3019 or of the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under section 13 of the Act. share. the manner by which the money extorted had been delivered. Sandiganbayan. Hon. July 04. business associates. the cases against respondent were dismissed. December 8. 3019 does not provide the period of preventive suspension.In People vs. G. and thereafter hand down its ruling. directly or indirectly. kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer. Hence. e. PLUNDER RA No. which provides that the suspension may not exceed 90 days (Layus M. Sandiganbayan. R. lithography. the Senator and Napoles divided the money on the basis of 40-60 sharing. 2001). On the other hand. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. it is not similar to radio or other means mentioned in Article 355 since (People vs. Thus. phonograph. accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through series of misuse or malversation of public funds in the aggregate amount of at least P50. On the other hand. radio. Because of conspiracy.00. their permanent nature as a means of publication and this explains the graver penalty for libel than that prescribed for oral defamation. CA-G. May 30. The Senator merely acquired 40 million pesos in this modus operandi. 3. and thus. 2005 Bar Examination). equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking. G. the Supreme Court ruled: “The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. who acquired 60 million pesos. CYBERLIBEL Writing.000. Would you answer be the same if the Senator got the lion’s share of 60%? Yes. 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. Hence. 148560. plunder can be committed by a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance other persons Napoles is likewise liable on the basis of conspiracy.00 (Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. theatrical exhibition.000. relationship.000. L-17663. No. and. printing. (e) by establishing agricultural. and that is. Indeed. CAMPANILLA (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions. (d) by obtaining. In Disini. the phrase “any similar means” should be understood in the lights of the said common characteristic of the means to commit libel.R. No. in relation 87 | P a g e . the Senator is still liable since malversation can be committed through culpa. 1974. is attributable to Napoles. Since nature of internet as a means of publication is permanent. engraving. cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353. (3) That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed. television though not expressly mentioned in Article 355 easily qualifies under the general provision “or any similar means” (People vs. receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock. Assuming that the duty to check that the recipient of the Senator’s PDAP is not bogus belongs to the appropriate agency of the government. 4. No. 1962). The Senator as a public officer did not amassed. a public officer. painting. G.R. 07924-CR. Napoles on her private capacity cannot commit plunder. industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests. Can the Senator use the defense in malversation that he is not responsible for the misuse of his PDAP since it is the duty of the appropriate implementing agency of the government to check that the recipient of the fund is not bogus? No. Santiago. a private individual. Instead of using the fund for legitimate purpose. The Senator. Under RA 7080. December 13. They have a common characteristic.000. Did they commit plunder? No. November 19. cinematographic exhibition are means of publication in libel (2002 Bar Examination). or (f) by taking advantage of official position. is liable for plunder. authority. it should be considered as a means to commit libel. agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. although they are not similarly situated in relation to the object of the crime. A Senator on three occasions identified Napoles’ bogus non-governmental as recipient of his PDAP in the total amount of 100 million. Casten. Napoles got the lion’s share. accumulated or acquired is at least P50. the acts of plunder committed by the Senator. defamation thorough amplifier constitutes slander under Article 358 and not libel since its nature as means of publication is not permanent. Sandiganbayan. 2. meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an accused. 2015 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA to Article 355 of the Penal Code. To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be prevented by the amendment to Article 360. To equate the “first access to the defamatory article on website” with "printing and first publication of the article" would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent.R. already punishes it. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the website’s author or writer. Article 360 still allow offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for internet libel in their respective places of residence (Bonifacio vs.” Venue of cyber libel . In effect. May 5. and is motivated by spite or the need for revenge. At any rate.As a general rule. The disparity or unevenness of the situation becomes even more acute where the offended party is a person of sufficient means or possesses influence.G. namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. No. RTC. or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published (Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code). isolated or far-flung areas. 2010) 88 | P a g e . the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places. a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website. Branch 149. and that was the indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant. However. the place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the internet is not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is printed and first published within the contemplation of the rule on venue under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes "similar means" for committing libel. 184800. Makati.