Criminal Jurisprudence by Atty. Modesto Ticman, Jr..pdf

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™CRIMINAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE Prepared by: Atty. Modesto A. Ticman, Jr. 1. Penal or criminal laws are strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. If the language of the law were ambiguous, the court will lean more strongly in favor of the defendant than it would if the statute were remedial, as a means of effecting substantial justice. The law is tender in favor of the rights of an individual.1 2. The law looks forward, never backward. A new law has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.2 3. Although the general rule is that motive is not essential to a conviction especially where the identity of the assailant is duly established by other competent evidence or is not disputed, the absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing. Proof as to motive is essential when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive.3 Motive assumes significance only where there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was. If the accused has been positively identified as the assailant, the lack of motive is no longer of consequence.4 4. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses.5 For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove the following: (i) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. Physical impossibility involves the distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed.6 5. A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation. The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se,- on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita.7 1 People vs. Bon, 506 SCRA 168 (2006) 2 Valeroso vs. People, 546 SCRA 450 (2008) 3 Ubales vs. People, 520 SCRA 251 (2008) 4 Velasco vs. People, 483 SCRA 649 (2006) 5 People vs. Aminola, 630 SCRA 384 (2010 6 People vs. Las Piñas, 730 SCRA 571 (2014) 7 Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, 01 July 2015) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Modesto Ticman, Jr. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page1 of 44 6. The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum. xxx. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited.8 7. Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum. They are rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. Laws defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not against particular individuals, but against public order.9 When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously.10 8. Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.11 9. In the context of criminal law, a "mistake of fact" is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution. Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the intent component of the crime. It may be a defense even if the offense charged requires proof of only general intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does not look at all to the belief or state of mind of any other person. A proper invocation of this defense requires (a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense.12 10. A person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. ―Natural‖ refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while ―logical‖ means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.13 8 Ibid. 9 People vs. Mariacos, 621 SCRA 327 (2010) 10 Fajardo vs. People, 639 SCRA 194 (2011) 11 Ysidoro vs. People, 685 SCRA 637 (2012) 12 Yapyuco, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, 674 SCRA 420 (2012) 13 Quinto vs. Andres, 453 SCRA 511 (2005) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Modesto Ticman, Jr. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page2 of 44 11. Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.14 12. There must be a relation of ―cause and effect,‖ the cause being the felonious act of the offender, the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim. The ―cause and effect‖ relationship is not altered or changed because of the pre-existing conditions, such as the pathological condition of the victim; the predisposition of the offended party; the physical condition of the offended party; or the concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors; or the conditions supervening the felonious act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene. The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when: (a) there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or (b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim. If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim. A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard.15 13. When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, 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. Accordingly, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 4. Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.16 14. The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.17 15. A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. In other words, to be an 14 Dumayag vs. People, 686 SCRA 347 (2012) 15 Quinto vs. Andres, supra note 13 16 Ng vs. People, 619 SCRA 219 (2010) 17 Jacinto vs. People, 592 SCRA 426 (2009) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Modesto Ticman, Jr. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page3 of 44 attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform. If he has performed all the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt. The essential element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the commission of crime and the moment when all the acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.18 16. The rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about death.19 17. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed.20 18. In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance.21 19. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or murder, is the intent on the part of the assailant to take the life of the person attacked. 22 And the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.23 When such intent is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime is not frustrated murder but physical injuries only.24 20. The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or homicide and such intent is made manifest by the acts of the accused which are undoubtedly intended to kill the victim.25 21. Rape is either attempted or consummated. There can be no frustrated rape. The Supreme Court said in Orita: ―Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the 18 People vs. Tolentino, 546 SCRA 671 (2008) 19 Olalia vs. People, 562 SCRA 723 (2008) 20 Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 382 SCRA 182 (2002) 21 People vs. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424 (2003) 22 Pentecostes vs. People, 617 SCRA 504 (2010) 23 People vs. Abella, 706 SCRA 781 (2013) 24 People vs. Pagador, 357 SCRA 299 (2001) 25 People vs. Gonzalez, 359 SCRA 220 (2001) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Modesto Ticman, Jr. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page4 of 44 ‖ There was no need for permanency in the taking or in its intent. Once conspiracy is established. Jr. 428 SCRA 459 (2004) 31 Cabildo vs. Theft is already ―produced‖ upon the ―taking of personal property of another without the latter‘s consent. use. 628 SCRA 602 (2010) 32 People vs. Generally. The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the same quantum of evidence as the felony charged itself. absent any active participation in the commission of the crime. People. we have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape. or agreement to cooperate. Manijas. is sufficient to warrant conviction. from which it may be logically inferred the existence of a common purpose to commit the same. elements. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.30 Complicity of the accused in the criminal design may be determined by their concerted action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person inflicting the wound. If conspiracy is proved. Go. crime. Page5 of 44 . 26 People vs. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ. Thus. it may be established by acts of the accused before. In a long line of cases. it is unnecessary to prove who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal injury. 459 SCRA 550 (2005) 30 Sim vs. Necessarily. and companionship do not prove conspiracy. speculation. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. The act of one is the act of all.32 Mere knowledge. acquiescence. what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring out the victim‘s death. People. 719 SCRA 704 (2014) 29 People vs. relationship. all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged and proved. Taking into account the nature. Court of Appeals. for Jurists Bar Review Center™.‖26 22. Modesto Ticman. is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy.28 24. and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter. with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Supreme Court. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. 357 SCRA 373 (2001) 27 Valenzuela vs. Indeed. Aca-ac. Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility. it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor as in treason. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. rebellion and sedition. rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution were performed. as the mere temporary possession by the offender or disturbance of the proprietary rights of the owner already constituted apoderamiento. association. Bulan. 525 SCRA 306 (2007) 28 People vs. Mere suspicion. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Conspiracy is deemed implied when the malefactors have a common purpose and were united in its execution. proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy. Unauthorized reproduction. perfect penetration is not essential. Theft is either attempted or consummated.31 26.27 23. without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina. during and after the commission of the crime charged.29 25. the felony is consummated. 391 SCRA 731 (2002) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Jr. all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. sudden. infra note 37. sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person – not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude – but most importantly.40 Thus. Enfectana. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required. There must be an actual.41 32. there is no unlawful aggression. Feliciano. 724 SCRA 148 (2014) 36 People vs.38 31. Galvez. each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the commission of the offense. People. manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. 519 SCRA 529 (2007) 37 People vs. Compo. People. unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. 494 SCRA 503 (2006) 39 People vs.37 30. The condition of unlawful aggression is a sine qua non.Conspiracy transcends companionship. which puts the defendant‘s life in real peril. Supreme Court. in the information. otherwise stated. at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. once proven. unless the threat is offensive and menacing. CA. 471 SCRA 241 (2005) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. not merely inferred. It presupposes an actual. Enfectana. 413 SCRA 92 (2003) 41 Cabuslay vs. 381 SCRA 359 (2002) 38 Manaban vs. (2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. thus: Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a person.36 29. by itself. Modesto Ticman. at least. Conspiracy. use. the exchange of insulting words and invectives between the accused and victim. regardless of their degree of participation.33 Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not. 40 Cano vs. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc.34 27. 358 SCRA 266 (2001) 34 People vs. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To establish conspiracy. The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense. sufficient to establish conspiracy. Likewise. The rule is that conspiracy must be alleged. there can be no self-defense. Unauthorized reproduction. 357 SCRA 460 (2001) 35 People vs. unlawful aggression is a primordial element. when there is no peril. complete or incomplete. that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim‘s aggression. Page6 of 44 . unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof. no matter how 33 People vs. Gonzales.39 In other words in self-defense. and (3) that there be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or. Thus.35 28. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression. has the effect of attaching liability to all of the accused. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. (2) when. does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense. could not be considered as unlawful aggression. and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done. 576 SCRA 826 (2009) 50 People vs. or when he discontinues his attitude to the extent that the object of his attack is no longer in peril.51 42 People vs. and the instinct more than reason. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. 347 SCRA 374 (2000) 45 Sanchez vs. if not continuous. In self- defense. Court of Appeals and Tangan. Supreme Court. but upon the imminent danger of such injury. 387 SCRA 85 (2002) 49 Urbano vs. Dagani. or (4) when even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself.48 36. the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. it was not sufficient.45 34.42 33. If there is another way to avoid the injury without causing damage or injury to another or. People. Caguing. It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. Page7 of 44 .44 Aggression. Under paragraph 4. Unauthorized reproduction. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. it was not given by the person defending himself. then such course should be taken. in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency. 439 SCRA 220 (2004) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused. Rabanal. People. is not unlawful aggression warranting self-defense. People. 405 SCRA 40 (2003) 47 People vs. it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression. (3) when even if the provocation was sufficient.47 What the law requires is a rational equivalence. Jr. An act of aggression. Modesto Ticman. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. 361 SCRA 572 (2001) 44 People vs. 510 SCRA 365 (2006) 46 People vs. even if provocation was given.objectionable.46 35. 352 SCRA 599 (2001) 43 People vs. except when coupled with physical assault. This third requisite of self-defense is present: (1) when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor. more so. Retaliation is different from self-defense. the willful inaction of the actor.49 37.43 When the unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists. Geneblazo. the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him.50 38. the greater injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or imprudence. For the defense of state of necessity to be availing. infliction of damage or injury to another so that a greater evil or injury may not befall one‘s self may be justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the least possible prejudice to another. use. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 499 SCRA 64 (2006) 48 People vs. Punzalan. when its author does not persist in his purpose. Vicente. In retaliation. the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed. The second element of self-defense demands that the means employed to neutralize the unlawful aggression are reasonable and necessary. 687 SCRA 687 (2012) 51 Ty vs. that moves or impels the defense. if there is no such other way but the damage to another may be minimized while avoiding an evil or injury to one‘s self. A person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.58 44. (2) that the injury is caused by mere accident.56 The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape. the following requisites must concur: (1) that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care. et al. vs. 39. There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime.54 42. Article 11 of the RPC. 653 SCRA 576 (2011) 54 People vs. any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose does not incur any criminal liability. 196005. 674 SCRA 420 (2012) 53 Ambil vs. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Sandiganbayan. and (b) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office. Fieldad. 621 SCRA 586 (2010) 55 People vs. (2) that the fear must be real and imminent. No. A threat of future injury is not enough. 640 SCRA 111 (2011) 59 People vs.53 41. 651 SCRA 489 (2011) 57 People vs.59 45. use. the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Modesto Ticman. and (3) the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. In entrapment. 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. Unauthorized reproduction. ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. The difference in the nature of the two lies 52 Yapyuco.52 40. In instigation on the other hand. Page8 of 44 . 01 October 2014 56 People vs. and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. fear or intimidation must be present. Dequina. 621 SCRA 646 (2010) 58 People vs. the duress. and (3) that there was no fault or intent on his part to cause the injury. force. Under paragraph 6. For accident to be properly appreciated as an exempting circumstance. For this justifying circumstance to apply. (2) such order must be for some lawful purpose. Anticamara. Sandiganbayan. For such defense to prosper. the following requisites must be present: (1) an order has been issued by a superior. imminent and impending. G. or at least equal to. 384 SCRA 696 (2002) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.55 To avail of this exempting circumstance. Pacis. Jr. and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Latosa. like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. instigators practically induce the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense and become co-principals themselves. It is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat.57 43. Supreme Court. Baron.R. that committed. 565 SCRA 341 (2008) 67 People vs.in the origin of the criminal intent. the surrender is not spontaneous. Beltran. because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety. and that (3) the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge. 412 SCRA 558 (2003 Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. (2) that the crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the accused‘s mind. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. Sta. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. it must be shown that (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim. the surrender must be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally. Article 13 paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person‘s criminal liability may be mitigated if there was a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the crime. Gonzalez. 569 SCRA 870 (2008) 65 People vs. G. Supreme Court. Oloverio. Casta. 519 SCRA 621 (2007) 62 People vs. 2) the offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or to the latter‘s agent. Cuasay. For passion or obfuscation to be considered. Page9 of 44 . In instigation.62 47.66 If none of these two (2) reasons impelled the accused to surrender. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Before the same can be appreciated. Instigation does. Unauthorized reproduction. the following elements must concur: (1) That the provocation or threat must be sufficient or proportionate to the crime committed and adequate to arouse one to its commission. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. 496 SCRA 321 (2006) 61 People vs. 503 SCRA 715 (2006) 63 People vs. and (3) That the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person provoked.60 The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal from liability. 18 March 2015 66 People vs. What is important is that the accused has not yet "recovered his normal equanimity" when he committed the crime.65 48. the following elements must concur: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested." The provocation and the commission of the crime should not be so far apart that a reasonable length of time has passed during which the accused would have calmed down and be able to reflect on the consequences of his or her actions. In entrapment. Basite.64 There is no uniform rule on what constitutes "a considerable length of time. Modesto Ticman. (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. use. his arrest being inevitable. 359 SCRA 220 (2001) 64 People vs. For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. Maria. To be sufficient. 211159. (2) That the provocation or threat must originate from the offended party. the following elements must be present: (1) There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind. Jr. the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal.67 60 Chang vs. the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. and 3) the surrender is voluntary.R. either because they acknowledge their guilt or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that will necessarily be incurred in searching for and capturing them.63 To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance. No. People.61 46. depending on the actual facts surrounding the very act of giving himself up. the accused may still be entitled to the mitigating circumstance in case he surrenders. Sandiganbayan. that is. prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as a means by which he realizes his purpose. We have ruled that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance under the provisions of Art. Page10 of 44 . To appreciate abuse of public position as an aggravating circumstance. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. the accused must have voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.70 52. Thus. and without the same having been served on him. The mere filing of an information and/or the issuance of a warrant of arrest will not automatically make the surrender involuntary. 373 SCRA 254 (2002) 73 Mari vs. and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 13 of The Revised Penal Code because to be voluntary. it is clear that notwithstanding the pendency of a warrant for his arrest. 360 SCRA 631 (2001) 70 People vs. The mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se an aggravating circumstance. To be entitled to such mitigating circumstance. There was no proof of specific fact or circumstance. as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 13. which is similar to instances where voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. 389 SCRA 277 (2002) 71 Legrama vs. The following requirements must therefore concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt. 49. Villamor.68 50. (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged. or showed manifest disrespect to the offended woman or displayed some specific insult or disrespect to her womanhood. Montinola. Although restitution is akin to voluntary surrender. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance. use. it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to have considered it as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner. Oco. 672 SCRA 270 (2012) 72 People vs. in relation to paragraph 10 of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code. restitution should be treated as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused when the two circumstances are present in a case. De Vera. 584 SCRA 506 (2009) 69 People vs. In People v.73 68 De Vera vs. There was no finding that the evidence proved that the accused in fact deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim. Modesto Ticman. the Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance because immediately upon learning that a warrant for his arrest was issued. before a competent court trying the case. Supreme Court. Dawaton. Considering that restitution is also tantamount to an admission of guilt on the part of the accused.71 53. other than the victim is a woman. Unauthorized reproduction. the public officer must use the influence.69 51. The essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry ―Did the accused abuse his office to commit the crime?‖72 54. Court of Appeals. Jr. the accused surrendered to the police. he was charged with murder for which he had already entered a plea of not guilty. While the accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. 332 SCRA 475 (2000) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender.76 57. (b) sufficient. and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime. G. the culprit taking advantage of the offended party‘s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. 350 SCRA 679 (2001) 79 People vs.79 60. Montinola. Perreras. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 191060. For evident premeditation to be appreciated. the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted. otherwise they are to be regarded as co-principals or co-conspirators. Rios. or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender‘s immunity from capture. Page11 of 44 . Jr. which is primarily a crime against property. Arrojado.74 56. 362 SCRA 202 (2001) 76 People vs. No. 77 58. and where 74 People vs. Taño. Supreme Court.80 61. The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime. the following requisites must be shown: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. By and of itself. or (2) it is taken advantage of by him. They must not be acting in the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused. 02 February 2015 82 People vs. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. In "aid of armed men. (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party. For abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance to exist. the building where a crime is occupied against the occupant must entirely be for dwelling purposes. it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house." the men act as accomplices only. 561 SCRA 380 (2008) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Dimacuha. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. as the homicide is regarded as merely incidental to the robbery. 55. it is essential to show that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act. although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered.82 62. Modesto Ticman. and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between such a determination and the actual execution to allow the accused time to reflect upon the consequences of his act81 and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of the will if he desired to hearken to its warning. 360 SCRA 631 (2001) 75 People vs. dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. where no such evidence exists. 387 SCRA 77 (2002) 80 People vs.78 59. Where conspiracy is directly established. Silva. When a crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation. sex or rank is not aggravating in robbery with homicide. however. Enojas. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.75 Also. with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method. However. Goleas. time and means of executing the crime. it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense. use.R. 331 SCRA 448 (2000) 77 People vs. Unauthorized reproduction. Disregard of age. 718 SCRA 313 (2014) 81 People vs. 333 SCRA 823 (2000) 78 People vs. In criminal cases. depriving the victim of any real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked. and. The mode of attack. Amodia.83 63. Jr. it must always be alleged in the information and proved in trial in order that it may be validly considered. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. The essence of qualifying circumstance is the suddenness. even if a person other than the intended victim was killed. the prosecution must clearly show the offenders‘ deliberate intent to do so. if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance. even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. 571 SCRA 444 (2008) 86 People vs. treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. two (2) elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. thus. 64. (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. Villacorta. like nighttime. must be planned by the offender. they tried to conceal their identity. Unauthorized reproduction. Beltran. use. Jurisprudence is to the effect that evident premeditation may be considered as present. The meeting between appellant‘s group 83 People vs.88 68. disguise is an aggravating circumstance because. the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. The inclusion of disguise in the information was. In treachery. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. For treachery to be considered. the above requisites of evident premeditation need to be established. 503 SCRA 715 (2006) 88 People vs.84 65. and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.86 Further. 657 SCRA 270 (2011) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack will take place. 724 SCRA 148 (2014) 85 People vs.85 66. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. Modesto Ticman. enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with. there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater number. it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes. The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. 541 SCRA 265 (2007) 87 People vs. This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. Campomanes. Aviles. Likewise. thus. Page12 of 44 .conspiracy is merely inferred from the acts of the accused in the perpetration of the crime. Supreme Court. therefore. 376 SCRA 307 (2002 84 People vs. therefore. Feliciano. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.87 67. To appreciate abuse of superior strength. it is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating.95 73. Ancheta. the qualifying circumstance of treachery can no longer be appreciated. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of ―homicide‖ and not to the constituent crime of ―robbery‖ of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Sudden attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by the victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or aggressive behavior of the victim were held to be without treachery as the victim was sufficiently forewarned of reprisal. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. Rebucan. Gonzalez. Escote. there must be proof showing that the accused delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually. 387 SCRA 294 (2002) 92 People vs. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Calago. 403 SCRA 482 (2003) 93 People vs. ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. Page13 of 44 . but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional. Supreme Court. 359 SCRA 220 (2001 91 People vs. 400 SCRA 603 (2003). People vs. Caratao.93 71. For ignominy to be appreciated. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered. they participated in the criminal resolution and 89 People vs. 381 SCRA 448 (2002) 90 People vs. For cruelty to exist. if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony. thus adding to the victim‘s moral suffering. Jr. Two or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct participation if the following requisites are present: 1. impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.94 72. Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible crime. 420 SCRA 520 (2004) 95 People vs. 90 Where a killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel. for lack of opportunity of the accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of attack.91 Chance encounters.96 74. 654 SCRA 726 (2011) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Mendez. Catian. Unauthorized reproduction. In the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. Modesto Ticman. 431 SCRA 42 (2004) 94 People vs. causing him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act.89 69.and the victim was merely by chance and it could not be said that the mode of attack could have been planned. or those that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery.92 70. The third paragraph of Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication. 374 SCRA 514 (2002) 96 People vs. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. use. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. The previous fight would have placed the victim on guard for any reprisal by the assailants. Cachola. 97 75. Mere commission of an act. Jr. they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a crime.99 77. one of which is a public officer who harbors. Batin. accomplices are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense. Inducement may be by acts of command. Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. conceals or assists in the escape of the principal.102 81. They are distinct in nature. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 539 SCRA 272 (2008) 100 Abarquez vs. which aids the perpetrator. Conspirators. the following elements must be proven: (1) knowledge of the commission of the crime and (2) subsequent participation in it by any of the three above-cited modes.101 79. 80. provided it is not a light felony. is not enough. and the crime committed by the principal is any crime. The words of advice or the influence must have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation. 479 SCRA 225 (2006) 101 People vs. 430 SCRA 52 (2004) 98 People vs. and concurs with. 2. in duration and in accessory penalties. Unauthorized reproduction. ―life imprisonment‖ is imposed 97 People vs. The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. To convict an accused as an accessory. 349 SCRA 297 (2001) 99 People vs. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. there are two (2) classes of accessories. Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and agree with the criminal design. First.98 76. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. Supreme Court. The penalty of life imprisonment is not the same as reclusion perpetua. Two elements must concur before a person becomes liable as an accomplice: (1) community of design. use. applying Article 4. Such public officer must have acted with abuse of his public functions. the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. People. which means that the accomplice knows of.100 78. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision. they may be held criminally liable as principals by direct participation if they perform overt acts which mediately or immediately cause or accelerate the death of the victim. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. and (2) that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. Modesto Ticman. Salvador. 335 SCRA 646 (2000) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Antonio. know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action. 695 SCRA 660 (2013) 102 People vs. advice or through influence or agreement for consideration. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed. and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. accomplices merely concur in it. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. however. Cabareño. Page14 of 44 . Even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or murder. Vasquez. Therefore. he shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon (Art. it has no minimum. Modesto-San Pedro. use. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. Thus. Page15 of 44 . while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised Penal Code. which are not covered by Article 48. been filed. unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause. et al. Being light felonies. ―life imprisonment‖ does not appear to have any definite extent or duration. it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa. Second. There can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Revised Penal Code) Reclusion perpetua is imprisonment for life but the person sentenced to suffer it shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty (30) years. Third. therefore. 360 SCRA 60 (2001) 104 People vs. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa. Modesto Ticman. the accused may be convicted of one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and separate acts of rape. In Delos Santos. In prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape.103 82. Barde.108 86. Unauthorized reproduction. 27. Ramirez. in fine. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document. Garcia. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Separate informations should have. the Supreme Court ruled that ―the slight physical injuries caused by the accused to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence. Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties. ―life imprisonment‖ does not carry with it any accessory penalty. They should be detached from and considered independently of the forcible abduction. Latupan. 375 SCRA 278 (2002) 105 People vs. have constituted light felonies. 502 SCRA 35 (2006) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime. its duration in years. while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. 85.104 Since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. 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. 378 SCRA 266 (2002) 109 Batulanon vs. Jr. had they been intentional. grave and/or less grave and light felonies resulting from reckless imprudence may no longer be treated and punished as separate offenses. The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses. People. the proper crime to be charged is falsification. (Art. they should be treated and punished as separate offenses.‖ Pursuant to Ivler vs. Zacarias. The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape. need not be specified. As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document.109 103 People vs. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Revised Penal Code). 63. Hon. 631 SCRA 187 (2010) 107 635 SCRA 191 (2010) 108 People vs. although the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years. would. medium or maximum periods. Supreme Court.107 however.105 83.106 84. the proper crime to be charged is estafa.for serious offenses penalized by special laws. 356 SCRA 595 (2001) 106 People vs. as explained in Number 2 above. 669 SCRA 365 (2012) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction. conformably 110 People vs. Corollarily. (4) kidnapping with murder or homicide. For a composite crime. Bayotas made the following pronouncements: ―1. the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific. As opined by Justice Regalado. 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.e. Some of the special complex crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1) robbery with homicide. on the other hand. the resulting crime is called a special complex crime. 87.111 89. (2) robbery with rape. Finally. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Applying this provision. in a complex or compound crime. the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription. In such case. or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Where the civil liability survives. Unauthorized reproduction. on the one hand. Modesto Ticman. the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed. a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information. 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: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) xxx e) Quasi-delicts ―3.110 88. ―4.. civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. and (5) rape with homicide. for a complex or compound crime. Villaflores. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. to be imposed in the maximum period. the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized. ‗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. if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses. the composition of the offenses is fixed by law. the Court in People v. that is. Jr. i. (3) kidnapping with serious physical injuries. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. grave and/or less grave. 647 SCRA 170 (2011) 111 People vs. the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. There are distinctions between a composite crime. Supreme Court. and a complex or compound crime under Article 48. Page16 of 44 .‘‖ ―2. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of (the) accused. the private offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In a composite crime. in this regard. Montamir. use. depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.117 95. or the right 112 Datu vs. a violation of B. xxx.115 93. Jr. Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned. the authorities. Page17 of 44 . 571 SCRA 549 (2008) 116 Pangan vs. one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.113 91. DOJ. Pardon is granted to one after conviction. it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. with the provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. vs.P. Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. 3326 applies to offenses under B. while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses. The prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code.P. 705 SCRA 459 (2013) 115 Panaguiton. it was held that the registration in public registry is a notice to the whole world. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. Jr. while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress. 449 SCRA 144 (2005) 117 Del Castillo vs.116 94. Sandiganbayan. Torrecampo and People. The prevailing rule is that irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law. Blg. 22 prescribes in four (4) years from the commission of the offense or. applies only to those who are convicted by final judgment and are serving sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty. generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. hence. is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. 3326. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. The record is constructive notice of its contents as well as all interests.114 92. included therein. Blg. No. 22. 637 SCRA 754 (2010 113 Recebido vs. 394 SCRA 221 (2002) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Reyes. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. from the discovery thereof.‖112 90. under Act No. Unauthorized reproduction. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted. Clearly. the period of prescription shall ―commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. An offense under B. legal and equitable. that is. Supreme Court. or their agents. ―Escape‖ in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. All persons are charged with knowledge of what it contains. it abolishes or forgives the punishment. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code. evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. People. Modesto Ticman. Act. 22 merits the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine. and for that reason it does ‗not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office. Blg. 346 SCRA 881 (2000) 114 Disini vs. People. if the same be not known at the time. use.P.‖ In People v. The period for prescription of penalties begins only when the convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. Gatbalite. because the courts take no notice thereof. Under said provision. Supreme Court. before execution against an employer ensues. use. it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. and 4) that said employee is insolvent. Jr. One can be convicted only of rebellion where the murders.of suffrage. Corollarily. therefore. In this particular crime. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Revised Penal Code).119 97. in a hearing set for the purpose of 1) the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Sandiganbayan.‘ and it ‗in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence‘ (Article 36. 652 SCRA 382 (2011) 123 Adaza vs. Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone. The element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party as a result of the falsification. are to be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the rebellious acts.118 96. 2) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry.121 99. Court of Appeals. The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention. 3) that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties not necessarily any offense he commits "while" in the discharge of such duties. is fear. without anything more. but for personal reasons or other motives. While amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself. or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. Unauthorized reproduction. People. 437 SCRA 152 (2004) 121 People vs. is not a criminal offense.123 101. People. The statutory basis for an employer's subsidiary liability is found in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Oliva. This liability is enforceable in the same criminal proceeding where the award is made. 464 SCRA 460 (2005) 124 Goma vs. there must be a determination. offenses which were not committed in furtherance of the rebellion. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. A public officer or employee as an offender in Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC ―takes advantage of his official position‖ in falsifying a document when (1) he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document. 341 SCRA 464 (2000) 119 Basilio vs. Modesto Ticman. or tarnishing of a document‘s integrity. 576 SCRA 1 (2009) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the RPC. the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial. 341 SCRA 78 (2001) 122 Clemente vs.122 100. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. robberies and kidnapping were committed as a means to or furtherance of rebellion. Court of Appeals. 328 SCRA 341 (2000) 120 Astorga vs. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes. the controlling consideration lies in the public character of a document. in the absence of actual physical restraint. What is punished in falsification of public document is principally the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.124 118 People vs. Page18 of 44 . and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or. is not essential to maintain a charge for falsification of public documents. However.120 98. at least. Patriarca. 127 105." which is a crime under Art.131 125 Santos vs. This kind of falsification requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts.125 103. A false statement which is obviously the result of an honest mistake is not perjury. Sandiganbayan. in consideration of any gift or promise. Page19 of 44 .130 107. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. in connection with the performance of his official duties. (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him. or any act not constituting a crime. Bona fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. or (3) by agreeing to refrain. 129 Balderama vs. or by refraining. Modesto Ticman. Jr. promise. Unauthorized reproduction. or by performing. and. makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts. 172 of the Revised Penal Code. (3) that such gift. commits the crime of falsification of public documents. The felony may thus be committed by dolo or by culpa. 451 SCRA 533 (2005) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. (d) That the use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage. Sandiganbayan. Under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. A false statement of a belief is not perjury. Secretary of Justice. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc.126 104. in consideration of any offer. The elements of "use of falsified documents. 172. 347 SCRA 386 (2000) 126 Lumancas vs. 102. The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer. (2) by accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime. Malversation consists not only in misappropriation or converting public funds or property to one‘s personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate the same. taking advantage of his official position. Supreme Court. 507 SCRA 258 (2006) 131 Sarigumba vs. People. present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 475 SCRA 495 (2005) 128 Ibid. The crime is consummated and the appropriate penalty is imposed regardless of whether the mode of commission is with intent or due to negligence. offer or promise.. and (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. from doing something which is his official duty to do. (b) That the false document is embraced in Art. use. 347 SCRA 22 (2000) 127 Villanueva vs. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.129 Thus. Sandiganbayan.128 106. and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present. The prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by other evidence than the contradicting statement. A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statements of the accused. are: (a) That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person. in connection with the performance of his official duty. 542 SCRA 423 2008 130 Garcia vs. or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do. (c) That he used such document (not in judicial proceedings). the acts constituting direct bribery are: (1) by agreeing to perform. Intas. gift or present an act constituting a crime. any public officer or employee who. Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth. 171 or in any of subdivisions 1 or 2 of Art. supra note 132. Restitution of the said amount after the consummation of the crimes is not a ground for acquittal of the said crimes. may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property. 361 SCRA 556 (2001) 139 Pondevida vs. 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. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 457 SCRA 301 (2005) 135 Ibid. 108. an accountable officer need not be a bonded official. is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. 137 Sarigumba vs. 3.133 The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. upon demand by a duly authorized officer. Supreme Court. To be liable for malversation. Under Article 217 of the Code. within the purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. That there is public fund or property under his administration. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. use. or even a private individual. Case law has it that the individuals‘ taking of funds is completed and is consummated even if the severance of the funds from the possession was only for an instant. Page20 of 44 . The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee. Sandiganbayan.138 111. gain or benefit. by reason of his office is accountable for public funds or property.134 109. 451 SCRA 533 (2005) 138 Agullo vs. paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal Code is — by its very nature — rebuttable.137 The presumption of conversion incarnated in Article 217. Hence. he is unable to satisfactorily account for the same. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. 2. Jr.139 112. is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. the failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming such public funds or property.136 An accountable officer may thus be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in the officer‘s account which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. Sandiganbayan. To put it differently.135 110. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance. Unauthorized reproduction. 389 SCRA 412 (2002) 133 Arriola vs. Modesto Ticman. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. 132 Quiñon vs. 494 SCRA 344 (2006) 134 Barriga vs. 467 SCRA 219 (2005) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. a mere clerk in the provincial or municipal government may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same. 136 Quiñon vs. the presumption under the law is not conclusive but disputable by satisfactory evidence to the effect that the accused did not utilize the public funds or property for his personal use. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. People. All that is essential is proof that the accountable officer has received public funds but that when demand therefor is made. Sandiganbayan.132 An accountable officer under Article 217 is a public officer who. People. An accountable public officer. A public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official position. The essential elements of the crime of technical malversation defined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. That the offender is a public officer. that is. Evidence of intent to kill is crucial only to a finding of frustrated and attempted homicide. et al. Page21 of 44 . Modesto Ticman. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons who engage in a confused and tumultuous manner. Whisenhunt. The mere decapitation of the victim‘s head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. 4. The quarrel in the instant case is between a distinct group of individuals. reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense instead of treachery which will then be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance. use. Then. It is not. as against a common. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. defendant's agency in the commission of the act. the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof. as the 140 Abdulla vs. 431 SCRA 366 (2004) 143 People vs. particular victim.144 117. In this case. leaving them to rot on the ground. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. thus qualifying the killing to murder. he strewed the dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside. Unauthorized reproduction. the crime is homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence. In such case. and (c) that defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the death. even if there is no intent to kill. To constitute the crime. there must be a diversion of the funds from the purpose for which they had been originally appropriated by law or ordinance. the nature. In homicide (by dolo) as well as in murder cases. Such evidence may consist in the use of weapons by the malefactors. That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance. as the same is an essential element of these offenses. Corpus delicti consists of two things: first. Ombudsman. one of whom was sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing. in the course of which a person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. 386 SCRA 586 (2001) 144 Yapyuco.141 114. location and number of wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before. In other words. 674 SCRA 420 (2012) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof.143 116. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives. with intent to kill. the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance. vs. He further cut up her body like pieces of meat. People. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also. since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack. that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice). at the time or immediately after the killing of the victim.140 113. Supreme Court. accused-appellant not only beheaded Elsa. direct or circumstantial. and thus must be proved with the same degree of certainty as that required of the other elements of said offenses. the prosecution must prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead. For technical malversation to exist. the criminal act and second. intent to kill is conclusively presumed. 455 SCRA 78 (2005) 141 Tetangco vs. 479 SCRA 249 (2006) 142 People vs. proof of homicide or murder requires incontrovertible evidence. (b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and was not the result of accident. Jr. natural cause or suicide.142 115. Comadre. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Sandiganbayan. it is necessary that public funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance. either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. Supreme Court. As distinguished from infanticide. Paycana. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person. (2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. People. 691 SCRA 324 (2013) 152 People vs. Secretary of Justice.151 123. it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable. 547 SCRA 431 (2008) 149 Li vs. 551 SCRA 657 (2008) 148 Aguirre vs.e. mutilation of organs necessary for generation.146 119.145 118. 427 SCRA 217 (2004) 150 People vs. The elements of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art. and (4) that as a result of the violence the fetus dies. without laceration of the hymen. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape. Unauthorized reproduction. Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape. an offense which is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person. Jalosjos. that is. and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately. 262 of the Revised Penal Code are the following: 1) that there be a castration. Page22 of 44 .149 122. 392 SCRA 46 (2002) 147 People vs. People. Thus. 389 SCRA 224 (2002) 146 Dado vs. that is. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.defense suggests. where several persons not comprising definite or identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and disorganized manner. Unlagada. touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis. Campuhan. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. capable of independent existence. use. that is. he could be validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm. (3) that the violence is intentionally exerted. is deemed to be rape. the elements of unintentional abortion are as follows: (1) that there is a pregnant woman. Lolos. Modesto Ticman. petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code. and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age. resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them. The law presumes that a woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. In People v. a "tumultuous affray" within the meaning of Art.152 In statutory rape.147 120. it was ruled that rape is consummated ―by the slightest penetration of the female organ. 627 SCRA 509 2010 Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it.‖ There need not be full and complete penetration of the victim‘s vagina for rape to be consummated. In the crime of infanticide. Jr. and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person. 369 SCRA 179 (2001) 151 People vs. Teodoro. the offense is only slight physical injuries. it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory 145 People vs.148 121. i. that is. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the required medical attendance.150 Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman. to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction. a melee or free-for-all. Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim. 251 of The Revised Penal Code.. Though the information charged the petitioner with murder. Even the briefest of contacts. the offender may be a man or a woman. A positive DNA match may strengthen the evidence for the prosecution. (3) In the first mode. therefore. is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but also for the two other counts of rape committed by his co-accused. Supreme Court. neither a positive DNA match of the semen nor the presence of spermatozoa is essential in finding that rape was committed. xxx.154 125. the offended party is always a woman. while in the second. is rape. Notably. 631 SCRA 652 (2010) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. also "gender-free rape". Jumawan. 709 SCRA 129 (2013) 156 People vs. rape is committed through penile penetration of the vagina. Accused-appellant. Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or through sexual assault. Unauthorized reproduction. while the second is committed by inserting the penis into another person‘s mouth or anal orifice. In rape under paragraph 1 or rape through sexual intercourse. or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. this Court differentiated the two modes of committing rape as follows: (1) In the first mode. and (4) The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher than that under the second. but an inconclusive DNA test result may not be sufficient to exculpate the accused. rape under paragraph 2 of the above-quoted article is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. i. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. Jr. Modesto Ticman. Plurad. It is also called "instrument or object rape". 714 SCRA 131 (2014) 157 People vs. Gaduyon. Sexual intercourse. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. while in the second. 154 People vs. Jalosjos."155 126. the offender is always a man.rape.157 128. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Pareja. or the narrower "homosexual rape. 393 SCRA 306 (2002) 155 People vs. Abulon. On the other hand. The application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 722 SCRA 108 (2014) 158 People vs. The perpetrator commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another person‘s mouth or anal orifice. each of the defendants is responsible not only for the rape committed by him but also for those committed by the others. particularly when there is sufficient evidence proving his guilt. In cases of multiple rape. appellant raped the private offended party.. In People v. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant.e.158 153 People vs. supra note 150.156 127. Husbands do not have property rights over their wives' bodies.153 124. use. carnal knowledge is the crucial element which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. albeit within the realm of marriage. Page23 of 44 . (2) In the first mode. the offended party may be a man or a woman. Cabigquez. if not consensual. A positive DNA match is unnecessary when the totality of the evidence presented before the court points to no other possible conclusion. 166 Equally significant is the fact that. the aggravating circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only. in kidnapping. (b) it is committed by simulating public authority. 695 SCRA 660 (2013) 165 People vs.163 Likewise. and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the rape. supra note 161. (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal and (4) in the commission of the offense. 129.164 134. forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape. even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery.160 131. Page24 of 44 . 130. Muit. (2) he kidnaps or detains another. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Supreme Court. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. 425 SCRA 528 (2004) 163 People vs. The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be proved by words or overt acts before. 568 SCRA 251 (2008) 166 People vs. if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom. the duration of his detention is immaterial. 401 SCRA 459 (2003) 164 People vs. the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape with homicide. instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape since the main objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the house of another was to rape her. Silongan.165 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. Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed. abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation) alleged in the information have been duly established by the prosecution. during or after the kidnapping and detention of the victim. 560 SCRA 298 (2008) 162 People vs. 658 SCRA 654 (2011) 161 People vs. (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. Unauthorized reproduction. Hence. Lining. Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Martinez. use. any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days. the fourth element is no longer necessary. If the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom. Mamantak. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual.162 133. The general rule is that the prosecution is burdened 159 384 SCRA 427 (2002) 160 People vs. Mamantak. In People vs. Hence. the victim‘s lack of consent is also a fundamental element. or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty. Laog. the term "homicide" is to be understood in its generic sense. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Modesto Ticman. As in the case of robbery with homicide. Jr. not either of the parents of the victim or a public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person. The essence of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the actual deprivation of the victim‘s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it.161 132. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Salvador.159 accused-appellant was convicted only for the crime of rape. female or a public official. A.171 After said date though. it would be complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. ruled: "The fact alone that appellant Pillneta is an organic member of the NARCOM and appellant Sandigan a member of the PNP would not exempt them from the criminal liability of kidnapping. Solangon. No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. The deprivation required by Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code means not only the imprisonment of a person. Modesto Ticman. Even a public officer can commit kidnapping within the context of the Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. No. b) Where the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought. in fine. No. or is raped. However.‖ 138. The applicable rule when the abduction and killing happened before 31 December 1993. In People v. Unauthorized reproduction. but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. as kidnapping of the victim was a necessary means of committing the murder. the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. 537 SCRA 746 (2007) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Alipio. Siongco. offenders in either case may now be held liable for the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide in view of the amendment of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code by R. use. appellants did so neither in furtherance of official functions nor in the pursuit of authority vested in them. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R. otherwise. 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Jr. However. the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs.to prove lack of consent on the part of the victim. in relation to their office. the crime committed was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. we explained that if the 167 People vs.A.169 137. It includes a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts. Garcia. two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed. and he was in fact killed by his abductor. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Supreme Court. It is quite clear that in abducting and taking away the victim. No. Page25 of 44 .168 the Supreme Court. In People vs. It is not.A." 136.167 135. 170 Date of effectivity of R. Siongco. 7659 by adding the following provision thereto: ―When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention. Trestiza. lack of consent is presumed. the maximum penalty shall be imposed. where the victim is a minor. 623 SCRA 501 (2010) 168 660 SCRA 407 (2011) 169 People vs. citing People vs. 7659 171 People vs.170 is: a) Where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him. for the crime of kidnapping with rape. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. supra note 167. but in purely private capacity that they have acted in concert with their co-appellant Santiano and Chanco. 174 141. shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt. or both. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. headstrong. the term ―gain‖ is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. malice is an inherent element of the crime. and each of the other counts of rape constitutes distinct and separate count of rape. People. People. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In robbery.taking was by forcible abduction and the woman was raped several times. being a felony by dolo. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code employs the phrase ―belonging to another‖ and this 172 People vs. the crimes committed is one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. in unjust vexation. Page26 of 44 . distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner‘s consent constitutes gain.172 139. shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing. but in no case less than 75 pesos. torment. What is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. – Any person. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code has two essential elements. Supreme Court. for the crime of unjust vexation may exist without compulsion or restraint. namely: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person. Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code reads: ―Art. Unauthorized reproduction. ―Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos.‖ The second paragraph of the Article is broad enough to include any human conduct which. could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. Jr. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. The paramount question to be considered is whether the offender‘s act caused annoyance. not of men. 287. Thus. 654 SCRA 761 (2011) 173 People vs. Mirandilla. irritation. However. Good faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because good faith negates malice. Compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in the Information. 569 SCRA 452 (2008) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians. The word ―deliberate‖ as used in Article 270 must imply something more than mere negligence .173 140. who by means of violence. 503 SCRA 234 (2006) 175 De Guzman vs. The main purpose of the law penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his hands and that our government is one of law. although not productive of some physical or material harm.it must be premeditated. it is not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof. use. 648 SCRA 694 (2011) 174 Maderazo vs. It is unlawful for any person to take into his own hands the administration of justice. Marquez. Light coercions. Modesto Ticman. in as much as the forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape.175 142. In robbery by the taking of property through intimidation or violence. 185 147. 634 SCRA 689 (2010) 181 Ibid. Dinamling. irrespective of their numbers. 182 People vs. thus. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequently to the killing. the homicides or murders and physical injuries. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide. includes murder.176 143. Lara. 399 SCRA 528 (2003) 177 People vs. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. The original design must have been robbery. or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery.183 146. parricide. 379 SCRA 107 (2002) 184 People vs. to prevent his being apprehended or to insure his escape from the scene of the crime.180 145. to eliminate an obstacle to the crime. Unauthorized reproduction. Modesto Ticman. In robbery with homicide. an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. Reyes. during or after the robbery. 698 SCRA 161 (2013) 179 People vs. Ebet. such additional offense is treated as an 176 People vs.181 The term "homicide". Jr.179 Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation. he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide.has been interpreted to merely require that the property taken does not belong to the offender. Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery. Zuela. Page27 of 44 . whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time. A homicide is considered as having been committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to deprive the latter of his property. committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with homicide. embraces not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. unless it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. 323 SCRA 589 (2000) 183 People vs. 505 SCRA 137 (2006) 178 People vs. the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. must have a direct relation to. supra note 180. Cachuela. and the homicide. the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. Jabiniao. Supreme Court.177 144. Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. to protect his possession of the loot. FO1 Dela Cruz. and infanticide. 575 SCRA 412 (2008) 185 People vs. Actual possession of the property by the person dispossessed thereof suffices. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Ebet. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. the killing may occur before. the accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robbery. Homicide. even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery.182 Stated differently.178 or to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery. When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional mutilation. The word ―homicide‖ (in robbery with homicide) is used in its generic sense. to eliminate witnesses.184 If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery. use. So long as the intention of the felons was to rob. 553 SCRA 769 (2008) 180 People vs. making other rapes in excess of that number as separate. Domingo. Moreno. 349 SCRA 547 (2001) 192 People vs. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.186 148. 1 of the Revised Penal Code covers cases of multiple rapes. Jr. although not all of them took part in the rape. because their intent determines the offense they committed. it was held that ―there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. Seguis. integrated whole that is robbery with rape. All the rapes are merged in the composite.187 149. Modesto Ticman. 328 SCRA 302 (2000) 187 People vs. Verceles.‖192 154. or on the occasion of a robbery. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. the qualifying circumstances attendant to the killing would be considered as generic aggravating circumstances. with intent to gain. Fabon. Page28 of 44 . including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. This felony contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take. so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery. 294. In People v.188 150. If the original plan was to commit rape. 353 SCRA 126 (2001) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime. Supreme Court. Once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery. independent offense or offenses. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence.191 153. 383 SCRA 43 (2002) 189 People vs. par. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred before.aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. the offenders had an intent to take personal property belonging to another. In other words. This is primarily due to the fact that the juridical concept of this crime does not limit the consummation of rape against one single victim or to one single act. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. 374 SCRA 667 (2002) 190 People vs. use. When the killing is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. or after the robbery. and such intent preceded the rape. 388 SCRA 515 (2002) 191 People vs. 360 SCRA 631 (2001) 188 People vs. The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the 186 People vs. Art. they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery. and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. during. but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself. Gano. Montinola. the true intent of the accused must first be determined. personal property belonging to another.190 152. Unauthorized reproduction. all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape. Regala. In the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Any property which is not included in the enumeration of real properties under the Civil Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the Revised Penal Code.189 151. and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire. The business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is likewise personal property which can be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. People. 664 SCRA 124 (2012) 195 People vs. or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.199 the Supreme Court ruled that complainant therein. 209655-60. or any other calamity. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust. (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle. Jr. It need not be capable of ―asportation.penal code is that it be capable of appropriation. 1 (b) of the RPC. Unauthorized reproduction. Abrogar.R. 621 SCRA 538 (2010) 199 543 SCRA 15 (2008) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. Gallo. or on commission or for administration. G. Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant. and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders.193 155. People. and 4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. use. (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. mail matter or large cattle. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of.197 In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation. typhoon.195 157. who is a businessman. cooperative.198 159. earthquake.‖ which is defined as ―carrying away. Nos. 576 SCRA 41 (2009) 194 Miranda vs. Anxiety also set in as he ran the risk of being sued by the person who likewise entrusted him the same 193 Laurel vs. The elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling. the same. is committed. 3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another.194 156. Tibayan. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Modesto Ticman. 14 January 2015 197 Gamboa vs. par. not only failed to recover his investment but also lost the opportunity to realize profits therefrom.196 158. (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. 2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt.‖ Jurisprudence is settled that to ―take‖ under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or carrying away. par. In Real vs. or members of rural banks. Page29 of 44 . ―samahang nayon(s).‖ or farmers‘ associations. (b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons. For charges of estafa to prosper. the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit. volcanic eruption. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. xxx. Disturbance of property rights is equivalent to damage and is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. People. The elements of estafa under Article 315. People. or to return. 722 SCRA 173 (2014) 198 Pamintuan vs. a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts. 315. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: 1) that money. 622 SCRA 439 (2010) 196 People vs. as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC. Supreme Court. estafa under paragraph 2( a) of that provision does not require as an element of the crime proof that the accused misappropriated or converted the swindled money or property. which is a usual element in the other estafas. In other words. or to return. Jr. To assert his legal recourse. 386 SCRA 412 (2002) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. or for administration. 160. are the following: (1) postdating or issuing checks in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the checks were issued. Supreme Court. The elements of estafa under Article 315. In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision. G. Nagrampa. 703 SCRA 118 (2013) 203 Flores vs. (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover said checks. 375 SCRA 491 (2002) 204 People vs. use. 665 SCRA 83 (2012) 202 Lopez vs. Court of Appeals. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Dinglasan. The first element of the offense requires that the dishonored check must have been postdated or issued at the time the obligation was contracted. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing transferred and this he may set up even against the owner. and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. being the very date the check was issued or postdated. or on commission. he further incurred expenses in hiring a lawyer and in litigating the case. whether dated or postdated. Unlike estafa under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 315 of the Code. 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.204 165. the same. paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. People. When the thing is received by the offender from the offended party in trust or in commission or for administration.200 161. goods or other personal property be received by the offender in trust. as amended. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa by abuse of confidence. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. is a material ingredient of the offense.pieces of jewelry. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 389 SCRA 71 (2002) 205 People vs. Underlying all these must be the presence of fraud or deceit. The check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or property. All that is required is proof of pecuniary damage sustained by the complainant arising from his reliance on the fraudulent representation.201 162. 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. One of the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence is that the money. the date the obligation was entered into. No. People.202 163. People. Page30 of 44 . Unauthorized reproduction. Modesto Ticman.R. In other words. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. (3) knowledge on the part of the drawer of checks of such lack or insufficiency of funds. the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received.205 200 San Diego vs. the breach of confidence takes the place of fraud or deceit.203 164. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. 08 April 2015 201 Brokmann vs. 176114. and (4) damage capable of pecuniary estimation to the payee thereof. for that reason. 2 of BP 22. whether or not it was such that the breach of the obligation would not give rise to penal responsibility. 454 SCRA 635(2005) 209 People vs. Article 89 (on total extinguishment) and Article 94 (on partial extinguishment) of the Revised Penal Code list down the various grounds for the extinguishment of criminal liability. and.211 171. The reimbursement or restitution to the offended party of the sums swindled by the petitioner does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. requires the maker or drawer to pay the amount of the check within five days from receipt of notice of dishonor. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Modesto Ticman.209 If there is no proof of notice of dishonor. Dimalanta. Ojeda.206 167. Such knowledge negates the element of deceit and constitutes a defense in estafa through bouncing checks. While the RPC prescribes that the drawer of the check must deposit the amount needed to cover his check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor. which is hard to determine and may not be inferred from mere failure to comply with a promise. as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit. Wagas. So holds the 2004 case of People v. no Estafa can be deemed to exist. Dinglasan. 166. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. and unless there is a priori intent. 707 SCRA 438 (2013) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. 389 SCRA 71 (2002) 210 People vs. There is no estafa through bouncing checks when it is shown that private complainant knew that the drawer did not have sufficient funds in the bank at the time the check was issued to him. No criminal liability for estafa attaches if postdated checks were issued as a security guarantee for the payment of loan. notice of dishonor is necessary for prosecution (for estafa and violation of BP 22). Under Article 315 (2) (d). 440 SCRA 55 (2004) 208 People vs.208 169. 315 of the R[evised] P[enal] C[ode] and Sec. on the other hand. Reyes. Not being included in the list. Under both laws. knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime (whether estafa or violation of BP 22) can be deemed to exist. The role of novation may only be either to prevent the rise of criminal liability. use.207 168. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 170. knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed. Without proof of notice of dishonor. 430 SCRA 436 (2004) 211 Degaños vs. novation is limited in its effect only to the civil aspect of the liability. Novation is not a ground under the law to extinguish criminal liability. 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. This is because only the State may validly waive the criminal action against an accused. or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction. 705 SCRA 17 (2013) 207 People vs.210 x x x [N]otice of dishonor is required under both par. People. failure of the drawer of the check to deposit an amount sufficient to cover the check within three days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. or as evidence of investment or indebtedness. Page31 of 44 . 2(d) Art. is not an efficient defense in estafa. or other similar disguise is resorted to. Supreme Court. It only extinguishes pro 206 People vs. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Unauthorized reproduction. Jr. Ojeda. BP 22. Hence. likewise. there is the intent to lie with a woman.tanto the civil liability. (2) that she is taken against her will. On the other hand. but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson. regardless of her age. and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. For in rape. are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another. as defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. and (b) he/she contracts a subsequent marriage without the former marriage having been lawfully dissolved. estafa is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State on its own motion even though complete reparation had been made for the loss or damage suffered by the offended party.213 173. Modesto Ticman. murder or arson and homicide/murder.214 175. use. Sabadlab. It is 212 Firaza vs. Supreme Court. In cases where both burning and death occur. While rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature. civil status. the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice. lastly. and the resulting homicide is absorbed. (b) if. 174. Jr. 176.212 172. when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Subsequent payments does not obliterate the criminal liability already incurred. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. the prosecution is burdened to prove the felony: (a) he/she has been legally married. they are fundamentally different. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. (c) if the objective is. or reputation. (3) That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it. or when the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious. Unauthorized reproduction. then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed – homicide/murder and arson. Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise between petitioner and the private complainant on the former‘s civil liability. rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by force or intimidation. or when she is under twelve years of age. whereas in acts of lasciviousness. The elements of the crime of forcible abduction. and in fact the offender has already done so. Malngan. For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy. to kill a particular person. it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice. Moreover.215 177. on the other hand. offender can be convicted only for rape. 518 SCRA 681 (2007) 213 People vs. the crime is simply arson. 503 SCRA 294 (2006) 214 Tibong vs. If the main objective in abducting the victim is to rape her. in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated – whether arson. this element is absent. (2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. The consent of the private complainant to petitioner‘s payment of her civil liability pendente lite does not entitle the latter to an acquittal. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. People. Page32 of 44 . forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape. but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing. People. 630 SCRA 639 (2010) 215 People vs. 668 SCRA 237 (2012) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. in the law of libel. a marriage. would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. under the law. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of accused‘s first marriage had no bearing upon the determination of his innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy. after it has been written.221 216 Manuel vs. 221 Brillante vs. the presumption is that the marriage exists. Odtuhan. A man‘s reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself. the point is. use. even one which is void or voidable. Publication.219 181. The reason for this is that ―a communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem. the crime had already been consummated. What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. 480 SCRA 276 (2006) 220 Ibid.essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage. Abunado. 426 SCRA 562 (2004) 218 People vs. (b) publication of the charge. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. It does not matter whether the first marriage is void or voidable because such marriages have juridical effects until lawfully dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction. having all the essential requirements. Page33 of 44 . Therefore. it implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. To be liable for libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. and so long as there is no such declaration. Unauthorized reproduction.‖220 182. even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio. Supreme Court.218 180. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. and (d) existence of malice. he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. It is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. xxx. In this case. The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity. Malice is a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. Jr. known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. 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. Court of Appeals. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity. People. People. 701 SCRA 506 (2013) 219 Magno vs. If the statement is sent straight to a person for whom it is written there is no publication of it. (c) identity of the person defamed.217 179. 476 SCRA 461 (2005) 217 People vs.216 178. Modesto Ticman. but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. the following elements must be shown to exist: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another. Thus. means the making of the defamatory matter. but the estimation in which others hold him. 440 SCRA 541 (2004) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. People. Jr.‖ which is similar to the expression ―Puta‖ or ―Putang Ina mo. 684 SCRA 521 (2012) 223 CA-G. CR No. The liability which attaches to petitioners is. This means that. Beltran and Soliven.R. No. proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication of the offending article is not required. People. ―not only is the person who published. when an alleged libelous article is published in a newspaper. as a reflection on the virtues of a mother.223 which requires specific knowledge. is disqualified from applying for probation. Supreme Court. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. There is nothing in Section 9. and to apply People v. 183. Page34 of 44 . where the Court said that: ―This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. Cuneta-Pangilinan. participation. statutory in nature. This provision of law is definitive and unqualified. It is seldom. and approval on the part of the publisher to be liable for the publication of a libelous article. exhibited or caused the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing shall be responsible for the same. petitioner‘s act of pointing a dirty finger at complainant constitutes simple slander by deed. and in light of the fact that there was a perceived provocation coming from complainant. 06 November 1995 224 Fermin vs. paragraph (c) which qualifies "previous conviction" as referring to a conviction for a crime which is entirely different from that for which the offender is 222 Bautista vs. or proprietor‖ or ―printer/publisher‖ of the publication. taken in its literal sense by the hearer. SELECTED SPECIAL PENAL AND ALLIED LAWS Probation Law 186.‖224 185. by the nature of their positions. use. edit. if the accused has been specifically identified as ―author. ―Article 360 is clear and unambiguous. magazine or serial publication. that is. Pointing a dirty finger ordinarily connotes the phrase ―Fuck You. if ever. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. including the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper. editor. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. This sharing of liability with the author of said article is based on the principle that editors and associate editors. control and approve the materials which are to be published in a newspaper. Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain language. would be reading into the law an additional requirement that was not intended by it. 13561. to the effect that a person who was previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos.‖ in local parlance. G. Unauthorized reproduction.R.222 184. who shall be equally responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. thus. any article alleged to be libelous would not be published.‖ xxx Indeed. 28 March 2008 Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. without their nod of approbation. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To sustain a conviction for libel.‖ Following Reyes. Such expression was not held to be libelous in Reyes v. 157643. all other persons who participated in its publication are liable. it appearing from the factual milieu of the case that the act complained of was employed by petitioner "to express anger or displeasure" at complainant for procrastinating the approval of his leave monetization. such fact alone sufficient evidence to charge the editor or business manager with the guilt of its publication. Modesto Ticman. 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. a conviction for attempted homicide by the Supreme Court. Hence.applying for probation or a crime which arose out of a single act or transaction as petitioner would have the court to understand. Ordinarily. 968 (Probation Law of 1976. Section 7. the accused filed an application for probation. the Supreme Court modified the lower courts‘ rulings whereby Arnel was adjudged guilty of the lower crime of attempted homicide and was accordingly sentenced to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor. Castillo. now set aside. he having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide.226 188. use. as minimum. to six years and one day of prision mayor. to two years and four months of prision correccional. People. Supreme Court. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial court denied accused‘s notice of appeal. the probation law will be applied on Arnel based on the trial courts annulled judgment against him. But. as it happens. Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation. of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is explicit that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final when the accused has applied for probation. On the 14th day therefrom. the Supreme Court‘s judgment of conviction for a lesser offense and a lighter penalty will also have to bend 225 Pablo vs. he Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. as maximum. as maximum. as amended). two judgments of conviction have been meted out to Arnel: one. Modesto Ticman. Page35 of 44 . Is the order denying the notice of appeal correct? Ruling: Yes. This is totally in accord with Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. Is Arnel still entitled to apply for probation? Ruling: Yes. Facts: On the date the judgment of conviction was promulgated. On petition for review. which in part provides that the filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC. With this new penalty. On appeal. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. and. But. accused withdrew said application for probation and filed notice of appeal. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. as minimum. 383 SCRA 707 (2002) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. two. there was no more opportunity for petitioner to exercise her right to appeal. Unauthorized reproduction.225 187. as maximum. the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor. the judgment having become final by the filing of an application for probation. Rule 120. he will not be entitled to probation because of the severe penalty that such judgment imposed on him. to two years and four months of prision correccional. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Applying such rule. In such case however. Facts: The RTC convicted Arnel of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from two years and four months of prision correccional. Thus. 337 SCRA 176 (2000) 226 Vicoy vs. as minimum. a conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional trial court. Jr. and the minimum shall be ―within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed‖ for the offense. Serrano v. and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense. or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua. as amended. 503 SCRA 757 (2006) 231 People vs. 4103. could be properly imposed‖ under the Revised Penal Code. 543 SCRA 15 (2008) 229 People vs. Court of Appeals. and ruled that the latter law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with the said penalty. to name a few cases. Moreover. People vs. People.230 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act 192. the maximum term of the penalty shall be ―that which. Villarta. Tan. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. 690 SCRA 180 (2013) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. use. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Sec. 662 SCRA 266 (2011) 228 Real vs. lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt appellants from criminal liability. 465 SCRA 407 (2005) 230 People vs. De Jesus. the carabao gets the whip).229 191. In People v. Ang kabayo ang nagkasala. Arnel will now also be made to pay for the trial courts erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of his right to apply for probation. Parole. over to the trial courts judgment even if this has been found in error. Unauthorized reproduction. Supreme Court. which provides that it is only after ―any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him‖ that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole. the Supreme Court had in effect equated the penalty of reclusion perpetua as synonymous to life-imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (b) such possession was not authorized by law. by reason of this Act. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. is extended only to those sentenced to divisible penalties as is evident from Sec. Enriquez. 731 SCRA 497 (2014). worse. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Gardon.) No. Page36 of 44 . including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Lampaza and People v. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. Modesto Ticman. 3 of which states that ―[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua. And.A. hence. it is settled that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty without a minimum or maximum period. Mere 227 Colinares vs. otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. People. the following facts must be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs.228 190. on the other hand. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. Where is justice there?227 Indeterminate Sentence Law 189. Persons sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall not be entitled to parole in view of Republic Act (R. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Asturias. Jr. ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw (the horse errs. 9346. People v.231 We also note that the crime under consideration is malum prohibitum. in view of the attending circumstances. which states: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall. under the law. Modesto Ticman. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21. or his/her representative or counsel. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Tira.R. 635 SCRA 551 (2010) 236 People vs. Supreme Court. a successful prosecution thereof requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. No.236 196. 427 SCRA 384 (2004) 237 People vs.A. is shared with another. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. includes not only actual possession. which reads: (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall. Article II of R. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. 208169. 9165. Possession. ―Possession of prohibited drugs‖ is a necessary element in the offense of selling them. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. but also constructive possession. 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. immediately after seizure and confiscation. No.] This is implemented by Section 21(a). Page37 of 44 . "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Lascano.232 193. except where the seller is also found in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller. G. Adriano. 9165. 548 SCRA 337 (2008) 235 People vs. paragraph 1. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located. and 232 People vs. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. immediately after seizure and confiscation. Unauthorized reproduction. use.234 What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). No. 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. 430 SCRA 134 (2004) 234 Chan vs. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). the object and the consideration. Balag-ey. 08 October 2014 Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof.possession of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.237 197. 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. Secretary of Justice. and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.A. Tiu. In sale of dangerous drugs.233 194. On the other hand.235 195. Jr. or his/her representative or counsel. 405 SCRA 280 (2003) 233 People vs. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. in our view. Lascano. directors or trustees. and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The deliberate omission. Viterbo. directors or trustees. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance. 573 SCRA 497 (2008) 240 People vs. note 235 239 People vs. 730 SCRA 672 (2014) 242 People vs.239 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. or managers of both types of corporations within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whenever they are involved in graft and corruption. state universities or educational institutions or foundations. No. the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of 238 People vs. Hence. or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations‖ within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.241 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 200. and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items. for Jurists Bar Review Center™.240 199. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Petitioner (a Student Regent of the University of the Philippines) falls under this category.238 198. whichever is practicable. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out. Ortega. that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. has consistently refrained from making any distinction with respect to the manner of their creation. any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Unauthorized reproduction. Modesto Ticman. further. are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. in case of warrantless seizures. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents. While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid. not readily identifiable. in mandating the inclusion of ―presidents. Jr. Sandiganbayan and Alas. use. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.] Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct.D. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[. or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. 451 SCRA 413 (2005) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Bondad. directors or trustees. Provided. 729 SCRA 179 (2014) 241 People vs. Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor. and easily open to tampering. clearly reveals the intention of the legislature to include the presidents. The legislature. Supreme Court. or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P. Page38 of 44 .242 201. that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. . a public officer as contemplated by P. Page39 of 44 . In fact. and second. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. while mandatory in nature. a determination as to the validity of the information must first be made in a pre-suspension hearing. it is bound to issue an order of preventive suspension of the accused public officer as a matter of course. Two requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first. Sandiganbayan.trustees of a non-stock corporation. the existence of the subject firearm.. removed or dismissed. the protection of public interest will definitely have to prevail over the private interest of the accused. Unauthorized reproduction.244 203. Supreme Court. petitioner is. The legislative declaration in R. No.D. 369 SCRA 394 (2001) 247 People vs. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. use.243 202. Modesto Ticman. This is the penalty. Jr. No. If after such investigation.246 Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act 205. or any other offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is valid. Taking into consideration the public policy involved in preventively suspending a public officer charged under a valid information. Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure. xxx Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance. Preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. Sandiganbayan. No. This is because a preventive suspension is not a penalty. then the court must issue the order of suspension as a matter or course.A. The order of suspension pendente lite. Before such suspension is imposed. There are no ifs and buts about it. if acquitted. is by no means automatic or self-operative. a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.A. 486 SCRA 545 (2006) 246 Estrada vs. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. the charge is established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal.245 Anti-Plunder Law 204. Sandiganbayan. especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. xxx. 3019 or Title 7. they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law. Eling. 542 SCRA 224 (2008) 244 Flores vs. It is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. Layosa. 1606. Book II of the Revised Penal Code.247 243 Serana vs. By express mandate of law. 436 SCRA 337 (2004) 245 Bustillo vs. then he is suspended. 553 SCRA 724 (2008) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. indeed. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. Once a court determines that the information charging a public officer with an offense under R. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. etc. Thus.‖ The legislative purpose is to do away with the use of explosives as a separate crime and to make such use merely an aggravating circumstance in the commission of any crime already defined in the Revised Penal Code. in which case good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. The mere use of explosives is not. 8294 did not amend the definition of murder under Article 248. etc. To accomplish the object of this law the proprietary concept of the possession can have no bearing whatsoever. Jr. the new aggravating circumstance added by RA No.D. receives. ―unlawfully‖ manufactured.249 209. the same perils to public security. 2) the accused. conceals. but merely made the use of explosives an aggravating circumstance when resorted to in committing ―any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code. or buys and sells. acquired. who took no part in the robbery or theft. 8294 does not change the definition of murder in Article 248. People. object or 248 Fajardo vs. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The same evils. and (4) he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another. 206.248 207. acquires. Modesto Ticman. and P. Thus. (3) the accused knows or should have known that the thing derived from that crime. when the second paragraph of Section 3. No. But is the mere fact of physical or constructive possession sufficient to convict a person for unlawful possession of firearms or must there be an intent to possess to constitute a violation of the law? This query assumes significance since the offense of illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum punished by a special law. 639 SCRA 194 (2011) 249 Dimat vs. What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one's control and management.‖ as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of crimes. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. dealt in. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. as amended by RA No. possesses. The elements of "fencing" are 1) a robbery or theft has been committed. disposed or possessed mentioned in the first paragraph of the same section. Supreme Court. It must be made clear. Page40 of 44 . article. or ―treachery‖ in paragraph 16 of Article 14. People. 8294 speaks of ―the use of the aforementioned explosives. keeps.D. This has to be so if the manifest intent of the law is to be effective. item. 8294 merely added the use of unlicensed explosives as one of the aggravating circumstances specified in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. What the law emphasizes is the act‘s lack of authority. ―evident premeditation‖ in paragraph 13. The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. use. Like the aggravating circumstance of ―explosion‖ in paragraph 12. No. Unauthorized reproduction. which the law penalizes exist whether the unlicensed holder of a prohibited weapon be its owner or a borrower. 664 SCRA 220 (2012) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. P. 1866. it refers to those explosives. RA No. however. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. assembled. sells or disposes. that RA No. Anti-Fencing Law 208. Fencing is malum prohibitum. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good. What is per se aggravating is the use of unlawfully ―manufactured … or possessed‖ explosives. or in any manner deals in any article or object taken" during that robbery or theft. "buys. 196005. it excepts from its coverage certain vehicles such as roadrollers. the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. 323 SCRA 30 (2000) 252 People vs. Lobitania. By implication. there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping. an unlawful taking takes place when the owner or juridical possessor does not give his consent to the taking. and tractors. xxx. xxx.250 Anti-Carnapping Law 210. 431 SCRA 284 (2004) 255 People vs. Bustinera. amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways. No. Unlawful taking is the taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner. Tan. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. 01 October 2014 254 People vs. Garcia. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. G. respectively.253 213. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide. While the anti-carnapping law penalizes the unlawful taking of motor vehicles. street-sweepers. it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing. sprinklers.anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft. People. and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.255 215. A felonious taking may be defined as the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of movable property without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi. 388 SCRA 417 (2002) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. the owner.R. Thus. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. Page41 of 44 . Fieldad. The words "should know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists. but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission 250 Ong vs. It is merely corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing. lawn mowers. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 695 SCRA 588 (2013) 251 People vs. Thus. or by using force upon things. trolleys. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner‘s consent constitutes gain. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Modesto Ticman. When the carnapping is qualified. as amended and the provisions on robbery. presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. it was vitiated. The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped.251 211. Supreme Court. even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. vehicles which run only on rails and tracks.252 212. Jr. trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used exclusively for agricultural purposes. It becomes qualified when in the course of the commission or on occasion of the carnapping. use. if the consent was given. Unauthorized reproduction. the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua to death. The term ―gain‖ is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. or. 400 SCRA 229 (2003) 253 People vs.254 214. of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. such fact shall always be explicitly 256 People vs. Modesto Ticman. People. ―that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank.261 221.256 Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law 216. (2) the knowledge of the maker. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangement for its payment. ordered the bank to stop payment. Jr. People. The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. Unauthorized reproduction. without any valid cause. While Section 2 of B. The act effectively declares the offense to be one of malum prohibitum. and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things. and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer. 622 SCRA 341 (2010) 261 Vergara vs. drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value. Thus. 532 amended Art. Supreme Court. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. (2) it belongs to another. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. 353 SCRA 250 (2001) 259 Dy vs. 22 indeed does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing. 306 of the Revised Penal Code and that it is no longer required that there be at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers. (4) the taking is done by any means.P. People. The crime is committed if the following elements concur: (1) a large cattle is taken. 22.258 Bouncing Checks Law 218. Page42 of 44 . The appellate court correctly observed that the killing of Jesus cannot qualify the carnapping into a special complex crime because the carnapping was merely an afterthought when the victim‘s death was already fait accompli. Aquino.. this must be taken in conjunction with Section 3 of the law. 571 SCRA 59 (2008) 260 Azarcon vs. The prosecution is burdened to prove these acts that give rise to the prima facie presumption.e. use. namely (1) the making. or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. i.257 Anti-Cattle Rustling Law 217.e. (5) the taking is with or without intent to gain.D.260 220. No. appellant is guilty only of simple carnapping. People. drawer. Agomo-o. i. (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner. 334 SCRA 279 (2000) 258 Canta vs.259 219. 714 SCRA 107 (2014) 257 People vs. The only valid query then is whether the law has been breached. The law enumerates the elements of violation of B. by the mere act of issuing a bad check. The presumption that the issuer has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received notice of dishonor and that within 5 banking days from receipt thereof. 450 SCRA 495 (2005) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof.P. The number of offenders is no longer an essential element of the crime of highway robbery.. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. methods or scheme. without so much regard as to the criminal intent of the issuer. P. ‖ Once a check is presented for payment. 392 SCRA 61 (2002) 263 People vs. If the drawer or maker is an officer of a corporation. People. 623 SCRA 673 (2010) 267 Marigomen vs. BP 22 does not appear to 262 Rico vs. Said subsequent payments can only affect his civil. Supreme Court.268 228. 2 of BP 22. they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letters. Ojeda.stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal‖.266 226. Receipts for registered letters including return receipts do not themselves prove receipt. xxx. Only a full payment of the face value of the check at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could exonerate the accused from criminal liability. People. the drawee bank gives it the usual course whether issued in payment of an obligation or just as a guaranty of an obligation. People.265 225. has the same effect like any other check‖ and must thus be held to be ―within the contemplation of BP 22. A mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. the notice of dishonor to the said corporation is not notice to the employee or officer who drew or issued the check for and in its behalf. including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. People. 2(d) Art. Neither could the subsequent payment of the amount due on the check during the pendency of the case against the accused result in freeing him from criminal liability because the same had already attached after the check was dishonored. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. notice of dishonor is necessary for prosecution (for estafa and violation of BP 22). Under both laws. Modesto Ticman. People. 315 of the RPC and Sec. 459 SCRA 169 (2005) 268 Macalalag vs. Without proof of notice of dishonor. Page43 of 44 . on the other hand. was presented. 555 SCRA 238 (2008) 265 Svendsen vs. and not mere registered receipt and/or return receipt. Not only must there be a written notice of dishonor or demand letters actually received by the drawer of a dishonored check. liability. While the RPC prescribes that the drawer of the check must deposit the amount needed to cover his check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor. but there must also be proof of receipt thereof that is properly authenticated. A subsequent payment by the accused would not obliterate the criminal liability theretofore already incurred. Positive allegation of the prosecution that a demand letter was served upon the accused prevails over the denial made by the accused. Jr. knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime (whether estafa or violation of BP 22) can be deemed to exist. Unauthorized reproduction. not criminal. there is no proof that he or a duly authorized agent received the same. although not intended for encashment. BP 22. for Jurists Bar Review Center™.263 223.262 222. 546 SCRA 659 (2008) 266 Mitra vs. 511 SCRA 400 (2006) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. 430 SCRA 436 (2004) 264 Suarez vs.264 224. The cause or reason for the issuance of the check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under BP 22. People. which is said to cover the letter-notice of dishonor and of demand sent to petitioner. Notice of dishonor is required under both par. While the registry receipt. use. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. requires the maker or drawer to pay the amount of the check within five days from receipt of notice of dishonor.267 227. The Court has since said that a ―check issued as an evidence of debt. 272 Applying these principles. vs. 434 SCRA 336 (2004) 272 Rigor vs. Modesto Ticman. nor the terms and conditions of its issuance. 22 merits the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine. or dishonored. a criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements occurred – in particular. Department of Justice. use. the mere issuance of any kind of check which is subsequently dishonored makes the person who issued the check liable. from the discovery thereof. 368 SCRA 524 (2001) 270 Caras vs. for Jurists Bar Review Center™. if the same be not known at the time. Blg. its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. 366 SCRA 371 (2001) 271 Narte vs. hence. 442 SCRA 450 (2004) 273 Yalong vs. 3326 applies to offenses under B.269 229. Blg. Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes.P. issued. xxx Hence. or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties. An offense under B. 22.P. People. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. under Act No. a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. Blg. 571 SCRA 549 (2008) Criminal Law Jurisprudence by Prof. People. Page44 of 44 . including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant. a violation of B.273 231. delivered. Supreme Court. 22 prescribes in four (4) years from the commission of the offense or. the place where the check is drawn. Jr.274 #updated/080316 269 Meriz vs.P.271 230. Unauthorized reproduction. Jr. No. Act. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals.270 The agreement surrounding the issuance of the checks need not be first looked into since the law itself provides that regardless of the intent of the parties. 3326. People. 704 SCRA 195 (2013) 274 Panaguiton. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which the check was issued.