SPECIAL PENAL LAWS PRE-WEEK COMPANIONA foresight to the bar exam By: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin A. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL 1. PROBATION LAW- Presidential Decree No. 968 2. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW- Act No. 4103 as amended 3. THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT- Republic Act No. 3019 4. THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002- Republic Act No. 9165 5. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ANDTHEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004- Republic Act No. 9262 6. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW- Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 7. THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979- Presidential Decree No. 161 8. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM- PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294 9. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001- R.A. NO. 9160 as amended by R.A. 9194, R.A. 10167, R.A. 10168 and R.A. 10365, also known as “An Act Further Strengthening The Anti-Money Laundering Law” 10. THE ANTI- HAZING LAW 11. HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAW) - Republic Act No. 9372 12. THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW – Republic Act No. 7610 13. THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT-Republic Act No. 9745 14. THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995- Republic Act No. 7877 15. THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003- Republic Act No. 9208 16. PLUNDER as amended 17. THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT- Republic Act No. 4200 18. THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009- Republic Act No. 9775 19. THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009- Republic Act No. 9995 20. THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW- Republic Act No. 9346 21. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 - Republic Act No. 9344 22. HEINOUS CRIME LAW 23. THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974- Presidential Decree No. 532 24. THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972- Republic Act No. 6539 25. THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW- Republic Act No. 6235 26. (Amending) THE LAW ON ARSON -Presidential Decree No. 1613 27. THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW- Republic Act No. 6085 28. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE- Presidential Decree No. 1829 1999. ACT NO. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent as held in the case of Estrada v Sandiganbayan. In mala in se. the act committed in inherently wrong or immoral. 2009. People. x x x ____________________________________________ INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. there must be criminal intent. When ISLAW is not applicable? 1. 190889. the rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied. In mala in se. the rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied. 3. 2003. adopted the penalty defined in RPC. 148560 November 19. No. 2010. as a rule. In mala in se. 2011) 2. generally. it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. 1990. Although Republic Act No. Hence. Fajardo vs. In mala in se. 7610 is a special law. G. in intent to perpetrate the act. Special laws which are intended merely as amendments to certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code are mala in se and still subject to its provision.____________________________________________ SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL ____________________________________________ 1. 1994. a. the application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecute under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. In mala in se. it is not.R. they are not. good faith is not a defense. 2001. good faith is a proper defense. c. f. in mala prohibita. G. the act is merely prohibited by law. in mala prohibita. in mala prohibita.A. the stages of execution under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code is considered in arriving at the proper penalty to be imposed. When the crime is punished by a special law. the crimes are punished under special penal laws. in mala prohibita. ex. ISLAW will apply just as it would in felonies. RA 7610 although a special law. 2002. b. The penalty for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision mayor in its minimum period. in mala prohibita. (Elenita C. e. In mala in se. 5. . intent to commit the crime is not necessary. No. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. generally. the crimes are punished under the Revised Penal Code. 1988] - If a special law adopted penalties from the RPC. Offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment. In intent to commit the crime. the modifying circumstances are appreciated in determining the penalty imposable. 2005. 4. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA. d. in mala prohibita. 4103 as amended [BAR Q. the degree of participation of the offenders under Title Two of the Revised Penal Code is taken into consideration on the imposition of penalty. 1989. January 10. 2007. 1991. Although R.R. No. 7610 is a special law. they are not. 4. fixed by law Minimum term . Why? It does not involve imprisonment. 2012. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year. where ISLAW is inapplicable. ISLAW will not apply. 6. could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code “with the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code. (People vs. 2010. 2004. 2003. 5. 2009. 1992. in view of the attending circumstances.1986.shall not exceed the max. If the sentence is imprisonment of 12 years and I day in violation of Comprehensive Drugs Act. 2005. 2011) _____________________________________________ PROBATION LAW [BAR Q. b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. o The imposition of indeterminate sentence is mandatory in criminal cases.1989] The purposes of probation are as follows: (a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment. 186227: July 20.“That. If the maximum term arrived and it does not exceed 1 year. 3. *NOTE: - - Rules of offsetting are not applicable in crimes punished under a special law. conspiracy or proposal to commit treason.shall not be less minimum fixed by law” than . The presence of any generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstances will not affect the proper imposition of the penalty. rebellion. 1986] [BAR Q. May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed even if the penalty imposed is originally an indivisible penalty? Yes. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence. 1997. Those granted with conditional pardon and who violated the terms of the same.2. Habitual delinquents. Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this Act. 1993. o The law is not applicable if the penalty is destierro. 8. and (c) prevent the commission of offenses. Those convicted of misprision of treason. No. 15) . 2002. G. 1990. Rules: SPL Maximum term RPC . 9. 1995. Those convicted of piracy. Allen Udtojan Mantalaba. 7. CONSEQUENCE IF THE PROBATIONER VIOLATES ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION (SEC. 2001. became a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. the same is not correct as ISLAW mandates the Court to set the minimum and maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. 1994. The ISLAW is applicable because the penalty which has been originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to death). sedition or espionage.R. Those convicted of treason. convicted Arnel of the wrong crime. The court. Convicted of any crime against National Security or the Public Order. How can the Court expect him to feel penitent . 5. Who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years. frustrated homicide that carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. however. he has to serve the sentence originally imposed. 9165) - If the convict had already perfected an appeal. “the filing of the application for probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. - Under Sec.A. - An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. however.The court may order the arrest of the probationer. 24 of R. Who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree. 33 hereof. - Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposed a term of imprisonment or a fine only (Sec. Principle in PP vs. (Sec. 2. accused FIRST-TIME OFFENDER may avail of suspended sentence. If there is a violation of any conditions. (Sec.” - A waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of conviction is NOT a waiver of the civil liability ex delicto. Who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Sec. Who has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. petitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of probation. petitioner cannot avail herself of both. REMINDERS ON DISQUALIFICATIONS: 1. may in its discretion: place the accused on probation (even if the sentence provided for under this Act is higher than that provided under existing law on probation). Sentenced to serve more than 6 years – Exceptions: a. Under violation of Section 11 of RA 9165. therefore. 4). Arnel Colinares: Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply fro probation. In which case. hold an informal summary hearing and may revoke his probation. “No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction” - By perfecting an appeal. - Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive because the law is unmistakable about it and. What is the legal effect of probation? - A conviction becomes final when the accused applies for probation. the court shall pronounce judgment of conviction. 4. Who are disqualified to avail of the benefits of Probation? 1. The Court. b. an application for probation cannot be granted. 6.4. Any person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court. 4) 7. No. 3. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. 3.A. Share. 2009) - An accused may be charged for both offenses of direct bribery and violation of Sec. he did not commit? He only committed attempted homicide with its maximum penalty of 2 years and 4 months. No. 2010. sentenced to a term of 1 year – shall not exceed 2 years. 3019 To be convicted of violation of Sec. 1985] Who may be liable under Sec. the offender is a public officer. Evident Bad Faith Or Gross Inexcusable Negligence. 2000. 3019? a. No. in which the public officer. 1990. No. who requested or received a gift. 3(b) of R. 3019 because they have different elements. Sec.A. 3(b) of R.over a crime. 2. Elements under Sec. What is the period of probation? a. 2011. had the RTC done what was right and imposed on Arnel the correct penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months maximum. Present. but also those who induce or cause the public official to commit those offenses. People. 1999. b. or Benefit. sentenced to a term of more than 1 year imprisonment – shall not exceed 6 years. This . on behalf of the offender or any other person. 1997. A person convicted for another crime with a penalty of 30 days imprisonment or not exceeding 1 month does not disqualify him from applying for probation. 3(b). _____________________________________________ THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT Republic Act No. for Himself or for any other Person. 582 SCRA 713.A. 5. 2. 2009. March 31. Including The Government. Causing Any Undue Injury To Any Party. 2003. a percentage. 3019 [BAR Q. No.3 of R. Previous Conviction of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos. Ex. Sec. National Security and Public Order .A. Or Giving Any Private Party Any Unwarranted Benefits.3(e). 4. 3 of the law. 3. the prosecution has the burden of proving the following elements: 1.3(b) of R. in an official capacity under the law.Probation is not applicable when the accused is convicted of INDIRECT ASSAULT (It is a crime against PUBLIC ORDER). a present. 2012. The law punishes not only public officers who commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. in connection with a contract or transaction with the government. a share. 1988. has the right to intervene. Private persons found acting in conspiracy with public officers may be held liable for the applicable offenses found in Sec. (CadiaoPalacios v. in Connection with any Contract or Transaction Between the Government and any other Part. what is clear is that. 3. 3019. At any rate. or benefit. b. percentage. he would have had the right to apply for probation. wherein the Public Officer in his Official Capacity has to Intervene under the Law. 1991. Directly or Indirectly Requesting or Receiving any Gift. Advantage Or Preference In The Discharge Of His Official Administrative Or Judicial Functions Through manifest Partiality. which as the Court now finds. with conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. or gross inexcusable negligence. or gave any unwarranted benefits. the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official. It contemplates a breach of sworn duty through some perverse motive or ill will. March 9. No. the second mode: by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit. People.A. March 9. No. 3 (e) of R. (Reyes v. including the Government. People. which were all personally chosen by respondent. Desierto. evident bad faith. People. The private suppliers. (Reyes v. viz: 1. whether the government or a private party. March 9. People. advantage or preference In order to be found guilty under the second mode. the concurrence of the following elements must be established. 2010) - Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or to cause damage. 3. were able to profit from the transactions without showing proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the government. and 4. 3019. which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. No. 3. 2.A. 3019 may be violated – a.” (Sison v. or b.A. In order to hold a person liable under Sec. 2010) - Proof of any of these three (manifest partiality. the public officer caused any undue injury to any party. that the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former. 3(e) of R. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. the first mode: by causing undue injury to any party.A. administrative or judicial functions. administrative or judicial functions. It is synonymous with bias. No. . the following elements must concur: 1. that he or she causes undue injury to any party. 2010) - Manifest Partiality exists when the accused has a clear. that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality. the offender is a public officer. (Sison v. 3 (e) of R. People. or gross inexcusable negligence) in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Sec. in the exercise of his official. advantage or preference. including the government. Ex. 2010) - “Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. notorious. it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another. (Sison v.Provision Shall Apply To Officers and Employees Of Offices Or Government Corporations Charged With The Grant Of Licenses Or Permits Or Other concessions. 3 (e) of R. that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions. not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally. 614 SCRA 670. (Sistoza v. or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or one person rather than another. 2010) - Gross inexcusable negligence does not signify mere omission of duties nor plainly the exercise of less than the standard degree of prudence it refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest case. the act was done through manifest partiality. August 4. To hold a person liable under this section. evident bad faith. 3019 is enough to convict a person with violation of Sec. 388 SCRA 307) There are two ways by which Sec. 2. August 4. acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act. 3019. and 4. The lack of public bidding alone does not automatically equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. 2000. 3(g). 2. G. the following elements must be present: a. intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest. or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest. (People vs. 2004. 2002. 5) The presentation in evidence of the “buy-bust” money is not indispensable for the conviction of an accused provided that the sale of marijuana is adequately proven by the prosecution. That he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business. on behalf of the government. is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by law. 587 SCRA 1. April 28. contract or transaction. 1992] ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS (SEC. Entering. 2010. that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government.Sec. 3019: To be indicted of the offense under Sec. 181037. (People vs. 3(g) of R. 2007. 2009)\ DIFFERENTIATE PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE FROM PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity. 2009) A private person shall be held liable together with the public officer if there is an allegation of conspiracy. 3019. b. January 19.A. . What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. and consideration. People. (Teves v. Sec. that the accused is a public officer. That the accused is a public officer. 3(g) of R. 3 (h). Directly or directly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business. 2006.R. Elements under Sec. March 20. 1998. Macatingag. 2009. and c. whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. and 2) - the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. 208 SCRA 393) The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: 1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. or b. 1996. The essential elements of the violation of said provision are as follows: 1. into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. Pascual. 2005. 2009) _____________________________________________ THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 Republic Act No.A. He either: a. the object. The Commission on Elections. No. that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government (Guy v. 582 SCRA 108. 9165 [BAR Q. No. [2002] B is not criminally liable. No. Constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.the onus probandi is shifted to the accused. 168773. ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. 168773. Eliza Buan. Gomez. Article II of RA 9165 is proper. and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 3. includes not only actual possession. 2. to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi”. It states: “That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act. 9165 expressly excludes penalties for the use of dangerous drugs when the person is found to have in his possession quantity of any dangerous drug under Section 11. 27. The accused was not fully and consciously aware of being in possession of the dangerous drug. The facts clearly show the absence of animus possidendi or intent to possess which is an element of the crime of illegal possession of drugs. Possession. Since the crime charged is mala prohibita. The burden of evidence is shifted to petitioner to explain the absence of animus possidendi. OCT. (People vs . (Sec. The prosecution would be correct in filing two separate Informations for the crimes of illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana. 175319.R. G. No. the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 6425 does not prescribe a single punishment for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana committed at the same time and in the same place. The entrapment operation yielded the discovery of 100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession. (People vs. January 15. [2005] The charge of possession of shabu under Section 11. the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. under the law. 27. (2) such possession is not authorized by law.15) - Section 15 of R. a. In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug.R. What is the concept of “POSSESSION”? 1. (People vs.R.Buan.A. G. (People vs.A. OCT. Darisan. Possession may actual or constructive.In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. No. 2009) ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. the People must prove that petitioner has dominion or control on either the substance or the premises where found. 176151. The elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are as follow: a) the accused was in possession of the regulated drugs. G. criminal intent is not an essential element. in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. 2010) In order to establish constructive possession. (SEC. However.” BAR Q. and c) the accused had no legal authority to possess the regulated drug. 2006) Illustrative case: BAR Q. . but also constructive possession. b) the accused was fully and consciously aware of being in possession of the regulated drug. G. January 30. 2006) b. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.11) R. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. No. No.R. January 19.A. No. (People vs. Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. However. R. [2005] A person convicted of either drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the benefits of probation. The Court recognized the following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: First. BAR Q. 2010) The presumption of regular performance of duty is not conclusive in chain of custody cases and cannot. Section 15 of Rep. 2010) Mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items can be shown to have been preserved. A: Candido is guilty of homicide only. the failure to follow the procedure mandated under R. negates treachery. March 26. The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact. It excludes penalties for use of dangerous drugs when “the person tested is also found to have in possession such quantity of any dangerous drug” provided in Section 11 of such Act”. What does “CHAIN OF CUSTODY” mean? “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. by itself. Kamad.However. 9262 .R. __________________________________________ ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ANDTHEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 Republic Act No. the seizure and marking. However. and Fourth.R. it shall constitute as a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime. the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence. 174198.R. No. (People vs. G. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item. No. 25). the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. 9165.173480 February 25. and the final disposition. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Third. G. (People vs.A. If a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs is found in the commission of a crime (Sec. if practicable. the charge of use of marijuana is not proper. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. G. No. Second. 2009) Is strict compliance with the prescribed procedure essential? Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. since the crime was committed when he was under the influence of dangerous drugs. 9165 is explicit. De Guzman. The act of stabbing was not consciously adopted but only accidental and therefore. such act becomes a qualifying circumstance pursuant to Section 25. Ruiz Garcia. overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. 186498. Act No. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. the following acts: a) Physical Violence. 2. No. by himself or through another. battery. 2004 RULING: More graphically. or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate. or economic abuse including threats of such acts. nonviolent) phase. 2010] DEFINE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN. assault. which result in or is likely to result in physical. In one case. sometimes. 9262) Section 3 states that violence against women and children includes. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind.R. psychological harm or suffering. death. 182835. or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable.A. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. January 15. or by simply staying out of his way. the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence. 9262 is explicit: “Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. G. former wife. yet also inevitable. and (3) the tranquil. commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman. within or without the family abode. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN? The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are: 1. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the . IS BATTERED WOMEN SYNDROME A PROPER DEFENSE? Section 26 of R. Sagud. b) Sexual violence. known as the AntiViolence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.A.A. harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. April 20. “It refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife.it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF A BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME? It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. (Rustan Ang Y Pascua vs. only the batterer may put an end to the violence. (Section 3 of R. During this phase.R. or with whom he has a common child. The offender.” which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase. are comparatively minor. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. she has no control. (2) the acute battering incident. No. at least.[BAR 2011. destructiveness and. loving (or. to her. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman. 9292. GENOSA G. minor battering occurs -. d) Economic abuse. the judge was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) in favor of a male petitioner. 135981. PEOPLE VS. No. During the tension-building phase. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that. The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality. but is not limited to. and 3. c) Psychological violence. coercion. 2010) A TPO cannot be issued in favor of a man against his wife under R. nurturing behavior. sexual. The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. C. On the other hand. that her partner will change for the better. Define “Battered Woman Syndrome. the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again. and that this “good. any illicit drug. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it.’86] . SPOUSES TAN. 9262 expressly states that victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. ABUSES may BE COMMITTED BY ANOTHER THRU CONSPIRACY. During this tranquil period. or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense under this Act. Illustrative Cases: BAR Q. R. the couple experience profound relief.” It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.time of its explosion.A. II. ’96. begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. Under express provision of Section 27 thereof. 168852: September 30. temporary protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order (PPO). and so are his reasons for ending it. [2010] A. 22 [BAR 2010 ’03. The protection orders that may be issued are the barangay protection order (BPO). G. she feels responsible for his well-being.’02. (SHARICA MARI L. _____________________________________________ BOUNCING CHECKS LAW Batas Pambansa Blg. On the one hand. B. No. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Yes. Sensing his isolation and despair.R. THE CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN is considered as a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime. being under the influence of alcohol. The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him. ‘88’. the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. What are the three phases of the “Battered Woman Syndrome”? The three phases are the following: a) tension-building phase b) acute battering incident c) tranquil and loving phase. gentle and caring man” is the real person whom she loves. A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the batterer. GO-TAN vs. 2008). 1990. PROTECTION ORDERS A protection order is an order issued under this Act for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary relief. (Mitra vs.22 COVERS CROSSED CHECK since it is a negotiable instrument. (Ambito vs. (Nagrarnpa vs. 22. 22 considers the mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense not only against property but also against public order to stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to the community. BP.22. the issuer had sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5) banking days after receiving notice of non-payment. the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment . the holder of the check. The mere act of issuing a worthless check – whether as a deposit. or b. The accused makes. However. 579 SCRA 68. July 05. The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker. b) such person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. A. WAYS BY WHICH VIOLATION OF BP. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in.) Blg. the check was dishonored when presented for payment within 90 days from its date for failure to maintain sufficient funds or credit to cover the amount. People. 2.22 COVERS ACCOMODATION OR GUARANTEE CHECK. This way of violating B. BP.BP. It is as good as the money it represents and is therefore deemed as cash. February 13. People. The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa (B. There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds when the check was presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored unless: a. d) for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank. 2010) THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE IS APPLICABLE IN BP. THE ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF BP. . by the drawee bank. Is the 90 day-period to deposit the check an element of BP 22? No. draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value. The elements are as follows: a) any person.22 ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. but it is not an element of the offense. such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon within 5 banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.22 suggests that at the time the check was issued. makes or draws and issues a check. 22 ARE COMMITTED. People. c) failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon. or the offended party. The Supreme Court ruled that BP. as a guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt – is malum prohibitum. 2009) ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF BP. 386 SCRA 412). 22 is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment – It is not the nonpayment of the obligation which the law punishes. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise.22 WHICH IS A SPECIAL LAW.P. or credit with.P. It falls within the coverage of BP. and neither does it discharge the accused from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof.22 DOES NOT COVER MANAGER’S CHECK AND CASHIER’S CHECK. First. the accused in this case obtain nothing when he issued the check. People. To defraud is to deprive some right. good faith is not a defense. Fifth. February 23. The essential element of the offense is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds. . Article 315. (2) disturbance in property right. 515) In the issuance of a check in payment of a “pre-existing obligation”. the check is issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation to defraud the creditor. B. Par. Second. trickery or by other means . On the other hand.P. (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check. in BP. Lastly. interest. November 14. ARTICLE 315. (Dy vs. (Cajigas vs. 22. (Mitra vs. drawer and the issuer but not an endorser. In B. Deceit is the efficient cause for defraudation. 2 [D]. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check. In B. his debt for the payment thereof had been contracted prior to its issuance. the mere act of issuing an unfunded check is an offense against public order to stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to the community. 22 is mala prohibitum. not the non-payment of an obligation. “Simultaneous obligation” as an element of estafa connotes that the issuance of a check is used as a means to obtain valuable consideration from the payee. In B. since estafa is mala in se. 580 SCRA 54.P. and (3) damage to the payee. the drawer derives no material benefit in return as its consideration had long been delivered to him before the check was issued. 571 SCRA 59. There is deceit when one is misled -.to believe as true what is really false. 60 Phil. Since an obligation has already been contracted. 2009) For violation of the “Bouncing Check Law”. (People vs.Quesada. People. an endorser who is with knowledge that the check is worthless and had acted with deceit is liable. the persons liable are the maker. Fourth. People.COMPARISON OF VIOLATION OF BP 22 FROM ESTAFA UNDER PAR. the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount necessary to secure payment of the check within 3 days from receipt of notice from the bank and or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds is prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. 2008) Damage as an element of estafa may consist in (1) the offended party being deprived of his money or property as a result of the defraudation. in estafa. “SIMULTANEOUS OBLIGATION” FROM “PRE-EXISTING” OBLIGATION. in estafa. in estafa. 22.by guile. 22.P. OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. Article 315 of the RPC are (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued. or property by deceitful devise. good faith is a proper defense. 22. it is punished by a special law and therefore. or (3) temporary prejudice. deceit and damage are not essential or required. Third. the failure of the drawer to pay in full the payee or holder within 5 banking days after receiving notice that the check has been rejected by the drawee bank gives rise to presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit.2 (d) is a crime against property because the issuance of the check is used as a means to obtain a valuable consideration from the payee. the elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d). 2010). July 05. the check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.P. Court of Appeals. nor have removed imprisonment as an alternative penalty. 353 SCRA 89) An agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. The presentation of the registry card. B. Blg. who has a separate personality from its officer.P.P. 22 shall not prejudice any liability arising from a felony committed under the Revised Penal Code. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was dishonored. CORPORATION IN RELATION TO BP. the act of fraud.Chang vs. the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable The officer who is accused of signing the check must receive the notice of dishonor.P.P. to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice. 22. the drawer of the check is still liable. 146 SCRA 46 BAR Q. (Suarez v. 2009) LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B. 22 Section 1 of the law provides: “Where the check is drawn by a corporation. People. 2009) NOVATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN B. People. the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was subsequently dishonored. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and. Forgery of the signature appearing on the check (Ilusorio vs. Under B. [2002] C. Janiola 591 SCRA 466. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 refers to the imposition of penalties for violation of B. and that he or she failed. 2008) 3. 2008) 2. IAC. it should be either prior to. 4. Prescription is a proper defense. 22.P.(Nagrampa vs. yet if it was clear from the statement of account that the check bounced due to insufficiency of funds. is not enough. Janiola 591 SCRA 466. . (Dreamwork Construction. 386 SCRA 412) A PERSON MAY BE BOTH LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF B. v. 22 violations. company or entity. 22? PAYMENT” or countermand. with an unauthorized signature. 22? 1. Constructive notice to the corporation. June 30. DEFENSES IN BP. Philippine Commercial International Bank 552 SCRA 532. 22 AND ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. 22. The filing of a criminal case under B. as such. Inc. SCRA 238. (Nagrampa vs. Inc. June 19.P. (Tan vs. Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is not conclusive as it may be rebutted by full payment. To constitute estafa. People 555. 22 WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN B. The prescriptive period is 4 years reckoned from the lapse of the five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor within which to make good the check. 22. 386 SCRA 412). does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner received such noticed. It provides: Court has not decriminalized B. IS “STOP PAYMENT” A PROPER DEFENSE IN BP. v. 22.P. (Dreamwork Construction. or simultaneous with. especially considering that he denied receiving it. June 30. 5.P. April 23. Should the judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty. 22. the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.” BAR Q. (b) accused.P. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.Needless to say. Administrative Circular No. The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violations of B. in the exercise of sound discretion. 12-2000 on the penalty for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice. (Lunaria vs. with intent to gain for himself or for another. _____________________________________________ THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 Presidential Decree No. or disposes or buys and sells or in any manner deals in any article. conceal. (Sec. possess. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. and (d) there is. 13-2001 is a circular addressed to all judges which clarifies Administrative Circular No. Blg. keeps. on the part of the accused. which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime.P. there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment. 1993. 22. acquire. November 11. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine.P. possess. intent to gain for himself or for another. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law. shall buy. Administrative Circular No. understood that: 1. It provides: The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. Thus. 1985] WHAT IS THE CRIME OF "FENCING". 22. 5701 SCRA 572. therefore. conceals. ’95. Blg. 22. or shall buy and sell. keep. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of B. or should be known to him. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence. 2008). (c) the accused knows or should have known that said article. 2) Section 2 of this Act defines fencing as: “It is the act of any person who. work violence on the social order. item. 1612 [BAR 2010. or in any other manner deal in any article. receive. determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. receives. 2. and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case. sell or dispose of. Blg. to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. People. acquires. The Judges concerned may. 2009. 1987. item object or anything of value. who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime. [1995] The elements of fencing are: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed. It is. item. 12-2000 ought not to be deemed a hindrance. 3. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty. but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. object or anything of value which he knows. 1990.P. the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Blg. buys. . article item. It thus mandates: “All stores. item. the president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable. object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof. shall before offering the same for sale to the public. If the fence is a partnership. Good faith is not a defense. In accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code. Fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore. DIFFERENTIATE A FENCE FROM AN ACCESSORY TO THEFT OR ROBBERY. c. good faith is a proper defense. 1612. 5) Mere possession of any good. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing Section 6 underscores the importance of securing a clearance or permit in dealing with the buy and sell activities. b.D. corporation or association. A fence is punished as a principal under P. WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF FENCING? (SEC. Yes. the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under PD No. All the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. article. she is liable provided the prosecution can prove that Arlene knew or should have known that said item had been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. intent is an element of the crime and therefore. establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good. establishment or entity is located…” . Corollarily. secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store. No 1612 and the penalty is higher. [2010].BAR Q. whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal as a general rule. firm. object. there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused. a.