Special Penal Laws Case Summary

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rules of construction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Taer v. CA ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Estrada v. SB ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Relationship between special penal laws and RPC ................................................................................... 2

People v. Lacerna ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Prohibition of death penalty (RA 9346) ..................................................................................................... 4

People v. Quiachonj .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103) ...................................................................................................... 4

People v. Saley ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Guinhawa v. People .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Poso v. Mijares ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
People v. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Probation law (PD 968, PD 1990, PD 1257) ............................................................................................... 9

Francisco v. CA .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Poso v. Mijares ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Moreno v. COMELEC .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Bala v. Martinez ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Baclayon v. Mutia ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Subsidiary penalty (RA 10159) ................................................................................................................. 13

Bagtas v. Director of Prisons ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Diongzon v. CA ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
People v. Fajardo ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Preventive imprisonment (RA 10592) ...................................................................................................... 14

Baking v. Director of Prisons .................................................................................................................................... 14
Garcia v. Executive Secretary.................................................................................................................................... 15
Good conduct time allowance and other allowances (RA 10592) .......................................................... 16
People v. Tan ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Baking v. Director of Prisons .................................................................................................................................... 16
City Warden of Manila v. Estrella ............................................................................................................................. 17
Obstruction of justice (PD 1829) .............................................................................................................. 17

Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Dizon v. Lambino ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Fencing (PD 1612) ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Capili v. CA ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
i

Dimat v. People.......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Ong v. People............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Juvenile justice and welfare act (RA 9344; RA 10630) .......................................................................... 21

Declarador v. Gubaton ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Padua v. People .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Ortega v. People ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Sierra v. People .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Madali v. People ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Anti-wire tapping (RA 4200)..................................................................................................................... 23

Chavez v. Gonzales .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Ramirez v. CA ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
Crimes against humantirian law (RA 9851) ............................................................................................ 25

Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo .................................................................................................................................... 25
Dangerous drugs (RA 9165, 10586, 10640) .............................................................................................. 26

People v. Lacerna ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
Malilin v. People ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
People v. Garcia ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
People v. Holgado ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Padua v. People .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
People v. Sarip ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
People v. Nandi .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
People v. Kamad ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
Firearms and explosives (PD 1866, RA 8294, 9516, 10591) ................................................................... 31

People v. Enojas ......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Sison v. People ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
Palaganas v. People .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Arson (PD 1613, RA 7659) ........................................................................................................................ 32

People v. Macabando ................................................................................................................................................. 32
People v. Soriano ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Access device (RA 8484) ............................................................................................................................ 33

Soledad v. People ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Laurel v. Abrogar ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Carnapping (RA 6539, RA 7659) .............................................................................................................. 34

People v. Fieldad ........................................................................................................................................................ 34
Bank secrecy (RA 1405, RA 6426) ............................................................................................................ 35

Ejercito v. SB ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Intengan v. CA ........................................................................................................................................................... 37
ii

Union Bank v. CA...................................................................................................................................................... 38
Money laundering (RA 9160, RA 9194, RA 10167, RA 10365) ............................................................. 38

Ligot v. Republic ....................................................................................................................................................... 38
Republic v. Glasgow .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Republic v. Eugenio ................................................................................................................................................... 40
Estafa (PD 1689) ......................................................................................................................................... 41

People v. Balasa ......................................................................................................................................................... 41
People v. Menil .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Galvez v. CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 43
Bouncing checks law (BP 22) .................................................................................................................... 43

Griffith v. CA............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Lim v. People ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Ruiz v. People ............................................................................................................................................................ 45
Tan v. Mendoza ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Medalla v. Laxa ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Illegal recruitment ..................................................................................................................................... 46

People v. Salvatierra................................................................................................................................................... 46
Hazing ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
Villareal v. People ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Sexual harassment ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Jacutin v. People ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Trafficking .................................................................................................................................................. 48
People v. Casio .......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Violence against women and children (RA 9262) ................................................................................... 49

People v. Genosa ........................................................................................................................................................ 49
Ang v. CA .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Republic v. Yahon...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Go-Tan v. Tan ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
Dabalos v. RTC.......................................................................................................................................................... 51
Tua v. Mangrobang .................................................................................................................................................... 52
Child abuse (RA 7610) ............................................................................................................................... 53

Malto v. People .......................................................................................................................................................... 53
People v. Larin ........................................................................................................................................................... 54
Olivarez v. CA ........................................................................................................................................................... 55
Amployo v. People ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
Caballo v. People ....................................................................................................................................................... 57
Araneta v. People ....................................................................................................................................................... 58
iii

People v. Chingh ........................................................................................................................................................ 59
De Guzman v. Perez................................................................................................................................................... 60
Bongalon v. People .................................................................................................................................................... 61
Rosaldes v. People ..................................................................................................................................................... 61
People v. Dulay .......................................................................................................................................................... 62
People v. CA .............................................................................................................................................................. 62
Code of Conduct for public officers (RA 6713) ....................................................................................... 63

Domingo v. OMB ...................................................................................................................................................... 63
Marquez v. Ovejera .................................................................................................................................................... 64
Forfeiture law (RA 1379)........................................................................................................................... 65

Cabal v. Kapunan ....................................................................................................................................................... 65
Marcos Jr. v. Republic................................................................................................................................................ 65
Garcia v. SB 2005 ...................................................................................................................................................... 67
Graft and corrupt practices (RA 3019) .................................................................................................... 67

Garcia v. SB 2006 ...................................................................................................................................................... 68
Balderama v. People................................................................................................................................................... 69
Luspo v. People.......................................................................................................................................................... 69
Plameras v. People ..................................................................................................................................................... 71
Caunan v. People ....................................................................................................................................................... 71
Teves v. SB ................................................................................................................................................................ 72
Posadas v. SB............................................................................................................................................................. 72
Jaca v. People............................................................................................................................................................. 73
Sanchez v. People ...................................................................................................................................................... 74
Plunder (RA 7080) ..................................................................................................................................... 75

Estrada v. SB ............................................................................................................................................................. 75
Anti-Alias (CA 142, RA 6085) ................................................................................................................... 76

Balani v. IAC ............................................................................................................................................................. 76
Ursua v. CA ............................................................................................................................................................... 76
People v. Estrada........................................................................................................................................................ 77
Piracy (PD 532) .......................................................................................................................................... 78

People v. Puno ........................................................................................................................................................... 78
People v. Sandoval ..................................................................................................................................................... 80
People v. Catantan...................................................................................................................................................... 81
Cybercrime (RA 10175) ............................................................................................................................. 81

Disini v. Secretary of Justice ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Human Security Act .................................................................................................................................. 93

Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council ........................................................................................................ 93
iv

Abbreviations:
CC Civil Code
GF Good faith
ISL Indeterminate Sentence Law
PL Probation Law

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Rules of construction
Doctrine
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement regarding the commission of an offense and decided
to commit it.
Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures but by
positive and conclusive evidence.
Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or approval of the act
without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to
constitute one a party to conspiracy absent intentional
participation in the furtherance of the common design and
purpose.
Taer v. CA
Petitioner is charged with crime of theft of large

cattle. Two carabaos were stolen. Charged as a
co-conspirator.
Petition MODIFIED.
Conspiracy not proven. As accessory only.
Taer principal?
No. Only an accessory.
He took part subsequent to the commission of the acts.
By employing two carabaos in his farm, he was profiting from
the objects of the theft.
Based on the testimony of the co-accused, Namocatcat?
No. Rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios acta cannot
be upheld.
Culpability?
Since only an accessory, penalty is two degrees lower than that
of principal.
Applying ISL, the minimum period shall be the range of the
penalty next lower that prescribed.
Arresto mayor medium to prision correcional minimum.
Estrada v. SB
1 | Rules of construction
Estrada is charged with plunder but invokes

vagueness of the Plunder Law.
As long as the law affords comprehensible guide or standard,

the validity will be sustained.
Petition DISMISSED.
Series, combination, and pattern are
couched in general terms.
Vague?
No, nothing that will make the petitioner unable to prepare an
intelligent defense.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Plunder law is malum in se (heinous crime).
Sec. 4 (pattern) may be severed.
Doctrine
Combination is at least two acts under different categories.
Series is at least two acts under the same category.
Pattern consists of at least a combination or series.
A statute is not rendered void just because it is couched in
general terms. Legal hermeneutics state that words of a statute
is interpreted in natural, plain and ordinary meaning.
Combination different acts
Series same acts
Statute or act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standard
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess.
1. Violates due process
2. Gives law enforces unbridled discretion
Vagueness doctrine merely requires reasonable degree of
certainty, not absolute precision.
Chilling effect does not apply to penal statues because they
have in terrorem effect.
Overbreadth and vagueness have special application to free
speech clauses.
Sec. 4 circumvents the proving of reasonable doubt?
No. Reasonable doubt is indispensable. Sec. 4 is related to Sec.
1 and Sec. 2. It may even be severed.
Mala in se?
Yes. It needs proof of criminal intent. Plunder is a heinous
crime.
Relationship between special penal laws and RPC

Respondents rode a taxi which happened to pass
by a checkpoint for robbery. When asked to
3
People v. Lacerna
inspect and open their bags, they consented. 18
blocks of marijuana was found. Charged with
2 | Relationship between special penal laws and RPC
Valid warrantless search?

Yes. Come under consented searches.
Sold drugs?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
selling since respondent handed over the bag
containing marijuana to his friend seated at the
back (giving away).
Petition MODIFIED.
Respondent-appellant not convicted for selling
but possession of marijuana.
Intent to perpetrate the act is still necessary in
mala prohibitum.
Doctrine
No. Follow ejusdem generis (based on the words that surround
it, listing).
Give away is a disposition other than selling.
Just because the bag was handed over does not mean it is
already selling.
Statutes should receive a sensible construction.
Can be indicted with possession?
Yes. It is absorbed in the crime of selling. It is one of its
elements.
Elements of illegal sale
1. Sold and delivered
2. Knew
Under delivery, it presupposes prior possession.
Elements of illegal possession
1. In possession
2. Not authorized
3. Freely and consciously possessed
In this case, appellant was in possession of the bag.
Criminal intent need not be proven in the prosecution of mala
prohibita.
Why?
Because act so injuries to public welfare, regardless of intent,
already a crime in itself.
Lessen the prosecutions burden?
No. Still required to show that the doing of the act is
intentional.
There must be intent to perpetrate the act. May not have been
intent to commit a crime.
The prohibited act was intentionally done.
Uncle is the owner of bag?
3 | Relationship between special penal laws and RPC

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
No. Can be easily concocted.
Possession is a disputable presumption that he is the owner of
the bag.
Prohibition of death penalty (RA 9346)

Findings proper?
Yes. SC affirms CA.
People v. Quiachonj
Respondent-appellant charged with qualified

rape against his daughter, 8, deaf-mute.
Prosecutions witnesses: son Rowel, 11;
Rowena, the victim; Dr. Guialan; SPO2 Venus.
Rowel saw one evening buttocks moving up and
down and heard Rowena crying under blanket.
Told his mothers sister (because mother
already died). Respondent-appellant went to
barangay and surprised to see his two children.
Denied the allegation. TC found guilty. CA
affirmed but modified the award for damages to
conform to jurisprudence (75k as civil, 75k as
moral, 25 as exemplary). Elevated to SC by
reason of death penalty imposed.
Petition DENIED.
Respondent-appellant is guilty of qualified rape
(raping his daughter, a minor).
Penalty is reduced from death to reclusion
perpetua.
Defense of denial proper?

No. Inherently weak. Alibis constitute self-serving negative
evidence.
Dr.s findings with consistent with testimonies.
Proper penalty?
No. Death penalty is prohibited.
Reclusion perpetua applies.
Sec. 2 of RA 9346
Reclusion perpetua if with RPC nomenclature
Life imprisonment if SPL not using RPC nomenclature
Applicable even if retroactive?
Yes.
Art. 22 RPC penal laws which are favorable to the accused
are given retroactive effect.
Eligible for parole?
No.
Sec. 3 of RA 9346 offenses published with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for parole.
Damages by CA still proper even if lowered imprisonment?
Yes. Not dependent upon the actual imposition of
imprisonment but on the QC.
Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103)

5
People v. Saley
4 | Prohibition of death penalty (RA 9346)
Appellant Saley was charged estafa (11), illegal

recruitment (6) and large scale (1). Pleaded not
Recruitment is the canvassing, enlisting, transporting, utilizing,

etc. for the purpose of promising or advertising employment.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
guilty. Cases were consolidated. Jumped bail
and arrested by agents. Most promises to
applicants are going to Korea but tuned out to
work in shoe leather company without payment.
Claimed that merely assisted the complainants.
It was Dynasty Travel and Tours and Mannings
International who processed the placement of
complainants. TC found appellant guilty.
Petition DENIED.
ISL applied to estafa (11), illegal recruitment
(6) and large scale (1).
Doctrine
Illegal recruitment
1. Offender has no valid license
2. Offender undertakes recruitment
Prohibited under Labor Code.
Prosecution able to prove?
Yes. Not only assistance given to secure visa. Promised to get
jobs abroad.
Admitted that evidently knew that the complainants were
seeking job.
No receipts presented by complainants?
No. Absence does not warrant acquittal. Can be established
through credible testimony.
Under ISL, if a special law, the court shall impose the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
term prescribed by the same.
Penalty imposed correct?
Yes.
Estafa proper?
Yes. Different gravamen of offense.
ISL apply in estafa cases?
Yes.
Under ISL, if RPC, the maximum term of penalty shall be that
which, in view of attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under RPC, the minimum shall be within the range of
penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense. The
penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed
by the code of the offense, without considering the modifying
circumstances. Determination of the minimum penalty is left to
the courts and it can be anywhere within the range of penalty
5 | Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
next lower without reference to the periods into which it might
be subdivided.
The maximum term in estafa is prision correcional, maximum
period to prision mayor, minimum period. It should be divided
into three equal portions of time.
The next lower in penalty is prision correcional minimum to
medium
Elements of crime present?
Yes.
1. False pretense
2. Made prior or simultaneously to the fraud
3. Damage or prejudice caused
Catch all-provision.
Guinhawa v. People
Petitioner was selling cars. Purchased a brand

new car and allowed the driver to drive along
the highway in Camarines Norte. Figured an
accident. Reported to the local police. Van was
repaired and offered for sale in the showroom of
petitioner. Silo, in need of vans for their
garment business, bought the van without
knowledge of defect. It was later discovered.
Crime of other deceits under Art. 318 RPC was
charged. TC convicted.
Petition DENIED.
Liable for deceit (not telling the buyer that van
got figured in an accident).
ISL not apply if not exceed 1 year.
Corrected the application of ISL by the CA.
MTC has jurisdiction?

Yes. Over offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six years. Irrespective of fine.
Other deceits is only arresto mayor.
Was not direct participant because there was a car salesman?
No. Failure to reveal a fact which the seller is, in GF, bound to
disclose, may generally be classified as deceptive act due to
inherent capacity to deceive.
Under CC, failure to disclose facts when there is duty to reveal
them is fraud.
CA erred in applying ISL?
Yes.
Sec. 2 of RA 4103 not apply if the maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year.
Proper sentence?
Straight sentence of less than one year.
Six months was proper.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
SC to adopt the findings of another Judge who was required to
do the investigation?
Yes.
There were two copies?
No. Erroneous. The supposed final version is an attempt to
justify the erroneous grant of probation. Merely an
afterthought.
Poso v. Mijares
Complaint for railroading a criminal case.

Convicted for homicide when the
charge was murder
Acted upon an unsigned MR of the
accused
Reduction of prison term without notice
Unjustly released accused though
recognizance
Application of probation law without
hearing
Barred issuance of certified copies of
relevant documents
Undue injury to parties
Petition GRANTED.
Judge Mijares removed.
ISL and PL were wrongly applied.
Administratively liable.
Proper in changing murder to homicide?

Yes. Conviction was result of plea bargaining.
Proper MC given?
No. Egregiously given (plea of guilt, voluntary surrender and
intoxication). The last two should be proven by evidence,
granting plea of guilt was allowed.
Judicial error is done in GF?
No. All too frequently cited to the point of staleness. Should
know the law.
Unsigned MR was acted upon?
No. Not proven.
Improper ISL application?
Yes. Basic that the minimum penalty cannot be in the same
period and same degree as the maximum because the minimum
penalty is shall be within the next lower range of penalty.
In fact, the judgment did not conform with what was requested
by the accused.
Judge acted with grave abuse.
Manifest partiality?
Yes.
Improper PL application?
Yes.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Eagerness to free the accused despite from the fact that
probation was also filed on the same day. He directed release
on recognizance.
Under PL, temporary liberty only while only pending
submission of investigation report and resolution of the
petition.
Only in Jan. 12 that Judge Mijares directed the probation
officer to conduct the case study and investigation. The accused
was freed on Jan. 11.
Judge unceremoniously extended the pro tem discharge of the
accused to the detriment of prosecution and offended party.
Could not apply PL?
Yes. Because the imposable penalty for homicide is more than
6 years (reclusion temporal). Even if the 3 MCs are recognized,
still prision mayor which has a maximum of 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years.
People v. Gonzalez
Appellant Gonzalez was charged with estafa

through falsification of public document on
reimbursement of a travel expense receipt
(P0.60) who was a laborer of DOLE. Pleaded
guilty and was imposed 6 years and 1 day to 8
years and 1 day prision mayor in maximum
(because of QC falsification).
Petition GRANTED.
Penalty is prision correcional, maximum period
to arresto menor, minimum period.
ISL applied.
Proper penalty?
The minimum of indeterminate penalty shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to the prescribed by the code
for the offense without regard to the circumstances modifying
the liability.
If MC causes the penalty to be one lower in degree, how to
apply ISL?
The lowered degree be the starting point.
Next lower in penalty is prison correcional, medium period?
No.
In this case, the penalty imposed is prision correcional,
maximum period.
When ISL is applied, the next lower penalty is arresto mayor,
in any of its periods.
Purpose of ISL?
8 | Probation law (PD 968, PD 1990, PD 1257)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Redeem valuable human material.
Probation law (PD 968, PD 1990, PD 1257)

Eligible for PL?
No. Perfected appeal already.
Probation is not a right, merely privilege rests solely upon
discretion of court.
Sec. 4 of PL no application be granted if defendant has
perfected appeal for conviction.
Francisco v. CA
Due to his outburst, petitioner who was

president and general manager was found by
MTEC guilty of grave oral defamation in four
of five cases filed against him. Straight penalty
of 8 months imprisonment for each crime
charged. Filed an appeal. RTC decision became
final. Now applies for probation.
Petition DENIED.
Should have applied in METC, eligible already.
Max probation of six years is not based on total
of multiple offenses. Each offense is separate.
Merely raised in his appeal to lower his imprisonment to

qualify in the probationable limit?
No. Language is plain and simple, does not distinguish as to
what kind of appeal is made.
Shall was used in statute. Meaning mandatory.
In fact, the appeal made was not on the penalty alone but the
petitioner is insisting on his innocence.
Already probationable?
Yes. Could have filed it in METC.
Multiple prison terms imposed in one decision is not, and
should not be added up. The multiple prison terms are distinct
from one another.
The PL law uses the word maximum term not total term.
Why 6 years cut-off?
Those sentenced to higher penalties pose too great risk to
society.
Probation and appeal are mutually exclusive.
Probation filed beyond period?
Yes.
Application must be filed within the period for perfecting an
appeal. Already lapsed.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
SC to adopt the findings of another Judge who was required to
do the investigation?
Yes.
There were two copies?
No. Erroneous. The supposed final version is an attempt to
justify the erroneous grant of probation. Merely an
afterthought.
10
Poso v. Mijares
Complaint for railroading a criminal case.

Convicted for homicide when the
charge was murder
Acted upon an unsigned MR of the
accused
Reduction of prison term without notice
Unjustly released accused though
recognizance
Application of probation law without
hearing
Barred issuance of certified copies of
relevant documents
Undue injury to parties
Petition GRANTED.
Judge Mijares removed.
ISL and PL were wrongly applied.
Administratively liable.
Proper in changing murder to homicide?

Yes. Conviction was result of plea bargaining.
Proper MC given?
No. Egregiously given (plea of guilt, voluntary surrender and
intoxication). The last two should be proven by evidence,
granting plea of guilt was allowed.
Judicial error is done in GF?
No. All too frequently cited to the point of staleness. Should
know the law.
Unsigned MR was acted upon?
No. Not proven.
Improper ISL application?
Yes. Basic that the minimum penalty cannot be in the same
period and same degree as the maximum because the minimum
penalty is shall be within the next lower range of penalty.
In fact, the judgment did not conform with what was requested
by the accused.
Judge acted with grave abuse.
Manifest partiality?
Yes.
Improper PL application?
Yes.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Eagerness to free the accused despite from the fact that
probation was also filed on the same day. He directed release
on recognizance.
Under PL, temporary liberty only while only pending
submission of investigation report and resolution of the
petition.
Only in Jan. 12 that Judge Mijares directed the probation
officer to conduct the case study and investigation. The accused
was freed on Jan. 11.
Judge unceremoniously extended the pro tem discharge of the
accused to the detriment of prosecution and offended party.
Could not apply PL?
Yes. Because the imposable penalty for homicide is more than
6 years (reclusion temporal). Even if the 3 MCs are recognized,
still prision mayor which has a maximum of 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years.
11
Moreno v. COMELEC
Mejes filed a disqualification case against

petitioner who was running as Punong Brangay
who was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 4
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months for
arbitrary detention. However, he was already
granted probation. Final discharge was even
granted on December 20, 2000. Election
supervisor disqualified him since LGC states
that those who are sentenced by final judgment
for moral turpitude or offense punishable by 1
year or more of imprisonment, within 2 years
from serving sentence, is disqualified from
running.
Petition GRANTED.
Moreno is not disqualified to run for office.
Once on probation, not serving sentence
anymore. The penalties are suspended.
SC did not rule on whether arbitration was moral turpitude. The

issue raised was the period of 2 years after serving sentence.
Perfection of an appeal is relinquishment of PL. Purpose is to
prevent opportunism who did not apply once for probation but
so did after the appeal was lost.
Did not serve sentence?
Yes. Probation is not a sentence, rather a suspension.
The penalties were put on hold. Hence, petitioner not
disqualified during the probation period.
But count the two years from the grant of the final discharged?
No. There was no serving of sentence to begin with.
The final discharge restored him all his civil rights lost or
suspended as a result of his conviction.
Probation is not a right but privilege. An act of grace.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Not extended to those sentenced to a maximum term of
more than 6 years
Not applied to offenses against security of the state
Those previously punished by imprisonment of not less
than 1 month and 1 day or a fine of not less than P200
Have been once on probation
Already serving sentence
LGC governs?
No. PL is an exception to LGC. PL is a special legislation
which applies only to proabtioners.
A later statute, general in terms and not expressly repealing a
prior statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of
such earlier statute.
12
Bala v. Martinez
Petitioner was indicted for falsifying public or

official document when he replaced the picture
in a US passport. Petitioner seasonably appealed
to CA. Denied. Applied for probation. Granted.
petitioner asked probation officer to transfer
residence. Allowed orally. Probation period
should have expired by August 10, 1983.
However, on December 8, 1983, the People
filed a motion to revoke the grant of probation
because petitioner has violated conditions of
pardon. Probation officer filed a report on
January 5, 1984 but with supplemental report of
the revocation.
Petition DENIED.
Probation revoked.
Committed crime and did not follow probation
condition.
Lapse of probation period is not autotermination of probation period. Needs report
form the probation officer.
Should not have PL because there was appeal?

No. Inapplicable. Cannot be given retroactive effect if
unfavorable to accused. Old law allows this.
Automatic final discharged upon expiration of period?
No. Revocable until final discharge.
Period of probation may either be shortened or lengthen but not
exceed the period set in law.
Violated conditions?
Yes. Went back to his wayward ways. Again involved in
falsification. He was not gainfully employed.
Purposes of PL?
Correction and rehabilitation
Opportunity to reform
Prevent commission of offense
Can rearrest?
Yes. Any time during the probation, court may issue if
violation was made on conditions.
An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
terms is not appealable.
Deduction of the one year probation form the penalty to be
meted out?
No. Probation is not a sentence. Only a suspension.
Transfer of residence deprived the RTC of jurisdiction?
No. The transfer was invalid.
Incorrect to assume that change of abode compels change in
venue. Would put the control to the petitioner.
Proper permission granted through oral change in residence?
No. Should be with prior written approval.
13
Baclayon v. Mutia
Petitioner was school teacher who committed

the crime of serious oral defamation. Convicted
and affirmed. Petitioner applied for probation.
Granted. However, it was extended and added
the condition that she shall be deprived from
teaching. Appealed to SC.
Petition GRANTED.
Cannot prohibit teaching. It is not geared
towards the development of society.
Conditions of probationer are

Mandatory Sec. 10 of Pl
o Present himself to the probation officer
o Report once a month
Special or discretionary should be realistic
Error in imposing the condition?
Yes. Only profession she knows.
Deprive the students and school to the benefits that may be
derived from her training and expertise.
Suffer the accessory penalty of suspension from public office?
No. Granted probation. Penalties are suspended including
accessory.
Subsidiary penalty (RA 10159)
14
Bagtas v. Director of Prisons
13 | Subsidiary penalty (RA 10159)
Petitioner was convicted of estafa in seventeen

criminal cases with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency. Claims that under Art. 70
RPC, maximum duration of sentence cannot
exceed threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe penalty. That
this will not preclude the application of good
behavior. Hence, the subsidiary penalty be
Art. 100 RPC says that every criminal is civilly liable.

Art. 38 RPC provides pecuniary liabilities (reparation,
indemnification, fine and cost of proceedings).
Art. 39 RPC provides suspire personal liability at rate of P2.50
per day. However, when the principal penalty imposed is
higher than prision correcional, no subsidiary imprisonment be
imposed.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
deleted because it would violate Art. 70 RPC.
Petition DENIED.
Subsidiary penalty is on top of the three fold
rule.
Petitioner was convicted of BP22. He was a

sales supervisor of Nestle but conducted credit
riding in favor of unauthorized dealers. His plan
is to hold on to the checks until payment is
received. However, there was an audit
investigation. Compelled to give the checks.
15
Diongzon v. CA
Petition DENIED but MODIFIED.
Liable for BP22, gravamen is the issuance of
check.
Subsidiary penalty be imposed. Allowed in
BP22.
16
People v. Fajardo
Fajardo was convicted of the crime of damage

to property through reckless imprudence.
Sentenced to pay P270.10 without mention of
subsidiary penalty. Upon execution of
judgment, found that appellant was insolvent.
Fiscal asked for subsidiary imprisonment but
denied by clerk of court. Fiscal appealed.
Petition DENIED.
Cannot order respondent to serve subsidiary
penalty when the same was not provided in the
decision.
Doctrine
Eliminated under Art. 70 RPC?
No. Correct rule is to multiply the highest principal penalty by
3 and result will be the aggregate principal penalty which
prisoner has to serve plus payment of indemnities, with or
without subsidiary penalty depending on whether the principal
penalty exceeds 6 years.
There was novation of check?

No. Gravamen was the issuance of the check. Criminal liability
cannot be novated or compromised.
Was there novation?
No. Not proven that there was extinguishment of old contract.
Subsidiary penalty be imposed?
Yes. Despite the absence of such provision in the special law.
Art. 10 RPC apply suppletory.
Can impose subsidiary imprisonment?

No.
No person may be deprived of liberty without due process of
law.
No penalty be executed except by virtue of final judgment.
Absence mention of subsidiary penalty, the court could not
compel him.
Preventive imprisonment (RA 10592)

17
Baking v. Director of Prisons
14 | Preventive imprisonment (RA 10592)
Two identical petition for habeas corpus was

filed by petitioners (Baking and Rodriguez).
Detained for more than 18 years for the crime of
rebellion. Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Art. 97 RPC good conduct shall entitle him to deductions

from period of his sentence.
Any prisoner mentioned in the article includes detainees?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Claims that they should be released. Entitled to
of preventive imprisonment to be deducted
from sentence. Director of prisons denied.
Petition DENIED.
Good conduct not applied to detention
prisionser.
Petitioners not met the EGR under Sec. 5.
Doctrine
No. Based on the Spanish text, does not embraces.
Based on Art. 24 RPC, detention is not considered penalty.
Based on Art. 28 RPC, service of sentence begins on the day of
judgment of conviction becomes final.
Based on Art. 94 RPC, good conduct allowance while serving
sentence.
Based on Art. 98 RPC, any prisoner refers to those who evaded
their service.
Can there be EGR?
Yes. Sec. 5 of Act 1533 when the detainees voluntarily offered
in writing to perform such labor as may be assigned to them.
Burden not show that EGR applies to them.
Jurisdiction of court martial was lost upon retirement?
No. Jurisdiction, once acquired is not lost until final judgment.
True only if embezzlement or misappropriation of funds?
No.
18
Garcia v. Executive Secretary
Garcia was issued restriction quarters for the

death of three people who died in a plane crash
piloted by Garcia. After 6 years and 2 months of
preventive confinement, released from Camp
Crame. Office of the president confirmed the
sentence and ordered to be confined for a period
of two years in penitentiary. Ordered to be
rearrested. Applied for habeas corpus.
Petition GRANTED.
Art. 29 RPC applies to articles of war
(preventive imprisonment).
President can confirm?

Yes. As commander in chief and as mandated under Art. 47
Articles of War.
Works in the same way as the approval of the SC in cases with
penalty of death.
Can legally demand deduction of preventive confinement?
Yes. Court Martial is a court akin to any other courts.
A special law is defined as a penal law which is not defined in
RPC.
Absent any provision as to the application of a criminal concept
in the implementation and execution of the Court Martials
decision, Art. 29RPC applies.
Articles of War is silent as to deduction of period of preventive
confinement.
EQPC?
Yes. Application will promote equality among equals. In the
15 | Preventive imprisonment (RA 10592)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
same class as those who have been convicted by court.
Speedy disposition violated?
No. Flexible. The petitioner did not invoke this right. Merely
waited for the resolution of the case.
Good conduct time allowance and other allowances (RA 10592)
19
People v. Tan
People appealed from the denial of re-arrest of

the respondent. Accused was committed to the
director of prisons. However, the provincial
warden retained him in Samar instead of
Muntinlupa because of the congestion. When
the congestion abated, reasoned that accused
was undergoing medical treatment and would
be prone to riots in Muntinlupa. Later, when the
sentence was served including the good conduct
deduction, warden freed the accused.
Petition GRANTED.
Good conduct time allowance cannot be done
by provincial warden. Must be director of
prisons.
20
Baking v. Director of Prisons
Two identical petition for habeas corpus was

filed by petitioners (Baking and Rodriguez).
Detained for more than 18 years for the crime of
rebellion. Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Claims that they should be released. Entitled to
of preventive imprisonment to be deducted
from sentence. Director of prisons denied.
Petition DENIED.
Good conduct not applied to detention
prisionser.
Petitioners not met the EGR under Sec. 5.
Proper defense of warden?

No. Remiss of duty.
Would open to discrimination.
Can usurp director of prisons?
No. Authority is with the director of prisons.
Assuming allowed, proper release?
No. Has an unnerved portion of 11 months and 5 days.
Lower court lost jurisdiction?
Yes. Upon final judgment. However, not lost over execution or
satisfaction.
Double jeopardy?
No. Merely continuation of penalty.
Art. 97 RPC good conduct shall entitle him to deductions
from period of his sentence.
Any prisoner mentioned in the article includes detainees?
No. Based on the Spanish text, does not embraces.
Based on Art. 24 RPC, detention is not considered penalty.
Based on Art. 28 RPC, service of sentence begins on the day of
judgment of conviction becomes final.
Based on Art. 94 RPC, good conduct allowance while serving
sentence.
Based on Art. 98 RPC, any prisoner refers to those who evaded
their service.
Can there be EGR?
16 | Good conduct time allowance and other allowances (RA 10592)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Yes. Sec. 5 of Act 1533 when the detainees voluntarily offered
in writing to perform such labor as may be assigned to them.
Burden not show that EGR applies to them.
Petition was filed late?
No. OSG asked for an extension of 15 days.
Warden did not authorize the filing of petition?
No. OSG is representative of Philippines and its officers,
agencies, instrumentalities.
21
City Warden of Manila v.

Estrella
Jail visitation program was conducted by IBP.

Found that 34 prisoners are due for release
considered the time allowances for good
conduct. Petitioner was asked to release but
refused saying that only the director of prisons
can do so. Respondent said that it has now been
shifter to wardens pursuant to LGC. TC ruled in
favor of the respondents. 22 out of the 34 were
released.
Petition GRANTED.
Only the director of prisons can certify good
conduct allowance.
Director of prisons lost authority because of change in

organization structure?
No. Based on the Revised Charter of Manila, director of
prisons did have control and supervision. Acknowledged as the
authority to grant good conduct time allowances to all
prisoners.
Rely on certification of warden?
No.
TC could not rely. Lacked data of start of serving sentence.
Important in the determination because preventive detention is
excluded.
In fact, the certificate had anomalies based on the documents
provided.
Trial court has power to grant good conduct time allowance?
No. Director of prisons only.
Obstruction of justice (PD 1829)
22
Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan
17 | Obstruction of justice (PD 1829)
Rampant illegal logging. Able to apprehend ipil

lumber without proper permit or license. Some
were hauled inside Rural Agriculture Center.
Brgy. Captain Rodriguez demanded release
presenting letter-request. Went to RAC
compound upon orders of Mayor Rodriguez to
haul lumber. Refused by OIC. Brgy. Captain
Abonita forcibly took possession, accompanied
Delay?
No. Not violated. Not attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays.
Mathematical reckoning is not sufficient.
Records show that it was due to petitioners filing of motions
that prolonged the case.
SB has jurisdiction?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
by two armed men. EIIB complaint for robbery
and violation of PD 1829 against Rodriguez and
Abonita. OMB filed information. One in RTC
and one in SB. Warrant of arrest made and SB
acted upon it. Claims that SB no jurisdiction.
Petition DENIED.
SB has jurisdiction.
Obstruction of justice committed by public
official.
Doctrine
Yes. As one accused is an official classified as Grade 27, SB
has original jurisdiction.
Those crimes committed by public officials in relation to their
office.
Although public office is not an element of the crime charged,
since it is intimately connected with the office, still SB has
jurisdiction.
Rodriguez used his influence in the police to haul the lumber.
Error in amendment?
No.
Forum shopping?
No. If there was, then RTC be dismissed because filed after the
one in SB.
23
Dizon v. Lambino
Killing of UP student during a rumble. Two

student-suspects were in the office of Col.
Bentain. Atty. Dizon requested to take them to
his custody. Atty. Lambino of UP Legal
Counsel refused due to lack of warrant. Dizon
claims that he is authorized to make warrantless
arrest based on NBI charter. Dizon filed
complaint under PD 1829. Lambino filed
violation of Code of Professional
Responsibility. IBP dismissed the case against
Lambino. Dizon was reprimanded.
Lambino was justified?

Yes. No bases to effect a warrantless arrest.
Failure of NBI agent to comply with procedural requirements
in attempting arrest without warrant is illegal.
NBI charter so provides?
No. NBI charter clearly qualifies in accordance with existing
laws and rules.
Petition DENIED.
No obstruction.
Fencing (PD 1612)
24
Capili v. CA
18 | Fencing (PD 1612)
Gabriel charged with PD 1612. Diokno went

home from office and discovered that items
were stolen from closet. Police report indicated
that houseboy committed the offense. Manzo,
houseboy, told her that sold the items already to
Gabriel but returned several items (only the
Was there fencing?

Yes.
Fencing is intent to gain for himself where one buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, etc.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
fancy ones). The other items were claimed by
Gabriel and his wife to be their property as
collection from US. Before indecent, mother of
victim had list of items because he inspects it
physically every week.
Petition DENIED.
Penalty MODIFIED.
Guilty of fencing.
Value based upon Manzas price.
Doctrine
Elements of fencing:
1. Crime of robbery or theft
2. Accused is not the principal or accomplice of the
robbery and buys, receives, etc.
3. Accused knows or should have known status of items
4. Intent to gain for himself or for others
In this case, first element was proved by the victim.
Second element was proved by Manzo saying that Gabriel was
not an accomplice or principal.
Failed to prove the value of stolen items?
No. Be based on the testimony of Manzo.
P50,000 was the selling price of Manzo to Gabriel. Not
rebutted.
TC proper in penalty?
No.
The fact that the value of the fenced items exceeds P22,000
should not be considered in the initial determination of the
indeterminate penalty. Same rule as estafa.
Hence, sentenced to prision mayor maximum.
Punishment of PD 1612:
1. Prision mayor if value of property is more than PHP
12,000 but not exceeding 22,000
2. If the value of the property exceeds the latter sum
(22,000), the penalty provided shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional
PHP 10,000
3. Total penalty, which may be imposed, shall not exceed
20 years; in such cases the penalty shall be termed
reclusion temporal
25
Dimat v. People
Dimat charged with PD 1612. Sonia bough

from Dimat 1997 Nissan. PO Ramirez spotted
the car bearing suspicious plate. Inspected the
chassis and engine number. It was a stolen

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
vehicle. Dimat claimed that he did not know
that Tolentino, the person who sold it to him,
was not the owner.
Petition DENIED.
Dimat was the only accused. Cannot include the
buyers.
Doctrine
Evidenced by DOS which was in GF?
No.
DOS did not reflect correct engine and chassis numbers.
Lack of criminal intent?
No. Special law. No proof of criminal intent needed.
Tolentino supposedly showed him the old COR and OR of the
car but Tolentino reneged?
No. Knew that it was not properly documented yet he bough it.
Sonia should be liable as buyer?
No. Not impleaded.
26
Ong v. People
44 Firestone truck tires with marks using a

piece of chalk were stolen from warehouse of
Azajar. There was robbery. Police investigation
chanced upon Jongs Marketing and asked if
they have tires. When it was shown to them,
they saw the chalk marks and serial numbers.
Buy-bust operation was made on 13 tires.
Petition DENIED.
Ong was not prudent in asking for proof for the
tires.
Fencing?
Yes.
Ong admitted that he gave P45,000 for the tires.
Purchased it from an unknown seller.
Did not even ask for proof.
Requirement in selling second hand tires to secure the
necessary clearance or permit from the station commander.
Relied on the OR issued to him by the seller?
No. OR was fictitious.
Intent to gain?
Yes. Actually selling.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Fencing is malum prohibitum.
Juvenile justice and welfare act (RA 9344; RA 10630)

PD 603 on EGR on suspension if juvenile commits offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
has been amended?
No.
It remains.
27
Declarador v. Gubaton
Bansales (student) stabbed Declarador (teacher)

to death by 15 stabs. Guilty of murder. But
because of minority (17 y.o.) at time of
committing the crime. Judge Gubaton likewise
suspended the sentence per PD 603 and
committed the CICL to rehabilitation. Petitioner
assailed the decision on suspension.
The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to CICL

who has
Enjoyed suspension once
Or to one convicted of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Petition GRANTED.
Auto suspension not apply to capital crimes.
Punishable means deserving or capable.

Not must be punished.
Hence, the mitigating circumstance of minority should be
ignored in the application of this provision.
Statutes should be read in pari materia.
Of the same matter; on the same subject.
28
Padua v. People
Padua and Ubalde were charged with CDDA for

selling dangerous drugs. Padua pleaded guilty
and applied for probation alleging that he is a
minor and first time offender. However, judge
says he is not allowed because not granted by
probation law under CDDA.
Petition DENIED.
Drug pushers are not covered by probation.
No longer child.
21 | Juvenile justice and welfare act (RA 9344; RA 10630)
Proper in not granting probation?

Yes. Clear in CDDA that no probation allowed.
No room for interpretation.
RA 9344 violated on Sec. 68?
No. Sec. 68 talks about suspension, not probation.
Can be applied retroactively?
No.
In this case, Padua already reached 21.
Automatic suspension if below 18 at time of commission of
crime or 18 at pronouncement.
If reaches 18 at time of pronouncement, court to determine if

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
there would be execution or suspension until 21.
Committed rape?
Yes.
Actual penetration of organ or rupture of hymen not required.
29
Ortega v. People
Petitioner, 14, raped AAA, 8. Seen by BBB,

half-brother of AAA, in the room where
petitioner was moving up and down. Initially,
health officer found no indication of
molestation. But medical officer found that
there were abrasions. Amicable settlement was
made. But confrontations occurred. Now, NBI
filed.
Petition GRANTED.
RA 9344 applies. 13 y.o. at time of commission.
For one who acts by virtue of nay exempting circumstances,

although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any
of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of
the acts, no criminal liability arises.
No longer covered since convicted by RTC in 2001 and RA
9344 was only in 2006?
No.
Retroactive effect if favorable to accused.
Intent of the law was consistent.
When is exemption applicable?
There is minority at time of offense, not time of promulgation.
AAA was playing with BBB. Petitioner entered

with knife and undressed each victim. AAA told
her teacher and classmate.
30
Sierra v. People
Petition GRANTED.
Not more than 15 y.o. at time of rape.
Exempting.
Petitioner guilty?
Yes.
Even invoked the defense of exemption from criminal liability
due to being 15 y.o.
Impliedly admitted guilt.
Minority of offender is necessary for the determination of
entitlement to exempting circumstance.
Minority of victim is necessary for the civil liability of the
offender.
CA did not grant exemption because not able to show birth
certificate. Proper?
No.
Testimonial evidence is competent evidence to prove minority
22 | Juvenile justice and welfare act (RA 9344; RA 10630)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
and age.
Retroactive application of RA 9344.
Petitioners are guilty?

Yes.
Cannot overcome convincing evidence.
31
Madali v. People
Selling goods aboard ship. Day was at end.

Went to top of Romblon NHS. Blindfolded
AAA with fresh coconut frond. Jovencio
witnessed it but did not tell anyone because of
the threats of Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino.
Petition DENIED.
Raymund is exempt. 14 y.o. only at time of
commission.
Rodel as CICL has suspension of sentence.
For alibi to prosper:

1. Accused was in another place
2. Physically impossible to be at the scene of the crime
Raymonds liability?
Exempt because of age. 14 only.
But does not include exemption from civil liability.
Rodels liability?
He was 16. There was discernment. He warned Jovencio or else
he would also kill him.
Had there been no discernment, he is also exempt.
But there was automatic suspension of his sentence based on
RA 9344.
Discernment is that mental capacity to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act.
Anti-wire tapping (RA 4200)

Garci tape scandal was suppressed to be aired
through a press statement. This was affirmed by
NTC and KBP.
32
Chavez v. Gonzales
Petition GRANTED.
Danger to national security was not overcome.
Constitutes trumping of freedom of speech.
23 | Anti-wire tapping (RA 4200)
No legal standing?
No. Transcendental importance is invoked.
Free speech and free press that concern matter of public interest
should not be censored or punished unless there be a clear an
present danger.
Freedom of film, television and radio broadcasting is somewhat
lesser in scope than that of print media.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
All speech are not treated the same.
Three tests:
1. Dangerous tendency doctrine permits limitation if
there is rational connection
2. Balancing interest test balancing conflicting social
values and individual interests
3. Clear and present danger rule limits to avoid
substantial danger that will lead to evil
Four aspects of freedom of the press:
1. Freedom from prior restraint
2. Freedom from punishment subsequent to publication
3. Freedom to access information
4. Freedom of circulation
Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual
publication or dissemination. Censorship.
Two kinds of restraint:
1. Content-neutral merely controls the time, manner or
place; not designed to suppress; needs intermediate test
(restrictions are narrowly-tailored)
2. Content-based based on the subject matter; strict
scrutiny needed; must overcome clear and present
danger rule
Reason for different treatment of broadcast media:
1. Scarcity of frequencies
2. Pervasiveness
3. Accessible to children
What is the great evil to be avoided?
Airing of the tape which would violate Anti-Wiretapping Law.
Satisfy clear and present danger rule?
24 | Anti-wire tapping (RA 4200)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
No. Integrity of tapes is suspect. Identity of wiretappers is
invisible.
Restraint because violate a law (Anti-Wiretapping)?
No. Not every violation of the law will justify straitjacketing
freedom of speech and press.
Violation of law is just a factor.
Mere press statement already content-based regulation?
Yes. It was done in official capacity. Was converted into order
or official circular.
33
Ramirez v. CA
Ramirez was allegedly vexed, insulted and

humiliated by Garcia. This was proven by tape
recording made by petitioner without consent
from Garica. Garcia filed violation of wiretapping act.
Petition DENIED.
Should have gotten the consent of all parties.
Communication includes private conversations.
Applies even if one who recorded was a party to the

conversation?
Yes. Act says any person. Hence, all are bound by the act.
Legislative intent was also consistent.
Makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties, to
record.
Where the law makes no distinction, do not distinguish.
Even penalizes secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording
private communications.
Does not include private conversation? Only private
communications?
No. Communicare means to share or impart. Include
conversation.
Crimes against humantirian law (RA 9851)
34
Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo
25 | Crimes against humantirian law (RA 9851)
Rubrico was abducted during Lenten. Detained

in air base without charges. Released after a
week of interrogation. Signed sheet to be
military asset. Tailed on 2 occasions. Filed
complaint in OMB for kidnapping and arbitrary
detention and grave misconduct. Nothing
happened to the cases. HR group conducted
investigation and found that those who abducted
Proper to include president?

No. Cannot be sued during incumbency.
Will degrade the high office.
Hinder to enable to fully attend to duties and functions.
Proper dismissal from the complaint of Esperon, Roquero, etc.?
Yes.
Included in the complaint as commanders.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
are members of AFP. Asked SC for writ of
amparo. SC granted. CA dropped he president
as respondent in the case.
Petition DENIED.
Cannot sue president.
Proper dismissal of Esperon, Razon, etc.
Doctrine
In the backdrop of command responsibility, should be
responsible.
But command responsibility, at most, be only to determine the
author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the
duty to address the disappearance and harassment.
In this case, petitioner has not adduced substantial evidence to
point out the governments involvement in the disappearance.
Dangerous drugs (RA 9165, 10586, 10640)

Valid warrantless search?
Yes. Come under consented searches.
35
People v. Lacerna
Respondents rode a taxi which happened to pass

by a checkpoint for robbery. When asked to
inspect and open their bags, they consented. 18
blocks of marijuana was found. Charged with
selling since respondent handed over the bag
containing marijuana to his friend seated at the
back (giving away).
Petition MODIFIED.
Respondent-appellant not convicted for selling
but possession of marijuana.
Intent to perpetrate the act is still necessary in
mala prohibitum.
Sold drugs?
No. Follow ejusdem generis (based on the words that surround
it, listing).
Give away is a disposition other than selling.
Just because the bag was handed over does not mean it is
already selling.
Statutes should receive a sensible construction.
Can be indicted with possession?
Yes. It is absorbed in the crime of selling. It is one of its
elements.
1. Sold and delivered
2. Knew
Under delivery, it presupposes prior possession.
Elements of illegal possession
1. In possession
2. Not authorized
3. Freely and consciously possessed
In this case, appellant was in possession of the bag.
Criminal intent need not be proven in the prosecution of mala
26 | Dangerous drugs (RA 9165, 10586, 10640)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
prohibita.
Why?
Because act so injuries to public welfare, regardless of intent,
already a crime in itself.
Lessen the prosecutions burden?
No. Still required to show that the doing of the act is
intentional.
There must be intent to perpetrate the act. May not have been
intent to commit a crime.
The prohibited act was intentionally done.
Uncle is the owner of bag?
No. Can be easily concocted.
Possession is a disputable presumption that he is the owner of
the bag.
36
Malilin v. People
Strength of search warrant, five police raided

residence of petitioner in presence of kagawad.
Yielded 2 sachets of shabu and 5 empty sachets
of residual morsels. Search conducted inside
bedroom of petitioner where denim bag found
containing the 5 sachets. The two sachets fell
out of pillows. One of police said he was alone
when he conducted the search in the bedroom.
Forensic chemist found positive.
Petition GRANTED.
Acquitted.
Not proven the integrity of evidence.
Was there identity of seized items?

No. Integrity not maintained.
Irregularities:
Petitioner was sent out to buy cigarettes while search
was happening. Police should have been apprehensive
of the accused fleeing.
Strange that the petitioner was the one who handed the
seized items.
Police presence in the bedroom while Sheila (wife of
petitioner) was being searched a by a lady police
No photography made
No inventory made
Brought the items to station right away
Failed to deliver the seized items to court
Presumption of regularity is just but presumption.
37
People v. Garcia
PO1 as poseur buyer and arrested Ruiz Garcia

thru buy-bust. But Ruiz has a different version
saying that his hopper was confiscated. Unable
to redeem due to high price, he was charged
Police followed the directives of law?

No.
Errors:
No physical inventory

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
with CDDA.
Petition GRANTED.
No integrity of evidence.
Acquitted.
Doctrine
No photograph
No mention that marking was done in presence of Ruiz
No mention that any representative from media, elected
official or DOJ was present
Marking was supposed to be RP-1 as testified but
was presented had RGR-1 with markings RP1 to
RGR-RP13
In case of buy0bust, practicable to make the physical inventory
at the place where items are seized.
Procedural lapses in handling and identification constitute
major lapses.
Chain of custody is essential. Not proven to have been
preserved.
1. Proof that transaction or sale took place
2. Presentation in court of the corpus delicti
38
People v. Holgado
Acting as poseur-buyer, approached Holgado

together with Misarez. When pre-assigned
signal was made, accused was able to run.
Search warrant was enforced. Now arrested,
charged with sale, possession and possession of
drug paraphernalia.
Petition GRANTED.
Acquitted.
No corpus delicti.
39
Padua v. People
Padua and Ubalde were charged with CDDA for
Section 21 RA 9165
Provides for the custody and disposition
Physical inventory
Photograph
Presence of accused with elected official, DOJ, media
who signs the copy of inventory
Sent to PDEA lab
Citification from lab of receipt
Final certification be made
Errors:
PO1 marked it RH-PA but unclear whether the one
presented in court was the one searched.
Nothing on record show who, in particular, submitted
the specimen to the crime lab
Proper in not granting probation?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
selling dangerous drugs. Padua pleaded guilty
and applied for probation alleging that he is a
minor and first time offender. However, judge
says he is not allowed because not granted by
probation law under CDDA.
Petition DENIED.
Drug pushers are not covered by probation.
No longer child.
Doctrine
Yes. Clear in CDDA that no probation allowed.
No room for interpretation.
RA 9344 violated on Sec. 68?
No. Sec. 68 talks about suspension, not probation.
Can be applied retroactively?
No.
In this case, Padua already reached 21.
Automatic suspension if below 18 at time of commission of
crime or 18 at pronouncement.
If reaches 18 at time of pronouncement, court to determine if
there would be execution or suspension until 21.
Prosecution sufficiently discharged its burden?

Yes.
Established:
1. Identity of appellants as seller and Dujon as buyer
2. Object of the transaction (jumbo sachet)
40
People v. Sarip
Apprehended Dujon who gave information to

apprehend Manuelita (with Warren and Mastor)
who came all the way from Cotabato to Davao
to sell one jumbo pack. Charged with illegal
sale, possession and possession of
paraphernalia.
Petition DENIED.
Dujon is a witness. Immunity granted to him.
But there was no marked money?

No. Not fata.
Merely corroborative.
Instigation, not entrapment?
No. Although Dujon was the one who initiated, does not
disprove the fact of habitual facticity of illegal sale of shabu.
Even came from Cotabato to Davao.
Accused were caught in flagrante de licto.
Dujon can have immunity?
Yes.
Qualified under Sec. 33 of RA 9165:
1. Testimony necessary

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
2.
3.
4.
5.
Doctrine
Not yet in possession of state
Can be corroborated
Not previously convicted of crime involving moral
turpitude
Faithfully comply without delay
Dujon was previously engaged in illegal sale?

No. Not disqualification. Not yet convicted. On detention only.
41
People v. Nandi
At 7pm, police received information that

someone was selling shabu. PO1 Collado as
buyer. Arrested for selling drugs and
immediately taken to police to. Sample tested
positive. Accused said he was in the area to find
job abroad as DH but a man dragged her in a
parked vehicle and several police were inside.
Petition GRANTED.
Acquitted.
Failed to show integrity of evidence.
Failed to establish the identity of drugs?

Yes.
Errors:
Collado merely stated that accused was brought to
station, gave the items to investigator, marked with
CCC
Documentary evidence shows that wahat was
examined was .23 gram but the information only stated
.03 gram
Should have included testimony about every link in the chain.
1. Seizure and marking
2. Turnover of the seized item by apprehending to the
investigating
3. Turnover by investigating to the forensic chemist for
lab exam
4. Forensic chemist to court
Where the official act is irregular, presumption of irregularity
cannot arise.
42
People v. Kamad
SPO2 acted as buyer. Kamad and Leo as seller.

Defense said that they were just waiting in the
area when four men approached them and
frisked. Nothing was found. Asked where the
shabu was. Said she was not selling any.
Petition GRANTED.
Reference numbers are inconsistent.
Serious lapses?
Yes.
Errors:
Failure of police to comply with proper identification
of the shabu in court
Prosecution failed to recognize the lapses (difference in
reference numbers)
Even the RTC and CA also failed to recognize the
lapses (difference in reference numbers)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Marking was supposed to be ES-1 1610202 and ES2 1610202 but what was presented in physical science
report was ES-1 16-10-202 and ES-2 16-10-202
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 Art. II RA 9165 is fatal.

There was non-compliance of chain link.
The fourth link even presents a very strange twist because the
forensic chemist presented a shabu other than that seized in the
buy-bust.
Firearms and explosives (PD 1866, RA 8294, 9516, 10591)
Spotted taxi driver Enojas and asked for papers.
PO2 Pangilinan went to 7-11 to relieve himself.
Robbery happened where the Pangilinan was
killed. Enojas was now gone form the police
car. Police went back to the abandoned taxi of
Enojas and found mobile where police
pretended to be Enojas and contacted the
accused of the robbery. Had an entrapment.
RTC charged the accused with murder qualified
by evident premeditation and use of armed men
43
People v. Enojas
with special AC of use of unlicensed firearms.
CA found no evident premeditation.
Petition DENIED.
Penalty modified.
Guilty of homicide with special AC of use of
unlicensed firearms.
Use of unlicensed firearm is a special AC, not
qualifying circumstance in Art. 248.
44
Sison v. People
AAA working as product support representative

rode passenger van where the driver brought her
to a motel and raped her. AAA was forced to
oblige because a gun was pointed at her the
whole time. She was seated in the front seat.
31 | Firearms and explosives (PD 1866, RA 8294, 9516, 10591)
Failed to prove Enojas participation?

No. Text messages were proof.
Text messages are to proved by testimony of person who was a
party to the same or has personal knowledge. PO3 Cambi who
pretended to be Enojas was qualified.
No valid warrant during entrapment?
No. Had personal knowledge.
Aid of armed men qualified the killing?
No. The men must act only as accomplices.
In this case, as co-principals.
Use of unlaced firearm is qualifying AC?
No. Not mentioned in Art. 248 as qualifying of homicide to
murder.
Only special AC.
AAA said she was texting. This is incredible?
No. Texting happened before the gun as poked.
Unable to present the textmates is not fatal. Will not make the
testimony of AAA incredible.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Petition DENIED.
Use of unlicensed firearms is deleted since used
in the commission of rape.
Doctrine
Several opportunities to escape?
No. Had gun poked at her.
Workings of human mind when placed under emotional stress
are unpredictable.
No physical resistance from medico-legal of AAA?
No. Physical resistance is not an element of rape.
Can be held liable for illegal possession of firearms?
No. Intent of law is to absorb. Although only mentioned
homicide and murder, cannot mean to exclude other crimes.
Accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of
firearms provided no other crime was committed.
Was there self-defense?
No. No unlawful aggression. Use of firearms is not reasonable.
45
Palaganas v. People
While singing in videoke bar (My Way), cousin

of accused felt that he was mocked. Rumble
ensued. While the victims were going out,
cousin of accused pointed at the victims and the
accused shoot the victim. TC found accused
guilty of homicide and two counts of frustrated
homicide. Acquitted of violating COMELEC
resolution because the use of firearms was no in
relation of election.
Petition DENIED.
Penalty modified.
Use of unlicensed firearms is special AC, not
generic.
Frustrated homicide?
No. Attempted only.
Victim was not hit in vital organ.
How to appreciate the use of firearms?
As special AC, not generic. TC and CA properly appreciated it.
Hence, cannot be offset by ordinary MC.
PD 1866, a special law
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of
unlicensed firearms, such use is considered AC.
Should be interpreted in favor of accused since statute is silent
whether generic or qualifying?
No. Previously settled by SC.
Arson (PD 1613, RA 7659)

46
People v. Macabando
32 | Arson (PD 1613, RA 7659)
Appellant broke bottles and said manabla ko.

Set fire on his house. Quilantang got an
extinguisher but was told not to interfere. Saw
Sufficient circumstantial evidence?

Yes. Seen with travelling bag. Showed deliberate planning.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
appellant with travelling bag. Fired three shots
in the air. RTC found guilty of destructive
arson.
Petition DENIED.
Penalty modified.
Simple arson only. Not destructive.
Doctrine
Destructive or simple arson?
Simple only.
Sec. 3 of PD 1613 on any inhabited house or dwelling.
Simple arson has lesser penalty than destructive arson which is
caused by perversity and viciousness.
Elements of simple arson Sec. 3 (2) PD 1613:
1. Intentional burning
2. Intentionally burned is inhabited house or dwelling
But appellants acts affected many families?
No. Not convert crime to destructive arson.
No perversity or viciousness.
Argument with live-in partner. Burnt the closet.

Now too late. The house is on fire.
47
People v. Soriano
Petition DENIED.
Penalty modified.
Changed to simple arson. Not destructive.
Destructive arson?
No. Sec. 3 (3) PD 1613 applies.
Not heinous.
No reckless disregard for human lives.
Accused even attempted to put out the fire thereafter.
Special AC of spite or hatred?
No. Acted on mere impulse because of wounded ego.
MC?
Yes. Passion or obfuscation.
Access device (RA 8484)
48
Soledad v. People
Accused deceived complainant to be offering

Citi financing loan. Instead, accused got a credit
card application from Metrobank. Entrapment
was made upon delivery of the credit card.
Charged with Sec. 9 (e) RA 8484 on possession
if counterfeit access device.
Petition DENIED.
Accusatory portion is sufficient.
Possession is proven.
33 | Access device (RA 8484)
Proper accusation?
Yes.
Preamble or opening paragraph not be treated as mere
agreement of descriptive words. It is an essential part of the
COI. Complements the accusatory paragraph.
Even if the word possession was not repeated in accusatory
portion, acts constituting clearly described it.
Information sheet be read a one whole document.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Never in possession?
No. The envelope (containing the credit card) was handed to
accused. Materially held the envelope.
Had he not actively participated, the envelope would not have
been given.
Is human voice included in theft?
No. Legislature could not have contemplated the human voice
which is converted into electronic impulses or electrical
current.
PLDT did not acquire possession, much less ownership, of the
human voice.
Congress has not amended the RPC to include theft of services
or theft of business as felonies.
PLDT accuses Laurel of theft from International

Simple Resale which is a method of rerouting
long distance calls.
49
Laurel v. Abrogar
Petition GRANTED.
Acquitted. No theft of human voice.
Could have been under access device.
Where a legislative history fails to evidence congressional

awareness of the scope of statute, a narrow interpretation is
more consistent.
Penal statute may not be enlarged by implication or intent
beyond the fair meaning of language used.
Could have been under Access Device law?
Yes. For obtaining money using access device with intent to
defraud.
However, petitioner was not charged under it.
If an individual steals a credit card and uses it, what crimes?
Theft of credit card, violation of RA 8484 and estafa.
Carnapping (RA 6539, RA 7659)
50
People v. Fieldad
34 | Carnapping (RA 6539, RA 7659)
Three cases were filed: murder with use of

unlicensed firearm killing J02 Gamboa; murder
with use of unlicensed firearm killing J01
Bacolor; and carnapping. J02 Gamboa, J01
Bacolor and J02 Niturada were inside a nipa hut
and summoned inmate Badua. Gave Badua keys
to open cells for the headcount. Chan went to
Treachery?
Yes.
Appellants say that there could be no treachery since jail guards
have firearms.
However, treachery is present when offender employs means,
methods or forms which trend directly and specially to insure
the execution of the crime.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
nipa hut to ask J02 Gamboa on his hearing
schedule. Phone rang in the administration
building. J02 Niturada rushed to answer the
phone. After the phone call, proceeded to the
basketball court and saw Chan place an arm on
shoulder of J02 Gamboa. Shot J02 Gamboa.
Fieldad and Cornista grappled with J01 Bacolor
for the latters armalite. Shot J01 Bacolor. Leal
took the armalite of J01 Bacolor and shot J02
Niturada. Cornista opened the main gate and
twelve inmates went out. After seeing this,
Badua padlocked the gate and returned to his
cell. Outside the jail compound, Fieldad, Leal,
Cornista and Pimental boarded a parked
Tamaraw jeep. Along the way, they picked up
Delim and Chan. Before reaching Pangasinan,
transferred to a Mazda pick-up. When they
reached Tarlac, vehicle turned turtle.
Abandoned it and went towards a cane field.
Police surrounded the field and was able to
arrest inmates.
Petition DENIED.
Murder proven with treachery.
Identity of accused was proven.
Elements of carnapping are present.
Doctrine
Jail officers were not afforded to defend themselves.
Appellants properly identified?
Yes. Prosecution presented evidence.
Paraffin test violated constitutional right?
No. No testimonial evidence made.
Carnapping proper?
Yes.
Elements are:
1. Actual taking of vehicle
2. Intent to gain
3. Vehicle belongs to another
4. Taking is without consent, or by violence or by force
In this case, all elements were present. Owner of the Tamaraw
testified that he left his key at the ignition. This was visible.
Upon returning from buying gas, the car was nowhere to be
found.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking. Actual
gain is irrelevant. Gain is not merely limited to pecuniary
benefit by also benefit which any other sense may be derived or
expected. Mere use without the owners consent constitutes
gain.
Forced by Leal?
No. Could have easily overpowered Leal.
Bank secrecy (RA 1405, RA 6426)

Issuance of subpoena duces tecum for Ejercitos
account: Trust, Savings, Urban Bank MC,
Savings. MTQ filed by but SB denied.
51
Ejercito v. SB
35 | Bank secrecy (RA 1405, RA 6426)
Petition DENIED.
No longer covered by Bank Secrecy Law.
No fruit of poisonous tree applicable.
Trust account are covered by bank secrecy law?

Yes.
Deposits as used in the law is to be understood broadly.
Not limited to those that give rise to creditor-debtor
relationship.
However, bank secrecy law not absolute.
EGR:

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
1. Order of competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials
2. Money deposited or invested is the subject matter of
litigation
Plunder is neither bribery or dereliction?
No.
Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery and
dereliction.
Overt criminal acts of ill-gotten wealth has similarity.
RA 7080 Sec. 1 (d) (2) receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share percentage or kickbacks or any other
form of pecuniary benefit from person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned.
Money in bank is not the subject matter of litigation?
No.
Subject of the action is the matter or thing with respect to
which the controversy has arisen, concerning which the wrong
has been done, and this ordinarily is the property or the contract
and its subject matter, or the thing in dispute.
In this case, litigation cannot be limited to Pres. Estrada alone
but must include account to which money purportedly acquired
illegally or a portion thereof was alleged to have been
transferred.
No plunder has yet been filed?
No. Still applies.
Marquez ruling came after the OMB has issued the subpoena.
Only apply prospectively.
Becomes fruit of poisonous tree?
No.
Nothing in RA 1405 says that it be inadmissible as evidence if
the bank accounts were unlawfully examined.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Only states that violation is imprisonment or fine.
Assuming exclusionary rule applies, still not appreciated. If
there was no violation of RA 1405, no poisonous tree to begin
with.
OMB includes power to examine and have access to bank.
Dollar account protected under FCDA?
Yes.
EGR: Upon proper the written permission of depositor.
This is the only exception.
Was there permission from depositors?
No.
But why not violative?
Because of prescription.
52
Intengan v. CA
Citibank filed complaint for estafa of two of its

officers. In making the complaint, released the
names of depositors as necessary to establish
the allegation. These accounts are US dollar
deposits.
Petition DENIED.
Although FCDA applies, already prescribed.
Prescription of SPL:
Prescription
1 year
Duration of offense
Fine or imprisonment not
more than 1 month
4 years
Imprisonment for more than
1 month but less than 2 years
8 years
Imprisonment for 2 years or
more but less than 6 years
12 years
Imprisonment is more than 6
years
EGR: Treason which is 20
years
5 years
BIR offenses
2 months
Municipal ordinances
2 months
Certificates of public
convenience
Prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted.
But wasnt COI made?
No. It was for a wrong violation on Bank Secrecy Law, not the

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
FCDA.
Did not have effect of tolling.
Ignorance?
No.
Was it subject matter of litigation?
No.
1M draw against Allied bank and deposited to

Union. Union encoded 1k only. One year after,
filed for the credit of the discrepancy but Allied
said the account is now closed. Union wants to
see the account but denied.
53
SM is meant physical facts, things real or personal, money,

land, chattels and the like in relation to which the suit is
prosecuted.
Allied should have informed Union of the under encoding?
No. No obligation.
Union Bank v. CA
Petition DENIED.
Petition has no clear case against Allied Bank.
Not fall under litigation exception under the
Bank Secrecy Law.
Petitioner is fishing for information to determine the culpability

of the Allied.
By RA 1405, the money deposited itself should be the subject
matter of litigation.
Petitioner feels a need for such information does not by itself
warrant the examination of the bank deposits.
Money laundering (RA 9160, RA 9194, RA 10167, RA 10365)

AMLC filed ex parte application against Ligot
for perjury. CA granted until the proceedings or
investigation be terminated.
54
Ligot v. Republic
Petition GRANTED.
Freeze order lifted.
Delay of 6 years.
Should be temporary freeze only.
Petition for certiorari the proper remedy to assail freeze order

exception?
No. Should have filed review on certiorari.
Applicability of 6 month extension under Rule on Civil
Forfeiture?
Yes.
Rule on Civil Forfeiture was effected on Dec. 2005. It provides
that it be applied to all pending civil forfeiture cases or petition
for freeze order. CA approved the order in 2006.
Probable cause to support issuance of freeze order?
38 | Money laundering (RA 9160, RA 9194, RA 10167, RA 10365)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Yes. It has legal basis. Sec. 10 RA 9160.
20 days which may be extended by court.
Erred in extension because not been convicted yet?
No.
Probable cause in institution of criminal action is different form
the probable cause in issuance of the freeze order.
Proper to extension?
No.
Freeze order should be extraordinary and interim relief.
Temporary.
In this case, period of inaction of six years is not reasonable.
Republic has not even offered any explanation.
Compliant filed in proper venue?
Yes.
RTC of judicial region where the monetary instrument,
property or proceeds representing, involving or relating to an
unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense.
Republic filed forfeiture of assets against

deposit of Glasgow. Not served to Glasgow
because cannot be found but made summons by
publication.
55
Republic v. Glasgow
Petition DENIED.
Can institute forfeiture.
No need for conviction.
COI sufficient?
Yes.
Acts prohibited were the suspicious transaction that Glasgow
may be engaged in unlawful activates of estafa and violation of
SRC. Relief asked was TRO and forfeiture.
Two conditions of forfeiture:
1. Suspicious transaction report or covered transaction
report deemed suspicious after investigating by AMLC
2. Petition has been filed and court has granted the same
Allegation was not yet proven?
No.
Criminal conviction is not requisite.
Sec. 6 RA 9160

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Persecution of money laundering. Without prejudice to the
freezing and other remedies provided.
Was there failure to prosecute?
No.
Service may be by publication?
Yes.
In actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
defendant is not prerequisite to conferring jurisdiction.
Money laundering is any act or attempted act to conceal or
disguise identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they may
appear to have been originated from legal sources.
56
Republic v. Eugenio
This is related to the award of NAIA 3 to

PIATCO. AMLC filed application ex parte to
inquire or examine the deposits or investments
of respondents. It was granted by RTC Manila
and Makati. AMLC claims that it is now
executory.
Petition DENIED.
Sec. 11 RA 9160 is not ex parte proceeding.
Sec. 11 RA 9160
AMLC can inquire into bank accounts without court order as
long as there is probable cause that the investment or deposit be
related to
Kidnapping for ransom
Violation of CDDA
Hijacking
Destructive arson
Murder
What if bank inquiry is not among the listed crimes?
Court order needed.
How to apply?
Ex parte not allowed.
If legislative intended to be made in ex parte, could have
expressed such.
No distinction should have been made in Sec. 10 which is ex
parte on freeze orders.
Courts construction of Sec. 11 is influenced by right to privacy.
Confidentiality of bank deposits is a basic state policy.
RA 9164 relied upon by AMLA is ex post facto?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Yes.
It deprives the accused of some lawful protection.
Although no penal sanction in the inquiry of bank deposit,
would still violate it.
Estafa (PD 1689)

Crime of estafa?
Yes.
Art. 315 par. 2 (a)
Swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with commission of fraud
by using fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualification, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions.
Panata Foundation promised people in Palawan
that its investment be doubled or trebled. But
registered in SEC as non-profitable, charitable
organization. The foundation never opened
despite investments made by complainants.
57
People v. Balasa
Petition DENIED.
Analina (deaf-mute) is acquitted.
Ponzi scheme proven (syndicate).
Penalty is life imprisonment, not reclusion
perpetua.
Elements of estafa:
1. Defrauded another by deceit
2. Damage or prejudice
Was there defraudation?
Yes.
Fraud is anything calculated to deceive.
Its incorporation based on SEC registration runs against its
conduct.
Promised the investors that money be invested in world bank.
Not even engaged in any lucrative business to finance the
operation.
Caveat emptor?
No. Not apply when seller is guilty of fraud.
No conspiracy?
No. Present. Actively participated.
Only Analina was acquitted.
Double jeopardy?
No. Offense charged is different. While from same act,
41 | Estafa (PD 1689)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
different persons were offended. Hence, DJ not attach.
Did not meet the requisites of eroding confidence of public and
economic sabotage?
No. These are added elements by respondent. Taken from
preamble which only serves to show the spirit of the law.
Assuming an element, there was economic sabotage because of
contravention of public interest.
Elements under PD 1689 on syndicated estafa:
1. Estafa or other forms of swindling in Art. 315 and 316
of RPC
2. Committed by syndicate
3. Defraudation results in misappropriation of funds
solicited from public
What should be the proper penalty?
Life imprisonment. Provided in the SPL.
Not reclusion perpetua.
Life imprisonment has not accessory penalties.
Menil promised that investors have ten-fold

return (later changed to seven-fold). Unable to
comply with later dividends. A case of large
scale swindling was filed and cases of estafa.
58
People v. Menil
Petition DENIED.
Penalty modified.
ISL to apply to RPC estafa.
PD 1689 to be reclusion perpetua in its medium.
Was there defraudation?

Yes.
Fraud is anything calculated to deceive.
Promised the investors that money be returned 1000% (later
700%).
Granted mayors permit?
No. Incorporation only to give semblance of legitimacy.
Not even engaged in any lucrative business to finance the
operation.
Several investors were paid?
No. Precisely the effect of Ponzi scheme.
Prosecution has shown the two elements of deceit and damage.
Syndicate?
42 | Estafa (PD 1689)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
No.
Hence, only reclusion temporal in its medium (no AC or MC).
Apply ISL?
Yes. But TC erred in application.
In computing penalty for estafa, amounts involved exceeding
P22,000 not be considered in initial determination of penalty.
Was there estafa?
Yes. AUB was deceived.
Interlocking directors of RMSI and SPI.
Confusing similarity of RMSIs business name (Smartnet
division) and Smartnet Inc.
These circumstances are indicia of deceit.
Intent to deceive is manifest from the start.
59
Galvez v. CA
RMSI claimed to have a name under SPI

applied for loan. Presented its P400M
capitalization. AUB granted. AUB also granted
to SPI (incorporated with lower capitalization)
believing that it was the same SPI of RMSI.
Now, RMSI denies saying that Guy Group is
the one who transacted the subsequent loan.
Petition MODIFIED.
Simple estafa only.
Not syndicated.
Victim is the soliciting bank from public.
AUB would not have allowed the subsequent loan had it known
that it had a low capitalization.
Syndicated estafa?
No.
Elements under PD 1689 on syndicated estafa:
1. Estafa or other forms of swindling in Art. 315 and 316
of RPC
2. Committed by syndicate
3. Defraudation results in misappropriation of funds
solicited from public
Decree does not apply regardless of number of accused when
a. Entity soliciting funds from the general public is the
victim and not the means through which estafa was
committed
b. Offenders are not owners or employees who used the
association to perpetrate the crime
If so, Art. 315 (2) RPC applies.
Bouncing checks law (BP 22)

43 | Bouncing checks law (BP 22)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
60
Griffith v. CA
Gerard Inc. incurred rental arrearages. Griffith,

president, issued two checks but told Dodge
(payee) not to deposit because it is unfunded.
Deposited but dishonored. Dodge foreclosed the
properties of Gerard Inc. Two years after, filed
BP 22 case.
Petition GRANTED.
Foreclosure already satisfied the checks.
BP 22 instituted after two years from
foreclosure.
Doctrine
BP 22 violates constitutional right on imprisonment for debt?
No. Not ruled. Not the very lis mota of the case.
Proper to file BP 22?
No. Already foreclosed. Remedy has been chosen.
The civil obligation is no longer subsisting.
BP 22 gravamen is issuance of worthless checks.
However, when the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases.
For having collected already more than the sufficient amount,
BP 22 could not be proper.
BP 22 proper?
No. Griffith case applies.
Petitioner has paid the amount before the information was filed
in court.
61
Lim v. People
Lim gave checks to Castor for campaign

donation. But Castor told Lim to stop the
payment because the materials were not printed.
Thus, checks were unfunded when presented.
OCP gave subpoena. Lim paid. Then BP 22
filed.
Petition GRANTED.
Paid 6 months prior to filing of BP 22 in court.
Elements of BP 22
1. Accused makes, draws or issues a check to apply to
account for value
2. Accused knows at issuance that he has insufficient
funds upon presentment
3. Check is subsequently dishonored due to DAIF or stop
payment
As for the second element, there is prima facie presumption of
knowledge when the drawer does not make good the check
within 5 days despite notice.
Although payment was made beyond 5 days, still BP 22 is
extinguished when there is payment before filing of COI.
However, if payment was made after COI was filed, payment
cannot exonerate the accused.
This is differentiated from Art. 315 (2) (d) where the fraud is
perpetuated by postdating a check, issuing check in payment of

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
62
Ruiz v. People
Ruiz contracted several loans and issued UCPB

checks. Checks bounced. Did not pay despite
notice but said that it was only for
accommodation purposes of her sister. BP 22
filed.
Petition DENIED.
Purpose of drawing the check is immaterial.
Gravamen is issuance of worthless checks.
Doctrine
obligation when the offender had no funds, or funds not
sufficient.
In these cases, the essential elements is deceit and damage.
Payment will not extinguish the criminal liability but will
extinguish the civil liability.
Payee knew that it was only for accommodation and Ruiz had
no sufficient funds?
No.
To give merit would to defeat the purpose of BP 22.
Not matter if the subject check belong to the accused or another
person.
Important to arrest the proliferation of worthless checks.
Elements of BP 22
account for value
payment
Whether a person is an accommodation party is a question of
intent.
Defense of petitioner was only an afterthought.
63
Tan v. Mendoza
Petitioner is owner of Master Tours and

respondent is a gas station. Petitioner pays in
checks however it bounced. BP 22 filed.
Petitioner averred that there was compensation
but was denied by respondent.
Petition DENIED.
Imprisonment deleted (redeem human value).
Offenders exerted effort to pay.
Elements of BP 22
account for value
payment
Elects present?
Yes.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Offset or compensation?
No. Factual issue not be resolved by SC.
Even granting that it be allowed, petitioner should have
specified which check was applied to compensation.
But the main reason for lack of compensation is that they were
not mutual and principal creditor-debtor of each other.
Penalty lowered by removing imprisonment?
Yes.
But value be doubled.
Intent is not to decriminalize BP 22.
Only to lay down preference of application of penalties.
In this case, petitioners has shown that they exerted efforts to
pay.
64
Medalla v. Laxa
Petitioner issued check with REM. Upon due

date, respondent chose deposit of check.
Bounced. Filed BP 22. During pendency, had
novation contract to settle the debt. Petitioner
now asks to drop BP 22.
Novation is proper to extinguish BP 22?

No. Not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability.
Petition DENIED.
Novation does not extinguish criminal liability.
Illegal recruitment
65
People v. Salvatierra
Accused represented to be capable of deploying

workers to S. Korea. Received initial payments.
Accused stopped showing. Complainants asked
the help of NBI. Accused said he was just also a
victim of Llanesa Consultancy.
Petition DENIED.
Liable for large scale illegal recruitment and
estafa.
Elements of illegal recruitment:

1. Recruitment and placement under Art. 13 of Labor
Code or any prohibited practices under Art. 34 (Sec. 6
RA 8042)
2. Offender has no valid license or authority
If it be in large scale:
3. Recruitment placement against three or more persons,
individually or as a group
Can also be liable for estafa?
Yes.
Elements of estafa:
46 | Illegal recruitment

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
1. Defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit
2. Damage or prejudice caused to offended party or third
person
Hazing
Death of one of the Villareal, accused, extinguished the
criminal liability.
Dismissal of cases against other accused was proper. There was
violation of speedy trial.
Proper penalty to the 4 and 2 who were found guilty of slight
physical injury and homicide, respectively?
No. All were liable for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide.
Lenny planned to join Aquila. During initiation,
Lenny died. Nineteen were acquitted. Four were
found guilty of with slight physical injuries.
Two were found guilty of with homicide.
66
Villareal v. People
Petition MODIFIED.
Liable only for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide.
Hazing law is mala prohibitum.
Not yet existing at time of crime.
There was no specific intent.

Nor was there general intent to commit a crime.
But still liable?
Yes. Some members were drunk at time of the commission of
the crime.
Nevertheless, still punished under reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide.
RPC punishes felonies that are committed by means of fault
(culpa).
Was there ill motive when Dizon was accusing Lenny of the
alleged fight between their fathers?
No. These were made up stories. The neophytes knew this.
Fundamental ingredient of intent was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Note that hazing is not yet criminalized at the time of
commission of the crime.
47 | Hazing

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
But special law on hazing was founded upon the principle of
mala prohibita.
Sexual harassment
67
Jacutin v. People
Juliet was seeking for job from accused who is a

City Health Officer. Asked Juliet to be a part of
research for family planning. Examined Juliet
by fondling her breasts.
Petition DENIED.
Liable for sexual harassment.
Liable?
Yes. Juliet looked upon the accused with utmost respect.
Accused himself would appear that he could facilitate Juliets
employment.
But there was a logbook proving that accused was in a meeting
at the time of commission of the crime?
No. Was not signed by the accused himself.
Trafficking
Casio offered AAA, minor and BBB to

undercover-police. Chicks mo dong?
68
People v. Casio
Petition DENIED.
Liable for trafficking.
Elements of trafficking:
1. Act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victims consent or knowledge, within or across
national borders
2. Means used which include threat or use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception,
abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving
of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another
3. Purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs
But AAA consented?
No. AAA was a minor.
Not a defense under Sec. 6(a) RA 9208 when a trafficked
person is a child.
Falls under qualified trafficking of persons.
Needs to have consummated sex?
No. Enough that there be transaction.
48 | Sexual harassment

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Valid entrapment operation?
Yes. It was the accused who offered.
Violence against women and children (RA 9262)

Self-defense, proper?
No. BWS not proven.
69
People v. Genosa
Husband came home from cockfighting because

he recently received salary. Wife then left
together with two children. Lessor of the house
smelled stench and saw the husband in briefs
dead in the bedroom with a metal pipe. Wife
confessed to killing. Shot him first but did not
die. Then used the metal pipe.
Petition DENIED.
BWS was not proven. The three cycles were not
proven: tension building, acute battering and
tranquil phase.
Stages of BWS:
Tension building verbal or slight physical abuse
Acute battering brutality, destructiveness, sometimes
death
Tranquil period profound relief
Although witnesses testified that they always quarrel, not able
to prove that in at least another battering episode, she had gone
the same pattern.
No evidence with regard to third phase. Just said that run away
to her mother or fathers house.
BWS must still be considered in the context of self-defense.
If not continuous, then self-defense will not warrant.
MC present?
Yes. She had illness that diminished the exercise of her will
power without however depriving her of consciousness of acts.
Also, there was passion and obfuscation.
Treachery?
No. Not established by prosecution.
70
Ang v. CA
Irish and Rustan Ang were classmates. Ang was

about to be married but expressed that he still
loves Irish. Irish declined. Received MMS of
naked woman spreading her legs with Irish
face superimposed with warning that it be
spread to chat room. Ang was intercepted by
police and confiscated the phone and sim. Ang
claims that he just forwarded the image to Irish
49 | Violence against women and children (RA 9262)
Sec. 3 RA 9262
Violence against woman includes an act or acts of a person
against woman with whom he has or had sexual or dating
relationship.
Elements of violence against woman through harassment:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship
with the offended woman;

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
because it was also just sent to him by a
prankster.
Petition DENIED.
Single act is already punishable.
Qualifies as harassment of a woman already.
Doctrine
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits
an act or series of acts of harassment against the
woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional
or psychological distress to her.
Dating relationship refers to a situation wherein the parties
live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis
during the course of the relationship.
Romantically means sex?
No. Not imply sexual act.
Not colloquial connotation.
Sexual relations is a single sexual act which may or may not
result into bearing a child.
But they were having away-bati?
No. Common. Not a reason to say that first element was not
complied with.
Sending picture is not harassment?
No. Law says an act.
Todays woman are obscene?
No. Traumatized Irish.
Improper confiscation of Angs phone and sim?
No. Testimonial was enough to convict.
Since electronic, should be verified by e-signature?
No. Raised for the first time.
71
Republic v. Yahon
Daisy filed protection order against husband in

her favor and her daughter (not daughter of
husband). Thereafter, claims that husband does
not give spousal support. PPO given when
TPO and PPO are issued by courts.

BPO are issued by barangay.
Proper to order support?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
husband poked a gun at Daisy and threatened to
massacre her and her child and shouting that
Daisy would die. RTC ordered that the
retirement benefits of husband from the military
have an automatic deduction.
Petition DENIED.
Spousal support is valid stipulation.
Even applies to military personnel.
Doctrine
Yes.
Provided in Sec. 8(g) RA 9262.
But automatic deduction will contravene law on retirement and
separation of military? Still public fund?
No. RA 9262 is a later law.
Considered as an exemption to the GR.
State shall exert effort to address violence committed against
women and children.
Support specifically address economic abuse.
Can conspiracy be applied in RA 9262?
Yes.
Explicit in Sec. 47 RA 9262 providing that RPC be suppletory.
GR: If SPL are silent on particular matters, legal principles in
RPC applies.
72
Go-Tan v. Tan
Go-Tan file violation of Sec. 5 RA 9262 against

husband and parents-in-law (respondent).
Respondent opposed saying that they are not
enumerated in the law. RTC dismissed the case
against them.
Petition DENIED.
Those in conspiracy with husband (i.e., parentsin-law) can be liable under RA 9262.
Can violations of RA 9262 apply only to husband?

No.
Sec. 4 RA 9262
calls for liberal interpretation
Sec. 5 RA 9262
may be committed by an offender or through another
Sec. 9 RA 9262
protection orderagainst respondent or through another
Intent of the law must be effectuated.
Protection and safety of women and children.
73
Dabalos v. RTC
Petitioner charged with Sec. 5(a) RA 9262 for

pulling the hair, punching the back, shoulder
and left eye of complainant.
Law is broad in scope bur specifies two limits qualifications:

1. Committed against woman or her child and woman is
the offenders wife, former wife or with whom he had
or has sexual or dating relationship or with whom he

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Petition DENIED.
Immaterial whether the injury was made due to
relationship.
Any violence is enough, whatever the reason of
infliction.
Doctrine
has a common child
2. Physical harm or suffering
Elements of violence against woman through harassment:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship
with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits
an act or series of acts of harassment against the
woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional
or psychological distress to her.
Indispensable that the violence be a consequence of such
relationship?
No.
Law does not distinguish, court should not distinguish.
Immaterial whether the relationship has ceased.
Charge with just slight physical injuries (Art. 266 RPC)?
No.
Legislative intent is to impose higher penalty if committed
against women or children.
Venue
RCT designated as family court
If no family court, RTC where the crime or any
element has been committed
74
Tua v. Mangrobang
Respondent filed for herself and in behalf of her

minor children PO pursuant to RA 9262.
Petitioner is abusive and threatened to
physically harm the children. Even deprived the
respondent of custody and threatened to be
deprived of financial support. Cocked gun to his
head in order that respondent will not file legal
separation.
Petition DENIED.
PO is an order to prevent further acts of violence against

women and their children.
Purpose is to safeguard offended parties.
Broadened to ensure that offended party is afforded all
remedies.
Time is of the essence in VAWC.
PO requirements:
Writing
Signed

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
TPO application ex parte is constitutional.
Barangay issuing BPO is executive only, not
legislative function.
Doctrine
Verified
Petitioner taking full responsibility, criminal or civil, for every
allegation therein.
Granting PO ex parte is violative of due process?
No. After deciding on TPO, respondent is given 5 days to
controvert.
TPO are initially effective for 30 days from service on the
respondent.
Essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable
opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.
Invalid delegation of legislative function to barangay for
issuing BPO?
No. Executive act only on maintain public order in barangay.
Nothing more than normal quarrels?
No.
Based on the information filed by respondent, TPO was in
order. Enough basis.
Child abuse (RA 7610)
75
Malto v. People
AAA was 17. Petitioner was her professor in

Philosophy II. First encounter was during lunch
talking about Kama Sutra. Then petitioner
became amorous. Brought AAA to motel and
successfully had sex. Gave 1.5 grade in order
not to tell anyone.
Petition DENIED.
Liable for Sec. 5(b) RA 7610.
Although no rape, can be held liable under RA
7610.
Consent of child is immaterial.
53 | Child abuse (RA 7610)
Offense wrongly designated in the COI?

Yes. But what prevails are the allegations, not the title of the
COI.
In this case, violated Sec. 5(b).
Elements of Sec. 5(a):
1. The accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or
induces child prostitution;
2. The act is done through, but not limited to, the
following means:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
to procure a child as a prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a child
to engage him as a prostitute or
e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to
engage such child in prostitution;
3. The child is exploited or intended to be exploited in
prostitution and
4. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years
of age.
Elements of Sec. 5(b):
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct;
2. The act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse and
of age.
Sec. 5(a) is for profit.
Sec. 5(b) is sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct exposed to
prostitution (for profit) or other sexual abuse (coercion,
intimidation or influence).
But no rape, so no RA 9262?
No. Violation of Sec. 5(b) RA 9262 and rape under RPC are
separate and distinct crimes.
Different elements.
But AAA consented?
No. Immaterial. This is malum prohibitum.
In fact, child cannot give consent.
Presumed incapable of giving rational consent to sex.
76
People v. Larin
Carla, 14 y.o., was in the shower room of UPs

swimming pool when Larin, trainer, came in
and notice her pubic hair showing. Suggested to
No proof that Larin indulged lasciviousness conduct or Clara

was coerced?
No. COI clearly shows.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
shave it. Came back with shaving instrument
but Larin gave her cunnilingus. Licked her right
breast and told her to feel his penis. All the
while, Clara was saying, Nandidiri ako. Went
to Larin the following day to return a book and
told him that she had a nightmare to which
Larin said that the cure for that is a kiss.
Petition DENIED.
There was abuse of power.
Acts of lasciviousness to a 14 y.o.
Doctrine
Clara is credible?
Yes. Highest degree of respect.
No young and decent girl like Carla would fabricate a story of
sexual abuse.
Was there coercion?
Yes. Larin had built a relationship with Carla as swimming
trainer.
Carla manifested PTSD. Doctor also testified that Carla suffers
from psychological coercion.
But Carla was intelligent?
No. Can happen to any children, irrespective of intelligence.
77
Olivarez v. CA
Lunch time, Cristina, 16, was making

sampaguita garlands when Olivarez called her
to the main door and embraced her and held her
breast. Pulled her to the kitchen door and kissed
her on the lips. Pushed Olivarez away and went
to her workstation, crying. Told her mom what
happened. Olivarez defense was that he was at
Caltex at that time, waiting for sampaguita
delivery.
Petition DENIED.
Lack of averment in information of age is fatal.
Age is supplemented by the complained
previously filed.

lascivious conduct;
of age.
Sec. 32 IRR RA 7610
Lasciviousness is the intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person.
All elements are present?
Yes.
Failed to allege age in the information?
No. Although information was insufficient, age was alleged in

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
the complaint filed to which the information referred to.
Petitioner was previously furnished a copy of the complaint.
Information merely states RA 7610 without specifying the
section violated?
No. Not invalidate the information.
Must rely on the averments, not on the caption or preamble.
Petitioners defense?
No. Uncorroborated denial.
Sec. 5(b) RA 7610
That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3,
for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct as the case
may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period
78
Amployo v. People
Kristine, 8 y.o., was walking to school at around

7 a.m. when Tikboy approached her and
touched her breast. Eventually, Kristine told her
grandmother and mother. Nahihiya ako sa mga
magulang ko at uncle ko baka tuksuhin akong
bobo na hindi ko agad sinabi.
Petition DENIED.
Liable under RA 7610, not just acts of
lasciviousness.
Satisfied the elements.
Article 336 of the RPC on Acts of Lasciviousness has for its

elements the following:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
2. That it is done under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of
age; and
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
Lewd is defined as indecent or obscene.
Hence, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse
through lasciviousness conducted to a minor below 12 y.o., the
requisite of acts of lasciviousness should be met.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Was there lewd design?
Yes. Factual finding.
No developed breasts to touch?
No. An unlikely sexual conduct may be norm for some.
Under RPC only, not RA 7610?
No. Elements are present.
lascivious conduct;
of age.
Sec. 32 IRR RA 7610
79
Caballo v. People
AAA, 17 y.o., met Caballero, 23 y.o., who was

a dancer of AAAs uncle. Became sweethearts
and had sex. Promised marriage and used
withdrawal method. AAA became pregnant.
Petition DENIED.
Minors cannot give consent to sex.
Sweetheart defense is untenable against minors.
Was there sexual abuse?

Yes.
lascivious conduct;
of age.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Not point to any form of coercion or influence?
No. Second element is also attendant.
Caballos seniority enabled him to force upon AAA.
Exploitation under Sec 5 (b):
5(b) is sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct exposed to
Prostitution (for profit) or
Other sexual abuse (coercion, intimidation or influence
of any adult, syndicate or group)
Influence means the use of power or trust.
But they were sweethearts?
NO. Consent is immaterial.
In fact, minors cannot give consent.
80
Araneta v. People
AAA, 17 y.o., was sitting in the bench with her

sister. Araneta, courting AAA since 13 y.o.,
approached and insisted that AAA accept him
because he now has a job. AAA refused and ran
to the boarding house with her sister. Araneta
followed and successfully pushed the door
while shouting, Ug dili ko nimo sugton, patyon
tika. Akong ipakita nimo unsa ko kabuang.
Then embraced AAA who struggled.
Petition DENIED.
Liable under Sec. 10(a) on child abuse.
Sec. 10 RA 9262 Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or

Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Childs
Development.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the childs development
including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential
Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
Four distinct acts:
1. Child abuse
2. Child cruelty
3. Child exploitation
4. Being responsible for the conditions prejudicial to
childs development

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Use of or in the statute supposes that there are four
punishable acts.
Sec. 3(b) RA 7610
Child abuse refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not,
of the child which includes any of the following:
1. Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty,
sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
2. Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being;
3. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for
survival, such as food and shelter; or
4. Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
Evidence proved that petitioner was relentlessly following
AAA.
81
People v. Chingh
VVV, 10 y.o., was to buy food when Armando

approached her and pulled her to vacant lot.
Mashed her breast and inserted right index to
vagina. Armando inserted penis into vagina.
Threatened death. Genital examination in PGH
showed fresh laceration with bleeding at 6
oclock. Armando denied saying he had
rheumatic pains at that time.
Petition DENIED.
Liable for rape and rape through sexual assault.
Rape through sexual assault was increased to
reclusion temporal in medium because of
minority.
Unnatural for VVV to follow him and not cry for help?
No. Threatened.
Offended parties, when young and immature, are given
credence in courts.
Liable for rape and rape through sexual assault?
Yes. Information contained two offenses.
But violative of CRIMPRO?
No. Failed to object. No MTQ filed.
Impose higher penalty on sexual assault?
Yes. Because of minority.
Sec. 5(b) RA 7610
That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3,
for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct as the case
may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period
Sec. 32 IRR RA 7610
Anti-rape law decreased the penalty for sexual assault?
No. Not the intent of legislators.
RA 7610 is still a good law.
82
De Guzman v. Perez
Petitioner and respondent never got married but

had a child Robby. Respondent was asking for
support for Robbys education but was refused.
Respondent showed that petitioner had a
luxurious lifestyle, yet was not able to provide.
Petition DISMISSED.
Liable for neglect under PD 603.
Not liable under RA 7610 because crime of
neglect is also punished under RPC.
Elements of neglect of child:

1. the offender is a parent;
2. he or she neglects his or her own child;
3. the neglect consists in not giving education to the child
and
4. the offenders station in life and financial condition
permit him to give an appropriate education to the
child.
Prima facie showing that petitioner is financially capable.
Notarized GIS of RNCD Corporation?
Yes. Not overcome.
Investment of P750,000.
Neglect should be committed by both parents?
No. Any parent will do.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Can be liable under Sec. 10 RA 7610 on neglect?
No.
Sec. 10 RA 7610
Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the childs development including those covered
by Article 59 of PD No. 603, as amended, but not covered by
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum period
Covered by RPC?
Yes.
Indifference of parents under Art. 277 RPC.
Wrong remedy applied for but was forgone by the court.
83
Bongalon v. People
On a procession, Jayson passed by house of

petitioner where petitioners daughter threw
stones at Jayson. Jayson responded to call her
sissy. Petitioner then confronted Jayson.
Slapped Jayson.
Petition DENIED.
Not liable under 7610 on child abuse.
Liable for slight physical injuries (straight
penalty of 10 days).
84
Rosaldes v. People
Petitioner was sleeping when Michael bumped

her knee. Michael did not apologize when told
to so pinched him in the things and held him by
the armpit and pushed him to the floor.
Repeatedly slammed him down.
Petition DENIED.
Liable under Sec. 10(a) RA 7610.
Penalty aggravated by being a schoolteacher.
Child abuse?
No. Acts did not intend to debase the intrinsic worth of Jayson.
Done at the spur of the moment.
Not liable for anything?
No. Liable for slight physical injuries.
MC attendant?
Yes. Passion or obfuscation.
Liable for child abuse?
Yes.
Although petitioner could discipline, went beyond.
Inflicting physical injuries is violent and excessive.
Michael even fainted.
Proved by petechiae (discoloration of the skin due to
extravasation of blood), contusion, lumbar pains and
tenderness.
Also, prohibited under the Art. 233 FC.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Corporal punishment not allowed.
Need to be habitual act?
No.
Maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or by words that
debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of
a child as a human being.
Award civil even if not asked for?
Yes. Lower courts omission was misplaced.
Trial and appellate courts to avoid omitting reliefs that the
parties are properly entitled to by law or in equity under the
established facts.
AC on being a schoolteacher?
Yes.
Dina is liable as principal by direct participation?
No. Nothing shows that without Dina, the rape would not have
been committed.
In fact, anyone could have accompanied AAA or AAA could
have been the one who offered herself.
85
AAA, 12 y.o., was introduced to Dina. Told that

they were going to a wake but AAA was given
to Speed where Speed raped AAA.
But Dina received money?

No. Not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Petition DENIED.
Not guilty of rape but guilty of Sec. 5(a) RA
7610.
But guilty under Sec. 5(a) RA 7610?

Yes. Child prestation and other sexual abuse.
Child was used for profit.
People v. Dulay
Information sufficient?
Yes. Although the caption was charging rape, the averments
satisfies the elements of Sec. 5(a) RA 7610.
86
People v. CA
Three COI for RA 7610: sex in morning, sex in

afternoon, acts of lasciviousness to AAA, 14
Sec. 5
Sec. 10

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
y.o. AAA went with Olayon voluntarily.
Fetched from a tricycle stand.
Petition DENIED.
Accused is acquitted.
Information does not contain allegation of
coercion.
Doctrine
Attempt to commit child
Child abuse prejudicial to
prostitution, child
the childs development
trafficking, attempt to
other than child prostitution
commit child trafficking and and other sexual abuse
obscene publications and
shows
Sexual abuse in Sec. 5 is completely distinct and separate
offense form child abuse in Sec. 10.
Consensual sex or even acts of lasciviousness with a minor
who is 12 or older is a violation of Sec. 5(b) RA 7610.
Liable under child subjected to other sexual abuse.
There should be persuasion, inducement, etc.
Accused liable?
No. No allegation of persuasion, inducement, etc.
Code of Conduct for public officers (RA 6713)
87
Domingo v. OMB
SK filed against Brgy. Chairman Domingo for

malversation, falsification of public document,
dishonesty and grave misconduct for the 2003
Brgy. Budget and Expenditures regarding SK
funds. OMB decided that misappropriation
(premature since audit not yet done), dishonesty
and falsification (not authentic signature) were
to dismissed. Liable for Sec. 4b RA 6713 for
irregular submission of falsified instrument to
Brgy. Bureau (not for falsification but for
submission).
Petition GRANTED.
Sec. 4b RA 6713 is not punishable (on
professionalism).
63 | Code of Conduct for public officers (RA 6713)
Failure to contest the fraudulent document before submission

should lead to the conclusion that the document came from
petitioner?
No. Non sequitur.
Domingo liable?
No.
SC unconvinced that there is substantial evidence establishing
culpability.
Sole evidence relied upon is the undated document.
If indeed it was officially submitted, it is an aberrant document
which could not have emanated from the petitioner.
Sec. 4b RA 6713
Public officials and employees shall perform highest degree of
excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.
Can be liable under Sec. 4b?
No.
Professionalism is an ideal norm.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
IRR has sanctioned failure to observe norms of conduct. .
Administrative disciplinary action only cover acts declared
unlawful or prohibited by the code.
Rule X mentions 23 acts or omissions. Sec. 4b is not included.
Denial of due process?
Yes. Complaint did not reveal that Domingo was charged of
Sec. 4b.
Collado liable?
Yes.
Did not declare the interest of her time deposits for 2004 and
2005.
88
Marquez v. Ovejera
Unlawful detainer and suit for recovery against

Marquez was raffled to Judge Overjera. Writ of
execution ordered by Judge. Marquez moved to
stop but was denied. Charged Judge with abuse
of authority, disregard of due process, misuse
and fabrication of judicial orders. Sheriff
Colada was also charged with violation of
AMLA and failure to disclose SALN for 20042005. OCA found no factual and legal
complaint against Judge. AMLA case against
Collado was dismissed but was held liable for
misdeclaration of SALN.
Petition PARTLY GRANTED.
Still guilty but modified as to penalty (for
failure to indicate the interest of deposits in
SALN).
Penalty is P5,000.
Sec. 8 RA 6713
Public officials and employees declare their assets, liabilities,
net worth and financial and business interest including their
spouses and of unmarried children under 18 living in their
household.
Full disclosure of
Real property
Personal property
All other assets
Liabilities
Business interests and financial connections
Aimed at curtailing and minimizing opportunities for official
corruption.
Liable for 2000 and 2001 SALN?
No. Not given opportunity to be heard.
Proper penalty?
No. Lower it to P5k.
Not appear in BF.
Sec. 11 RA 6713
Fine not exceeding 6 months salary depending on gravity of
offense.
64 | Forfeiture law (RA 1379)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Forfeiture law (RA 1379)
89
Cabal v. Kapunan
Sec. of National Defense Cabal was charged

with graft, corrupt practices, unexplained
wealth. Committee asked him to take witness
stand but he objected invoking right against
self-incrimination. City fiscal filed for
contempt.
Petition GRANTED.
Can invoke right against self-incrimination in
forfeiture cases (quasi-criminal in nature).
Can refuse?
Yes.
No question that committee does not seek removal of petitioner
(no longer holds office).
Purpose is to charge under RA 1379.
Where position of witness is virtually that of an accused on
trial, it would appear that he may invoke the privilege in
support of a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions.
Is forfeiture a penalty?
Partakes nature of penalty.
Forfeiture is divestiture without compensation.
Such proceedings are criminal in nature to the extent that the
person using the res illegally is the owner or rightful possessor
of it, the forfeiture proceeding is in the nature of a punishment.
Suits for penalties and forfeitures are quasi-criminal.
The proceeding is one against the owner and goods; for it is his
breach of the laws which has to be proved to establish the
forfeiture and his property is sought to be forfeited.
Doctrine in Almeda v. Perez that proceeding is civil in nature?
No. That case only touched on the procedural aspect. In that
case, no discussion on substantial rights of the respondent.
90
Marcos Jr. v. Republic
Swiss bank accounts and two treasury notes

were adjudged to be ill-gotten wealth of
Marcos. Compromise agreements made.
Republic filed motion for summary judgment
other than those concerning the Swiss accounts.
Petition DENIED.
No full blown trial in RA 1379 (quasi-criminal
only).
Civil case 0141 is criminal in nature (forfeiture)?

No. Only quasi-criminal (Cabal v. Kapunan).
As civil in nature, Rule 35 ROC may be applied on summary
judgment.
Forfeiture may be civil or criminal and may be in rem or in
personam.
Criminal if under a statute where there is indictment, although
civil in form.
Civil if does not involve conviction.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Sec. 5 RA 1379
Hearing not always require formal introduction of evidence in
trial. Only to participate.
Republic complies with Sec. 3c, 3d, 3e RA 1375?
Yes.
Marcos had no known law officer. Does not file withholding
tax certificate.
Marcos made it appear that he had extremely profitable legal
practice before he became president.
Elements under RA 1379 :
1. Offender is public officer or employee
2. Acquitted considerable amount of money or property
during incumbency
3. Amount is manifestly out of proportion to salary and
other lawful income
Content of petition:
1. Name and address of respondent
2. Public officer or employment he holds and previously
had
3. Approximate amount of property acquired during
incumbency
4. Description
5. Total government salary and proper earnings
6. Other information
Grant of summary judgment was already decided on Swiss
accounts only as affirmed by SC?
No. Civil Case 0141 has different components. Seeking partial
judgment not a bar over different subject matter covered by
same petition.
Petitioner failed to tender genuine issues in their answers to the
petition for foreclosure.
Genuine issue is an issue of fact which calls for the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from fictitious and

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
contrived.
Jurisdiction over RA 3019 and 1379 are lodged with SB.
Given by law to have EOJ.
Limited to criminal actions only?
Does not enumerate. Just specifies the RAs.
Provides procedure for forfeiture to be followed in case a
public officer or employee has acquired during his
incumbency.
91
Garcia v. SB 2005
Complaint against petitioner filed in OMB

where wife was impleaded. Petitioner says that
SB has no jurisdiction over civil action for
forfeiture since SB is a criminal court.
Petition DENIED.
SB has jurisdiction over RA 1379 criminal
and civil.
Sec. 12 RA 1379
Provides penalty but only imposed upon public officer or
employee who transfers or conveys unlawfully acquired
properties. Not penalize unlawful officer or employee for
making unlawful acquisition.
Logically congruent that violations under RA 1379 are under
jurisdiction of SB, even though proceeding is civil in nature.
Forfeiture of illegally acquired property amounts to penalty.
OMB to file the forfeiture case?
Yes.
OMB exercise of correlative powers to investigate and initiate
action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth restricted only to cases
on wealth amassed after Feb. 25 1986.
Otherwise, SolGen has personality to file (on or before Feb. 25,
1986).
Petitioner guilty of forum shopping?
Yes.
Failed to inform court that he filed motion to dismiss in relation
to the forfeiture brought in SB.
Counsel of petitioner is reminded that his primary duty is to aid
the courts in administering justice.
Graft and corrupt practices (RA 3019)

67 | Graft and corrupt practices (RA 3019)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Elements of Sec. 3b RA 3019:
1. Offender is public officer
2. Requested or received gift, present, percentage, benefit
3. On behalf of offender or any other person
4. In connection with a contract or transaction with the
government
5. Public officer, in official capacity, had right to
intervene
Liable?
No. Fourth element not proven.
Insufficient that Oro Asian continually transacted with officer
of petitioner.
Should have shown a particular transaction.
Complaint against petitioner, regional director

of LTO, for frequently borrowing during
weekends motor vehicle from Oro Asian,
supplier of government.
92
Garcia v. SB 2006
Petition GRANTED.
No 3019 because failed to prove intention in a
contract.
No direct bribery.
No indirect bribery.
Direct bribery?
No. No evidence as to the act constituting the crime (one of the
three acts constituting direct bribery).
Indirect briber?
No. Although borrowing of vehicle is considered as gift, it was
not shown that petitioner has indeed borrowed and received the
vehicles. The receipts were unsigned.
Elements of direct bribery:
1. Accused is public officer
2. Received directly or through another gift, present, offer
or promise
3. In consideration of commission, any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing which it
is official duty
4. Crime or act relates to exercise of his functions as
public officer
In one of the following acts:
1. Agreeing to perform
2. Accepting gift
3. By agreeing to refrain

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
93
Balderama v. People
Petitioner is employed with LTO Field

Enforcement Division. Respondent operates 10
taxi units. Respondent was flagged down and
was inspected for the defective meter.
Respondent filed bribery and Sec. 3e RA 3019
because prior to impounding, he was asked to
give protection money of P300 every 15 th and
30th of the month.
Petition DENIED.
Elements of direct bribery and Sec. 3e RA 3019
were proven.
Recantation is suspicious.
Doctrine
Elements of direct bribery:
2. Received directly or through another gift, present, offer
or promise
3. In consideration of commission, any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing which it
is official duty
4. Crime or act relates to exercise of his functions as
public officer
Direct bribery?
Yes. All that petitioner could proffer was alibi.
Elements of Sec. 3e RA 3019:
2. Commits prohibited acts during performance of official
duties
3. Causes undue injury to government or private party
4. Acted with manifest partiality, evident BF or gross
inexcusable negligence
Acquitted because of desistance affidavit?
No. Viewed with suspicion.
Disbursement irregularities of combat, clothing

and individual equipment was found. Paid
despite non-delivery.
94
Luspo v. People
Luspo acquitted (ministerial duty only).
All other three are liable. BF evident.
How to violate Sec. 3e RA 3109?

Two ways:
causing injury to any party (government or private)
Giving any private unwarranted benefits, advantage,
preference
duties

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather
than another.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also
palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do
moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse
motive or ill will. Contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or with some motive or selfinterest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.
Gross inexcusable negligence refers to negligence
characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected.
Why is Tugaoen, private individual, included in the case?
Even if private individual, sanctioned by law.
Sec. 1 RA 3019
Private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt
practices.
Sufficient evidence?
No.
Discretionary duty
Allowed to determine how and when it is to be
performed
Not susceptible to delegation
Ministerial duty
No exercise of discretion or judgment
Can be delegated
Delegation of authority to Domondon is ministerial?
Yes.
Luspo is ministerial?

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Yes. Luspo in GF. Cannot link him as conspirator.
Any determination made by Domondon and Nazareno is
implemented by Luspo.
Being so, Luspo was allowed to subdelegate.
Signature of Luspo has same effect as if it was made by
Nazareno himself.
Duran, Montano, Tugaoen also acquitted?
No. After receiving the 100 checks, Tugaoen encashed.
BF evident.
Duran and Monatano failed to prepare the required
documentation.
Split checks into 100 when it could be done in 4 checks.
95
Plameras v. People
Outstanding contract of purchase of desks in

DECS. Complaint against petitioner for
payment before delivery, procurement without
required authorization from provincial school
board and no bidding process made. Petitioner
says that what he did is just a component of a
negotiated contract.
Petition DENIED.
Cannot just follow practice if it is against the
law.
96
Caunan v. People
COA found purchases of Paranaque on walis

tingting was without public bidding, divided
into several purchase orders to avail of personal
canvass instead of public bidding, personal
canvass was irregular and there was
overpricing. OMB found cause to file Sec. 3g
RA 3019.
Petition GRANTED.
Element of overpricing not proven (price of
Petitioner liable?
Yes. Sidestepped and ignored certain established rules.
Procurement should be done in competitive public bidding.
Petitioner admitted that he was aware of the requirement but
reasoned that he merely continued a negotiated contract.
duties
Elements of Sec. 3g RA 3019:
2. Entered into contract or transaction on behalf of
government
3. Contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government
SB proper to rely on COA findings?
No. Did not include signed price quotation.
Walis tingting furnished by audit team is different from the one

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
walis tingting).
Doctrine
used by streetsweepers.
But failed to conduct public bidding?
No. Not automatically equate to third element on disadvantage
to government.
Constitutional right to be informed was violated?
No. Variance doctrine applies.
97
Teves v. SB
Edgar has direct financial or pecuniary interest

to cockpit arena to which he also issued the
license. Charged for unlawful intervention as
mayor. Charged with Sec. 3h RA 3019 but
convicted with Sec. 89(2) LGC. Teresita was
charged as conspirator.
Wife acquitted. No conspiracy.
Husband liable for RA 3019 but punished under
LGC.
Elements of Sec. 3h RA 3019:

2. Has direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in
any business, contract or transaction
3. Has either
a. Intervenes or takes part in his official capacity
in connection with such interest
b. Prohibited from having such interest by
constitution or by law
Can be charged under first mode?
No. At that time when license was given to the cockpit, the
power to grant license was still lodged with Sangguniang
Bayan.
Can be charged under second mode?
Yes. It was the offense proved.
SC used variance doctrine even if COI only charged the first
mode.
Violates LGC on holding interest in cockpits.
What law should Edgar be punished?
LGC which is the later expression of legislative will.
Teresita acquitted?
Yes.
98
Posadas v. SB
Dr. Posadas was chancellor at UP and formed

task force to prepare masteral and doctoral
Appointment in GF?
Yes. BF in Sec. 3e RA 3019 connotes bad judgment or

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
programs. Attended foundation day of
university in China. Appointed Dr, Dayco as
OIC. During that time, Dr. Dayco also
appointed Dr. Posadas as project director of the
project. COA suspended the salary to Dr.
Posadas but was lifted when UP Legal Office
said it was in the nature of consultancy fees. UP
Regents penalized Dr. Posadas for forced
resignation with right to be readmitted upon
public apology. SB found Dr. Posadas and Dr.
Dayco guilty of Sec. 3e RA 3019.
Petition GRANTED.
No unwarranted benefits/injury.
Only administratively liable.
Doctrine
negligence.
Imputes dishonest purpose.
Dr. Posadas was the most qualified?
Yes. Expert.
Misstep is administrative only?
Yes. Had it been any other government office, would have
considered it to be administrative in character only.
No evidence adduced that UP officials are not allowed to
receive compensation outside their normal duties as
administrators.
COA disallowances are normal occurrences in government
officers. Can hardly be regarded as cause for filing criminal
case.
Was there unwarranted benefit?
No. No undue injury.
The salary given to Dr. Posadas was even deducted from his
terminal leave benefits.
99
Jaca v. People
Petitioners are public officials of a City

Government of Cebu. COA conducted a
surprise audit. Badana, paymaster, left the office
upon knowing and never came back. The other
petitioners were charged for conspiracy of
malversation amounting to P18M.
Petition DENIED.
Guilty of conspiracy.
Lack of specific allegation as to evident BF,
manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable
negligence is not fatal.
Be acquitted because the information alleged manifest

partiality, evident bad faith and with gross and inexcusable
evidence?
No. Acts and omissions be stated in ordinary and concise
language. Common understanding to know what the offense is
an enable the court to give proper judgment. Besides, the
petitioner did not claim that they were not able to properly
prepare for their defense.
Raison detre is to enable the accused to prepare his defense.
Manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable
negligence are merely descriptive. Use of all these phrases
does not mean that there are three distinct charges. Prosecution
can allege these different modes alternatively.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Invalid preliminary investigation?
No. Not alleged that there was GADALEJ.
COA report is hearsay?
No. Although one of the accountants was not directly involved
in the preparation of the report, one of them was.
Elements for RA 3019 (Ethical standards) met?
Yes.
1. Public officers
2. Acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and with
gross and inexcusable evidence

3. Undue injury to any party proven based on the
undisputed accumulation of funds

Cesa's claim that Bacamas initially signed it already?
No. He did not ask for supporting documents. He only followed
practices not sanctioned by law.
OMB only found him of simple neglect of duty?
No. Not bar the criminal action. Administrative and criminal
actions are different from each other.
Java affixed signature as ministerial only?
No. Tacit admission that he signed it despite knowing that
Badana had unliquidated cash advances.
Gaviola's failure is in good faith?
No. Did not ask for supporting documents.
Conspiracy?
Yes. Each of the accused contributed to attain the end goal.
Their acts collectively prove conspiracy.
100
Sanchez v. People
Petitioner, city engineer, constructed canal in a

private land. Did not check if it was a public or
Elements complied with?

Yes.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
private land.
Petition DENIED.
Gross inexcusable negligence when he did not
check if it a public land.
Undue injury to private person.
Doctrine
Petitioner is public officer.
Failed to validate the status of the land. Merely based it on
appearance (swampy).
Undue injury because informal settlers dirties the private
property.
RA 3019 may be committed by
Dolo by evidence BF or manifest partiality
Culpa gross inexcusable negligence
Apply Arias doctrine?
No. In that case, there was conspiracy of subordinates to which
the court said that one could not held liable for the acts of
dishonesty of his subordinates.
PQ?
No. RTC already ruled that there was none.
Plunder (RA 7080)

As long as the law affords comprehensible guide or standard,
the validity will be sustained.
Estrada is charged with plunder but invokes

vagueness of the Plunder Law.
101
Estrada v. SB
Petition DISMISSED.
Series, combination, and pattern are
couched in general terms.
Plunder law is malum in se (heinous crime).
Sec. 4 (pattern) may be severed.
Vague?
No, nothing that will make the petitioner unable to prepare an
intelligent defense.
Combination is at least two acts under different categories.
Series is at least two acts under the same category.
Pattern consists of at least a combination or series.
A statute is not rendered void just because it is couched in
general terms. Legal hermeneutics state that words of a statute
is interpreted in natural, plain and ordinary meaning.
Combination different acts
Series same acts
Statute or act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standard
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess.
75 | Plunder (RA 7080)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
3. Violates due process
4. Gives law enforces unbridled discretion
Vagueness doctrine merely requires reasonable degree of
certainty, not absolute precision.
Chilling effect does not apply to penal statues because they
have in terrorem effect.
Overbreadth and vagueness have special application to free
speech clauses.
Sec. 4 circumvents the proving of reasonable doubt?
No. Reasonable doubt is indispensable. Sec. 4 is related to Sec.
1 and Sec. 2. It may even be severed.
Mala in se?
Yes. It needs proof of criminal intent. Plunder is a heinous
crime.
Anti-Alias (CA 142, RA 6085)

Prescription of a continuing offense starts to run from the date
of last illegal use.
Jashanmal presented himself as Balani in any
public documents without stating or affixing his
real or original name.
102
Balani v. IAC
Petition GRANTED.
Not liable under Anti-Alias.
Name used was deemed authorized by
Immigration since 1949.
In this case, prescription not start to run on the last use.

Immigration certificate show that Balani had been using
publicly Balani and the government authorities are deemed to
have knowledge of the alleged violation.
Where the offense has not been concealed (i.e., evidenced by a
public record), State will not be permitted to plead ignorance.
Also, Immigration had authorized the use of Balani.
No factual basis in charging petitioner with illicit use thereof.
103
Ursua v. CA
76 | Anti-Alias (CA 142, RA 6085)
Ursua is a c Community ENR officer who was

charged with bribery, dishonest, abuse of
authority and giving of unwarranted benefits.
Purpose of Anti-alias law?

Curb common practice among Chinese merchants using
different names.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
His counsel requested OMB to be furnished of
copy of the complaint against petitioner. Could
not send his mailman (Perez) so counsel
requested Ursua to get it instead. Ursua, afraid
that OMB will be able to identify him, agreed
with the mailman that Ursua use the name of
mailman. On Ursuas way out, met Amparo
who knew him as a customer in gas station.
Amparo then told OMB that they have just met
Ursua, the accused. OMB found that Ursua used
a different name in the log book. Case was filed
on the use of alias.
Petition GRANTED.
Use of alias neither proven to habitual nor to
deceive the public.
Doctrine
Law penalizes use of alias unless it was duly authorized by
proper judicial proceeds and recorded in the civil registrar.
Alias is a name/s used or intended to be used publicly and
habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his
real name.
Ursua liable?
No.
Use of fictitious name or different belonging to another without
any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this
name in addition to his real name does not fall within the
prohibition.
The use of Perez is not an alias of petitioner.
Use of mailmans name was an isolated case.
The confusion and fraud in business transaction which the antialias law and its related statutes seek to prevent are not present.
Penal statute be construed strictly against the state.
Alias is a name/s used or intended to be used publicly and
habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his
real name.
Follow Ursua v. CA by applying stare decisis.
104
People v. Estrada
In addition to plunder, charged with perjury.

Evidence for illegal alias charge was presented.
SB ruled in favor of Estrada.
Petition GRANTED.
No intent to use Jose Velarde publicly.
At time of commission, Estrada was the president. Required by

law to disclose true name?
No. No law says so.
Law does not make distinction that would justify differential
treatment.
SB gravely abused discretion in applying Ursua when it
already ruled on its non-applicability?
No. The cited SB resolution was an interlocutory order. Hence,
can be modified and rescinded upon.
77 | Anti-Alias (CA 142, RA 6085)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Estradas constitutional right to be informed was violated?
Yes. Terms should be sufficient to enable a persons of common
understanding to know the offense charged.
Defective information?
Yes.
Multiple transactions on several separate days that People
claims would result in surprise and denial of an opportunity to
prepare for Estrada who has right to rely on the single day
mentioned in the Information (Feb. 4, 2000).
In this case, necessarily impacts the case of the People because
it goes into the habituality of the offense.
But he signed it in the presence of Lacquian and Atty. Chua?
No. They are not part of the public.
Lacquian was chief of staff.
Atty. Chuawas a lawyer-friend.
Apply rule in libel where mere communication to a third person
is publicity?
No. Not applicable in Anti-Alias.
Bank deposits are statutorily protected or recognized zones of
privacy.
Private nature of Estradas act of signing cannot be claimed as
public use of alias.
Enactment of RA 9160 (money laundering) is significant
development because prior to enactment, numbered accounts or
anonymous accounts were permitted banking transactions,
whether they be allowed by law or mere banking regulation.
Piracy (PD 532)

105
People v. Puno
78 | Piracy (PD 532)
Ms. Sarmiento owns a bakeshop. Was fetched

by husbands driver, Puno. On their way home,
Enrique, young man, entered the front seat and
presented to be Punos nephew but Enrique
Kidnapping for ransom?

No.
Extortion of money was under compulsion of threats and
intimidation.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
pointed gun at Mrs. Sarmiento. Wanted P100k
and was given 3 checks. Ms. Sarmiento jumped
out of the car and was able to flag down a fish
vendors van. According to Puno, he stopped
the car and freely allowed Mrs. Sacramento to
step out. Puno admits to liability but says he
needed the money for his ulcer.
Petition GRANTED.
Convicted for simple robbery only.
Absurd to charged highway robbery just
because the crime was done in the highway.
Doctrine
On specific intent to kidnap, there must be indubitable proof of
actual intent to deprive the offended party.
In this case, no intent to kidnap or deprive of personal liberty.
US v. Ancheta
Detention or forcible taking, even for appreciable period of
time but for the purpose of killing, does not constitute
kidnapping or serious illegal detention.
Determination of crime is the motive and specific intent.
Aids at arriving at correct appreciation and accurate
conclusion.
Amounts given equivalent to ransom?
No.
Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for
redemption of a captured person.
In this case, these were merely amounts involuntary
surrendered upon the occasion of robbery.
PD 532 amended kidnapping and serious illegal detention?
No. Rather, it modified brigandage.
Highway robbers and brigands are synonymous.
Band of brigands are more than a gang of ordinary robbers.
Brigandage law is to prevent formation of robbers (more than
three armed persons).
Necessary to show that member/s actually committed robbery
or kidnapping or any other purpose attainable by violent means.
If robbery is committed by a band whose members were not
primarily organized for the purpose of committing robbery or
kidnapping, the crime would only be robbery (or robbery by a
band if at least four participants).
Preamble of the law:
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
inhabitants who travel from one place to another
A single act of robbery chosen by the accused could not be
considered to be within the intent of the law.
PD 532 amendments
Increase penalties
Not require at least four persons forming a band of
robbers
Presumption that they brigands if they used unlicensed
firearms is no longer applicable
But robbery was done in the highway?
No. Absurd to have literal interpretation.
If allowed, any other law would have been superseded if done
in the highway (anti-carnapping, anti-cattle rustling, etc.)
Can be convicted with simple robbery?
Yes. Necessarily elements are present in the offense charged.
106
People v. Sandoval
Group of young men (Laurente, Baguio,

Undalok) was on their way home from an
amateur singing contest. Saw Sandoval and Pat
following them. Pat was armed with hunting
knife. Frisked Laurente and took his wallet.
Baguio offered his wristwatch but Sandoval
stabbed him. Laurente and Undalok were abel
to run. Undalok went to the police and
identified Sandoval. But witnesses say that the
perpetrator was Sevilla, not Sandoval. RTC
found Sandoval guilty of robbery with homicide
and highway robbery.
Petition GRANTED.
Acquitted from highway robbery.
Liable of simple robbery and attempted robbery
with homicide.
Liable under highway robbery?

No. Just because the crime was done in the highway does not
mean that highway robbery is proper.
Elements of robbery:
1. Personal property belonging to another
2. Unlawful taking
3. Intent to gain
4. Violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things
Robbery with homicide?
No. Not shown that Baguios wallet was taken.
Only attempted robbery with homicide.
Pat will also be liable for attempted robbery with homicide
even if it was Sandoval who stabbed Baguio?
Yes. Conspiracy.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Showed unity of purpose.
107
People v. Catantan
Pilapil brothers were in the waters when the

accused boarded the pumpboat and ordered
them to dapa. Hogtied one of the brothers and
the other was ordered to ferry the accused to
Daan Tabogon. Engine conked. Freed the
hogtied brother. Saw another pumpboat of
Juanito with newer engine. Accused transferred
boats and left the brothers.
Petition DENIED.
Cannot assail to be temporary taking.
Abandoned Pilapil because engine broke down.
Piracy is
Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel or taking
away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or personal belongings of complement or
passengers
By means of violence or intimidation
In Philippine waters
Offenders are considered as pirates.
Grave coercion
Prevent another from doing something not prohibited
by law or compel him to do something against his will,
WON wrong to not
Accused merely boarded the boat?
No. Testimony shows that accuse actually seized the vessel
through force or intimidation.
To sustain the defense of the accused would be to ignore that
fishing vessel was seized by means of violence.
Lawlesss elements be discouraged from perpetrating such acts
of deprivation by imposing heavy penalty.
No intent to deprive permanently of their pumpboat?
No. Abandoned Pilapils because the engine broke down.
Cybercrime (RA 10175)
108
Disini v. Secretary of Justice
Petition to declare several provisions of RA

10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)
unconstitutional, as well as articles 353, 354,
361, and 362 of the RPC on the crime of libel.
(A) OFFENSES AGAINST THE CONFIDENTIALITY,

INTEGRITY AND AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTER DATA
AND SYSTEMS:
1.
Sec 4(a)(1) Illegal Access access to anothers computer

system, in whole or in part, without right.
A. Petitioners argue that this provision fails to meet the strict
scrutiny standard required of laws that interfere w/ the
fundamental rights of the people, and thus should be struck
81 | Cybercrime (RA 10175)

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
down.
*Strict scrutiny standard states that a legislative classification
(or law) that impermissibly interferes w/ the exercise of
fundamental rights (right to free speech, life, etc) or operates to
the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed
unconstitutional.
-Court finds nothing in section 4(a)(1) that deals with or have
abridged the fundamental rights of the people. Thus, the strict
scrutiny standard does not apply. What is being punished
accessing the computer system of another without right is a
universally condemned act.
*For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either
have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's
enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect
classification. Suspect classifications have come to include
race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.
B. Petitioners argue that this will jeopardize the jobs of ethical
hackers.
*ethical hackers those who employ tools of and techniques
used by criminal hackers but would neither steal nor damage the
system, for the purpose of finding vulnerabilities and to find their
remedies.
-Court argues that this is not covered by the provision, because a
clients engagement of an ethical hacker will mean granting of
the permission to access the system.
2. Sec 4(a)(3) Data Interference intentional or reckless
alteration, damaging, deletion, or deterioration of computer
data, electronic document, or electronic data message,
without right, including the introduction or transmission of
viruses.
A. Petitioners argue that this section suffers from overbreadth
that although it discourages data interference, it intrudes into
the area of protected speech and expression.
*Overbreadth doctrine states that a law is unconstitutional
for being too broad if it covers or intrudes into the
fundamental rights.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
-Court argues that this section does not encroach on these
rights at all. What is prohibited is essentially a form of
vandalism destroying without right the things of others, in
this case, computer data. Also, petitioners failed to prove
that this section actually suffers from overbreadth.
3. Section 4(a)(6) Cyber-squatting - The acquisition of a domain
name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy
reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such
a domain name is:
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing
trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at
the time of the domain name registration:
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person
other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and
(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests
in it.
A. Petitioners argue that this section violates the equal
protection clause. For example, there exists a well-known
billionaire-philanthropist named Julio Gandolfo. This will
cause the law to punish both a user who uses the name
because it happens to be his real name, and a user who uses
it because it happens to be his pseudo-name.
-Court argues that this is immaterial because what is being
punished is if it used for an evil purpose.
(B) COMPUTER-RELATED OFFENSES:
4.
Section 4(b)(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. The

intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession,
alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to
another,
whether
natural
or
juridical,
without
right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the
penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
A. Petitioners argue this section to be in violation of right to due
process and to privacy and to correspondence;

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
-Court argues that petitioners failed to show how this
provision violates right to due process, and to privacy and
correspondence, because there was nothing relevant to the
right.
*zones of privacy - an area or aspect of life that is held to be
protected from intrusion by a specific constitutional
guarantee/s (in this case, (a) decisional aspect, (b)
informational aspect)
B. Petitioners contend that this provision suffers from
overbreadth;
-Court argues that this provision does not suffer from
overbreadth based on the fact that again, it does not intrude
into fundamental/guaranteed freedoms like speech, privacy
etc (which proves the courts previous argument).
C. Petitioners fear that this provision violates the freedom of the
press in that journalists will be hindered in acquiring
unrestricted user account of a person to secure information
about him that could be published.
-Court argues that the act of acquisition must be for an
illegitimate purpose for it to be punished. Moreover,
acquiring and disseminating information made public by the
user himself cannot be considered as theft.
(C) CONTENT-RELATED OFFENSES:
5.
Section 4(c)(1) Cybersex - The wilful engagement,

maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of
any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity,
with the aid of a computer system, for favour or
consideration.
A. Petitioners argue that the above violates freedom of
expression. They fear that private communications of sexual
character between consenting adults, which are not regarded
as crimes under the penal code, would now be regarded as
crimes when done for favour in cyberspace.
-Court argues that based on the deliberations of the

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Bicameral Committee of Congress regarding this issue,
there is a lack of intent to penalize private showing
between and among two private persons. The
understanding of those who wrote the law is that the element
of engaging in a business is necessary to constitute
cybersex.
*engaging in a business maintaining, controlling, or
operating directly or indirectly the lascivious exhibition of
sexual organs/sexual activity w/ the aid of a computer
system. Includes cyber prostitution, white slave trade,
pornography, etc. for favour and consideration.
6.
Section 4(c)(2) Child Pornography. The unlawful or

prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No.
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed
through a computer system: Provided, that the penalty to be
imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for
in Republic Act No. 9775.
A. Petitioners mention about aiding and abetting a crime in relation

to ACPA (anti-child pornography act) and its provision about
child pornography.
-Court holds the constitutionality of this section, and will discuss
the question of aiding and abetting a crime elsewhere below.
7.
Section 4(c)(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications.

The transmission of commercial electronic communication
with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell,
or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:
(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or
(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service
and/or administrative announcements from the sender to its
existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(iii) The following conditions are present:
(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a
simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out)
from the same source;
(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not
purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and
(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not
purposely include misleading information in any part of the
message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.
A. Petitioners argue that contrary to the governments thinking, that
unsolicited commercial communication/spams are a nuisance and
that it wastes the storage and network of internet service
providers, spams are not nuisance because people might be
actually interested in such ads. Furthermore, that the government
has no basis in holding that these reduce the efficiency of
computers. Also, they argued that long before, people have been
already receiving such unsolicited ads by mail, which have never
been outlawed.
-This provision is invalid and unconstitutional, therefore
removing the criminalization of transmission of spams. To
prohibit such would deny his person the right to read his emails
which is under right to commercial speech. To rob him of this
right violates the freedom of expression.
8.
Articles 353-355 of the RPC, Section 4(c)(4) of the Cyber

Crime Law
Article 353 definition of libel
Article 354 requirement for publicity
Article 355 libel by writing or similar means
Section 4(c)(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of
libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed through a computer system or any
other similar means which may be devised in the future.
A. Petitioners dispute these provisions constitutionality. They argue

that these provisions still carry the requirement of presumed

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
malice even when the latest jurisprudence (Borjal v CA) already
replaces it with actual malice. They argue that this infringes on
his freedom of expression.
-Court holds the constitutionality of libel with respect to the
original author.
B. Petitioners also argue that these provisions violate the countrys
obligation under the UNHRC General Comment 34, saying that
libel such include the defense of truth for acquittal.
-Court argues that the General Comment does not constitute an
all-encompassing defense. It may be used as a defense, but under
the condition that the action must be done with good motives
(Article 361).
9.
Section 5 Other Offenses. The following acts shall also

constitute an offense:
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any

person who wilfully abets or aids in the commission of any of
the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any
person who wilfully attempts to commit any of the offenses
enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
A. Petitioners dispute this provisions constitutionality due to
overbreadth. They argue that Section 5 renders criminally liable
any person who wilfully abets or aids in the commission or
attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated as
cybercrimes.
-Court enumerated the actors in the cyber world. A) the
blogger/original poster of the assailed statement, b) the blog
service provider like Yahoo, c) the ISP like PLDT, d) the internet
caf that may have provided the computer used for the posting,
e) the person who makes a favourable comment on the blog, and
f) the person who posts a link to the blog site. The court
explained the need for each of these actors, and relates these
actions to the physical world (where one may post on a bulletin

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
board a libellous statement, and someone writes an agreement on
that statement).
-Court holds that except for the original author of the assailed
statement, the rest who pressed Like, Share etc., are essentially
knee-jerk (impulsive) statements of readers, therefore not liable.
Also, the Court argued that it is impossible for hundreds and
thousands of friends or followers to respond in the criminal
judge where the charge is to be filed.
-Court also holds that if the comment does not merely react to
the original posting but creates an altogether new defamatory
story, then that should be considered as an original posting
published on the internet and will be punishable.
-Furthermore, Court also holds that when it comes to certain
cybercrimes (such as online libel), the waters are muddier and
the line of sight is somewhat blurred. The idea of aiding and
abetting becomes much more unclear in relation to those
cybercrimes, unlike those in traditional crimes such as destroying
a forest, where aiding and abetting can be clearly and easily
assessed.
10. Section 6 - All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of
this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be
one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may
be.
*basis for higher penalty as the Sol Gen points out, there exists
a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the
use of the technology in question, and through other means. In
using such technology, the offender often evades identification
and is able to reach far more victims.
11. Section 7 - Liability under Other Laws. A prosecution
under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended or special laws.
-Court leaves the determination of the application of Sec 7 to
actual cases, with exceptions to online libel and online child
porno.
A. Online libel Section 7 cannot apply to this because online libel,
and libel committed through publish material/print, is identically
the same and cannot be the material of two separate libels. It is in
fact one and the same offense. Charging the offender under both
laws (by virtue of this Section) would violate his right against
double jeopardy.
B. Online Child porno same justification as online libel. Sec
4(c)(2) merely expands the ACPAs scope, the same way Section
4(c)(4) expands RPC Art. 353s scope.
12. Section 8 Penalties any person found guilty of any of the
punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this
act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or
a fine of at least P200,000 up to a maximum amount
commensurate to the damage incurred or both.
Section 4(a)(5) prision mayor or a fine of not more than
P500,000 or both.
Section 4(a) recluson temporal or a fine of at least P500,000
up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage
incurred or both, shall be imposed.
Section 4(c)(1) prision mayor or a fine of at least P200,000P1,000,000.
Section 4(c)(2) shall be punished with penalties provided
in RA 9775 (ACPA). Provided, that penalties imposed shall
be 1 degree higher if committed through a computer system.
Section 4(c)(3) arresto mayor or a fine of at least P50,000,

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
not exceeding P250,000 or both.
Section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment 1 degree
lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the relative
offense or a fine of at least P100,000, not exceeding P500,000
or both.
-Court stated that fixing penalties is the prerogative of the
legislature. Judges and magistrates can only interpret and apply
them and have no authority to modify or revise their range as
determined by the legislature. Doing so means encroaching.
13. Section 12 Real-time collection of traffic data - Law
enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized
to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic
data in real-time associated with specified communications
transmitted by means of a computer system.
*traffic data refers only to the communications origin,
destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of
underlying service, but not content nor identities.
*all other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will
require a court warrant.
*court warrant may only be granted: upon written application
and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant
and the witnesses he may produce and the showing:
(1) That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the
crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is being
committed, or is about to be committed:
(2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence
that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person
for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such
crimes; and
(3) That there are no other means readily available for

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
obtaining such evidence.
A.
Petitioners assail the grant to law enforcement agencies of the

power to collect or record traffic data in real time as tending to
curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse.
Petitioners invoke the right of every individual to privacy and to
be protected from government snooping into their messages or
information that they send to one another.
-Court holds that Section 12 has a proper governmental
purpose, and through this purpose, government can require the
disclosure of matters normally considered private upon showing
that such requirement has a rational decision to the purpose of
the law.
B.
Petitioners point out that Section 12 is too broad and do not

provide ample safeguards against crossing legal boundaries and
invading the peoples right to privacy.
-The court states that the phrase due cause is too sweeping
and vague and will definitely intrude into an individuals right
to privacy, that it just says due cause thus justifying a general
gathering of data. Similar to the use of a general search warrant,
which the Constitution prohibits.
-Court however agrees with Justices Carpio and Brion that
when seemingly random bits of traffic data are gathered in bulk,
pooled together, and analysed, they reveal patterns of activities
which can then be used to create profiles of the persons under
surveillance.
14. Section 13. Preservation of Computer Data. The integrity

of traffic data and subscriber information relating to
communication services provided by a service provider shall
be preserved for a minimum period of six (6) months from
the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly
preserved for six (6) months from the date of receipt of the
order from law enforcement authorities requiring its
preservation.

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time
extension for another six (6) months: Provided, That once
computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by a service
provider is used as evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to
such service provider of the transmittal document to the
Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to
preserve the computer data until the termination of the
case.
The service provider ordered to preserve computer data
shall keep confidential the order and its compliance.
A. Petitioners claim that Section 13 constitutes an undue
deprivation of the right to property. They likened it as a form of
garnishment of personal property, and that will prevent users
from accessing and disposing traffic data that they essentially
own.
-The Sol Gen points out though that the data the service
providers preserve on orders of the law are not made
inaccessible to users. This will then not unduly hamper the
transmission or use of the same.
15.
Section 14 Disclosure of Computer Data - Law enforcement

authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an
order requiring any person or service provider to disclose
or submit subscribers information, traffic data or relevant
data in his/its possession or control within seventy-two (72)
hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid
complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation
and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the
purpose of investigation.
-This is similar to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners argue
that the issuance of subpoena is a judicial function.
-Court argues that it is well-settled that the power to issue
subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial function. Executive
agencies also has the power as an adjunct to their investigatory
powers.
92 | Human Security Act

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Human Security Act
Doctrine
Certiorari proper?
No. Certiorari does not lie where respondents are not quasilegislative or quasi-judicial.
Has locus standi?
No. A party who assails the constitutionality of a statute must
have a direct and personal interest.
Although transcendental importance is an exception to
suffering of direct or personal injury, cases involving
constitutionality of penal statue belong to an altogether
different genus of constitutional litigation.
Human Security Act is assailed. Facial

challenge versus as applied is discussed.
109
Southern Hemisphere v. AntiTerrorism Council
Petition DISMISSED.
Certiorari improper.
No locus standi.
No facial challenge/as applied.
A court cannot take judicial notice of a fact which is dependent

on the existence or non-existence of a fact which the court has
no constructive knowledge.
Judicial notice, requisites:
1. Common and general knowledge
2. Well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful
3. Known to be within jurisdiction
Has actual case or controversy?
No. Failed to present.
Actual case or controversy means an existing case ripe for
determination
Threats, tagging?
No. Perceived threats are not sufficient facts.
Widespread fear and coerce the government facially
invalid?
No. Facial invalidation of criminal statues is not appropriate.
Doctrine of vagueness when lacks comprehensible standards
that men of common intelligent will necessarily guess.
Doctrine of overbreadth means sweeping unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Facial challenge is an examination of the entire law.
As applied challenge considers only extant facts affecting real

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
litigants.
Hence, facial challenge cannot be grounds for penal laws.
As applied challenge applies?
No. Only to a particular defendant.
RA 9372 regulates speech?
No. What is penalized is the conduct, not the speech.
Class note:
Facial challenge when there is unconstitutionality by merely
reading the law itself.

Special Penal Laws Case Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Penal Laws Case Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Rules of construction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Relationship between special penal laws and RPC ................................................................................... 2

Prohibition of death penalty (RA 9346) ..................................................................................................... 4

Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103) ...................................................................................................... 4

Probation law (PD 968, PD 1990, PD 1257) ............................................................................................... 9

Subsidiary penalty (RA 10159) ................................................................................................................. 13

Preventive imprisonment (RA 10592) ...................................................................................................... 14

Obstruction of justice (PD 1829) .............................................................................................................. 17

Fencing (PD 1612) ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Juvenile justice and welfare act (RA 9344; RA 10630) .......................................................................... 21

Anti-wire tapping (RA 4200)..................................................................................................................... 23

Crimes against humantirian law (RA 9851) ............................................................................................ 25

Dangerous drugs (RA 9165, 10586, 10640) .............................................................................................. 26

Firearms and explosives (PD 1866, RA 8294, 9516, 10591) ................................................................... 31

Arson (PD 1613, RA 7659) ........................................................................................................................ 32

Access device (RA 8484) ............................................................................................................................ 33

Carnapping (RA 6539, RA 7659) .............................................................................................................. 34

Bank secrecy (RA 1405, RA 6426) ............................................................................................................ 35

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Money laundering (RA 9160, RA 9194, RA 10167, RA 10365) ............................................................. 38

Estafa (PD 1689) ......................................................................................................................................... 41

Bouncing checks law (BP 22) .................................................................................................................... 43

Illegal recruitment ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Sexual harassment ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Violence against women and children (RA 9262) ................................................................................... 49

Child abuse (RA 7610) ............................................................................................................................... 53

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Code of Conduct for public officers (RA 6713) ....................................................................................... 63

Forfeiture law (RA 1379)........................................................................................................................... 65

Graft and corrupt practices (RA 3019) .................................................................................................... 67

Plunder (RA 7080) ..................................................................................................................................... 75

Anti-Alias (CA 142, RA 6085) ................................................................................................................... 76

Piracy (PD 532) .......................................................................................................................................... 78

Cybercrime (RA 10175) ............................................................................................................................. 81

Human Security Act .................................................................................................................................. 93

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Petitioner is charged with crime of theft of large

Estrada is charged with plunder but invokes

As long as the law affords comprehensible guide or standard,

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Relationship between special penal laws and RPC

Valid warrantless search?

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

3 | Relationship between special penal laws and RPC

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Prohibition of death penalty (RA 9346)

Respondent-appellant charged with qualified

Defense of denial proper?

Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103)

4 | Prohibition of death penalty (RA 9346)

Appellant Saley was charged estafa (11), illegal

Recruitment is the canvassing, enlisting, transporting, utilizing,

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

5 | Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103)

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Petitioner was selling cars. Purchased a brand

MTC has jurisdiction?

6 | Indeterminate sentence law (RA 4103)

Special Penal Laws 1st Semester, AY 2015-2016 | Catapusan, Kevin C.

Complaint for railroading a criminal case.