ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW

NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

No, I will not convict D as charged for Homicide based on Article 4(1). The proximate cause
doctrine does not apply. Tetanus infection has an incubation period of only 14 days; the facts show
that the victim survived 22 days. This means that the tetanus infection is the proximate cause of
the death, not the stabbing. The criminal liability of the accused is only liable for Slight Physical
Injuries with Treachery.

Basis: Urbano v. People (2009); People v. Villacorta (2011)

No, I will not convict X for qualified theft. Under Article 308 in relation to 310, qualified
theft is committed when a person takes the property of another with intent to gain. Here, what was
taken was a check which was worthless. In qualified theft, the element of intent to gain requires
that the stolen thing be OF VALUE.
X is liable for an impossible crime under Art. 42. It would have amounted to theft, but there was
no way the theft could be consummated because of the inherent impossibility brought about by
extraneous circumstances beyond the control of the offender. (Jacinto v. People)

Yes, I will uphold the conviction of murder for Y but downgrade liability for the crime against X.

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA
With respect to the daughter who was hit on the abdomen, Y, there was murder. The fact that X
used that kind of shotguna 12-gauge shotgun means he intended to kill the victim. There was
treachery, therefore the crime is committed against Y is Murder.
With respect to the father, X, the wound was not so serious. Here, frustrated murder should be
downgraded to mere attempted murder. Since it was a non-mortal wound, it will never bring about
death. Thus, the conviction should only be for attempted murder and NOT for frustrated murder.

Basis: People v. Labiaga (2013)

C. The mere act of holding a weapon does not constitute unlawful aggression yet. It might be a
provocation but not UA. UA must place the person invoking it in threatened, actual, imminent
danger.

Basis: People v. Fontanilla

THERE IS NO TREACHERY. According to People v. Vicente Bilbar. When the meeting between the
victim and the accused was casual, and the stabbing was sudden and in the spur of the moment ,
there can be no treachery even if the victim was rendered defenseless. IT WAS DONE IMPULSIVELY.
The first element is wanting. He did not deliberately choose that mode of attack.
Note: the elements of treachery are:

1. Deliberately and consciously adopted the ways means and methods

2. By reason of the ways means and methods, the offended party was unable to put up any
fight / defense.

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

Yes, Speed is liable as principal by direct participation. He is the one who actually raped A. X, on
the other hand, is NOT liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. Xs acts were not
indispensable to the commission of the crime of rape. Those can be performed by any person not
necessarily X.
What then is the criminal liability? R.A. 7610, Child Abuse. X is liable because the act of X is that of
a pimp procuring a child prostitute. Hence, X is convicted for this crime of child abuse and not as a
principal by indispensable cooperation.
Basis: People v. Dina Dulay

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

A) ALL OF THEM are liable as principals, EXCEPT Perpenianshe is liable as an accomplice. There
was no showing that she was part of the kidnapping. Her only participation was talking
to the others and going to the resort. She is an accomplice because she already saw that Chan
was there, and yet she did not report the matter to the police. Therefore, she concurs with the
criminal design of the principal.
B) She acted with discernment. The fact that she lied about her age, address, and other things,
means there was discernment. She KNEW they were committing a crime and yet she did not inform
the police officers. Her minority at the time of the commission of the crime has the effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
C) The Supreme Court made a new decision here. Civil indemnity for heinous crimes used to be
P75,000. Starting from this case, whenever the crime committed is heinous, the liabilities are as
follows:
Civil Indemnity P100,000
Moral Damages P100,000 without need of proof except the fact of the commission of the
crime
Exemplary Damages P100,000

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA
2 counts of Frustrated Murder and 3 counts of Murder.
When the accused uses a submachine gun or a high-powered gun, the crime is not based on the
number of times he pulls the trigger but on the number of bullets released. Since it was highpowered, there are as many crimes committed as there are persons killed.
Basis: People v. Mario Tabaco

2 counts of murder + 7 counts of attempted murder.

Article 48 IS INAPPLICABLE in this case. Here, there are several gunmen, several bullets, and
several people. There are as many crimes committed as there are people injured. The basis of
Article 48 is the singularity of act. The Court also noted that singularity of impulse is not written in
the law.
Basis: 2012 People v. Melmida*

I will affirm the conviction. The offender performed a single act of stepping on the accelerator of his
vehicle and turning to the right, running over the victims. Since the basis of this is the single act of
stepping on the accelerator, a compound crime exists.
Basis: People v. Punzalan

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

His death extinguished everything. Because of PAOs MR, the SC decision had not become
final and executory. Therefore, because he died before the finality of the judgment, both civil and
criminal liabilities are extinguished.

Basis: People v. Amistoso (2013)

The case will prosper; the crime has not prescribed. According to Act 3326, in case of BP22
or other special penal laws where imprisonment does not exceed 1 year, the prescriptive period is 4
years. This is counted from the time the drawer received the notice of dishonor. Here, he received
the notice of dishonor in 1995, the case was filed on December 16 1997, then RTC on February 3,
2000. The December 16, 1997 filing with the prosecutor halted the prescriptive period.
Basis: People v. Maria Teresa Pangilinan (2013)

Reclusion Perpetua (RP). Since the penalty prescribed by law is RP, under Article 63, it shall be
imposed REGARDLESS of any mitigating circumstance where the penalty imposable is a single
indivisible penalty. There is also no benefit of parole because under R.A. 9346, if the penalty is RP,
IT IS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PAROLE.

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

The Court is wrong. The three-fold rule cannot be used by the Court. The three-fold rule refers to
SERVICE of sentence and is directed to the Director of Prisons, not by the judges. The latter, of
course, are mandated to impose the penalty mandated by law. Judge should convict for each count
of rape, Reclusion Perpetua for each and P50,000 for each. There are as many civil liabilities as she
has been violated.

Falsification of Private Document.

Why? Under Article 1712, a cash voucher is a private document. It is not regulated by the
Code of Commerce. Here, estafa could not have been committed without the falsification.
**Some Notes: Estafa cannot be complexed with falsification of private document because
they both require the element of damage. The following may be considered in determining
which crime was committed:
If Estafa cannot be committed without falsifyingFalsification of Private Document.
If Estafa can be committed even without the falsificationESTAFA, because falsification was
merely incidental.
Basis: People v. Batolan

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA
He is liable for malversation of public funds. If funds are not forthcoming from an someone
who has a responsibility to account for them, there arises a presumption of malversation.
Basis: Cantos v. People (2013)

Yes he is. Malversation under 217. There was negligence on the part of the PDEA agent,
considering the bulk and cost of dangerous drugs, he should have asked for escort. By reason of
his negligence, the drugs (then already in custodia legis) were stolen. (Torres v. People).

QUALIFIED RAPE.
People v. Bansing (2013)

X is liable for QUALIFIED RAPE, as in the case of People v. Rosal

There are two requisites in qualifying a rape by reason of the victims being a mental retardate:
1. Victim was suffering from mental retardation
2. Offender knew of the mental retardation
So if in the information, if you only allege that the victim was a retardate, but you did not allege
that the accused KNEW of this fact, then the crime is only rape.
If the Information states both and both are proven before the court = the crime now committed is
QUALIFIED RAPE.

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

NO, I will not.

MINORITY IS NOT PRESENT. The Information alleges two things: minor + common law spouse. During
trial, the victim testified when asked about her age and time of rape, she said she did not know her age.
So the judge asked the prosecution to produce the Certificate of Live Birth in court, which was never
produced in Court. Though, it was attached to the Formal Offer of Exhibits, but nobody identified the
same. It was not proven that she was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime.
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP IS NOT PRESENT. Both victim and accused testified
that X is the stepfather, the Information alleges him as a common law spouse. But during the trial of the
case, they said stepfather. The latter implies they are married. Common law means they are not.
So SC said Sial is liable only for Simple Rape, since these two qualifying circumstances were not proven
beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself for it to be considered against the accused.
People v. Sial 2013

ATTEMPTED RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.

The obvious intent was to rape the victim; however the said rape was not consummated. In the course
thereof, they killed the victim. Here, we have the SCC under 266-B of Attempted Rape with Homicide.
When by reason or on the occasion of attempted rape, a homicide is committed.
People v. Nabong (2007)

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

Special Complex Crime of Rape with Homicide. The criminal intent was to rape the victim but in the
course thereof, homicide was committed.

ROBBERY BY A BAND and KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM (267)

Here, you have 5 men, armed. Their criminal design was to rob, and they indeed robbed by taking
jewelry and money of the victim. According to Supreme Court, this was robbery by a band under Article
296. It does not matter if only A and B divested the wife of jewelry, they shall all be liable for robbery by a
band if they did not do anything to prevent its consummation.
The taking of the husband and demanding 3M = Kidnapping for Ransom. It does not matter if the
money was paid, it suffices that the purpose for taking the husband was to get money. People v. Basao
(2012)

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. The criminal design was to get the winnings of the victim, and in the
course thereof they killed two victims and tried to kill the third and the latter just dove into the canal.
Even that third attempt is already absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, because they were
committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery.
People v. Caba

ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE (Article 297)

The intent of the offender is to rob. Since victim could not produce the money, accused shot the victim. In
this case, he was charged with Robbery with Homicide. CA said the robbery was not consummated, it was
only attempted because the money was not obtained. SC said CA is correct.
Dwelling is appreciated as aggravating.
Why? Because it was against persons. The answer will be different if robbery with violence by use of
force upon thingsas to the latter, the violence is necessarily against the dwelling.
Nighttime is not considered because it was lit with a lamp and the moon was bright.
People v. Bara (2013)

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

) I will affirm the conviction. It is not necessary that the corpus delicti be produced, Zapanta was
entrusted to be project manager and tasked to have custody of the materials. Instead, he delivers the
materials to another place. In said act of taking, there was grave abuse of confidence on the part of the
project manager.
B) Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime.
C) In theft, what constitutes corpus delicti is the fact that the offender TOOK the personal property of
another. For as long as there is a single witness that can testify as to the single act of taking, there exists
taking. Here, even if the actual steel beams were not produced, the testimony of the delivery men that
Zapanta asked them to unload is sufficient to produce the crime.
People v. Zapanta 2013

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

A) W is NOT liable for Estafa by Postdating a Check. While all the elements for this crime are present.
However, the Court found that the prosecution was unable to prove that it was indeed Wagas that
transacted. It is necessary that the issuance of the check was in concomitance with the deprivation. There
was absolutely no evidence that this was the case. Victim himself confirmed that the transaction was only
by telephone and has not even seen Wagas. SINCE THE IDENTITY OF THE DRAWER OF THE CHECK WAS
NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, then SC acquitted Wagas.
B) YES, he should be civilly liable. The fact that he is the signatory to the said check, means he is civilly
liable the moment the check bounced.
Perfect example of ability to recover civil even if acquitted of criminal act.
People v. Wagas (2013)

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

The accused is NOT liable for Estafa by Postdating a Check. Again, it is necessary that it be in
concomitance with the deprivation.
He is NOT liable for BP22 either, he is not drawer of the check. It is impossible for him to know that the
checks were not funded.
Likewise, no civil liability to the value of the check because he was not the drawer of the checks.
People v. Ilagan (2007)

On liability, SC SAID NO. Although the crime charged is estafa, based on the evidence, the crime is
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

Absolutory causes apply only to those crimes listed (Theft, Swindling, Malicious Mischief). The moment
those crimes are complexed with other crimes, the absolutory cause is no longer available. Now, since
son-in-law commited the complex crime of estafa then the absolutory cause he is invoking no longer
applies to him.
See: 2011 MCQ and 2013 Essay

30. First Incident: Clearly Rape. February 1

Second Incident: Forcibly abducted her put her in the trike and went to different places, and went to
the house, and there the brother in law raped the sister in law

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

SC: Two Counts of QUALIFIED RAPE. The forcible abduction is absorbed by the qualified
rape insofar as the second circumstance is concerned. So the first one is QUALIFIED RAPE, because
of the relationship by affinity. The second incident, it is not forcible abduction with rape because
the obvious intent was to rape the victim, since that is the clear intent, forcible abduction is
already absorbed in the crime of rape since it is merely incidental.
Forcible abduction is the taking away of the woman with lewd design. Carnal knowledge is
not an element of forcible abduction.
Consented abduction is the taking away of a virgin over 12 but under 18, this is with
consent! Carnal knowledge is not an element.

So when you commit rape in those two just mentioned, separate rape. COMPLEX CRIME OF
CONSENTED ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. Consented abduction was a necessary means to commit the
crime of rape. (Like the bf-gf who ran away, but girl did not want to have sex but guy forced her
anyway)

People v. Cayanan (2013)

31. SC held the accused liable for physical injuries, NOT LIABLE for RA7610. In the opening statement of
the case, not all crimes involving children amount violations of RA7610. There must be intent to debase,
demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being. Here, the father slapped the young boy, absent
any such intent. He was angered brought about by the young boys act of throwing stones at his
daughters. Since it happened at the spur of the moment, it cannot be said that there was intent to debase
the child. Hence, only slight physical injuries with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
(Bongalon v. People 2013)

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

The elements of Fencing are:

1. Robbery or Theft had been committed here, the warehouse was broken into.
2. Offender who is NOT a principal or accomplice was found in possession of said thing, Marketing was
found in possession of those tires.
3. Offender should have known that those are stolen.
SC said it should have been known that these were stolen-no receipt was shown to him for these
tires.
4. Intent to gain for himself or for another.
SC: Under PD1612, it is expressly provided that you have to ask for a permit from the PNP Commander of
the place, if you are buying from someone and then re-selling it. Not having done so, he is liable for
fencing.
Ong v. People (2013)

14 October 2014

ALBANO REVIEW CENTER

2014 CRIMINAL LAW
NOTES FROM CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK LECTURE OF: VICTORIA C. GARCIA

Illegal Possession a person can only be held liable for this if NO OTHER CRIME was
committed. Here, having been held liable for comelec gun ban violation, he can no longer be convicted of
Illegal Possession.
SC said: Yes he is liable for both crimes. But by virtue of PD1866 as amended by RA8294, the
conviction for illegal possession of firearm must be set aside.
Remember R.A. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms) Section 29:
Whenever the use of a loose firearm is inherent in the commission of the crime, such use of the firearm
shall be an aggravating circumstance whether it is a violation of the RPC or SPL.
If however, it is not inherent in the commission of the crime, the offender shall be charged separately: The
crime he committed + violation of R.A. 10591.
Escalante v. People (2013)

14 October 2014