You are on page 1of 27

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS PRE-WEEK NOTES

-A foresight to the bar exam


By: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin
PUP-COLLEGE OF LAW
Author: Special Penal Laws Criminal Law Reviewer
Vols. I and II (Rex Bookstore); Special Proceedings
(Rex); ADR and Arbitration Laws(Rex); Bar Review
Guide to Criminal Law (Central Book Supply)

19. THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM


ACT OF 2009- Republic Act No. 9995
20. THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW- Republic Act
No. 9346
21. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF
2006 - Republic Act No. 9344
22. HEINOUS CRIME LAW-

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL


1.

PROBATION LAW- Presidential Decree No.


968

23. THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY


ROBBERY LAW OF 1974- Presidential Decree
No. 532

2.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW- Act No.


4103 as amended

24. THE ANTI-CARNAPPING


Republic Act No. 6539

3.

THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES


ACT- Republic Act No. 3019

25. THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW- Republic Act No.


6235

4.

THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS


ACT OF 2002- Republic Act No. 9165

26. (Amending) THE LAW ON


Presidential Decree No. 1613

5.

ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ANDTHEIR


CHILDREN ACT OF 2004- Republic Act No.
9262

27. THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW- Republic Act No. 6085

6.

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW- Batas Pambansa


Blg. 22

7.

THE ANTI-FENCING LAW


Presidential Decree No. 1612

8.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM- PD 1866


as amended by R.A. 8294

9.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001R.A. NO. 9160 as amended by R.A. 9194,


R.A. 10167, R.A. 10168 and R.A. 10365, also
known as An Act Further Strengthening The
Anti-Money Laundering Law

OF

28. OBSTRUCTION OF
Decree No. 1829

11. HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (THE ANTITERRORISM LAW) - Republic Act No. 9372

JUSTICE-

OF

1972-

ARSON

Presidential

____________________________________________

1979-

10. THE ANTI- HAZING LAW

ACT

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL


Note:
1. When the crime is punished by a special law, as a
rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
In intent to commit the crime, there must be
criminal intent; in intent to perpetrate the act, it is
enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously. (Elenita C. Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No.
190889, January 10, 2011)
2. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA.

12. THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW Republic Act


No. 7610
13. THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT-Republic Act No.
9745
14. THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF
1995- Republic Act No. 7877
15. THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF
2003- Republic Act No. 9208
16. PLUNDER as amended
17. THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT- Republic Act
No. 4200

a. In mala in se, the act committed is


inherently wrong or immoral; in mala
prohibita, the act is merely prohibited by
law;
b. In mala in se, good faith is a proper
defense; in mala prohibita, good faith is
not a defense;
c. In mala in se, the stages of execution under
Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code is
considered in determining the proper penalty
to be imposed; in mala prohibita, they are
not;

18. THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF


2009- Republic Act No. 9775

1 | 28

d. In mala in se, the degree of participation of


the offenders under Title Two of the Revised
Penal Code is taken into consideration on the
imposition of penalty; in mala prohibita, it is
not;
e. In mala in se, the modifying circumstances
are appreciated in determining the
imposable penalty; in mala prohibita, they
are not;
f. In mala in se, generally, the crimes are
punished under the Revised Penal Code; in
mala prohibita, generally, the crimes are
punished under special penal laws.
3. Special laws which are intended merely as
amendments to certain provisions of the Revised
Penal Code are mala in se and still subject to its
provision.
4. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of
criminal intent as held in the case of Estrada v
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001.
Hence, the application of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecute
under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly
that mens rea is an element of plunder since the
degree of responsibility of the offender is determined
by his criminal intent. x x x

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, ACT NO. 4103


as amended
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1999,
1994, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988]

1. If a special law adopted penalties from the


RPC, ISLAW will apply just as it would in
felonies.
ex. RA 7610 although a special law, adopted the
penalty defined in RPC.
2. The imposition of indeterminate sentence is
mandatory in criminal cases.
3. When ISLAW is not applicable? (MEMORIZE)
1. Offenses punishable by death or life
imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Habitual delinquents.
6. Those who escaped from confinement or
those who evaded sentence.
7. Those granted with conditional pardon
and who violated the terms of the same.
8. Those whose maximum period of
imprisonment does not exceed one year.

9. Those already serving final judgment upon


the approval of this Act.
4. The law is not applicable if the penalty is destierro.
Why? It does not involve imprisonment.
5. Rules:
SPL

RPC

Maximum
term

-shall not
exceed the
max. fixed by
law

-That, in view of
the attending
circumstances,
could be properly
imposed under
the rules of the
said Code

Minimum
term

-shall not be
less than
minimum fixed
by law

with the range


of the penalty
next lower to
that prescribed
by the Code.

*NOTE:
-Rules in offsetting are not applicable in crimes
punished under a SPECIAL LAW. The presence of any
generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating
circumstances will not affect the proper imposition of
the penalty.
-If the maximum term arrived and it does not exceed 1
year, ISLAW will not apply.
-If the sentence is imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day
for violation of Comprehensive Drugs Act, the same is
not correct as ISLAW mandates the Court to set the
minimum and maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence.
May the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority be appreciated even if the penalty imposed
is originally an indivisible penalty?
Yes. ISLAW is applicable because the penalty
which has been originally an indivisible penalty
(reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is
inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion
temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority. (People
vs.
Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227: July 20,
2011)
__________________________________________
PROBATION LAW
[BAR Q. 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002,
2001, 1997, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1990, 1986]
_____________________________________________
[BAR Q.1986,1989] The purposes of probation are as
follows:

2 | 28

(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation


of an offender by providing him with individualized
treatment; b) provide an opportunity for the
reformation of a penitent offender which might be
less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence;
and (c) prevent the commission of offenses.
CONSEQUENCE IF THE PROBATIONER VIOLATES ANY
OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION (SEC. 15)
The court may order the arrest of the
probationer, hold an informal summary hearing and
may revoke his probation. In which case, he has to
serve the sentence originally imposed.
-Who are disqualified to avail of the benefits of
Probation?
1. sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years.
2. convicted of any crime against National Security
or the Public Order.
3. Who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than two
hundred pesos.
4. Who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree.
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time
the substantive provisions of this Decree
became applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof.
6. Who has perfected an appeal from the judgment
of conviction. (Sec. 4)
7. Any person convicted of drug trafficking or
pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by
the Court. (Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9165)
-If the convict had already perfected an appeal, an
application for probation cannot be granted.
No application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction
-By perfecting an appeal, petitioners ipso facto
relinquished the alternative remedy of probation.
-Under Sec.4, the filing of the application for
probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal.
-A waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of
conviction is NOT a waiver of the civil liability ex
delicto.
-Probation may be granted whether the sentence
imposed a term of imprisonment or a fine only (Sec.
4).
-An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable.
-Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation
as mutually exclusive because the law is unmistakable
about it and, therefore, petitioner cannot avail herself
of both.

What is the legal effect of probation?


-A conviction becomes final when the accused applies
for probation.
REMINDERS ON DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1. Sentenced to serve more than 6 years
Exceptions:
a. For violation of Section 11 of RA 9165,
accused FIRST-TIME OFFENDER may avail of
suspended sentence. If there is a violation of
any condition, the court shall pronounce
judgment of conviction. The court, however,
may in its discretion:
place the accused on probation even if the
sentence provided for under this Act is higher
than that provided under existing law on
probation.
b. Principle in People of the Philippines vs. Arnel
Colinares. Appeal is allowed despite previous
application for probation.
-Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that
would have allowed him to apply fro
probation. He did not have a choice
between appeal and probation.
-The lower court convicted Arnel of the
wrong crime, frustrated homicide that
carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. The
Supreme Court lowered the sentence from
frustrated to attempted homicide only with
the penalty of 2 years and 4 months.
-At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC
done what was right and imposed on Arnel
the correct penalty of two (2) years and four
(4) months maximum, he would have had
the right to apply for probation. In this case,
he cannot because of the erroneous
judgment of the RTC? Hence, appeal is
allowed.
2. National Security and Public OrderProbation is not applicable when the accused is
convicted of INDIRECT ASSAULT (It is a crime against
PUBLIC ORDER).
3. Previous Conviction of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred
pesos.
Ex. A person convicted for another crime with a
penalty of 30 days imprisonment does not disqualify
him from applying for probation
-What is the period of probation?
a. sentenced to a term of 1 year shall not exceed 2
years
b. sentenced to a term of more than 1 year
imprisonment shall not exceed 6 years

3 | 28

_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Republic Act No. 3019
[BAR Q. 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2003, 2000, 1999, 1997,
1991, 1990, 1988, 1985]

Who may be liable under Sec.3 of R.A. No. 3019?


a. The law punishes not only public officers who
commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3,
but also those who induce or cause the public
official to commit those offenses.
b. Private persons found acting in conspiracy with
public officers may be held liable for the applicable
offenses found in Sec. 3 of the law
ELEMENTS UNDER SEC. 3(B) OF R.A. NO. 3019
To be convicted of violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No.
3019, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
following elements:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. who requested or received a gift, a present, a share,
a percentage, or benefit;
3. on behalf of the offender or any other person;
4 in connection with a contract or transaction with the
government;
5. in which the public officer, in an official capacity
under the law, has the right to intervene. (CadiaoPalacios v. People, 582 SCRA 713, March 31, 2009)
-An accused may be charged for both offenses of
direct bribery and violation of Sec.3(b) of R.A. No.
3019 because they have different elements.
IN ORDER TO HOLD A PERSON LIABLE UNDER SEC. 3
(E) OF R.A. NO. 3019, THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST
CONCUR:
1. THE OFFENDER IS A PUBLIC OFFICER;

2. the act was done in the discharge of the public


officers official, administrative or judicial functions;
3. the act was done through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence;
and
4. the public officer caused any undue injury to any
party, including the Government, or gave any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
(Sison v. People, 614 SCRA 670, March 9, 2010)
-Proof of any of these three (manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence) in
connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict a
person with violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
(Sison v. People, March 9, 2010)
-Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites
a disposition to see and report matters as they are
wished for rather than as they are. (Sison v. People,
March 9, 2010)
-Manifest Partiality exists when the accused has a
clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to
favor one side or one person rather than another. It is
synonymous with bias, which excites a disposition to
see and report matters as they are wished for rather
than as they are. (Reyes v. People, August 4, 2010)

-Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate


intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or to
cause damage. It contemplates a breach of sworn duty
through some perverse motive or ill will. (Reyes v.
People, August 4, 2010)
Gross inexcusable negligence does not signify mere
omission of duties nor plainly the exercise of less than
the standard degree of prudence it refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even the
slightest case, 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 in so far as other persons may be
affected. (Sistoza v. Desierto, 388 SCRA 307)
There are two ways by which Sec.3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
may be violated
a. the first mode: by causing undue injury to any
party, including the government, or
b. the second mode: by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference
In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it
suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or
benefit to another, in the exercise of his official,
administrative or judicial functions.
Ex. The private suppliers, which were all
personally chosen by respondent, were able to
profit from the transactions without showing proof
that their prices were the most beneficial to the
government.
ELEMENTS UNDER SEC. 3(G) OF R.A. 3019:
TO BE INDICTED OF THE OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 3(G)
OF R.A. NO. 3019, THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST
BE PRESENT:
a. that the accused is a public officer;
b. that he entered into a contract or transaction on
behalf of the government; and
c. that such contract or transaction is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government (Guy
v. People, 582 SCRA 108, March 20. 2009)
A private person shall be held liable together with the
public officer if there is an allegation of conspiracy.
The lack of public bidding alone does not
automatically equate to a manifest and gross
disadvantage to the government.
SEC. 3 (H).
THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION OF
SAID PROVISION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the accused is a public officer;
2. That he has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction. He either:
a. intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in
connection with such interest; or
b. is prohibited from having such interest by the
Constitution or by law. (Teves v. The Commission
on Elections, 587 SCRA 1, April 28, 2009)
Recent Law: R.A. No. 10910

4 | 28

It is an act increasing the prescriptive period for


violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It
increases the prescriptive period from 15 to 20 years.
Recent Case:
People of the Philippines vs Henry T. Go
G.R. No. 168539 March 25, 2014
Doctrine:
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: Section
3 (g): private persons acting in conspiracy with public
officers may be indicted. - It is true that by reason of
Secretary Enrile's death, there is no longer any public
officer with whom respondent can be charged for
violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that
the allegation of conspiracy between them can no
longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is
already expunged.
The only thing extinguished by the death of
Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did
not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of
the charge of conspiracy between him and private
respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary
Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer
who allegedly violated Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019. In
fact, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
found probable cause to indict Secretary Enrile for
infringement of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019.
Were it not for his death, he should have been
charged.
_____________________________________________
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002
Republic Act No. 9165

The presentation in evidence of the buy-bust


money is not indispensable for the conviction of
an accused provided that the sale of marijuana is
adequately proven by the prosecution. (People
vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393)
DIFFERENTIATE PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE
FROM PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must first be
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a
dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused
was in possession of an item or an object identified to
be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession
is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of

the drug. People vs. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January


30, 2009

R.A. No. 6425 does not prescribe a single


punishment for illegal possession of shabu and
marijuana committed at the same time and in the
same place. The prosecution would be correct in
filing two separate Informations for the crimes of
illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of
marijuana.
b. What is the concept of POSSESSION?
1. Since the crime charged is mala
prohibita, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove
that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs.
2. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive
possession.
3. Constructive possession exists when the
drug is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is
found. Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary.
Mere possession of a regulated drug per se
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused
absent a satisfactory explanation of such possessionthe onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain
the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
(People vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010)
In order to establish constructive
possession, the People must prove that petitioner
has dominion or control on either the substance or
the premises where found. The burden of evidence
is shifted to petitioner to explain the absence of
animus possidendi. (People vs .Buan, G.R. No.
168773, OCT. 27, 2006)
Illustrative case:
BAR Q. [2002] B is not criminally liable. The facts
clearly show the absence of animus possidendi or
intent to possess which is an element of the crime of
illegal possession of drugs. The accused was not fully
and consciously aware of being in possession of the
dangerous drug.
-

5 | 28

non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The


court cannot presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist. (People vs. De Guzman, G.R.
No. 186498, March 26, 2010)
BAR Q. [2005] The charge of possession of shabu
under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is proper. The
entrapment operation yielded the discovery of 100
grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession.
However, the charge of use of marijuana is not proper.
Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is explicit. It excludes
penalties for use of dangerous drugs when the person
tested is also found to have in possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug provided in Section
11 of such Act.

Such record of movements and custody of seized item


shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were
made in the course of safekeeping and used in court
as evidence, and the final disposition. (
Ruiz
Garcia, G.R. No.173480 February 25, 2009)
c. Is strict compliance with the prescribed procedure
essential?
Strict compliance with the prescribed
procedure is required. The Court recognized the
following links that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation:

The presumption of regular performance of duty is


not conclusive in chain of custody cases and
cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence.

__________________________________________
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ANDTHEIR
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Republic Act No. 9262
[BAR 2011, 2010]
_____________________________________________

DEFINE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR


CHILDREN.

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable,


of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court. People vs. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198,
January 19, 2010
Mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a
seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items can be shown to have been preserved.
However, the failure to follow the procedure
mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be
adequately explained. The justifiable ground for

6 | 28

The elements of the crime of violence against


women through harassment are:
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.
(Rustan Ang Y Pascua vs. Sagud, G.R. No.
182835, April 20, 2010)
A TPO cannot be issued in favor of a man against his
wife under R.A. No. 9292, known as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. In one
case, the judge was found guilty of gross ignorance of
the law for issuing a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO) in favor of a male petitioner.

put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as


unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are
his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually
realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that
resistance would only exacerbate her condition.
The final phase of the cycle of violence
begins when the acute battering incident
ends. During this tranquil period, the couple
experience profound relief. On the one hand, the
batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been
viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for
her forgiveness and promising never to beat her
again. On the other hand, the battered woman also
tries to convince herself that the battery will never
happen again; that her partner will change for the
better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is
the real person whom she loves.
A battered woman usually believes that she
is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the
batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels
responsible for his well-being.

BAR Q. [2010]
A. Define Battered Woman Syndrome. It refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.
-

B. What are the three phases of the Battered Woman


Syndrome?
-

PEOPLE VS. GENOSA


G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
RULING:
More graphically, the battered woman
syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of
violence, which has three phases: (1) the tensionbuilding phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and
(3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
During the tension-building phase, minor
battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight physical
abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The
woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a
show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying
out of his way. What actually happens is that she
allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are
comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the
escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer.
The acute battering incident is said to be
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,
sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During
this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may

The three phases are the following: a) tension-building


phase b) acute battering incident c) tranquil and
loving phase.
C. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code?
Yes, R.A. 9262 expressly states that victimsurvivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

7 | 28

There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of


insufficiency of funds when the check was presented
within 90 days from the date appearing on the check
and was dishonored unless:
a. such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the
amount due thereon within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid
by the drawee , or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within (5) banking days after
receiving notice of non-payment.
_____________________________________________
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
[BAR 2010 03,02. 96, 1990, 88,86]

___________________________________________
BP.22 DOES NOT COVER MANAGERS CHECK AND
CASHIERS CHECK. It is as good as the money it
represents and is therefore deemed as cash.
BP.22 COVERS ACCOMODATION OR GUARANTEE
CHECK.
BP.22 COVERS CROSSED CHECK since it is a negotiable
instrument. It falls within the coverage of BP. 22.

The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the


drawer or maker, by the drawee bank, the holder of
the check, or the offended party. (Ambito vs. People,
579 SCRA 68, February 13, 2009)
ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
1 OF BP.22.
This way of violating B.P.22 suggests that at
the time the check was issued, the issuer had
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank.
However, the check was dishonored when presented
for payment within 90 days from its date for failure to
maintain sufficient funds or credit to cover the
amount.
The elements are as follows:

The Supreme Court ruled that BP. 22 considers the


mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense
not only against property but also against public order
to stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to
the community. (Mitra vs. People, July 05, 2010)
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER THE REVISED
PENAL CODE IS APPLICABLE IN BP.22 WHICH IS A
SPECIAL LAW.
A.

WAYS BY WHICH VIOLATION OF BP. 22 ARE


COMMITTED.

The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas


Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon
its presentation for payment It is not the
nonpayment of the obligation which the law punishes.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check whether
as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as evidence of
pre-existing debt is malum prohibitum.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
1 OF BP.22 ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
2.

The accused makes, draws or issues any


check to apply to account or for value;
The accused knows at the time of the
issuance that he or she does not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee
bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment .

a) any person, makes or draws and issues a check;


b) such person has sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank;
c) failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within a period of ninety (90) days from
the date appearing thereon;
d) for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee
bank.
COMPARISON OF VIOLATION OF BP 22 FROM ESTAFA
UNDER PAR. 2 [D], ARTICLE 315, OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE.
First, the elements of estafa under paragraph
2(d), Article 315 of the RPC are (1) the postdating or
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack
of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3)
damage to the payee. (Cajigas vs. People, 580 SCRA
54, February 23, 2009)
For violation of the Bouncing Check Law,
deceit and damage are not essential or required. The
essential element of the offense is knowledge on the
part of the maker or drawer of the check of the
insufficiency of his funds. The gravamen of the offense
is the issuance of a bad check, not the non-payment of
an obligation.

8 | 28

Second, Article 315, Par.2 (d) is a crime


against property because the issuance of the check is
used as a means to obtain a valuable consideration
from the payee.
On the other hand, in BP. 22, the mere act of
issuing an unfunded check is an offense against public
order to stem the harm caused by these bouncing
checks to the community. (Mitra vs. People, July 05,
2010).
Third, in estafa, the failure of the drawer to
deposit the amount necessary to secure payment of
the check within 3 days from receipt of notice from
the bank and or the payee or holder that said check
has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
is prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.
In B.P. 22, the failure of the drawer to pay in
full the payee or holder within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that the check has been rejected by
the drawee bank gives rise to presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit.
Fourth, in estafa, the check is issued in
payment of a simultaneous obligation to defraud the
creditor.
In B.P. 22, the check is issued in payment of a
pre-existing obligation.
Fifth, in estafa, an endorser who is with
knowledge that the check is worthless and had acted
with deceit is liable.
In B.P. 22, the persons liable are the maker,
drawer and the issuer but not an endorser.
Lastly, since estafa is mala in se, good faith is
a proper defense.
B.P. 22 is mala prohibitum, it is punished by
a special law and therefore, good faith is not a
defense.
SIMULTANEOUS
OBLIGATION
EXISTING OBLIGATION.

FROM

PRE-

Simultaneous obligation as an element of


estafa connotes that the issuance of a check is used as
a means to obtain valuable consideration from the
payee. Deceit is the efficient cause for defraudation.
To defraud is to deprive some right, interest, or
property by deceitful devise. (People vs.Quesada, 60
Phil. 515)
In the issuance of a check in payment of a
pre-existing obligation, the drawer derives no
material benefit in return as its consideration had long
been delivered to him before the check was issued.
Since an obligation has already been contracted, the
accused in this case obtain nothing when he issued
the check, his debt for the payment thereof had been
contracted prior to its issuance.
There is deceit when one is misled -- by guile,
trickery or by other means - to believe as true what is

really false. (Dy vs. People, 571 SCRA 59, November 14,
2008)
Damage as an element of estafa may consist
in (1) the offended party being deprived of his money
or property as a result of the defraudation; (2)
disturbance in property right; or (3) temporary
prejudice. (Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412).

To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or


issuing a check in payment of obligation must be the
efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should
be either prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of
fraud. (Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412)
A PERSON MAY BE BOTH LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF
B.P. 22 AND ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
The filing of a criminal case under B.P. 22
shall not prejudice any liability arising from a felony
committed under the Revised Penal Code.
B.

DEFENSES IN BP. 22

3. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN B.P. 22?


a. The presentation of the registry card, with an
unauthorized signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner received such noticed, especially
considering that he denied receiving it. (Suarez v.
People 555, SCRA 238, June 19, 2008)
b.

Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of


funds is not conclusive as it may be rebutted by
full payment. (Tan vs. Philippine Commercial
International Bank 552 SCRA 532, April 23, 2008)

c. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not


only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored. It must also establish
that the accused was actually notified that the
check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within five (5) banking days from receipt of the
notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount
due thereon or to make arrangement for its
payment.
d. Prescription is a proper defense. The prescriptive
period is 4 years reckoned from the lapse of the
five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor
within which to make good the check.
e. Forgery of the signature appearing on the check
(Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 89)
An agreement surrounding the issuance of
dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (Dreamwork
Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,
2009)
Recent case: (People vs. Ariel Lim, G.R. NO. 190834, 26
Nov. 2014)

9 | 28

Considering that the money value of two cheques


issued by petitioner has already been effectively paid
two years before the Informations against him were
filed, the Court finds merit in this petition. The Court
holds that petitioner herein could not be validly and
justly convicted or sentenced for violation of B.P. Blg.
22. Although payment of the value of the bounced
check, if made beyond the 5-day period provided for in
B.P. Blg. 22, would normally not extinguish criminal
liability, the aforementioned cases show that the
Court acknowledges the existence of extraordinary
cases where, even if all the elements of the crime or
offense are present, the conviction of the accused
would prove to be abhorrent to societys sense of
justice. The fact that the issuer of the check had
already paid the value of the dishonored check after
having received the subpoena from the Office of the
Prosecutor should have forestalled the filing of the
Information in court. The spirit of the law which, for
B.P. Blg. 22, is the protection of the credibility and
stability of the banking system, would not be served
by penalizing people who have evidently made
amends for their mistakes and made restitution for
damages even before charges have been filed against
them. In effect, the payment of the checks before the
filing of the Information has already attained the
purpose of the law.
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A PROPER
DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B.P. 22. (Dreamwork
Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,
2009)
NOVATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.
IS STOP PAYMENT A PROPER DEFENSE IN BP. 22?
It depends. Although the drawer ordered a STOP
PAYMENT or countermand, yet if it was clear from
the statement of account that the check bounced due
to insufficiency of funds, the drawer of the check is
still liable.Chang vs. IAC, 146 SCRA 46 BAR Q.[2002]

C.

CORPORATION IN RELATION TO BP. 22

Section 1 of the law provides: Where the check is


drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person
or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of
such drawer shall be liable
The officer who is accused of signing the check must
receive the notice of dishonor. Constructive notice to
the corporation, who has a separate personality from
its officer, is not enough.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 refers to the
imposition of penalties for violation of B.P. 22. It
provides:
Court has not decriminalized B.P. 22
violations, nor have removed imprisonment as an
alternative penalty.

Needless to say, the determination of whether


the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine
alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge
decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate
penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not
to be deemed a hindrance. (Lunaria vs. People, 5701
SCRA 572, November 11, 2008).
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 is a circular
addressed to all judges which clarifies Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 on the penalty for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It provides:
The clear tenor and intention of
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay
down a rule of preference in the application of the
penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not
foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violations
of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative
intent behind the law.
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
establishes a rule of preference in the application of
the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where
the circumstances of both the offense and the offender
clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact
without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine
alone should be considered as the more appropriate
penalty.
It is, therefore, understood that:
1.
Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
sound discretion, and taking into consideration the
peculiar circumstances of each case, determine
whether the imposition of a fine alone would best
serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing
to impose imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on the
social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be
unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the
application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on
subsidiary imprisonment.
Recent Case:
Jorge B. Navarra vs People of the Philippines,
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
G.R. No. 203750, June 06, 2016
Doctrine:

10 | 28

When a corporate officer issues a worthless


check in the corporate name, he may be held
personally liable for violating a penal statute. The
corporate officer cannot shield himself from liability
on the ground that it was a corporate act and not his
personal act.

crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such


under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under PD
No. 1612.

THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979


Presidential Decree No. 1612
[BAR 2010, 2009, 95, 1993, 1990, 1987, 1985]

BAR Q. [1995] THE ELEMENTS OF


FENCING UNDER SEC. 2 OF THIS ACT.
(a) a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed;
(b) accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possess,
keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes or buys and
sells or in any manner deals in any article, item object
or anything of value, which has been derived from
the proceeds of said crime;
(c) the accused knows or should have
known that said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and
(d) there is, on the part of the accused,
intent to gain for himself or for another.

_____________________________________________
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM
PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294
[BAR Q. 2011, 2002, 2000, 1998]
______________________________________________
In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the twin
elements of:
(1) the existence of the subject firearm and
ammunition, and

DIFFERENTIATE A FENCE FROM AN ACCESSORY TO


THEFT OR ROBBERY.
a. A fence is punished as a principal under
P.D. No 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an
accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal
Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal
as a general rule.
b. Fencing is a malum prohibitum and
therefore, there is no need to prove criminal intent of
the accused. Good faith is not a defense. In accessory
to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code,
intent is an element of the crime and therefore, good
faith is a proper defense.
c. All the acts of one who is an accessory to
the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts
defined as fencing. Corollarily, the accessory in the

(2) the fact that the accused who possessed or


owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it. (Valeroso vs.
People, 546 SCRA 450, February 22, 2008)
Ownership is not an essential element of illegal
possession of firearm. What the law requires is merely
possession which includes not only physical
possession but also constructive possession or the
subjection of the thing to ones control and
management. (People vs.De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716)
The kind of possession punishable under PD 1866 is
one where the accused possessed a firearm either
physically or constructively with animus possidendi or
intention to possess. (People vs. Dela Rosa, 90 SCAD
143)
ASIDE FROM A FIREARM WITHOUT A LICENSE, WHAT
DOES UNLICENSED FIREARM INCLUDE?

11 | 28

The term unlicensed firearm shall include:

the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or


other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.

1) firearms with expired license; or


_____________________________________________
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in
the commission of the crime.
Unlicensed firearm no longer simply means a firearm
without a license duly issued by lawful authority. The
scope of the term has been expanded in Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 8294 as: (1) firearm with expired
license, or (2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in
the commission of the crime. (People vs. Molina, 292
SCRA 742)
It is settled that the lack or absence of a license is an
essential ingredient of the crime of illegal possession
of firearm. (Sasot vs. Yuson, 592 SCRA 368, July 13,
2009)
To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the
burden of proving that the firearm exists and that the
accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess or carry
the same. (Sayco vs. People, 547 SRA 368, March 3,
2008)
THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECT FIREARM IS
NOT FATAL TO THE PROSECUTIONS CAUSE because
the existence of the firearm can be established by
testimony even without the presentation of the said
firearm. (People vs. Narvasa, 100 SCAD 745)
Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an
obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been
lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms,
registered firearms in the possession of an individual
other than the licensee and those with revoked
licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations.
(R.A. No. 10591)
USE OF LOOSE FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME (Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 10591)
The use of loose firearm, when inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. Provided that:
-If the crime committed with the use of a loose
firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is lower than that prescribed in Sec. 28
of R.A. No. 10591, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the
crime charged.

ANTI- MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001


R.A. No. 9160 as amended by R.A. 9194, R.A. 10167,
R.A. 10168 and R.A. 10365, also known as An Act
Further Strengthening The Anti-Money Laundering
Law
[BAR 2010, 2009, 2005]
BAR Q. [2010] DEFINE MONEY LAUNDERING. (Sec. 4)
It is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby
making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources.
AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10365, WHAT ARE THE
WAYS OF COMMITTING MONEY LAUNDERING?
Section 4 of R.A. 10365 provides the ways by
which money laundering is committed:
Money laundering is committed by any
person who, knowing that any monetary instrument
or property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity:
(a) transacts said monetary instrument or
property;(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves,
acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument
or property; (c) conceals or disguises the true nature,
source, location, disposition, movement or ownership
of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument
or property;(d) attempts or conspires to commit
money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs
(a), (b) or (c); (e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the
commission of the money laundering offenses
referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and (f)
performs or fails to perform any act as a result of
which he facilitates the offense of money laundering
referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
IS MONEY LAUNDERING COMMITTED WHEN THERE IS
FAILURE TO REPORT A COVERED OR SUSPICIOUS
TRANSACTION?
Yes, money laundering is also committed by
any covered person who, knowing that a covered or
suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), fails to do so.

-If the crime committed with the use of loose firearm


is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which
is equal to that imposed under Sec. 28 of R.A. No.
10591, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for

12 | 28

Yes. As amended by RA 10365, Section 6(a)


provides that any person may be charged with and
convicted of both the offense of money laundering
and the unlawful activity as herein defined. In fact,
under par (b), it is stated that the prosecution of any
offense or violation under this Act shall proceed
independently of any proceeding relating to the
unlawful activity.

Previously, RA 9194 amended Section 10 of


RA 9160 to read as follows:
R.A. No. 10167 further amended Section 10
to read as follows:
Upon a verified ex parte petition by the
AMLC and after determination that probable cause
exists that any monetary instrument or property is in
any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a
freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and
which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon
the circumstances of the case: Provided, That if there
is no case filed against a person whose account has
been frozen within the period determined by the court,
the
freeze
order
shall
be
deemed ipso
facto lifted: Provided, further, That this new rule shall
not apply to pending cases in the courts. In any case,
the court should act on the petition to freeze within
twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If
the application is filed a day before a nonworking day,
the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period
shall exclude the nonworking days.

deposits or investments are related to an unlawful


activities as defined in Section 3(I) hereof or a money
laundering offense under Section 4 hereof except:
That no court order shall be required in cases
involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(I) 1,
(2) and (12).
A criminal conviction for an unlawful activity
is not a prerequisite for the institution of a civil
forfeiture proceeding. Stated otherwise, a finding of
guilt for an unlawful activity is not an essential
element of civil forfeiture. (Republic v. Glasgow Credit
and Collection Services, Inc., 542 SCRA 95, January 18,
2008).
WHAT ARE THE TWO CONDITIONS WHEN APPLYING
FOR CIVIL FORFEITURE?
R.A. 9160, as amended, and its
implementing rules and regulations lay down two
conditions when applying for civil forfeiture: (1) when
there is a suspicious transaction report or a covered
transaction report deemed suspicious after
investigation by the AMLC and (2) the court has, in a
petition filed for the purpose, ordered the seizure of
any monetary instrument or property, in whole or in
part, directly or indirectly, related to said report. It is
the preliminary seizure of the property in question
which brings it within the reach of the judicial
process. (Republic v. Glasgow Credit and Collection
Services, Inc. , 542 SCRA 95, January 18, 2008)
WHAT ARE THE NEW PROVISIONS INTRODUCED
UNDER THE AMENDMENTS?
1.

The authority to inquire into or examine


the main account and the related
accounts shall comply with the
requirements of Article III, Sections 2
and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which
are hereby incorporated by reference.
Likewise, the constitutional injunction
against ex post facto laws and bills of
attainder shall be respected in the
implementation of this Act.

-No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or


a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except
the Supreme Court.

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS AMLC AUTHORIZED


TO INQUIRE INTO BANK DEPOSITS?
Only upon order of any competent court in
cases of violation of this Act, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the

The non-intervention of the AMLC in the


Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
operations.

2.

Under the new law, pre-need


companies, money changers, real estate
agents, and dealers of precious stones
and metal are required to report
financial transactions to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC).
Before, only banks, insurance companies
and securities dealers were obliged to

13 | 28

submit
covered
and
suspicious
transaction reports to AMLC.
_____________________________________________
ANTI-HAZING LAW

Parents may be liable as principals if:


a. The hazing is held in the home of one of
the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or
organization;

[BAR Q. 2002]
____________________________________________

b. The parents have actual knowledge of the


hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring.

DEFINE HAZING (Sec.1)/BAR Q. [2002] What is


hazing as defined by law?

SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND FACULTY MEMBERS MAY


BE HELD LIABLE AS ACCOMPLICES WHEN:

Section 1 defines hazing as follows: It is an


initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating
situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly,
foolish and other similar tasks or activities or
otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological
suffering or injury.

a. they consent to the hazing or who have


actual knowledge thereof;

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES BEFORE HAZING OR


INITIATION RITES SHALL BE ALLOWED? (Sec.2)
A prior written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization must be given
seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation.
Section 2 of the law specifically provides for
the requisites:
There must be a prior written notice to the
school authorities or head of organization seven (7)
days before the conduct of such initiation.
The written notice shall indicate:
1.

2.
3.

the period of the initiation


activities which shall not exceed
three ( 3) days,
shall include the names of those to
be subjected to such activities, and
shall
further
contain
an
undertaking that no physical
violence be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites.

Under Section 3, when there is initiation rites:


The head of the school or organization or
their representatives must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or organization, as the
case may be, to be present during the initiation.
It is the duty of such representative to see
to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be
inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant.
THE OWNER OF THE PLACE
IS LIABLE AS AN
ACCOMPLICE (Sec.4) b when he has actual knowledge
of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring.

b. they failed to take any action to prevent


the same from occurring.
-Section 4 clearly states when the prima facie evidence
of participation as principal arise. It states:
The presence of any person during the hazing is
prima facie evidence of participation therein as
principal unless he prevented the commission of the
acts punishable herein.
MAY A PERSON CHARGED UNDER THIS PROVISION BE
ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF NO
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG? (Sec.4)
No. The express provision of the law under Section 4 is
explicit in the inapplicability of the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong to a person charged under this provision.
_____________________________________________
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
(THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAW) Republic Act No. 9372
_____________________________________________
1. UNDER SECTION 3 THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF
TERRORISM ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. First, any person who commits an act
punishable under any of the following provisions of
the Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny
in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts
committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction),
or under

14 | 28

1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The


Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic
Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic
Energy Regulatory and Liability Act
of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (AntiHijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (AntiPiracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as
amended (Decree Codifying the
Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing
in, Acquisition or Disposition of
Firearms,
Ammunitions
or
Explosives)
2. Second, the commission of the predicate
crime sows and creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace.
3. Third, the purpose is in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Any person guilty of the crime of terrorism shall suffer
the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment,
without the benefit of parole as provided for under
Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.
From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the
earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372, the following
elements may be culled:
(1) the offender commits an act punishable
under any of the cited provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, or under any of the
enumerated special penal laws;
(2) the commission of the predicate crime
sows and creates a condition of widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace; and
(3) the offender is actuated by the desire to
coerce the government to give in to
an unlawful demand.
-Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under R.A.
9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually
committed to trigger the operation of the key
qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime,
including the coercion of the government to accede to
an unlawful demand. (Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010).

-Utterances not elemental but inevitably incidental to


the doing of the criminal conduct alter neither the
intent of the law to punish socially harmful conduct
nor the essence of the whole act as conduct and not
speech. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network,
Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010).
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of the
crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 of R.A.9372
and decide to commit the same.
Under Section 4 thereof, mere conspiracy to commit
terrorism is punishable.
Upon a written order of the Court of Appeals,
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND
RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS ARE ALLOWED.
(Section 7)
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER
SUSPECT TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
WITHIN THREE DAYS? (Section 20)
Any police or law enforcement personnel
who has apprehended or arrested, detained and taken
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
and fails to deliver such charged or suspected person
to the proper judicial authority within the period of
three (3) days shall be criminally liable.
DOES PROSECUTION UNDER THIS ACT BAR ANOTHER
PROSECUTION UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE OR
ANY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS?
Yes, the acquittal of the accused shall be a
bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony
which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
(Sec.49)
CAN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON, ALTHOUGH
PHYSICALLY OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE PHILIPPINES BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
ACTS OF TERRORISM?
Yes, the law has extra-territorial application.
Section 58 constitute as an exception to the
territoriality rule. It provides:
Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to
the provision of an existing treaty of which the
Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary
provision of any law of preferential application, the
provisions of this Act shall apply:
(1) to individual persons who commit any of the
crimes defined and punished in this Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone,
and airspace of the Philippines;
(2) to individual persons who, although physically
outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes

15 | 28

defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial


limits of the Philippines;

The elements of paragraph 5 (a) of R.A. 7610 are the


following:

(3) to individual persons who, although physically


outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine
ship or Philippine airship;

1. The accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or


induces child prostitution;

(4) to individual persons who commit any of said


crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic
premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine
government in an official capacity;
(5) to individual persons who, although physically
outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or
persons of Philippines descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of the crime; and
(6) to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes directly
against the Philippine government.

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 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. People vs. Dulay, 681 SCRA 638(2012)

_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
Republic Act No. 7610
_____________________________________________
DEFINE CHILD ABUSE
Child abuse is defined under Section 3 (b) of
R. A. 7610 as:
"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;

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE DEFINED


UNDER SECTION 5(B) OF THIS LAW?
The Court in Navarete v. People, 513 SCRA 509 (2007)
held that sexual abuse under Section 5(b) has three
elements:
(1) the accused commits an act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is
below 18 years old.
-THE LAW USES THE TERM A CHILD SUBJECT TO
SEXUAL ABUSE. WHEN IS A CHILD DEEMED
SUBJECTED TO OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE?
1.

A child is deemed subjected to other


sexual abuse when the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult. R.A. 7610 covers
not only child prostitution but also other
forms of sexual abuse. Olivarez vs. Court
of Appeals, 465 SCRA 465(2005)

2.

In lascivious conduct under the coercion


or influence of any adult, there must be
some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free
exercise of the offended partys free
will. Jojit Garingarao vs. People, G.R. No.
192760, July 20, 2011

(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.
- It is inconsequential that the sexual abuse occurred
only once.
-Child abuse includes physical abuse of the child,
whether the same is habitual or not. (588 SCRA 747,
June 5, 200)9
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 5 (a) of
R.A. 7610?

-Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act


with a child under the circumstances mentioned in
Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160 is a separate and distinct

16 | 28

offense. Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321


[2001]

the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of


the Revised Penal Code.

-WHAT MUST BE PRESENT FOR CONSENSUAL SEXUAL


INTERCOURSE OR LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT WITH A
MINOR, WHO IS NOT EXPLOITED IN PROSTITUTION,
TO FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 5(B) OF
R.A. NO. 7610?

ARE THE RULES OF OFFSETTING THE MODIFYING


CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE IN R.A. 7610, IT BEING A
SPECIAL LAW?

In People v. Court of Appeals, 562 SCRA 619,


August 20, 2008, the Supreme Court held:
For consensual sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct
with a minor, who is not exploited
in prostitution, to thus fall within
the purview of Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610, persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion of the
child must be present.
CAN A PERSON BE CHARGED OF COMMITTING AN ACT
PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 5(B) AND RAPE AT THE
SAME TIME?
Under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act
(RA) 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual
abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should
not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory
rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua.
On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or
older, the offender should be charged with either
sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the
Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act because his
right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A
person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability
for a single criminal act. People vs. Abay, 580 SCRA
235(2009)
CAN RAPE INSTEAD BE COMPLEXED WITH A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B) OF RA 7610?
Rape cannot be complexed with a violation
of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the
Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony
under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot
be complexed with an offense penalized by a special
law. (People v. Abay 580 SCRA 235, February 24,
2009).
CAN AN ACCUSED BE CONVICTED OF ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE
INSTEAD OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B) OF R.A.
7610?

Notwithstanding that R.A. 7610 is a special


law, appellant may enjoy the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Since the penalty
provided in R.A. 7610 is taken from the range of
penalties in the Revised Penal Code, it is covered by
the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINE.
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides: The Court
ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual
abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any
adult. In lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult, there must be some form of
compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues
the free exercise of the offended partys free will. In
this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to
his lascivious acts by pretending that he was
examining her. (GARINGARAO vs. PEOPLE , G.R. No.
192760: July 20, 2011)
For consensual sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a minor, who is not exploited in
prostitution, to thus fall within the purview of Section
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, "persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion" of the child must be present.
(PEOPLE vs. COURT OF APPEALS and OLAYON, G.R.
No. 171863, August 20, 2008)

_______________________________________
THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT
Republic Act 9745
_____________________________________________
WHO ARE THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 13?
The law adopted the classification of persons
criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
principals, accomplices and accessories. BAR Q. [2011]
CAN TORTURE AS A CRIME ABSORB OR BE ABSORBED
BY ANY OTHER CRIME?
No. Torture should be treated as a separate
and independent crime under the law. (Sec.15)
WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF ANY OF THE CRIMES
AGAINST PERSONS OR AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY IF ATTENDED BY TORTURE AND
SIMILAR ACTS?
The penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum period.

Yes. The special circumstance that the child is


subjected to other sexual abuse is not an element in

17 | 28

MAY A PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE


COMMITTED THE CRIME OF TORTURE BE BENEFITED
FROM ANY SUBSEQUENT SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW?
No. They are excluded from the coverage of
special amnesty law. (Sec. 16)

_______________________________________
THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
Republic Act No. 7877

emanates from the fact that he can remove them if


they refuse his amorous advances.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003
Republic Act No. 9208
_____________________________________________
WHAT ACTS CONSTITUTE QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING?
The following are considered as qualified trafficking:

WHO MAY COMMIT SEXUAL HARASSMENT?


It is committed by an employer, employee,
manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other
person who, having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training or
education environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object
of said act (Sec.3).
WHO ELSE MAY BE LIABLE?
Any person who directs or induces another
to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein
defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof
by another without which it would not have been
committed, shall also be held liable under this Act
(Sec.3).
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN vs. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN
G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008
Doctrine: It is not necessary that the demand,
request, or requirement of a sexual favor be
articulated in a categorical oral or written statement.
It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the
acts of the offender.
TERESITA G. NARVASA vs. BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR.
G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010
Doctrine: Assuming arguendo that respondent never
intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss
petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary
rule that had existed since time immemorial that
intimate physical contact between individuals must be
consensual. Respondents defiance of custom and lack
of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling
because he was a married man. Respondents act
showed a low regard for women and disrespect for
petitioners honor and dignity.
SHARON S. ALEGRIA vs. JUDGE MANUEL N. DUQUE
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2019, 04 April 2007
Doctrine: Sexual harassment in the workplace is not
about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason
of sexual desire it is about power being exercised by
a superior over his women subordinates. That power

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;


(b) When the adoption is effected through
Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "InterCountry Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is
for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
BAR Q. [2012] When the adoption of a child is
effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for
the purpose of prostitution, what is the proper
charge against the offender who is a public officer in
relation to the exploitative purpose?
a. acts that promote trafficking in
persons;
b. trafficking in persons;
c. qualified trafficking in persons;
d. use of trafficked person.
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale.
c.1 When is Trafficking deemed committed
by a syndicate?
If it carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another.
c.2 When is Trafficking deemed committed in
large scale?
If it committed against three (3) or more
persons, individually or as a group.
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling,
guardian or a person who exercises authority over the
trafficked person or when the offense is committed by
a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage
in prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or
law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,

18 | 28

becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with


Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).(Sec.6).
There is no crime of conspiracy
to commit trafficking in persons.
_____________________________________________
ANTI-PLUNDER LAW
Republic Act No. 7080

_______________________________________
DEFINE THE CRIME OF PLUNDER. (Section 2)
Section 12 of R.A. 7659 amended Section 2
of R.A. 7080 to read as follows:
"Sec.2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires illgotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)
hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be
guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who
participated with the said public officer in the
commission of an offense contributing to the crime of
plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In
the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the
Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the
court.
STATE THE RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
Section 4 of R.A. 7080 provides: For
purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall
not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act
done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or
conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy. BAR Q. [2011]
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT
Republic Act No. 4200
_____________________________________________

commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or


dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he
a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the
next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any
tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other
such record, or copies thereof, of any communication
or spoken word secured either before or after the
effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by
this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof,
either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to
any other person: Provided, That the use of such
record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this
prohibition (Sec. 1).
WHEN IS THE COMMISSION OF SUCH ACTS DEEMED
LAWFUL?
It is deemed lawful when committed by any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of
the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases
involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking
war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the
high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security
(Sec.3).
The period of the authorization. The
authorization shall be effective for the period
specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60)
days from the date of issuance of the order, unless
extended or renewed by the court upon being
satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the
public interest (Sec.3).

THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009


Republic Act No. 9775
_______________________________________
WHAT ARE THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS
ENUMERATED UNDER THE LAW?
The following are the unlawful or prohibited
acts:

WHAT ARE THE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER THIS ACT?


It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device

(a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or


coerce a child to perform in the creation or
production of any form of child pornography;
(b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create
any form of child pornography;

19 | 28

(c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute,


broadcast, advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child pornography;
(d) To possess any form of child pornography
with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast: Provided. That possession of
three (3) or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be prima
facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute,
publish or broadcast;
(e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
provide a venue for the commission of
prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens,
private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or
in establishments purporting to be a
legitimate business;
(f) For film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication
companies,
by
themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child
pornography;
(g) For a parent, legal guardian or person
having custody or control of a child to
knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child
pornography;
(h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a
child;
(i) To engage in pandering of any form of
child pornography;
(j) To willfully access any form of child
pornography;
(k) To conspire to commit any of the
prohibited acts stated in this section.
Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when two
(2) or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of any of the said
prohibited acts and decide to commit it; and
(l) To possess any form of child pornography
(Sec.4).
BAR Q. [2011] Mr. P owns a boarding house where he
knowingly allowed children to be videotaped while
simulating explicit sexual activities. What is Mr. P's
criminal liability, if any?
A. Corruption of minors under the Penal Code
B. Violation of the Child Pornography Act
C. Violation of the Child Abuse Law
D. None
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT
OF 2009
Republic Act No. 9995

PROHIBITED ACTS ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 4.


It is prohibited and declared unlawful for any
person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a
person or group of persons performing
sexual act or any similar activity or to capture
an image of the private area of a person/s
such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female
breast without the consent of the person/s
involved and under circumstances in which
the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to
cause to be copied or reproduced, such
photo or video or recording of sexual act or
any similar activity with or without
consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to
be sold or distributed, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act, whether it be the
original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause
to be published or broadcast, whether in
print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit
the photo or video coverage or recordings of
such sexual act or any similar activity through
VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and
other similar means or device.
IS CONSENT TO RECORD OR TAKE PHOTO OR VIDEO
COVERAGE CONSTITUTES AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE
PROHIBITION UNDER PARAGRAPHS (B), (C) AND (D)?
No.
The
prohibition
shall
apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo
or video coverage of the same was given by such
person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall
be liable (Sec.4).
BAR Q. [2010] SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the acts
committed by Canuto do not fall under the definition
of voyeurism nor under the prohibited acts
enumerated under Section 4 of the Anti- Photo and
Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. There was no taking
photo or video coverage of a person performing
sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an
image of the private area of a person under
circumstances in which such person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, nor there was an act of selling,
copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing
or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or
recordings of sexual act or similar activity through
internet, cellular phones and similar means or device.
If at all, he committed acts of lasciviousness, as
obviously, the element of lewdness is present in this
case.
_____________________________________________

20 | 28

THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW


Republic Act No. 9346
_____________________________________________
The imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.
IN LIEU OF THE DEATH PENALTY, WHAT SHOULD BE
IMPOSED?
The following shall be imposed in lieu of the
death penalty(a) the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, when the law violated makes use
of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment,
when the law violated does not make use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code.(Secs. 1 and 2)
Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended. (Sec.3)
_____________________________________________
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006,
Republic Act No. 9344
____________________________________________

A child above fifteen (15) years but below


eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein
established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws.
WHAT IS DISCERNMENT?
-Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to
fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts
and circumstances afforded by the records in each
case.
The
surrounding
circumstances
must
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing
and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the
gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning
and shrewdness.
-Discernment is again shown in the case of Robert
Remiendo vs. People, G.R. No. 184874, 09 October
2009. In this case, his act of waiting for the victims
parents to leave the house before defiling the latter
and threatening to kick her if she should shout prove
that petitioner can differentiate what is right and
wrong.
WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF
MINORITY?

WHAT IS A DIVERSION PROGRAM? BAR Q.[2009]


It refers to the program that the child in
conflict with the law is required to undergo after
he/she is found responsible for an offense without
resorting to formal court proceedings.
WHAT IS INTERVENTION? BAR Q.[2009]
It refers to a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the child to
commit an offense. It may take the form of an
individualized treatment program which may include
counseling, skills training, education, and other
activities that will enhance his/her psychological,
emotional and psycho-social well-being.
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER R.A. 9334? (Sec.6)/ BAR Q.
[2012]
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child
shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the


presumption of minority. He shall enjoy all the rights
of a child in conflict with the law until he is proven to
be eighteen (18) years old or older. BAR Q. [2011]
In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
resolved in his favor.
WHEN IS AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
APPLICABLE? (Sec.38)
The court shall place the child under suspended
sentence instead of pronouncement of judgment of
conviction under the following circumstances:
Once the child who is under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the
court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
which may have resulted from the offense
committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application.

21 | 28

That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even


if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her
guilt.(Sec. 38)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A person who is beyond the


age of twenty-one (21) years cannot avail of the
provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of R .A. 9344 on his
suspension of sentence.

WHEN MAY THE CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW


BE RETURNED TO THE COURT? (Sec. 40)

MAY THE CHILD IN CONFLICT OF THE LAW BE INSTEAD


PLACED ON PROBATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
IMPRISONMENT? (Sec.42)

The law expressly provides:


If the court finds that the objective of the
disposition measures imposed upon the child in
conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to
comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the
law shall be brought before the court for execution of
judgment.

Yes. The court may, after it shall have


convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the
law, and upon application at any time, place the child
on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence
taking into account the best interest of the child. For
this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968,
otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is
hereby amended accordingly.
EXEMPTING PROVISIONS

MAY A PERSON, THEREFORE, WHO IS NOW BEYOND


THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS, STILL AVAIL OF
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 38 AND 40 OF RA 9344
AS TO HIS SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE? BAR Q. [2012]
No. A person who is now beyond the age of
twenty-one (21) years cannot avail of the provisions of
Sections 38 and 40 of R .A. 9344 as to his suspension
of sentence. Section 38 states:
However, while Section 38 of RA 9344
provides that suspension of sentence can still be
applied even if the child in conflict with the law is
already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time
of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of
the same law limits the said suspension of sentence
until the child reaches the maximum age of 21.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that
the appellant shall be entitled to appropriate
disposition under Section 51 of RA No. 9344, which
provides for the confinement of convicted children as
follows:
SEC. 51. Confinement
of
Convicted
Children in Agricultural Camps and other
Training Facilities.A child in conflict with
the law may, after conviction and upon
order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities that may be
established, maintained, supervised and
controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination
with the DSWD.
BAR Q. [2009] Suppose Joes motion for intervention
or diversion was denied, and he was convicted two
(2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old,
should the judge apply the suspension of sentence?
Explain.

CAN A MINOR BE REQUIRED TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE


IN AGRICULTURAL CAMPS AND OTHER TRAINING
FACILITIES? (Sec. 51)
Yes, R.A. 9344 is explicit:
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children
in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. - A
child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and
upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in
cooperation with the DSWD.
ARE THE BENEFITS UNDER THIS PROVISION
APPLICABLE WHEN THE MINOR HAD ALREADY
REACHED 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER AT THE TIME OF
HIS CONVICTION?
Yes. In PEOPLE vs. URBAN SALCEDO
ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA, G.R. No.
186523, June 22, 2011,the Supreme Court reiterated ,
that if indeed, an accused was under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime, such offenders, even if already over twenty-one
(21) years old at the time of conviction, may still avail
of the benefits accorded by Section 51 of R.A. No.
9344.
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF STATUS OFFENSES?
(Sec. 57) Any conduct not considered an offense or
not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be punished if
committed by a child.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES:
a.

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at


the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subjected to an

22 | 28

b.

intervention program pursuant to Section 20

suspension of sentence shall still be applied

of the Act.

even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18)

A child above fifteen (15) years but below

years of age or more at the time of the

eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be

pronouncement of his/her guilt.

exempt from criminal liability and be


subjected to an intervention program, unless

c.

A child in conflict with the law may, after

he/she has acted with discernment, in which

conviction and upon order of the court, be

case, such child shall be subjected to the

made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of

appropriate proceedings in accordance with

confinement in a regular penal institution, in

this Act.

an agricultural camp and other training

The age of a child may be determined from

facilities

the

maintained, supervised and controlled by the

childs

birth

certificate,

baptismal

that

be

In the absence of these documents, age may

coordination with the Department of Social

be based on information from the child

Welfare and Development (DSWD).

of

other

h.

Corrections

established,

Bureau

testimonies

of

may

certificate or any other pertinent documents.

himself/herself,

d.

g.

(BUCOR),

in

If said child in conflict with the law has

persons, the physical appearance of the child

reached eighteen (18) years of age while

and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt

under suspended sentence, the court shall

as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved

determine whether to discharge the child in

in his/her favor

accordance with this Act, to order, execution

Reduction of the criminal liability by virtue of

of sentence, or to extend the suspended

RA 9344 does not extend to the civil liability.

sentence for a certain specified period or

The civil liability is not affected by the same.

until the child reaches the maximum age of


twenty-one (21) years.

e.

If the court finds that the objective of the


disposition measures imposed upon the child

-The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the

in conflict with the law have not been

presumption of minority. (People vs. Salvador Atizado

fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law

and Salvador Monreal, G.R. No. 173822, October 13,

has willfully failed to comply with the

2010)

conditions

of

his/her

disposition

or

rehabilitation program, the child in conflict


with the law shall be brought before the

-The reckoning point in considering minority is the


time of the commission of the crime. (Valcesar Estioca
vs. People, G.R. 173876, 27 June 2008)

court for execution of judgment.

_____________________________________________
f.

Once the child who is under eighteen (18)


years of age at the time of the commission of
the offense is found guilty of the offense
charged, the court shall determine and

THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW


PD No. 532
_____________________________________________

ascertain any civil liability which may have


resulted

from

However,

the

instead

offense
of

committed.

pronouncing

the

judgment of conviction, the court shall place


the child in conflict with the law under
suspended
application.

sentence,
Provided,

without

need

however,

of

WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFY THE PENALTY?


The law provides a higher penalty if the
following circumstances attended the commission of
the crime,
a.

In Piracy-

That

23 | 28

1; If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as


a result or on the occasion thereof. 2. If rape, murder
or homicide is committed as a result or on the
occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned
the victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or
boarding a vessel.BAR Q. [2008]
b. In Highway Robbery/ Brigandage
1. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed
during or on the occasion of the commission of
robbery or brigandage. 2. If kidnapping for ransom or
extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is
committed as a result or on the occasion thereof.
Ruling: This case falls squarely within the purview of
piracy and not grave coercion. While it may be true
that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go
elsewhere other than their place of destination, such
compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing
their boat. The testimony of Eugene, one of the
victims, shows that the appellant actually seized the
vessel through force and intimidation. (People
vs. Emiliano Catantan Y TayongG.R No. 118075,
September 5, 1997)
BAR Q. [2012] A postal van containing mail matters,
including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked
along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of
whom were armed. They used force, violence and
intimidation against three (3) postal employees who
were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful
taking and asportation of the entire van and its
contents.
a.

If you were the public prosecutor, would


you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked
the postal van with violation of Presidential
Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the
Anti-Piracy and Anti -Highway Robbery Law
of 1974? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Yes. There was indeed taking
away of the property of another person by
means of violence against or intimidation of
persons committed on a Philippine Highway
for as long as I can prove, further, the
element of indiscriminate highway robbery.
The fact that there were only two
(2) persons who were armed is of no
moment. There is no requirement under PD
532 that there should be at least four armed
persons forming a band of robbers as the
number of perpetrators is not an essential
element of the crime. (People of the
Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Vs.Romeo
Mendoza Y Reyes And Jaime Rejali Y
Lina, Defendants-Appellants.
G.R.
No.
104461, February 23, 1996).

b.

SUGGESTED ANSWER To obtain a


conviction for highway robbery, the
prosecution should prove the
following:
1.
There is taking away of the
property of another; 2. There is violence
against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things or other unlawful means; 3.
The act is committed on any Philippine
Highway.; 4. All the accused, in the instant
case, were organized for the purpose of
committing
robbery
indiscriminately.
Evidence of any previous attempts at
similar robberies by the accused must be
presented to show the "indiscriminate"
commission thereof and not acts of
robbery committed against only a
predetermined or particular victim,. People
Of
The
Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Vs.Romeo Mendoza Y Reyes And Jaime
Rejali Y Lina, Defendants-Appellants. G.R.
No. 104461, February 23, 1996.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
Republic Act No. 6235
_____________________________________________
WHAT ARE THE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER THE LAW?
It shall be unlawful for any person to compel
a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of
Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control
thereof, while it is in flight.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to
compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in
Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the control
thereof while it is within the said territory (Sec.1).
An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its
external doors are closed following embarkation until
any of such doors is opened for disembarkation.
WHAT ARE THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF
HIJACKING?
A higher penalty is imposed if hijacking is
committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot,
member of the crew or passenger of the
aircraft; 2. Whenever he has exploded or
attempted to explode any bomb or explosive
to destroy the aircraft; 3. Whenever the
crime is accompanied by murder, homicide,
serious physical injuries or rape (Sec.2).

If you were the defense counsel, what are


the elements of the crime of highway
robbery that the prosecution should prove to
sustain a conviction?

24 | 28

_____________________________________________

b.

The proper charge against the offender


should be qualified carnapping or
carnapping in an aggravated form. (*The
driver was killed during the commission
of carnapping..A higher penalty is thus
to be imposed).

c.

The proper charge against the offender


should be carnapping and homicide.

THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT


Republic Act No. 6539
_____________________________________________
DEFINE "CARNAPPING"
It is the taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter's consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

d. The proper charge against the offender


should be robbery with homicide.

-The elements of carnapping are as follows:

R.A. No. 10883. The New Anti-Carnapping Act


of 2016.

1. That there is an actual taking of the


vehicle; 2. That the offender intends to gain
from the taking of the vehicle; 3. That the
vehicle belongs to a person other than the
offender himself; 4. That the taking is
without the consent of the owner thereof; or
that the taking was committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons,
or by using force upon things. People Vs.
Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No.
138470, April 1, 2003. BAR Q. [2008]

Salient Features:
a)

b)

c)

Unlawful taking is the taking of a vehicle without the


consent of the owner, or by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things; it is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has
no opportunity to dispose of the same. (People Vs.
Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 138470, April
1, 2003.)
DOES THE ELEMENT OF TAKING ABSORB THE LOSS OF
CASH OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY?
No. Although carnapping and robbery have
the same element of taking with intent to gain, the
former specifically refers to the unlawful taking of a
motor vehicle only. (People vs. Dela Cruz, GR No.
174658,February 24, 2009).
DOES THE THIRD ELEMENT REQUIRE THE
PERSON DIVESTED OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BE THE
OWBER THEREOF?

It provides stiffer penalties for


carnapping and considers it as a
non-bailable offense if the evidence
of guilt is strong;
It increased the period of
imprisonment from a maximum of
17 years and 4 months to around 20
to 30 years in jail;
If the person resorted to violence,
his sentence would be extended
from 30 years and one day up to 40
years. If the victim is raped or killed,
the carnapper would be given a life
sentence in prison.
Any person involved in the
concealment of the crime will be
imprisoned from 6 to 12 years and
fined with the cost of the car or any
part involved in the crime.

d)

e)

It requires those asking for the


original registration of a vehicle to
apply for clearance from the PNP
and the LTO;
Tampering of serial numbers and
transfer of vehicle plates without
approval from the LTO and sale of
secondhand spare parts obtained
from a carnapped vehicle, among
others, are penalized.

Recent Case:
No. What is simply required is that the
property taken does not belong to the offender.
Actual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed suffices. (People Vs. Artemio Garcia Y
Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003).
BAR QUESTION [2012] What should be the proper
charge against an offender who unlawfully took and
carried away a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, killing the driver in the
process?
a.

The proper charge against the offender


should be murder with the use of motor
vehicle.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ASSAMUDIN


The elements of Carnapping as defined under Section
2 of R.A. No. 6539, as amended, are:
(1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to
another;
(2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or
by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or by using force upon things; and
(3) the taking is done with intent to gain.

25 | 28

______________________________________
THE LAW ON ARSON AS AMENDED
Presidential Decree No. 1613

WHAT IS ARSON?
It is a crime committed by any person who
burns or sets fire to the property of another or when a
person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or
property of another. (Sec.1)
The following are the special aggravating
circumstances in Arson: (Sec.4)
1. If committed with intent to gain; 2. If committed for
the benefit of another; 3. If the offender is motivated
by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of
the property burned; 4. If committed by a syndicate.
-The offense is committed by a syndicate if it is
planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons. (Sec.4)
- If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, a higher penalty shall be imposed.
- Mere conspiracy to commit arson is punishable.
- PRINCIPLES TO CONSIDER:
1.

Suppose the offender set the house of the victim


on fire by way of revenge against the latter. He
was not aware that the victim was inside and
consequently, the latter died because of the fire.
What crime was committed?
The crime is mere arson. There is no
complex crime of arson with homicide. The crime
of homicide is absorbed. The consequence, if by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, is the imposition of a higher penalty.

2.

Suppose the offender knew that the victim was


inside the house before the house was set on
fire, what crime was committed?
If the offender knew that the victim was in
the house when it was set on fire, the crime
committed, instead of arson, would be murder.
The fire constitutes as a qualifying circumstance.

3. Suppose before setting the house on fire, the


offender entered in and killed the victim, then he
set it on fire to conceal the body of the latter,
what crime was committed? BAR Q. [2012]
If the offender killed the victim before the
house was set on fire, two crimes are committed,
murder and arson. The burning of the house to
hide the killing is a separate crime. Arson was
committed to conceal the crime of murder.
BAR QUESTION [2011] Dagami concealed Bugnas
body and the fact that he killed him by setting Bugnas

house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami


commit?
A. Murder, the arson being absorbed already
B. Separate crimes of murder and arson
C. Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
D. Arson with murder as a compound crime
- Under R.A. No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007, a person who commits an act
punishable under Art. 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction) and
thereby sowing and creating
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be
guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment without
the benefit of parole.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW
Republic 4ct No. 6085
[BAR 2006]
_____________________________________________
The law provides that no persons shall use
any name different from the one with which he was
registered at birth in the office of the local civil
registry, or with which he was baptized for the first
time, or, in case of an alien, with which he was
registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or
such substitute name as may have been authorized by
a competent court. (Sec.1)
The use of alias is allowed as a pseudonym
solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other
entertainment purposes and in athletic events where
the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice.
(Sec.1) BAR Q.[2006]
Any person desiring to use an alias shall
apply for authority in proceedings like those legally
provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of
name, and no person shall be allowed to secure such
judicial authority for more than one alias. (sec.2)

_____________________________________________
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Presidential Decree No. 1829 [BAR 2010, 2005]
_____________________________________________
WHO MAY BE LIABLE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
( SEC.1)
Any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases.
BAR Q. [2005] Suggested Answer: Patrick is liable for
obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of PD 1829
because he destroyed the evidence intended to be
used in in the criminal proceeding.

26 | 28

Even if a person is found not criminally liable


as an accessory under Article 20 of the Revised Penal
Code, he may, however, be liable for acts punished
under P.D. 1829.
DIFFERENTIATE AN ACCESSORY FROM A PRINCIPAL IN
P.D. 1829.
An accessory under Article 20 of the Revised
Penal Code is exempt from criminal liability when the
principal is his a) spouse b) ascendant c) descendant d)
legitimate, natural or adopted brother sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree. These
benefits are not available in PD 1829.
-oooOOOooo-

Adonai is a stronghold for the


oppressed, a Tower of Strength in time of
trouble, those who know your name out their
trust in You, for You have not abandoned those
who seek You, Adonai.
Psalms 9:10-11

27 | 28