Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The presidential immunity is subject the following conditions: (1) the immunity
has been asserted during the period of his incumbency and tenure; and (2) the act
constituting the crime is committed in the performance of his duties.This immunity
will assure the exercise of presidential functions free from any hindrance, considering
that the Chief Executive is a job demands undivided attention (Estrada vs. Desierto,
G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001).
It is submitted that a Vice-President even during his tenure could not invoke
immunity from criminal prosecution for plunder on the following reasons: (1) plunder
are not his official conducts as Vice-President; (2) the job of the Vice-President unlike
the head of the executive department does not demands undivided attention; (3) and
the implementation principal penalty of imprisonment for plunder is not inconsistent
with the constitutional provision on non-removal of impeachable officer except
through impeachment since he can function as Vice-President while serving sentence
in prison.However, accessory penalty of disqualification, which involved removal from
office, is not implementable since the enforcement thereof will offend the constitutional
provision on non-removal of impeachable officer.
An incumbent Senator is not immune from suit for being a protector or coddler
of trading of dangerous drugs under RA No. 9165. Legislators immunity is confined to
parliamentary privilege from arrest while the Congress is in session in all offenses
punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment and parliamentary immunity from
prosecution for libel in connection with any Congressional speech or debate.
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant
vessel passing through the territorial sea of another state has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein. However, a coastal state such as the Philippines can exercise
jurisdiction over any crime committed on board such ship in the following cases: (1) if
its consequences extend to the coastal State; (2) if it disturbs the peace of the country
or the good order of the territorial sea; (3) if the ship master or a diplomatic or
consular officer of the flag State requested assistance from the local authorities; or (4)
if it is for the suppression of traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
1|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Under the principle of territoriality, the court has also jurisdiction over crime
committed in Kalayaan Islands or Scarboruogh Shoal because the Baseline Law (RA
No. 9522) declares that the Philippines exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over it.
Under the principle of territoriality, the court has jurisdiction over concubinage
involving illicit relationship maintained in the Philippines; but it has no jurisdiction
over bigamy involving subsequent marriage contracted in Taiwan.
jurisdiction to try and punish offender for rape committed prior to RA No. 8353 (U.S.
vs. Cana, 12 Phil. 241). RA No. 8353 shall be given prospective effect since it is not
favorable to the accused.
The accused shot with a firearm and killed by mistake a thief in the toilet, who
turned out to be his girlfriend. Invasion of property is considered as unlawful
aggression under Article 12 of the RPC because of the self-help doctrine under the
Civil Code (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983). Even though
there is no actual invasion of property, unlawful aggression as an element of defense
of property will be considered as present because of the mistake of fact principle.
However, the means employed by him firing shots through the toilet door is not
reasonable; and hence, he is only entitled to privilege migrating circumstance of
incomplete defense of property (US vs. Apego, G.R. No. L-7929, November 18, 1912).
8. Proximate cause - There had been an interval of 22 days between the date of
the stabbing and the date when victim was rushed to hospital, exhibiting symptoms of
tetanus infection. Since infection is severe, he died the next day. The incubation period
of severe tetanus infection is less than 14 days. Hence, he could not have been infected
at the time of the stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before the symptoms
manifested. The infection was an efficient intervening cause breaking the connection
between the physical injuries and death. Hence, the crime committed is physical
injuries (Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011). If the victim was
infected by tetanus at the time of stabbing, and the infection is the proximate cause of
death, the crime committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204, May 16,
1947).
Suicide is not a felony within the meaning of Article 4 of RPC; hence, a pregnant
woman who attempted to commit suicide is not liable for abortion due to the
consequent death of the infant. Vexatious act (e.g. pouring gasoline) made as part of
fun making is not felony within the contemplation of Article 4. The accused is not
liable for homicide. However, such act is considered as culpable, and thus, he is liable
for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (People vs. Pugay, No 74324, November
17, 1988). Vexatious act made out of hate (such as putting a robber snake inside the
bag of the victim) is unjust vexation, which is a felony within the contemplation of
Article 4. The accused is liable for homicide if the victim died due to heart attack
caused by seeing a snake in his bag.
If the victim accidentally killed is the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
motor vehicle, the crime committed is qualified carnapping or carnapping in the
aggravated form. If the victim accidentally killed is not the owner, driver or occupant of
the carnapped motor vehicle, the crimes committed are simple carnapping and
homicide. The concept of carnapping is the same as that of theft and robbery (People
vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, Nov. 21, 2001). Although not punishable under RPC, it can
be treated as a felony within the meaning of Article 4 of RPC (See: Dimat vs. People,
G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). Hence, the accused is liable for homicide, which
is the direct and natural consequence of simple carnapping.
3 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not contemplated
in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-38930, June 28,
1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967). However, praeter intentionem and evident
premeditation can be independently appreciated. there is no incompatibility between
evident premeditation and no intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is
based on the state of mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the
crime (Reyes; People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
A person, who has sexual intercourse with a woman not knowing that she was
already dead,is liable for impossible crime since rape is now a crime against person.
However, if he is aware that the woman is already dead, he is not liable for impossible
crime since criminal intent or propensity to rape, which is the basis of penalizing
impossible crime, is wanting.
If the gender element in rape through sexual intercourse is not present, the
offender is not liable for impossible crime. Although it is impossible to commit rape
through sexual intercourse where the victim is a gay, such acts constitute acts of
lasciviousness.
If the check is unfunded, stealing the checkand presenting it for payment with
the bank constitute impossible crime. It is factually impossible to accomplish the
crime of qualified theft since the check is unfunded(Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No.
162540, July 13, 2009). If the check is funded, stealing the check and presenting it for
payment with the bank is not impossible crime. Even if the accused failed to encash
the same due to external cause such as apprehension by police or stop payment, he will
be held liable for consummated theft. In theft, taking property with intent to gain
consummates the crime. Actual gain is not an element thereof. Thus, failure to gain
4 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
will not prevent the consummation of the crime (See: People vs. Seranilla, G.R. No. L-
54090, May 9, 1988);
Kidnapping for ransom consummates at the precise moment when the victim
was abducted. Receiving ransom payment is not an element of this crime. What is
important is that the victim was kidnapped for purpose of ransom. Since the crime is
already consummated, there is no basis to say that it is impossible to commit this
crime (People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993). Moreover, kidnapping is a
crime against liberty and not against person or property.
10. Indeterminate offense - Climbing on top of the naked victim, touching her
genitalia and mashing her breastsaresusceptible of double interpretation (People v.
Lamahang). His intention is either to rape or seduce her. Hence, the accused cannot
be held liable for attempted rape because intent to have sex is not clear. He is only
liable for acts of lasciviousness (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014).
The three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-building
phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving or non-violent
phase (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). The basis of the
5|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
irresistible impulse to make a defense against the batterer is the womans experiencing
two battering episodes.
The elements of Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense are as follows: (1) the
woman is subjected to cumulative abuse by the victim, with whom she has marital,
sexual or dating relationship; and (2) the cumulative abuse or battery is the act of
inflicting physical harm resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress.
Since the abuse must be cumulative, there must be at least two episodes involving the
infliction of physical harm. If the first episode is infliction of physical harm and the
second episode is verbal abuse, the accused cannot avail Battered Woman Syndrome
as a defense.
13. Insanity - The presumption, under Article 800 of the Civil Code, is that
every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity
bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence (People vs. Tibon,
G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010, Justice Velasco). There are two tests (People vs.
Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950) to determine whether the mental
condition of the accused is exempting or mitigating:
b. Test of volition Under the test of volition, the mental condition of the
accused is a mitigating circumstance of mental illness if there is complete or partial
deprivation of freedom. In sum, if a sex maniac or homicidal maniac had merely
passed the volition test but not the cognition test, he will only be given the benefit
of mitigating circumstance of illness. Diminution of freedom is enough to mitigate
the liability of the offender suffering from illness (See: People vs. Rafanan, Jr.
November 21, 1991, G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991). Thus, kleptomania is a
mitigating circumstance of mental illness.
No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24,
1993).
14. Child in conflict with the law -The rights and privileges of a child in
conflict with the law are as follows:
3.If the child is found guilty, the court shall place him under suspended
sentence, without need of application instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction
(Section 38 of RA 9344). The law makes no distinction as to the nature of offense by
the child. The Senate debate discloses that the suspension is applicable to heinous
crime (People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011; People vs. Ancajas, G.R.
No. 199270, October 21, 2015).
An accused, who is under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime, is a child in conflict with the law. He will not be deprived of privileges under the
law even though he reaches age of majority at time of rendition of judgment. Exception:
While Section 38 of RA 9344 provides suspension of sentence can still be applied even
if the child is already 18 years of age at the time of conviction. However, Section 40
limits the suspension of sentence until the child reaches the age of 21 (People vs.
Gambao, GR No. 172707, October 01, 2013; People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270,
October 21, 2015).
3.If the accused is an adult, application for probation must be filed within the
period of perfecting an appeal (Section 4 of PD No. 968 or Probation Law). However,
the accused is a child in conflict with the law, application for probation may be filed at
any time (Section 42 of RA No. 9344). In sum, it can be filed even beyond the period of
perfecting an appeal or even during the pendency of an appeal.
apply for probation for the crime of possession or use of dangerous drug even if the
penalty is higher than 6 years of imprisonment. But Section 70 of RA 9165 is not
applicable sale of dangerous drugs. Section 24 of RA No. 9165 disqualifies drug
traffickers and pushers for applying for probations although the accused is a minor.
The law considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while the drug
traffickers and pushers as predators (Padua vs. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23,
2008).
4. The child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the
court, be made to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities in accordance with
Section 51 of RA No. 9344 (People vs. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011;
People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015).
17. Voluntary confession - A plea of guilty made after the prosecution had
begun presenting its evidence cannot be considered voluntary since it was made only
after the accused realized that the evidence already presented by the prosecution is
enough to cause his conviction (People vs. Montinola, G.R. No. 131856-57, July 9, 2001).
Conspirators are all liable for robbery although not all profited and gained from
the robbery. When a conspirator committed homicide by reason of or on the occasion
of the robbery, his co-conspirators are liable for special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent the killing (People vs. Ebet, GR No.
181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009;
People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013) or they cannot prevent the killing since
they are not aware thereof (People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997). This
rule is applicable to special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (People vs.
Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, June 08, 2011) or robbery with rape (People v. Suyu,
G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006; People v. Canturia, G.R. No. 108490 June 22,
1995).
B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the
provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied
supplementarily. Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for violation of
BP Blg. 22 on the basis of conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066,
February 17, 2005). The principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No. 9262.
Thus, a person (such as mother-in-law), who has no marital, sexual or dating
relationship with the victim, can be held liable for violence against woman on the
basis of conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
If there is conspiracy, the act of the public officer in violating RA No. 3019 is
imputable to the private individual although there are not similarly situated in relation
to the object of the crime. Moreover, Section 9 provides penalty for public officer or
private person for crime under Section 3. Hence, a private individual can be
prosecuted for violation of RA No. 3019 (Go vs. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007). Even if the public officer, with whom the private
individual allegedly conspired, died, the latter can still be prosecuted for violation of
RA No. 3019. Death extinguishes the criminal liability but not the crime. Hence, if
there is proof of the crime and conspiracy between the dead public officer and private
individual, the latter can still be convicted of violation of RA No. 3019 (People vs. Go,
9 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
GR NO. 168539, March 25, 2014). However, if the public officer with whom the private
individual allegedly conspired is acquitted, the latter should also be acquitted (Marcos
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998).
23. Accomplice - Lending weapon such a gun to a killer for purpose of killing
a specific person such as Pedro is an act of accomplice. But if the killer used the
weapon in killing a different person such as Juan, the lender is not liable as an
accomplice. To be held liable as an accomplice, it is important that that he knows and
concurs in the criminal design of the principal (community of design) and participates
before or during the commission of the crime by supplying moral or material aid in an
efficacious way. In this case, the lender concurred in the killing of Pedro but not
Juan. Hence, he is not liable as an accomplice. If the killer used another weapon such
as knife instead of the gun borrowed in killing Pedro, the lender is not liable as an
accomplice. Although the lender concurred in the killing of Pedro, he did not supply
the killer material or moral aid in an efficacious way since the weapon used is not the
one borrowed from him.
24. Fencing In fencing, the property, which the accused possesses with
intent to gain, must be derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Ong vs. People,
GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013). The concept of carnapping is the same as that of theft
or robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001). Thus, carnapping
can be considered as within the contemplation of the word theft or robbery in PD
No. 1612 (Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). If the property is
derived from the proceeds of malversation or estafa, fencing is not committed. But the
accused can be held liable as an accessory if he profited or assisted other to profit
from this misappropriated property.
The criminal actor, who threwthe body of murdered victim into the river to
destroy the corpus delicti, is liable for murder qualified by the circumstance of
employment of means to afford impunity.The one who assisted in in throwing the body
is liable as an accessory to murder for destroying the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery (People vs. Devaras, G.R. Nos. 100938-39, December 15, 1993)or a principal
in the crime of obstruction of justice for destroying it to impair its availability as
evidence in a criminal proceeding.
under PD No. 1829 is prision correccional in its maximum period unless other law
prescribed a higher penalty. Thus, the offender may be prosecuted for murder as
accessory with the penalty of prision mayor or for obstruction of justice as principal
also with the penalty of prision mayor, since this penalty is higher than that
prescribed under PD No. 1829. The intention of the law in prescribing a fixed penalty
or that provided by other law such as RPC, whichever is higher, is not to prosecute the
offender for obstruction of justice and for other crime arising from the same act such
as destroying the body of the crime.
After the discoveryof illegal possession of lumber, the accused unlawfully took
the truckused to commit the crime from the authorities. He is not liable as an
accessory since he did not conceal the instrument of the crime for the purpose
of preventing the discovery thereof. Crime was already discovered when the
concealment was made. However, he is liable for obstruction of justice for concealing
the truck to impair its availability as evidence in the criminal proceeding for illegal
possession of lumber (Padiernos vs. People, G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015).
11 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
If the offender is a child, the applicable rule for crediting the period of
commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344, which
provides that the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of juvenile
delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.
29. Special complex crime Raping the victim or inserting instrument in her
anal orifice after treacherously inflicting mortal wounds is not a special complex crime
of rape with homicide because the original design of the victim is kill and not to rape
the victim. The crime committed is murder qualified by treachery and rape shall be
regarded either as ignominy or cruelty (People vs. Laspardas, G.R. No. L-46146, Oct.
23, 1979) or sexual assault shall be treated as cruelty (People vs. Bernabe, G.R. No.
185726, October 16, 2009).
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless
of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the
accused is liable for a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide (People vs.
Mercado, G.R. No. 116239, November 29, 2000; People vs. Ramos, G.R. No.
118570, October 12, 1998; People vs. Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3, 2004;
People vs. Montanir, GR No. 187534, April 04, 2011; People vs. Dionaldo, G.R. No.
207949, July 23, 2014). However, if the derivation of liberty is just incidental to the
transportation of the victim to the place where he will be executed, the crime is
murder. Kidnapping with homicide is not committed because of lack of intent to
deprive liberty (People vs. Estacio Jr., G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009).
The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing
is due to the rape, which is the crime the offender originally designed to commit. The
victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. In contrast, the phrase on the
occasion of the rape as shown by Senate deliberations refers to a killing that occurs
immediately before or after,or during the commission itself of the rape, where the
victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim (People vs.
12 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012; People vs. Laog, G.R. No. 178321,
October 5, 2011).
In robbery with homicide, all other felonies such as rape, intentional mutilation,
usurpation of authority, or direct assault with attempted homicide are integrated into
this special complex crime. This special complex crime is committed as long as death
results by reason or on occasion or robbery without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
crime(People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta, G.R.
No. 202124, April 05, 2016).
13 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Breaking the window of a house and taking property inside without entering
constitutes theft. Breaking the window is not a circumstance that will qualify the
taking into robbery by using force upon thins since this crime requires that the
breaking of window is a means to enter the building (People vs. Adorno, CA 40 O.G.
567; People vs. Jaranilla. G.R. No. L-28547, February 22, 1974). Breaking the window
to commit theft is an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
Using picklock to open a locked cabinet and taking property therein is not
robbery by using force upon thing. To constitute robbery by using force upon thing,
the picklock must be used to open the building and not merely a lockedfurniture (US
vs. Macamay, G.R. No. 11952, September 25, 1917). Entrusted key is not a false key
in robbery by using force upon thing.
In Sebastian case, when the elements of both robbery by means of violence and
intimidation and robbery by using force upon thing are present, the accused shall be
held liable of the former since the controlling qualification is the violence and
intimidation. However, the penalty for robbery in inhabited house if the robber is
armed is graver than simple robbery. Hence, by hurting the victim, the offender shall
be penalized with a lighter penalty. Since Sebastian principle defies logic and reason,
People vs. Napolis, G.R. No. L-28865, February 28, 1972 abandoned it. Under the
present rule, when the elements of both robbery by means of violence and intimidation
and robbery by using force upon thing are present, the crime is a complex one under
Article 48 of said Code. Hence, the penalty for robbery in inhabited house shall be
imposed in its maximum period (People vs. Disney, G.R. No. L-41336, February 18,
1983; Fransdilla vs. People, GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015). If the entry into the
dwelling is without force upon thing, and the property was taken by means of violence
or intimidation, the crime committed is robbery by means of violence or intimidation
with aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling (People vs. Tejero, G.R. No.
128892 June 21, 1999; People vs. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011).
When the elements of both robbery with homicide and robbery by using force upon
thing (unlawful entry) are present, the former shall absorb the latter. In sum, robbery
by using force upon thing shall be integrated into the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide (People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs.
Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016). But aggravating circumstances of
disregard of dwelling and unlawful entry shall be both appreciated (People vs. Lamosa,
G.R. No. 74291-93, May 23, 1989).
30. Compound crime - The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the floor
of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of victims constituted a compound
crime of multiple murders (People vs. Mores, GR No. 189846, June 26, 2013).
Wherethe use of grenade render the victim defenseless, use of explosives shall be
considered as a qualifying circumstance because this is the principal mode of attack.
Thus, treachery will be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance (People
vs. Comadre, et al., G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004). The single act of running over the
victims with a van constitutes compound crime of multiple murders (People vs.
Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012).
The body of the information charged the accused of compound crime with
murder and attempted murder since two victims were hit by a single shot. The
evidence shows that murder and attempted murder are separate crimes since the two
victims were hit by several shot. Under the variance rule, if the crime alleged in the
14 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
information varies with the crime proven with evidence, the accused shall be convicted
of the crime alleged or proven whichever the lesser. Thus, accused shall be convicted
of complex crime, which is lesser compared to two crimes (People vs. Bernardo, GR No.
198789, June 03, 2013).
The single criminal impulse rule under the Lawas doctrine is more of an
exception than the general rule (People vs. Remollino, G.R. No. L-14008, September
30, 1960). Article 48 on compound crime speaks of single act, but not single criminal
impulse (People vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21, 1967). In Lawas case, the SC
was merely forced to apply Article 48 because of the impossibility of ascertaining the
number of persons killed by each accused (People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No.
184500. September 11, 2012). Thus, the Lawas doctrine should not be applied if there
is conspiracy since the number of victims actually killed by each conspirator is not
anymore material if there is conspiracy (People vs. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June
29, 2010, Justice Velasco).
The single criminal purpose rule under the Abella case was adopted in
consideration of the plight of the prisoners; hence, it is only applicable if killings were
commit by prisoners against their fellow prisoners (People vs. Pincalin, G.R. No. L-
38755, January 22, 1981; People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012
31. Complex crime proper - Stabbing after the rape is a separate crime of
frustrated homicide. This is not a complex crime proper since the latter is not
necessary to commit the former (People vs. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012).
If the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim, the crime committed is
rape. Forcible abduction (People vs. Mejoraday, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993;
People vs. Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002) or illegal detention (People vs.
Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004), which is incidental to the commission of
rape, is absorbed. The doctrine of absorption rather than Article 48 of RPC is
applicable since forcible abduction or illegal detention is an indispensable means to
commit rape.
If the accused abducted the victim without clear showing of lewd design, the
crime committed is kidnapping since it will appear that the intention of the accused is
to deprive victim of his liberty. If as a consequence of illegal detention, the victim was
rape, the crime committed is a special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. This is
the crime committed regardless of the number of rapes. Multiple rapes will be
15 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
considered as a component of this special complex crime (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr.,
G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011; People vs. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8,
2011). If as a consequence of illegal detention, the victim was rape and then killed, the
crime committed is a special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide. Rape will be
considered as a component of this special complex crime (People vs. Larranaga,
138874-75, February 3, 2004, En Banc).
The difference between rape through forcible abduction and kidnapping with
rape lies on the criminal intention of the accused at the precise moment of abduction.
If the abduction is committed with lewd design, the crime committed is rape through
forcible abduction. On the other hand, if the abduction is committed without lewd
design, the crime committed is kidnapping with rape (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R.
No. 186417, July 27, 2011). Even if the victim was detained for one week and in the
course thereof, she was rape, the crime committed is rape through forcible abduction
if the abduction is committed with lewd design (People vs. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100,
July 18, 2014).
If the accused was molesting the victim immediately upon abduction, that is
proof that abduction is committed with lewd design (People vs. Jose, supra). After
eating the food given by accused, the victim became dizzy and thereafter, she passed
out. When she regained consciousness, she notices that she and accused are naked
inside a room. She was raped and detained for 6 days. The crime committed is rape
through forcible abduction (People vs. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100, July 18, 2014).
Membership in CPP-NPA alone will not establish political motivation behind the
killing for purpose of convicting the killers for rebellion (People vs. Lovedioro, G.R. No.
112235, November 29, 1995; People vs. Solongan, G.R. No. 137182, April 24, 2003).
But membership in a liquidation squad and killing a government officer is sufficient to
establish political motivation (People v. Dasig,G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993).
RA No. 6968 eliminated the phrases "engaging in war against the forces of the
government", "committing serious violence" and destroying property in Article 135 of
RPC. These modes of committing rebellion deleted by RA No. 6968 were used by the
SC in justifying the doctrine of absorption. The amendment of Article 135 does not
affect the accepted concept of rebellion and these overt acts of violence are deemed
subsumed in the provision on public and armed uprising, which is an element of
rebellion in Article 134 (Regalado). Hence, the doctrine of absorption is still good. The
incidents in Lovedioro case, and Solongan case happened after RA No. 6968, and yet,
the SC is still applying the doctrine of absorption.
If the principal intention of the offenders is to rob the victims, and the
deprivation of their liberty is just incidental to the prevention of the responding police
16 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
officers from arresting them, the crime committed is robbery, which absorbed
kidnapping and serious illegal detention (People vs. Astor, G.R. Nos. L-71765-66, 29
April 1987).If the accused committed robbery, but thereafter, they detained the victims
to demand additional money, and later forestall their capture by the police, the crime
committed is complex crime of robbery through kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. The detention was availed of as a means of insuring the consummation of
the robbery. The detention was not merely a matter of restraint to enable the
malefactors to escape, but deliberate as a means of extortion for an additional
amount. Hence, the Astor principle is not applicable (People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No.
86163 April 26, 1990). If the accused committed robbery by band, but thereafter, they
took one of the victims and detained him for seven days in another place for purpose
of demanding ransom, they are liable of separate crimes of robbery by band and
kidnapping for ransom (People vs. Basao, G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012).
33. Delito continuado - In order that continuous crime may exist, there
should be: (1) plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; (2) unity
of criminal intent and purpose and (3) unity of penal provision infringed upon or
violated (Santiago vs. Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December 2, 1993). The
following are delito continuado: (1) several acts of taking roasters owned by different
owner under a single criminal impulse to take them all in violation of a single penal
provision, and that is Article 308 of RPC (Note: This is also called single larceny rule;
People vs. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547, February 22, 1974); and (2)several acts of
taking away by force the valuables of the employees working in Energex gasoline
station committed under a single criminal intent to commit robbery in that place in
violation of a single penal provision, and that is Article 294 of RPC (People vs. De Leon,
GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009).
Accused inserted his penis thrice into the private part of victim for purpose of
changing position. The three penetrations motivated by a single criminal intent to
satisfy his lust in violation of single penal provision (Article 266-A of RPC) constitute a
continued crime of rape (People vs. Aaron, G.R. Nos. 136300-02, September 24,
2002). Accused inserted his penis thrice into the private part of victim for purpose of
resting for five minutes. He satisfied his lust every time he would withdraw his penis
to rest. Since the three penetrations were motivated by separate three criminal
impulse to satisfy his lust, three separate crimes of rape are committed (People vs.
Lucena, GR No. 190632, February 26, 2014).
There is no delito continuado where the accused when he committed the first
threat against the victim has no foreknowledge that he will chance upon the second
and third victims to commit the second and third threat. Without such
foreknowledge, three threats could not be said to have been committed under a single
criminal impulse, which is the basis of applying delito continuado principle. Several
threats can only be considered as continued crime if the offender threatened three
individuals at the same place and at the same time (Paera vs. People, G.R. No.
181626, May 30, 2011).
34. Penalty - Two degrees higher than reclusion temporal prescribed for
qualified theft shall be death penalty. Since death penalty was not specifically
prescribed for qualified theft, the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory
penalties for death shall be imposed pursuant to Article 74 of RPC. However, the
period of imprisonment should be fixed at forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua.
Otherwise, there would be no difference at all between reclusion perpetua imposed as
the penalty next higher in degree and reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty fixed
by law (Celestial vs. People, G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015, Justice Velasco).
found in rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64), which is not applicable
because the penalty is not divisible (People vs. Takbobo, G.R. No. No. 102984, June
30, 1993). The Takbobo principle is also applicable if the penalty prescribed by law for
the crime committed is a single indivisible penalty such as reclusion perpetua.
If the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion temporal (e.g. penalty for homicide)
and there is one mitigating circumstance, this penalty shall be imposed in its
minimum period. In such case, the indeterminate minimum penalty shall be fixed
anywhere within the full range of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years), which
is the penalty next lower in degree, while the indeterminate maximum penalty shall be
fixed anywhere within the range of reclusion temporal in its minimum period (12 years
and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months). Hence, the court may sentence the accused to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of: 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to
14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum (People vs. Placer, G.R. No. 181753,
October 09, 2013).
RA No. 7080 and RA No. 10591 adoptthe nomenclature of the penalties in RPC.
Hence, minority, confession (Jacaban vs. People, GR No. 184355, March 23, 2015;
Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007) or quasi-recidivisim shall be
considered in plunder and illegal possession of loose firearm.
Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply except
in the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege mitigating
18 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
circumstance of minority (People vs. Montalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011;
People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No.
195005, September 12, 2011, Justice Velasco), confession or quasi-recidivisim(People
vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving
dangerous drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion
perpetua. If the accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.
If the special law (such as RA No. 6235 on hijacking and RA No. 3019 on
corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC, the latter
shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be appreciated since
the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its minimum period. The
crime has not attempted or frustrated stage since penalty not borrowed from RPC
cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine, he shall be subject to
a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of
judgment of conviction by the trial court (Article 39 of RPC as amended by RA No.
10159).
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could serve
simultaneously arresto mayor and fine, prision correccional and perpetual absolute
disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction. In sum, while lingering in
prison, convict could pay fine, return the property confiscated, be disallowed to cast
his vote or to act function as a public officer.
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
successively if the nature of the penalties will not permit simultaneous service.
Convict must serve multiple penalties successively: (1) where the penalties to be
served are destierro and imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to be served are
imprisonment. However, the successive service of sentences is subject to the three-fold
rule and 40-year limitation rule.
The three fold rule is to be taken into account not in the imposition of the
penalty but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed (People vs. Escares,
G.R. No. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957; Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-
51065-72, June 30, 1987). Thus, the court cannot dismiss criminal cases in excess of
three on the basis of three-fold rule.
contract is an ingredient of this crime. Novation may convert the contract of trust into
creditor-debtor situation, or put doubt on the true nature of the original transaction
(People vs. Nery, G.R. No. L-19567, February 5, 1964). In these situations, the accused
will be acquitted for failure to prove the element of receipt of property in trust. Thus,
novation is a defense in estafa through misappropriation where the contract of agency
is converted into sale (Degaos vs. People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013).
However, partial payment and promise to pay the balance of obligation under contract
of agency will not convert it into sale. There is no novation since the obligation of the
accused in making a partial payment is not incompatible to the obligation to give the
proceeds of sale of the property under the contract of agency (Degaos vs. People,
supra).
Death of an accused pending appeal shall extinguish his criminal liability and
civil liability arising from crime (Article 89 of RPC); but not his civil liability arising
from a source other than crime (e.g. quasi-delict, contract, quasi-contract or law). Civil
liability arising from a source other than crime is not deemed included in the
institution of criminal action. Hence, the private complainant must file a separate civil
action against either the executor or administrator, or the estate of the accused.
During the pendency of the criminal case, the statute of limitations on this surviving
civil liability is deemed interrupted (People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2,
1994). However, in violation of BP Blg. 22, civil liability arising from a source other
than crimeis mandatorily included in the institution of criminal action. Hence, the
court, despite the death of the accused pending appeal, must determine his civil
liability arising from contract (Bernardo vs. People, G.R. No. 182210, October 05,
2015). In sum, the private complainant is not required to file a separate civil action
based on contract involving a dishonored check.
Person, who was pardoned for the crime punishable by reclusion perpetua,
cannot run in the Senatorial race if the terms of the pardon has not expressly restored
his right to hold public office (Article 36 of RPC) or expressly remitted the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification (Article 41). GMA pardoned President
Estrada with express restoration of his civil and political rights. Hence, he is eligible to
run as Mayor (Risos-vidal vs. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015).
The State and private complainant should not be blame for failure to institute
the case immediately after the commission of the crime if they are ignorant or has no
reasonable means of knowing the existence of a crime. Under "blameless ignorance"
doctrine (Section 2 of Act 3326 and Article 91 of RPC), the prescription runs only upon
discovery of the crime by offended party or State through a person in authority or his
agent. Considering that during the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to
assail the legality of the transactions involving cronies such as behest loan, it would
be unreasonable to expect that the discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible
prior to 1986 (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65,
September 11, 2013). Hence, the prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019
commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee made an
exhaustive investigation (Presidential Ad hoc fact-finding committee vs. Hon. Desierto,
G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011).
Prescription runs only upon discovery of the crime by offended party or person
in authority or his agent. For purpose of prescription of crime, the offended party
includes the person to whom the offender is civilly liable. Thus, the widow of the
murdered victim is an offended party (Garcia vs. CA, G.R. No. 119063, January 27,
20 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
1997). Discovery of crime by a mere witness, who is not an offended party, will not
commence the running of prescription.
If the crime is punishable bythe Revised Penal Code or a special law, the
institution of judicial proceeding(e.g. filing of complaint or information in court) or
executive proceeding (e.g. filing of complaint for preliminary investigation) interrupts
the running of prescription such as the filing of complaint: (1) for violation of BP Blg.
22 in the prosecutors office - People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13,
2012;Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008; (2)
for violation of Revised Securities Act in Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC
vs. Interport Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008; or (3) violation
of RA No. 3019 in the Ombudsman - Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24
and 174764-65, September 11, 2013.
The PCGG has no power to investigate cronies of Marcos for violation of RA No.
3019 not involving ill-gotten wealth. Such investigation for being voidab initiowould not
interrupt the running of prescription (People vs. Romualdez and Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 166510, April 29, 2009).
21 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Under PD No. 968 as amended, crimes against public disorder are non-
probationable. However, under RA No. 10707, crimes against public disorder such as
alarm and scandal and direct assault are now probationable.
The phrase "on occasion of such performance" used in Article 148 of RPC means
"by reasonof the past performance of official duty because the purpose of the law is to
allow them to discharge their duties without fear of being assaulted by reason thereof
(People vs. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974). Attacking a judge on the
street by reason of past performance of duty (such as citing the accused in contempt)
constitutes qualified direct assault (U.S. vs. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 6820, October 16,
1911). But attacking a retired judge by reason of past performance of duty is not
direct assault since he is not anymore a person in authority at the time of the assault.
Note: The mandatory retirement age of a judge is 70 year.
22 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Attacking a third person who comes to the aid of a person in authority, who is a
victim of direct assault, is liable for direct assault upon an agent of a person in
authority. Attacking a third person who comes to the aid of an agent of person in
authority, who is a victim of direct assault, is liable for indirect direct assault.
Attacking a third person who comes to the aid of an agent of person in authority, who
is a victim of simple resistance, is liable for physical injuries.
Brother of a detention prisoner and convicted prisoner bribed the clerk of court
to falsify release order and their custodians to release his brothers. Convicted prisoner
but not the detention prisoner is liable for evasion of service of sentence. Brother and
clerk of court are liable for delivery of prisoner from jail with respect to the escape of
detention prisoner and convicted prisoner. Custodians are liable for infidelity in the
custody of prisoners with respect to the escape of detention prisoner and convicted
prisoner. Brother is liable for two counts of corruption of public officer. Clerk of court
and custodians are liable for direct bribery. Clerk of court and brother are liable for
falsification of document as principal by direct participation and as principal by
inducement, respectively.
39. Bribery - Plaintiff gave money to the judge, who in consideration thereof
subsequently rendered an unjust decision in favor of the former. The judge is liable of
direct bribery and rendering unjust decision, while the plaintiff is liable of corruption
of public officer. But if the plaintiff gave money to the judge, who subsequently
rendered a decision against the former, the crime committed by the judge is indirect
bribery while the plaintiff is liable of corruption of public officer. The judge is not liable
of direct bribery since rendering a decision against the corruptor indicates that the
former did not receive the money in consideration of rendering a decision in favor of
the latter. It seems that the plaintiff merely gave the money to the judge by reason of
his position as such.
40. Abortion and infanticide If the fetus is killed inside the womb of his
mother, the crime is abortion regardless of whether he is viable or not (People vs.
Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People vs. Salufrania, G.R. No. L-
50884, March 30, 1988). If the victim is killed outside the womb of the mother, the
crime is: (1) abortion if the victim is not viable e.g. intrauterine life is only 6 months
(People vs. Detablan, 40 O.G. No. 9, p. 30; People vs. Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035,
April 16, 2008); or (2) infanticide, if the victim is viable e.g. his intrauterine life is more
than 6 months and his life is less than 3 day old; or (3) murder if the victim is viable
and his life is 3 day old or more.
If the accused maltreated his wife and as a consequence, his wife and unborn
child died, the crime committed is compound crime of parricide and unintentional
abortion (People vs. Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002; People vs. Villanueva,
G.R. No. 95851, March 01, 1995). If the accused maltreated his pregnant wife and as
a consequence, his wife died, and his child was expelled, and died thereafter within 3
23 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
days, the crime committed is compound crime of parricide and infanticide. If the
accused maltreated his pregnant wife and as a consequence, his wife died, and his
child was expelled, and died thereafter on the third day, the crime committed is
compound crime of double parricides.
41. Parricide - In parricide, if the victim is his parent or child, the relationship
can either be legitimate or illegitimate; if the victim is the spouse, grandparent or
grandchild, the relationship must be legitimate (People vs. Gamez, GR No. 202847,
October 23, 2013). Relationship in parricide is by blood except where the victim is
spouse (Regalado). The qualifying circumstance of relationship in parricide is personal.
Hence, it can be appreciated against the wife but not against a co-conspirator, who is
not related to her husband, the victim (People vs. Bucsit G.R. No. 17865, March 15,
1922).
Killing his wife after surprising her in the act of committing homosexual
intercourse with another woman is not death under exceptional circumstance. Sexual
intercourse mentioned in Article 247 is different from homosexual intercourse. Killing
his mistress after surprising in the act of committing sexual intercourse with a man is
not death under exceptional circumstance(U.S. vs. Versola, G.R. No. 10759, January
25, 1916). The offender in Article 247 must be a legally married person. Killing his
wife under the circumstance indicating that she had just finished having sexual
intercourse with another man is not death under exceptional circumstance. He did not
catch his wife in the very act of sexual intercourse, but after such act (People vs.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310, October 31, 1939).
44. Rape - If the relationship between the accused and the victim of rape is
uncle and niece, the Information must alleged that the offender is a relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree because there are niece-uncle
relationships which are beyond the third civil degree. However, a sister-brother
relationship is obviously in the second civil degree. Consequently, it is not necessary
that the Information should specifically state that the accused is a relative by
24 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
consanguinity within the third civil degree of the victim (People vs. Ceredon, G.R. No.
167179, January 28, 2008,Justice Velasco).
If the accused commits rape and acts of lasciviousness, the latter is absorbed
by the former (People vs. Dy, G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29, 2002). But the
doctrine of absorption is not applicable to rape through sexual assault. Inserting
lighted cigarette into the genital orifice and anal orifice of the victim and raping her
constitutes two counts of rape by sexual assault and rape through sexual intercourse
(People vs. Crisostomo, GR No. 196435, January 29, 2014). Inserting the penis into
the mouth of the victim and into her genital orifice constitutes rape through sexual
assault and organ rape (In People vs. Espera, G.R. No. 202868, October 02, 2013).
If the crime charged is rape, but the crime proven is acts of lasciviousness, the
accused will be convicted of the latter because of the variance rule. Acts of
lasciviousness is a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the charge of rape. If
the crime charged is rape through sexual intercourse, but the crime proven is rape
through sexual assault, the accused cannot be convicted of the latter. The variance
rule is not applicable since rape through sexual assault is not necessarily included in
the charge of rape through sexual intercourse. The elements of these two crimes are
materially and substantially different. In such case, the accused will be convicted of
acts of lasciviousness, which is necessarily included in the charge of rape through
sexual intercourse (People vs. Pareja, GR No. 202122, January 15, 2014; People vs.
Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051, October 02, 2013; People vs. CA, G.R. No. 183652,
February 25, 2015).
Husband can be held liable for marital rape. Article 266-A of RPC uses the term
man in defining rape without regard to the rapists legal relationship with his victim.
Under Article 266-C of RPC, in case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action. RA No. 8353 has eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape cannot exist
because a husband has absolute proprietary rights over his wifes body and thus her
consent to every act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least,
presumed (People vs. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014),
45. Perjury - Person cannot be held liable for perjury involving a complaint
affidavit for theft based on the execution of affidavit of desistance. There is no perjury
solely on the basis of two contradictory statements. There must be further evidence
that will show which of the two sworn statements is false (U.S. vs. Capistrano 40 Phil.
902).
verified (Saavedra, Jr. vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 93178, September 15,
1993; Flordelis vs. Himalaloan, G.R. No. L-48088, July 31, 1978).
The fact that subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized in RPC does not
mean that the direct induction of a person by another to commit perjury has ceased to
be a crime, because said crime is fully within the scope of provision on principal by
inducement (People vs. Pudol, G.R. No. 45618, October 18, 1938).
48. Estafa In offenses against property (theft or estafa), if the subject matter of
the offense is generic and not identifiable (e.g. money), an error in the designation of
the offended party is fatal. However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and
identifiable (e.g. check or jewelry), an error in the designation of the offended party is
immaterial (Senador vs. People, G.R. No. 201620, March 06, 2013, Justice Velasco).
In oral defamation, a crime against honor, the identity of the person against whom the
defamatory words were directed is a material element. Thus, an erroneous designation
of the person injured is material (People vs. Uba, 106 Phil. 332).
Where the borrower is importers acquiring goods for resale, goods sold in retail
are often within his custody until they are purchased. This is covered by trust receipt
agreement. Failure to return the unsold good or deliver the proceeds of sale to the
bank is estafa in relation to PD No. 115 (Trust Receipt Law). Where the borrower is
engaged in construction, the materials are often placed under custody of his clients,
who can only be compelled to return the materials if they fail to pay. Since the bank
and the contractor know that the return of the materials is not possible, this is not
covered by trust receipt agreement. This transaction becomes a mere loan, where the
borrower is obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods.
The accused is not liable for estafa because of the constitutional provision of non-
imprisonment for nonpayment of debts (Yang vs. People, G.R. No. 195117, August 14,
2013, Justice Velasco).
To be guilty of this crime the accused must have used the check in order to
defraud the complainant. However, prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon
proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
27 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor (People vs. Reyes,
supra). But receipt of notice of dishonor is not an element of this crime.
In other forms of swindling under Article 316, (1) and (2) of RPC, offender made
false representation involving real property and act of ownership such as selling it,
which causes damage to third person. In paragraph 1, the accused represents that he
owned the property, while in paragraph 2, he expressly represents in the deed of
conveyance that the property is free from encumbrance (Estrellado-Mainar vs. People,
G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015) or "comolibre". These words "comolibre" in the
Spanish Penal Code are deemed incorporated in the RPC (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No.
146770, February 27, 2003).
49. Theft - If the property is not accessible to the employee, taking it is simple
theft (Viray vs. People, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013, Justice Velasco). On the
other hand, if the property is accessible to the employee, taking it is qualified theft
because of the circumstance of abuse of confidence (Yongco vs. People,G.R. No.
209373, July 30, 2014, Justice Velasco).
To "take" under theft the Revised Penal Code does not require asportation or
carrying away (Medina vs. People, G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015). It is not an
indispensable requisite of theft that a pickpocket should carry, more or less far away,
a wallet taken from its owner (People vs. Mercado, G.R. Nos. L-45471 and L-45472,
June 15, 1938).
The term "personal property" in RPC should be interpreted in the context of the
Civil Code. Consequently, any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or
incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft. Business may be
appropriated under Bulk Sales Law. Thus, the business of providing
telecommunication and the telephone service is a personal property (Laurel vs.
Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009). Since asportation is not an element of
theft, a personal property can to be the object of theft as along as it is capable of
appropriation although it is not capable of "asportation" (Medina vs. People, G.R. No.
182648, June 17, 2015). Intangible property is not capable of asportation, and yet, it
can be an object of theft since is capable of asportation.
If the property is tangible, taking is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession over the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of
the same (People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004). If the property is
intangible, taking includes controlling the destination of this property stolen to deprive
the owner of the property (e.g. the use of a meter tampering, use of a device to
fraudulently obtain gas, and the use of a jumper to divert electricity). Using device to
control the destination of international telephone call under the telecommunication
system of PLDT without its consent to earn by charging user of the phone at the
expense of PLDT is taking the property of PLDT of providing telecommunication service
(Laurel vs. Abrogar, supra).
If the bulky goods are taken by the accused inside a compound (such as SM),
theft is consummated even if the accused failed to bring out the stolen goods from the
compound, which makes him unable to freely dispose it. Inability to dispose the stolen
property is not an element of theft. Unlawful taking is the element which produces the
felony in its consummated stage. Without unlawful taking, the offense could only be
attempted theft, if at all. Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage (Valenzuela vs.
People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007). If the accused is charged with frustrated
theft, he could not be convicted of the crime charged because theft has no frustrated
stage. Neither could he be convicted of consummated theft since it was not alleged in
the information. But he could be convicted of attempted theft because this is a lesser
crime, which is necessarily included in the charge of frustrated theft (Canceran vs.
People, G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015).
28 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
If the accused received the car from the owner for repair the possession is
physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is carnapping (Santos vs. People, G.R.
No. 77429 January 29, 1990).If the accused received the property to bring it to a
goldsmith for examination and to immediately return it back to the owner, his
possession is physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is theft (U.S. v. De Vera,
G.R. No. L-16961, September 19, 1921). If the accused received the property with
authority to sell it (Guzman vs. CA, 99 Phil. 703), or money with authority to use it to
buy palays (Carganillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014), or with full
freedom and discretion on how to use it to facilitate its remittance to BIR as payment
of tax and reduce the amount due (Velayo vs. People, G.R. No. 204025, November 26,
2014), his possession is juridical. Thus, failure of the agent to return it is estafa
(Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703; Tria vs. People, G.R. No. 204755,
September 17, 2014).
A franchise holder must personally operate the motor vehicle. That is the
reason why government regulation prohibits operator of motor vehicle from leasing it.
In the eye of the law the driver of taxi or passenger jeepneyunder boundary
arrangement was only an employee of the owner rather than a lessee. For being an
employee, his possession of the jeepney is physical (People v. Isaac G.R. No. L-7561,
April 30, 1955), and thus, misappropriation thereof is carnapping (People vs.
Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)
As a rule, the possession of the employee such as bank teller, collector or cash
custodian is only physical possession. Hence, misappropriation of property is qualified
theft. Abuse of confidence is present since the property is accessible to the employee
(People v. Locson, G.R. No. L-35681, October 18, 1932; Matrido vs. People, G.R. No.
179061, July 13, 2009; Benabaye vs. People, G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015;
Chua-Burce vs. CA, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000; Balerta vs. People, G.R. No.
205144, November 26, 2014). However, if the employee is an officer of the
companywith discretion on how to use property or fund of the company,his possession
is juridical; hence, misappropriation thereof is estafa. Thus, the following officers are
liable for estafa through misappropriation (1) a corporate officer with discretion option
on how to use bending machine without the participation of the corporation(Aigle vs.
People, G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012); (2) bank President with discretion on how to
administer fund (People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014), and (3) Liaison
Officer of a pawnshop with discretion on how to secure or renew licenses and permits
(Gamboa vs. People, G.R. No. 188052, April 21, 2014).
Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the
local authorities or to its owner, is liable for theft. If the finder surrenders the property
found to a policeman, who fails to deliver it the owner, the policeman is liable for theft.
He acquired the position occupied by the actual finder. Appropriating the property is
of the same character of that made by one who originally found the same (People vs.
Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March 31, 1923).
house or dwelling or personal property is simple arson under Section 3 of P.D. No.
1613 because it is not included in Article 320 of RPC.
If the main objective is to kill the victim in a building, and fire is resorted to as
the means to accomplish such goal, the crime committed is murder only. Murder
qualified by means of fire absorbs arson since the latter is an inherent means to
commit the former (People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994). Single act of
burning the building to kill two persons constitutes compound crime of double
murders (People vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008).
One has deliberately set fire to a building is presumed to have intended to burn
the building (People vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009). Since intent to
burn is presumed, intent to kill must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Failure
to show intent to kill, the accused shall be convicted of arson with homicide and not
murder (People vs. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010).
If the main objective is to burn the building, but death results by reason or on
the occasion of arson, the crime is arson with homicide, and the resulting homicide is
absorbed (People vs. Villacorta, 172468, October 15, 2008).
If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already done so, and arson
is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the offender may be convicted of two
separate crimes of either homicide or murder, and arson (People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No.
93485, June 27, 1994).
51. Bigamy X contracted three marriages. His first wife is already dead when
X contracted his third marriage. X is liable for bigamy involving the second marriage
on the basis of his first marriage. X is not liable for bigamy involving the third
marriage on the basis of the first marriage since the first has already been
extinguished by reason of death of the first wife when he contracted the third. He is
not liable for bigamy involving the third marriage on the basis of the second marriage
since the latter is null and void for being a bigamous marriage.
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended
parties depending on the circumstances. But if the second spouse had knowledge of
the previous marriage of the accused, the former is liable as an accomplice (Santiago
vs. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015).
30 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
To avoid criminal liability, the declaration of nullity of the first marriage must
be made previous to the consummation of bigamy, which is required by Article 40 of
the Family Code (People vs. Teves, G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011).Even though
the first marriage was contracted prior to the Family Code, the rule is the same since
Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively (Jarillo vs.
People, GR No. 164435, June 29, 2010).
53. Libel - Under Article 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and editor of
newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof. The publisher and editors cannot disclaim
liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply saying they had no
participation in the preparation of the same. They cannot say that Tulfo was all alone
in the publication of Remate, on which the defamatory articles appeared. It is not a
matter of whether or not they conspired in preparing and publishing the subject
articles, because the law simply so states that they are liable as if they were the
author (Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008, Justice Velasco).
The place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the
internet is not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is printed and first
published. To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be prevented by the
amendment to Article 360, and that was the indiscriminate laying of the venue in
libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas, to harass an accused. At any rate,
Article 360 still allow offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for internet
libel in their respective places of residence (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149,
G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).
31 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Stealing property and planting the stolen property to impute to the victim the
crime of theft constitutes complex crime of incriminating an innocent person through
theft.
55. BP 22 - Demand letter was given with the security guard without proof
that it reached accused and through registered mail which was returned with the
notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05". Since there is proof that accused received the
notice of dishonor, he was acquitted However, he is still civilly liable (San Mateo vs.
People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013).
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, notice of dishonor is not required where
the drawer has no right to expect that the bank will honor the check. Since bank
account of accused was already closed even before the issuance of the subject check,
he had no right to expect the drawee bank to honor his check. Hence, he is not
entitled to be given a notice of dishonor (Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 166810, June 26,
2008, ).The crime involved in Lopez vs. People is estafa through issuance of bouncing
check. However, it is submitted the Lopez principle can be applied to violation of BP
22.
Payment of check before the filing of information is a defense. The spirit of B.P.
Big 22, which is to protect the stability of the banking system, would not be served by
penalizing people who have corrected their mistakes and restituted damages even
before charges have been filed against them. In sum, by making payment of the check
before the filing of the information, the purpose of the law has already been attained.
Payment of check after the filing of informationis not a defense. Since there is no
showing of intention to mitigate the bad effects of his issuance of the unfunded check,
then there is no equitable reason to preclude the prosecution of accused. In such a
case, the letter of the law should be applied to its full extent (Lim vs. People, G.R. No.
190834, November 26, 2014).
32 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Suspension of payment order issued by SEC before the check was presented for
payment is a defense in BP Blg. 22. Considering that there was a lawful Order from
the SEC, the contract is deemed suspended. Thus, the accused has no obligation to
fund the check and the complainant has no right to present it for payment (Gidwani
vs. People, GR No. 195064, January 15, 2014).Suspension of payment order issued by
SEC after three months from receipt of notice of dishonor is not a defense in BP Blg.
22. The accused has the obligation to make good of the check after he received the
letter prior to the issuance of suspension order (Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No. 133608,
August 26, 2008).
56. RA No. 7610 - The Family Code prohibits the infliction of corporal
punishment by teacher. A schoolteacher in employing unnecessary violence on her
minor student, who even fainted, is liable for child abuse under RA No. 7610 (Rosaldes
vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014). Accused saw the victim and his
companions hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused struck minor-victim at
the back with his hand and slapped his face. Since the accused committed the act at
the spur of the moment, they are perpetrated without intent to debase his "intrinsic
worth and dignity" as a human being, or to humiliate or embarrass him. Without such
intent, the crime committed is not child abuse under RA 7610 but merely slight
physical injuries (Bongalon vs. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013).
If the child is 12 years old and above, and the acts of the accused constitute
sexual abuse under RA No. 7610 and rape through sexual assault or acts of
lasciviousness, he shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610 since this law prescribed a
grave penalty (Dimakuta vs. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015). However, if
the acts constitute sexual abuse and rape through sexual intercourse, he shall be
prosecuted under RPC since this law prescribed a graver penalty. He cannot be
prosecuted for compound crime of rape and sexual abuse because the latter is
punishable under special law. He cannot be prosecuted for both rape and sexual
abuse because of the rule on double jeopardy (People v. Matias, G.R. No. 186469,
June 13, 2012 and Alberto vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19,
2013).
If the child is under 12 years old, and the acts of the accused constitute sexual
abuse and rape or acts of lasciviousness, the latter shall be prosecuted penalized as
follows: (1) rape through sexual intercourse; (2) acts of lasciviousness with the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its medium period (Section 5 of RA No. 7610).Prior to RA No.
8353 (Rape Law), inserting finger into genital orifice is acts of lasciviousness. Hence,
reclusion temporal in its medium period under RA No. 7610 should be imposed. Under
RA No. 8353, inserting finger into genital orifice is rape through sexual assault where
the penalty is prision mayor. To impose the lighter penalty under RPC as amended by
RA 8353 is unfair to the victim. It is not the intention of RA No. 8353 to disallow the
imposition of penalty under RA No. 7610 if the victim is child subjected to sexual
abuse, who isunder 12 years of age (People vs. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16,
2011). If the crime is qualified rape through sexual assault, the Chingcase is not
applicable since RA No. 8353 prescribed a grave penalty of reclusion temporal for it
(People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011).
33 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
59. Illegal recruitment - An employee may be held liable with his employer, if
the former actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. The employee
cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her
employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA.
Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is
not a defense (People vs. Valenciano, G.R. No. 180926, December 10, 2008 Justice
Velasco).
For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that
the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority.
However, mere possession of dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of
34 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Poseur-buyer showed shabu for sale to poseur buyer. The sale was aborted
when the police officers immediately placed accused under arrest. The crime
committed is attempted sale (People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012).
Section 23 of RA No. 9165, any person charged under any crime involving
dangerous drugs regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of
the provision on plea-bargaining.
61. RA No. 3019 - To apply the Arias rule for purposes of exonerating an
accused or respondent, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the public
officer in approving the release of public fund must be relying to a reasonable extent
on his subordinates (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No. 166967, January 28, 2013); (2) that the
documents involving the release of funds must be so voluminous so as to preclude
him from studying each one carefully (Santillano vs. People, G.R. Nos. 175045-46,
March 03, 2010); (3) that the public officer has no foreknowledge of existing anomaly
(Escara vs. People, G.R. No. 164921, July 8, 2005); and that there is not deviation
from ordinary procedure in the release of fund, which necessitate further investigation
(Cruz vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134493, August 16, 2005; Rivera vs.
People, G.R. No. 156577, December 03, 2014).
City treasurer, city accountant and city administrator allowed the release of
cash advance in favor of a paymaster despite the fact that she has previous
unliquidated cash advances. They are liable because of conspiracy of silence or
inaction. Public officers omissions to question irregularities indicate a common
understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting the commission of the
offense of causing undue injury to the government through gross inexcusable
negligence. This is called conspiracy by silence (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No. 166967,
January 28, 2013).
Under Section 3 (a) of RA No. 3019, a public officer, who persuades, induces or
influences another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, shall be
punished for corruption. However, the deliberation in the Senate regarding the bill on
anti-graft shows that the mode of committing the crime under Section 3 (a) is
persuading, inducing or influencing a public officer by another public officer to commit
an offense or to violate rules and regulations by means of consideration, reward,
payment or remuneration (Baviera vs. Zoleta, G.R. No. 169098, Oct. 12, 2006).
35 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
First - That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons; (Note: Senator Pogi can be held liable for plunder even if
the principal offender, who masterminded the plunder of pork barrel, is a private
individual, the Pork-barrel Queen. What is important is that Senator Pogi in
connivance with Pork-barrel Queen acquired ill-gotten wealth). On the other hand,
Pork-barrel Queen can be held liable for plunder on the basis of conspiracy.
36 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
Can the Senator use the defense in malversation that he is not responsible for
the misuse of his PDAP since it is the duty of the appropriate implementing agency of
the government to check that the recipient of the fund is not bogus? No. Assuming
that the duty to check that the recipient of the Senators PDAP is not bogus belongs to
the appropriate agency of the government, the Senator is still liable since malversation
can be committed through culpa.
Note: The word combination means at least two different predicate crimes;
while the term series means at least two predicate crimes of the same kind (Ejercito
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95, November 30, 2006). Thus, a single
predicate crime amounting to 50 million pesos is not plunder. The intention of the
lawmakers is that if there is only one predicate crime, the offender has to be
prosecuted under the particular crime, which is already covered by existing laws.
What is punishable under the law is "acts of plunder", which means that there should
be at least, two or more, predicate crimes (See deliberation of the Bicameral
Committee on Justice, May 7, 1991).
Third - That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth
amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00 (Joseph Ejercito
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001).
The damages suffered by the government in diverting the road from the
poblacion to the farm of the accused shall not be considered in determining if plunder
is committed. What is important is the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired by the
public officer and not the amount of damage suffered by the government.
37 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
In People vs. Joseph Estrada, Criminal Case No. 26558, September 12, 2007 -
One of the predicate crimes alleged in the information is misappropriation of the excise
tax share of Ilocos Sur. This was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the
following predicate crimes were alleged and proven by evidence (1) series of acts of
receiving collections from "jueteng" in the aggregate amount of P545,291,000.00; and
(2) series consisting of two acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS to purchase shares
of stock of Belle Corporation and collecting or receiving commission from the sales of
Belle Shares in the amount of P189,700,000.00. This pattern of criminal acts indicates
an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass ill-gotten wealth in the amount of
more than P50 million. Estrada was convicted of plunder.
65. Hazing - The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following
essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing or
humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or injury; and
(2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the persons admission or entry into
an organization (People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015).
38 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
reckless imprudence (Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012). Hazing
is malum prohibitum. Consent of the neophyte is not a defense (Senate deliberation).
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no direct
participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown
that (1) hazing, as established by the above elements, occurred; (2) the accused are
school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they consented to or failed to take
preventive action against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof (People vs.
Bayabos).
39 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or book for
publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.