JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

NOTES AND CASES ON SELECTED

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Prepared by: Atty. Modesto A. Ticman, Jr. R.A. No. 4103
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Applying the ISLaw, how is the penalty for an offense imposed? In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the maximum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.1 The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.2 The ISLaw is not applicable to the following: 1. to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment; 2. to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; 3. to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; 4. to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; 5. to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; and 6. to those who maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.3 Section 2 of the IS Law is not applicable to persons convicted of offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua.4 The penalty of reclusion perpetua is equated as synonymous to lifeimprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and that the latter law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with the said penalty.5 Persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua, not entitled to parole. Persons sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall not be entitled to parole in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, Sec. 3 of which states that “[p]ersons 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. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. Moreover, it is settled that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty without a minimum or maximum period. Parole, on the other hand, is extended only to those sentenced to divisible penalties as is evident from Sec. 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that it is only after “any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him” that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole.6 P.D. No. 968

1

Sec. 1, R.A. No. 4103 People vs. Angeles, 380 SCRA 519 (2002) Sec. 2, R.A. No. 4103 People vs. Asuela, 376 SCRA 51 (2002) People vs. Enriquez, 465 SCRA 407 (2005) People vs. Gardon, G.R. No. 169872, 27 September 2006

2
3 4 5 6

1

of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is explicit that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final when the accused has applied for probation.11 P. b) those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or the public order.D.10 Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain language.8 Is the accused barred from applying for probation if the only raised in his appeal is the impropriety of the penalty imposed upon him? Although it has been suggested that an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is solely to reduce the penalty to within the probationable limit may be equitable. frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following: 7 8 Sec. This is totally in accord with Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. Accused may apply for probation within the period for perfecting an appeal. 9. Thus. is disqualified from applying for probation. we are not yet prepared to accept this proposition. 3. People. Castillo. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. 968 383 SCRA 707 (2002) 9 Lagrosa vs. There is nothing in Section 9. as amended). there was no more opportunity for petitioner to exercise her right to appeal. specially given the factual circumstances of this case. 4. P. People. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. the judgment having become final by the filing of an application for probation. c) those 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 fine of not less than two hundred pesos. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. Unfortunately. 5. perhaps this Court would have been more sympathetic to their plight. Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. paragraph (c) which qualifies "previous conviction" as referring to a conviction for a crime which is entirely different from that for which the offender is applying for probation or a crime which arose out of a single act or transaction as petitioner would have the court to understand. and. This provision of law is definitive and unqualified. knowingly or willfully. which in part provides that the filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.PROBATION LAW 1. their misrepresentation has led to their own undoing. 337 SCRA 176 (2000) 2 .7 In Vicoy vs. No. Had the petitioners’ appeal from the decision of the trial court raised the impropriety of the penalty imposed upon them as the sole issue. obstructs. 2. 4. Rule 120.D.D. 968 (Probation Law of 1976. 968 11 Pablo vs. 1829 DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS Prohibited acts: Any person who. d) those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. to the effect that a person who was previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos.9 Disqualified offenders: a) those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years. P. 405 SCRA 357 (2003) 10 Sec. it was held that Section 7. impedes.

Soliciting. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime. or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes. criminal cases. or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purpose of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or the court. whether lawful or unlawful. kickbacks. deceit. by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions.D. or imposing a condition. by obtaining. prosecution and conviction. criminal cases. b. receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock. directly or indirectly. legibility. No. f. gift. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceedings or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery. 1829 Enrile vs.A. or impending the prosecution of a criminal offender. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim. any commission. that is in furtherance of rebellion. or in the courts. document.D. or facilitating the escape of. by receiving. agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidies. 2. suppressing or concealing any paper. to wit: 1. or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. or 12 13 Sec. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals’ offices. in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of. honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of. document. authenticity. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest. 5.a. No. 189 SCRA 573 (1990) 3 . It should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion. by establishing agricultural. any person he knows. Any public officer who. or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from. If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by other law with a high penalty. or official proceedings in. misrepresentation. destroying. by himself or in connivance with members of his family. or official proceedings in. or to be used in the investigation of. Amin. P. the higher penalty shall be imposed. conversion. 1829 cannot be prosecuted separately from rebellion if the act is committed with political or social motives. industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interest. or object with intent to impair its verity. 1. Harboring or concealing. misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury. through misappropriation. e. c. amasses. in Tanodbayan. presenting or using any record. No. evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment. discontinuing. paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of.13 R. equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking. or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in criminal cases. record. percentage. force or threats. availability. or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned. Altering. relatives by affinity or consanguinity. d. i. h. intimidation. 1829 may be absorbed in rebellion. or in official proceedings in criminal cases. accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. or official proceedings in criminal cases. 3. 4. accepting.12 Violation of P. Violation of P. 7080 ANTI-PLUNDER LAW Definition of Plunder. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person. g. Making. subordinates or other persons.D. business associates.

(2) the accused.19 Elements of Fencing. shall buy.D. as provided by the Revised Penal Code. 1612 4 . the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances. It is the act of any person who.17 P. he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law. 1612 Sec.18 Presumption of Fencing Mere possession of any goods. receives. although punished in a special law. administrative proceedings have been filed against him. 369 SCRA 394 (1999) Sec. 2. 5. buys. The legislative declaration in R. 1612 ANTI-FENCING LAW Fencing defined. object.A. in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50. object or anything of value which he knows. sell or dispose of. he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. Should he be convicted by final judgment. which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. No. possesses. object or anything of value. R. No. keep. authority. No. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.000. keeps. No. R. 7659 Sec. Sandiganbayan.A.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder. is a malum in se. sells or disposes. In the imposition of penalties. (3) the accused knew or should have shown that the said article. especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se.A. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. shall be considered by the court. who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription.A. However. or in any manner deals in any article. unless in the meantime.14 Suspension and Loss of Benefits Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation.15 Period of Prescription The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. 6. object or anything of 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sec. conceal.D.D. item. conceals. to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. possess. or should be known to him.6. 2 [a]. or shall buy and sell. connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. relationship. No. P. acquires. as amended by R. 5.16 Plunder. R. No. P. but if he is acquitted. item. The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed. item. with intent to gain for himself or for another. or in any other manner deal in any article. is pending in court. or buys and sells. they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law. receive. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong.A. article. 7080 Sec. item. laches. No. or estoppel. shall be suspended from office. 7080 Estrada vs. by taking undue advantage of official position.000. 7080. acquire.

24 20 21 22 23 24 Francisco vs. 313 SCRA 220 (1999) Sia vs. she never reported the theft or even loss to the police.23 Elements of violation of B. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good.D. and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. It is not intended nor designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. namely (1) the making. on the part of the accused. No. The law enumerates the elements of violation of B. People. and P. The thrust of the law is to prohibit.21 Facts: Rosita Lim lost certain items and Manuelito Mendez confessed that he stole those items and sold them to Tan. People. and fencing. However. Is Tan guilty of fencing? Ruling: No.P. and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer. wherein the person from whom the former acquired the stolen item is charged. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation.P. drawer. 22 What the law punishes is the issuance of a worthless check and not the purpose for which such check was issued nor the terms or conditions relating to its issuance. It is merely corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing.22 B. are separate and distinct offenses. 428 SCRA 206 (2004) Bayani vs. Theft is a public crime. Blg. As Rosita Lim did not complain to the public authorities of the felonious taking of her property nor reported its loss. After Mendez confessed to the unlawful taking of the items. in the latter case. No. she forgave him. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. Otherwise stated. object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft.20 Under what law should the accessory in theft or robbery be prosecuted? The accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or under P. 436 SCRA 113 (2004) 5 . People. Fencing is malum prohibitum. (4) there is. although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is malum prohibitum. 434 SCRA 122 (2004) Tan vs. No. Blg. It can be prosecuted de oficio.D. ordered the bank to stop payment. The State may thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P. nor to favor or encourage those who seek to enrich themselves through manipulation and circumvention of the purpose of the law. on the other. Blg. crime of robbery or theft has been committed. without any valid cause.value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.P. 22.P. and. xxx For the accused prosecuted for fencing to be convicted thereof. intent to gain for himself or for another. The crime is one against public order and is malum prohibitum. People. or even without a private complainant. and did not prosecute him. However. article. the accused ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. No. 1612. 22. or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. the first element of the crime of fencing is absent. it cannot be held for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. the crimes of robbery and theft.D. Thus. (2) the knowledge of the maker. on the one hand. it is necessary that there must be proof that the decision in the criminal case for robbery or theft. must have attained finality.D. under pain of penal sanctions. 22 BOUNCING CHECKS LAW Gravamen of B. 313 SCRA 220 (1999) Tan vs. that is. item. and P. drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value. 1612. People. The law is intended to safeguard the interests of the banking system and the legitimate checking account user. but it cannot be without a victim. The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing.

392 SCRA 61 (2002) Danao vs.27 Not only must there be a written notice of dishonor or demand letters actually received by the drawer of a dishonored check. People. Myrna had no reason to be suspicious of petitioner. Blg. 428 SCRA 206 (2004) 6 .29 Notice of dishonor to the corporation is not notice to the employee or officer who drew or issued the corporate check. Section 2 of the law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge. but also that the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. the accused may no longer be indicted for violation of Section 1. People. or make arrangements for payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. Josefina told Myrna that petitioner wanted her checks encashed. B. it is a complete defense. and not mere registered receipt and/or return receipt. 464 SCRA 656 (2005) Rico vs. As Myrna did not know petitioner’s address. but there must also be proof of receipt thereof that is properly authenticated. The latter told Myrna not to worry and repeated her assurance that petitioner is her best friend and a good payer. the notice of dishonor must be in writing. 22. Josefina.P. they were dishonored as they were drawn against insufficient funds. he may set up the payment of the amount due as a complete defense. If he is so indicted.26 A mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. and (c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon. Myrna.25 For this presumption to arise. a verbal notice is not enough. but the latter refused and instead made the assurance that she will inform petitioner that the checks were dishonored. 358 SCRA 450 (2001) Sia vs. the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof. since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. filed a criminal complaint to violation of B. Both the spirit and the letter of the Bouncing Checks Law require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored. CA. In other words. Facts: Petitioner and Josefina went to the house of Myrna. 22 against the latter. In view of Josefina’s assurance that petitioner is trustworthy. 358 SCRA 450 (2001) Ongson vs. Furthermore.P.28 If the maker or drawer pays. she immediately informed Josefina about the dishonored checks. if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer. Petitioner then issued to Myrna three postdated checks. or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer. CA. the prosecution must prove the following: (a) the check is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. the notice of dishonor to the said corporation is not notice to the employee or officer who drew or issued the check for and in its behalf. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this section cannot arise. People. When Myrna presented the checks for payment to the drawee bank. without sending any notice to petitioner. Will the complaint prosper despite the absence of demand or notice of dishonor sent to petitioner? Ruling: YES. introduced the petitioner to Myrna as her best friend and a good payer. (b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. Myrna tried to get petitioner’s address from Josefina. the Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s contention that she was not given any notice of dishonor. It will be recalled that Josefina Dimalanta assured Myrna that petitioner is her “best friend” and “a good 25 26 27 28 29 Danao vs. he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. If the drawer or maker is an officer of a corporation. Blg. In this case. Case where demand or notice of dishonor was dispensed with. or makes arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of the amount due within the five-day period from notice of the dishonor given to the drawer. When Josefina failed to abide by her promise. Myrna agreed to encash the checks.How is the element of “knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit in the drawee bank for the payment of a check upon its presentment” established? Because this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish.

and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. would the drawer give to the private complainant the net amount due him representing his interest in the partnership. While it is true that the presumption is merely prima facie. deal in. that she subsequently received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation ‘drawn against insufficient funds’ stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves. The drawer did not benefit from the deposit since the checks were used only as a deposit to serve as security for the faithful performance of the drawer’s obligation as a lessee. People. said circumstance was considered as a defense in the following: (1) where the rubber checks were simply issued to cover a warranty deposit in a lease contract returnable to the drawer upon the satisfactory completion of the entire period of lease. 22. and (2) where a check was issued for the mere purpose of evidencing the private complainant’s share or interest in a partnership he entered into with the drawer of the check. People. it was held that the checks were not intended to apply or for value. Knowledge by the payee of insufficiency of funds is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. ammunition. 442 SCRA 450 (2004) 32 Young vs. 133036. Blg.P. nonetheless. dispose. or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant. Section 3 of B. The check was simply meant to show the drawer’s commitment that when the receivables of the partnership are collected and goods are sold and only when such collection and sale were realized. G. No. 138197.31 However.30 Knowledge by the payee of insufficiency of funds. 8294 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES LAW 1. One who makes and issues a check on an account of another with the latter’s consent may be held liable for violation of B. 32 In both cases. Considering that the law imposes a penal sanction on one who draws and issues a worthless check against insufficient funds or a closed account in the drawee bank.” Consequently. provides that the introduction in evidence of the unpaid and dishonored check with the drawee bank’s refusal to pay stamped or written thereon or attached thereto. every reason to penalize a person who indulges in the making and issuing of a check on an account belonging to another with the latter’s consent. acquire. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank. Any person who shall unlawfully manufacture. for the prosecution to present the drawee bank’s representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds. Provided. and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof. when the checks bounced. People. That no other crime was committed. 453 SCRA 109 (2005). which account has been closed or has no funds or credit with the drawee bank. Myrna would naturally turn to Josefina for help.35 R.A. 393 SCRA 79 35 Recuerdo vs. or possess any firearm or any part thereof. it did not involve a debt of or any amount due and payable by the drawer. CA. as it did in this case. 22 January 2003. the accused must. CA and Idos vs. shall constitute prima facie proof of the making or issuance of said check. not a defense. citing Magno vs.33 The drawee bank’s representative need not be presented as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks. 27 November 2002. only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense charged.R. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check.R. People. hence. 30 31 Yulo vs. No. present proof to the contrary to overcome this presumption. 494 SCRA 128 (2006) 34 Garcia vs. there is. tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition. It was likewise noted that Josefina refused to give Myrna petitioner’s address but promised to inform petitioner about the dishonored checks. Court of Appeals. exception. G. 452 SCRA 705 (2005) Rigor vs. or machinery. No. The prosecution may present. 22. 395 SCRA 638 7 .34 It is not required much less indispensable. likewise. CA 33 Saguitguit vs. malice and intent in the issuance thereof are inconsequential.payer. giving the reason therefor. which is in the nature of a rule of evidence.P.

418 SCRA 254 38 People vs. 11December 2003. as amended by R. “evident premeditation” in paragraph 13. Where an accused used an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder. the accused is without the corresponding authority or permit to possess. Comadre. as amended.R. such use an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Madrigal vs. 13 August 2008 People vs. the new aggravating circumstance added by RA No. or attempted coup d’etat. 2005. No. and 36 37 Agote vs. 8294.146107-09.38 “Use of explosives” as an aggravating circumstance. said special or confidential civilian agents are not qualified to receive. In People vs. It is a settled jurisprudence that a memorandum receipt and mission order cannot take the place of a duly issued firearms license. No. 142675. as this is a malum prohibitum. but merely made the use of explosives an aggravating circumstance when resorted to in committing “any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code. This follows the same requisites in the prosecution of crimes involving illegal possession of firearm which is a kindred or related offense under P. 5. 8294 did not amend the definition of murder under Article 248.39 it was held that RA No.37 “Use of an unlicensed firearm” in murder or homicide. If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. in other words. or attempted coup d’etat.. Memorandum receipt and Mission order cannot take the place of a duly issued firearms license. No. 8294 does not change the definition of murder in Article 248. No. 182694. such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion. There can be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition if there is another crime committed such as. of a regular license to possess firearms and a permit to carry the same outside of residence. or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection.R. Second. sedition. 1866. i.2. and an accused who relies on said documents cannot invoke good faith as a defense against a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms. G.” The legislative purpose is to do away with the use of explosives as a separate crime and to make such use merely an aggravating circumstance in the commission of any crime already defined in the Revised Penal Code. Almeida. violation of COMELEC Resolution No.A. 1866.A. 8294 merely added the use of unlicensed explosives as one of the aggravating circumstances specified in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. he may no longer be charged with what used to be the two (2) separate offenses of homicide or murder under The Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in homicide or murder under PD 1866. If possession of unlicensed firearm or ammunition is in furtherance of or incident to. 8294. where murder or homicide was committed. Any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefore may also be held liable under R. No. or insurrection. Tadeo. obtain and possess government-owned firearms. Thus. Nos. G. a special aggravating circumstance. 4. July 22. G. Before the use of unlawfully possessed explosives can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. it must be adequately established that the possession was illegal or unlawful. 2826 (Gun Ban) 36 and that of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.R. sedition. 3. People.e. The rules governing memorandum receipts and mission orders covering the issuance to and the possession and/or carrying of government-owned firearms by special or confidential civilian agents may be synthesized as follows: First. the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. special or confidential civilian agents who are not included in the regular plantilla of any government agency involved in law enforcement or receiving regular compensation for services rendered are not exempt from the requirements under P. Like the aggravating circumstance of “explosion” in paragraph 12. Neither will they qualify for exemption from the requirements of a regular firearms license and a permit to carry firearms by the mere issuance to them of a government-owned firearms covered by a memorandum receipt.D. Lorenzo. RA No. or “treachery” in paragraph 16 of Article 14. 389 SCRA 20 (2002) 39 431 SCRA 366 (2004) 8 . Their ineligibility will not be cured by the issuance of a memorandum receipt for equipment covering said government-owned firearms.D.

Third. 427 SCRA 384 9 . G. 405 SCRA 280 46 People vs. No. includes not only actual possession. 9165. 427 SCRA 384 49 People vs. cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law. Any person who is found guilty of “planting” any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical. there can be no conviction unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in his person. 139615.48 9. No. and (3) the appellants were freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. No. but also constructive possession. In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug. 9165.49 10.45 6. G. 28 May 2004. G. No. 9165 44 Sec. 14 April 2004. This rule admits of exceptions. No. except where the seller is also found in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller. 24. Animus possidendi is only prima facie. In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs. 9165 45 People vs. especially when the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by other prosecution witnesses.A. No. or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his possession or control of such article. and when there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers. hence. G. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. however. said special or confidential civilian agents do not qualify for mission orders to carry firearms (whether private-owned or government-owned) outside of their residence. 03 March 2008 Sec. G. 159703. 14 April 2004. 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.A. the object and the consideration. No. 149878. it must be shown that (1) appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. 9165 42 Sec. shall suffer the penalty of death.42 3. 430 SCRA 134 47 People vs. Del Mundo.R. R. No. 01 July 2003. regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.R.A. The crime under consideration is malum prohibitum. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. Tiu. 9165 43 Sec.46 7.43 4. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under R. as when the appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs. People. a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender. 29. regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court. 619141. 06 December 2006. 23. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. No.44 5. and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable. The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of ‘shabu’ are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. The foregoing rules do not apply to special or confidential civilian agents in possession of or bearing private-owned firearms that are duly licensed and covered by permits to carry the same outside of residence. 141532. No. R. under the law. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired.A. 25. Any person charged under any provision of R. The presentation of a confidential informant in a buy-bust operation is not always required. 48 People vs. No. “Possession of prohibited drugs” is a necessary element in the offense of selling them. It is subject to contrary proof and may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question. Mere possession of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.A.R. R. Tira. 141532. G. is shared with another. lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt appellants from criminal liability. R.41 2.40 R. On the other hand. No.R.A.47 8.R. Balag-ey.R. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located. Possession.A. regardless of quantity and purity. 40 41 Sayco vs. No. 9165 COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT 1. Balag-ey.

use and delivery with relative facility. if he in fact commits the offense. 175832. 30 April 2008 10 . It is congruent to the very characteristic of prohibited drugs—i.57 50 51 People vs. whichever is practicable. citing Lopez vs. 27 November 2006 54 People vs. No surveillance of the area or the subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers have a reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given were reliable. G. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Macabalang. is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment Flexibility is a trait of good police work.. 170234. No. 494 SCRA 691 (2006) 52 People vs. 10 December 2008 56 People vs. are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.R. their being easily concealed and transferred without threat of detection in small and handy quantities. 15 October 2008 57 People vs. nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized. What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place.53 14. and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs. No. 181492.51 12. 10 April 2008 Suson vs.A. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 168694. in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy. G. and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. No.bust operation.—allows its sale. No. as it is more in keeping with the law’s intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value. People . No. A prior surveillance. 9165 materially requires the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs to. G.56 17.55 16. 172953.R.R. 16 December 2008 55 People vs.e. 181545. 08 February 2007 53 People vs. the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team. Nicolas. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized. Obminranis. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.52 13. No.54 15. before he further endangers society. the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served. and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items. Section 21 of R. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi. People vs. Dela Cruz.and did not intend to do so.R. People. G. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice. No.R. Mallillin. the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Sanchez. The buy-bust operation is formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and in order to apprehend the perpetrator. No. On the other hand. 175604.R. No. G. or his/her representative or counsel. Bondad. In seizures covered by search warrants. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. G.R. 08 October 2008. Peñaflorida. Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor.R.50 11. however. immediately after seizure and confiscation. G. the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. G. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. More than just the fact of possession. much less a lengthy one. 173804.

18.A. G. 8791.59 Prosecution of Money Laundering (a) any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).R. for any person who unless authorized by law possesses shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride. R. Notice to the depositor that his account has been frozen shall be issued simultaneously with the issuance of the freeze order. thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. No. as amended. 9160 61 Sec.61 Authority to inquire into Bank Deposits Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos if two hundred (200) or more grams thereof are found in his possession. the freeze order shall automatically be dissolved.A. involves.A. the AMLC may issue a freeze order. transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property. quantitative examination of the substance to determine its purity is not indispensable for conviction. Republic Act No. Whether the substance is pure or unadulterated is not material. 4. What the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes is the possession of the dangerous or regulated drugs or substances without authority. 9160 60 Sec.58 R. Republic Act No. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represent. 6426. hence. 9160 11 . 6. the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution 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 deposits or investments involved are in any c. The depositor shall have seventy-two (72) hours upon receipt of the notice to explain why the freeze order should be lifted. (b) any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation under R. b. on the account for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days. R. 1405. which shall be effective immediately. 10. the proceeds of any unlawful activity. R. The fifteen (15)-day freeze order of the AMLC may be extended upon order of the court. Neither does it affect the penalty imposed. 9160 ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted. as amended. 58 59 People vs.A. and other laws. The AMLC has seventy-two (72) hours to dispose of the depositor's explanation. 168695. No. Lagman. It is committed by the following: a.A. 08 December 2008 Sec. performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above. or relates to. If it falls to act within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the depositor's explanation. No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or writ of injunction against any freeze order issued by the AMLC except the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. shall be punished with reclusion perpetua to death. 9160 without prejudice to the freezing and other remedies provided. provided that the fifteen (15)-day period shall be tolled pending the court's decision to extend the period.60 AMLC’s Authority to Freeze Bank Account Upon determination that probable cause exists that any deposit or similar account is in any way related to an unlawful activity. fails to do so. No.

Office of the Ombudsman. 436 SCRA 337 (2004) 66 Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan. a percentage. (2) who enters into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government. 496 SCRA 321 (2006) 67 Go vs. 385 SCRA 259 (2002) 12 . attached or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office during an election period.A. is by no means automatic or self-operative. or any other offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is valid. 155574.62 Prohibitions Against Political Harassment. 3019 are:: (1) the offender is a public officer (2) who requested or received a gift. directors or trustees.66 4. The elements of violation of Section 3[e] of R. 20 November 2006.63 R. That he or she causes undue injury to any party. as amended. G. are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer. Sandiganbayan and Alas. No. the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over presidents. a determination as to the validity of the information must first be made in a pre-suspension hearing. 62 63 Sec. The elements violation of Section 3[b] of R. clear. such conduct as is not to be excused.R. it is bound to issue an order of preventive suspension of the accused public officer as a matter of course. The elements of the crime of violating Section 3(g) of RA No. evident to the mind x x x and is synonymous with open.way related to a money laundering offense: Provided. whether the government or a private party. a share.” Gross means “flagrant. No. No. Layosa. Chang vs. 3. 9160 64 People vs.A.A. 9160. or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations organized with original charter and those incorporated under the Corporation Code. unmistakable.A. or a 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. and That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality.65 The order of suspension pendente lite. 3019 are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) The accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former. People. 3019. No. – R. No. Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits. 413 SCRA 608 (2003) 68 Morales vs. R. indubitable. visible. That this provision shall not apply to deposits and investments made prior to the effectivity of R. has the right to intervene. while mandatory in nature.A. No case for money laundering may be filed against and no assets shall be frozen. Manifest means “obvious to the understanding. 9160 Sec. Book II of the Revised Penal Code. in an official capacity under the law. 11.A. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. People.”68 R.A. 9344 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT Minimum age of criminal responsibility. 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT 1. 3019 or Title 7. The said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions. Once a court determines that the information charging a public officer with an offense under R. 16. 3019. a present. evident and self-evident.67 5. For purposes of the provisions of R. No. shameful.A. R. advantage or preference to such parties.A. 451 SCRA 413 (2005) 65 Flores vs. 9165 shall not be used for political persecution or harassment or as an instrument to hamper competition in trade and commerce.64 2.A. and (3) the contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Before such suspension is imposed.

No.A.A. Persons below eighteen years of age shall be exempt from criminal prosecution for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code. 9344 Sec.1. first par. second par. of mendicancy under Presidential Decree No.A. 3.. No. R. 6. minority may be appreciated as a privileged mitigating circumstance. 9344 Sec. 1563. 58.71 -o0o/updated-072210 69 70 71 Sec. 6.69 2. R. xxx unless he/she has acted with discernment. R. and sniffing rugby under Presidential Decree No. No. 1619. 70 In which case. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. 9344 13 . A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability..