You are on page 1of 8

There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band.

If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would

still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the RPC. The element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance.


The homicide or murder or physical injuries, irrespective of their number, committed on occasion or by reason of robbery are merged in the
composite crime of robbery with homicide.

The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult, or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her
rank, age, sex may be properly considered only in crimes against persons. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not
against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.

2016 Criminal Law Pre-week

Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center

. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.




The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those: a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years; b.
convicted of any crime against the
national security


who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by

imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00)

; d.

who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.

Termination of Probation;

The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and

to totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation was granted.

Related Cases:

Accused who appeals may still apply for probation.

(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011)

Probation Law is not applicable to drug traffickers.

(Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)

The Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation

suspends the execution of the sentence

. During the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him including the accessory penalties like
disqualification to run for a public office.

(Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)

Probation does not erase the effects and fact of conviction, but merely suspends the penalty imposed. The reform and rehabilitation of the
probationer cannot justify his retention in the government service. Probation only affects the criminal liability of the accused, and not his
administrative liabilities, if any.

(Pagaduan v. CSC and Salvador, G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014)

Multiple conviction in one decision, the total penalty does not determine probation. Where the trial court sentenced the accused for several
offenses in one decision and multiple prison terms are imposed on him, the multiple prison terms should not be added together in determining
whether or not the accused would be eligible for probation. The prison terms are distinct from each other, and if none of the terms exceeds the
limits of six (6) years set out in the Probation Law, the accused is not disqualified by the penalty. The number of offenses is immaterial as long as
all the penalties imposed taken separately are within the probationable penalty. Section 9(a) of

the Probation Law as amended, uses the word maximum not total, when it states that the benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to
those xxx sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years. Evidently, the law does not

intend to sum up the penalties imposed but to take each penalty separately and distinctly with the others.

(Francisco v. CA, April 1995) PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

In the prosecution of cases of behest loans, the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the discovery of such loans. The reason for this is
that the government, as aggrieved party, could not have known that those loans existed when they were made. The behest loans could only
have been discovered after the 1986 EDSA Revolution when the people ousted President Marcos from office. And, prior to that date, no person
would have dared question the legality or propriety of the loans.

(Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Desierto, 438 Phil. 201, 212 [2002]; see also
Republic v. Desierto, 416 Phil. 59, 77-78 [2001]; Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265, 294 [2004])
2016 Criminal Law Pre-week

Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center

. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.





Penalty for the crime proved, not charged, determines the applicable prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused has been found to have
committed a lesser offense includible within the graver offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed.
To hold otherwise would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accussing the defendant of the
graver offense.

(Damasco v. Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988, citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 13, 1983)


Criminal liability for personal penalties is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is
extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. The term "personal penalties" refers to the service of personal or imprisonment
penalties, while the term "pecuniary penalties" refers to fines and costs, including civil liability predicated on the criminal offense complained of
(i.e., civil liability ex delicto). However, civil liability based on a source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is
recoverable through a separate civil action.

(Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012)

Novation is not one of the means whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the
rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original petition, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise
to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise.

(Milla v. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012)

Novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22. The fact that the petitioner had already made substantial
payments to the respondent and that only P25,000.00 out of his total obligation in favor of the respondent remains unpaid is immaterial to the
extinguishment of criminal liability.

(Medalla v. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362, January 18, 2012)

PRESIDENT'S PARDONING POWER Not limited by legislative action:

The absolute pardon granted to former President Joseph Estrada fully restored all his civil and political rights which naturally includes the right to
seek public elective office. Articles 36

and 41

of the Revised Penal Code cannot, in any way, serve to abridge or diminish the exclusive power and prerogative of the President to pardon. They
should be construed in a way that will give full effect to the executive clemency granted by the President. All that the said provisions impart is
that the pardon of the principal penalty does not carry with it the remission of the accessory penalties unless the President expressly includes
said accessory penalties in the pardon. Thus, Articles 36 and 41 only clarify the effect of the pardon so decided upon by the President on the
penalties imposed in accordance with law. xxx A rigid and inflexible reading of the above provisions of law will defeat or unduly restrict the
power of the President to grant executive clemency. xxx A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows
that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are included in the pardon. The first sentence refers to the
executive clemency extended to former President Estrada who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The latter is the principal penalty pardoned which relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence that followed, which states
that "(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights," expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the pardon that the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute 3

ART. 36. Pardon; its effects.

A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold publicoffice, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the
terms of the pardon. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

ART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal

Their accessory penalties.

The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the
sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

2016 Criminal Law Pre-week

Handout by Justice Mario V. Lopez for Jurists Bar Review Center

. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court.




disqualification were expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.

(Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015) FALSIFICATION

One is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have
affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. In other words, leaving a question blank in the PDS/SALN
is falsification.

(Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011)

Conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is a proposition not
arrived at by any process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to the
facts pleaded. On the other hand, a narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event. It is a recital of things
accomplished, of deeds, occurrence or happening. Disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity" in the SALN is a narration of facts. Statements concerning relationship is descriptive and may be proved as to its truth or falsity. A
certification that one was "

eligible or qualified is a conclusion of law

although it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is an expression of belief or mistake of judgment.


In estafa under paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the
defraudation. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the
check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check of the offender.

(People v. Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013)

Estafa under P.D. 115 (trust receipts law) not applicable in contracts of loan. In the case at bar, the real intent of the parties was simply to enter
a loan. The subject goods were not being held for sale, as in the case of Trust Receipt transactions where the entrustee has the obligation to
deliver to the entruster the price of the sale, but rather to be used for the fabrication of steel communication towers in accordance with his
contracts with his clients. In these contracts, he was commissioned to build, out of the materials received, steel communication towers, not to
sell them. As such, PD 115 does not apply. Thus, the petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged and was only held civilly liable for the loan
contracted with Asiatrust

. (Ng vs. People, G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010) MALVERSATION

Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation or passively through negligence. Even when the Information
charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of
commission of the offense. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony.

(Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011)

The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality, which does not fall
within the constitutional prohibition in Article XII, Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments to its charter.