You are on page 1of 4

Special Penal Laws issuing the check violates the law on bouncing check

and at the same time constitutes estafa by issuing


A violation of a special law is necessarily included bouncing check under art 315 of the rpc. So can you
in the commission of the crime or vice versa. prosecute the offender on both rule? Yes because
Can you consider that as a complex crime under Art. they are not the same in character. Two it does not
48 of the RPC? violate the rule on double jeopardy because to
Sa compound crime, hindi pwede, for example, that violate it the accused must be prosecuted for two
single act of having sexual intercourse with a child offenses or crimes of the same character. So in this
constitutes sexual abuse under Section 5D of RA case, violation of bp22 is malum prohibitum and
7610 and at the same time palagay na natin nrape, estafa is malum in se. And deceit is an element of
tinutukan mo ng baril nakipag-sex ka, so that is rape estafa and not of bp 22? And addition to that section
under Art. 266-A of the RPC and sexual abuse under 5 of bp 22 prosecution for violation of bp22 shall be
RA 7610. So a single act reduced into two crime. without prejudice to any liability for any violation of
Can you consider that as a complex crime compound any provision of the rpc. So the intention of bp22 as
under Art.48 of the RPC? In the case of PP v. reflected in sec 5 of the said law is to allow the
Pagadingan, Alberto vs Honorable Court of Appeals, prosecution of the offender not only for the violation
People v Aguy, so according to the SC, sexual abuse of bp22 but also for estafa.
is an offense punishable under special law so it So halimbawa, you issue several checks, you issue
cannot be a component of a compound crime or ten checks to buy a car knowing that the checks are
complex crime under Art. 48 of the RPC. not funded. So how many counts of estafa thru
issuance of bouncing checks? There is only one
A felony is a necessary means to commit an offense count because all the ten acts of issuing checks is
punishable under the RPC or vice versa. Can you committed under a single criminal impulse and that
consider that as a complex crime proper under Art. is to defraud the complainant with respect to the
48? In the case of People vs. Araneta, so what is price of the car of the property involved in violation
involved is malversation under sec 2672 of the of a single penal provision that is under art 315 of
administrative law and falsification of documents the rpc so that is delito continuado so that is only
under art. 200 of the RPC. So falsification is a one case of estafa. How many counts of violation of
necessary means to commit malversation but bp 22? In the case of Lim v. People, delito
according to the SC this is not a complex crime continuado is not applicable in violation of bp 22
proper because malversation at that time is a because the basis of applying the principle of delito
punishable under the special law so this is a separate continuado is the singularity of the criminal impulse.
crime. But now malversation is punishable under the But bp 22 is a malum prohibitum where the
rpc art 217 falsification and therefore falsification is criminal intent or criminal impulse is immaterial
a necessary means to commit malversation, so it is a since criminal intent or criminal impulse is
complex crime proper now. immaterial the basis of delito continuado which is
premised on the singularity of criminal impulse,
Now, kung halimbawa, ganun lang yung nangyari, a since this is not delito continuado the accused is
single act producing an felony, an offense liable for as many as violation of bp 22 as there are
punishable under the special law, a felony is a checks issued.
necessary means of committing an offense, or vice So the second covered by the both rule is estafa and
versa, e hindi sya complex crime, hindi sya illegal recruitment. For example, you recruited a
compound, so anong gagawin mo? So there are four person even if you do not have a license and you
rules, the first rule is the both rule, the second rule is made a representation that you have connection
either, third rule is felony and the last rule offense. where in fact you are not connected so your
So dito muna tayo sa both rule, you can prosecute intention is to defraud him as a consequence to
offender of an offense punishable under the special obtain money from him. Can the offender be
law and a felony under the RPC without offending prosecuted by estafa and at the same time illegal
the rule on double jeopardy, kaya nga sya both eh. recruitment in violation of ra 8042? Yes. Without
Dun sa second rule, either , third rule felony, fourth offending the rule on double jeopardy because estafa
rule offense rule. Hindi pwedeng dalawa. Kasi dun is malum in se while illegal recruitment is malum
sa either rule mamimili ka lang, sa felony, felony prohibitum. Deceit is an element of estafa, this is not
lang, sa offense, offense lang. So pag dinalawa mo, an element of illegal recruitment. Without license is
that is a violation of the rule on double jeopardy. So important in illegal recruitment, but in estafa with or
wala lang double jeopardy sa first rule, sa second, without license if the offended party defrauded the
third fourth rule, if you prosecute the offender under complainant that is estafa, regardless of whether the
the RPC and special law, the rule on double complainant accused has license to recruit or not,
jeopardy will be offended. that is immaterial. In addition to that, under section 6
So dito muna tayo sa first rule, so apat yan, so of RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022, under that
number 1 at eto tinatanong sa bar ito. Halimbawa provision, the filing of an IR case shall be without
you issue a check and despite of knowledge that it is prejudice to the filing of other cases punishable
unfunded so you issue that to the offended party under existing laws, rules and regulations. So that is
with the intention to defraud him so the act of section 6 of ra 8042 as amended by ra 10022.
Now tinanong sa bar 2015 or 2016 ata, so ang of other case punishable under the existing law, rules
tanong pwede pa bang iprosecute ang IR at estafa. and regulations. So in other words, the intention now
So wala naming problema, nasagot na natin yan. is that the accused shall be prosecuted for estafa, IR
Yes, pwede. Now, will your answer be the same if and trafficiking in persons. In fact in the case of
there are three offended parties? So, my answer People vs. Langley, so here recruited the victim to
would be different. Considering that there are 3 be a prostitute in another country. So that is
offended parties, the accused shall be liable as many considered trafficking in person, but considering that
estafa as there are offended party because the wala syang license so that is IR, so he was convicted
principle of delito continuado will not apply, of IR and trafficking of persons. So pwede ng
because it is the second rule in the case of Iligan. dalawa because of section 6 ra 8042 as amended.
Ang general rule kasi nyan there are as many
criminal impulse to defraud as there are persons So yung large scale is a qualifying
defrauded so considering that there are three circumstance not only in IR but also in trafficking of
criminal impulse to defraud so this is not delito person. Large scale IR or trafficking of persons. So
continuado. Since delito continuado is not applicable pagdating sa large scale dalawa, IR at saka
the accused shall be prosecuted for esatafa, as many trafficking in person. So jurisprudence on qualified
person as there are defrauded. So three counts of IR can be applied on large scale trafficking of
estafa. But how many counts of IR. One count. persons. With respect to syndicate. Number 1 IR, at
Because of the qualifying circumstance of large least three. Sa large scale kasi at least 3 offended
scale. So if there are 3 offended parties, there is parties, pag syndicate madaming offenders, so at
large scale, so the crime committed is large scale or least 3 recruiters, syndicate. Second, at least three
qualified IR. So 3 counts of estafa and 1 count of traffickers, that is syndicate. So merong syndicated
qualified IR. That is the case of People vs. Solinga. IR and syndicated trafficking in persons. Tapos
So there are 3 offended parties. So how many counts syndicated estafa, apat lima sya. Syndicated estafa
of estafa, three counts. How many counts of IR? noh. Pd 968. Isa pang syndicate, organized crime
One. Qualified IR. group under art 62. So syndicate iba iba, IR,
trafficking in persons, tatlo, sa syndicated estafa,
Now, for example there are three offended lima, organized syndicate crime group, dalawa.
party but there are three informations, so can the
accused be convicted of qualified IR but culminating Now, there is only one accused, but the
three offended parties in three different allegations in the information is that there are 3
informations? In the case of People v Hernandez, no, recruiters or traffickers, and the evidence will show
because to do so will violate his constitutional right that there are 3 recruiters or traffickers. Can you
to be informed of the nature, character of the crime appreciate the qualifying circumstance of syndicate
he is charged against with and that he will be in IR and trafficking in persons? Yes. That is in the
convicted of three counts of simple IR. So in the case of People v Langley. So say the qualifying
case of People v Sinton Halimbawa there are six circumstance in IR and trafficking in persons, what
offended parties, pwede bang to inform Sinton of is important is the number of accused but the
two counts of qualified IR or large scale IR? Yes. number of traffickers or recruiters alleged in the
Kapag tinanong sa bar to, because of the case of information, proven in evidence. Kasi minsan tatlo
People vs Sinton, you first discussed that this is ung kausap mo, pero hindi mo naman nakikita yung
malum prohibitum so you will not apply the dalawa at hindi nagpakilala noh, so ang nakasuhan
principle of delito continuado so since the principle mo lang ay isa, so it does not follow that the
of delito continuado, the accused can be prosecuted qualifying circumstance of syndicate will not be
as many IR as there are persons recruited. But appreciated, because what it is important is not the
because of the qualifying circumstance of large number of accused but the number of recruiters,
scale, the 3 offended parties will be considered as a traffickers alleged in the information and proven in
circumstance that will qualify IR so in other words, evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of
it is a situation where the accused will be prosecuted People v Haw, in the syndicated estafa, at least five,
of two counts of qualified IR or large scale. So anim pero halimbawa there are only 2 accused, can you
sila so tig-tatlo hahatiiin sya. You dont have na appreciate the circumstance of syndicate? Yes. As
pagsamahin sa isang info, pwedeng hatiin yan. That long as there are five estafadors alleged in the info
is the case of People vs Sinton. Now, if you will read and proven beyond reasonable doubt. In other
the original bill on RA 10022, this is the amended words, same in the case of People v Langley and so
RA 8042, yung original bill is that the filing of IR in the case of People vs Haw, what is important is
case or conviction prosecution for IR shall be a bar not the number accused, even if the number of
in prosecuting trafficking of persons. Because one of accused is less than 5 but the number of estafadors
the element of trafficking, RA 9208, is also are at least 5 and the evidence will show that there
recruitment, pero nung dumating sa bicameral are 5 estafadors who defrauded the complainant, you
conference committee, they changed the bill, binago can consider the circumstance of syndicate and the
nila, yun nga ung nasa usection 6 of ra 8042 as crime committed is syndicated estafa under PD 968.
amended by ra 10022, ang nakalagay lang dun e
filing of IR case shall be without prejudice of filing
Now, dito pa tayo sa both rule. Third. Ito single provision that is sec 6d of ra 3019. This is
tinatanong sa bar to. Can you prosecute a person delito continuado this is one count. This is the case
who violated ra 3019 graft and corrupt practices act of Santiago v Gatchitorena.
in addition to direct bribery under art 210 or inidirect
bribery 211 or malversation 217 without violating Torture because of sec 15 ra 9745. Sa torture
the rule on double jeopardy? Yes, pwede po. Kasi kasi nakalagay dun sa torture is an independent
nasa both rule tayo, we will not be violating the rule crime whose penalty is imposable without prejudice
on double jeopardy because they are not the same in to any liability for violation of any domestic or
character, violation of ra 3019 partakes of a international law. So nasa torture law, so both sya,
character of malum prohibitum, that is the case of so pag meron maltreatement, kakasuhan mo sya ng
Estrella vs Lucena, while direct bribery, these are maltreatment in relation to torture, kung may
malum in se and according to UPLC they are physical injuries, magtatatlo sya. So okay na tayo sa
penalized under different philosophies. Pero actually both rule.
ang pinakamagandang sagot dito yung kay Rabiscal
Jr. v SB, the SC considered the preliminary So dito na tayo sa either rule. So mamimili
paragraph of sec. 3 of ra3019 kasi the crimes under ka lang. Halimbawa ung sexual crimes kasi under
sec.3, ra 3019 are found in paragraph a,b but there is the RPC and under ra 7610, nagooverlap yan
a preliminary paragraph and it states that in addition minsan. So under sec 5b of ra7610 there are two
to acts of commission committed by the public kinds of child prostitution and sexual abuse. Yung
officers under existing rules, the following child prostitution madali lang yan. The victim is a
constitutes corrupt practices. So according to the SC, child tapos meron sexual intercourse or lascivious
in addition to the felonies committed like direct conduct. Tapos money ang consideration. So that is
bribery, the accused can be prosecuted for violation child prostitution. So in other words, the victim is a
of 3019 because of that preliminary statement. prostitute a child prostitute. So if the crime
committed is child prostitution, the victim is called
Now, halimbawa, on a single occasion, an child exploited by prostitution. So second, sexual
immigration officer, her name is Miriam Santiago, abuse, so madali lang yun, the victim is a child,
she issued a document favouring 32 aliens. So that is sexual intercourse has been conducted, coercion,
an allegation that this is a violation of 3d of ra 3019 influence of an adult, syndicate or group. So un lang,
that giving unwarranted prefence benefits through ra 7610, so bata talaga yan, Sexual intercourse,
manifest partiality, evident bad faith and inexcusable lascivious conduct noh, influence, coercion of an
negligence. So those were 32 so how many counts of adult or syndicate or group. So yun ung tinatawag na
violation of sec 3d because there are several sexual abuse. So if the crime committed is sexual
offended parties. As a general rule di ba in the case abuse, the victim is called child subjected to other
of Lim v People diba according to the SC if what is sexual abuse. Halimbawa in the case of People v.
involved is malum prohibitum such as in the case of Congressman Jalosjos. Isang pinaggawayan nila dun
violation of bp22, you will not apply the principle of ang ang theory ng defense is she was not under 12.
delito continuado because the basis of applying this But even if she is not under law she is a sexual
principle is the singularity of the criminal impulse worker, she is a prostitute. Even if the child
which is not material in malum prohibitum. But with consented that is not material because what is
respect to sec 6d of ra 3019, in the case of Atienza v important she is a child exploited in prostitution. So
SB, although this crime partakes the character of having sexual intercourse or the same is conduct
malum prohibitum in the case of Estrella v Lucena, lascivious, the crime committed is child prostitution.
but dolo or culpa is an element of this crime, dolo is So even if the victim consented that is not material.
an element of this crime if the motive is evident bad The consent is not recognized by law. Now, dito
faith or manifest partiality and culpa is an element if naman sa sexual abuse in the case of coercion,
the mode is gross inexcusable negligence. Since according to the SC coercion is either physical or
evident bad faith is an element of this crime, if there psychological, in this case this is psychological
is good faith, there is no dolo, if there is no criminal coercion because he took advantage of his
intent, there is no evident bad faith. So in other ascendancy as a fitness instructor. In the case of
words, that is the reason why the SC said that it People v. Caballo, yung gf nya bago sya makipagsex
partakes of malum prohibitum because it also he made to convince his gf to give in to his sexual
partakes of malum in se where good faith is a desire he made an assurance of love, and he
defense. In other words, in violation of ra 3019, you promised to marry, later on di naman nya
can consider the criminal impulse. Kumbaga dapat pinakasalan, nabuntis pa nga, at sabi naman ng
bad faith sya, so you can apply the principle of delito babae e baka mabuntis ako, e sabi nya no
continuado, in this case is according to the SC, this withdrawal method. These 3 circumstance,
is delito continuato, this is one count because there assurance of love, promise to marry the victim and
is one criminal impulse to give unwarranted assurance that she will not get pregnant, these 3
preference by evident partiality and manifest bad circumstance was considered by the SC as influence
faith. Several acts of issuing document under one and therefore he was convicted of sexual abuse, ang
criminal impulse that is to give unwarranted benefit, laki ng penalty nyan, RT in its medium period.
advantage preference, so this is a violation of one
Tutukan nyo to kasi 2016 tinanong to, complicated
ito sa totoo lang.

So ngayon pwede bang magoverlap yan sa


rape and acts of lasciviousness under rpc. Pwede
syang magoverlpa, pwedeng hindi. Halimbawa ung
Peopl v Congressman Jalosjos, magsex tayo sa
bigyan mong pera ung bata, nakipagsex ka dun, can
you consider that as rape? No. why? Because there
was no violence, no intimidation. Unless she is a
child, that is statutory rape. Pero kung nagbigay ng
pera, pogi naman ako may house naman ako, eto
1000, pumayag sya, nagsex kayo, that is self-
prostitution, that is not rape, that is not acts of
lasviousness unless the child is under 12. Alam mo
in the case of People v Abello, natutulog yung bata,
hinalikan mo sa vagina, nung nagising sya, umalis
ka na, can you consider that as child prostitution?
Hindi mo naman binigyang ng pera. Sexual abuse?
Wala naming influence? Tulog nga eh. But that is
considered as rape through sexual assault. In other
words, pwedeng hindi sya magoverlap pero ang
lesson natin yung hindi sya nagooverlap.

So according to the SC, taking advantage of


your ascendancy because you are her father even if
there is no showing of actual violence or
intimidation of force if there is taking advantage of
ascendancy as a father, that is taking