Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2016 Criminal Loanzon PDF
2016 Criminal Loanzon PDF
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
Question: AQ, together with OQ had an encounter with B. The latter
hacked AQ and OQ. AQ found out that OQ was dead. B claimed that he
tried to get away with the AQ and OQ but the latter chased him and
engaged him into a fight. Seeing AQ was about to stab him, B grabbed a
bolo and used it to strike at AQ, injuring his left hand. AQ’s knife fell and
when he bent to pick it up, B again hacked at him with his bolo. What
crimes did B commit?
1|Page
P40,000 and a certificate of registration of large cattle were also gone.
Elarcosa and Orias were thereafter charged with robbery with multiple
homicide. RTC convicted the accused of the offense as charged. The
CA, however, changed the conviction to multiple murder, ratiocinating
that robbery was not proved and that the killing was qualified by
treachery. How many crimes were committed? What are those crimes if
any?
Answer: Only Robbery with Homicide. In a complex crime, although two
or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime
in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the offender x x x
when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute
separate and distinct crimes. (People v. Elarcosa)
ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES
2|Page
maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC also found that the
offense was committed by an organized/syndicated crime group and
imposed a fine of P10 million. However, the RTC lowered the penalty of
Monongan who was only 17, a minor at the time of the commission of
the offense, to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA
affirmed the decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life
imprisonment. Is the imposition of penalty against accused Manongan
correct?
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can be
appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed in the
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. (People v.
Musa)
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
Question: Reynaldo Capalad was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and
11 of the R.A. 9165. At the trial, the prosecution presented PO3
Fernando Moran, PO1 Jeffred Pacis, and PO1 Victor Manansala as
witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused and
his son, Reymel Capalad. After the trial, he was convicted by the RTC of
both charges. On appeal, he questioned the legality of his arrest. He
disputed the prosecution witnesses’ claim that an entrapment operation
took place. He also argued that the testimony of his son, Reymel, should
have been given more weight. The CA, however, still affirmed the lower
court’s judgment. The accused contends before the Court among others
that the principle that a child is the best witness should have been
applied to his case giving emphasis on his son's testimony
corroborating his version of events. Should the SC give credence to his
allegations?
Answer. No. Findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and
which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no
glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary,
and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
(People v. Capalad)
CONSPIRACY
Question: Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella
twice, while Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the road, and
Doctor positioned himself at the back of Damiana and Angelina and
poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas fired three more
gunshots at the former when she was already down on the ground. The
RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of the
offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of treachery and
3|Page
conspiracy. Is the conviction appreciating conspiracy correct?
Answer: No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to
commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before,
during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common
design or purpose. (People v. Tomas)
CONSPIRACY
Question Petitioners Yongco and Lañojan, as security guards in the
premises of the City Engineer’s Office (CEO), and Tangian as garbage
truck driver of the City Government of Iligan were charged for allegedly
stealing one unit transmission of Tamaraw and l-beam of Nissan with a
total value of P40, 000.00. RTC held petitioners liable for qualified theft
with the attending circumstance of conspiracy.
Tangian claimed that he should not be considered as a conspirator
since he merely innocently obeyed Lañojan’s instructions on the
assumption that the latter was his superior. Yongco, in his defense,
argued that Tangian and his two other helpers asked for his assistance
which he extended in good faith, in view of Lañojan’s statement earlier
that day that the office garage has to be cleared. Lañojan, on the other
hand, insisted that he cannot be considered as a conspirator since he
was not present at the time of taking, and that the mere giving of a
thumbs-up sign to Tangian when the latter delivered the materials to the
junk shop does not amount to conspiracy. Is there conspiracy?
Answer: It is common design which is the essence of
conspiracy—conspirators may act separately or together in different
manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character
and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and
viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole—acts
done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.
(Yongco v. People).
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Question:The victim, Marlon, stood up and greeted the accused, who
happened to be his brother-in-law, "good evening." He stated that the
accused kept quiet and suddenly raised the right hand of Marlon and
stabbed him by the armpit with a knife that he was carrying. Marlon
shouted because of the pain, which caused the people in the
neighborhood to come out.
After his arrest, David Maningding pleaded not guilty of the murder
charged against him. The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found
that treachery attended the stabbing of the victim, being sudden and
unexpected. Is the altercation that ensued leading to the stabbing
4|Page
justified as self-defense?
TREACHERY
Question: Two criminal informations were filed against Roel Ruel Sally
for the murder of Edwin Lucas and Jose Bersero. According to the
prosecution witness Roger Lara, he saw the accused hit the victims with
a piece of pipe while sleeping. The RTC found Sally guilty of murder. In
his appeal to the CA, Sally questioned the finding that treachery
attended the killings, qualifying the crime to murder, instead of
homicide. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that an
iron pipe was used in the killing of the victims as the weapon was not
retrieved or presented in evidence, nor was the medico-legal officer
certain if an iron pipe would cause the injuries suffered by the victims.
However, the CA upheld the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition. Is
the conviction to murder and not homicide correct?
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the the slightest
provocation on the part of the victims. The kind of weapon used is
immaterial. (People v. Sally)
intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to one’s life. (People v. Maningding)
PROVOCATION AS A DEFENSE
Question: Brothers Nahom and Nemrod went to the house of Serafin to
kill him but he was not there. Upon being informed of this, Serafin went
to Nahom’s house. Nemrod advised Serafin to go home, but he refused
to leave. Instead, Serafin attempted to hack Nemrod and tried to enter
the gate of Nahom’s house. Thereafter, Nahom struck Serafin on the
head with a bolo. Meanwhile, Nemrod went to his brother’s house to
look for a bolo. After being hit, Serafin ran away. Nemrod, however,
pursued him, and hit him several times on the back and arm. He
eventually died from the wounds he sustained. The two brothers were
charged with homicide. Nemrod voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities. The trial court ruled that they were guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide. But for Nemrod a mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender was
credited. However, he appealed to the CA and ruled that he has failed to
5|Page
prove satisfactorily the elements of self defense and that unlawful
aggression did not exist. If you were the judge, will you appreciate the
mitigating circumstance of provocation?
Answer: Yes. In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for
the purpose of mitigating a crime, one must look into the act
constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person
provoked, and the place and time when the provocation is made. In the
present case, a finding that the act of the victim did not constitute
unlawful aggression does not automatically negate the attendant
circumstance of sufficient provocation. (Gotis v. People)
TREACHERY
Question:Ramil while he was attending a wake with his brother
Cristopher was sitting nearby on a parked motorcycle talking to
someone when Prince appeared from behind and started stabbing
Ramil using a knife until he died. Prince was charged with murder.
Prince his assault resulted to the death of Ramil but he argued that the
offense was only homicide and not murder because there was no
treachery. RTC convicted Prince with murder which was later on
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prince argues that the attack was not
from behind but frontal thereby treachery was not present. Is there
trachery?
Answer: Yes. Treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden
and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend
himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. (People v. Francisco)
DEFENSE OF INSANITY
Question: AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. Paul, an
acquaintance, raped AAA inside his bedroom. Before finally letting the
crying AAA go, however, Paul threatened her with death should she
disclose to anybody what had just happened between them. Psychiatric
evaluation revealed that AAA, although 42 years old at that time, had the
mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10 year-old child.
Accused-appellant maintains that the trial court erred in giving full
credence to and reliance on AAAs inculpatory statements.
In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused-appellant invokes
insanity. He contends that the psychiatrist who examined him
consistently testified that there was a high possibility that he was
suffering from schizo affective disorder when the alleged rape incident
happened. Rule on the invocation of defense of insanity.
Answer: Paul is sane. The moral and legal presumption is always in
favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the
normal condition of a person. It is improper to assume the contrary.
(People v. Alipio) note additional fact of threatening victim if she would tell what happened presupposes that the
perpetrator was aware of the wrongful act he had done.
SELF-DEFENSE
Question: Ruperto Arbalate and his sons Roel and Ramil Arbalate were
charged with murder for killing Selemen. Roel and Ramil were able to
evade arrest and remained at large. Hence, only Ruperto faced trial.
During the arraignment, Ruperto pleaded not guilty. In his defense,
Ruperto invoked self-defense. Moreover, he argued that there was no
abuse of superior strength. Without clear proof of this qualifying
circumstance, Ruperto insisted that he must be convicted of homicide
only. Should self-defense be appreciated?
Answer: No. To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the
killing of the victim be simultaneous with the attack on the accused, or
at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of
time. (People v. Arbalate)
CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE
Question: Upon seeing Anabel Bautista and Reynaldo Juguilon, Manulit
stood up and successively shot Reynaldo at the back, resulting in the
latter’s death. He then tucked the gun in his waist, raised his hands, and
shouted, “O, wala akong ginawang kasalanan at wala kayong nakita.”
In his defense, Manulit offered a story of self-defense. While he and his
cousin, Marvin, were drinking, victim Reynaldo barged in holding a gun
with both his hands. He appeared not to be his normal self with reddish
7|Page
eyes, as if high on drugs.
Despite his claim of self –defense, RTC convicted him for murder. Is the
conviction proper despite allegations of self-defense?
Answer: Yes. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at
least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of
threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful
intent to cause injury. It is present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to ones’ life. (People v. Manulit).
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to
life or personal safety. There must be an actual, sudden, and
unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. (People v. Satonero)
ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
Question:Accused Juanito Apattad was charged in four separate
informations with the crime of rape against his 12-year old daughter.
The child, AAA, testified her father repeatedly raped her since 2001. The
accused threatened to kill her if she will report the incident to her
mother and she eventually informed her of the rape. A defense witness
claimed that on the date of the incident, the accused stayed in the
former’s house, which was only three kilometers away from the house
of the accused. The RTC found him guilty of three counts of rape. Is the
RTC correct?
Answer. Yes. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
accused as the perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Apattad)
must show impossibility of being at the scene of the
ALIBI AS A DEFENSE crime when it happened
Question: SPO1 Loreto Nerpio held a children’s birthday party for his son
at his residence. Mario Salazar joined the drinking session and later on
left the house of Nerpio. Thereafter, Nelly Villanueva, who was then
waiting for a friend, saw Salazar walking along the street. Villanueva
saw a man poked a gun at the right side of Salazar’s neck, and fired it.
He identified Nerpio as the malefactor. Nerpio was charged with
homicide but he said he was busy at his child’s birthday party when the
crime happened. Rule on the defense of alibi raised by the accused.
Answer: It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough
to prove that the accused was at some other place when the crime was
committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that the
accused could not have been physically present at the place of the
crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission. (Nerpio v.
People)
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Question: Accused Mayor Ambagan Jr. was charged and convicted by
8|Page
the Sandiganbayan with two counts of homicide as principal by
inducement. The prosecution presented statements from two persons
who was said to be directly present during the shooting. The first
witness (Bawalan) said that shooting started after he heard the mayor
said “GE, IYAN PALA ANG GUSTO MO, MGA KASAMA BANATAN N’YO
NA YAN”. However, the second witness contradicts this when he said
that he instead pushed the mayor out of the road where the shooting
incident occurred and that he did not hear the mayor saying those
words which could have provoked and initiate the shooting of the
victims. Further, evidence provides that Rene Amparo (one of Mayor
Ambagan’s men) has negative paraffin test which would lead to the fact
that it is not the Mayor’s men who initiated the shooting but rather from
the deceased Rey Santos. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of
the crime of double homicide. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the aforequoted ruling. Is the conviction as principal
by inducement correct?
Answer: No. The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement
requires (1) that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring
the commission of the crime; and (2) that such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
(Ambagan Jr. v. People)
PRESCRIPTION OF A CRIME must not exceed three times the most severe penalty and that in no case shall
such total period exceed 40 yrs.
Question: By virtue of Administrative Order No. 13 issued by then
President Fidel V. Ramos creating a Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding
Committee on Behest Loans, a report dated January 4, 1993 identified
the accounts of Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC) as behest in
character. Later the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
PCGG, filed an Affidavit-Complaint on January 6, 2003 with the Office of
the Ombudsman, against respondent directors and officers of RHC and
the directors of DBP for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3 (g) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However
the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s Affidavit - Complaint on grounds
9|Page
10 yr prescription period applies here for crime was committed prior to
the amendment of r.a. 3019
10 | P a g e
that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation failed to
observe the rules on chain of custody. Quiamanlon insisted that any
apprehending team having initial control of said drugs and/or
paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have
the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of
the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Rule on the merits of defense of violation of chain of custody.
Answer: The IRR of RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule
is not to be rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team." Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be
preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
evidence has been tampered with. Evidently, the prosecution
established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
(People v. Quiamanlon)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question: A confidential informant reported to the Drug Enforcement
Unit (DEU) of Makati City that a certain "Vangie" was engaged in drug
pushing activities. Hence, a buy-bust operation was planned by the DEU.
Vangie arranged to meet at Starbucks Café on Rockwell Drive, Makati
City. SPO1 Fulleros acceded to her request and headed to the coffee
shop. He gave Vangie the boodle money after examining the plastic
bags. Afterwards, he gave the pre-arranged signal to alert his team that
the transaction had been consummated. The back-up operatives arrived
while he was introducing himself to Vangie as a DEU operative. She was
placed under arrest and later identified as Sobangee.
RTC and CA found Sobangee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
violated Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling
methylamphetamine Sec. 5, Art. II of RA No. 9165 or the hydrochloride.
Sobangee claimed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
suffered from major inconsistencies, such as: (1) the date the alleged
informant came to the DEU office; (2) the time the buy-bust team left the
office to conduct its operation; (3) the place that the team first went to
before going to the buy-bust at Rockwell Center, Makati City; (4) the
location of the operatives during the buy-bust operation; (5) the site
where the illegal substances seized were marked; (6) the amount
involved in the buy-bust; (7) the officer who informed Sobangee of her
constitutional rights; and (8) the identity of the informant. Is the
conviction correct?
Answer. Yes. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal
sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following
elements: 1) Identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
11 | P a g e
consideration, 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
(People v. Sabongee)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question:An informant arrived at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs at the
Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig and reported that a
certain “Paks” was pushing shabu on P. Mariano St., Taguig. A team
was dispatched to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Boiser and PO2
Lagos walked with the informant to meet Paks. Paks, satisfied that PO2
Boise, was indeed a drug user, agreed to sell P500.00 worth of shabu.
He reached from his camouflage shorts a plastic sachet and handed it
to PO2 Boiser. After receiving the plastic sachet from Paks, PO2 Boiser
examined it under the light of a lamppost. Seeing the pre-arranged
signal acted out by PO2 Boiser, PO2 Lagos went to the scene and
introduced himself as a police officer to Paks. The buy-bust money was
then seized from Paks.
RTC found Paks Vicente, Jr. guilty of the crime charged. On appeal,
Vicente, Jr. argued that Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 were not complied with, since the buy-bust
team failed to present a pre-operation report and photographs of the
seized items. With this argument, he said that the seized items are now
polluted evidence. As an appellate judge, will you uphold the RTC ruling?
Answer: Yes. Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact
science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. It
is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of
drugs in a buy-bust operation. What is essential is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. (People v. Vicente)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question: In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon
Abetong, was caught selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC
rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date
and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have
passed since the items were confiscated before they were brought to
the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an inventory nor a
12 | P a g e
photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. Was the prosecution able
to establish the guilt of the accused based on the allegation of violation
of the chain of custody?
Answer: No. In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon
Abetong, was caught selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC
rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date
and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have
passed since the items were confiscated before they were brought to
the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an inventory nor a
photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. He likewise hinged his
appeal on the fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to the
evidence locker, did not testify during trial. (Peopl v. Abetong)
13 | P a g e
police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs
raises doubt as to its origins and also negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. (People v. Dela
Cruz)
TEST-BUY
Question: SPO1 Dela Cruz was part of a team that conducted a test-buy
on to verify a report of Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug activities. When
this was confirmed, a buy-bust operation ensued. SPO1 Dela Cruz
subsequently marked the sachet that was sold to him as MDC-1 and the
sachet found on the person of Elizabeth as MDC-2. The chemistry report
confirmed that the subject drugs were positive for shabu. RTC convicted
the accused.
Elizabeth imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz observed
the requirements of RA 9165 on inventory and photographing of the
illegal substance, arguing that said police officer did not state where
and when he marked the sachets of shabu. Will you uphold the
conviction?
Answer: I will uphold the RTC decision. Non-compliance with the
provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous
drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case. The conviction
can be sustained if there are other independent evidence to establish
the guilt of the accused. (People v. Marcelino).
BUY-BUST OPERATIONS
Question: The Regional Special Operations Group IV (RSOG-IV) received
a tip about a group of drug traffickers led by Isidro Arguson operating in
Cavite. SPO2 Geronimo Pastrana, PO3 Ramos, and PO2 Emerson
Balosbalos the operation in front of the McDonald’s branch in P.
Ocampo St., Pasay City. The sale was then consummated and PO3
Ramos gave his signal and arrested them. The accused, by way of
defense, alleged that she just finished her laundry when she took her
child to McDonald’s when she saw a commotion. She then saw a
woman who alighted from a van and pointed at her to her companions
and boarded her inside the van causing her to lose hold of her child. The
RTC and the CA ruled against the accused. Hence, the case. Is the
conviction proper?
Answer: No. As embodied in Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, i.e., the
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drug
shall immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the [drug] in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
14 | P a g e
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. (People v. Cervantes)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: Manuel Ressurreccion was convicted of illegal sale of shabu.
On appeal to the Supreme Court he broaches the view that SA Isidoro’s
failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates
a reasonable doubt as to the drugs identity. Accused-appellant
Resurreccion now points to the failure of the buy-bust team to
immediately mark the seized drugs as a cause to doubt the identity of
the shabu allegedly confiscated from him. Was there a violation of the
chain of custody rule?
Answer: No. Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark
seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of
custody. It is essential for the prosecution to introduce other evidence
to establish the guilt of the accused. (People v. Resureccion)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: An informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias
"Boy Bicol" was at his Nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. When the
team reached the said Nipa Hut, Dela Cruz was seen holding a shotgun
but he later on dropped his shotgun when a police officer pointed his
firearm at him. The team entered the premises and saw a plastic bag of
shabu and drug paraphernalia. Dela Cruz was subsequently arrested
and was separately indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal
possession of firearm. The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition but convicted him of possession
of dangerous drugs. The accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of
the RTC Decision on the ground that the prosecution his arrest was
patently illegal and the prosecution failed to establish the chain of
custody of the illegal drug allegedly in his possession. The CA sustained
accused-appellant's conviction. Was the prosecution able to establish
possession of illegal drugs?
Answer: No. An accused can be held to be in constructive possession of
illegal drugs if it shown that they enjoy dominion and control over the
premises where these drugs were found. (People v. Dela Cruz)
15 | P a g e
Governor, and Ernesto Pescadera, the Provincial Treasurer during
Estino’s stint. The said charges involve malversation of public funds
under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code and two violations of Sec. 3
(e) of R.A. 3019. The Sandiganbayan, in the consolidated criminal cases,
convicted both Estino and Pescadera for violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019 for failure to pay the Representation and Transportation
Allowance (RATA) of the provincial government employees of Sulu but
acquitted them as to the other charge for the same violation. As to the
charge of malversation of public funds, the Sandiganbayan exonerated
Estino but convicted Pescadera for failure to remit the GSIS
contributions of the provincial government employees. Is the accused
guilty of the crime charged?
Answer: No. There is no proof that Pescadera misappropriated the said
amount for his personal use. While demand is not an element of the
crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the application of the
presumption. Without this presumption, the accused may still be proved
guilty under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation.
(Pescadera v. People)
TREACHERY
Question: One evening, Estrella Doctor Casco along with her mother
named Damiana and two care- takers Liezl and Angelita, were walking
home from Damiana’s medical check-up when Estrella’s cousins Tony
Tomas and Benedicto Doctor, together with Nestor Gatchalian, suddenly
came out from the side of the road. Without uttering a word, Tomas
drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while Gatchalian, without a gun,
allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor positioned himself at the back of
Damiana and Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but
Tomas fired three more gunshots at the former when she was already
down on the ground. After which, the three accused fled from the scene
of the crime. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and
16 | P a g e
Gatchalian of the offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of
treachery and conspiracy which the CA affirmed with modification.
Hence, this petition was filed. Is the CA correct in affirming the RTC
decision appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery?
Answer: Yes. For alevosiato qualify the crime to murder, it must be
shown that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or
manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or
retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and
manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery
to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at
the inception of the attack. (People v. Tomas)
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES
Question: Anthony was charged with murder and frustrated murder. The
trial found him guilty of the offenses charged. On appeal, aside from
reiterating his alibi, he also pointed out the inconsistencies in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The CA found no merit in
Anthony’s contentions. In reviewing the testimonies of the witnesses,
the appellate court found no inconsistencies that would question their
credibility. Hence, this petition. Rule on accused’s contentions of
inconsistencies.
Answer: It is elementary that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses’
testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and
collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their
veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. (People v. Domingo)
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES, POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
Question: Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke
Restaurant in Quezon City, noticed that Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc, were
beating Jaime. As a result of the beating died. Roda went to Camp
Karingal in Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. The police
then filed an investigation report which became the basis for the filing
of Information against Amodia et al. RTC ruled that Amodia et al. were
guilty of Murder. CA affirmed the RTC decision. CA gave credence to the
positive testimony of the prosecution eyewitness who, was not actuated
by improper motive to testify against accused-appellants. The CA,
moreover, held that the killing was qualified by the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength.
Amodia et al. contends that conviction is anchored on the positive
testimony of the prosecution eyewitness which was full of
inconsistencies. They allege that it was unbelievable that a person who
had witnessed a crime should simply go home without immediately
reporting the matter to the authorities. Were the accused positively
identified enough to convict them?
17 | P a g e
Answer: Yes. Positive identification of the accused, when categorical
and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of an
eye witness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial of [the]
accused, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. (People
v. Amodia)
STATUTORY RAPE
18 | P a g e
Question: AAA, the private complainant, was 11 years old while Lindo
was their neighbor. While AAA was sleeping, Lindo took her away to a
place near a creek. He tried inserting his penis into her vagina but there
was no complete penetration. Not achieving full penile penetration, he
then made her bend over, and inserted his penis into her anus, causing
her to cry out in pain. RTC found him guilty of statutory rape under Art.
335 of the RPC in relation to R.A No. 7610. The CA affirmed the
judgment and awarded exemplary damages. Was the conviction
correct?
Answer: Yes. The mere introduction of the male organ in the labia
majora of the victim’s genitalia consummates the crime; the mere
touching of the labia by the penis was held to be sufficient. (People v.
Lindo)
RAPE
Question: AAA, then 15 years old, went to her grandmother’s house
upon learning that her father and uncle were quarreling there. When she
cried for help, Elmer Barberos, a neighbor, went to her and told her that
he would protect her. Barberos brought AAA to his house and raped her.
AAA was able to escape by jumping out of the window when someone
knocked at the door. Both the RTC and CA convicted Barberos of the
crime of rape. Is total penetration necessary to commit rape?
Answer: No. Full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not
required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the labia
of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the
hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. (People v. Barberos)
SWEETHEART THEORY IN RAPE
Question: Cias was charged with the crime of rape. In his defense, he
argued that he and the victim had been carrying an illicit affair for about
six months. He alleged that in all their previous assignations, she
submitted herself to him voluntarily and willingly on each occasion that
they had sexual intercourse. Is relationship a defense in the crime of
rape? love is not a license for lust
Answer: No. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have
an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against
her will. (People v. Cias)
19 | P a g e
her inside the bathroom. Belo kissed and touched AAA's private parts
while pointing the knife at AAA and eventually he was able to insert his
penis into her vagina. Belo, in his defense, claims that it was a
consensual sex and that AAA was his girlfriend. Further, he claims that
the absence of bruises and contusions on AAA’s body, based on the
medico- legal report, negates the crime of rape. The RTC found Belo
guilty of rape and was affirmed by the CA. Is the conviction proper
despite relationship with the victim?
Answer: Yes. “Sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be
established by convincing evidence -- some documentary and/or other
evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like.
(People v. Belo)
20 | P a g e
credibility of the testimony of the witness?
Answer: No. Anyone who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
such perception to others, may be a witness. Thus, mental retardation
does not disqualify a person from testifying. What is essential is the
quality of perception, and the manner in which this perception is made
known to the court. (People v. Martinez)
RAPE
Question: Adelado Anguac is the common-law spouse of BBB, the
mother of AAA. Sometime in 1998 while sleeping with her siblings in a
room in their residence, AAA who was then 17 years old, found herself
suddenly awakened by Anguac who raped her. The sexual assault on
AAA was repeated for five times. AAA subsequently became pregnant.
She disclosed the assaults to her Aunts. Two separate informations
were filed charging Anguac with rape and violation of RA 7610. The RTC
found Anguac guilty. CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling but treated the crime
of rape charged in Criminal Case No. RTC 2757-I as a violation of Sec.
5(b) of RA 7610 instead of Sec. 5(a) as found by the trial court. Anguac
on the other hand, questioned the sufficiency of the prosecution’s
evidence. Was the CA correct in convicting the accused for Sec.5(b)
rather Sec. 5(a) as found by the RTC?
Answer: Yes. The character of the crime is determined by the recital of
the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information. The
testimonies of the victim and the witnesses which buttressed her claim
of the commission of the crime proved beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of Anguac. (People v. Anguac)
STATUTORY RAPE
Question: Cruz was charged with one count of rape committed against
AAA, 9 years old. Upon arraignment Cruz pleaded not guilty. Medical
examination result showed that AAA had two (2) hymenal lacerations.
For his part, Cruz claimed that it was impossible for him to commit rape
as he had been sexually impotent since 1995. This was further
corroborated by his wife by saying that they seldom had sexual
intercourse after 1995. In 2001, Cruz was diagnosed to be suffering
from erectile dysfunction.
The RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the ruling of RTC and ruled that his impotency was not proven
with certainty and that the medical finding of erectile dysfunction was
based on an examination more than three years after the rape occurred;
thus, no categorical conclusion could be made that Cruz was impotent
when the rape was committed. Was there rape despite defense of
impotency?
21 | P a g e
Answer: Yes. Impotency as a defense in rape cases must likewise be
proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency.
STATUTORY RAPE
Question: Ugos was charged with raping AAA, his 7-year old
stepdaughter. While they were looking for AAA’s mother, Ugos brought
AAA to a creek and raped her. Ugos denied the allegations and stated
that the victim fell while looking for her mother because the road was
dark and slippery. The RTC found him guilty, which the CA affirmed.
Ugos contends that the testimonies of AAA and her mother reveal only
the commission of acts of lasciviousness and not rape since he only
inserted his finger into her sex organ. Is the use of a finger sufficient to
commit the crime of rape?
Answer: Yes. Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by
inserting "any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person." (People v. Ugos) also by inserting one's penis inside another's oral or anal
orifice
QUALIFIED THEFT
Question: Respondent Amelio Tria (Tria) is a former branch manager of
Philippine National Bank’s (PNB) MWSS branch. MWSS opened an
account in PNB-MWSS. On April 22, 2004, PNB-MWSS received a letter
from MWSS instructing the bank to issue a manager’s check in the
amount of P5, 200, 000.00 in favor of a certain Atty. Rodrigo Reyes. The
employees of PNB, after authentication and verification approved the
request for the issuance of the manager’s check. On April 26, 2004, Tria
accompanied Atty. Reyes to PNB Quezon City branch since PNB-MWSS
had insufficient funds to pay the amount. He told the employee of PNB
QC that Atty. Reyes is their valued client. On February 2, 2005, Zaida
Pulida (Pulida), a MWSS employee handling the subject bank account
inquired to PNB about the P5, 200, 000.00 debited to the account. Pulida
notified PNB that MWSS did not apply for the issuance of the said
manager’s check. Furthermore, upon verification with the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, it was confirmed that there was no Rodrigo Reyes
included in its roster. PNB conducted its own investigation and held Tria
liable for qualified theft. Tria denied the allegation and contended other
bank employees should be liable for the loss. Is Tria guilty of qualified
theft?
Answer: Yes. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain,
but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s
consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft
becomes qualified. (PNB v. Tria)
22 | P a g e
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Question: Petitioners were officers of the Municipality of Paracelis,
Mountain Province. They issued a Certificate of Inspection and
Acceptance in relation to the completion of a road construction in the
said municipality. As a result, the Government subsequently issued a
check for PhP106,970 as payment for the project. After COA
investigation, petitioners were charged with Estafa thru Falsification of
Public Documents. It was alleged that petitioners made it appear that
they have personally inspected the construction project and thereafter
found the same to have been fully accomplished 100%, when in truth
and in fact, the work on the aforesaid project was not yet finished. Is
the conviction correct?
Answer: Yes. The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2
of the RPC are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent
representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4)
as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. (Manangey v.
Sandiganbayan)
A. (1) Generality – will apply to people who commit any criminal act
committed within the territory of the Philippines and will generally deal
with the characteristic of the person accused of committing the crime;
(2) Territoriality – Philippines will have jurisdiction over crimes
committed inside its territory except as provided for in treaties and laws
of preferential application and will normally deal with the characteristic
of the place where the crime was committed; and
(3) Prospectivity – based on Art.22 of RPC, the appreciation of the crime
committed must take into consideration the date of the passage of the
law and give it retroactive effect (a) if it is favorable to the accused; and
(b) if the accused is not a habitual delinquent.
Q. What provisions of the Bill of Rights are relevant to Criminal Law?
A. The Bill of Rights
Sec. 1: due process and equal protection clause;
Sec. 2: right against illegal arrest, illegal search and seizure (in relation
to admission in evidence of extrajudicial admissions, warrantless arrest,
warrantless search and seizure and planted evidence);
Sec. 3: privacy of communications (in relation to Wire Tapping Law);
Sec. 4 – freedom of religion (in relation to crime offending a religion);
Sec. 6 – liberty of abode (in relation to restraint of travel (issuance of
Hold Departure Order; illegal detention committed by a public officer or
a private individual);
Sec.11 – free access to courts (in relation to right to appropriate legal
24 | P a g e
representation);
Sec. 12 – (1) and (3) Miranda rights (in relation to extrajudicial
confessions and when one can become a state witness), (2) and (4)
Rights while under detention (in relation to Human Security Act of 2007
and Human Torture Act of 2009);
Sec. 13 – Right to bail (in relation to non-bailable offenses like Plunder,
Rebellion, etc.but pay attention to JPE v. Sandiganbayan decision which
introduced a new ground to grant bail which is not textually provided in
the Constitution); humanitarian conditions
Sec. 14 – Presumption of innocence (in relation to degree of proof
required to convict);
Sec. 15 – The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
Sec. 16 – Right to speedy trial;
Sec.16 – Nature of penalty of imprisonment (in relation to imposition of
penalties under RPC, Probation Law, Indeterminate Sentence Law,
Diversion and Rehabilitation);
Sec. 17 – Nature fines and physical detention in case of conviction (in
relation to appreciation of attending circumstances in the commission
of the crime, suspension of death penalty);
Sec. 17 – non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax;
Sec. 18 – prohibition against double jeopardy; and ordinance.
i.e. when same act is punished by a law and an
25 | P a g e
and that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed
permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of
moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4)
waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry
search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a
valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless
arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected
with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognizes permissible
warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest
effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. People of
the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014.
Q. Is a hearing necessary to determine probable cause in the issuance
of a warrant?
A. No. Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, the Supreme Court
has ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof.
In fact, the judge’s personal examination of the complainant and the
witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the
aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest. Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon.
Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014
Q. What is the rule on the admission of extrajudicial confession to
appreciate the element of conspiracy?
A. The exception provided under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court to the rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the
prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence other than the
confession. The Supreme Court, however, has previously stressed that
mere association with the principals by direct participation, without
more, does not suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do
not prove conspiracy. It must be shown that the person concerned has
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. In
fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the
cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove
conspiracy. Gerry A. Salapuddin v. The Court of Appeals, Gov. Jum
Akbar, and Nor-Rhama J. Indanan, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.
Q. Cite the distinction between mala en se and mala prohibitum.
(1) mala en se by itself the act is inherently wrong (ex. killing another
person) while in mala prohibitum the act is merely prohibited by law (ex.
smoking or jay walking);
(2) good faith is a defense in mala en se but not in mala prohibitum;
(3) stages of commission under Art.6 of RPC is considered in mala en
26 | P a g e
se but not in mala prohibitum;
(4) degree of participation under Title II of RPC is considered in mala en
se but not in mala prohibitum;
(5) in mala en se, modifying circumstances are considered in
determining imposable penalty but not mala prohibitum; and
(6) in mala en se, generally, the crimes are punished under RPC while
generally, crimes considered mala prohibitum are punished under
special penal law.
27 | P a g e
joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests.
People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No. 189833,
February 5, 2014
Q. Is proof of previous agreement necessary to establish conspiracy?
A. No. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner
in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the
accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interests. Proof of a previous agreement and
decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the
malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective
suffices. People of the Philippines v. John Alvin Pondivida, G.R. No.
188969, February 27, 2013 unlawful aggre: direct and physical act or a threat, in
either case endangers one's life or limb.
not sufficient
circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated them by invoking including
provocation but a
comparison as
or there is
sufficient
the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the to age, sex, and
physical
victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or attributes; as to
provocation but
not immediate weapon rational
repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part equivalence
only is required.
of the persons resorting to self-defense. Of all the burdens the
petitioners carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful
aggression. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless
the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who
resorted to self-defense. Simon A. Flores v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.
Q. What is alibi?
A. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and
highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear
and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs
criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime
when it was committed. Alibi cannot prevail over and is worthless in the
face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused
perpetrated the crime. People of the Philippines v. Jonathan “Uto”
Veloso y Rama, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013
Q. When is alibi applicable as a defense?
A. It has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused
must prove the following: (i) that he was present at another place at the
time of the perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was physically
28 | P a g e
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its
commission. People of the Philippines v. Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No.
199268, February 12, 2014
Q. What is the probative value of an affidavit if the affiant is not
presented in court?
A. An affidavit is hearsay unless affiant presented in court. It is settled
that while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer authorized
to administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless
the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to
cross-examine them. With the prosecution’s failure to present the
affiant to affirm his statement should be treated as hearsay and, thus,
inadmissible to establish the truth or falsity of the relevant claims.
Q. How is circumstantial evidence appreciated in establishing one’s
culpability?
A. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based
on reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014
29 | P a g e
Certificate of Birth may be introduced as evidence.
Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the offender
is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the
proper period. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and
compassion is that because of his age, the accused is presumed to
have acted with less discernment. This is regardless of the fact that his
minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was
belatedly presented for our consideration, since to rule accordingly will
not adversely affect the rights of the state, the victim and his heirs. .
People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013
30 | P a g e
bludgeoned him on the head, and stabbed him on the stomach until he
was dead; there is no question that the accused took advantage of their
superior strength. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the decision of the
lower courts finding accused Erwin guilty of murder. People of the
Philippines v. Erwin Tamayo y Bautisa, G.R. No. 196960, March 12,
2014.
IV. Penalties
General principles; purpose why penalty is imposed; classification of
penalties; duration and effect of penalties.
Under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if
it was of conviction, state: "(1) the legal qualification of the offense
constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating
or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the
participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal,
31 | P a g e
accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon
the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his
wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability
by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived."
A. Probation Law: nature and purpose of the law; when may defendant
avail of probation – after conviction and no appeal is made during the
period perfecting an appeal; it is error on the part of the court to issue a
Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation because
defendant’s right to appeal has not yet prescribed; conversely, if
defendant filed an appeal, he can no longer avail of probation and if
defendant files an application for probation, he can no longer appeal;
individuals found guilty of drug trafficking cannot avail of probation;
probation also applies even if penalty is only a fine; probation shall not
exceed six years; consequences for violating the terms of probation;
when probation is deemed terminated.
32 | P a g e
cannot avail of ISLaw.
34 | P a g e
service (ex. imprisonment and fine) from successive rule (ex. where
there is multiple penalties of imprisonment); three-fold rule on
maximum period of imprisonment; and 40-year limitation rule.
V. The following are matters which are likely to be asked under Special
Penal Laws:
1. R.A. 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: A public officer may
be charged both under this law and a provision of the RPC ex. when a
Mayor and the City Treasurer connive to use public funds not for the
purpose intended, they may also be held for malversation of funds under
the RPC; or when a Sheriff alters a date of execution of a court order, he
may also be charged with falsification of public documents under the
RPC; there is complex crime under R.A.3019 under both circumstances;
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A DISTICNTION IN PRESCRIPTION OF
CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER THE RPC AND
R.A.3019; review the participation of private individuals and relatives
under this law.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; offenses under Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019. In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that there
are two (2) ways by which a public official violates section 3(e) of R.A.
3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue
injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused
may be charged under either mode or under both. The disjunctive term
“or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019.In other words, the presence of one would suffice for
conviction. To be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that
the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the
exercise of his official, administrative and judicial functions.” The
element of damage is not required for violation of section 3(e) under the
second mode. Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in
conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held
liable for the pertinent offenses under section 3 of R.A. 3019.
Considering that all the elements of the offense of violation of section
3(e) were alleged in the second information, the SC found the same to
be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. Isabelo A.
Braza v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (1st Division), G.R. No. 195032,
February 20, 2013.
Sandiganbayan; original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction
over the claim against Asian Bank, for the Supreme Court has ruled
in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan,
36 | P a g e
that “the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction not only
over principal causes of action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth,
but also over all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such
cases.” Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, as successor-in-interest
of Asian Bank Corporation v. Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval, et al, G.R. No.
169677, February 18, 2013
37 | P a g e
the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not
merely negligible. Danilo O. Garcia and Joven SD. Brizuela v.
Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197204, March
26, 2014.
Liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Plameras v. People, September
4, 2013. The following elements must concur to be liable under Section
3(e) of R.A. 3019:
1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;
3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule. There are links that must
be established in the chain of custody in a buybust situation, namely:
“first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court.” In this case, the
prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y
Balverde, et al, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.
Exception to the chain of custody rule: People v. Romeo Ong et. al., July
3, 2013. Prosecution should establish the following links in that chain of
custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if
38 | P a g e
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the
first required link—immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in
the presence of the accused and others—namely, that (a) there must be
justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved.
39 | P a g e
committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. In
entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust
operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied
to the target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an
informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success
of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the need to
protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through
his efforts. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered
absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the
need to protect his security is disregarded. People of the Philippines v.
Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.
Dabalos v. RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, January 7, 2013. The Court will not
read into Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 a provision that would render it
toothless in the pursuit of the declared policy of the State to protect
women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety
and security. The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting
qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime
of violence against women through physical harm, namely: 1) it is
committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the
40 | P a g e
offenders wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or
dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it
results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably,
while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is
not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such
relationship.
Liability under B.P. 22. San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013. To be liable
for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be
present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, 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; 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, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment. Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo
actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew
of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court
cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22
42 | P a g e
opinion of Justice Peralta.
People v. Betty Salvador, April 10, 2013. wIn order for the accused to be
convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (1) the offender
is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or
kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any
of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by
simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted
43 | P a g e
upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made;
or (d) the person kidnapped and kept in detained is a minor, the duration
of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and
illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his
detention is immaterial.
44 | P a g e
Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123,
March 10, 2014
Res ipsa loquitor; applicability in medical negligence cases. The
applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence
cases was significantly and exhaustively explained in Ramos v. Court of
Appeals, where the Court said–Medical malpractice cases do not
escape the application of this doctrine. Thus, res ipsa loquitur has been
applied when the circumstances attendant upon the harm are
themselves of such a character as to justify an inference of negligence
as the cause of that harm. The application of res ipsa loquitur in
medical negligence cases presents a question of law since it is a
judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances
does, as a matter of law, permit a given inference. Resort to res ipsa
loquitur is allowed because there is no other way, under usual and
ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redress for injury
suffered by him. Dr. Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
45 | P a g e
or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. People
of the Philippines v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178,
February 12, 2014
46 | P a g e
Homicide on occasion of robbery, victim is immaterial. People v. Welvin
Diu, et al., April 3, 2013. When homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually
take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the same.
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the
commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of
robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with
homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited
and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy
adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer
repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion
of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery
or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit
of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery;
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long
as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter
crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.
47 | P a g e
Article 355 of the Penal Code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)
(4) of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 merely
affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for
committing libel. But the Supreme Court’s acquiescence goes only
insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes only the author of the libelous
statement or article.
Balois Alberto et. al. v. C.A. et. al. As held in People v. Pangilinan: “[I]f
the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the
offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because
48 | P a g e
his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be
subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise,
rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a
felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.”
Cabalo v. People, June 10, 2013. Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610
pertinently reads: SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate
or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.”
As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), the elements of
the foregoing offense are the following: (a) The accused commits the
act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) The said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and (c) The child, whether male or female, is below 18
years of age.
49 | P a g e
Illegal use of aliases. A person who uses various names and such
contained his true names, albeit at times joined with an erroneous
middle or second name, or a misspelled family name in one instance is
not guilty of violating the Anti-Alias Law when he was not also shown to
have used the names for unscrupulous purposes, or to deceive or
confuse the public. The Court that the dismissal of the charge against
him was justified in fact and in law. Revelina Limson v. Eugenio Juan
Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014.
50 | P a g e
lengthen the service sentence and if ISLaw applies, then the
corresponding adjustments will have to be made.
51 | P a g e