Crim Review Finals POINTERS PDF

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 FINALS POINTERS
CAVEAT: The following work is an attempt to put the pointers into one document as to lessen inconvenience.
However, this work may not be complete as these are just what the crim team thinks may be relevant for the
exam. It may still be best to study your own materials as time permits.
For the SPLs with cases, it is the opinion of the crim team that the case may most likely be the subject of
the exam question/problem. We leave the codal provisions not discussed in the case to you, the reader.
Best of luck to everyone! 
1. RA 7610 w/
Araneta vs People G.R. No. 174205. June 27, 2008
Facts:
At around 10:00AM of April 10 1998, Petitioner-Accused Gonzalo Araneta approached AAA, a 17-year old
girl, who was sitting with her two younger sisters by the bench near their boarding house. Araneta has been
incessantly courting AAA since she was 13 years old, and had come again to express his feelings of love and
affection for her. He asked her to accept his love and even insisted that she must accept him because he had a job.
She did not like what she heard from petitioner and tried to hit him with a broom but the latter was able to dodge
the strike. She and her two sisters dashed to the boarding house and went inside the room. When they were about
to close the door, the petitioner, who was following them, forced himself inside. The three tried to bar petitioner
from entering the room. Their efforts, however, proved futile as petitioner was able to enter. There petitioner
embraced AAA, who struggled to extricate herself from his hold. AAA then shouted for help. Meanwhile, petitioner
continued hugging her and tried to threaten her that if she will not accept his love, he would kill her. Tubilag, who
was also residing in the same house, arrived and pulled petitioner away from AAA.
Accused was charged before the RTC and was subsequently found guilty. In convicting petitioner of the
crime charged, it held that petitioners act of forcibly embracing the victim against her will wrought injury on the
latter’s honor and constituted child abuse as defined under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and was of the opinion that an accused can only be
successfully convicted of child abuse under Section 10(a) if it is proved that the victims’ development had been
prejudiced. Thus, according to petitioner, absent proof of such prejudice, which is an essential element in the
crime charged, petitioner cannot be found guilty of child abuse under the subject provision.
Issue: Whether or Not the accused is guilty of child abuse.
Held: Yes, the accused is guilty of child abuse.

The definition of child abuse is expanded to encompass not only those specific acts of child abuse under
existing laws but includes also other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial
to the child’s development.
As gleaned from the Section 10 (a) of RA 7610, the provision punishes not only those enumerated under
Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child
exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development. The Rules and
Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to
show that these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the child’s development.
Contrary to petitioners assertion, an accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of
R.A. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse,
child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the
development of the child is different from the former acts.
The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the
three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does not warrant such
construal.
In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 1

Moreover, It is undisputed that the victim, under said law, was still a child during the incident. Section 3 of
the same law provides that any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being may also be considered as Child abuse.
The evidence of the prosecution proved that petitioner, despite the victims protestation, relentlessly
followed the latter from the waiting shed to her boarding house and even to the room where she stayed. He
forcibly embraced her and threatened to kill her if she would not accept his love for her. Indeed, such devious act
must have shattered her self-esteem and womanhood and virtually debased, degraded or demeaned her intrinsic
worth and dignity. As a young and helpless lass at that time, being away from her parents, the victim must have
felt desecrated and sexually transgressed, especially considering the fact that the incident took place before the
very eyes of her two younger, innocent sisters. Petitioner who was old enough to be the victim’s grandfather, did
not only traumatize and gravely threaten the normal development of such innocent girl; he was also betraying the
trust that young girls place in the adult members of the community who are expected to guide and nurture the
well-being of these fragile members of the society. Undoubtedly, such insensible act of petitioner constitutes child
abuse. As the RTC aptly observed:
It bears stressing that the mere keeping or having in a man’s companion a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in any
public or private place already constitutes child abuse under Section 10(b) of the same
Act. Under such rationale, an unwanted embrace on a minor would all the more
constitute child abuse.
Sanchez vs People G.R. No. 179090. June 5, 2009

LEONILO SANCHEZ alias NILO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 179090 June 5, 2009
Facts
Sanchez was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Sections 3(a)
and 3(b) No. 1 of Rep. Act No. 7610 and Sec. 59(8) of PD 603, amended. Sanchez allegedly struck VVV, a minor,
with a piece of wood three (3) times, twice on the left thigh and once below her right buttocks, during a violent
confrontation between Sanchez and the latter’s brother. Upon conviction by RTC, as affirmed by CA, Sanchez,
argued, among others that:
a. The case is not one for child abuse, since VVV was neither punished in a cruel and unusual manner
nor deliberately subjected to excessive indignities or humiliation. The act was not cruel since the
injury was merely slight per medical findings; the location of the injury was on the thigh which is not
unusual; and VVV was not beaten in front of many people as to humiliate her. Lastly, no evidence was
submitted by the prosecution, such as a testimony of a child psychologist, or even of VVV's teacher
who could have observed changes in the victim's behavior, as to prove that the injury was prejudicial
to the victim's development; and
b. that the Information charging appellant was substantially and jurisdictionally defective as the acts
complained of were covered by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. He submits that, if duly
proven, the acts complained of are clearly constitutive of Slight Physical Injuries punishable under
Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issues
a. Is cruelty, exploitation or prejudice to the child’s development essential for conviction for child abuse
under Sec. 10 (a) of RA No. 7610?
b. Is the charge under the Information defective?
Ruling
First Issue
Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides:

SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
Child's Development. —
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible
for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
In this connection, Araneta v. People is instructive:
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child
exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development. The Rules and
Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately defined child abuse, cruelty and
exploitation just to show that these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial
to the child’s development. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, an accused can be prosecuted and be
convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts
therein. The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation
have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is
different from the former acts.
Second Issue
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be considered as child abuse but merely as slight
physical injuries defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant
conveniently forgets that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection
extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As defined in the law, child abuse includes
physical abuse of the child, whether the same is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within
this definition.
Without doubt, the averments in the Information clearly make out the offense of child abuse under
Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The following were alleged: (1) the minority of VVV; (2) the acts
constituting physical abuse, committed by appellant against VVV; and (3) said acts are clearly punishable
under R.A. No. 7610 in relation to P.D. No. 603. Indeed, as argued by the OSG, the commission of the
offense is clearly recited in the Information, and appellant cannot now feign ignorance of this.
Conviction sustained.
Bongalon vs People G.R. No. 169533. March 20, 2013

GEORGE BONGALON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 169533, MARCH 20, 2013
FACTS:
Bongalon was charged for the crime of child abuse under Sec. 10 (a) of RA 7610. Bongalon allegedly
physically abused and/or maltreated Jayson (12 years old) with his palm hitting the latter at his back and by
slapping said minor hitting his left check and uttering derogatory remarks to the latter’s family. On his part,
Bongalon denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson but only confronted him when the latter threw
stones at her daughters, calling them as “Kimi” and for burning one of his daughter’s hair. Both the RTC and CA
held Bongalon guilty of child abuse.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Bongalon constituted child abuse within the purview RA 7610.
RULING:
NO. Sec 10 (a), Art. VI of RA 7610 under which Bongalon was charged states:
Sec. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions Prejducial to the
Child’s Development – (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including

those covered by Art. 59 of PD 603, as amended, but not covered by the RPC, as amended, shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
Child abuse, on the other hand, is defined by Sec. 3 (b) as maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child which includes:
x x x
(2.) Any acts by deeds or words which debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being;
xxx
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes child abuse. Only when the laying of
hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade, or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is
punished under RPC. In this case, the records showed that the laying of hands on Jayson have been done at the
spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal
safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and his companion. With the
loss of his self-control, he lacked the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of the child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse. However, considering that Jayson
suffered physical injury requiring five to seven days of medical attention, Bongalon is liable for slight physical
injuries under Art. 266 (1) of the RPC.
2. RA 9262 (Anti VAWC)

Some Relevant Codals
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to
any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely
to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the
following acts:
A. "Physical violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It
includes, but is not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object,
making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim's
body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her
child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the
conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat
of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion;
c) Prostituting the woman or her child.
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional
suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public
ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to
witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of
the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.
D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which
includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on
valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and
enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
3. destroying household property;
4. controlling the victim's own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or
properties.
xxx
(d) "Stalking" refers to an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful justification
follows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance directly or indirectly or a
combination thereof.
(e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A
casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating
relationship.
(f) "Sexual relations" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.
xxx
(h) "Children" refer to those below eighteen (18) years of age or older but are incapable of taking care of
themselves as defined under Republic Act No. 7610. As used in this Act, it includes the biological children of the
victim and other children under her care.
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. — Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the
time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/psychologists.
EN BANC Decision
JESUS C. GARCIA vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON
G.R. No. 179267 June 25, 2013
FACTS
Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for herself and in behalf of her 3 minor children, a verified
petition for TPO pursuant to RA 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and
economic violence as a result of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of custody
7
of her children and of financial support.
Private respondent claims that her husband, petitioner, who is of Filipino-Chinese descent, is dominant,
controlling, and demands absolute obedience from his wife and children. He forbade private respondent to pray,
and deliberately isolated her from her friends. When she took up law, and even when she was already working
part time at a law office, petitioner trivialized her ambitions and prevailed upon her to just stay at home. He was
often jealous of the fact that his attractive wife still catches the eye of some men, at one point threatening that he
would have any man eyeing her killed.
(Transcriber’s message: From here, most of the facts are on the fights and injuries sustained by the wife and the
children. You can skip and go directly to the ruling on the issues.)

Things turned for the worse when petitioner took up an affair with a bank manager of Robinson's Bank,
Bacolod City. Petitioner admitted to the affair when private respondent confronted him about it in 2004. He even
boasted to the household help about his sexual relations with said bank manager. Petitioner told private
10
respondent, though, that he was just using the woman because of their accounts with the bank.
Petitioner's infidelity spawned a series of fights that left private respondent physically and emotionally
wounded. When private respondent decided to leave petitioner, Jo-Ann begged her mother to stay for fear that if
the latter leaves, petitioner would beat her up. Even the small boys are aware of private respondent's sufferings.
Their 6-year-old son said that when he grows up, he would beat up his father because of his cruelty to private
11
respondent.
All the emotional and psychological turmoil drove private respondent to the brink of despair. She
attempted suicide by cutting her wrist. She was found by her son bleeding on the floor. Petitioner simply fled the
house instead of taking her to the hospital. Private respondent was hospitalized for about seven (7) days in which
time petitioner never bothered to visit, nor apologized or showed pity on her.
Private respondent is determined to separate from petitioner but she is afraid that he would take her
children from her and deprive her of financial support. Petitioner had previously warned her that if she goes on a
14
legal battle with him, she would not get a single centavo.
RTC issued a TPO which was renewed twice and undergone amendments and changes under the
demand of the petitioner for being too excessive and expensive (the peace bond).
While the proceedings were on going, one day, Joseph Eduard, then three years old, was driven to school,
two men allegedly attempted to kidnap him, which incident traumatized the boy resulting in his refusal to go back
to school. On another occasion, petitioner allegedly grabbed their daughter, Jo-Ann, by the arm and threatened
26
her. The incident was reported to the police
When petitioner appealed to the CA, his standing was on the validity of the TPO because it was issued
pursuant to an invalid law. CA denied his appeal because he is now indirectly attacking the constitutionality of the
law which must be raised during the proceedings before the trial court.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW RELATED ISSUES
Petitioner next laments that the removal and exclusion of the respondent in the VAWC case from the residence of
the victim, regardless of ownership of the residence, is virtually a "blank check" issued to the wife to claim any
108
property as her conjugal home.
SEC. 11. Reliefs available to the offended party.
xxx
(c) Removing and excluding the respondent from the residence of the offended party, regardless of ownership of
the residence, either temporarily for the purpose of protecting the offended party, or permanently where no
property rights are violated. Xxx”
Indubitably, petitioner may be removed and excluded from private respondent's residence, regardless of
ownership, only temporarily for the purpose of protecting the latter. Such removal and exclusion may be
permanent only where no property rights are violated.
The non-referral of a VAWC case

to a mediator is justified.
This section prohibits a court from ordering or referring parties to mediation in a proceeding for an order for
protection. Mediation is a process by which parties in equivalent bargaining positions voluntarily reach consensual
agreement about the issue at hand. Violence, however, is not a subject for compromise. A process which involves
parties mediating the issue of violence implies that the victim is somehow at fault. In addition, mediation of issues
in a proceeding for an order of protection is problematic because the petitioner is frequently unable to participate
equally with the person against whom the protection order has been sought. (Emphasis supplied)

There is no undue delegation of

judicial power to barangay officials.
SEC. 14. Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) xxx “ A Punong Barangay who receives applications for a BPO
shall issue the protection order to the applicant on the date of filing after ex parte determination of the basis of
the application. xxx”
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. As clearly delimited by the aforequoted provision, the BPO issued by the Punong Barangay or, in his
unavailability, by any available Barangay Kagawad, merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing
physical harm to the woman or her child; and (2) threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm. Such
function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in nature, in pursuance of his duty under the Local
114
Government Code to "enforce all laws and ordinances," and to "maintain public order in the barangay."
We have held that "(t)he mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire into the existence of certain facts
and to apply the law thereto in order to determine what his official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts
115
may affect private rights do not constitute an exercise of judicial powers."
RA 9262 only applies to the women and children.

Intent of Congress in enacting R.A. 9262.
(message from transcriber: the whole deliberation is too long so I would just like to post some lines that tend to
show that the intent of congress was only to apply it women and children excluding the men.)
Some striking lines from the deliberations during the enacting of R.A. 9262
 If we broaden the scope to include even the men, assuming they can at all be abused by the women or
their spouses, then it would not equalize the already difficult situation for women, Mr. President.
 Whether we like it or not, no matter how empowered the women are, we are not given equal
opportunities especially in the domestic environment where the macho Filipino man would always feel
that he is stronger, more superior to the Filipino woman.
 I am aware that some groups are apprehensive about granting the same protection to men, fearing that
they may use this law to justify their abusive behavior against women.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES

(May come out in the exam as Fiscal asked one time if the law is discriminatory, leading to the discussion on
why men do not have a similar law in their favour)
R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both
as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws
upon all citizens of the state. Xxx It guarantees equality, not identity of rights.
The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Xxx All that is required of
a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial
distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be
limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. (Emphasis supplied)
I. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions.
The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more likely
than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against
women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. As Justice

McIntyre succinctly states, "the accommodation of differences ... is the essence of true
70
equality."
A. Unequal power relationship between men and women
B. Women are the "usual" and "most likely" victims of violence.
While there are, indeed, relatively few cases of violence and abuse perpetrated against
men in the Philippines, the same cannot render R.A. 9262 invalid.
C. Gender bias and prejudices
II. The classification is germane to the purpose of the law.

The distinction between men and women is germane to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to
address violence committed against women and children, spelled out in its Declaration of Policy.
III. The classification is not limited to existing conditions only, and apply equally to all members
R.A. 9262 applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse.
There is nothing in the definition of VAWC that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse
petitioner in his defense. The acts enumerated above are easily understood and provide
adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts. They are worded with
sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is
prohibited, and need not guess at its meaning nor differ in its application. xxx we have stressed
that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to
be upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest.
Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity, is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of
the statute are clearly delineated. An act will not be held invalid merely because it might have
93
been more explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions.
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the husband or father as
the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed "against a woman with whom
the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral
word "person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses
even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does
not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
R.A. 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution.
Petitioner bewails the disregard of R.A. 9262, specifically in the issuance of POs, of all protections
afforded by the due process clause of the Constitution. Says he: "On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, and
practically no opportunity to respond, the husband is stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job,
95
future employment and reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what happened."
A protection order is an order issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children,
their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to safeguard the offended
parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to
96
regain control of their life.
"The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that the victim or offended party is
afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail access by a perpetrator to the victim. This serves to safeguard the
victim from greater risk of violence; to accord the victim and any designated family or household member safety in
the family residence, and to prevent the perpetrator from committing acts that jeopardize the employment and
support of the victim. It also enables the court to award temporary custody of minor children to protect the
97
children from violence, to prevent their abduction by the perpetrator and to ensure their financial support."

The rules require that petitions for protection order be in writing, signed and verified by the
98
petitioner thereby undertaking full responsibility, criminal or civil, for every allegation therein. Since "time is of
99
the essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented," the court is authorized to issue ex parte a
TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing when the life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there
is reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent
100
danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur.
There need not be any fear that the judge may have no rational basis to issue an ex parte order. The
victim is required not only to verify the allegations in the petition, but also to attach her witnesses' affidavits to the
101
petition.
The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of the right to due process. Just
like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and hearing because the time in which the
102
hearing will take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property, in the same
way, the victim of VAWC may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and
possibly even death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented. It is a constitutional
commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting
103
vital public interests, among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to their
personal safety and security.
The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court;
one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
107
pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
3. RA 10175 (Anti Cybercrime)

Disini vs Sec. of Justice G.R. No. 203335. February 11, 2014
RA10175: CYBERCRIME LAW + DISINI RULING RELATED TO THE LAW
 Any crime committed either with:
o the use of the computer
o against the computer itself
o with the use of the internet
 if the target is the computer like sending virus  cybercrime
 if you deceive other people with the use of the computer or the internet  cybercrime
DEFINITION:
(d) Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other data processing or
communications device, or grouping of such devices, capable of performing logical, arithmetic, routing, or storage
functions and which includes any storage facility or equipment or communications facility or equipment directly
related to or operating in conjunction with such device. It covers any type of computer device including devices
with data processing capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks and other devices
connected to the internet.
(e) Computer data refers to any representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing
in a computer system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and includes
electronic documents and/or electronic data messages whether stored in local computer systems or online.
(f) Computer program refers to a set of instructions executed by the computer to achieve intended results.
(g) Computer system refers to any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which,
pursuant to a program, performs automated processing of data. It covers any type of device with data processing
capabilities including, but not limited to, computers and mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and
software may include input, output and storage components which may stand alone or be connected in a network
or other similar devices. It also includes computer data storage devices or media.

SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this
Act:
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:
- here the victim is the computer itself
- person sends virus
- (1) Illegal Access (2) Illegal Interception. (3) Data Interference. (4) System Interference.. (5)
Misuse of Devices. (6) Cyber-squatting
(b) Computer-related Offenses:
- commits an offense with the use of a computer
- (1) Computer-related Forgery. (2) Computer-related Fraud. (3) Computer-related Identity
Theft.
(c) Content-related Offenses:
- here a crime is committed that has something to do with the content.
- -. Child Pornography, Cybersex, Libel.
- NOTE: Unsolicited Commercial Communications  this has been declared in the case of
Dissini as unconstitutional
- DISINI CASE:
o First “the government presents no basis for holding that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the
"efficiency of computers."
o Secondly, people, before the arrival of the age of computers, have already been receiving such
unsolicited ads by mail. These have never been outlawed as nuisance since people might have
interest in such ads. What matters is that the recipient has the option of not opening or reading
these mail ads. That is true with spams. Their recipients always have the option to delete or not
to read them.
o To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails,
even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of
speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally
36
guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.
o The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom
of expression.
o Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. The recipient has the option to
open such or not. To deny such is to deny a person to read his email.
SEC. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for
violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws. ONLY MODIFIED NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
 Here what section 7 is saying, is that there are crimes which are punished under other laws which may
still be prosecuted under the cybercrime law.
 HOWEVER this section was modified in DISINI:
o The Solicitor General points out that Section 7 merely expresses the settled doctrine that a single
set of acts may be prosecuted and penalized simultaneously under two laws, a special law and
the Revised Penal Code. When two different laws define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one
does not bar prosecution of the other although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each
74
crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other. With the

exception of the crimes of online libel and online child pornography, the Court would rather
leave the determination of the correct application of Section 7 to actual cases.
 Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the published material on print, said to be
libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate
libels.
 The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same
offense. Indeed, the OSG itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4) is not a new crime but is one
already punished under Article 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as another
75
means of publication. Charging the offender under both laws would be a blatant violation of the
76
proscription against double jeopardy.
 The same is true with child pornography committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the ACPA’s
scope so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s definition of
child pornography in fact already covers the use of "electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or
any other means." Thus, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) and ACPA would likewise be
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
 So it is clear that when the crime of ONLINE LIBEL or CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (ONLY this for now) is
committed with the use of the computer or internet, YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE, either under the
Cybercrime or other law. You cannot charge for both.
 SC reserves its comment as to other crimes until the right time when the issue is brought to court.
PARTS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL OF CYBERCRIME LAW by DISINI:

1. Unsolicited Commercial Communications
a. The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom
of expression.
b. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. The recipient has the option to
open such or not. To deny such is to deny a person to read his email.
2. Section 12 on Real time collection of traffic data:
a. Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause,
shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time
associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system
b. Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size,
duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities. All other data to be
collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.
c. Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the
collection or recording of the above-stated information.
d. PURPOSE: The first question is whether or not Section 12 has a proper governmental purpose
since a law may require the disclosure of matters normally considered private but then only upon
79
showing that such requirement has a rational relation to the purpose of the law, that there is a
80
compelling State interest behind the law, and that the provision itself is narrowly drawn. In
assessing regulations affecting privacy rights, courts should balance the legitimate concerns of
81
the State against constitutional guarantees.
i. Undoubtedly, the State has a compelling interest in enacting the cybercrime law for
82
there is a need to put order to the tremendous activities in cyberspace for public good.
To do this, it is within the realm of reason that the government should be able to
monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to combat all sorts of cybercrimes.
e. MEANS: Section 12 empowers law enforcement authorities, "with due cause," to collect or

record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time. Petitioners point out that the
phrase "due cause" has no precedent in law or jurisprudence and that whether there is due
cause or not is left to the discretion of the police. Replying to this, the Solicitor General asserts
that Congress is not required to define the meaning of every word it uses in drafting the law.
i. The authority that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too sweeping and
lacks restraint. While it says that traffic data collection should not disclose identities or
content data, such restraint is but an illusion. Admittedly, nothing can prevent law
enforcement agencies holding these data in their hands from looking into the identity of
their sender or receiver and what the data contains. This will unnecessarily expose the
citizenry to leaked information or, worse, to extortion from certain bad elements in
these agencies.
ii. Section 12, of course, limits the collection of traffic data to those "associated with
specified communications." But this supposed limitation is no limitation at all since,
evidently, it is the law enforcement agencies that would specify the target
communications. The power is virtually limitless, enabling law enforcement
authorities to engage in "fishing expedition," choosing whatever specified
communication they want. This evidently threatens the right of individuals to privacy.
f. THEREFORE, in order for there to be a real time collection of data there is a need for a COURT
ORDER.
3. Section 19 or the AUTOMATIC TAKE DOWN CLAUSE

 Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data.— When a computer data is prima facie found to
be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such
computer data.
99
 Computer data may refer to entire programs or lines of code, including malware, as well as files that
contain texts, images, audio, or video recordings. Without having to go into a lengthy discussion of
property rights in the digital space, it is indisputable that computer data, produced or created by their
writers or authors may constitute personal property. Consequently, they are protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures, whether while stored in their personal computers or in the service
provider’s systems.
 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right to be secure in one’s papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable. Further, it states that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge. Here, the Government, in effect, seizes and places the computer data
under its control and disposition without a warrant. The Department of Justice order cannot substitute for
judicial search warrant.
 Restraints on free speech are generally evaluated on one of or a combination of three tests: the
dangerous tendency doctrine, the balancing of interest test, and the clear and present danger rule.
 The content of the computer data can also constitute speech. In such a case, Section 19 operates as a
restriction on the freedom of expression over cyberspace. Certainly not all forms of speech are protected.
Legislature may, within constitutional bounds, declare certain kinds of expression as illegal. But for an
executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected without any judicial warrant, it is not
enough for him to be of the opinion that such content violates some law, for to do so would make him
judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.
 Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention, but it also disregards jurisprudential
guidelines established to determine the validity of restrictions on speech.
 Section 19 merely requires that the data to be blocked be found prima facie in violation of any
provision of the cybercrime law. It does not take into consideration any of the three tests mentioned

above when taking down a site.

 The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for being violative of the constitutional
guarantees to freedom of expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 SO IF SOMETHING ILLEGAL POSTED IN THE WEB, YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING A COURT
ORDER.
SEC. 16. Custody of Computer Data.

SEC. 16. Custody of Computer Data. — All computer data, including content and traffic data, examined under a
proper warrant shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed therein, be deposited
with the court in a sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the law enforcement authority
executing it stating the dates and times covered by the examination, and the law enforcement authority who may
access the deposit, among other relevant data. The law enforcement authority shall also certify that no duplicates
or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are
included in the package deposited with the court. The package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings
replayed, or used in evidence, or then contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be
granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose
conversation or communications have been recorded
 Here this means that this will be deposited in court within 48 hours, therefore law enforcers
cannot retain the data on their own. They can only retain something for forensic analysis if they
have a court order.
4. RA 10591 (New Firearms Law)

- This took effect around June 2013.
 Firearm (definition)
Sec. 3 (L) Firearm refers to any handheld or portable weapon, whether a small arm or light weapon, that
expels or is designed to expel a bullet, shot, slug, missile or any projectile, which is discharged by means of
expansive force of gases from burning gunpowder or other form of combustion or any similar instrument or
implement. For purposes of this Act, the barrel, frame or receiver is considered a firearm.
 Classification of Firearms
(1) Small Arms
Sec. 3 (dd) Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use or that
which is generally considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired from the hand or shoulder, which
are not capable of fully automatic bursts of discharge, such as:
(1) Handgun which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand, which includes:
i) A pistol which is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or
permanently aligned with the bore which may be self-loading; and
ii) Revolver which is a hand-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder containing
chambers for individual cartridges.
(2) Rifle which is a shoulder firearm or designed to be fired from the shoulder that can discharge a
bullet through a rifled barrel by different actions of loading, which may be classified as lever,
bolt, or self-loading; and
(3) Shotgun which is a weapon designed, made and intended to fire a number of ball shots or a
single projectile through a smooth bore by the action or energy from burning gunpowder.
- Small arms are those weapons that can be fired from the hand or shoulder and are not capable of
fully automatic bursts of discharge
(2) Light Weapons

Sec. 3 (t) Light weapons are:

- Class-A Light weapons which refer to self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns,
assault rifles and light machine guns not exceeding caliber 7.62MM which have fully automatic
mode; and
- Class-B Light weapons which refer to weapons designed for use by two (2) or more persons
serving as a crew, or rifles and machine guns exceeding caliber 7.62MM such as heavy machine
guns, handheld underbarrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns,
portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket
systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than
100MM.
 Firearms that may be registered
Sec. 10 - Only small arms may be registered by licensed citizens or licensed juridical entities for ownership,
possession and concealed carry. A light weapon shall be lawfully acquired or possessed exclusively by the AFP,
the PNP and other law enforcement agencies authorized by the President in the performance of their duties:
Provided, That private individuals who already have licenses to possess Class-A light weapons upon the
effectivity of this Act shall not be deprived of the privilege to continue possessing the same and renewing the
licenses therefor, for the sole reason that these firearms are Class “A” light weapons, and shall be required to
comply with other applicable provisions of this Act.
- Only small arms can be allowed to be in the possession of individuals
- Class-A light weapons that were registered or granted to licensed individuals before this law may
continue to possess said weapons.
- Class-B light weapons are those used by the 2 or more persons, that’s why only the class-A light
weapons can be licensed in favor of private individuals
 Loose Firearms
- We don’t call it “unlicensed firearms” anymore because it’s not accurate. We don’t license the
firearms, we license the HOLDERS of the firearms
- We register the firearms; while we license the holders.
 What are loose firearms?
SEC. 3. (v) Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm
which has been lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of an
individual other than the licensee and those with revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and
regulations.
- “revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulation” means that there is a process to be
done before the license or registration is revoked.
- So a firearm holder with an expired license or with a registration that has not been renewed or
updated cannot be arrested yet because the firearm is not yet considered loose. It is only when either
the license or registration has been revoked that the firearm will be considered loose and the holder
may be considered to be committing an illegal act.
- An expired registration or license will not make the firearm loose
 Renewal
SEC. 19. Renewal of Licenses and Registration. – All types of licenses to possess a firearm shall be renewed
every two (2) years. Failure to renew the license on or before the date of its expiration shall cause the
revocation of the license and of the registration of the firearm/s under said licensee.
The registration of the firearm shall be renewed every four (4) years. Failure to renew the registration of
the firearm on or before the date of expiration shall cause the revocation of the license of the firearm.
The said firearm shall be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government after due process.

The failure to renew a license or registration within the periods stated above on two (2) occasions shall
cause the holder of the firearm to be perpetually disqualified from applying for any firearm license. The
application for the renewal of the license or registration may be submitted to the FEO of the PNP, within
six (6) months before the date of the expiration of such license or registration.
- Firearm registration must be renewed once every four years
- Firearm license must be renewed once every two years
 Permit to carry (PTC)
SEC. 7. Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence or Place of Business. – A permit to carry firearms
outside of residence shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP or his/her duly authorized representative to
any qualified person whose life is under actual threat or his/her life is in imminent danger due to the
nature of his/her profession, occupation or business.
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that his/her life is under actual threat by submitting a
threat assessment certificate from the PNP.
For purposes of this Act, the following professionals are considered to be in imminent danger due to the
nature of their profession, occupation or business:
(a) Members of the Philippine Bar;
(b) Certified Public Accountants;
(c) Accredited Media Practitioners;
(d) Cashiers, Bank Tellers;
(e) Priests, Ministers, Rabbi, Imams;
(f) Physicians and Nurses;
(g) Engineers; and
(h) Businessmen, who by the nature of their business or undertaking, are exposed to high risk of
being targets of criminal elements.
- If it involves PTC the penalty is only Prision Correccional thus cognizable by the MTC
- Even if a person has a license to possess the firearm and even if it is registered in his name, he is only
authorized to possess the same in his residence. He cannot carry it outside unless he also has another
permit which is the PTC. Failure to secure the permit to carry is also another crime
- Who can secure the PTC? Persons who can be considered endangered species as enumerated in the
law. These are considered as professionals considered to be in imminent danger
- Politicians not included in the enumeration
 Penal provisions
- Both license and registration must be secured. It must indicate the firearm as well as the person
authorized to possess it. If the licensee, Juan, is licensed to possess one 45 but not licensed to a
9mm, he is only a lawful holder of the 45 but not of the 9mm.
- If firearm is not registered or is illegally manufactured or the possessor is unlicensed then there is the
crime of illegal possession of a loose firearm. This is mala prohibita. Possession includes both actual
physical possession as well as constructive possession
- The law punishes not only the possession but also the sale, delivery, manufacture of a firearm
- All those crimes are now punished with at least Prision Mayor.
Section 28. Unlawful Acquisition or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:
a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;

b) The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if three (3) or more small
arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired or possessed by any person;
c) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light weapon;
d) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or
possess a Class-B light weapon;
e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs a) to (c) in this section shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the
following conditions:
1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as
thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
4) Accompanied with an extra barrel.
5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.
f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a small arm;
g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a small arm. If the violation of this paragraph is committed
by the same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the former
violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
h) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-A light weapon;
i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is
committed by the same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-A light
weapon; the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
j) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-B light weapon; and
k) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-B light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is
committed by the same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-B light
weapon, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter
Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

29.1 The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the
crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is
lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for the
crime charged: Provided further, that if the crime committed with the use of loose firearm is penalized by
the law with a maximum penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
29.2 If the violation of the law is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’état, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the
crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.

29.3 If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm; the violation of the law shall
be considered as a distinct and separate offense
- For possession of any kind of firearm, whether small arms or live weapons, PM is the minimum so
now all crimes involving possession of firearms are now cognizable with the RTC (penalty is more
than 6 years)
- However, penalty is one degree higher if a person unlawfully possesses any firearm under any or
combination of the following conditions:
1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as
thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
4) Accompanied with an extra barrel.
5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts
- Which means that even if the firearm is just a 22 or a 38 revolver, if there is ammunition in the barrel
the penalty will become reclusion temporal
- The penalty has been increased. It used to be that under PD 1866, the penalty was very high and that
was understandable because it was passed during martial law. The next law, RA 8294 was the output
of senator Revilla who came to the support of his friend Robin Padilla which resulted in a lower
penalty, now this new law effectively increases the penalty
- Forget about all the jurisprudence that you have learned under RA 8294
- Why? Because under those doctrines, SC said that when an unlicensed firearm or unregistered is used
in the commission of the crime, the illegal possession will be either absorbed (if we are talking about
murder, homicide, attempted coup de tat) or they are not absorbed in certain crimes but rather there
can be no more prosecution under 8294
- EXAMPLE: Juan uses a firearm in order to create alarms and scandals
o Under the old law, there will be charges for alarms and scandals and for the firearms, quits
na
o Now, when there is a firearm and it is inherent in the commission of another crime such as
alarms and scandals, the charges will now be for the alarms and scandals but the penalty for
that will be that of the firearm law. Which means that ordinarily, alarms and scandals is a
crime that is cognizable with the MTC but if the alarms and scandals is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm it will now be cognizable with the RTC.
o However in order to do that, there must be an allegation in the information that the alarms
and scandal was committed through the use of a loose firearm and preferably that the
evidence or corpus delicti which is the firearm itself should also be available. If it is a mere
allegation that the A&S was committed with the use of a loose firearm then that may not be
a case that is cognizable with the RTC but rather with the MTC
- Similar to the old law, the prosecution will be for the other crime but unlike the old law, the penalty
will not be for the other crime but would be for the graver offense of loose firearm
- If the penalty for the other crime is the same, the penalty of PM in its minimum shall be imposed in
addition (so two PM)
- Example: For alarms and scandal – PM; For frustrated homicide - PM (there will be two PM); For
homicide – RT only
- So kung mamatay ang victim, RT. If frustrated ra, duha ka PM. That is how it is.
- If the crime is homicide, there will only be one reclusion temporal.

Question ni Bing: Inaudible

Answer ni Mam: The word used in the law is not prescribed but IMPOSED. It would probably depend on the
penalty actually imposed by the court because the law does not say “prescribed”. Note that this is quite new.
 Under the firearms law, there can be plea bargaining which means that even if the charges are
for possession, there can be plea bargaining to the lower offense of PTC. So if you are being
charged for illegal possession, and the penalty is prision mayor, you can plea bargain to the lower
offense of PTC where the penalty is only prision correctional.
 If the violation of this law is in furtherance of or incidental to the crime of rebellion,
resurrection, or attempted coup d etat, the firearms shall be absorbed as an element of
rebellion and these crimes.
 Take note, it’s attempted. Only absorbed in attempted not in consummated. Also, take note that
there is no mention of sedition. If however, a crime is committed by a person and the firearm is
not inherent, then there will be TWO CRIMES.
In the Lajaalam Case, there was a search warrant and when they proceeded to search they found shabu as
well as firearms, under the old law SC said that since we already have the shabu then we cannot anymore
prosecute the firearms. However under the present law, there can be two separate crimes, one for the shabu and
another for the firearm, because the commission of firearm is not inherent in the commission of illegal possession
of drugs (shabu). Remember that in alarms and scandal, possession of firearms is inherent. So because inherent
sya, there will only be one crime but the penalty shall be that which carries the higher penalty. Alarms and scandal
committed with the use firearms will be filed in the RTC because loose firearm will always be at least Prision
Mayor.
For homicide the higher penalty is reclusion temporal. So it will be in the maximum because the effect of
the firearm is merely aggravating. However if the firearm is loaded with the ammunitions, in which case the same
na silag ug penalty kay ang firearm nahimo na siyag reclusion temporal so duha na sila ka reclusion temporal. The
law says that if the same na sila ug penalty there will be an additional prision mayor.
 Ex. Illegal possession of firearms committed during an election period. Here there are two crimes, one is
violation of the COMELEC gun ban and another is Illegal possession of firearm. You cannot commit
violation of the gun ban unless you have the gun which happens to be loose, in this case you can say that
the loose firearm is inherent in the commission of gun ban violation. Consequently, the crime will be
violation of gun ban. No more prosecution under RA 10591 because it is already inherent sa gun ban. But
because the gun ban was committed with the use of loose firearm, what will happen is that the penalty
for the gun ban violation will be the penalty under the loose firearm.
Let me go back to my statement earlier, you can actually commit gun ban without a firearm, because you can be
prosecuted for violation of gun ban even if you only have a bolo. Even if is it termed gun ban, it includes other
kinds of weapon ( sanggot ). So again, loose firearm is inherent sa gun ban, and the penalty will be that for the
loose firearm because it has a higher penalty.
Take note of the definition of firearm. A barrel is only a part of the firearm but under the definition it is already
considered as a firearm. There is another section which penalizes possession of a part of a firearm. These must be
parts of REAL firearms.
(l) Firearm refers to any handheld or portable weapon, whether a small arm or light weapon, that expels or is
designed to expel a bullet, shot, slug, missile or any projectile, which is discharged by means of expansive force of
gases from burning gunpowder or other form of combustion or any similar instrument or implement. For purposes
of this Act, the barrel, frame or receiver is considered a firearm.
(q) Imitation firearm refers to a replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially similar in coloration and
overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to believe that such imitation firearm is a
real firearm.

(f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
acquire or possess a major part of a small arm;
 Use of imitation firearm is already an offense if used in a commission of a crime. Ex. Nanulis ka using an
imitation firearm. Deemed committed using real firearm. So punishable ra sya if imong gamiton ang
imitation firearm in the commission of a crime.
 Possession of more than 3 loose firearms it can go as high as Reclusion Perpertua.
(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if three (3) or more small arms or
Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired or possessed by any person;
 Basta possession, pinaka ubos nana ang prision mayor.
(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
acquire or possess a small arm;
 Take note we do not have any more the term unlicensed firearm. It is now loose forearm. And there can
be two separate offenses that can be filed now. So it’s not always absorbed or aggravating.
5. Robbery w/ Homicide (Lifted from our Midterms Transcript)

Robbery with Homicide
- Unlike in kidnapping where the law mentions death or killing, in robbery with homicide, the law specifies
as homicide. That’s the reason why we cannot change the terms.
- It has to be robbery with homicide notwithstanding the fact that the homicide could be murder actually or
could be infanticide or could be parricide. It is always robbery with homicide because the law mentions
homicide.
- The law interprets “homicide” has a generic sense / application. Even if there are several homicides that
happened in one robbery, the crime would still be robbery with homicide and not robbery with multiple
homicide because the law itself specifies that the robbery is committed with homicide.
- You will see that in robbery and homicide, there is a need that there must be a consummated, either
robbery or the homicide, or both. If both are not consummated, there is no more special complex crime.
It is either robbery with homicide, or attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide.
- In robbery with homicide, if there is a shootout and it cannot be determined who killed the victim, then
the presumption is that the death resulted from the act of the accused.
- The law specifies that the homicide need not be the means of committing the robbery. Because the law
says that “if death occur on the occasion of robbery, the crime becomes special complex crime of Robbery
with Homicide.” Even if the homicide is not related to the robbery. BUT the main objective must be the
robbery.
- If the main objective is not the robbery, then we do not have a special complex. It is possible that we have
2 crimes of murder (because of evident premeditation) and theft (because if the robbery was supposed to
be accompanied with intimidation, the offender cannot anymore intimidate a dead person.) The
separation can only occur if the main objective was to kill. If the main objective was to rob, it does not
matter if there was a relation with the killing and the robbery.
Review: NO robbery with murder nor multiple homicide. Only Robbery with homicide.
All the other circumstances will only because ordinary aggravating circumstances.
In Robbery with Homicide, it is not necessary that the homicide is a means to commit robbery. It’s also
not necessary that the victim in the Robbery be the victim in the Homicide. It is even possible that the victim in the
Homicide is the co-robber. Also, if it could not be determined who killed the co-robber, it would still be Robbery
with Homicide. However, if the responding policemen were positively identified as the persons who killed the
robber, then the crime committed would only be Robbery.

In Robbery with Homicide, the main objective must be to rob. In the conspiracy theory in relation to Art.
8, if A B C agree to rob, they are not only liable for the robbery but also for any crime committed during the
robbery which are FORESEEABLE (eg. Homicide). In short, the conspiracy extends not only to the crime agreed
upon but also on the crime committed during such robbery which are FORESEEABLE.
6. RA 10640 (Amending Sec. 21 of RA 9165 Dangerous Drugs Act) Question specifically on Sec. 21
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640
AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002″
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, CONDUCT A PHYSICAL INVENTORY of the seized items and PHOTOGRAPH the same 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, WITH an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be CONDUCTED at the PLACE WHERE THE SEARCH WARRANT IS SERVED; OR at
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, WHICHEVER IS
PRACTICABLE, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team, shall NOT RENDER VOID and invalid such seizures and custody over said
items.
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said
examination and certification;
REQUIREMENT OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE UNDER THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
1. The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same.
 VENUE where the physical inventory and the photographing should be made:
i. WITH a search warrant:
 GR: At the very place where the search warrant was SERVED.
ii. WARRANTLESS searches (e.g. Buy-bust operation):
 GR: Must be done either at the nearest police station OR the nearest office of the
apprehending officer, whichever is PRACTICABLE.
o However, nothing prevents the police from conducting the inventory and
photograph at the very place where the items were seized.
 EXC in both situations: that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
(+) as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved

by the apprehending officer/team, = shall NOT render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.
o This does not include a situation where police would simply make an excuse
that neighbors or friends of the accused intervened during the search.
Especially when no action was done by the police on such intervention.
 There is also the requirement of MARKING the seized drugs by placing their initials and signature to
identify the seized items.
 WHEN should the marking be made: IMMEDIATELY after the seizure.
 Otherwise, the corpus delicti is compromised which could lead to the dismissal of the
case.
 WHERE should the marking be made: at the place of seizure.
 This is where the chain of custody starts, from the moment the items are seized and marked.
 This is to separate items especially when there are several violations filed against the accused eg.
possession and sale of illegal drugs. To make sure they are not co-mingled.
 The items seized from the sale of drugs must be separated with the items subject to the
possession for the drugs
 Failure to distinguish one from the other will result in acquittal because there is failure
to identify the corpus delicti.
 WHO should be photographed:
 The accused TOGETHER with the seized item.
2. In the presence of the:
i. accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel,
ii. any elected public official, AND
 tanods are not qualified to be a witness because he is not elected.
 Not necessarily an official of the place where the seizure took place.
iii. a representative from the media OR representative from the National Prosecution Service ,
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
 At what STAGE of the process are their PRESENCE required:
 During the inventory and photographing of the seized items.
3. Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
7. RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act) in general

WHAT ARE THE COMMON CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER RA No 9165?
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
 TN: Only Sale requires buy-bust money.
 The buy-bust money is not corpus delicti because it is the transaction and the thing which is the corpus
delicti.
 The transaction of sale can be proven by testimony. Remember that sale is perfected by mere consent.
That is why money is not a condition sine qua non to prove the sale of drugs.

Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort

 It should be a place where drugs are HABITUALLY used, possessed or sold.
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort.

 Imposed upon:
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is AWARE of the nature of the place as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is AWARE of
the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.
Section 8. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
Section 11. Possession [actual, physical, constructive] of Dangerous Drugs.
 Constructive possession simply means that even if you are not around when your house was raided, you
may still be held liable for possession of dangerous drugs because the house is under your CONTROL.
Thus, they are presumed to be yours as well.
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
 WHO IS LIABLE: Any person found possessing any dangerous drug
1. during a party, or
2. at a social gathering or meeting, or
3. in the PROXIMATE COMPANY of at least two (2) persons.
 TN: Regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.
Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
 Same element as Section 13.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act: [Does not
include POSSESSION]
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
 Does not include conspiracy to POSSESS.
 However, in one case, SC held: The wife, even if not the subject of a search warrant may be held liable for
conspiracy to possess (constructive possession) because she had ACCESS to the place where the shabu
was found. In short, she was found to be in possession as well.
8. RA 9995 (Anti Photo and Video Voyeurism Act)

Definition:

 Means the act of taking photos or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing the sexual
act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private or of capturing an image of the private
area of a person or persons without the latter’s consent, under circumstances in which such persons have
a reasonable expectation of privacy
First act:
 the act of taking
o you will see that, in the act of taking, the object must be persons performing sexual activity or
any similar activity or the private area of a person/s, without the latter’s consent
o Which means that if there is consent  there is no crime
o For the taking, the consent need not be written.
Q: So kung mo ingon ka nga mag picture picture mag nude in the public beach, is there a crime?
A: None. Because there was consent and it was a public beach.
o So if there is consent there is no crime.
o So if the act of taking was done in a public place there can be no violation of this law, because there
would be no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Second act:
 Is the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing, or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellphones or
other means or device, without the written consent of the person involved, notwithstanding that consent
to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person/s
For example, Hayden and Katrina, if there was consent given of the taking of the video, in that case, Hayden could
not be prosecuted under this law because of the consent. Who can be prosecuted? It is the person who posted it
in youtube or who distributed it without the written consent. Because this time, the consent has to be written. So
in order nga dli siya ma liable, kinahanglan og written consent, notwithstanding that there was consent in the
taking. But if there was consent, then the one who took the video was not criminally liable, but the one who
distributed would still be criminally liable
Object:
 The object should be the performance of act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private
area of a person such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast
without the consent of the persons involved and under circumstances in which the persons have
reasonable expectation of privacy
So if g hubo na siya sa public beach, niya e take iya picture, there is no violation. Because there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy
But if the photo is taken inside her room, by the use of a zoom lens, then there can be a crime, because the victim
was inside the room then there is a reasonable expectation of privacy
One of the elements of this crime is that there should be reasonable expectation of privacy. So if the picture was
taken in a public place, then the element is lacking. So that can be a defense of the accused.
How about the taking of the audio? What would apply there is wire tapping law. If it does not apply then unjust
vexation. Because this law is very specific for photo and video only.

Why photo and videos only? Since it is very identifiable.

In audios, you can always deny.
Q: Is the taking of a picture of a bikini clad woman in a beach and posting it on facebook a crime?
A: There are two acts here, the taking and the posting. In so far as the taking and the posting, and maka crime ani
kay what kind of beach of was it?
 If it was a public beach there will be no reasonable expectation of privacy
 In the case of the posting or broadcasting, even if there was consent to record or video but there has to
be written consent
Q: inaudible
A: Shangri-la is a public place because it caters to the public in general. Only the sense of security or accessibility.
Not the ownership na private kay beaches can’t be owned
Section 4 (D)
To publish or broadcast or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media
So the photo is not limited to digital photos, it could be printed photos.
Case of Disini vs SOJ

SC: if there is a violation of the child porn law, and the libel law, by the use of computer or internet, you cannot file
two cases, one under the RPC and another the cybercrime law
 So if there is libel on facebook, you have to choose whether to file under cybercrime law or under the
RPC. The same is true with child porn, you have to decide whether you will choose to file under the child
porn law or under cybercrime law. You cannot file separate cases, because that would be double jeopardy
 But SC emphasized that the pronouncement on double jeopardy, only applies to child porn and a libel. In
so far as other crimes are considered, they will cross the bridge when they get there. They will make the
pronouncement once there will be a case filed.
 You have to remember that when we talk about photos and videos and broadcasting, it is likely that the
broadcasting would be made in facebook or youtube, with the use of internet or computer.
o So if you are asked whether you can have a child who is made to pose in the computer, if there
can be a prosecution under RA 9775 (child porn) RA 9995 (photo and video voyeurism ) and
cybercrime law, you can give a definite answer as child porn and cybercrime because there is a
decided case,
o but in so far as photo and video voyeurism, you cannot give a specific answer, so you could say
that since the elements are different, then they can file two separate actions.
 because the only reason why the child porn cannot be filed file separately sa cybercrime is because in
cybercrime it adopts the same elements in child porn.
 But if you talk about photo and video voyeurism, it is different, the elements are different.
 For example, there is an element of reasonable expectation of privacy, or not all photo and video
voyeurism kay involved og computer, it could be in print and also it could be made from by taking a
picture of a cell phone and the cell phone is shown or personally or wala g transmit, it can be photo and
video voyeurism, it can also be an ordinary camera, which is not a computer

So you can argue in so far as the differences in the elements of the crime in this law from that of cybercrime or
child porn. But insofar as childporn and cybercrime you do not depart from the Supreme Court rule. Remember
that.
Q: From Generale…. (inaudible)

A: Yes, because it talks also about sexual activity and similar act. It does not limit to the sexual activity. It also
mentions similar activity.
Q: Implanted breasts of Transgenders?

A: It would only be female breasts.
Q: How about sharing links to download sites?

A: Because that would already be distributing.
Q: What about the act of streaming?

A: The streaming is the watching. The streaming might not be. What is punished is only the act of taking and the
act of distributing. The act of watching is not. Sharing would be distributing.
Q: What if nagdungan lang clag tan-aw?

A: That’s another, I would say, debatable thing because for example imu nang isalida that would be the same as
the sharing we are talking about. Kung imu nang pamultahan og P100, that would be sharing. So how different is it
kung naa koy video streaming unya akong gipakita sa akong migo. Probably that would also be sharing. Bu
streaming by yourself, there’s no problem. We don’t have an argument with that.
Q:
A: It would be the same. Sharing gihapon na siya. The sharing could even refer to copies, not the original. That’s
also sharing because you are making it available to others. Sharing is a punishable act.
Q: …In publishing?..…There is a screenshot How about the video, what if it’s pixelated or you blur the private
areas?
A: It must feature/show the image of the area or it’s either a part of a body and that part of a body is private. Or it
must refer to an act. So why am I saying this? Because even if the body part is pixelated but you can still see that
there was a sexual activity being done unya ang gi-pixelate kay kato ra nga portion that would still be a violation.
Q: From JP…
A: Depends on how. For example, so there was this Puerto Galera nga guests who were doing it on a beach. Of
course we do not apply this law because it was a public beach. Anyway, gi-cover ang body part sa 2 persons
involved. Gi-cover siya. Even if i-pixelate or imung i-cover, that will still convey to the viewer that they there doing
a sexual act. Because here what is prohibited is duha mana, “or”. It’s either the act or the body part. So even if the
body part is not distinguishable but the sexual act is still distinguishable then that would still be a crime. So it’s not
enough to cover the body part. That would only negate criminal liability if what was shared was not an activity but
the body part. So that if you pixelate it then you’re not anymore showing it.
Q: If we try to go back to the state policies…, it says that the state values…privacy……
A: But the thing with criminal laws is we talk about the element. It must be an image.
Educate me with this. When you pixelate do you still have an image? (Yes.) Okay. If you still have an image

regardless that it is kind of blurry, if you can still make out the image then there is a crime. But if by
blurring it you do not have anymore an image then there is no crime.
Because the element of the law is that

-it must show an image of this body part or this activity.
So how blur is it or how pixelated is it? If it is pixelated in a way that the viewer cannot anymore make out
an image of a private part or an activity then there is no crime.
Q: Sa taking, Ma’am?
A: Sa taking kay naa. But you see in the Hayden Kho case, if it’s true that Katrina was like posing before a camera
then you can say that there is consent because in the taking, the consent need not be in writing. So you can infer
consent from the fact that she’s posing before a camera. But if it’s like a candid shot wherein she was clearly
unaware that a video of her was being taken then you can say that there was no consent. (Act of posing is
construed to have given consent) Pero kanang mu-posing ka klaro kay nang naa kay consent so that even the
taking pwede dili ma-penalized because the consent would negate criminal liability.
Q: (Inaudible) Act of taking pictures of persons of unsound mind (BOANG) in the street?
A: Liable, because they’re considered children………. They are considered children so that would be child abuse.
Caselet:
Juan and his 16-year-old girlfriend agreed to have their sexual activity captured on video. Juan’s wife
got hold of the video. (I heard this was a real case involving lawyers and a prosecutor. Himo-himo ra ko
ni. Diri 16 ra.) and in her anger she posted the video on youtube.
What are the crimes committed by the wife?
The posting without consent is certainly a violation of R.A. 9995 and then child abuse because it is an act
that could cause trauma on the child so psychological abuse. And then it could either be childporn OR
cybercrime. And you could also add unjust fixation for example.
Exception(Sec. 6): Any peace officer who is authorized provided that he has a court order to use the record or any
copy as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation, or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism is of course
not liable. So he will still be using the photo or the video, he will be sharing it probably in court but he will not be
criminally liable provided that he has a court order. He should upon written application and the examination of
witnesses and so on and so forth. So that is an exception.
The written order shall only be issued or granted. (AGE)- Beda Notes
1. Upon written Application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the
witnesses he/she may produce; and
2. Upon showing that there are reasonable Grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been
committed or is about to be committed, and
3. That the evidence to be obtained is Essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or
prevention of such crime.
All questions from Generale (Inaudible)

Q:
A: The activity OR the body part.

Q:
A: That is a very subjective question as well because the act can still be punished under similar act. It need not be a
sexual act but a similar. If the act is similar it is punished.
Q:
A: I would say that similar is, like I said, a very subjective term. So similar means that it is not really sexual act. Now,
how similar is it to a sexual act would depend on a case-to-case basis. We cannot say that this is similar or this
should be similar. It would depend on the photo or the video. You cannot have a hardened pass rule if you have
something similar.
Q:
A: You have to seek a court order.
Summary of all prohibited acts:

Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar
activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act,
whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media,
or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.
Note: The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record
or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this
provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein.
"Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons
without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of
privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar
means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or
take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person's (Sec. 3[d]).
9. Book 1 – Please refer to Pre-Mid Transcript
10. RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)

Portions of the law which may be relevant.

SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. — The following terms as used in this Act shall be defined as follows:
xxx
(c) "Child" refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
xxx
(e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine laws.
xxx
(i) "Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment
of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational
background without resorting to formal court proceedings.
(j) "Diversion Program" refers to the program that the child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after
he/she is found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings.
xxx
(l) "Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to
commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling,
skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social
well-being.
SECTION 5. Rights of the Child in Conflict with the Law. — Every child in conflict with the law shall have the
following rights, including but not limited to:
xxx
(b) the right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment or life imprisonment, without the possibility of
release;
SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
SECTION 7. Determination of Age. — The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years
old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any
other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In
case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any
appropriate court may file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court
which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all
interested parties.

If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person
shall file a motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing
on the said motion, proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall
exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law.
SECTION 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. — If it has been determined that the child taken
into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has
the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence
thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development
officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having
custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take
custody, the child may be released to any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious
organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children-(BCPC); a local
social welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred to herein
has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by his
parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for
involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code".
From the Crim Team
BURDEOS, BONGHANOY, CADORNA, COROMINAS, ENTERA, EROJO,

GOCUAN, HONCULADA, OTERO, QUERUBIN, ROCHA, SEVILLA
Crim Team signing off. See you all next semester. One more sem to go. 

Crim Review Finals POINTERS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Review Finals POINTERS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 FINALS POINTERS

Issue: Whether or Not the accused is guilty of child abuse.

Held: Yes, the accused is guilty of child abuse.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 1

Sanchez vs People G.R. No. 179090. June 5, 2009

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 2

Bongalon vs People G.R. No. 169533. March 20, 2013

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 3

2. RA 9262 (Anti VAWC)

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 4

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 5

The non-referral of a VAWC case

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 6

There is no undue delegation of

RA 9262 only applies to the women and children.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 7

II. The classification is germane to the purpose of the law.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 8

3. RA 10175 (Anti Cybercrime)

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 9

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 10

PARTS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL OF CYBERCRIME LAW by DISINI:

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 11

3. Section 19 or the AUTOMATIC TAKE DOWN CLAUSE

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 12

above when taking down a site.

SEC. 16. Custody of Computer Data.

4. RA 10591 (New Firearms Law)

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 13

Sec. 3 (t) Light weapons are:

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 14

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 15

Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 16

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 17

Question ni Bing: Inaudible

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 18

5. Robbery w/ Homicide (Lifted from our Midterms Transcript)

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 19

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 20

7. RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act) in general

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 21

Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort

Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort.

8. RA 9995 (Anti Photo and Video Voyeurism Act)

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 22

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 23

Why photo and videos only? Since it is very identifiable.

Case of Disini vs SOJ

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 24

Q: From Generale…. (inaudible)

Q: Implanted breasts of Transgenders?

Q: How about sharing links to download sites?

Q: What about the act of streaming?

Q: What if nagdungan lang clag tan-aw?

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 25

Because the element of the law is that

All questions from Generale (Inaudible)

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 26

Summary of all prohibited acts:

9. Book 1 – Please refer to Pre-Mid Transcript

10. RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)