Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The omission or failure to include a voter’s judicial proceeding for its investigation and
name in the registry list of voters is not only punishment.
wrong because it is prohibited; it is wrong per The prescription shall be interrupted
se because it disenfranchises a voter and when proceedings are instituted against the
violates one of his fundamental rights. Hence, guilty person, and shall begin to run again if
for such act to be punishable, it must be shown the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
that it has been committed with malice. There constituting jeopardy.
is no clear showing in the instant case that the Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special
accused intentionally, willfully and maliciously acts shall be acts defining and penalizing
omitted or failed to include in the registry list of violations of the law not included in the Penal
voters the names of those voters. They cannot Code.
be punished criminally. Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on its
approval.
* the Revised Election Code, as far as its penal Approved: December 4, 1926
provisions are concerned, is a special law, it
being not a part of the RPC or its amendments. Panaguiton Jr vs Department of Justice
G.R. No. 167571
ACT 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH November 25, 2008
PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR
VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL Facts:
ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND
TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL Based from the facts culled from the records, in
BEGIN TO RUN 1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of
money amounting to P1,979,459.00 from
petitioner. On 8 January 1993, Cawili and his
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts
business associate, Ramon C. Tongson, jointly
shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
issued in favor of petitioner three (3) checks in
prescribe in accordance with the following
payment of the said loans. Significantly, all
rules:
three (3) checks bore the signatures of both
(a) after a year for offenses punished only by a Cawili and Tongson. Upon presentment for
fine or by imprisonment for not more than one payment on 18 March 1993, the checks were
month, or both; dishonored, either for insufficiency of funds or
(b) after four years for those punished by by the closure of the account. Petitioner made
imprisonment for more than one month, but formal demands to pay the amounts of the
less than two years; checks upon Cawili on 23 May 1995 and upon
(c) after eight years for those punished by Tongson on 26 June 1995, but to no avail.
On 24 August 1995, petitioner filed a
imprisonment for two years or more, but less
complaint against Cawili and Tongson for
than six years; and
violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg.
(d) after twelve years for any other offense 22) before the Quezon City Prosecutor's
punished by imprisonment for six years or Office. During the preliminary investigation,
more, except the crime of treason, which shall only Tongson appeared and filed his counter-
prescribe after twenty years. Provided, affidavit. However, Tongson claimed that he
however, That all offenses against any law or had been unjustly included as party-
part of law administered by the Bureau of respondent in the case since petitioner had lent
Internal Revenue shall prescribe after five money to Cawili in the latter's personal
years. Violations penalized by municipal capacity. Tongson averred that he was not
ordinances shall prescribe after two months. Cawili's business associate; in fact, he himself
(As amended by Act No. 3585 and by Act No. had filed several criminal cases against Cawili
3763, approved November 23, 1930.) for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Tongson denied
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the that he had issued the bounced checks and
day of the commission of the violation of the pointed out that his signatures on the said
law, and if the same be not known at the time, checks had been falsified.
from the discovery thereof and the institution of
1. The existence of the subject firearm; and firearm, explosive or ammunition for
possession by itself is not prohibited by law. In
2. The fact that the accused who owned or
the case of an explosive, a permit or license to
possessed it does not have the corresponding possess is usually granted to mining
license or permit to possess the same. corporations, military personnel and other
legitimate users. As the prosecution failed to
The latter is a negative fact, which discharge its burden of proving that appellant
constitutes an essential ingredient of the was not authorized to possess the grenade
offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty seized from his house, his acquittal for illegal
of the prosecution not only to allege it but also possession of explosive is inevitable (People
to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Cortez, 334 SCRA 334).
vs. Tiozon, GR 89823).
* Even if accused cannot explain why he
The testimony of a representative of,
possessed such firearm or explosive, since the
or a certification from the PNP-FEU that
burden is with the prosecution to prove the guilt
offender was not a licensee of the said firearm
of the accused and not vice versa, acquittal is
would suffice for the prosecution to prove
still in order under the system of criminal
beyond reasonable donut the second element
justice in this jurisdiction. To hold otherwise is
of the crime of illegal possession (People vs.
speculative, i.e., the court would be
Salayao, gr. No. 119220). The absence of the
speculating that the accused is not authorized
testimony or certification is fatal to the
to possess firearm, whereas what is required in
prosecution’s case and renders the conviction
conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
erroneous (Mallari vs. CA).
The philosophy behind this is the oft-quoted
principle that courts would rather free ten guilty
* the essence of the crime is the lack of license persons than convict and send to the dungeon
or permit to carry or possess firearm, one innocent individual. Hence, the rule is that
ammunition or explosive. Possession by itself all doubts must be construed in favor of the
is not prohibited by law. accused.
• Being favorable to the accused, this PEOPLE VS. LADJAALAM, G.R. NOS.
provision may be given retroactive effect 136149-51, September 19, 2000
pursuant to Article 22 of the RPC, he not being
The court expounded on the fourth
a habitual criminal (People vs. Bergante, GR
situation (above). Duly proved were the two
Nos. 120369-70, February 27, 1998).
elements of the crime of illegal possession of
firearms. Undoubtedly, the established fact that
APPLICABILITY OF INDETERMINATE
appellant had fired an M-14 rifle upon the
SENTENCE LAW
approaching police officers clearly showed the
The amendatory law has both
existence of the firearm or weapon and his
beneficial and prejudicial provisions thus its
possession thereof. Sufficing to satisfy the
applicability shall be either prospective or
second element was prosecution’s Certification
retroactive depending upon the effect on the
stating that he had not been given authority to
offender.
carry any outside his residence. Further, it
should be pointed out that his possession and
* In accordance with the doctrine regarding use of an M-14 rifle were obviously
special laws, People vs. Simon said that unauthorized because this weapon could not
although PD 1866 is a special law, penalties be licensed in favor or, or carried by, a private
therein were taken from the RPC hence the individual.
rules in said Code for graduating by degrees or The trial court was also correct in
determining the proper period should be convicting appellant of direct assault with
applied. multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found
* All pending cases involving illegal possession that the act of the accused of firing an M-14
of firearm should continue to be prosecuted rifle at the policemen who were about to enter
and tried if no other crime expressly indicated his house to serve a search warrant constituted
in RA 8294 is involved (murder or homicide such complex crime.
pursuant to Macoy, parricide); rebellion, If an unlicensed firearm is used in the
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’teat) commission of any crime, there can be no
(People vs. Lazaro). separate offense of simple illegal possession
of firearms. Hence, if the “other crime” is
POSSIBLE CRIMINAL LIABILITIES murder or homicide, illegal possession of
INVOLVING UNLICENSED FIREARMS: firearms becomes merely an aggravating
The use of unlicensed forearms carries the circumstance, not a separate offense. Since
following liabilities: direct assault with multiple attempted homicide
was committed in this case, appellant can no murder or homicide should now be considered
longer be held liable for illegal possession of simply as an aggravating circumstance and no
firearms, neither can it serve as an aggravating longer a separate offense. Therein, separate
circumstance. informations for murder, frustrated murder and
Moreover, penal laws are construed illegal possessions were filed, but the case
liberally in favor of the accused. In this case, eventually consolidated and jointly tried and
the plain meaning of the statute’s simple decided. The Molina ruling however is NOT
language is most favorable to herein appellant. APPLICABLE where the cases filed were all
Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for the separately tried. Hence, the evidence as to the
language of the new law demonstrates the homicide and frustrated homicide cases were
legislative intent to favor the accused. neither adopted nor presented before the trial
Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of court trying the illegal possession case. For
two separate offenses of illegal possession of this reason, there is a dearth of evidence to
firearms and direct assault with attempted support the finding of homicide and.or
homicide or murder. Since the crime committed frustrated homicide in the illegal possession
was not murder or homicide, illegal possession case. Accordingly, conviction should not only
of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating be for simple possession of firearms (People
circumstance. vs. Nunez, 2001).
There is no justification for limiting the
proviso in the second paragraph to murder and
homicide. The law is clear: the accused can be PADILLA VS. CA, GR NO 121917, March 12.
convicted of simple illegal possession of 1997
firearms, provided that “no other crime was Padilla contents that he could not be
committed by the person arrested.” If the convicted of violating PD 1866 because he is
intention of the law in the second paragraph an appointed civilian agent authorized to
were to refer only to homicide and murder, it possess and carry the subject firearms and
should have expressly said so, as it did in the ammunition as evidenced by a Mission Order
third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not (MO) and Memorandum Receipt (MR) duly
distinguish, neither should the courts. issued by the PNP deputy commander of Task
The ruling effectively exonerates Force Aguila, Lianga, Surge del Sur.
appellant of illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, The contention lacks merit.
an offense which normally carries a penalty In crimes involving illegal possession
heavier than that for direct assault. While the of firearms, two requisites must be established,
penalty for illegal possession of M-14 rifle is viz:
prison mayor, for direct assault it is only prison (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and
correctional. Indeed, the accused may evade
conviction for illegal possession of firearms by (2) The fact that the accused who owned or
using such weapons in committing an even possessed the firearm does not have the
lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight corresponding license of permit to possess.
physical injuries, both of which are punishable The first element is beyond dispute as
by arresto menor. This consequence, however, the subject firearms and ammunitions were
necessarily arises from the language of RA seized from Padilla’s possession via a valid
8294, whose wisdom is not subject to judicial warrantless search, identified and offered in
review. Any perception that the result reached evidence during trial. As to the second
here appears unwise should be addressed to element, the prosecution convincingly proved
Congress. Indeed the Court has no discretion the same. Indeed, Padilla’s purported MO and
to give statutes a new meaning detached from MR are inferior in the face of the more
the manifest intendment and language of the formidable evidence for the prosecution as the
legislature. Its task is constitutionally confined MO and MR were afterthoughts contrived and
only to apply the law/jurisprudence to the facts. issued under suspicious circumstances.
Padilla failed to produce and present
PEOPLE VS. MOLINA, 292 SCRA 742 (1998) the MO and MR if they were really issued and
The court held that the use of an existing before his apprehension. His
unlicensed weapon in the commission of alternative excuses that the subject firearms
were intended for theatrical purposes, or that private firm, company, corporation or entity,
they were owned by the Presidential Security who shall willfully or knowingly allow:
Group, or that his MO and MR were left at a. Any of the firearms owned by such
home, further compound their irregularity. As to entities to be used by any person found
be reasonably expected, an accused claiming guilty of no. 1 above; or
innocence would grab the earliest opportunity
to present the MO and MR in question and
b. The use of unlicensed firearms or
save himself from the long and agonizing firearms without any legal authority to
public trial and spare him from proffering be carried outside of residence in the
inconsistent excuses. course of their employment.
The authenticity and validity of the 3. Any person who shall carry any licensed
MO and MR, moreover, were ably firearm outside his residence without legal
controverted. Police Supt. Direness denied authority therefor.
under oath his signature on the dorsal side of 4. Any person who shall unlawfully
the MO and declared further that he did not manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire,
authorize anyone to sign in his behalf. His dispose, or possess hand grenade, rifle
surname thereon was glaringly misspelled as grenade, and other explosives or other
“Durembes”. In addition, only Unit incendiary device capable of producing
Commanders and Chief of Offices have the destructive effect on contiguous objects for
authority to issue MO and MR under the causing injury or death to any person;
guidelines on the Issuance of MOs, MRs and
PCFORs. The PNP supt. Who issued Padilla’s
5. The owner, president, manager, director or
MO and MR is neither a Unit Commander nor other responsible officer of any public or
the Chief of Police, but merely a deputy private firm, company, corporation or entity
commander. Having emanated from an who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the
unauthorized source, the MO and MR are explosives owned by such entities to be used
infirm and lacking in force and effect. Besides, by any person found guilty of no. 4 above.
the MO covers “Recom 1-12 Baguio City” areas
outside the issuer’s area of responsibility PRESUMPTIONS IN THE LAW
needing prior approval “by next higher 1. Presumption of illegal manufacture of
Headquarters” which is absent in this case. firearms or ammunition by mere possession of
The MR is also unsupported by a certification any machinery, tool or instrument used directly
as required by the March 5, 1988 in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
Memorandum of the Secretary of Defense. 2. Presumption of unlawful manufacture of
explosives by mere possession of any
OTHER OFFENDERS OF THE LAW machinery, tool or instrument directly used in
1. Any person who shall unlawfully the manufacture of explosives by any person
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose or whose business or employment does not
possess: lawfully deal with the manufacture of
a. Any low-powered firearm, part of explosives.
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool
or instrument used or intended to be
used in the manufacture of any firearm
or ammunition
b. Any high powered firearm and lesser
calibered firearms but considered
powerful such as rimfire handgun, .380
or .32 and other firearms with firing
capability of full automatic and by burst
of two or three
2. The owner, president, manager, director or
other responsible officer of any public or
C.A. NO. 142 - REGULATING THE USE OF original name and all names or aliases or
ALIASES as amended by R.A. NO. 6085 pseudonym he is or may have been authorized
to use.
Sec. 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for
literary, cinema, television, radio or other Sec. 4. Six months from the approval of this act
entertainment purposes and in athletic events and subject to the provisions of section 1
where the use of pseudonym is a normally hereof, all persons who have used any name
accepted practice, no person shall use any and/or names and alias or aliases different
name different from the one with which he was from those authorized in section one of this act
registered at birth in the office of the local civil and duly recorded in the local civil registry,
registry, or with which he was baptized for the shall be prohibited to use such other name or
first time, or, in case of an alien, with which he names and/or alias or aliases.
was registered in the bureau of immigration
upon entry; or such substitute name as may Sec. 5. Any violation of this Act shall be
have been authorized by a competent court: punished with imprisonment of from one year
Provided, That persons, whose births have not to five years and a fine of P5,000 to P10,000.
been registered in any local civil registry and
who have not been baptized, have one year Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its
from the approval of this act within which to approval, and all Acts, rules or regulations of
register their names in the civil registry of their laws inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed
residence. The name shall comprise the
patronymic name and one or two surnames.
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS:
Sec. 2. Any person desiring to use an alias ART. 379. The employment of pen names or
shall apply for authority therefor in proceedings stage names is permitted, provided it is done in
like those legally provided to obtain judicial good faith and there is no injury to third
authority for a change of name, and no person persons. Pen names and stage names cannot
shall be allowed to secure such judicial be usurped.
authority for more than one alias. The petition
for an alias shall set forth the person's ART. 380. Except as provided in the preceding
baptismal and family name and the name article, no person shall use different names
recorded in the civil registry, if different, his and surnames.
immigrant's name, if an alien, and his
pseudonym, if he has such names other than RATIONALE FOR LAW:
his original or real name, specifying the reason The enactment of CA 142 as
or reasons for the use of the desired alias. The amended was made primarily to curb the
judicial authority for the use of alias the practice among the Chinese of adopting scores
Christian name and the alien immigrant's name of different names and aliases which created
shall be recorded in the proper local civil tremendous confusion in the field of trade.
registry, and no person shall use any name or Such a practice almost bordered on the crime
names other, than his original or real name of using fictitious names which for obvious
unless the same is or are duly recorded in the reasons cannot be successfully maintained
proper local civil registry. against the Chinese who rightly or wrongly
claim they possessed a thousand and one
Sec. 3. No person having been baptized with a names. CA No 142 thus penalized the act of
name different from that with which he was using an alias unless the use of such alias was
registered at birth in the local civil registry, or in duly authorized by proper juridical proceedings
case of an alien, registered in the bureau of and registered in the civil register.
immigration upon entry, or any person who
obtained judicial authority to use an alias, or RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
who uses a pseudonym, shall represent CA NO 142 is a penal statute. It
himself in any public or private transaction or should be construed strictly against the State
shall sign or execute any public or private and in favor of the accused. The reason for this
document without stating or affixing his real or principle is the tenderness of the law for the
rights of the individuals and the object is to An individual can make use of a
establish a certain rule by conformity by which second name without infringing upon the law in
mankind would be safe and the discretion of the following instances:
the court limited. One cannot rest easy on the 1. As a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,
proposition that the petitioner should be television, radio or other entertainment
convicted on a law that does not clearly purposes and in athletic events where the use
penalize the act done by him. There exists a of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice;
valid presumption that undesirable
consequences were never intended by a
2. When the use of the second name or alias
legislative measure and that a construction for is judicially authorized and duly recorded in the
which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, proper local civil registry;
indefensible, wrongful, evil and injurious 3. The use of a fictitious name or a different
consequences (Ursua vs. CA, April 10, 1996). name belonging to a single person in a single
instance without any sign or indication that the
WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN ALIAS? user intends to be known by this name in
ALIAS- is a name or names used by a person addition to his real name from that day forth.
or intended to be used by him publicly and
habitually usually in business transactions in
addition to his real name by which he is
registered at birth or baptized the first time or
substitute name authorized by a competent
authority.
A man’s NAME is simply the sound or
sounds by which he is commonly designated
by others and by which they distinguish him but
sometimes a man is known by several different
names and these are known as aliases.
Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a
different name belonging to a single person in
a single instance without any sign or indication
that the user intends to be known by this name
in addition to his real name from that day forth
does not fall within the prohibition contained in
CA 142.
Oscar Perez is not an alias name of
petitioner. There is no showing that he had
used or intends to use that name as his second
name or in addition to his real name. The use
of the name Oscar Perez was an isolated
transaction where he is not even required to
expose his real identity. For, even if he had
identified himself properly at the Office of the
Ombudsman, petitioner would still be able to
get a copy of the complaint as a matter of right,
and the Office of the Ombudsman could not
refuse him because the complaint was part of
the public record hence open to inspection and
examination by anyone under the proper
circumstances. (Id).
4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire original provision under Art. 323 of the RPC
insurance policy more than two fires have which regarded burning of property less than
occurred in the same or other premises owned P25 as malicious mischief was expressly
or under the control of the offender and/or repealed by PD 1613. This will also affect Art.
insured. 332 on exemption of certain relatives from
5. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion criminal liability for the crimes dealt therein are
of the effects insured and stored in a building theft, estate and malicious mischief. Therefore,
or property had been withdrawn from the there is no exemption from criminal liability of
premises except in the ordinary course of relatives for arson of property under P25.00.
business.
6. If a demand for money or other valuable * Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable
consideration was made before the fire in in prosecutions for felonies and
exchange for the desistance of the offender or offenses. CORPUS DELICTI is the
for the safety of the person or property of the body or substance of the crime. It
victim. refers to the fact that a crime has been
Section 7. Conspiracy to commit Arson. actually committed. CORPUS
Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished DELICTI is the fact of the commission
by Prision Mayor in its minimum period. of the crime that may be proved by the
Section 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The testimonies of witnesses. In murder,
building which is the object of arson including the fact of death is the corpus delicti.
the land on which it is situated shall be In arson, the corpus delicti rule is
confiscated and escheated to the State, unless generally satisfied by proof of the bare
the owner thereof can prove that he has no occurrence of the fire and of its having
participation in nor knowledge of such arson been intentionally caused, and the
despite the exercise of due diligence on his uncorroborated testimony of a single
part. eyewitness, if credible, may be enough
Section 9. Repealing Clause. The provisions of to prove the corpus delicti and to
Articles 320 to 326-B of the Revised Penal warrant conviction.
Code and all laws, executive orders, rules and
regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with
* Under Art. 320 of the Code as well as
PD no. 1613, if a person impelled by a
the provisions of this Decree are hereby
single criminal impulse burned several
repealed or amended accordingly.
buildings, the crime is not distinct
Section 10. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
arsons but one crime of destructive
effect immediately upon publication thereof at
arson akin to a continued crime on
least once in a newspaper of general
delito continuado.
circulation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 7th day of
ELEMENTS OF ARSON UNDER SECTION 3
March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
OF PD 1613 ARE:
hundred and seventy-nine.
1. There is intentional burning; and
DEFINITION, NATURE AND ELEMENTS 2. What is intentionally burned is an inhabited
ARSON is the destruction of property by house or dwelling (People vs. Agguihao, GR
means of fire or pyrotechnic materials. In No. 104725, March 10, 1994).
arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally
satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the * Even if offender burned his own
fire and of its having been intentionally caused. property if the burning was made
Even if the whole house has not been under circumstances which exposed
completely gutted by the fire, the crime is still the property or life of another to
consummated arson. It is enough that a portion danger, arson is committed (Section 1,
thereof is shown to have been destroyed par. 2, PD No. 1613). Even if the
(People vs. Gutierrez). owners of properties burned are
different. There is only one crime of
As long as fire or pyrotechnic is used arson.
to destroy any property it is arson because the
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The special aggravating circumstance
of spite under section 4(3) of the decree, that
the offender have been motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner or occupant of the
property, should not be appreciated where it
appears to be more of impulse, heat of anger
or risen temper rather than real spite or hatred
that impelled the accused to give vent to his
wounded ego.
PD 1613 pronounces as guilty of
arson any person who deliberately burns
another person’s property, wherever located.
The circumstance that the property burned is
located in an urban, congested or populated
area qualifies the offense and converts it into
“destructive arson” punishable under Sec. 2(7)
of the law, by reclusion temporal in its max to
reclusion perpetual. On the other hand, Sec.
4(4), the circumstance that the perpetrator of
the arson is a criminal syndicate serves as a
special aggravating circumstance.
P.D. NO. 1689 - INCREASING THE PENALTY Section 2. This decree shall take effect
FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF SWINDLING OR immediately.
ESTAFA DONE in the City of Manila, this 6th day of
April, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
WHEREAS, there is an upsurge in the and eighty.
commission of swindling and other forms of
frauds in rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang
nayon (s)", and farmers' associations or CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ( life imprisonment to
corporations/associations operating on funds death) FOR SYNDICATED ESTAFA;
solicited from the general public; RECLUSION TEMPORAL to PERPETUA if the
WHEREAS, such defraudation or amount of the fraud exceeds P100,000.00.
misappropriation of funds contributed by
stockholders or members of such rural banks, “In the instant case, a syndicate
cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", or perpetrated the Ponzi scheme. The evidence
farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by shows that at least five persons x x x
corporations/associations from the general collaborated, confederated and mutually
public, erodes the confidence of the public in helped one another in directing the
the banking and cooperative system, foundation’s activities” (People vs. Balasa,
contravenes the public interest, and constitutes G.R. No. 106357, September 3, 1998).
economic sabotage that threatens the stability
of the nation; ELEMENTS:
WHEREAS, it is imperative that the resurgence 1. Commission of estafa or other forms of
of said crimes be checked, or at least swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of
minimized, by imposing capital punishment on the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
certain forms of swindling and other frauds
2. by a syndicate consisting of five or more
involving rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang
persons formed with the intention of carrying
nayon(s)", farmers' associations or
out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
corporations/associations operating on funds
enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation;
solicited from the general public;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. 3. Which results in the
MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by defraudation/misappropriation of
virtue of the powers vested in me by the a. funds contribute by members or
Constitution, do hereby decree and order as stockholders of:
follows:
i. Rural banks
Section 1. Any person or persons who shall
commit estafa or other forms of swindling as ii. Cooperatives
defined in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised iii. “samahang nayons” or
Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by
iv. Farmers’ associations; or
life imprisonment to death if the swindling
(estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting b. Funds solicited by
of five or more persons formed with the corporations/associations from the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal general public.
act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of TWO OTHER ‘INGREDIENTS’ (not really
money contributed by stockholders, or elements of the crime):
members of rural banks, cooperative, 1. Erodes confidence of the public in the
"samahang nayon(s)", or farmers association, banking and cooperative system, contravenes
or of funds solicited by the public interest; and
corporations/associations from the general
2. Constitutes economic sabotage that
public.
threatens the stability of the nation.
When not committed by a syndicate as above
defined, the penalty imposable shall be
“ECONOMIC SABOTAGE; PREAMBLE OF
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the
STATUTE:
amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.
The two other “ingredients” added by return to early investors, thereby inducing more
appellants to constitute the cime of economic investors to place their money with him in the
sabotage under PD 1689 have been taken from false hope of realizing this same extravagant
the “whereas” clause or preamble of the law. A rate of return themselves. This was the very
preamble is not exactly an essential part of an same scheme practiced by the Panata
act as it is an introductory or preparatory Foundation (People vs. Balasa, G.R. No.
clause that explains the reason for the 106357, September 3, 1998).
enactment, usually introduced by the word
“whereas.” x x x
Assuming arguendo that the preamble
was part of the statute, appellants’ contention
that they should not be held criminally liable
because it was not proven that their acts
constituted economic sabotage threatening the
stability of the nation remains too flimsy for
extensive discussion. As the preamble of PD
1689 shows, the act prohibited therein need
not necessarily threaten the stability of the
nation. It is sufficient that it “contravenes public
interest.” Public interest was affected by the
solicitation of deposits under a promise of
substantial profits, as it was people coming
from the lower income brackets who were
victimized by the illegal scheme (People vs.
Balasa, G.R. No. 106357, September 3, 1998).
B.P. 22 - AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING when refusing to pay the same to the holder
OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A thereof upon presentment, to cause to be
CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR written, printed, or stamped in plain language
CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for
and ESTAFA under Art. 315 No. 2(d), RPC drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same:
Provided, That where there are no sufficient
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such
Any person who makes or draws and issues fact shall always be explicitly stated in the
any check to apply on account or for value, notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions
knowing at the time of issue that he does not under this Act, the introduction in evidence of
have sufficient funds in or credit with the any unpaid and dishonored check, having the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written
full upon its presentment, which check is thereon or attached thereto, with the reason
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie
for insufficiency of funds or credit or would evidence of the making or issuance of said
have been dishonored for the same reason had check, and the due presentment to the drawee
not the drawer, without any valid reason, for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that
ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be the same was properly dishonored for the
punished by imprisonment of not less than reason written, stamped or attached by the
thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by drawee on such dishonored check.
a fine of not less than but not more than double Not with standing receipt of an order to stop
the amount of the check which fine shall in no payment, the drawee shall state in the notice
case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or that there were no sufficient funds in or credit
both such fine and imprisonment at the with such bank for the payment in full of such
discretion of the court. check, if such be the fact.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any Section 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit"
person who, having sufficient funds in or credit as used herein shall be construed to mean an
with the drawee bank when he makes or draws arrangement or understanding with the bank
and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient for the payment of such check.
funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal
amount of the check if presented within a Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be
period of ninety (90) days from the date without prejudice to any liability for violation of
appearing thereon, for which reason it is any provision of the Revised Penal Code.
dishonored by the drawee bank. Section 6. Separability clause. - If any
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, separable provision of this Act be declared
company or entity, the person or persons who unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall
actually signed the check in behalf of such continue to be in force.
drawer shall be liable under this Act. Section 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect
Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of fifteen days after publication in the Official
insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and Gazette.
issuance of a check payment of which is Approved: April 3, 1979.
refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when ART. 315 NO. 2(d), RPC:
presented within ninety (90) days from the date ELEMENTS:
of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of 1. That the offender postdated a check, OR
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or issued a check in payment of an obligation
credit unless such maker or drawer pays the 2. That such postdating or issuing a check was
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or
done when the offender had no funds in the
makes arrangements for payment in full by the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
drawee of such check within (5) banking days
sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.
Section 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - * The issuance by the offender of
It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, the check (whether postdated
* There is a prima facie evidence NOTE: While the written notice of dishonor and
of deceit when the drawer fails demand is not an element in the violation of BP
to pay or make arrangement for 22, the failure to give such notice to the maker,
payment three days after drawer or issuer of the bouncing check is
receiving notice of dishonor FATAL to an action to hold the latter criminally
liable.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BP 22)
OFFENSES PUNISHED: The full payment of the amount appearing in
the check within FIVE BANKING DAYS from
A. Making or Drawing and issuing a check notice of dishonor is a “complete defense”
knowing at the time of issue that he does not against BP 22. The absence of a notice of
have sufficient funds. dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an
ELEMENTS: opportunity to preclude criminal prosecution.
1. That a person makes or draws and issues Accordingly, procedural due process clearly
any check to apply on account or for value enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually
served on the maker, drawer, or issuer of the
2. That the person knows that at the time of
check. He has a right to demand that the notice
issue he does not have sufficient funds or of dishonor be actually sent to and received by
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of him to afford him the opportunity to avert
such check upon its presentment prosecution under BP 22 (Lina Lim Lao vs.
3. That the check is subsequently dishonored People, GR No. 119178, June 20, 1997).
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the B. Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the
same reason had not the drawer, without any full amount of the check.
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop ELEMENTS:
payment.
1. That a person has sufficient funds with the
REQUISITES FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY drawee bank when he makes or draws and
UNDER BP 22: issues a check
act from which the order might arise did not liable for any criminal, civil or administrative
exist. liability resulting therefrom (section 34).
have actually feared imminent harm from her the violence “spirals out of control” and leads to
batterer and honestly believed in the need to an acute battering incident.
kill him in order to save her life. X x x Unlawful
aggression is the most essential element of (2) The Acute Battering Incident
self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden - Characterized by brutality, destructiveness
and unexpected attack—or an imminent and sometimes, death. The battered woman
danger thereof—on the life or safety of a deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also
person. In the present case, however, inevitable.
according to the testimony of Marivic herself, - During this phase, she has no control; only
there was a sufficient time interval between the the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its
unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack nature can be as unpredictable as the time of
upon him. She had already been able to its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending
withdraw from his violent behavior and escape it.
to their children’s bedroom. During that time, - The battered woman usually realizes that she
he apparently ceased his attack and went to cannot reason with him, and that resistance
bed. The reality or even the imminence of the would only exacerbate her condition.
danger he posed had ended altogether. He - At this stage, she has a sense of detachment
was no longer in a position that presented an from the attack and the terrible pain, although
actual threat on her life or safety. X x x The she may later clearly remember every detail.
aggression if not continuous, does not warrant Her apparent passivity in the face of acute
self-defense. In the absence of such violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer
aggression, there can be no self-defense— is almost always much stronger physically, and
complete or incomplete—on the part of the she knows from her past painful experience
victim. Thus, Marivic’s killing of Ben was not that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering
completely justified under the circumstances. incidents are often very savage and out of
(People of the Philippines V. Marivic Genosa control, such that innocent bystanders or
G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004) intervenors are likely to get hurt.