SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES Page 2 of 32

[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8 BRAVO BASTE!

Revised Penal Code (RPC - BOOK I) Exception: Article 2 of the RPC provides the five
instances where the provisions of the RPC may
FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES be enforced even outside the Philippine territory.
IN CRIMINAL LAW
3. Prospectivity – A penal law cannot make an
Distinguish Crimes Mala in Se and Mala act punishable when it was not punishable in a
Prohibita manner in which it was not punishable when
committed.
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita Exception: Penal laws shall have retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of
Crimes which are Crimes which are felony, who is not a habitual offender. (Art. 22,
wrong from their wrong merely because RPC)
nature. it is prohibited by
statute. The provision of the RPC may be applied
Serious in their Violations of mere outside the Philippine jurisdiction against those
effects on society as rules of convenience who:
to call for almost designed to secure a
unanimous more orderly 1. Should commit an offense while on a
condemnation of its regulation of the Philippine ship or airship;
members. affairs of the society. 2. Should or counterfeit any coin or
Intent governs. Intent is not currency note of the Philippine Islands
necessary. or obligations and securities issued by
Good faith may be Good faith is not a the Government of the Philippine
used as defense. defense. Islands;
Stages of execution Stages of execution 3. Should be liable for acts connected with
of the crime (i.e. are always the introduction into these Islands of the
Consummated, consummated to be obligations and securities mentioned in
Frustrated and penalized. the preceding number;
Attempted) are 4. While being public officers or
appreciated. employees, should commit an offense in
Degree of All actors to the crime the exercise of their functions;
participation (i.e. are considered as 5. Should commit any of the crimes
Principal, Accomplice Principals. against national security and the law of
and Accessory of the nations, define in Title One of Book Two
accused is of the RPC. (Art. 2, RPC)
considered in
determining the FELONIES
penalty to be
imposed. Q: May a crime be committed without
criminal intent?
The Three Main Characteristics of Criminal
Law: A: Yes, a crime may be committed without
criminal intent in cases of crimes committed
1. Generality – Under Article 14 of the Civil through culpa and mala prohibita.
Code, “penal laws and those of public security
and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live Felonies are classified as follows:
or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and treaty A. According to Manner or Mode of Execution
stipulations. (Art. 3, RPC)
Exception: Laws of preferential application
1. Dolo or Intentional Felonies – The act is
2. Territoriality – Criminal laws undertake to performed with deliberate intent. Thus, there is
punish crimes committed within Philippine deceit or malice.
territory. Thus, penal laws of the Philippines are 2. Culpa or Culpable Felonies – There is fault
enforceable only within its territory. when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
3. Omission – Failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do.
B. According to Stages of Execution (Art. 6,
RPC)
1. Consummated – It is consummated when all
the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
2. Frustrated – It is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
3. Attempted – There is attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all
the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
C. According to Gravity (Art. 9, RPC)
1. Grave Felonies – Those which the law
attaches capital punishment or penalties which
in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC.
2. Less Grave Felonies – Those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional, in accordance with Art.
25, RPC.
3. Light Felonies – Those infractions of law for
the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both, is provided.
Impossible Crime
Q: What is an Impossible Crime?
A: An Impossible Crime is an act performed by
any person which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means. (Art. 4, No. 2, RPC)
Q: Buddy always resented his classmate,
Jun. One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get the poison, he approached
another classmate, Jerry, to whom he
disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself
harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry
gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed
Page 3 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
on Jun’s food. However, Jun did not die
because unknown to both Buddy and Jerry,
the poison was actually a powdered milk.
What crime/s, if any, did Jerry and Buddy
commit? (1999 BAR QUESTION)
A: Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called
Impossible Crime. In other words, the act done
with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy would
have constituted a crime against persons were it
not for the inherent inefficacy of the means
employed. (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)
Q: Charlie hated his classmate, Brad,
because the latter was assiduously courting
Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a
veterinarian and asked for some poison on
the pretext that it would be used to kill a very
sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to
use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian
mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder,
which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did not
kill Brad. Did Charlie commit any crime? If
so, what and why? If not, why not? (2009
BAR QUESTION)
A: Charlie committed an Impossible Crime of
Murder. His act of mixing the non-toxic powder
with Brad’s food, done with intent to kill, would
have constituted Murder, which is a crime
against persons, had it not been for the
employment of means which, unknown to him, is
ineffectual. (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)
Continuing Crime
Q: What is a Continuing Crime?
A: Continuing Crime is a series of acts arising
from one criminal resolution or intent not
susceptible of division. (Philippine Law
Dictionary, Moreno)
Q: Angelo devised a Pozi Scheme in which
500 persons were deceived into investing
their money upon a promise of a capital
return of 25%, computed monthly, and
guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the
first two months following the investment,
the investors received their profits, but
thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was
charged with 500 counts of Estafa and 2,000
counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends
that he committed a continued crime, or
delito continuado, hence, he committed only
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES Page 4 of 32
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8 BRAVO BASTE!

one count of Estafa and one count of for committing the

violation of BP 22. Is Angelo’s contention other offense or
tenable? (2009 BAR QUESTION) offenses.
The penalty for the Only one penalty is
A: No, his contention is not tenable. He most serious crime specifically prescribed
committed as many count of Estafa against the shall be imposed and for all the component
500 victims and 200 count of violation of BP 22, in its maximum period. crimes which are
since such swindling is achieved through distinct regarded as one
fraudulent machinations contrived at different indivisible offense.
time or dates, and in different amounts.
Moreover, his drawing of separate checks Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
payable to each payee is a separate criminal
resolution, as they must be of different amounts Q: What are the elements of Self-defense?
and of different dates. He acted with separate
fraudulent intent against each swindling and A: The elements of Self-defense are:
issuing said check. It cannot be maintained that (1) Unlawful aggression;
his acts are the product of one criminal (2) Reasonable necessity of the means
resolution only. employed to prevent or repel it; and
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
Complex Crimes and Composite Crimes of the person defending himself. (Art.
11, No. 1, RPC)
Q: What constitutes a Complex Crime? How
many crimes maybe involved in a complex Q: Who are the relatives that may be
crime? What is the penalty therefor? (1999 defended under Art. 11, No. 2, and what are
BAR QUESTION) the elements of defense of a relative?

A: A Complex Crime is constituted when a A: Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
single act caused two or more grave or less rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
grave felonies or when an offense is committed or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
as a necessary means to commit another sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the same
offense. At least two (2) crimes are involved in a degrees, and those by consanguinity within the
complex crime; either two or more grave or less fourth civil degree, provided that unlawful
grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an aggression and reasonable necessity of the
offense is committed as a necessary means for means employed to prevent or repel such
committing another. The penalty for the more unlawful aggression are present, and further
serious crime shall be imposed and in its requisite, in case the provocation was given by
maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC) the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein. (Art. 11, No. 2, in
Distinguish between an Ordinary Complex relation to No. 1, RPC)
Crime and a Special Complex Crime as to
their Concepts and as to the Imposition of Q: May a person also be justified in
Penalties. (2003 BAR QUESTION) defending another person who is not his
relative under Art. 11, No. 2, but only a mere
Ordinary Complex Special Complex stranger?
Crime Crime
It is made up of two or It is made up of two or A: Yes. It is justified for anyone who acts in
more crimes being more crimes which are defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
punished in distinct considered only as provided that unlawful aggression and
provisions of the RPC components of a single reasonable necessity of the means employed to
but alleged in one indivisible offense prevent or repel it are present and that the
information either being punished in one person defending be not induced by revenge,
because they were provision of the RPC. resentment or other evil motive. (Art. 11, No. 3,
brought about by a in relation to No. 1, RPC)
single felonious act or
because one offense
is a necessary means
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Q: What are the two classes of Mitigating
Circumstances?
A: The two classes are Ordinary Mitigating
which can be offset by aggravating
circumstances and which, if present, tends to
reduce the penalty by periods; and Privileged
Mitigating which cannot be offset by any
aggravating circumstance and which if present
tends to reduce the penalty by degrees.
Q: What are kinds of Aggravating
Circumstances?
A: The kinds of aggravating circumstances are
as follows:
1. Specific – Those that apply to some particular
crimes like disregard of respect due the
offended party on account of rank, sex or age
which are applicable only to crimes against
persons or honor. Ignominy applies only to
crimes against chastity; cruelty which applies
only to crimes against persons.
2. Generic – Those which generally, can be
applied to all offenses like dwelling, recidivism,
in consideration of price, reward or promise.
3. Inherent – those which are necessarily
accompany or inherent in the commission of the
crime like evident premeditation in theft or
robbery.
4. Qualifying – those which if attendant, alter or
change the nature of the crime increasing the
penalty, such as by means of poison, with aid of
armed men in killing persons or grave abuse of
confidence which makes stealing one of
qualified theft. These circumstances however
must be alleged to make them qualifying.
Q: Define Alternative Circumstances.
A: Those circumstances which must be taken
into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime
and other conditions attending its commission.
(Art. 15, RPC)
The Alternative Circumstances are:
1. Relationship of the offender and the
offended party
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of instruction and education of
the offender (Art. 15, RPC)
Page 5 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Q: Define Absolutory Causes and give
examples.
A: Absolutory Causes are those where the
actors are granted freedom from charge or
immunity from burden for reasons of public
policy and sentiment even if their acts constitute
a crime. The examples are:
1. Accessories with respect to spouse,
ascendants, descendants, brothers and
sisters or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees except those falling
under par. 1 of Art. 19. (Art. 20, RPC)
2. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances under Art
247, RPC.
3. Any person who shall enter another’s
dwelling for the purpose of preventing
some serious harm to himself, the
occupants of the dwelling, or a third
person, or any person who shall enter a
dwelling for the purpose of rendering
some service to humanity or justice, or
anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns,
inns, and other public houses, while the
same are open, under par. 3 of Art. 280
of the RPC.
4. In case of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually
by spouses, ascendants and
descendants or relatives by affinity in
the same line, and brothers and sisters
and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law if
living together. (Art. 332, RPC)
5. Instigation, where the actor otherwise
innocent, was induced by a public officer
to commit the crime such that the latter
himself becomes a principal by
inducement or by indispensable
cooperation.
Q: Is Entrapment an Absolutory Cause?
A: No. In Entrapment, ways and means are
resorted to by the authorities to trap and capture
the actor, already a law-breaker, in the
execution of his criminal activities, i.e. buy-bust
operations. (People v. Nicolas, G.R. No.
110116, February 11, 1985)
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Persons Liable and Degree of Participation
The following are considered Principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the
execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce
others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission
of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been
accomplished. (Art. 17, RPC)
Accomplices are those persons who, not being
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution
of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
(Art. 18, RPC)
Accessories are those who, having knowledge
of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals
or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the
crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
the escape of the principals of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse
of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is
known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime. (Art. 19, RPC)
Q: What are the distinctions of a Conspirator
and an Accomplice? (2007 BAR QUESTION)
A: First, an Accomplice incurs criminal liability
by merely cooperating in the execution of the
crime without participating as a principal, by
prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a
Conspirator participates in the commission of a
crime as a co-principal.
Second, an Accomplice incurs criminal liability in
an individual capacity by his act alone of
cooperating in the execution of the crime; while
a Conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for
his individual acts in the execution of the crime
Page 6 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
but also for the acts of the other participants in
the commission of the crime collectively.
Third, an Accomplice participates in the
execution of a crime when the criminal design or
plan is already in place; whereas a Conspirator
participates in the adoption or making of the
criminal design.
Fourth, an Accomplice is subjected to a penalty
one degree lower than that of a Principal;
whereas a Conspirator incurs the penalty of a
Principal.
Conspiracy and Proposal
A Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
(Art. 8, par. 2, RPC)
There is Proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
(Art. 8, par. 3, RPC)
Conspiracy and Proposal to commit Felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor. (Art. 8,
RPC)
Multiple Offenders
Q: Distinguish between Recidivism and
Reiteracion.
A: First, Recidivism requires that the two
offenses be embraced in the same title of the
RPC while Reiteracion requires that the offenses
must not be embraced in the same title.
Second, in Recidivism, it suffices that there has
been a final judgment rendered in the first
offense while Reiteracion requires that the
offender shall have served out his sentence for
the first offense.
Lastly, Recidivism is always appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance while Reiteracion not
necessarily so as when the application of the
same would result to the imposition of death
penalty even if the previous offenses committed
were only crimes against property.
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Q: Who is a Habitual Delinquent?
A: A Habitual Delinquent is one who, within a
period of ten years from the date of his last
release or last conviction of the crimes of (1)
Serious Physical Injuries, (2) Less Serious
Physical Injuries, (3) Robbery, (4) Estafa or
Swindling, and (5) Falsification, is found guilty of
any of said crimes a third time of oftener.
Q: When shall the ten year period be
counted?
A: The starting point of the ten year period shall
be the defendant’s last conviction or last
release.
Q: Distinguish between Habitual Delinquency
and Recidivism.
A: First, The crimes in Habitual Delinquency are
specified, while those in Recidivism shall be
embraced in the same title of the Code.
Second, in Habitual Delinquency, the offender
must have been found guilty of any of the
specified crimes within ten years from his last
release or conviction, such is not required in
Recidivism.
Third, in Recidivism, a second conviction is
sufficient while in Habitual Delinquency, accused
must be found guilty a third tie or oftener.
Fourth, if not offset, Recidivism raises the
penalty to the maximum whereas Habitual
Delinquency imposes additional penalty.
Q: What is Quasi – Recidivism?
A: Quasi – Recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance where a person, after having been
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new
felony before beginning to serve such sentence,
or while serving the same.
Q: What is the difference between Quasi –
Recidivism and Reiteracion?
A: Reiteracion requires that the offender against
whom it is considered shall have served out of
his sentences for the prior offenses. Such is not
required in Quasi – Recidivism. (People vs.
Layno, G.R. No. L-25177, Oct. 31, 1969)
Page 7 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829)
Q: What are the acts punished under P.D. No.
1829?
A: The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to
6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension
of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by committing any
of the following acts: (PAH-PDM-STG)
a. Preventing witnesses from testifying in
any criminal proceeding or from
reporting the commission of any offense
or the identity of any offender/s by
means of bribery, misrepresentation,
deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
b. Altering, destroying, suppressing or
concealing any paper, record,
document, or object, with intent to impair
its verity, authenticity, legibility,
availability, or admissibility as evidence
in any investigation of or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be
used in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
c. Harboring or concealing, or
facilitating the escape of, any person
he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any
offense under existing penal laws in
order to prevent his arrest prosecution
and conviction;
d. Publicly using a fictitious name for
the purpose of concealing a crime,
evading prosecution or the execution of
a judgment, or concealing his true name
and other personal circumstances for
the same purpose or purposes;
e. Delaying the prosecution of criminal
cases by obstructing the service of
process or court orders or disturbing
proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
f. Making, presenting or using any
record, document, paper or object
with knowledge of its falsity and with
intent to affect the course or outcome of
the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
g. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to
accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discounting, or
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
impeding the prosecution of a criminal
offender;
h. Threatening directly or indirectly
another with the infliction of any
wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in
order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or
imposing a condition, whether lawful or
unlawful, in order to prevent a person
from appearing in the investigation of or
in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
i. Giving of false or fabricated
information to mislead or prevent the
law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from
the data gathered in confidence by
investigating authorities for purposes of
background information and not for
publication and publishing or
disseminating the same to mislead the
investigator or to the court. (Sec. 1, P.D.
No. 1829)
PENALTIES
Republic Act No. 9346 – An Act Prohibiting
the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines
In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be
imposed:
(a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua, when
the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the
RPC; or
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment, when
the law violated does not make use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the
RPC. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 9346)
A person convicted of offenses punished
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will
be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of
this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended. (Sec. 3, R.A. No.
9346)
Page 8 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Q: Does the absence of this phrase signal
the eligibility of a person imposed with
reclusion perpetua to apply for parole?
A: No, said person is still not eligible to apply for
parole because the penalty imposed upon him is
reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty. Parole
is extended only to those convicted of divisible
penalties. In cases where the death penalty is
not warranted, there is no need to use the
phrase “without eligibility for parole “to qualify
the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is
understood that convicted persons penalized
with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for
parole. (A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC)
Classification of Penalties
Duration and Effect of Penalties
1. Reclusion Perpetua – 20 yrs. and 1 day to
40 yrs.
2. Reclusion Temporal – 12 yrs. and 1 day to
20 yrs.
3. Prision Mayor and Temporary
Disqualification – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.,
except when the penalty of disqualification is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
case its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
4. Prision Correccional, Suspension, and
Destierro – 6 mos. And 1 day to 6 yrs.,
except when suspension is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case, its
duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
5. Arresto Mayor – 1 mo. and 1 day to 6 mos.
6. Arresto Menor – 1 day to 30 days
7. Bond to keep the peace – The period during
which the bond shall be effective is
discretionary on the court. (Art. 27, RPC)
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103,
as amended)
Q: State the rule in determining the minimum
and maximum terms of penalties in crimes
punished by the Revised Penal Code and by
specials laws, respectively, in accordance
with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
A: When the crime is punishable under the
RPC, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in the view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
imposed under the Rules of the RPC, the
minimum term of which shall be within the range
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
the Code for the offense (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103,
As Amended). Meanwhile, when the crime is
punishable under a special law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate
penalty, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum term shall not be less than the
minimum prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, Act
No. 4103, As Amended).
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not
applicable to the following:
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished
with the death penalty or life
imprisonment;
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy
or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who violated the terms and
conditions of conditional pardon granted
to them by the Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one
year; those who, upon approval of the
law, had been sentenced by final
judgment; and those sentenced to the
penalty of destierro or suspension.
Three – Fold Rule
Q: What is the Three – Fold Rule? When
does the rule apply?
A: According to the Three – Fold Rule, the
maximum duration of the convict’s sentence
shall not be more than three times the length of
time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him. The Three – Fold
Rule applies only when the convict has to serve
at least four sentences. (Reyes, pp. 69 – 70,
2012 ed.)
Graduation of Penalties
In lowering the penalty, the penalty prescribed
by the RPC for the crime is the basis, without
Page 9 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
regard to the mitigating or aggravating
circumstances which attended the commission
of the crime. It is only after the penalty next
lower in degree is already determined that the
mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances
should be considered. (Reyes, p. 726, 2012 ed.)
P.D. No. 968 – Probation Law, as amended;
and R.A. No. 9344 – Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act, as amended
In view of the latest amendment to Section 4 of
the Probation Law that “no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected an appeal from the
judgment,” prevailing jurisprudence treats
appeal and probation as mutually exclusive
remedies because the law is unmistakable about
it. (Maruhom vs. People, G.R. No. 206513,
October 20, 2015)
Q: Who are the offenders disqualified from
being placed on probation?
A: The benefits of PD 968 as amended shall not
be extended to the following:
1. Those sentenced to serve a maximum
term of imprisonment of more than six
years;
2. Those convicted of subversion or any
crime against the national security or
public order;
3. Those who were previously convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one
month and one day and/or a fine of not
more than two hundred pesos;
4. Those who have been denied once on
probation under the provisions of the
Decree; and
5. Those who were already serving
sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of the Decree became
applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 of the
same Decree.
Criminal and Civil Liabilities
Q: What is the effect of the death of the
accused pending appeal on his criminal and
civil liability?
A: As a general rule, the death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
his criminal liability as well as his civil liability
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
based solely on the offense committed.
However, when the claim for civil liability may
also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict, the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of the
accused. (People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007,
September 2, 2004)
Civil Liabilities in Criminal Cases
Q: What are the civil liabilities established in
Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of the RPC?
A: The civil liability established in Articles 100,
101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
(a) Restitution;
(b) Reparation of the damage caused;
(c) Indemnification for consequential
damages. (Art. 104, RPC)
REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK II)
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
AND LAWS OF NATIONS
Piracy
Q: What are the two modes of committing
Piracy?
A: The two modes of committing piracy are:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the
high seas or in the Philippines; and
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the
high seas or in the Philippine waters the
whole or part of its cargo, its equipment
or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers. (Art. 122,
RPC)
Elements:
1. That a vessel is on the high seas or in
Philippine waters;
2. That the offenders are not members of
its complement or passengers of the
vessel; and
3. That the offenders:
(a) Attack or seize that vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of the
cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or personal
Page 10 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
belongings of its complement or
passengers.
Q: When is Piracy qualified?
A: Art. 123 provides that Piracy or Mutiny is
qualified if any of the following circumstances is
present:
1. whenever the offenders have seized the
vessel by boarding or firing upon the
same;
2. whenever pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving
themselves; or
3. whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries, or
rape.
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS OF THE STATE
Arbitrary Detention
The three (3) ways of committing Arbitrary
Detention are:
1. By detaining or locking up a person without
any legal cause or ground therefore purposely to
restrain his liberty (Art. 124, RPC).
Elements:
(1) The offender is a public officer or
employee;
(2) That he detains a person; and
(3) That the detention is without legal
grounds.
2. By delaying delivery to the proper judicial
authority of a person lawfully arrested without a
warrant (Art. 125, RPC)
Elements:
(a) That the offender is a public officer or
employee;
(b) That he has detained a person for some
legal ground;
(c) That he fails to deliver such person to
the proper judicial authorities within:
i. Twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; or
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES Page 11 of 32
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8 BRAVO BASTE!

ii. Eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or office, with or without

offenses punishable by correctional civilian participation
penalties, or their equivalent; or may commit.
iii. Thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their Assault
equivalent.
Q: What are the two ways of committing the
3. By delaying the release of a prisoner whose Crime of Direct Assault?
release has been ordered by competent
authority (Art. 126, RPC) A: The two ways of committing the crime of
Direct Assault are:
Elements:
(1) Without public uprising, by employing
(a) That the offender is a public officer or force or intimidation for the attainment
employee; of any of the purpose enumerated in
(b) That there is a judicial or executive defining the crimes of rebellion and
order for the release of a prisoner or sedition;
detention prisoner, or that there is a (2) Without public uprising, by attacking, by
proceeding upon a petition for the employing force, or by seriously
liberation of such person. resisting any person in authority or any
(c) That the offender without good reason of his agents, while engaged in the
delays: performance of official duties, or on the
occasion of such performance.
i. The service of the notice of such
order to the prisoner; or Q: Lydia, upon learning that Gemma, a public
ii. The performance of such judicial or school teacher, called her son a sissy,
executive order for the release of slapped the latter in the cheek and pushed
the prisoner; or her, thereby causing her to fall and hit a wall
iii. The proceedings upon a petition for divider. After that, Gemma continued to
the release of such person suffer abdominal pains. Upon consulting
with a doctor, it was discovered that she had
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER suffered an incomplete abortion. Is Lydia
liable for Direct Assault?
Distinguish Rebellion from Coup d’ etat
A: Yes, the case of Lydia falls under the second
Rebellion Coup d’ etat mode of Direct Assault, which is the more
There is public uprising Public uprising is not common form of assault. Its elements are:
and taking up arms necessary.
against the 1. That the offender (a) makes an attack,
Government. (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious
The purpose is to Purpose is to seize or intimidation, or (d) makes a serious
remove from the diminish the state resistance;
allegiance of the powers. 2. That the person assaulted is a person in
Philippines, the whole authority or his agent;
or any part of the 3. That at the time of the assault, the
Philippines, or any person in authority or his agent (a) is
military or naval engaged in the actual performance of
camps, deprive the official duties, or (b) that he assaulted
Chief Executive or by reason of the past performance of
Congress from official duties;
performing their 4. That the offender knows that the one he
functions. is assaulting a person in authority or his
Any person may Any person belonging agent in the exercise of his duties; and
commit. to the military or police 5. That there is no public uprising.
or holding public
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES Page 12 of 32
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8 BRAVO BASTE!

Under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, a CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Person in Authority includes teachers,
professors, and persons charged with the Grave Scandal
supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and university. Hence, public Elements:
school teachers are one of the officers referred
to under the second mode of Direct Assault. (1) that the offender performs an act or
(Gelig v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. acts;
173150, July 28, 2010, Del Castillo, J.) (2) that such act or acts be highly
scandalous as offending against
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST decency or good customs;
(3) that the highly scandalous conduct is
Perjury not expressly falling within any other
article of this Code; and
Q: Can a conviction for Perjury be obtained (4) that the act or acts complained of be
by the mere showing of inconsistent or committed in a public place or within the
contradictory statements of the accused? public knowledge or view. (Art. 200,
What are its elements? RPC)

A: No, a conviction for perjury cannot be Criminal Laws that deal with Prostitution:
obtained by the prosecution by merely showing
the inconsistent or contradictory statements of (1) RPC;
the accused, even if both statements are sworn. (2) Cybersex under the Cybercrime
The deliberate falsehood must be proven by Prevention Act;
evidence other than the contradictory (3) Child Prostitution under R.A. No. 7610
statements. Proof of contradictory testimonies or the Child Abuse Law, and
under oath will not be sufficient to establish the (4) Prostitution under Human Trafficking Act
falsity of his testimony charged as perjury as the (R.A. No. 9208)
two statements will simply neutralize each other.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS
Under Art. 183 of the RPC, the elements of
perjury are: Bribery

(1) there must be a sworn statement that is Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery
required by law; Public Officer receives Public Officer receives
(2) it must be made under oath before a a gift. a gift.
competent officer; There is an agreement No such agreement
(3) the statement contains a deliberate between the public exists.
assertion of falsehood; and officer and the giver of
(4) the false declaration is with regard to a the gift or present.
material matter. (Masangkay vs. The offender agrees to It is not necessary that
People, G.R. No. 164443, June 18, perform or performs an the officer should do
2010, Del Castillo, J.) act or refrains from any particular act or
doing something, even promise to do an
Falsification because of the gift or act, as it is enough
promise, that he accepts gifts
Q: Is damage or intent to cause damage an offered to him by
element in Falsification under Article 172 of reason of his office,
the RPC?
There is Qualified Bribery if the following
A: No, it is not an element in Falsification under elements are present:
Article 172 of the RPC. Under the same article, if
the falsified document is used in judicial (1) that the offender is a public officer
proceeding, the element of damage is not entrusted with law enforcement;
required. However, if it is used in non-judicial (2) that the offender refrains from
proceeding, damage is an element. arresting or prosecuting an offender
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death;
(3) that the offender refrains from
arresting or prosecuting the offender
in consideration of any promise, gift,
or present.
Q: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao
Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) to
a poseur-buyer. Cao shih, through an
intermediary, paid Patrick, the evidence
custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry
Section, the amount of P500, 000 in
consideration for the destruction by Patrick
of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the
drug. State with reasons whether Patrick
committed the following crimes:
(a) Direct Bribery
(b) Indirect Bribery
(c) Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
(d) Obstruction of Justice under Presidential
Decree No. 1829 (2005 BAR QUESTION)
A: Patrick committed the crimes of Direct
Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC, Violation
of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), and Obstruction
of Justice under Section 1 (b) of PD No. 1829.
(a) Direct Bribery was committed by Patrick
when, for a consideration of P500,000.00, he
committed a violation of PD 1829 by destroying
the drugs which were evidence entrusted to him
in his official capacity.
(b) Indirect Bribery is not committed because he
received the P500,000.00 as consideration for
destroying the evidence against the offender,
which was under his official custody as a public
officer. The money was not delivered to him
simply as a gift or present by reason of his
public office.
(c) Patrick also violated Section 3 (e), R.A. No.
3019 causing undue injury to the government
through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted
benefit to the offender by destroying evidence of
a crime.
(d) Obstruction of Justice under Section 1 (b) of
P.D. No. 1829 is committed by the destruction of
Page 13 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
evidence intended to be used in official
proceedings in criminal case.
Malversation
The following are the acts punishable in
Malversation:
(1) by appropriating public funds or
property;
(2) by taking or misappropriating the same;
(3) by consenting, or through abandonment
or negligence, permitting any other
person to take such public funds or
property;
(4) by being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of
such funds or property.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Parricide
Elements:
(1) that a person is killed;
(2) that the deceased is killed by the
accused;
(3) that the deceased is the father, mother,
or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse, of the spouse.
In Parricide, if the victim is his parent or child,
the relationship can either be legitimate or
illegitimate; if the victim is the spouse,
grandparent or grandchild, the relationship must
be legitimate. (People vs. Gamez, GR No.
202847, October 23, 2013; People v. Sales,
G.R. No. 177218 October 3, 2011, Del Castillo,
J.) Relationship in Parricide is by blood except
where the victim is a spouse. The qualifying
circumstance of relationship in Parricide is
personal. Hence, it can be appreciated against
the wife but not against a co-conspirator, who is
not related to her husband, the victim. (People
vs. Bucsit G.R. No. 17865, March 15, 1992)
Homicide
Elements:
(1) that a person was killed;
(2) that the accused killed him without
any justifying circumstance;
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
(3) that the accused had the intention to
kill, which is presumed;
(4) that the killing was not attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that parricide or
infanticide.
Q: When does Article 247 or Death under
Exceptional Circumstances apply?
A: To be considered under these circumstances,
sexual intercourse must always be present. The
wife must be surprised in the act of sexual
intercourse or thereafter. The sexual intercourse
cannot be presumed or dispensed with.
Q: What must be proved by the Prosecution
in Robbery with Homicide?
A: To sustain a conviction for Robbery with
Homicide, the prosecution must prove the
following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property
belonging to another;
(2) with intent to gain;
(3) with the use of violence or intimidation
against a person; and
(4) on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used
in the generic sense, was committed.
Robbery must be the central purpose
and objective of the malefactor and the
killing is merely incidental to the
robbery. (People v. Baron, G.R. No.
185209, June 28, 2010, Del Castillo,
J.)
Q: How is intent to kill presumed?
A: Intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon
used by the offender and the parts of the victim’s
body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown
by the wounds inflicted. Hence, when a deadly
weapon, like a bolo, is used to stab the victim in
the latter’s abdomen, the intent to kill can be
presumed. (Roque vs. People, G.R. No.
193169 April 6, 2015, Del Castillo, J.)
Page 14 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness
Q: Can a tongue be considered as an object
for the purpose of committing Rape through
Sexual Assault?
A: Yes, a tongue, in the act of cunnilingus,
touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
should also be considered as already
consummating the crime of Rape through
Sexual Assault, not the crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness. (Ricalde vs. People, G.R. No.
211002, January 21, 2015)
In Rape through Sexual Intercourse (Organ
Rape or Penile Rape), there must be evidence
to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
perpetrator’s penis touched the labia of the
victim or slid into her female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, to
ensure his conviction of rape by sexual
intercourse. (People vs. Gaduyon, G.R. No.
181473 November 11, 2013, Del Castillo, J.)
In Rape by Sexual Assault, the perpetrator
commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person. It is also called
"instrument or object rape", also "gender-free
rape", or the narrower "homosexual rape".
(People vs. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473
November 11, 2013, Del Castillo, J.)
Q: When is the Doctrine of Absorption
applicable in cases of Rape?
A: If the accused commits Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness, the latter is absorbed by the
former. (People vs. Dy, G.R. Nos. 115236-37,
January 29, 2002) The doctrine of absorption is
not applicable to rape through sexual assault.
Inserting a lighted cigarette into the genital
orifice and anal orifice of the victim and raping
her constitutes two counts of rape by sexual
assault and rape through sexual intercourse.
(People vs. Crisostomo, GR No. 196435,
January 29, 2014, J. Del Castillo, J.) Inserting
the penis into the mouth of the victim and into
her genital orifice constitutes rape through
sexual assault and organ rape. (People vs.
Espera, G.R. No. 202868, October 02, 2013)
If the crime charged is Rape, but the crime
proven is Acts of Lasciviousness, the accused
will be convicted of the latter because of the
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Variance Rule. Acts of Lasciviousness is a
lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the
charge of rape. If the crime charged is Rape
through Sexual Intercourse, but the crime
proven is Rape through Sexual Assault, the
accused cannot be convicted of the latter. The
Variance Rule is not applicable since Rape
through Sexual Assault is not necessarily
included in the charge of Rape through Sexual
Intercourse. The elements of these two crimes
are materially and substantially different. In such
case, the accused will be convicted of Acts of
Lasciviousness, which is necessarily included in
the charge of Rape through Sexual Intercourse
(People vs. Pareja, GR No. 202122, January
15, 2014; People vs. Cuaycong, G.R. No.
196051, October 02, 2013; People vs. CA,
G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015)
Q: Does failure of the victim to offer
tenacious resistance such as shouting mean
that the victim voluntarily submitted herself
to be raped?
A: Among the amendments of the law on rape
introduced under R.A. No. 8353 is Section 266-
d, which provides “any physical overt act
manifesting resistance against the act of rape in
any degree from the offended party, or where
the offended party is so situated as to render
her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may
be accepted as evidence in the prosecution
rape.” (People vs. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924,
March 14, 2012) There is no standard form of
behavioral response when one is confronted
with a strange or startling or frightful experience.
Not every rape victim can be expected to act
conformably to the usual expectation of
everyone. Some may shout, some may faint;
and some may be shocked into insensibility;
while other openly welcome the intrusion.
Physical resistance is immaterial in a rape case
when the victim is sufficiently intimidated by her
assailant and she submits against her will
because of fear of her personal safety. (People
v. Madeo, G.R. No. 176070, October 2, 2009,
Del Castillo, J.). Well-settled is the rule that
where the victim is threatened with bodily injury,
as when the rapist is armed with a deadly
weapon, such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo,
such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring
the victim to submission to the lustful desires of
the rapist (G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011,
People v. Dumadag, Del Castillo, J.)
Page 15 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Q: AAA had a drinking session with Tionloc
and a certain Meneses. During the drinking
session, she claimed to be dizzy and took a
nap. She woke up to Meneses having carnal
knowledge with her. However, AAA claimed
that it was Tionloc who asked her if she can
also have sex after Meneses. She further
claimed that she was afraid because there
was a knife lying on the table. Tionloc denied
the allegations. Is Tionloc guilty of the crime
of rape?
A: No, Tionloc is not guilty of the crime of Rape
as there was no proof of actual use of force,
threat or intimidation implemented to
consummate the rape. Force is an element of
rape which is sufficient to consummate the
purposes which the accused had in mind. On
the other hand, intimidation must produce fear
that if the victim does not yield to the bestial
demands of the accused, something would
happen to her at the moment or even thereafter
as when she is threatened with death if she
reports the incident. Intimidation includes the
moral kind as the feat caused by threatening the
girl with a knife or pistol. A knife lying nearby
which could be utilized to kill her if she resisted
is not sufficient, the fear is mere product of one’s
imagination. The knife which was placed nearby
must precisely be used to threaten or intimidate
her. (People v. Tionloc, G.R. No. 212193,
February 15, 2017, Del Castillo, J.)
In the case of People v. Albalate, (G.R. No.
174480 December 18, 2009, Del Castillo, J.,)
the Court reiterated the following guidelines set
forth in People v. Pruna, in appreciating the age,
either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifying circumstance:
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the
offended party is an original or certified
true copy of the certificate of live birth of
such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
similar authentic documents such as
baptismal certificate and school records
which show the date of birth of the victim
would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic
document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim’s mother or a member of the family
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of
birth of the offended party pursuant to
section 40, rule 130 of the rules on
evidence shall be sufficient under the
following circumstances:
A. If the victim is alleged to be below
3 years of age and what is sought
to be proved is that she is less
than 7 years old;
B. If the victim is alleged to be below
7 years of age and what is sought
to be proved is that she is less
than 12 years old;
C. If the victim is alleged to be below
12 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is
less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
authentic document, or the testimony of
the victim’s mother or relatives
concerning the victim’s age, the
complainant’s testimony will suffice
provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of
proving the age of the offended party.
The failure of the accused to object to the
testimonial evidence regarding age shall
not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a
categorical finding as to the age of the
victim.
Q: What is Maria Clara Doctrine?
A: In People vs. Amarela, (G.R. Nos. 225642-
43, January 17, 2018, the Maria Clara
Doctrine or the “Women’s Honor” Doctrine
was used in assessing the credibility of a rape
victim. Under the doctrine, it is a well-known fact
that women, especially Filipinos, would not
admit that they have been abused unless that
abuse had actually happened. This is due to
their natural instinct to protect their honor.
However, the doctrine was not applied in this
case, while the factual setting back then would
have been appropriate to say it is natural for a
woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual
Page 16 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the
Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and
reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away
from such mindset and accept the realities of a
woman's dynamic role in society today; she who
has over the years transformed into a strong and
confidently intelligent and beautiful person,
willing to fight for her rights. Thus, in assessing
the credibility of a rape victim, the Maria Clara
standard should not be used. The testimony of
the victim must be evaluated without gender
bias or cultural misconception. It is important to
weed out the Maria Clara notions because an
accused may be convicted solely on the
testimony of the victim.
The following elements must concur:
(1) accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman;
(2) achieved by means of force, threat or
intimidation; and
(3) by reason of such carnal knowledge,
the accused killed the woman. Bot rape
and homicide must be established
beyond reasonable doubt. (Diega v.
CA, G.R. no. 173510, March 15, 2010,
Del Castillo, J.)
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY
Illegal Detention
Q: When is there Illegal Detention?
A: There is Illegal Detention when there is
deprivation of liberty. There is deprivation of
liberty if the victim was left in a place from which
she did not know her way back home, even if
she had the freedom to roam around the place
of detention. The freedom of a person is at the
mercy and control of the abductor.
Q: What if the crime is committed by a public
officer?
A: Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code requires
that the offender is a private individual, because
if the offender is a public officer, the crime
committed is Arbitrary Detention.
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Q: May a person be held liable for Serious
Illegal Detention even if the detention did not
last for more than 3 days?
A: Yes. When the offender simulated public
authority, or when serious physical injuries were
inflicted on the victim, or when threats to kill him
were made, or when the person kidnapped or
detained was a minor, female, or a public officer,
even if the period of detention was less than 3
days, the crime committed is Serious Illegal
Detention.
Q: Is Demand for Ransom necessary to
consummate the Crime of Kidnapping?
A: No. Asking for Ransom Money is not an
element of the offense. If the purpose of
kidnapping is to extort ransom even if there is no
actual demand, it will aggravate the penalty.
Q: When is the Crime of Slight Illegal
Detention committed?
A: It is committed when:
(1) The offender is a private individual,
(2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any
other manner, deprives him of his
liberty,
(3) the act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal,
(4) the crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
mentioned in Art. 267
Exploitation of Child Labor
Q: What are the elements of Exploitation of
Child Labor? (2006, 2009 BAR QUESTION)
A: The elements are:
(a) offender retains a minor in his service,
(b) it is against the will of the minor and
(c) it is under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with the custody of such
minor. If the minor consents to render
service and be retained under the
pretext of reimbursing a debt incurred,
there is no crime. The debt must be that
by the ascendant, guardian or custodian
of minor.
Page 17 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Slavery and Servitude
Q: What are the elements of Services
Rendered under Compulsion of Payment of
Debt? (2006 BAR QUESTION)
A: The elements are:
(a) offender compels a debtor to work for
him, either as a household servant or
farm laborer,
(b) it is against the debtors will, and
(c) the purpose is to require or enforce
payment of a debt. If there is no
creditor-debtor relationship between
the offender and offended party,
coercion is committed.
Trespassing
Q: What are the elements of Qualified
Trespass to Dwelling? (2002, 2009 BAR
QUESTION)
A: The crime of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
is committed if the:
(a) offender is a private person,
(b) he enters the dwelling of another and
(c) such entrance is against the latter’s will.
If the offender is a public officer or employee,
the entrance into the dwelling against the will of
the occupant is Violation of Domicile punishable
under Art. 128 of the Revised Penal Code.
Q: What are the instances where prohibition
to enter a dwelling place is implied?
A: The instances are:
(1) entering a dwelling of another late at
night,
(2) the existence of strained relations
between the accused and the occupant,
(3) when the entrance is made through
means not intended for ingress, and
(4) the door is closed even if it is not locked.
Q: Is prohibition necessary when violence or
intimidation is employed by offender?
A: No. There is Qualified Trespass so long as
there is violence or intimidation employed
notwithstanding the fact that the door was
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
already open and there was no express
prohibition to the entry.
Other Forms of Trespass is committed when:
(a) the offender enters the closed premises
or the fenced estate of another,
(b) that the entrance is made while either of
them is uninhabited,
(c) prohibition to enter is manifest, and
(d) that the trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the
caretaker.
Q: Distinguish between Other Forms of
Trespass distinguished from Qualified
Trespass to Dwelling.
A: In Qualified Trespass to Dwelling, the
offender is a private person. The offender enters
a dwelling house, or the place entered is an
inhabited place, and the act constituting the
crime is entering the dwelling against the will of
the owner and that the prohibition is express or
implied. While in Other Forms of Trespass, the
offender is any person. The offender enters
closed premises or fenced estate, or the place
entered is uninhabited, and that the offender did
not secure the permission of the owner or
caretaker when he entered the premises and
that the prohibition to enter must be manifest.
Threats
Q: What are the acts punishable in Grave
Threats?
A: The acts punished are:
(a) by threatening another with the
infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any
other condition, even though not
unlawful and the offender attained his
purpose;
(b) by making such threat without the
offender attaining his purpose;
(c) by threatening another with the
infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, the threat
not being subject to a condition.
Page 18 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Q: What are the acts punishable in Other
Light Threats?
A: The acts punished are:
(a) threatening another with a weapon, or
by drawing such weapon in a quarrel,
unless it be in lawful self-defense;
(b) by orally threatening another in a heat of
anger, with some harm constituting a
crime, without persisting in the idea
involved in his threat;
(c) by orally threatening to do another any
harm not constituting a felony.
Q: Distinguish among Grave Threats, Light
Threats and Other Light Threats.
A: In Grave Threats, the wrong threatened
amounts to a crime which may or may not be
accompanied by a condition. In Light Threats,
the wrong threatened does not amount to a
crime but is always accompanied by a condition.
In Other Light Threats, the wrong threatened
does not amount to a crime and there is no
condition (Calauag vs. People, (G.R. No.
171511, March 4, 2009)
Grave Coercion
Q: What are the elements of Grave Coercion?
(1998, 1999, 2009 BAR QUESTION)
A: The elements are:
(a) a person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law or that
he compelled him to do something
against his will, be it right or wrong,
(b) that prevention or compulsion be
effected by violence, threats, or
intimidation, and
(c) that the person that restrained the will
and liberty of another has no authority
of law or the right to do so.
Unjust Vexation
Q: What is Unjust Vexation? (1994, 2006,
2007, 2009, 2010 BAR QUESTION)
A: Unjust Vexation is any act committed without
violence but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes
an innocent person. Paramount consideration is
if the act of the offender caused annoyance,
irritation, vexation, torment, distress or
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it
is directed. Taking possession of a thing
belonging to the debtor, through deceit and
misrepresentation, for the purpose of applying
the same to the debt is unjust vexation.
Q: What are the punishable acts and their
elements in Compulsory Purchase of
Merchandise and Payment of Wages by
means of tokens? (2014 BAR QUESTION)
A: The punishable acts are:
(1) Forcing or compelling, directly or
indirectly or knowingly permitting
the act of forcing or compelling the
laborer or employee of the offender to
purchase merchandise or commodities
of any kind from him.
Elements:
(a) offender is any person, agent or officer
of any association or corporation,
(b) he or such firm or corporation has
employed laborers or employees and
(c) he forces or compels directly or
indirectly or knowingly permits to be
forced or compelled any of his or its
laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any
kind from him or said firm or
corporation.
(2) Paying the wages due his laborer or
employee by means of tokens or
objects other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines, unless
expressly requested by such laborer or
employee.
Elements:
(a) offender pays the wages due a laborer
or employee by means of tokens or
object,
(b) those tokens or objects are other than
the legal currency of the Philippines,
and
(c) such employee or laborer does not
expressly request that he be paid by
means of tokens or objects.
Page 19 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Robbery
Elements:
(a) A personal property belonging to
another,
(b) there is unlawful taking of such property,
(c) the taking must be with intent to gain
and
(d) there is violence against or intimidation
of any person or force upon anything.
Q: What is the subject of Robbery?
A: The property taken must be a personal
property, for if real property is occupied or real
right is usurped by means of violence against or
intimidation of person, the crime is Usurpation.
When violence results in (1) Homicide, (2)
Rape, (3) Intentional Mutilation or (4) any
Serious Physical Injuries, the taking of
personal property is Robbery complexed with
any of those crimes under Art. 294 of the RPC.
Q: A entered the house of another without
employing force or violence upon things. He
was seen by a maid who wanted to scream
but was prevented from doing so because a
threatened her with a gun. A then took
money and other valuables and left. Is a
guilty of Theft or Robbery? Explain. (2002
BAR QUESTION)
A: A is liable for Robbery because the
intimidation he employed on the maid before the
taking of the money and other valuables. It is the
intimidation of the person relative to the taking
that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of
Simple Theft. The non-employment of force
upon things is of no moment because Robbery
is committed not only by employing force upon
things but also by employing violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Q: When is Robbery committed by a Band?
(2010 BAR QUESTION)
A: Robbery is committed by a Band when at
least 4 armed malefactors take part in the
commission or robbery.
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Theft
Q: What is Theft?
A: Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take the property of another without the
latter’s consent.
Q: Who are the persons liable? (1995, 1998,
2000, 2008, 2009 BAR QUESTION)
A: The persons liable are:
(1) those who with intent to gain, but
without violence against or intimidation
of persons nor force upon things, take
personal property of another without
the latter’s consent,
(2) those who having found lost property,
fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner,
(3) any person who after having
maliciously damaged the property of
another, remove or make use of the
fruits or object of the damage caused
by them,
(4) those who enter an enclosed estate or
field where trespass is forbidden or
which belongs to another and without
the consent of its owner, hunt or fish
upon the same of gather fruits, cereals
or other forest or farm products.
Q: When is Theft complete so that Theft is
consummated?
A: The taking is considered as complete only
when the offender had full possession of the
thing, even if he did not have an opportunity to
dispose of the same.
Q: When is there “Taking”?
A: The “Taking” referred to in the law means the
act of depriving another of the possession and
dominion of a movable thing coupled with the
intention, at the time of the taking, of withholding
it with the character of permanency.
Q: Sunshine, a “beauteous” Colegiala but a
shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store
and proceeded to the Women’s Wear
Section. The saleslady was of the impression
that she brought to the fitting room three (3)
Page 20 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When
she came out of the fitting room, she
returned only two (2) pieces to the clothes
rack. The saleslady became suspicious and
alerted the store detective. Sunshine was
stopped by the Detective before she could
leave the store and brought to the office of
the store manager. The Detective and the
Manager searched her and found her
wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse
and pants. Was the theft consummated,
frustrated, or attempted? Explain. (2000 BAR
QUESTION)
A: The Theft was consummated because the
taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete when the offender
acquired the exclusive control of the personal
property being taken. In this case, when
Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse
and pants and was on her way out of the store,
with evident intent to gain, the taking constitutes
theft and being complete, it is consummated. It
is not necessary that the offender is in a position
to dispose of the property.
If the accused is charged with frustrated theft, he
could not be convicted of the crime charged
because theft has no frustrated stage. Neither
could he be convicted of consummated theft
since it was not alleged in the information. But
he could be convicted of attempted theft
because this crime is necessarily included in the
charge of frustrated theft. (Canceran vs.
People, G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015)
The only requirement for a personal property to
be the object of theft under the Penal Code is
that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be
capable of asportation, which is defined as
“carrying away”. Jurisprudence is settled that to
"take" under the theft provision of the penal code
does not require asportation or carrying away.
(Medina vs. People, G.R. No. 182648, June
17, 2015)
Qualified Theft
There is Qualified Theft:
(1) if theft is committed by a domestic
servant,
(2) if theft is committed with grave abuse of
discretion,
(3) if the property stolen is a motor vehicle,
mail matter or large cattle,
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
(4) if the property stolen consist of
coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation,
(5) if the property stolen is fish taken from
a fishpond or fishery or
(6) if property taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption
or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.
Q: A fire broke out in a department store. Mr.
A, taking advantage of the confusion,
entered the store and carried away goods
which he later sold. What crime, if any, did
he commit? Why? (2002 BAR QUESTION)
A: Mr. A committed the crime of Qualified Theft
because he took the goods on the occasion of
and taking advantage of the fire which broke out
in the department store. The occasion of a
calamity such as fire, when the theft was
committed, qualifies the crime under Article 310
of the RPC, as amended.
Q: Mr. A is the driver of B’s Mercedez Benz
car. When B was on a trip to Paris, Z used
the car for a joy ride with C whom he is
courting. Unfortunately, Mr. A met an
accident. Upon his return, B came to know
about the unauthorized use of the car and
sued Mr. A for Qualified Theft. B alleged that
Mr. A took and used the car with intent to
gain as he derived some benefit or
satisfaction from its use. On the other hand,
Mr. A argued that he has no intent of making
himself the owner of the car as he in fact
returned it to the garage after the joy ride.
What crime/s, if any, were committed?
Explain. (2016 BAR QUESTION)
A: The crime committed by Mr. A is Carnapping.
The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now
covered by the Anti- Carnapping Law (Republic
Act No. 6539, As Amended) and not by the
provisions on Qualified Theft or Robbery. The
concept of Carnapping is the same as that of
Robbery and Theft. Hence, rules applicable to
Theft or Robbery are also applicable to
Carnapping.
Arson
Q: Who may be made liable in the crime of
Arson?
A: (1) Any person who shall burn:
Page 21 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
(a) one or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of
burning, or as a result of simultaneous
burnings or committed on several or
different occasions;
(b) any building of public or private
ownership, devoted to the public in
general or where people usually gather
or congregate for a definite purpose
such as official governmental function
or business, private transaction,
commerce, trade workshop, meetings
and conferences or merely incidental to
a definite purpose such as but not
limited to hotels, motels, transient
dwellings, public conveyance or stops
or terminals, regardless of whether the
offender had knowledge that there are
persons in said buildings or edifice at
the time it is set on fire and regardless
whether the building is inhabited or not;
(c) any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or conveyance or for
public use, entertainment or leisure;
(d) any building, factory, warehouse,
installation and any appurtenances,
which are devoted to the service of
public utilities; or
(e) any building the burning of which is for
the purpose of concealing or
destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding
creditors or to collect from insurance.
(2) Two or more persons or by a group of
persons, regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission of another violation of law
(3) Any person who shall burn:
(a) any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or
military powder or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or
general museum of the government;
(b) in an inhabited place, any storehouse
or factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.
If there was intent to kill, the crime committed is
Murder, not Arson.
.
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
The Special Aggravating Circumstances of
Arson are:
(a) if committed with intent to gain,
(b) if committed for the benefit of another,
(c) if the offender be motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner; or
(d) if committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if it is
planned or carried out by a group of three or
more persons.
Q: Who are exempted from the crime of
Theft, Swindling (Estafa) and Malicious
Mischief?
A: The following are exempted:
(a) spouses, ascendants, descendants or
relatives by affinity in the same line;
(b) the widowed spouse with respect to
the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same
passed into the possession of another;
and
(c) brothers and sisters and brothers-in-
law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
(Art. 332, RPC)
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Adultery
Q: What are the elements of Adultery?
A: To convict a woman of Adultery, it is
necessary:
(a) that she is a married woman and
(b) that she unites in sexual intercourse
with a man not her husband.
To convict a man for adultery, it is necessary:
(a) that he had sexual intercourse with a
married woman and
(b) that he commits the act with the
knowledge that said woman is married.
Q: What is the effect of the acquittal of one of
the defendants?
A: The acquittal of one of the defendants does
not operate as a cause for the acquittal of the
other. This is because there may not be a joint
Page 22 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
criminal intent although there is joint physical
act, one of the parties may be sane and the
other insane, the man may not know that the
woman is married, death of the woman during
pendency of the action cannot defeat the trial
and conviction of the man, even if the man had
left the country and could not be apprehended
the woman can be tried and convicted.
Q: A, a married woman, had sexual
intercourse with a man who was not her
husband. The man did not know she was
married. What crime, if any, did each of them
commit? Why? (2002 BAR QUESTION)
A: A, the married woman, committed the crime
of Adultery under Article 333 of the RPC, as
amended, for having sexual intercourse with a
man not her husband while her marriage is still
subsisting. But the man who had carnal
knowledge of her, not knowing her to be
married, shall not be liable for Adultery.
Concubinage
Q: What is Concubinage?
A: Concubinage is a violation of the marital vow.
In order to be liable, a married man must have
performed the following acts:
(a) kept a mistress in the conjugal dwelling,
(b) have had sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances with a
woman who is not his wife, and
(c) cohabiting with the mistress at any other
place.
The mistress becomes liable only when she
knew him to be married prior to the commission
of the crime.
Acts of Lasciviousness
Acts of Lasciviousness is committed when
offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness, and such is committed against a
person of either sex and is done by using force
or intimidation, when the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, by
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority or when the offender is under 12
years of age or demented. (Art. 336, RPC)
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS
Bigamy
Elements:
1. That the offender has been legally
married;
2. That the first marriage has not been
legally dissolved or, in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent spouse
could not yet be presumed dead to the
Civil Code;
3. That he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage; and
4. That the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential
requisites of its validity. (People vs
Odtuhan, G.R. No. 1911566, July 17,
2013)
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Defamation
Distinguish Libel from Slander
Libel is a form of defamation committed by
means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonography, painting,
theatrical or cinematographic exhibition or any
similar means. Slander is oral defamation.
Q: Who are the persons liable in Libel?
A: Any person who shall publish, exhibit or
cause the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means; or the
author or editor of a book, pamphlet or the editor
or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication, for the
defamation contained therein to the same extent
as if he were the author.
In order to be made liable, there must be an
imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status
or circumstances; imputation must be made
publicly; imputation must be malicious; the
imputation must be directed to a natural or
juridical person or one who is dead and the
imputation must cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed.
Page 23 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that
the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that he be named. It must be shown
that at least a third person could identify him as
the object of the libelous publication.
Under Article 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and
editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for the
defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof. The
publisher and editors cannot disclaim liability for
libelous articles that appear on their paper by
simply saying they had no participation in the
preparation of the same. They cannot say that
Tulfo was all alone in the publication of Remate
on which the defamatory articles appeared. It is
not a matter of whether or not they conspired in
preparing and publishing the subject articles,
because the law simply so states that they are
liable as if they were the author. (Tulfo vs.
People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16,
2008)
Q: What is Slander? What are its elements?
A: Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed
by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It
is defined as the speaking of base and
defamatory words which tend to prejudice
another in his reputation, office, trade, business
or means of livelihood.
The elements of oral defamation are:
(1) there must be an imputation of a crime,
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
or any act, omission, status or
circumstances;
(2) made orally;
(3) publicly;
(4) maliciously;
(5) directed to a natural or juridical person,
or one who is dead;
(6) which tends to cause dishonour,
discredit or contempt of the person
defamed. Oral defamation may either
be simple or grave. It becomes grave
when it is of a serious and insulting
nature. (De Leon vs. People, G.R. No.
212623, January 11, 2016)
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
QUASI OFFENSES
Q: Is Reckless Imprudence a crime?
A: Yes. Reckless Imprudence or Negligence is
not a modality of committing the crime. It is a
crime itself. (Ivler vs. Judge San Pedro, G.R.
No. 172716, November 17, 2010)
Q: What is the Doctrine of Last Clear
Chance?
A: Under the doctrine, the contributory
negligence of the party injured will not defeat the
action if it be shown that the accused might, by
the exercise of reasonable care and prudence,
have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party.
Q: What is the “Emergency Rule?”
A: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger, and is required to do act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
have been a better method, unless the danger in
which he finds himself is brought by his own
negligence. (Delsan Transport Lines vs. C & A
Construction, G.R. No. 156034, October 1,
2003)
Q: Distinguish Imprudence from Negligence.
A: Imprudence indicates a deficiency in action,
hence, failure in precaution is termed
imprudence, while Negligence indicates a
deficiency of perception. Hence, failure in
advertence is known as negligence.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
ANTI – ARSON LAW (P.D. 1613)
Q. What is Simple Arson under PD 1613?
A: Simple Arson, defined and punished under
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613, is essentially the
destruction of property by fire that is not under
the circumstances enumerated under Article 320
of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. In
prosecuting arson, whether destructive or
simple, the corpus delicti rule is generally
satisfied by proof that a fire occurred, and that it
Page 24 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
was intentionally caused. (People vs. Aponte,
G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016)
Q: Distinguish Simple Arson under the
Revised Penal Code and Destructive Arson
under PD 1613.
A: The nature of Destructive Arson is
distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree
of perversity or viciousness of the criminal
offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of
The Revised Penal Code constituting
Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous
crimes for being grievous, odious and hateful
offenses and which, by reason of their inherent
or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity
and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to
the common standards and norms of decency
and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
society. On the other hand, acts committed
under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are
crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and
viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser
penalty. In other words, Simple Arson
contemplates crimes with less significant social,
economic, political and national security
implications than Destructive Arson. (People vs.
Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013)
In a prosecution for arson, proof of the crime
charged is complete where the evidence
establishes:
(1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because
of criminal agency; and
(2) the identity of the defendant as the one
responsible for the crime.
In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by
proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having
been intentionally caused. Even the
uncorroborated testimony of a
single eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove
the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
(Gonzales Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 159950,
February 12, 2007)
ANTI – CARNAPPING LAW (R.A. NO. 6539,
AS AMENDED BY R.A. NOS. 7659 AND
10883)
Section 2 of RA 6539 defines Carnapping as the
taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latter’s consent,
or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things. The
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
crime of Carnapping with Homicide is
punishable under Section 14 of the said law, as
amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. To prove
the Special Complex Crime of Carnapping with
Homicide, there must be proof not only of the
essential elements of Carnapping, but also that
it was the original criminal design of the culprit
and the killing was perpetrated in the course of
the commission of the Carnapping or on the
occasion thereof.
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the
prosecution has the burden of proving that:
(1) Mallari, the accused, took the Toyota FX
Taxi;
(2) his original criminal design was
Carnapping;
(3) he killed the driver and victim, Medel;
and
(4) the killing was perpetrated in the course
of the commission of the Carnapping or
on the occasion thereof. (People vs.
Mallari, G.R No. 179041, April 1, 2013,
Del Castillo, J.)
ANTI – CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (R.A. NO.
9775)
Child Pornography refers to any representation,
whether visual, audio, or written combination
thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital,
optical, magnetic or any other means, of child
engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit
sexual activities. (Section 3(b), RA No. 9775)
ANTI – FENCING LAW (P.D. NO. 1612)
Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent
to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
manner deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
(Section 2(a), PD No. 1612)
The essential elements of the crime of Fencing
are as follows:
(1) a crime of Robbery or Theft has been
committed;
(2) the accused, who is not a Principal or
Accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys,
Page 25 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of Robbery or
Theft;
(3) the accused knew or should have
shown that the said article, item, object
or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of
Robbery or Theft; and,
(4) there is, on the part of the accused,
intent to gain for himself or for another.
(Spenocilla vs. People, G.R. No.
146584, July 12, 2004)
ANTI – GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT (R.A. NO. 3019, AS AMENDED)
Q: Does the act of passing Sangguniang
Bayan Resolution No. 95 – 27, which
authorized the transfer without cost to San
Francisco Water District (SFWD) of one
Tamaraw FX vehicle and six units of KE
Kawasaki motorcycles by the Municipal
Mayor constitute a violation of Section 3(e)
of RA No. 3019? What is the presumption set
by law?
A: No. The Court found no evidence on record
which would show that petitioners were
motivated by bad faith when they transferred the
vehicles to SFWD. Bustillo, as Mayor, is
authorized by law to enter into contracts for and
in behalf of the local government unit. It cannot
be denied that the transfer of the vehicles to
SFWD was made in furtherance of the purpose
for which the funds were released which is to
help in the planning, monitoring and coordination
of the implementation of the waterworks projects
located throughout the Province of Agusan del
Sur. Moreover, the transfer was made to ensure
the success of the implementation of the CDF-
funded waterworks projects of the province of
Agusan del Sur.
It is disputably presumed that official duty has
been regularly performed. In this case, this
presumption remains unrebutted; hence,
petitioners who were charged with violations of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019,
deserve an acquittal. It was not proven that they
gave undue preference or acted in evident bad
faith in effecting the transfer of the properties
owned by the local government unit. (Bustillo
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
vs. People, G.R. No. 167018, May 12, 2010,
Del Castillo, J.)
Q: What are the elements of Section 3(g) of
RA No. 3019? May a private person be held
liable under the said Act?
A: For one to be successfully prosecuted under
Section 3(g) of RA 3019, the following elements
are essential:
(1) the accused is a public officer;
(2) the public officer entered into a contract
or transaction on behalf of the
government; and
(3) the contract or transaction was grossly
and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.
However, private persons may likewise be
charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA
3019 if they conspired with the public officer.
Thus, if there is an allegation of conspiracy, a
private person may be held liable together with
the public officer, in consonance with the
avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act which is to repress certain acts of
public officers and private persons alike which
may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which
may lead thereto. (Singian Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011 – 19,
September 30, 2013)
In construing the term "Fraud" as used in
Section 13 of RA 3019, the Court held that the
same is understood in its general sense, that is,
referring to an instance or an act of trickery or
deceit especially when involving
misrepresentation. Again, in Bartolo v.
Sandiganbayan, Second Division, the Court
citing Bustillo underscored the fact that the term
fraud as used in Section 13 of RA 3019 is
understood in its generic sense. In upholding the
suspension of therein petitioner, the Court held
that the allegation of falsification of the three
public documents by making it appear that the
flood control project was 100% complete, when
in fact it was not, constitutes fraud upon public
funds. (Abdul vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
184496, December 2, 2013, Del Castillo, J.)
ANTI – HIJACKING LAW (R.A. NO. 6235)
It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a
change in the course or destination of an aircraft
Page 26 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the
control thereof, while it is in flight. An aircraft is
in flight from the moment all its external doors
are closed following embarkation until any of
such doors is opened for disembarkation.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person to
compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in
Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the
control thereof while it is within the said territory.
(Section 1, RA No. 6235)
ANTI – PIRACY AND ANTI – HIGHWAY
ROBBERY (P.D. NO. 532)
Piracy refers to any attack upon or seizure of
any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or
part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the
personal belongings of its complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by
means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any
person, including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders
shall be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided. (Section 2(d), PD No.
532)
Under Section 2(a) of PD 532, Philippine Waters
is defined as all bodies of water, such as but not
limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between
and connecting each of the Islands of the
Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth,
breadth, length or dimension, and all other
waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or
legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction. From this definition, it is clear that a
river is considered part of Philippine waters.
(People vs. Dela Pena, G.R. No. 219581,
January 31, 2018, Del Castillo, J.)
ANTI – PLUNDER ACT (R.A. NO. 7080, AS
AMENDED)
Plunder refers to any public officer who, by
himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other
persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)
hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of
at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00)
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any
person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise
be punished for such offense. (Section 12, R.A.
No. 7659)
Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer who
acts by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other
persons;
(2) That he amassed, accumulated or
acquired ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of the following
overt or criminal acts:
(a) through misappropriation,
conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or
raids on the public treasury;
(b) by receiving, directly or
indirectly, any commission, gift,
share, percentage, kickback or
any other form of pecuniary
benefits from any person
and/or entity in connection with
any government contract or
project or by reason of the
office or position of the public
officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent
conveyance or disposition of
assets belonging to the
National Government or any of
its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities of
Government owned or
controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries;
(d) by obtaining, receiving or
accepting directly or indirectly
any shares of stock, equity or
any other form of interest or
participation including the
promise of future employment
in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural,
industrial or commercial
monopolies or other
combinations and/or
Page 27 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
implementation of decrees and
orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special
interests; or
(f) by taking advantage of official
position, authority, relationship,
connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and
to the damage and prejudice of
the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines; and
(3) That the aggregate amount or total
value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed,
accumulated or acquired is at least
₱50,000,000.00. (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001)
ANTI – SEXUAL HARASSMENT (R.A. NO.
7877)
Q: What is “Work, Education or Training-
Related Sexual Harassment”?
A: Work, Education or Training-Related Sexual
Harassment is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over
another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise
requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the
object of said Act. (Section 3, RA No. 7877)
Work-Related or Employment Environment
Sexual Harassment is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition
in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment
of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation,
terms of conditions, promotions, or
privileges; or the refusal to grant the
sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee
which in any way would discriminate,
deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely
affect said employee;
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
(2) The above acts would impair the
employee's rights or privileges under
existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee. (Section
3(a), RA No. 7877)
Education or Training Environment Sexual
Harassment is committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care,
custody or supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted
to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a
condition to the giving of a passing
grade, or the granting of honors and
scholarships, or the payment of a
stipend, allowance or other benefits,
privileges, or consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or
apprentice. (Section 3(b), RA No.
7877)
ANTI – TORTURE ACT (R.A. NO. 9745)
Torture refers to an act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such
purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third
person information or a confession; punishing
him/her for an act he/she or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed;
or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third
person; or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority. It
does not include pain or Buffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
sanctions. (Section 3(a), RA No. 9745)
Q: What are the forms of Torture?
A: Physical Torture is a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority upon another in
his/her custody that causes severe pain,
exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or
more parts of the body.
Page 28 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
Mental/Psychological Torture refers to acts
committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect
or confuse the mind and/or undermine a
person's dignity and morale (Section 4, RA No.
9745)
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment refers to a deliberate and
aggravated treatment or punishment not
enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted
by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against another person in custody,
which attains a level of severity sufficient to
cause suffering, gross humiliation or
debasement to the latter. The assessment of the
level of severity shall depend on all the
circumstances of the case, including the
duration of the treatment or punishment, its
physical and mental effects and, in some cases,
the sex, religion, age and state of health of the
victim. (Section 5, RA No. 9745)
ANTI – TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
(R.A. NO. 9208)
Q: What is Trafficking in Persons?
A: Trafficking in Persons refers to the
recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring,
or receipt of persons with or without the victim's
consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders by means of threat or use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or,
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person for the purpose of
exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs. (Section 3(a), RA No. 9208)
ANTI – VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN (R.A. NO. 9262)
Q: Who is a Battered Woman?
A: A Battered Woman has been defined as a
woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without concern for her rights.
Battered women include wives or women in any
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
form of intimate relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a
battered woman, the couple must go through the
battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may
find herself in an abusive relationship with a man
once. If it occurs a second time, and she
remains in the situation, she is defined as a
battered woman.
Battered Woman Syndrome is also considered
as a Justifying Circumstance. (People vs.
Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15,
2004)
Q: What are the phases in the “Cycle of
Violence”?
A: More graphically, the battered woman
syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle
of violence, which has three phases: (1) the
tension-building phase; (2) the acute
battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving
(or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
During the Tension-Building Phase, minor
battering occurs – it could be verbal or slight
physical abuse or another form of hostile
behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the
batterer through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior; or by simply staying out of his way.
What actually happens is that she allows herself
to be abused in ways that, to her, are
comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent
the escalation of the violence exhibited by the
batterer.
The Acute Battering Incident is said to be
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,
sometimes, death. The battered woman deems
this incident as unpredictable, yet also
inevitable. During this phase, she has no control;
only the batterer may put an end to the violence.
The battered woman usually realizes that she
cannot reason with him, and that resistance
would only exacerbate her condition. At this
stage, she has a sense of detachment from the
attack and the terrible pain, although she may
later clearly remember every detail.
The final phase of the cycle of violence begins
when the acute battering incident ends. During
this Tranquil Period, the couple experience
profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer
may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been
viciously cruel and tries to make up for it,
Page 29 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
begging for her forgiveness and promising never
to beat her again. On the other hand, the
battered woman also tries to convince herself
that the battery will never happen again; that her
partner will change for the better; and that this
good, gentle and caring man is the real person
whom she loves. (People vs. Marivic Genosa,
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. BLG. 22)
In order to successfully hold an accused liable
for violation of BP 22, the following are essential
elements:
(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for
value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment
of the check in full upon its
presentment; and
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
Of the three (3) elements, the second element is
the hardest to prove as it involves a state of
mind.
Thus, Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption
of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which,
however, arises only after it is proved that the
issuer had received a written notice of dishonor
and that within five days from receipt thereof, he
failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment. (Chua vs.
People, G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015, Del
Castillo, J.)
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT (R.A. NO. 9165)
Q: What are the elements of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs?
A: In a successful prosecution for offenses
involving the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the
following elements must concur: (1) the
identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment thereof. What is
material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction
or sale actually occurred, coupled with the
presentation in court of the substance seized as
evidence. (People vs. Alberto, G.R. No.
179717, February 5, 2010, Del Castillo, J.;
People vs. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952,
October 11, 2010, Del Castillo, J.; Aurelio vs.
People, G.R. No. 174980, August 31, 2011,
Del Castillo, J.; People vs Berdadero, G.R.
No. 179710, June 29, 2010, Del Castillo, J.;
People vs. Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919,
January 9, 2013, Del Castillo, J.)
Q: What are the elements of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs?
A: For Illegal Possession of regulated or
prohibited Drugs, the prosecution must establish
the following elements:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object, which is identified to be a
prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug. (Aurelio vs.
People, G.R. No. 174980, August 31,
2011, Del Castillo, J.; People vs.
Eyam, G.R. No. 184056, November 26,
2012, Del Castillo, J.)
To establish the guilt of an accused for the
Illegal Delivery of a Dangerous Drug, there must
be evidence that:
(1) the accused passed on possession of a
dangerous drug to another, personally
or otherwise, and by any means;
(2) such delivery is not authorized by law;
and
(3) the accused knowingly made the
delivery with or without consideration.
(People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 194606,
February 18, 2015, Del Castillo, J.)
Q: Is Plea – Bargaining allowed in drug
cases?
A: The High Court ruled in favor of Salvador
Estipona Jr., who argued in his petition that
“those accused of other heinous crimes such as
murder, some acts of rape, and other crimes
Page 30 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
where the maximum imposable penalty is either
life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, or death,
are allowed into plea bargaining under Section
1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure. (Estipona vs. Lobrigo, G.R. No.
226679, August 15, 2017)
Q: Is the Probation Law applicable to
offenders of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act?
A: General Rule: No, by express provision of the
law. Exception: A minor who is a first time
offender. Exception to Exception: When the
minor offender is convicted of selling illegal
drugs, he is disqualified from availing of the
probation law. (Padua vs. People, G.R. No.
168546, July 23, 2008)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (P.D.
1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NOS. 8294 &
10591)
Q: What are the elements in the prosecution
for the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions? What kind of
possession does the law requires?
A: The essential elements in the prosecution for
the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject
firearm; and, (2) the fact that the accused who
possessed or owned the same does not have
the corresponding license for it. The unvarying
rule is that ownership is not an essential element
of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition.
What the law requires is merely possession,
which includes not only actual physical
possession, but also constructive possession or
the subjection of the thing to one’s control and
management. (Jacaban vs. People, G.R. No.
184355, March 3, 2015)
Q: May a person convicted for Illegal
Possession of Firearms if another crime was
committed?
A: No. Agote v. Judge Lorenzo already settled
the question of whether there can be a separate
offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition if there is another crime committed.
In that case, the petitioner was charged with
both illegal possession of firearms and violation
of the Gun Ban under Commission on Elections
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
Resolution No. 2826. This court acquitted
petitioner in the case for illegal possession of
firearms since he simultaneously violated the
Gun Ban. This court also held that the
unlicensed firearm need not be actually used in
the course of committing the other crime for the
application of Section 1 of Republic Act No.
8294.
Similarly, Madrigal vs. People applied the ruling
in Agote and held that Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 8294 is express in its terms that a person
may not be convicted for illegal possession of
firearms if another crime was committed. (Dela
Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 209387, January
11, 2016)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. NO.
4103, AS AMENDED)
Q: Who shall not be covered by the
Indeterminate Sentence Law?
A: This Act shall not apply to persons convicted
of offenses punished with death penalty or life-
imprisonment; to those convicted of treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to
those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those
convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual
delinquents; to those who have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence; to those who
having been granted conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive shall have violated the terms
thereof; to those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to
those already sentenced by final judgment at the
time of approval of this Act, except as provided
in Section 5 hereof. (Section 2, RA No. 4103)
However, appellant is not eligible for parole
pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The penalty for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, on the other
hand, is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00, if the
quantity of the dangerous drug is less than five
(5) grams. In this case, appellant was found to
have been in illegal possession of 0.74 gram of
shabu. Thus, he was properly meted the penalty
of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to 14 years and eight (8)
months and a fine of 1,000,000.00. (People vs.
Opiana, G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015,
Del Castillo, J.)
Page 31 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
(R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630, AND IN RELATION TO P.D. NO. 603)
A 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. (Section 4(e), RA No. 9344)
Q: What is the minimum age of criminal
responsibility?
A: 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 6, RA
No. 99344)
Section 64 of the law categorically provides that
cases of children 15 years old and below, at the
time of the commission of the crime, shall
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be
referred to the appropriate local social welfare
and development officers (LSWDO).
What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the
exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is
not the CICLs age at the time of the
promulgation of judgment but the CICLs age at
the time of the commission of the offense. In
short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of
criminal irresponsibility has been raised
from 9 to 15 years old. (Ortega vs. People,
G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008)
PROBATION LAW (P.D. NO. 608, AS
AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 1070)
Q: Who are the disqualified offenders?
A: The benefits of this Decree shall not be
extended to those:
SCB SCBAR STAG NOTES
[ 20 C R I M I N A L L A W 2 0 1 8
a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
b. convicted of any crime against the
national security;
c. who have previously been convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six (6)
months and one (1) day and/or a fine of
more than one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00);
d. who have been once on probation under
the provisions of this Decree; and
e. who are already serving sentence at the
time the substantive provisions of this
Decree became applicable pursuant to
Section 33 hereof. (Section 9, PD No.
968, As Amended by RA No. 1070)
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT (R.A. NO.
10175)
Q: Are the provisions on the RPC on Libel as
well as Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act constitutional? Who bears
the burden of proving the presence of actual
malice?
A: Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes Online Libel as
valid and constitutional with respect to the
original author of the post; but void and
unconstitutional with respect to others who
simply receive the post and react to it.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving the
presence of actual malice in instances where
such element is required to establish guilt. The
defense of absence of actual malice, even when
the statement turns out to be false, is available
where the offended party is a public official or a
public figure, as in the cases of Vasquez (a
barangay official) and Borjal (the Executive
Director, First National Conference on Land
Transportation). Since the penal code and
implicitly, the cybercrime law, mainly target libel
against private persons, the Court recognizes
that these laws imply a stricter standard of
malice to convict the author of a defamatory
statement where the offended party is a public
figure.
It can be gleaned from her testimony that
petitioner had the motive to make defamatory
imputations against complainants. Thus,
petitioner cannot, by simply making a general
denial, convince us that there was no malice on
Page 32 of 32
BRAVO BASTE!
her part. Verily, not only was there malice in law,
the article being malicious in itself, but there was
also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill
against complainants during the electoral
campaign. (Disini Jr. vs. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
HUMAN SECURITY ACT (R.A. NO. 9372)
Q: What are the acts punished under the
Human Security Act?
A: Any person who commits an act punishable
under any of the following provisions of the
RPC:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and
Mutiny in the High Seas or in the
Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including
acts committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction), or under
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613
(The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic
Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Waste Control Act of
1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic
Energy Regulatory and Liability
Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-
Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532
(Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866,
as amended (Decree Codifying
the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives)
(Section 3, RA No. 9372)
--- END ---