DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations – Academics

Committee

TRANSCRIPT OF DEAN GEMY LITO FESTIN’S

ONLINE LECTURE ON CRIMINAL LAW

DISCLAIMER: DLSU College of Law’s LCBO Academics Committee does not take credit for
the online lecture conducted by Atty. John and hosted by the Philippine Association of Law
School’s (PALS) Facebook page on April 17, 2020. This written transcript was made in order to
aid law students in their review and for those students who may have had difficulty in watching
the said online lecture. The contents of this transcript are based solely on the said online
lecture.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As mentioned earlier, the contents of this transcript are based solely on the
said online lecture. In line with that, there are some instances where the lecturer would mix or
confuse words, names, or even concepts. The editor has taken the liberty of identifying these
instances. Throughout this transcript, the suggested corrections are placed in a parenthesis
[ (insert correction here) ] immediately following the mentioned instances. Notes explaining the
sudden change in the flow of the discussion shall also be placed in a similar manner.
- TRANSCRIPT BEGINS -

 Usually if the question is situational, okay lang if its X and Y. Basic, sana nakikita niyo.
X and Y. X is the accused, Y is the victim. So, what crime did X commit against Y? Very
basic lang yan. Okay?
 Dapat... kung gugustuhin natin, mas medyo complicated. Ang tanong: X, Y, Z, as against
A. Okay? X would be a minor, Y, of age, Z would be the son of A. This is the father. So
they killed...murdered, the father. So, intent to kill... there's a qualifying circumstance of
treachery. Notice that even if they all committed the crime, yet... you have to consider
the personal circumstances of these persons. Minor, assuming he is 14 years of age, is
he criminally liable? Not quite, because according to our Juvenile and Justice Welfare
Act, if the age of the minor is 15 years old or younger, it is exempting. There is no
criminal liability. Then Y is of age. Since there is a qualifying circumstance of treachery,
his crime would be murder.
 What about Z? The son of F (should be A)? It's not murder. What is the crime? It's
parricide. Right? So you can glean from here, the consequences are different because
of their circumstances, as well as their relation with the offended party.
 So, let's complicate this more. X, Y, Z, okay? These are the offenders. And you have A,
B, and C, the victim. Sana nakikita niyo. A, (pahirapan natin), A would be a person in
authority, okay? B would be a minor, and C would be of age. X, Y, and Z. X and Y killed
A, Z killed B and C. Labo labo na sila. Diba? So, A would be a person in authority, so it
could result not only in a simple crime, but it could lead to a complex crime. If it's
murder, it could be a complex crime of murder with direct assault. Kung minor, it could
be related to the Anti-Child Abuse Law. So ganun, this is what we would be discussing
later on.
 So common types of questions in Criminal Law.
o #1 is, "What is the crime committed by A?" Or, "What are the crimes
committed?" Or, "For what crime is X liable for?" Pare-pareho 'yan.
o The second type of question would be, "What is the participation of A, B and C?"
So that will call for what? The participation whether he is a principal,
accomplices, or accessories. Okay?
o #3, "What is the criminal liability of X?" It does not call for what crime is
committed. Nakalagay lang, in general, "Is X criminally liable?" It would
probably fall under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Then lastly is, "The
 presence of... considering the presence of the modifying circumstances or the
attending... mitigating or aggravating circumstances. What would be the
penalty imposed?" Or, "Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, or ISLaw,
what is the penalty to be imposed?" So 'yon.

 Let's go to the first type of question. What crime is committed, or what are the crimes
committed, or for what crime is X liable for? The possible sources of answers then...
CHECK ON THE FOLLOWING RULES OR PRINCIPLES:
o You check on the elements of the crime. Walang problema 'yan kung simple
lang 'yan, kung special penal law, or crimes punished under the Revised Penal
Code. Or if it's punished under the Revised Penal Code, whether it's dolo or culpa.
o Also, next, tignan nyo yung distinctions and similarities of crimes punishable
under the Revised Penal Code: robbery, theft, estafa, murder, homicide...
magka-kamag anak sila, similar but not identical.
o Then check also if it's a complex crime. You know what a complex crime is?
Compound complex crime and complex crime proper. We will discuss that
lengthily later on.
o Also, you've got to remember the distinction between crimes punished under
the RPC and the special penal laws.
o Or probably, pag tinanong kayo, is there a crime committed? No crime is
committed. Why? You check on the justifying and exempting circumstances.
In these two instances, there is no criminal liability. Exempting, like minority or
insanity.
o Or perhaps, you consider also certain principles. Nullum crimen nulla poena
sine lege. There is no crime when there is no law punishing such act. Sumasagot
ka, 'yun pala walang crime committed because there is no law that punishes that
particular act.
o Or perhaps, we apply the theory of absorption. Sa rebellion... if common crimes
are committed in furtherance of rebellion, then it is absorbed in the crime of
rebellion.
o And check also Article 332. If the crime is theft, estafa, malicious mischief,
committed by particular relatives: spouse, ascendants, descendants, what? Also,
the brothers and sisters living together or brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law living
together, or widowed spouse also, 'yan, that could be an exempting circumstance.
No criminal liability.
o Check also the characteristics of criminal law: the generality principle, the
territoriality principle: there is a crime committed but the crime is outside the
jurisdiction of the Philippines. It's in another jurisdiction. Or, prospectivity.
o Also, you check on whether there's instigation - no criminal liability in
instigation.
 o Also, check on the stages of the crime. Pag sinabing what crime is committed,
dalawang factor yan: the crime itself and the stage of the execution. Is it an
attempted homicide? Is it a frustrated homicide? Or consummated one? It should
be within your fingertips - the differences between these 3. So 'yun ang possible
sources of answers if that is asked.

 Then, if you check on the situational, essay type of questions, the question would be,
"What is the participation of A? How about B? How about C?" That means to say, you
have to recall the persons criminally liable under Articles 17, 18, 19. Who are the
principals, accomplices, as well as the accessories?
 Another common bar question in criminal law. Is X criminally liable? It does not ask for
what is the crime, but in general, is X criminally liable? It would fall under Article 4.
Why? Because Article 4 speaks about how criminal liability is incurred. So it could
result into what? Paragraph 1 or paragraph 2.
o Paragraph 1 speaks about proximate cause, which should also result in error in
personae, aberratio ictus and praeter intentionem. The second paragraph of
Article 4 speaks about impossible crime. Of course there are also other common
questions, eto lang apat yung common, yung pinaka-familiar.

 Considering the presence of attending or modifying circumstances, what is the penalty

imposed against X? Or, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what is the penalty to
be imposed against him? So you've got to remember the disqualifications on the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Of course, also the importance of determining the
minimum, as well as the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. Because ang
ISLaw is both applicable to crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code as well
as the special penal law. So you've got to recall the rules under the SPL as well as the
RPC.
 Of course, do not interchange the disqualifications of ISLaw from that of probation.
Probation, there are also certain disqualifications and when does it apply.
 So we go to the first question: "What are the crimes committed, "What crimes did X
commit?" or "For what crime is X liable for?" Sabi natin you check on the elements of
the crime.
 So for example, if it's robbery, theft or piracy, what is the intent? Common element:
there's intent to gain, right?
 What about murder and homicide? There's intent to kill. So it's not correct to say that in
homicide there is no intent to kill. No, pareho sila. There is intent to kill except in
murder, of course you have the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstances.
 When you talk about rebellion, the first thing that should come into your mind is: what is
the intent? To overthrow the government.
 In coup 'de etat, to seize or diminish state power.
 In illegal possession of firearms or even in illegal possession of illicit drugs, what is the
common element? Animus possidendi, or intent to possess.
 In estafa... of course there are two types of estafa: abuse of confidence and deceit. What
is the common element? There's damage, or intent to cause damage as well.
 In malversation what is the element? There is misappropriation of public funds
committed by a public officer.
 What about selling of prohibited drugs. Yung kanina, possession, now it's selling. You've
got to prove the object, consideration, and the delivery. So kahit may payment without
the delivery, wala pa siyang selling.
 But in addition to that, the corpus delicti. Presentation of the corpus delicti, the illicit
drugs taken from the suspect and present it in court. So that's where the chain of custody
will apply. The court has to be assured that the illicit drugs taken from the suspect is the
same drug that was presented in court. So if there is doubt if it's contaminated, then the
case will be dismissed (sic), right? So kelangan i-prove ng prosecution ang integrity
and evidentiary value of the items seized that they have been preserved.
 So there have been, diba? May mga links. Several links: from the accused, to the
arresting officer, to the investigating officer, as well as the forensic office or forensic
chemist and presentation in court. You've got to prove the integrity and evidentiary
value have been preserved.
 Okay, let's talk about dolo or culpa. Alam niyo na 'yon. Dolo: so there's freedom,
intelligence. Also in culpa: freedom, intelligence. What separates dolo from culpa?
The last element, which is deceit. Criminal intent. Deceit. Bad faith.
 What is the proper defense in dolo? Good faith is the proper defense. So ang tanong
ngayon, is good faith also a proper defense in culpa? Hindi, diba? Because what is
punished in culpa is the act of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight and lack of skill.
You may be acting in good faith, but overspeeding ka. You're careless. So what's the
proper defense in culpa? Alam niyo 'to. Exercise of due diligence.
 Now let me just discuss dolo. If you're gonna argue, dapat merong mens rea, as well as
actus rea. Dapat present silang dalawa. They must concur. Mens rea, criminal mind;
actus rea is criminal act. If there's only a criminal mind but there's no criminal act,
there's no criminal liability. Internal acts. You can think of any crime for as long as
there is no overt act, there is no criminal liability.
 There is criminal act but there is no criminal mind = no criminal liability. How does
it happen? If a child, 10 years of age, stab (sic) and kill his classmate. 10 years of old. Is
there a crime committed? Yes. There is actus rea. Is there mens rea? None. Because there
is no criminal mind, because under the Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act, if the age of the
minor is 15 years old or less, then there is no criminal liability.
 Now you check, as I've mentioned awhile ago, on the distinction and similarities of
crimes punished under the RPC. But I think we have an exercise. Sana you have your
exercise also, the copy of the exercise:
 o QUESTION: So there's a bar question, dolo. X purchased from Y, owner of a
grocery store merchandise. He signed a promissory note for the amount of P5000,
payable on October 30, 2016. On the date of the maturity of the promissory note,
X gave a check with the bank. The same was dishonored for lack of funds. Is X
liable for estafa? So this speaks about whether the person is liable for estafa
through issuance of a postdated check. Does it follow that just because the check
was dishonored, he's liable for estafa through issuance of a postdated check?
o DISCUSSION: Now we mentioned that in estafa through issuance of a postdated
check is by deceit. Deceit and damage. Let's look at the facts of the case. Is there
an employment of deceit? When you say deceit, simultaneous with the issuance of
the check is the employment of deceit. There is misrepresentation. Sabi niya, give
me the goods and I will guarantee to you that this check is funded. Were it not for
that assurance and that guarantee, that the check is funded, the victim would not
have parted with his goods. Is there an employment of deceit in this case?
There's none. So ibig sabihin, he is not liable for the crime of estafa.
 Now let's talk about culpa. So siguro sa funeral procession... I don't have to read all the
facts. So the negligent... people around shouted and gestured... he backed up and ran over
the girl, killing the girl. So there is no intent to kill. If you are the parent of the girl
victim, what crime would you charge? He would be liable for reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide. Of course, in reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, homicide
used in a generic sense. There is no intent to kill, for as long as death results by
reason of the exercise of negligence, then it's reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide.
 So let's go back to our discussion. Distinctions. Similar crimes but not identical. We
discussed on robbery (sic), theft, and estafa. Robbery and theft, common element is intent
to gain. As well as in piracy, there is intent to gain.
 Two types of robbery: with violence against or intimidation against a person. The second
one is through force upon things.
 So elements: unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to
gain. What separates robbery from theft is what? Employment of violence or intimidation
or force upon things which are not present in theft.
 With respect to...of course with robbery, there's what we call a special complex crime. So
merong robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with arson, robbery with
intentional mutilation. We will discuss that later on.
 There's also robbery with force upon things. When entrance is effected, how? By opening
not intended for entrance (sic). Second, by breaking the wall, roof, door, the floor. Why?
To effect entrance. Also by use of false keys or picklocks. Also, simulation of authority
or using fictitious names. These are all employed to effect entrance. So ang question
ngayon, can robbery with force upon things be committed if entrance was not effected
through these circumstances that I've mentioned. Halimbawa, invited guest sya. Can he
 commit robbery with force upon things? Yes. By breaking any...nakakita sya ng chest, ng
locked furniture, ng wardrobe at sinira nya. Or by taking this furniture away to be broken
outside. So that's how robbery with force upon things is committed.
 Okay, what about theft? Tanggalin mo yung force, violence, intimidation... would be
theft. Of course there are also other ways of committing theft, like a finder's keeper.
Finder's keeper is a crime of a person who found a personal property and he failed
to deliver it to the proper authority or to the owner thereof, liable siya for theft. Or
if he maliciously damaged a property of another and he removed or make use (sic) of the
fruits as well as the objects damaged by him. Or when he entered into a closed premises
or trespass is forbidden, or it's owned by another person and he entered it without the
consent of the owner. So ano ginawa nya? He hunt (sic), fish (sic), gather (sic) fruits,
cereals and farm products. So that's also the other way of committing theft.
 Pero ang pinaka common is like that of robbery, except that there is no force, or violence,
or intimidation, or force upon things. So there's also what we all qualified theft. What is
qualified theft? So ibig sabihin, pag qualified, higher penalty ang ime-mete out.
 Okay, #1, if it is committed by a domestic servant. Or when there is a grave abuse of
confidence, not discretion. Confidence. Of course, motor vehicle is taken. So ang tanong
ngayon: sir, may carnapping. Wala na bang carnapping? Meron. So what's the
difference between qualified theft by taking a motor vehicle from that of
carnapping?
 Carnapping: motor vehicle is taken without the consent of the owner or that it was
taken against his will by employing violence or intimidation. Pagdating sa qualified
theft, binigay sa kanya yung physical possession, it was handed to him but he failed to
return the same. It can be estafa, if it has juridical possession over the same. Sa qualified
theft meron siyang physical possession.
 Of course, may matter, large cattle, coconut taken from what? Fish pond? No, coconut
plantation. What about fish? Taken from fish pond or fishery. Or on occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, or vehicular accident, volcanic eruption or other calamities. May
lumabas sa bar, vehicular accident. So si A and B, they collided. Vehicle A and B
collided. Both drivers were unconscious. So here comes a bystander who got hold of the
wallet of driver B, who was unconscious at that time. So what crime is committed? It's
not simple theft - it's qualified theft. So we discussed about theft, qualified theft.
 What about estafa? As I've mentioned awhile ago, there's abuse of confidence and
deceit. Common element between the two is that there is damage. So the most
familiar sa abuse of confidence is through misappropriation. So the person... this is
committed by commission, by trust or administration. He holds the property not in the
concept of an owner but by virtue of commission, trust, or administration.
o Like for example if you get items from Avon. So what is the purpose - it is to sell
it. Do you own the items? No. Diba? So once you're able to sell it, your obligation
is to what? To remit the proceeds. And then you get your commission. If you
 failed to sell it, then you have to return it. Otherwise, you will be liable for estafa.
Okay?
 So let's discuss now on other kinds. Yung magkakamukha: parricide, infanticide,
abortion, murder, as well as homicide. Let me check. Basa niyo? Actually pabaliktad 'to.
Ginawa lang ng... I don't know how my daughther did this. So it's robbery... oh tapos na
tayo sa robbery, theft and estafa. So we go into parricide, infanticide and abortion.
 When it's parricide, how is the crime of parricide committed? Direct line 'yan, diba? So
it's a direct line. Relatives by direct line. So the killing of a brother or a sister cannot be
parricide. The killing of a father, mother, the child, okay? The killing of a father, mother,
child, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate, is parricide. Now, how about
other ascendants, like yung grandparent mo? So the relationship must be legitimate. What
about the killing of a grandchild? The relationship must be legitimate. So the only
instance sa direct line that's legitimate or not legitimate, is the killing of the father,
mother or child. Of course there's one... it's also parricide but it's not your relative by
blood but your spouse. The killing of the spouse, who must be a legitimate spouse, is also
parricide. So proof of legitimacy is required in parricide committed against a wife or
other ascendants or other descendants. So if there's also, like, reckless imprudence
committed, these relatives, it's also parricide but the penalty is lower.
 Now, infanticide. The killing of a child who is less than 3 days old, whether you have a
relationship with the child or not. Kahit anak mo but if the age of the child is less than 3
days old, that'also infanticide. Wala naman insecticide, 'no? Of course abortion, which is
intentional... intent to abort. Now ang tanong dun, is... there's a bar question in this case:
o QUESTION: Si husband saka si wife. H and W, and W was pregnant at that
time. 6 months. So they had an altercation, to the point na naging violent. So H
pushed his wife, who was pregnant at that time, 6 months. So she fell down and
her head hit the pavement. She died instantly. What about the child in the womb,
the fetus? The child in the womb lived for 6 months reckoned from the time that
the child was separated from the mother's womb. Ang tanong what is the crime
committed by H?
o DISCUSSION: No doubt, namatay si wife, so there's parricide. What about the
child inside? Is it abortion or infanticide? Now, recall, civil code provision. If the
age of the child is less than 7 months old, para magkaroon ng civil personality, the
child must live from 24 hours reckoned from separation from the mother's womb.
In this case, less than 6 months, and the child assuming, did not live for 24 hours.
The child only lived for 10 hours. Then the crime is the complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion. This is a complex crime. Single crime that
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. Now, if the age of the child
is, halimbawa, 8 months na siya. And the child only lived for 10 hours. Kanina
pala hours ah, hours. Kung 10 hours lang sya nag live, but the age... but 8 months
na yung bata, it's already parricide. A complex crime of parricide with infanticide.
 Now let's go to the difference between murder and homicide. As I've mentioned
awhile ago, there's intent to kill in both instances. But the difference is the presence of
what we call as qualifying aggravating circumstances.
 Diba alam natin sa aggravating alam natin there's generic, specific, inherent,
qualifying: it changes the nature of the crime. So treachery is a qualifying aggravating.
Evident premeditation is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. Of course cruelty, or
consideration of a price, or reward or promise. Or on occasion of fire, poison or
explosion. So lahat ito included under Article 14 giving instances of aggravating.
 But there's one qualifying aggravating which is not included Article 14. What is that?
Scoffing or outraging at the corpse. It is a qualifying aggravating in the crime of
murder.
 Pag treachery, two things dapat: #1, is that, there is no opportunity to defend himself,
or the attack is sudden and unexpected. The victim had no inkling that his life is in
danger. So the first one is no opportunity to defend himself. But there's also the second
one: #2 it must be consciously and deliberately adopted to ensure its execution, to
eliminate self-defense on the part of the victim. Those two must concur. So if the
person had the opportunity to defend himself... opportunity lang ito. So halimbawa, he
was already forwarned that X was gonna kill him, so his friend advised him to run away.
But he was overpowered by B and B killed A. There is an opportunity to defend himself,
so wala siyang murder... the crime is homicide.
 Now, evident premeditation. Three instances (elements): First, there is the time that
he actually determined to commit the crime. Second is acts manifestly showing that
he clung to the determination to commit the crime. Third is sufficient lapse of time
from the time he determined to the time he actually committed the crime. Actually
there's a time for him to reflect upon, and meditate upon the consequences of his act. So
di sila pupuwedeng magsama ng passion and obfuscation. What about this scoffing and
outraging at the corpse? So halimbawa, in my first instance, there is an opportunity to
defend himself kaya lang napatay siya. So it's homicide.
 Kaya lang, what the offender did... is what? To behead the victim and threw his head to
the river (additional facts given). What crime is that? That is murder. And it's not
because of treachery. It's because of scoffing or outraging at the corpse.
 What about differences (sic) treason, rebellion, piracy, coup de etat, misprision of
treason, mutiny, terrorism?
 Treason and rebellion... treason: this is a breach of allegiance. This is a crime of breach
of allegiance. So the offender here is one who owes allegiance to the Republic. Right? So
like a Filipino citizen. Or a resident alien has (sic) temporary allegiance to the Republic.
And how is this committed? Two things: levying war and adherence to the enemy, giving
them aid and comfort.
 When you say levying war, what do you mean? So there's an actual assemblage of
people gathered for the purpose of executing a treasonable design. Adherence to the
enemy, what is the meaning of that? The offender performed an act which strengthens or
tend (sic) to strengthen the enemy, or perform an act which weakens or tends to weaken
the state.
 Of course, there is also a two-witness rule: to convict a person of treachery, dapat
there's two witnesses to testify on the same overt act.
 There's also misprision of treason. So if there's treason, there's misprision of treason. If
a person has knowledge of conspiracy (sic) to commit treason and he failed to disclose
that to the proper authority, they're liable for misprision of treason.
 Adherence to the enemy, what is the meaning of that? If the offender performs an act
which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy. Or perform an act which
weakens or tend to weaken the state or the Republic. Of course, there is also a two
witness rule. To convict a person of treachery, there should be two witnesses to testify on
the same overt act. There is also misprision of treason. So if there’s treason, there is
also misprision of treason. If a person has knowledge of conspiracy to commit
treason, and he failed to disclose to the proper authority, then liable for misprision
of treason. And the person who may commit this crime is a Filipino citizen.
 If a person has knowledge of the crime of rebellion and he fails to disclose that, is he
criminally liable? No, because there’s no misprision of rebellion, but only the crime of
misprision of treason.
 What about rebellion? As we mentioned a while ago, the purpose is to overthrow the
government. Public uprising and taking arms against the government.
 How will you differentiate rebellion from sedition? There’s also public uprising in
sedition. The public in tumultuous uprising there is no taking arms against the
government. This is only peculiar to the crime of rebellion. Rebellion is in ways
political. Sedition is social and also political.
 What about piracy and mutiny? In piracy, there is seizing of the vessel and also of the
cargo, equipment, and belonging of persons. There’s piracy in high seas and as well as as
piracy in Philippine waters.
 How will you differentiate piracy from mutiny? In piracy, there is intent to gain. In
mutiny, there is no intent to gain. What is the purpose? To disobey the orders of the
superiors. Piracy in high seas from mutiny. Mutiny is committed by members of the
complement. Piracy is committed generally by strangers.
 But in piracy in Philippine waters can be committed by a passenger.
 There is also qualified piracy. What is qualified piracy? So if the seizing of the vessel is
through boarding or firing the same, it is qualified. Or if they abandoned the victim
without means of saving themselves, or if it is accompanied by murder, homicide, rape,
or physical injuries.
 In coup de etat, first thing that should come in mind. There is a fifth (?) attack coupled
with violence, intimidation, threat, or strategy. So unlike in rebellion where the
purpose is to overthrow the government, the purpose in coup de etat is to diminish
or seize state power.
 What about terrorism? Under the Anti-Security Act (Human Security Act), so the first
element is that there is a commission of a predicate crime which is punishable under the
RPC as well as the SPL. But more than that, is that it is to create a widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace. The third element is to force the
government to give in to their unlawful demand. So dapat merong demand. No demand,
no terrorism. No demand, no delay sa civil law. Sa terrorism, no demand, no terrorism.
And that demand must be an unlawful one.
 So it is really hard to prove what is widespread and extraordinary fear wala pang
definition.
 Now, what about complex crime? I think there are questions with respect to distinctions
and similarities in a, say, RPC, robbery and theft sa exercise natin:
o QUESTION: A broke open a window and without entering the house took a
chest lying underneath the window. He brought out the chest to the yard where he
broke it open and took away the contents thereof. All valued at P5000. What
crime did he commit? So there is a breaking of the window, but without entering
the house. So what is your answer? Is it robbery or theft?
o ANSWER: The crime committed is purely theft. Even if there is a breaking of a
window, but he did not enter into the premises, robbery with force upon things
cannot be committed.
 Arson and murder:
o QUESTION: B set the house of A on fire as way of revenge. B did not know that
A was inside. A died because of the fire. What crime or crimes did he commit?
Second question. Suppose naman that B knew that A was inside. What crime or
crimes did he commit? Third question. Suppose before setting it on fire, ang
ginawa ni B muna is to enter the house and kill A, and then to conceal the house,
B set the house on fire to hide the body of A. What crime or crimes did he
commit?
o ANSWER: First question. B would be liable for the crime arson, special crime of
arson with homicide. So the penalty is higher. If being that A was in the house
when it was set on fire, then the crime is murder. Fire would now constitute as a
qualifying circumstance in the crime of murder. If B killed A before the house
was set on fire, then two crimes are committed. Murder and arson. The arson was
committed to conceal the crime of murder.
 Let’s go to complex crime. There are two types of complex crime, compound and
complex crime. Single act constitutes two or more less grave felonies.
 o So the question, just because two crimes are committed by virtue of a single act,
is there a complex crime? No. Why? Because those two crimes must be two or
more grave or less grave felonies. So when you say grave, punishment is capital
and afflictive. Less grave, correctional. Prision correcional, arresto mayor,
suspension and destierro.
 You also have complex crime proper. Sabi dito, only a necessary means to commit
another. Hindi siya indispensable means. If it is an indispensable means, then there is
no complex crime. If its is an element of the crime, there is no complex crime.
o So the question, is there a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a
private document? Common element, sa estafa there is damage, in falsification of
a private document, there is also damage. Elements ng crime ito. So there is no
complex crime because it is now an indispensable means. Sa complex crime,
dapat lang necessary means.

 How do you differentiate a complex crime from a special complex crime? Special
complex crime, two crimes are committed but punished under a single provision of the
RPC. Ang complex crime, the penalty is the most serious crime to be imposed in its
maximum period. The complex crime is not applicable to special penal laws. Not also
applicable to light felonies and not also applicable to conceal the crime.
 Now let’s go to our distinction and similarity between an SPL and RPC. How do you
distinguish first special penal laws from that of the RPC? In RPC, mala in se. Evil in
nature. Therefore, good faith is a proper defense. In SPL, it’s mala prohibita. And
good faith is not preferred as a matter of defense.
o So if you’re going to ask, the question calls for a distinction between a particular
crime which is an SPL and another one which is RPC, then you go with the
general distinction. Mala in se, mala prohibita. Well, is this an absolute rule?
Mala in se in RPC? No. May case na although RPC yet it is mala prohibita.
Therefore, good faith is not a preferred defense. What is the exception?
Technical malversation or illegal use of public funds.
o What about in SPL, sabi natin mala prohibita? Is that an absolute rule? No, there
are cases where although it is punishable under the SPL, it is deemed as mala
in se. Like what? Plunder. The Supreme Court said that it is evil in its nature
so it’s mala in se although plunder is a special penal law. So therefore good
faith is not a proper defense.
o Another distinction: Stages of execution. Principals, accomplices, and
accessories. These are applicable to crimes punishable by RPC in order to
determine the proper imposable penalty. Sa special penal laws, no. Generally, the
offender is regarded as a principal. Unless the SPL uses these persons criminally
liable or stages of execution. So in stages of execution, consummated, frustrated,
and attempted, not applicable to SPL. Persons criminally liable, principals,
 accomplices, accessories, not applicable to SPL. Unless, the SPL borrows the
same.
o Generally, in SPL, the crime is consummated and the offender is regarded as
a principal. Modifying circumstances. The presence of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances do offset one from the other. These are important in
crimes punished under the RPC to provide the proper imposable penalty. Kung sa
SPL, we do not regard the presence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. Kahit may voluntary surrender or plea of guilt, it will not be
appreciated kasi SPL.
o What else? Yung nomenclature of penalties under the RPC. Reclusion perpetua,
reclusion temporal, peculiar only to RPC. In SPL, the special penal laws provide
for a particular penalty. So in RPC there is reclusion perpetua, in SPL there is life
imprisonment.
o What happens if SPL uses the nomenclature of penalties of RPC? Maraming
cases na ang SPL uses the nomenclature of the RPC. What is the effect? With
regard to the application of the indeterminate sentence law. In ISLAW, we follow
the rules under the special penal law. There is also a peculiar rule under this RPC.
But if the SPL uses the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, then the rules
under the ISLAW will apply under the RPC and not the SPL. So what do we do?
There is the rule of offsetting. So we will appreciate the presence of the
modifying circumstances, aggravating and mitigating, although it is an SPL.
Why? Because it uses the nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC.

 What about the difference between BP 22 and estafa? One is an SPL, one is an RPC.
Mala in se, mala prohibita. Basic. In BP 22, he is given 5 banking days to pay in full the
obligation or to make an arrangement in full. In estafa, three days lang.
o Now the question. When a check is presented before the bank, and it was
dishonored, ipso facto BP 22 is committed? No. Kailangan bibigyan ng 5 banking
days within which to pay or to make an arrangement to pay. Notice of dishonor. If
the notice of dishonor is not personally received by the accused, then there is no
BP 22. He must be given the chance to pay the same. In BP22, there is a pre-
existing obligation. In estafa, there is simultaneous obligation. Simultaneous with
the parting of the goods which is part of the sale.
o What else? What is punished in BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless check. What
is punished in estafa? The same and damage. So implication. A person can be
both liable for BP 22 and estafa. Estafa is harder to prove. Because you have to
prove deceit and damage. What about corporation? Corporate officers who signed
is liable but he is entitled to receive the notice of dishonor personally. And not to
be given to a corporate secretary. According to the Supreme Court admin circular,
 it did not decriminalize BP22. The court has the discretion to impose a fine as a
penalty instead of kaagad imprisonment. Remember that.

 Direct bribery and anti-graft. Can a person be both liable for direct bribery and the
anti-graft corrupt practices under special penal laws? Yes, because they have
different elements.
o Sa Anti-Graft, B,E,G,H diba. 3D, 3E, 3G, 3H. 3B, a public officer entered into a
contract in which he has the right to intervene. BE, is evident bad faith and
manifest partiality, and there is also a grave inexcusable negligence. BG is entered
into a contract which is grossly disadvantageous to the government. Grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government. And the last one is holding an
interest, which is what, prohibited under the law.
o These are not the same elements as that of direct bribery. Direct bribery, is only
agreeing to perform an act constituting a crime. Sa direct bribery, agreeing to
perform an act, wala pang acceptance. Basta agreement ninyo is what? That
which would constitute a crime. Second, acceptance of the gift. Basta to perform
an act not constituting a crime. So kanina, agreeing kung constituting a crime. By
mere agreement, consummated crime. Sa second instance, there must be an
acceptance. Acceptance of what? To perform an act not constituting a crime. The
third one is acceptance of the gift to refrain the public officer from doing
something in which it was his official duty to do. So again, let me emphasize that
a person can be both liable for direct bribery and anti-graft because the elements
are not the same. One is an SPL, and one is under the RPC.

 So also, there is probably no crime committed kasi justifying. One is exempting. Ano ba
similarities ng justifying and exempting circumstances.
o There’s no criminal liability to both.
o Except that in justifying, there is no civil liability. In exempting, there is civil
liability as a general rule. So justifying, no criminal liability no civil liability
except avoidance of evil which is provided under paragraph 4. Avoidance of
greater evil there is civil liability.
o What about in exempting, no criminal liability but there is civil liability. Is this
an absolute rule? There are two exceptions where there is no civil liability in
exempting under paragraph 4, which is what, accident, and paragraph 7, which is
what, insuperable cause. So like minority and insanity, there is no criminal
liability. If the age of the child is 15 years old or younger, no criminal liability. If
it’s above 15 below 18, without acting in discernment, then there’s no criminal
liability as well. Insanity. Except if the person acted during lucid interval.
 So chances are, the crimes are not punished by RPC (Sudden change of topic). Like
misprision of treason, knowledge of conspiracy to commit rebellion but you failed to
 disclose it to the proper authority. Meron bang criminal liability? Wala, kasi no
misprision of rebellion.
 There is also absorption. Rebellion absorbs other common crimes in furtherance of
rebellion.
o So there’s also instigation and under Article 332, in theft, estafa, and malicious
mischief if committed by spouse, ascendants, descendants, widowed spouse,
brothers and sisters, if living together, there is no criminal liability.
 Once you know already the elements of the crime. You check also the stages of
execution, whether it is consummated, frustrated or attempted. The crime is
frustrated homicide, the crime is attempted homicide. So you have got to know what is
attempted and frustrated.
 Of course you know internal acts, external acts. Internal acts are not punishable, external
acts are not punishable as well. If it is a preparatory act, it is not punishable (as a
general rule). Acts of execution is punishable.
 Now what is the difference between a frustrated and from attempted. In frustrated,
the offender had performed all acts of execution. In attempted, the offender only has
commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but did not perform
all acts of execution.
 So what is the difference between the two? Sa attempted, he did not perform all acts of
execution. In frustrated, he already performed all acts of execution which would
produce the felony, but by circumstance the crime was not consummated. Why? In
attempted, by reasons what, other than his own spontaneous desistance. In
frustrated, what is the reason? Independent of the will of the perpetrator.
o So pagka A pointed his gun against B, and he missed. What is the crime
committed? It is still attempted. Halimbawa, attempted homicide. If A pointed his
gun against B, tinamaan kamay niya, what is his crime? It is still attempted.
Because there something remains to be done. It is not consummated hindi napatay
yung tao.
 With respect to frustrated, he had already performed all acts of execution. So the
wound inflicted is a mortal wound. It is a fatal wound. So if A shot B on the vital parts of
his organ, that is frustrated. Now the person did not die. Why? Because he was brought to
the hospital and timely medical attention. Where it not for the intervention of the doctors,
B would have died. In that case, we could say that he already performed all acts of
execution.
o So, in this instance, halimbawa, si husband at si wife. Si husband, di niya na love
si wife. He planned to kill his wife. So he is a physician. Nagbigay siya ng poison
sa glass ni wife. So ano nangyari, nangisay si wife in his presence. Naawa si
husband kasi minsan niya minahal si wife tsaka mother siya ng kanilang kids. So
what he did is employed an antidote to the poison. The wife survived. So ang
tanong ngayon, is he liable for attempted or frustrated parricide. So we check on
 the attempted. Did he not perform all acts of execution? He did perform all acts of
execution. So wala ng attempted. Was it consummated? No, because wife
survived. Is it dependent or independent of the will of the perpetrator? It is
dependent upon husband. So there is no attempted and no frustrated parricide. So
the crime is merely physical injuries.
 What is the participation of A, B, and C? (Sudden change of topic) Principal. May direct
participation. Principal by inducement. Principal by indispensable cooperation. So sa
principal na yun, tatandaan ninyo direct participation, kung conspiracy, all will be liable
as principals by direct participation. Ang tanong. Is mere conspiracy punishable?
 Mere conspiracy is not punishable unless there is a law which punishes the same.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion, coup de etat, among others.
o Halimbawa. Si A and B conspired to murder X tomorrow. A will drive his car,
bringing B to the place of X. And B is assigned to kill X. The following day, only
B appeared to kill X. During investigation, it was found out that A also conspired
to kill X so he was also charged with the crime of murder and conspiracy to
commit murder. Is he liable? No. Wala naming conspiracy to commit murder.
 Paano yung “the act of one is the act of all?” This is not applicable. When you say the act
of one is the of all, dapat may overt act si A. In this case, walang overt act si A.
According to conspiracy, dapat dadalhin niya si B sa scene of the crime but he did not. So
A is not criminally liable. So when you say the act of one is the act of all, dapat A
performed the act pursuant to the plan or pursuant to the conspiracy. A, B, and C
conspired to rob X. A, according to their agreement, will bring them to the scene of the
crime. B will be the lookout. C will be the one to rob the house. Sabi ni A, “no I only
drove them to the scene of the crime. Hindi naman ako nagnakaw so dapat si B lang ang
personally liable.” Is that applicable? No, all of them will be liable for robbery because it
was the act of one and the act of all. It was in pursuant to the agreement. So they are
liable only for the crime they conspired to commit. So if this act is not part of the
agreement, then he will not be liable. Except pag special complex crime. Robbery
with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with arson, robbery with serious physical
injuries. Why? Because in this special complex crime, it has its own peculiar rule. By
reason or occasion of robbery, somebody gets killed then all of them will be killed. All of
them will be liable for robbery with homicide although the killing is not part of the
agreement because there is a special provision provided. So robbery with homicide, hindi
ibig sabihin may intent to kill. Intentional or not, it is still robbery with homicide. There
is no robbery with murder, robbery with homicide pa rin yan. Because it happened
before, during, or immediately after the robbery. Dapat palang, at the onset, there is
intent to rob and somebody dies before, during, or immediately after the robbery.
 Now, kung ang intent nila at the onset is to kill. A, B, and C intended to murder the
victim. And then, as an afterthought, yung isang co-conspirator, stole and rob the jewelry
box of the victim. There is no robbery with homicide. So what shall we apply? A person
 is only liable for the crime that he conspired to commit. All of them will not be liable
for robbery, but for the killing which is the crime they conspired to commit. But for
robbery, the co-conspirator lang since siya lang gumawa nun and not the rest. Again, a
person is liable only for the crime he conspired to commit. Exception, if it is a
special complex crime. Robbery with rape, robbery with homicide, etc. Sa robbery with
rape, somebody was raped by reason or occasion of robbery although rape is not part of
the conspiracy. Lahat sila magiging liable for robbery with rape
 Now, inducement alam ninyo na yan (no further explanation was given).
 Indispensable to cooperation. The cooperation must be indispensable otherwise the
plan would not have been committed. Ang accomplices, you just have to remember,
there is no conspiracy. Kung may conspiracy, principal yan.
 In accomplices, he only cooperated with the commission of the crime by previous or
simultaneous act. And you remember this, his participation is less than that of the
principal. Hindi dapat pareho or greater than that of the principal. If the wound inflicted
by the person is a mortal wound, and the wound inflicted by the principal is also a mortal
wound, pareho lang sila. He will not be an accomplice, but a principal.
 Accessories. Three instances. Profited from the commission. Profited and also second, he
concealed or destroyed the body of the crime. Second (note: he said second again), if he
concealed or harbored or assist in the escape of the principal. So dapat, ang hinarbor niya
at cinconceal niya ay inassist niya is a principal, not an accomplice. Pag accomplice
inassist niyan, walang accessory.
 Now you’ve got to remember also. Who are the persons who assisted the principal? If
he is a private person, dapat limited lang ginawa ng principal. TPMA. Treason,
Parricide, Murder, and attempt on the life of the chief executive or is known to be a
habitual delinquent. Pag public siya, any crimes committed by the principal for as long as
there is an abuse of his public position.
 Of course, there are exemptions under Article 20. Yung mga spouses, descendants,
ascendants, etc. But if they profited from the effects of the crime, they will not be liable
as an accessory. Perhaps they are not liable, but they can be liable for a special penal
crime. Which is what?
 The anti-fencing law. Under the anti-fencing law, walang exceptions. Anyone who buys
or sells or deals with an object or item subject of robbery or thievery will be liable for the
anti-fencing law, for as long as he knows or he should have known that it came from the
proceeds of robbery or theft.
 So if you were able to buy a brand new book in RPC costing for P200, but sa REX
bookstore it costs around P2500, liable ka for anti-fencing law.
 Halimbawa ang tanong. Is X criminally liable? Pwedeng article 4 siya. Hindi naman
specific crimes. How? Paano na-a-apply ang Article 4? Committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The first paragraph
pertains to intentional felony. So, dolo lang siya. Hindi siya mag apply sa culpa or sa
 special penal laws. A person is liable for the direct, natural, and logical consequences
of his unlawful act. Now, if we perform a lawful act, then he is not liable kahit namatay
siya. Kasi, he’s performing a lawful act. Dapat unlawful lang. He is liable for the direct,
natural, and logical consequences of the same.
 So pag error in personae, and two persons are present in the scene of the crime. A,
believing that it was B. A intended to kill B, but he killed C believing that it was B. Sa
aberratio ictus, there is lack of precision. Tatlo ang present at the scene of the crime. Si
A, si B, at si C. Binaril ni A si B. Na-bullet ricochet, it was C who was hit. 3 persons. Sa
error in personae, dalawa ang present. Praetor intentionem, the resulting injury is greater
than that which they intend to commit.
 Now, impossible crime. Impossible crime by performing an act which will be an
offense against persons or properties (By any person performing an act which would
be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.).
So this is only applicable to persons and property. Secondly, dapat it should not constitute
as a crime under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. So there is legal
impossibility, and physical impossibility. You cannot kill a person who is already dead.
So A intended to kill B, believing that B was still alive.
o You cannot kill a person who is already dead. A intended to kill B, believing that
B was still alive. But unknown to A, B was already dead. Why? Because of a
heart attack. So sinaksak ni A si B. So that’s impossible crime.
o But if A knew that B was alive at the time, there’s no impossible crime.

 I can already discuss penalties.

Indeterminate Sentence Law

 Importance ng ISLAW from that of Probation (difference). You have to set the min and
max term of the indeterminate sentence.
 Why determine minimum? Because once the convict had already served the min term,
he would be eligible to be released on parole.
 Why determine maximum? If in case the convict violates any of the conditions of his
parole, then will have to serve the max term of his indeterminate sentence.
 Sa probation law, he doesn’t have to go to jail. You only have to report to the probation
officer and meet conditions of probation. Magkaiba sila.
ISLAW disqualifications

 Just memorize the disqualifications:

o The penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
 Remember the ISL it is both applicable to RPC and SPLs.
 o Convicted of treason (all kinds), Rebellion, Piracy, Habitual delinquent, escaped
from imprisonment or sentence…
 Minsan sa bar q lumabas dyan. Nililito ka if person is habitual delinquent. Tapos may
maliit na sentence: “He escaped from imprisonment.”
o He committed from his last release or conviction a third time or more often. Eh
2nd time lang sya. So you concluded di sya DQ. Pero nakalagay dun escaped
from imprisonment, disqualified sya.
 Also those whose max term does not exceed one year. So hindi ka mag ISLAW 2 mos
min to 5 mos max. Kase you will not apply the ISLAW. You will not impose the min and
max term of his IS if the penalty is less than 1 yr. So dapat straight penalty ka lang. 6 mos
imprisonment. Tapos.
 Now if the penalty exceeds one year, then the court is mandated to impose the min
and max term of his Indeterminate Sentence. So ang court di pwede mag impose,
kunwari drugs act. 3 yrs 1 day. Dapat the court has to set min and max term.
 Now remember min and max terms, not sentence (may be referring to “not direct
sentence).
 So how do you get the min and max term when the penalty is punishable under a
SPL.
 Remember SPL, we do not regard mitigating or aggravating. Simple lang yan. So sa SPL,
yung bar qs mag provide ng penalty imposed by the law. And then penalty imposed by
the court. So ang tanong is the penalty imposed by the court proper?
o So example: Sa illegal possession of firearms, the penalty is 5 yrs min to 10 yrs
max. Assuming.
o Ang sabi ng batas the min term should not be lower than that imposed by law. So
not lower than 5 yrs. Ang max, should not exceed the max penalty imposed by the
SPL. So kung 10 yrs should not exceed.

 So remember 2 things in SPL: The penalty imposed by law and penalty imposed by
the court. Now let’s go to the RPC.
 There is the rule of offsetting. Sa rule of offsetting, ano ang inooffset natin? Only
ordinary Mitigating Circustances, from generic Aggravating Circumstances.
Several types of Mitigating Circumstances: Ordinary and Privileged.

 Which one do you use to offset generic Aggravating Circumstance? Ordinary

Mitigating Circumstance.
 What do you do with the Privileged Mitigating Circumstance? You automatically
reduce the penalty by a degree no matter how many AC are present.
o So kapag nakita mo age of the child is above 15 below 18 acting with discernment
baba agad by one degree. Or incomplete self-defense. Basta andun unlawful
aggression. Privileged MC yun.
  What about Aggravating Circumstances? Ano ginagamit sa rule of offsetting? Only
generic Aggravating Circumstances.
Several types - Qualifying (changes nature of crime)

 Kanina we discussed that sa murder. So we do not say the crime is homicide with a
generic Aggravating Circumstance of treachery. Because the crime itself is already
murder.
 You cannot say also if it’s inherent (you should be able to say if it’s inherent). You
cannot say the person is liable for malversation with Generic Aggravating Circumstance
of abuse of public position. Because inherent in malversation is the abuse of public
position.
o Now, evident premeditation is a qualifying Aggravating Circumstance in the
crime of murder. It is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things.
 Meaning to say just because may nakita kayong Aggravating Circumstance you will use
that to offset. So dapat only generic Aggravating Circumstance. (Just because you see
an aggravating circumstance, you should not automatically use that to offset.
Identify first if the aggravating circumstance is inherent to the crime committed.)
How to get maximum term of Indeterminate Sentence

 To get the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence, the penalty imposed by the
RPC after appreciating the presence of the Mitigating Circumstance and Aggravating
Circumstance. Or after applying the rule of offsetting.
 Diba ang penalty meron divisible and indivisible.
 Alam naman DQ (?) sa ISL is indivisible penalty. So kapag reclusion perpetua you don’t
have to compute.
 The rule in indivisible, walang min med or max period. So capital punishment- death,
wala.
 Reclusion perpetua although it carries 20 yrs 1 day to 40 yrs, SC said remains to be
indivisible. So wala kayong maririning sa reclusion perpetus in its min med or max
periods.
 Assuming may 2 Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances. Penalty is reclusion perpetua. Do
you apply ISL? No. Offsetting? No rin. Only exception is Privileged Mitigating
Circumstances
 So reclusion perpetua tapos isang Privileged Mitigating Circumstances. So naturally
lower by one degree. One degree lower is reclusion temporal. Now a divisible penalty. So
you apply now rule on offsetting.
Review:
0 Aggravating and 0 Mitigating = Medium period
1 Aggravating and 0 Mitigating = Maximum period
0 Aggravating and 1 Mitigating = Minimum period

 Common mistake ng students is kapag 0-0 minimum. No. dapat medium.

 Pano Sir if 2+ Mitigating but no Aggravating, will it be min? No. Lower by one degree.
Is this Priviliged Mitigating? No. Do not deem it as Privileged Mitigating although it
only partakes of a Privileged Mitigating in the sense that the penalty will be reduced
not to its minimum period, but 1 degree lower.
 3 or more Mitigating and 1 Aggravating? Common mistake inooffset agad and reducing
by one degree. Applicable lang sya kapag 0 Aggravating. So kahit 5 Mitigating kung
may 1 Aggravating just impose it in min period.
 EXAMPLE: So if the penalty is reclusion temporal and there are 2 Mitigating as against
1 Aggravating. How do you get max term of Indeterminate? Apply rule of offsetting.
Result into minimum period. Masmarami ang Mitigating.
o So how do you get the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence? The max
term of the IS is reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
 EXAMPLE: Assume penalty is prision mayor. Voluntary surrender. Plea of guilt. Use of
superior strength. Habitual delinquent. Determine mo muna circumstances:
o (a) Voluntary surrender = Mitigating;
o (b) Plea of guilt = Mitigating (It is mitigating if voluntarily done before the
prosecution starts to present evidence);
o (c) Use of superior strength = Aggravating;
o (d) Habitual delinquent = Aggravating.
 So 2 Mitigating and 2 Aggravating. Offset. Result into medium period.
Penalty: Prision mayor in its medium period as the max term of the
Indeterminate Sentence.
 EXAMPLE: Reclusion temporal. 1 Ordinary Mitigating and 1 Privileged Mitigating.
Result: One degree lower is prision mayor.
 EXAMPLE: Now 1 Mitigating Circumstance. (Same reclusion temporal as the example
given above) Penalty: Prision mayor in its minimum period as the max term of the
Indeterminate Sentence.
How do you get the minimum term?

 One degree lower than that imposed by the Code (RPC). And what is the period? The
period is upon the discretion of the court.
 Let’s go back: QUESTION: Reclusion temporal. 2 Mitigating and 1 Aggravating.
Tanong sa bar: determine min and max term of Indeterminate Sentence.
 ANSWER: Penalty: Max term is reclusion temporal in its minimum period. What is one
degree lower than rec temp? Prision mayor. Penalty: Minimum term is prision mayor the
period of which is upon the discretion of the court.
  Sa pag compute compute mo, bumababa ka na as your max term na less than 1 yr. Pakita
mo pa rin sa examiner marunong ka mag compute. But you would say in conclusion the
ISL is not applicable because the penalty is less than 1 year.
 Pano kung SPL na gumamit ng nomenclature of penalties from RPC? What rule will
you use to determine min and max term? Use RPC. So kahit SPL yan, may rule of
offsetting.
Last topic is about Probation Law.

 The convict need not go to jail. Only need to report to probation officer and meet
conditions of probation.
 Do not interchange disqualifications under probation from that of the RPC (ISLAW, not
RPC).
 Kung ang unang disqualification under ISLAW is death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. Sa probation is higher than 6 yrs.
 So kung RPC hanggang pricion correccional if the penalty is prison mayor (6 yrs 1 day),
disqualified. (?)
Other Disqualifications under probation?

 Crime against national security.

o QUESTION: A person is convicted of rebellion. Ang tanong dalawa: Can he
avail of ISLAW? Probation?
o ANSWER: As to ISLAW. NO. Express disqualification. As to Probation. Yes. It
is a crime against public order, not national security. Provided that penalty is not
more than 6 yrs.
o Before the probation law was amended, kasama yung crime against public order.
Ngayon national security na lang.

 Another disqualification under probation: Now of course if previously availed of

probation.
 So what is the most important? Appeal.
 GENERAL RULE: Two mutually exclusive remedies. Can only avail probation or
appeal. (One or the other, not both)
 EXCEPTION: Case of Colinares. Filed an appeal but SC allowed benefit of probation.
(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011)
o MINI DIGEST: Convicted of frustrated homicide. The penalty imposed is higher
than 6 yrs. So bawal. The remaining remedy is appeal. Colinares appealed and
reached the SC. SC sustained judgment of conviction but modified sentence. Only
found guilty of attempted homicide. The penalty now imposed is 2 yrs and 4 mos.
Now he filed for probation. This was opposed.
 o SC said there was an erroneous judgment by RTC. Had RTC imposed proper
penalty, then Colinares has option to apply for probation.
o SC allowed to file for probation notwithstanding appeal filed earlier.
o This SC decision is now incorporated in the amendment of the Probation Law.

-TRANSCRIPT ENDS –

The online lecture may be accessed through this link:

https://www.facebook.com/103457951213625/videos/3195309010694334/