CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I

Q: Distinguish mala in se from mala prohibita

A:
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

Definition A crime where the act done A crime where the act done is not inherently bad, evil or
is inherently bad, evil and wrong but prohibited by law for public good and welfare.
wrong in nature, such that it
is generally condemned.

Laws Violated Generally, punishable under Generally, punishable under Special Laws
the Revised Penal Code

Basis of Criminal Offender’s moral trait Offender’s voluntariness

Liability

Good Faith or Lack Good faith or lack of Good faith or lack of criminal intent is NOT accepted as
of Criminal Intent criminal intent is a defense a defense, UNLESS this is an element of the crime such
as a Defense as in Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act)

Q: What are the exceptions to the rule that penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its
territory?
A: The exceptions to the rule are:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit and offense in the exercise of their functions;
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations. (Art. 2, RPC)

Q: What is the Doctrine of In Dubio Pro Reo or Pro Reo Principle?

A: The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to be construed and applied in
a way lenient or liberal to the offender, constant to and consistent with the constitutional guarantee that an
accused shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.(People v. Guinto, 2014)

Q: Distinguish grave, less grave and light felonies from one another
A:
GRAVE FELONIES LESS GRAVE FELONIES LIGHT FELONIES
Those which the law attaches the Those which the law punishes Those Infractions of law or the
capital punishment or penalties, with penalties which in their commission of which the penalty
which in any of their periods are maximum period are of arresto menor or a fine not
afflictive in accordance with Art 25 of correctional exceeding Forty thousand pesos
the RPC (₱40,000) or both is provided

Q: Distinguish Error in Personae, Aberratio Ictus and Praeter Intentionem

A:
ERROR IN PERSONAE ABERRATIO ICTUS PRAETER INTENTIONEM
The victim actually Or mistake in the blow. It is the lack of intention to commit so grave a
received the blow, but Presupposes 3 persons present wrong as that committed. The injury is on the
he was mistaken for in the crime scene - (1) the intended victim but the resulting consequences
another who was not offender, (2) intended victim, (3) is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It
at the scene of the the innocent person. happens when somebody already was planning
crime. to do something bad but his actions ended up
A person directed the blow at an producing worse.
There are only 2 intended victim, but because of
persons present in the poor aim, that blow landed on There must be a great disparity between the
scene of the crime somebody else. means employed and the resulting felony

Q: Give examples of crimes which have no frustrated stage

A:
1. Rape. Since the gravamen of the offense if carnal knowledge, no matter how slight the penetration, the
felony is consummated. (People vs. Campuhan, 2000).
2. Robbery/Theft. The unlawful taking immediately consummates the offense and the disposition of the
thing is not an element thereof. (Valenzuela vs. People,2007).
3. Physical injury. Since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or serious
until consummated.
 4. Adultery. Because the essence of the crime is sexual ingress.

Q: Define a continuing crime

A: A continued, continuous, and continuing crime is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts arising from one
criminal resolution and is therefore, a complex crime. (People v. Sandiganbayan, 2004) A continuing or transitory
offense which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place.
Examples of continuing crimes are illegal recruitment and robbery.

Q: What are the kinds of Complex Crimes?

A:
COMPOUND CRIME COMPLEX CRIME SPECIAL COMPLEX CONTINUED REAL OR
PROPER CRIME CRIME MATERIAL
PLURALITY
Compound Crime Complex Crime Composite Crime or Continued Crime There is a series
(Delitocompuesto) Proper Special Crime (Delitocontinuado) of acts
(Delitocomplejo) performed by the
A Single act It is made up of or There should be: offender.
constitutes two or When an offense is a two or more crimes 1. Plurality of
more grave or less necessary means of which are considered the acts Each act
grave felonies. Its committing another. only as components performed performed by the
requisites are: Its requisites are: of a single indivisible separately offender
1. That only one offense being during a constitutes a
single act is 1. That at least two punished in one period of separate crime,
performed by offenses are provision of the time; each act is
the offender; and committed; Revised Penal Code; 2. Unity of generated by
2. That the single 2. That one or hence, only one criminal criminal impulse.
act produces two some of the penalty is specifically intent or
or more grave or offenses must prescribed. purpose;
less grave be necessary to
felonies commit the The component Unity of penal
other, and crimes are not provision infringed
Light felonies That both or all the regarded as distinct upon or violated.
produced by the same crimes must be crimes and so the (Santiago v.
act should be treated punished under the penalty for the most Garchitorena, 1993)
and punished as RPC. serious crime is not
separate offenses or the penalty to be
may be absorbed by imposed nor in its
the grave felony. maximum period.
(People v. Larañaga,,
2004)

Q: Does Art. 48 on Complex Crimes apply to acts penalized under Art. 365 on Recklesss Imprudence?
A: No. Art. 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Art. 365. It is conceptually impossible for a
quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense
which is a necessary means for commiting another. (Ivler v. San Pedro, 2010).

Q: What is the effect of claiming self-defense?

A: By invoking self-defense, the accused, in fact admits that he inflicted injuries on the victim. Thus, the burden
of proving with clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances to exculpate him from criminal
liability was thereby shifted to him. (Tandoc v. People, 2007).

Q: What are the requisites of self-defense?

A:
1. Unlawful aggression – an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon
a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it – it exists when
a. There must be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making the defense;
b. A necessity of the means used. (People v. Catbagan, 2004)
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (Art. 11(1), RPC).

Q: What is an indispensable requisite in availing of the justifying circumstance of self-defense?

A: There can be no self-defense, may it be complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful
aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. (People v. Catabagan, 2004)

Q: If the act does not constitute unlawful aggression, what other circumstances may such act be considered?
A: While the act cannot be considered unlawful aggression for the purpose of self-defense, it may be considered
as sufficient provocation for the purpose of mitigating the crime. (People v. Gotis, 2007)
Q: What are the requisites for the exempting circumstance of imbecility or insanity?
A:
1. Offender is an imbecile; and
2. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime.

Q: When is imbecility or insanity not exempting?

A: When the accused has acted during a lucid interval.

Q: What are the tests for exemption on grounds of insanity?

A:
1. Cognition Test – This test asks whether the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing said crime; and
2. Volition Test – This test asks whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will (People
v. Rafana, Jr., 1991)

Q: Define a status offense.

A: It is any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered
an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child. (Sec. 67, RA 9344)

Q: What are the requisites for a circumstance be considered an accident?

A:
1. A person who, while performing a lawful act;
2. Exercise of due care;
3. He causes an injury by mere accident; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing it. (Sec. 12(4), RPC)

Q: What are the requisites to avail of the exempting circumstance for the Compulsion of an Irresistible Force?
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. That the physical force be irresistible; and
3. That the physical force must come from a third person (Art. 15(5), RPC)

Q: When is the circumstance for the compulsion of an irresistible force appreciated?

A: For this circumstance to apply, the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for escape
or self-defense in equal combat. (People v. Anod, 2009) In order for this defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear,
or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.

Q: When is uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury appreciated as an exempting circumstance?

A: It must appear that the threat which caused the uncontrollable fear related to a crime of such gravity and so
imminent that it might safely be said that the ordinary run of men would have been governed by it; and the evil
threatened must be greater than, or at least equal to, that which he is compelled to cause. (U.S v. Elicanal, 1916)

Q: What are the requisites for the exempting circumstance of Lawful or Insuperable Cause?
A:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That person failed to perform such act; and
3. That his failure to perform such act is due to some lawful or insuperable cause. (Art. 12(7), RPC)

Q: When is voluntary surrender a mitigating circumstance?

A: In order for it to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of
the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because
he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. It is no longer
mitigating if the accused had already been arrested. (People v. Lozano, 2003).

Q: Is the surrender made after the filing of an information and/or issuance of a warrant of arrest considered
involuntary?
A: No. The court in the case of People v. Cagas and in People v. Taraya, added a requisite that there should be no
pending warrant of arrest or information filed for a surrender to be voluntary. However, when an accused, upon
learning that the court had finally determined the presence of probable cause and even before the issuance and
implementation of the warrant of arrest, gave himself up acknowledging his culpability and the eventual plea of
guilt during the arraignment, makes the surrender voluntary. (De Vera v. De Vera, 2009)

Q: When the accused confessed to a lesser offense not charged in the information and he was later found
guilty of the lesser offense, will it be considered as a mitigating circumstance?
A: No. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not a mitigating circumstance because to be voluntary, the plea
must be to the offense charged. (People v. Noble, 1946)

Q: Is return of stolen item(s) be considered as voluntary surrender?

A: Yes. It has been repeatedly held that for surrender to be voluntary, there must be an intent to submit oneself
unconditionally to the authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his
search and capture would require. Voluntarily taking the stolen cow to the municipal hall to place it
unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and saved them the trouble of having to recover the cow can
be considered analogous to voluntary surrender. (Canta v. People, 2001)

Q: Is restitution analogous to voluntary surrender?

A: Yes. Restitution is akin to voluntary surrender. However, restitution should be treated as a separate mitigating
circumstance in favor of an accused when the two circumstances are present in a case, which is similar to
instances where voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating
circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. (Legrama v.
Sandiganbayan, 2012)

Q: What are the kinds of aggravating circumstances?

A:
AGGRAVATING DEFINITION EXAMPLE
CIRCUMSTANCES
Generic These are those that apply to all crimes (People Dwelling, nighttime, recidivism
v. Lab-eo, 2002)
Specific Applies only to a particular crime Ignominy for crime against chastity
Qualifying Those that change the nature of the crime Treachery/evident premeditation
for murder
Inherent Those that must, out of necessity, accompany Evident premeditation for theft,
the commission of the crime estafa, robbery
Special Those which arise under special conditions to Article 63 - That advantage be taken
increase the penalty of the offense and cannot by the offender of his public
be offset by mitigating circumstances. position.

Q: What are the requisites for committing a crime in contempt or with insult to public officers to be
appreciated as aggravating?
A:
1. There must be a public authority engaged in the exercise of his functions
2. Such public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed
3. Offender knows him to be a public authority; and
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the crime.

Q: When is dwelling not an aggravating circumstance?

A:
1. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation;
2. When the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house;
3. In the crime of robbery by use of force upon things;
4. The victim is not a dweller of the house;
5. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house;
6. Rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure which was being operated as a video
rental shop, and the upper floor, which was used as a residence and not as a residential abode. (People v.
Tano, 2000)

Q: When is nighttime not considered as an aggravating circumstance?

A:
1. Nighttime cannot be considered if it is shown that the place was adequately lighted; and
2. It is not aggravating if the crime started during the daytime and continued all the way to nighttime
without interruption;
3. When nighttime is inherent in the crime in and that the same way was not sought and taken advantage
of. (People v. Luchico, 1926)

Q: Explain the rule if nighttime and treachery are both present.

A: Nighttime is generally absorbed in treachery; an exception to this rule would be where both the treacherous
mode of attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided upon, they can be considered separately if such
circumstances have different factual bases. (People v. Ong, 1975)

Q: When is habitual delinquency appreciated?

A:
1. When the previous conviction, like any qualifying circumstance, is alleged and proven. (People v. Nayco,
1923)
2. Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven
during the trial.

Q: What is Quasi-Recidivism?
A: It is a special aggravating circumstance where any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. (Art. 160, RPC)
Q: When is Quasi-Recidivism appreciated as aggravating?
A: It can be so appreciated when the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. (People v.
Race, 1992)

Q: When is evident premeditation not aggravating?

A: In the case of implied conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be appreciated in the absence of proof as to
how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it
cannot be determined if the accused had “sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment dispassionately
to consider and accept the consequences. (People v. Manansala, 1992)

Even if all the elements of evident premeditation were present, it still cannot be appreciated if the actual victim
is different from the intended one (People v Barros, 1995).

Q: Explain the rules on intoxication as a special circumstance.

A:
1. It is mitigating:
a. When it is not habitual;
b. When it is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony (People v. Camano, 1982); or
c. At the time of the commission of the crime, the accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as
to blur his reason and deprive him of certain degree of control (Art. 15, RPC)
2. It is aggravating:
a. When it is habitual; (People v. Camano, 1982)
b. When it is intentional (People v. Camano, 1982);
c. When it is subsequent to the plan to commit a felony; (Art. 15, RPC)

Q: Is the influence of dangerous drugs aggravating in crimes against chastity?

A: Yes, influence of dangerous drugs is always aggravating. (Sec. 15, B.P. No. 179)

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

Q: Define an absolutory cause.

A: An absolutory cause is present where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed. Because the reason is public policy, it should apply to both the Revised
Penal Code and special laws. (People v. Talisic, 1997). These are:
1. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6) and no other crime is committed
2. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated and is not against person or property (Art. 7)
3. Accessory is not liable in light felonies (Art. 16)
4. Accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20), unless the crime became a means to gain (Art. 19(1))
5. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his/her
spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247)
6. Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative. (Art. 332);
7. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction,
seduction or acts of lasciviousness (Art. 334)
8. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another's dwelling against the latter's will is to
prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, or for the
purposes of rendering some services to humanity or justice (Art. 280(2));
9. Adultery and concubinage if the offended party consented or pardoned the offenders

PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES

Q: How are principals classified?

A: They are classified by:
1. Direct participation - Those who, participating in the criminal resolution, proceed to perpetrate the
crime and personally take part in its realization, executing acts which directly tend to the same end.
2. Inducement - The inducer’s utterances must be of such nature and made in such manner as to become
the determining cause of the crime
3. Indispensable cooperation - Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.

Q: Differentiate a conspirator from an accomplice

A:
ACCOMPLICES CONSPIRATORS
Knowledge of Know and concur with the criminal Know the criminal intention because they
the criminal design of the principals after the themselves have decided upon it
design of the latter have reached the decision and
perpetrator only then do former agree to
cooperate on its execution
 Extent of Mere instruments who perform acts Authors of the crime. They are liable as principals
participation not indispensable to the commission regardless of whether or not their participations are
of the crime indispensable to the commission of the crime.
Extent of participation is no important
Penalty One degree lower than the penalty Same with the penalty of the principal
of the principal
Time of Performance of previous or Performance of a previous, simultaneous or
participation simultaneous acts subsequent act in furtherance of conspiracy. Time
participation is not important

Q: When is an accessory exempt from criminal liability?

A: When the principal is his spouse, or ascendant, or descendant, or legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister
or relative by affinity within the same degree (Art. 20, RPC). An accessory is likewise exempt when the felony
involved is a light felOny. There is no penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for light felonies (Reyes,
Book 1, p. 583).

Q: Explain the doctrine of implied conspiracy.

A: The doctrine of implied conspiracy provides that direct proof of the agreement of the conspiracy is not
essential to prove conspiracy. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and
after. It may be established by the unity of acts and purpose of the perpetrators (People v. De Leon, 2009)

Q: Distinguish between Wheel conspiracy and Chain conspiracy

A:
WHEEL CONSPIRACY CHAIN CONSPIRACY
There is a single person or group Usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in
(hub) dealing individually with which there is successive communication and operation in much the same
two or more persons or groups way as the legitimate business operations between manufacturer and
(spokes) wholesaler, then wholesale and retailer, and then retailer to consumers

Q: Distinguish Recidivism, Reiteracion, Habitual Delinquency and Quasi-Recidivism

A:
Recidivism Reiteracion/Habituality Habitual Delinquency Quasi-Recidivism
(Art. 14(9) Art. 14(10) Art. 62 Art. 160
Generic Aggravating Generic Aggravating Extraordinary Extraordinary Aggravating
Aggravating
Enough that a final Necessary that offender Necessary that the After having been convicted
judgment has been had served out of his person had been by a final judgment, before
rendered in the first sentence convicted and was beginning to serve such
offense released sentence, or while serving
the same
Offenses must be Previous and subsequent Previous conviction 2nd offense committed
included in the same offenses must not be only of either of the must be a felony; 1st offense
title of the code embraced in the same following: Falsification, need not be a felony; the
title of the code Estafa, Robbery Theft, two offenses may or may
Serious Physical Injury not be of a different
(F-E-R-T-S) character
At least 2 convictions; it At least 2 convictions; it At least 3 convictions, At least 2 convictions; it
does not matter when does not matter when the last one committed does not matter when the
the last one was the last one was within 10 years last one was committed
committed committed
Punishment is the Punishment is the Punishment varies Punishment is the
greater or the maximum greater or the maximum depending on the maximum period of the
penalty, subject to the penalty, subject to the number of convictions penalty prescribed by law
rules for the application rules for the application (Art. 62(5)) for the new penalty.
of penalties (Art. 63-65) of penalties (Art. 63-65)

Q: What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) and how is it applied in imposing a sentence?
A: It is a sentence with a minimum term and a maximum term which the court is mandated to impose for the
benefit of a guilty person who is not disqualified therefore; provided that the maximum imprisonment exceeds 1
year. It applies to both violations of the RPC and special laws.

If the crime is punishable under the RPC, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence
maximum term which could be imposed under the rules of the Code, and the minimum which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

If the offense is punishable under a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225)
Q: Explain the concept of the Three-fold rule.
A: The three-fold rule provides that the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three
(3) times the length of the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him, but in no case to exceed forty (40)
years. The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve at least four (4) sentences successively.
Subsidiary penalty forms part of the penalty (Art. 70, RPC).

Q: What is successive service of sentence?

A: When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties so permit. Otherwise, the order of their severity shall be followed.

Q: What is subsidiary imprisonment?

A: It is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to meet the
fine, at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the NCR
at the time the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court. The principal penalty imposed must not be
higher than prision correccional and fine, or fine only. (RPC, Art. 39, as amended by RA 10159)

Q: Who are disqualified from the grant of probation?

A: Those persons:
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
2. Convicted of any crime against the national security;
3. 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);
4. Who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable
pursuant to Section 33 hereof. (Sec 2, PD 968, as amended by RA 10707, Sec. 9)

Q: Can a defendant apply for probation if he has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction?
A:
General Rule: No. Once an offender has filed an application for probation, such act is already considered as a
waiver of his right to appeal. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction
Except: When a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such
judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply
for probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final. (Sec 4, PD 968, as amended by
RA 10707, Sec. 1)

Q: Differentiate prescription of crime and prescription of penalty.

A:
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Loss or forfeiture of the State to prosecute. Loss or forfeiture of the State to prosecute.
Loss of forfeiture of the State to enforce judgment. Loss of forfeiture of the State to enforce judgment.
Starts counting upon discovery of the commission of Starts counting upon discovery of the commission
the crime. of the crime.
Starts counting upon the escape or evasion of service Starts counting upon the escape or evasion of
of sentence. service of sentence.

Q: Does amnesty restore the right of the accused, who is convicted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
hold public office?
A: Yes. The RPC provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua
but also its effects as the accessory penalty perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty looks backward and
abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is
charged, so that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no
offense.

Q: Does pardon restore the right of the accused, who is convicted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
hold public office?
A: No. The RPC provides that a pardon, shall not work the restoration of the right: to hold public office unless
such right be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it
perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Q: When an accused escapes the country without serving his sentence and then returns years later and filed
the motion to quash on the ground that the penalty imposed against him as prescribe, should the motion be
granted?
A: No. The RPC provides that penalties of prescription commence to run from the date the felon evades the
service of his sentence. In sum, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been
convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence.
Q: What are the effects of death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities?
A:
1. The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed
2. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action enforced wither against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused;
and
4. The statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal
case, to avoid apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. (People v. Layag, 2016,
PERLAS-BERNABE).

Q: The Good Conduct and Time Allowance Law (RA 10952) does not define a crime/offense nor impose any
penalty. Can it be considered a penal law?
A: Yes. While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe/establish a penalty as it
addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its provisions have the purpose and effect of
diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction of the length of the penalty of
imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls
for the application of Article 22 of the RPC (retroactivity of laws in favor of the accused).

Q: When is there partial extinguishment of criminal liability?

A:
1. Conditional pardon;
2. Commutation of sentence;
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence;
4. Parole; and
5. Probation.

REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK II

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAWS OF NATIONS

Q: What are punishable acts in piracy?

A: The punishable acts in piracy under the RPC are:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on high seas or in Philippine waters; and
2. Seizing the whole or part of its cargo, complement or passengers while the vessel is on high seas or
Philippine waters.

Q: What are the acts that qualify the crime of piracy?

A: Piracy shall be qualified when any of the circumstances occur:
1. When the vessel is seized by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. When there is an abandonment of victims without any means of saving themselves;
3. When the crime of piracy is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE

Q: Differentiate Espionage from Treason

A:
ESPIONAGE TREASON

Not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender

Can be committed in time of war or peace Committed only in time of war

Can be committed in many different ways Can be committed in two ways:

1. Levying war, and
2. Adhering to the enemy, giving him air or
comfort

Q: What are the modes of committing espionage?

A: The modes of committing espionage under the RPC are:
1. By entering, without authority, a warship/fort/military or naval establishments/reservation to obtain
any information, plans, or other data of confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines;
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles data or information
referred to in the first mode which he had in his possession by reason of the public office he holds.

Q: In arbitrary detetion, is the detention in an enclosure necessary?

A: No, there is arbitrary detention even if the victim is not kept in an enclosure. Psychological restraint is another
form of detention (Astorga v. People, 2003).
Q: Differentiate arbitrary detention, delay in the delivery of detained persons and delaying release?
A:
ARBITRARY DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS DELAYING RELEASE
DETENTION
The offender is a public officer
The crime is The crime is committed by detaining any person for The crime is committed by delaying
committed some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person the release for the period of time
by detaining to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: specified therein the (a) performance
a person of any judicial or executive order for
without legal ● 12 hours, for crimes punishable by light the release of the prisoner, or (b)
ground penalties, or their equivalent unduly delays the service of the notice
● 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional of such order to said prisoner or the
facilities, or their equivalent proceedings upon any petition for the
● 36 hours, for crimes punishable by afflictive or liberation of such person
capital penalties

Q: A policeman, without any authority or judicial order to enter the dwelling of a person, enters and searches
the house of A, without the consent of the latter. What is the crime committed?
A: The public officer is liable for violation of domicile under Article 128 of the RPC. The elements of violation of
domicile are:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search for papers or
other effects; and
3. That the offender shall:
a. Enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
b. Search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner; or
c. Refuse to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same.

Here, the policeman is a public officer, not having been armed with a warrant or judicial order, searched the
house of A without the latter's consent.

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Q: What are the elements of rebellion or insurrection?

A: For rebellion or insurrection to exist, there must be:
1. A public uprising; and
2. The taking of arms against the government. For the purpose either to:
a. To remove from the allegiance to government or laws:
i. The territory of the Philippines (in whole or in part); or
ii. Any body of land, or army, naval or other forces;
b. Deprive the chief executive or Congress wholly or partially of powers or prerogatives.

Q: What is the absorption doctrine?

A: The doctrine of absorption states that, if crimes such as murder, kidnapping or arson is committed in
furtherance of rebellion, they will be divested of their character as common crimes and will assume the political
complexion of rebellion. Hence, rebellion absorbs these crimes (People vs. Hernandez, 1956).

Q: What are punishable acts in direct assault?

A: Direct assault may be committed by:
1. Employing force or intimidation, without a public uprising, with the aim of attaining any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion or sedition; and
2. Attacking, employing force or seriously intimidating or resisting any person in authority or any of his
agents while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance.

Q: Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority?

A: Persons in authority are those directly invested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also
deemed persons in authority.

In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, teachers, professors and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in
authority.

Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and
property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority.
 TITLE IV: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Q: What is the difference between falsification of private documents and that of public or official documents?
A:
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

Prejudice to a third party is primarily taken in to The principal thing punished is the violation of public faith
account so that if such damage is not apparent, and the perversion of truth which the document solemnly
or there is at least no intention cause it, the proclaims, and for this reason it is immaterial whether or
falsification is not punishable not some prejudice has been caused to third person

TITLE VI: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

Q: Distinguish Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance.

A:
MISFEASANCE MALFEASANCE NONFEASANCE
A public officer performs an official act in a A public officer A public officer willfully
manner not in accordance with what the law performs in his refrains or refuses to perform
provides. public office an act an official duty which his office
prohibited by law. requires him to perform.
Includes: It includes: It includes:
a. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment a. Direct bribery a. Dereliction of duty in
b. Rendering judgment through negligence b. Indirect prosecution of offenses
c. Rendering unjust interlocutory order bribery
d. Malicious delay in the administration of
justice

Q: What are the elements of Grave Scandal?

A:
1. That the offender performs an act or acts
2. Such act or act be highly scandalous as offending decency and good customs
3. That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of the RPC
 Grave scandal is a crime of last resort because you only file a complaint for grave scandal when
the said act is not punishable under any other article in the RPC
4. The act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.
 If the highly scandalous act is committed in a public place, the crime of grave scandal will
immediately arise. The place being public, the law presumes that someone may have witnessed
the commission of the highly scandalous act. However, if the highly scandalous act is committed
in a private place, for the crime of grave scandal to arise, it is necessary that it must be witnessed
by one or more persons to be said that it is within the public knowledge or public view.

TITLE VII: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Q: Distinguish Malversation from Technical Malversation.

A:
MALVERSATION
a. Funds or property usually public
b. Offender is usually a public officer who is
accountable for public funds or property.
c. Crime is committed by appropriating, taking or
misappropriating or consenting or through
abandonment or negligence, permitting any
other person to take the public funds or
property.
d. Malum in se.
TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
a. Funds or property are always public.
b. Offender is always a public officer to whom such
public funds or property is under his
administration.
c. Crime is committed by applying public funds or
property, appropriated by a law or ordinance for
specific use, to a public use other than for which
such fund or property has been appropriated.
d. Malum prohibitum.

Q: What evidence is necessary for conviction of malversation?

A: Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. All that is necessary for a conviction is
sufficient proof that the accused accountable officer had received public funds or property, and did not have
them in his possession when demand therefor was made without any satisfactory explanation of his failure to
have them upon demand. For this purpose, direct evidence of the personal misappropriation by the accused is
unnecessary as long as he cannot satisfactorily explain the inability to produce any shortage in his accounts
(Mesina v. People, 2015).

Q: When can a public officer not accountable for public funds be held liable for estafa?
A: When while acting as a public official, he received money without authority which belongs to another and
appropriates the same to his own use and fails and refuses to deliver the same to the person to whom it properly
belongs.
Q: When can a private individual be held guilty of malversation?
A:
1. He acts in conspiracy with public officers;
2. He is an accessory or accomplice to a public officer;
3. He has charge, in any capacity whatsoever, of national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or
property; and
4. He is an administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public
authority.

TITLE VIII: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Q: Differentiate murder from homicide.

A:
MURDER HOMICIDE
The unlawful killing of another person which is neither parricide nor infanticide with The unlawful killing
the following circumstances being present: of any person
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, which is neither
or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or parricide, murder,
afford impunity; nor infanticide or
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise; abortion. The
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, killing, however,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, must not be
or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; justified under of
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an the justifying
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other circumstances.
public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation; or
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse (As amended by RA 7659).

Q: What is the crime if the accused maltreated his wife and as a consequence, his wife and unborn child died?
A: The crime committed is compound crime of parricide and unintentional abortion (People v. Robinos, 2002).

Q: If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice and
when fire is resorted to as a means to accomplish such goal, what crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is murder only. Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime of arson since the
latter is an inherent means to commit the former (People v. Baluntong, 2010).

Q: Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed in crimes of rape?
A: Yes. Under Article 266-C of the RPC, a subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed on the offender, although rape has been reclassified
from a crime against chastity to that of a crime against a person.

Q: What is the rape shield law?

A: Rape shield law refers to a law that in prosecutions for rape, evidence pertaining to the complainant’s past
sexual conduct is barred from being admitted, unless the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant
to the case (Section 6, RA 8505).

Q: What are the circumstanes that qualify rape?

A: Qualified rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
2. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
4. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present (People v. Niebres, 2017).

TITLE IX: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

Q: Does the voluntary release of the victim extinguish the criminal liability of the accused from kidnapping?
A: No. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Restraint need not
be permanent to be punished for kidnapping and serious illegal detention (United States v. Peralta, 1907).

Q: Y, a private person, entered the house of Z as the former was running from her husband who was trying to
kill her. Despite Z's objections, Y forced herself inside the house of Z by threatening the latter. May Y be
convicted of qualified trespass to dwelling?
A: No. Qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280 does not apply to any person who shall enter another's
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself. Here, Y entered Z's house in order to avoid
some serious harm on herself. Hence, Y has no criminal liability.
 TITLE X: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Q: What must be the offender’s purpose in Robbery with Homicide?

A: The purpose of the offender must be to commit robbery and the homicide is committed on the occasion of the
robbery which means that even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the robbery, as long as it is
related to the robbery, robbery with homicide is committed. (People v. Micu, 1961).

Q: Differentiate theft from qualified theft.

A:
THEFT
1. The taking of personal property belonging to
another without the latter’s consent, with intent
to gain, without violence against or intimidation
of persons nor force upon things
2. When a person who found lost property fails to
deliver the same to its owner, if known, or to the
local authorities
3. When a person who after maliciously damaging
the property of another shall remove or make
use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused
by them
4. When a person enters an enclosed estate or a
filed where trespass is forbidden and hunts or
fishes upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or
other forest or farm products. (Art. 308, RPC)
QUALIFIED THEFT
Any of the acts constituting theft,:
1. committed by a domestic servant;
2. committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter, or large cattle;
4. the property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of a plantation;
5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery;
6. the property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
7. other calamity, vehicular accident, or other civil
disturbances; (Art. 310, RPC, as amended)
8. the property taken is illegally cut timber or other
forest products in public or private forest. (P.D.
No. 330)

Q: While working as a housemaid, Respondent X took her employer's jewelry amounting to more than P1
million. X claimed that she was tricked into doing so via a phone call that her employer had gotten into an
accident and needed to be delivered to a third party. After delivering the jewelry, she returned to her
employer. Both the RTC and the CA convicted X of the crime of Qualified Theft. X claims that her low
educational attainment must be a basis to presume that she was not fully aware of her actions. Furthermore,
she maintains that her nonflight manifests her lack of intent to gain. Decide.
A: No, her excuse that she was tricked cannot be given credence, especially in view of the fact that her employer
had explicitly warned her against scammers and to not entertain such calls. Jurisprudence provides that intent
to gain can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and is presumed from the proven unlawful
taking. Actual gain is irrelevant. (People v. Manlao y Laquila, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE)

Q: Company V ordered diesel fuel from Company U, owned by L. C is a truck driver employed by L and was
dispatched to deliver such diesel fuel to Company V. Later that day, It was found that Company V never
received their order. The NBI agents found the abandoned lorry truck emptied of the diesel fuel. Under the
foregoing premises, L filed a complaint against C for Qualified Theft. Is C guilty of the crime Qualified Theft?
A: Yes. There is a confluence of all the following elements of Qualified Theft: a) taking of personal property, b)
said property belongs to another; c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; d) it be done without the owner's
consent; e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things, and f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Art. 310 of the PRC, i.e. with grave abuse
of confidence. It was sufficiently established that the diesel fuel loaded into the truck driven by C for delivery to
Company V was taken by him, without the authority and consent of L, the owner of the diesel fuel, and that C
abused the confidence reposed upon him by L, as his employer. (Candelaria v. People, 2014,PERLAS-BERNABE).

Q: Is the criminal liability of the offender for estafa extinguished when there is a novation of the transaction
into an ordinary creditor-debtor relationship?
A: No. Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense
which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government. As the offense is committed against the People, the
offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the
offense (Serrano v. Court of Appeals, 2003).

Q: Is intent to defraud necessary in all forms of estafa?

A: No. Intent to defraud is not a necessary ingredient of embezzlement under subdivision I, paragraph (b), of
Article 315 of the RPC. It is the breach of confidence or infidelity in the conversion or diversion of trust funds that
takes the place of the usual element, in other forms of estafa, or fraud or deceit. (Dayawon v. Judge Badilla, 2000).

Q: What are the special aggravating circumstances in arson?

A: The special aggravating circumstances in arson are:
1. If committed with intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate (planned or carried out by a group of 3 or more persons) (Sec. 4, PD 1613).
 CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Q: Differentiate Acts of Lasciviousness and Attempted Rape.

A:
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ATTEMPTED RAPE

The lascivious acts are themselves the final objective The offender’s acts do not indicate intent to have
sought by the offender; while in Attempted Rape, the sexual intercourse; while in Attempted Rape, the
lascivious acts are preparatory acts to the offender’s acts clearly intent that his purpose was to
commission of rape. lie with the victim.

Q: When is seduction qualified?

A:
1. Seduction of a virgin over twelve (12) years and under eighteen (18) years of age by certain persons, such
as, a person in authority, priest, teacher, etc.; and
Elements:
a. Offended party is a virgin which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation;
b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
d. There is an abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her age or reputation.

Q: Differentiate Kidnapping and Forcible Abduction.

A:
KIDNAPPING FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
There are no lewd designs There are lewd designs
Non-bailable offense Bailable offense
There is a special complex crime of Kidnapping with No special complex crime of Forcible Abduction with
Rape Rape.

Q: What is the effect of pardon in adultery and concubinage cases?

A: Pardon of the offenders by the offended party is a bar to prosecution for adultery and concubinage. The pardon
may be express or implied.

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS

Q: What is the effect of the second marriage with regard the liability for bigamy?
A: The validity of the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the liability for bigamy.

Q: Is the nullity of the second marriage a defense in bigamy?

A: No. The crime of bigamy is consummated from the moment a second marriage is contracted without the first
marriage being first judicially declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction.

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

Q: What is the doctrine of fair comment?

A: The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general, every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false since every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation
is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his
public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.

Q: What felonies are under incriminatory machinations?

A: The following are felonies under incriminatory machinations:
1. Incriminating against innocent persons; and
2. Intriguing against honor.

Q: What is grave oral defamation?

A: The gravity depends upon:
1. The expressions used;
2. The personal relations of the accused and the offended party; and
3. The special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or relationship between the offended party and
the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time.

Q: What would qualify Oral Defamation to Grave Defamation?

A: Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the sense and
grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special circumstances of the case, like the social
standing or the advanced age of the offended party. In particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in
the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony.
 QUASI-OFFENSES

Q: V was driving his motorcycle with his two sons on an ascending curve. J was driving a car descending from
the same curve. V blew his horn to signal J to return to his proper lane, but to no avail. V swerved to the left,
but J also swerved towards the same direction and collided with V. The motorcycle was thrown over, and V
was pinned beneath the car and eventually died. J was thereafter charged for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
to Homicide with Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property. Will the case prosper?
A: Yes. Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property is a
complex crime. Thus, the penalty for the most serious crime (Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide) must
be imposed.

To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than mere negligence in the
operation of a motor vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. In this case, J’s act
of driving very fast on the wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of the collision, resulting in the death
of V and serious physical injuries to his sons. (Gonzaga v People, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE)

Q: Does the principle of complex crimes apply to quasi-offenses?

A: No, complex crimes under Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the RPC. By
prohibiting the splitting of charges under Article 365, irrespective of the number and severity of the resulting
acts, rampant occasions of constitutionally impermissible second prosecutions are avoided, not to mention that
scarce state resources are conserved and diverted to proper use. Hence, prosecutions under Article 365 should
proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences (Ivler v. Hon. Modesto-
San Pedro, 2010)

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. NO. 1613)

Q: Where both burning, and death occur, what crime or crimes are committed?
A: In cases where both burning, and death occur, in order to determine if the crime/s perpetrated was/were
arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigeur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
1. If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;
2. If the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted
to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only;
3. If the objective is to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed—homicide/murder and arson. (People v. Baluntong, 2010)

ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW (R.A. NO. 9775)

Q: What is child pornography?

A: Child pornography is 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. (Sec. 3(b), RA. No. 9775)

Q: Who is a child under Anti-Child Pornography Law?

A:
1. A person below 18 years of age or over but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;
2. A person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined;
3. Computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented
or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein. (Sec. 3(a))

ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. NO. 1612)

Q: What is fencing?
A: It 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. (Sec. 2(a), P.D. 1612)

Q: What are the elements of the fencing?

A: The following are the elements of fencing
1. Robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes or buys and sells or in any manner deals in any article or
object taken during that robbery or theft;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the thing was derived from that crime; and
4. There is intent to gain for himself or for another. (Dion-Pamintuan v. People, 1994)
Q: Is criminal intent necessary to constitute fencing?
A: No, Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum,
requiring no proof of criminal intent. (Dimat v. People, 2012). Accordingly, good faith is not a defense. (Cahulogan
v. People, 2018)

Q: When does the presumption of fencing arise?

A:
1. Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing. The presumption
arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery. (Sec. 5, PD 1612)
2. The presumption of fencing applies when a person paid a price so inadequate for the value of the thing
suggestive that it was not legitimately acquired by the seller.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)

Q: What are the punishable acts under R.A. 3019?

A: The following are the punishable acts under RA 3019
1. A public officer:
a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to:
i. Perform an act constituting a violation of the Rules promulgated by competent authority; or
ii. An offense in connection with the official duties of the latter.
b. Allowing him to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit such violation.
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself or
for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any
other party wherein the public officer, in his office capacity, has to intervene under the law.
3. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the
help given or to be given.
4. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
5. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly,
from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the
purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any
other interested party.
7. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
8. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group.
9. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
10. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of
his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized
release date. (Sec. 3, RA. No. 3019)

ANTI-HAZING ACT of 2018 (RA 8049, as amended by RA 11053)

Q: What is Hazing?
A: Hazing refers to any act that results in physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit,
neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite for admission or a
requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization

Q: What are the elements of hazing?

A: The elements of the crime of hazing are:
1. That there is initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite for admission or a requirement for
continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization;
2. That during the initiation rite or practice, physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury is inflicted
on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and
3. As a consequence of the hazing, death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results.

Q: What forms of hazing are prohibited?

A: All forms of hazing shall be prohibited in fraternities, sororities, and organizations in schools, including
citizens' military training and citizens' army training, including all other fraternities, sororities, and organizations
that are not school-based, such as community-based and other similar fraternities, sororities and organizations:
However, the following shall not be considered hazing:
1. Physical, mental, and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental, and psychological fitness
of prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP as approved by the Secretary of National Defense
and National Police Commission, duly recommended by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and Director
General of the PNP,
2. Similar procedures and practices approved by the respective heads of other uniformed learning
institutions as to their prospective members, nor shall this provision apply to any customary athletic
events or other similar contests or competitions or any activity or conduct that furthers a legal and
legitimate objective, subject to prior submission of a medical clearance or certificate.
No hazing be made a requirement for employment in any business or corporation. (Sec. 3, as amended)

ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (RA 6235)

Q: When is an aircraft considered in flight?

A: 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. (Sec. 1, R.A. 6235)

Q: What are the aggravating circumstances to paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the Anti-Hijacking Law?
A:
1. When the offender has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew, or passenger of the aircraft;
2. When the offender has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the
aircraft;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape.

ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYUERISM ACT OF 2009 (RA 9995)

Q: What are the prohibited acts under R.A. 9995?

A:
1. To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar
activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
2. To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual
act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
3. To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act,
whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
4. To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or
show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.

NOTE: The prohibition under paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or
take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s.

Q: When are the circumstances in which a person has reasonable expectation of privacy?
A: When a person, regardless of being in a public or private place:
1. Believes that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private
area of the person was being captured; or
2. Is under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person
would not be visible to the public,

ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659)

Q: Is the crime of plunder mala prohibita or mala in se?

A: It is mala in se, although punishable under special law, because it is inherently evil, being included among the
heinous crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua to death and its constitutive crimes are mala in se, such as
malversation of public funds, bribery and monopolies and combinations

Q: What are the differences between Plunder under RA 7080 and Estafa under Sec. 3E of RA 3019?
A:
PLUNDER ESTAFA
Crime committed by a public officer by himself or in Crime committed by a public officer discharging
connivance with members of his family, relatives by administrative, judicial or official functions; acting
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
subordinates or other persons, by amassing, inexcusable negligence; and his action caused any
accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth through a undue injury to any party, including the government;
combination or series of overt acts in the aggregate and that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted
amount or total value of at least P50 million (Sec. 2, RA benefits, advantage or preference to such
7080, as amended by RA 7659) parties; and
There must be at least two (2) predicate crimes There need not be 2 acts committed before one can
committed before one can be convicted of plunder. be convicted of estafa.
 ANTI-TORTURE ACT (RA 9745)

Q: What is torture?
A: 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 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.

Q: What are the acts of Torture? Explain and give examples.

A:
1. Physical Torture - 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.
Examples are systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle
butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;
2. Mental or 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.
Some examples are blindfolding; Threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s) with bodily harm,
execution or other wrongful acts.

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT (RA 9208)

Q: What are the punishable Acts in Anti-Trafficking?

A:
1. To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done
under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
2. To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as
provided for under RA 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of
acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
3. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or
trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
4. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
6. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
7. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit,
violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person;
8. To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad. (Sec. 4,
R.A. No. 9208)

ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (RA 7877)

Q: When is work-related or employment environment harassment committed?

A: It is committed when:
1. 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;
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

Q: When is sexual harassment committed in an education or training environment?

A:
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.
 ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT of 2004 (RA 9262)

Q: What are the elements of the crime of violence against women through sexual harassment?
A: The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the
woman; and

3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her (Pascua vs. CA, 2010).

Q: What is the battered woman syndrome?

A: Battered woman syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. (Sec. 3(c), RA 9262)

There are 3 phases: (1) tension building phase; (2) acute-battering incident; and (3) tranquil, loving, or non-violent
phase. (People v. Genosa, 2004)

Q: What is the effect of Sec. 26 of RA 9262 on the doctrine laid down in People v. Genosa?
A: Sec. 26 of RA 9262 strikes down the doctrine held in People v. Genosa. In People v Genosa, the Court did not
appreciate BWS to absolve Genosa of any liability because at the time Genosa fired the gunshot, the attack had
already ceased as Ben was in fact, already asleep and was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat
on her life or safety. Unlawful aggression was absent thus there was no self-defense on the part of Genosa. With
Sec. 26, despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code, any victim-survivor found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome still do not incur any
criminal and civil liability.

Q: Differentiate dating relationship from sexual relations

A:
Dating relationship Sexual Relations
Refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife Refers to a single sexual act which may
without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over or may not result in the bearing of a
time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship common child (Sec. 3(f), RA 9262).
(Sec. 3(e), RA 9262).
An offender who has or had a sexual OR dating relationship with an offended woman is liable under RA 9262.

BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 OR THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

Q: What are the differences between BP 22 and Estafa?

A:
BP22 ESTAFA
Malum prohibitum Malum in se.
Crime against public interest. Crime against property.
Deceit is not required. Deceit is an element.
Punishes the making or drawing of any check that is The act constituting the offense is postdating or
subsequently dishonored, whether issued in payment of issuing a check in payment of an obligation when
an obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation. the offender has no funds in the bank or his funds
It is the issuance of a check, not the non- payment of deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
obligation which is punished. amount of the check.
Violated if check is issued in payment of a pre- existing Not violated if check is issued in payment of a pre-
obligation. existing obligation.
Damage is not required Damage is required
Drawer is given 5 banking days to make arrangements of Drawer is given 3 days to make arrangements for
payment after receipt of notice of dishonor. payment after receipt of notice of dishonor.

Q: Can a person be charged with both Estafa under Art. 315(2) and Illegal Recruitment?
A: Yes. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. (People
v. Ochoa August 31, 2011).

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (RA 9165)

Q: What are the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165?
A:
Illegal Sale Illegal Possession
Proof that the transaction or sale took a. The accused was in possession of an item or an object
place; and identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug;
The presentation in court of the b. Such possession is not authorized by law, and
corpus delicti or the illicit drug as c. The accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
evidence possession of the drug.
Q: What must be proven in order to establish the chain of custody in buy-bust operations?
A: The different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in the buy-bust
operations, namely:
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
4. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court

COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT (RA 10591)

Q: Roberto Salonga and Servillano Nacional were having an altercation with the Rolando Necesito. From his
vantage point, Reynaldo heard Ramos yell, "Okinampatayanka!" (Son of a bitch! I will kill you!) and saw Manny,
Roberto and Servillano chase and eventually surround Rolando at an area around seven (7) meters away from
where Reynaldo was hiding. Reynaldo then heard four (4) successive gunshots, making him hide under the trunk
of a tree. It was on the sound of the fourth shot when Reynaldo witnessed Rolando fall face down on the ground.
To ensure Rolando's demise, Ramos approached Rolando and shot him again. Thereafter, the assailants fled the
scene. The next day, Rolando's body was found near the tree. Are the accused guilty of Murder aggravated with
the use of unlicensed firearm?
A: No. Under Section 1 of RA 8294, "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of anunlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance." There are two (2) requisites to
establish such circumstance, namely: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who
owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The
onus probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution. Here, while it
is undisputed that Rolando sustained five (5) gunshot wounds which led to his demise, it is unclear from the records:
(a) whether or not the police officers were able to recover the firearm used as a murder weapon; and (b) assuming
arguendo that such firearm was recovered, whether or not such firearm was licensed. Having failed in this respect,
the Court cannot simply appreciate the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance. (Ramos vs.
People, 2017)

CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012 (RA 10175)

Q: LandieKoh operated a social networking site where patrons are linked to her cybersex den, where she keeps
fifteen-year old women and have them perform sexual acts for the patrons.
a. May LandieKoh be charged under RA 9775, also known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act?
b. May she also be charged under RA 10175, also known as Cybercrime Prevention Act?

A:
a. Yes. The facts state that she employs persons below eighteen years of age to perform sexual acts for
customers, and that she has a cybersex den, constitute acts punishable under Sec. 4 of RA 9775.
b. No. An offender cannot be charged with both Cybercrime Law and Anti-Child Pornography Act for
committing child pornography. Cybercrime Law merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography
Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. ACPA’s definition of child
pornography in fact already covers the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any
other means.” Thus, charging the offender under both Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (Disini, Jr. vs. Secretary
of Justice, 2014).

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (RA 9372)

BASIS REBELLION (ART. 133) TERRORISM (RA 9372) COUP D’ ETAT (ART. 133-A)
Crime Against Public order National security and law of Public order
nations
Purpose Overthrow the Unlawful demand against the Diminish inherent powers of the
government (political government (need not be state (political crime)
crime) political)
How committed Through violence Through predicate crimes Need not be through force and
and by widespread and violence, can be by threat,
extraordinary panic and fear intimidation, strategy or stealth
Number of people Multitude of people Can be singly or a lot Can be singly or a lot
Offenders Private or public Private or public officers Public officers only; unless
officers private individuals conspire
Ability to absorb Generally, yes. Yes, absorbs predicate crimes Yes, but must be related to
common crimes Murder, rape, robbery like rebellion, coup d’etat, political purpose. Rape not
absorbed. Use of loose murder. Use of loose firearms absorbed. Use of loose firearms
firearms absorbed. absorbed. absorbed.
Q: What are the predicate crimes under the Human Security Act of 2007?
A:
1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3. Article 134-a (Coup d'état), including acts committed by private persons;
4. Article 248 (Murder);
5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction, or under
7. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
8. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
9. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
10. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
11. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
12. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
13. Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)
14. (Source: Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)

NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016 (RA 10883)

Q: What are the aggravating circumstances of Carnapping under RA 10883?

A: When carnapping is committed:
1. With violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things; or
2. When the owner or driver or occupant of carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the commission
of carnapping(Sec. 3 [par. 2], R.A. 10883).

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LAW (PD 1829)

Q: May the accused be separately tried for different acts constituting violations of PD 1829 (Obstruction of
Justice Law) allegedly committed during the pendency of a single proceeding?
A: No. Even if the acts constituting violations of PD 1829 were done days apart and in different locations, the
accused should only be charged and held liable for a single violation of PD 1829. This is because the alleged acts,
albeit separate, were motivated by a single criminal impulse. Such conclusion is premised on the principle of
delitocontinuado. For delitocontinuado to exist, there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of
time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more
violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and the same intent or resolution leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim (Navaja vs. Borje, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe).

SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION, AND DISCRIMINATION ACT

(RA 7610)

What are the acts considered as attempt to commit Child Prostitution?

A:
1. When any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or
cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel,
vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person
to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
2. When any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club
and other similar establishments. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 7610)

Q: When is an accused liable for lascivious conduct under RA 7610, and not under Art. 336 of the RPC?
A: RA 7610 finds application when the victims of abuse, exploitation or discrimination are below 18 years old.
(Orsos vs. People, 2017).